37 posts • joined Wednesday 4th April 2007 22:50 GMT
A successful ploy
Dave does it again!
A useless gesture for the Mail-reading, splutterers which also gives him points with "feminist groups" and carries the universal get out of jail free theme; "Think about the children".
If it weren't so obvious it would be brilliant. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see this is another silly season, column-filler designed to stop the papers talking about the economy, health, unemployment, etc.
Alan sugar made his fortune by shear luck, akin to winning the lottery.
Obesity dumb bomb
Here we go again... more pseudo-science jumping on the let's blame the fatties wagon. Wealthier nations also live longer and healthier lives, no contradiction there?
As for those spouting the silly "cost to the NHS" argument, this has already been shown to be a fallacy, the overweight actually cost no more than the "healthy". How can this be? You say. They are all fat and unhealthy. Another recently published study confirmed the data we have had for years, since 2001 actually, that most overweight people live as long and as healthily as those who are considered "normal" weight and a damn sight longer than those who are underweight. Only about 4% of the population fall into the dangerously overweight category, less than those who number the dangerously underweight, about 7%. Why are there no calls for sanctions against the "skinny gits"?
Secondly, do you know how much sporting injuries cost the NHS? Do you know how much being dumb or taking stupid D.I.Y. risks cost the NHS? All personal choices, all "avoidable".
Don't you see that this argument leads to the justification of withholding treatment on the grounds of cost and then on to the break up of free, at the point of treatment, universal healthcare? Various NHS groups will publicise spending on obesity, because they all need more money and climbing on the obesity bandwagon is easy and convenient. Do you have actual figures on the spending for specialised equipment for treatment of fatties and how that compares to the treatment of others or are you just joining in with a socially approved prejudice?
I really tire of this continuing misinformation about, food, fat and health.
Five a day? Made up by a marketing firm for farmers of California. Actually, two a week gives much the same benefits. And fruit is full of fructose, the worst kind of sugar for us.
Salt will make you explode? No, the only evidence we have that it has any effect on blood pressure at all, is that for a small number of people who have high blood pressure, reducing salt will cause a small drop in blood pressure, even then, they are better off taking drugs to lower their blood pressure. For the rest of us it seems to have little or no effect.
Saturated fat is poison? Not according to study after study, which shows that the amount of saturated fat in our diets has little relationship to our life-expectancy or cardiovascular health. Poly-unsaturated fats cause an imbalance of omega 3 and 6 which often has to be compensated for by drugs. How much does that cost?
This was already known and glossed over in a 90's study by the U.S. center for disease control. That study showed exactly the same results as this one. Those "overweight", but not obese, tended to have the longest lives. Though the difference between them and those at ideal weight is not statistically significant, so let's say they are on a par. Certainly being very overweight, really obese, isn't ideal, but it is also not the death sentence it is made out to be. It also seems that staying fat is generally better, for life expectancy, than losing weight. This may be down to the destructive effects of yo-yo dieting.
Two tier market
The plain truth is that the majority of people in the U.K. do not have a broadband service fast enough for this. The average U.K. download speed is still only 3.5meg, with many not even getting that. This is nowhere near enough to stream HD content, it cannot even handle the BBC iplayer on standard definition much of the time, so unless ISPs invest a huge amount in upgrading their services, and the network, we will have a large section of society in the U.K. which will be left out of the loop and will keep on going to the pirates.
What a refreshing change to see a journalist not jumping on the Armageddon bandwagon, though the idea that 10's of thousands my have lost their lives to other infrastructure failures is somewhat speculative.
At least we have a rational assessment to read, whether we fully agree or not. I grow tired of opening my newspaper or switching on the radio/T.V. news and being told "The sky is falling!", every single day. Then when it turns out not to have fallen we don't get a retraction we get; "No, but this time the sky really is falling!".
Smith would not know the real world if it bit her. The extreme porn ban and the dangerous cartoons act were two of the most irrational knee-jerk pieces of badly thought out and unjust laws ever pushed through parliament. She dealt a massive blow for female equality, proving that women ministers can be just as irrational, arrogant and plain wrong as their male counterparts.
As for her "innocence", testimony to a commons committee on this very subject provided clear evidence that with increases in access to hardcore porn there has been, in every place such records have been examined, a corresponding decrease in sexual assaults.
Typical sop to lobby groups
The first human trafficking unit was shut down because they could not find any "sex slaves". This unit covers a wider area of trafficking and lumps in various "concerns" of lobby groups along with some odds and sods no one else can be bothered to investigate. This is the "remedial squad", the last resort, where the rejects will be sent. Created entirely to for the benefit of shouty nutters, who are out of touch with reality.
Worse to come
Here in the U.K. you will soon be liable for much worse than this. They are pushing a law through now that will get you up to three years inside and put on the sex offenders register for owning this comic and similar, whether you paid for it or not.
Who is this bloke?
I think this character is over-estimating his own importance in the world. I guarantee the vast majority of Brits won't have any idea who he is. He can't even get the facts right, it was not Brown who made the decision, because it was not his to make. Gordon Brown cannot interfere in any way with this and quite right to.
While I feel for those who lost family in the bombing, this release does not give succour to terrorists and the Lybians are not welcoming him as a terrorist hero. They actually denounced the bombing. As is so often the case with most countries we do not trust foreign justice systems, I'm sure there have been cases of Americans convicted in other countries who have had campaigns to bring them home? Well that is what is going on here, the popular opinion in Lybia is that he is innocent and did not commit these atrocities. So let's get thing right and in proportion before we mouth off about appeasing terrorists. Whatever you may think of the decision in terms of justice, since Megrahi himself and his countrymen denounce the bombing, that is clearly not the case.
To this "shock jock", - grow up.
What we have come to expect.
Typical of this "listening" government. At best, their attitude towards our private data is cavalier, at worst, it is avaricious. I tend to think they want to sell as much of our data as they can and, until or unless the tabloids get interested, nothing is likely to stop them. The opposition by the E.U. to what this government are doing will almost certainly help them with hack editors and, no doubt, be another nail in the coffin of our freedom and privacy.
I am another life-long Labour voter who cannot wait for this bunch of fascists to get thrown out, even if that means replacing them with the more venal and uncaring Torys.
A mighty step forarwd for womens equality!
Jacqui has long since proven that she is the equal of male ministers. There is no male minister who has demonstrated more arrogance and irrationality than her - that is for certain. Once again we get her whims dressed up as a moral crusade. Put aside justice or common sense, she knows in her heart she is right and damn truth or credible evidence, she's going to do what she wants.
governments, especially left-wing governments, who I have a tendency to support in most other things, are utterly terrified that there may be an area of life that they cannot regulate. Much as I sympathise with left-wing social attitudes, the need to control what others do has always been a nasty aspect of socialist thinking. It has long since passed the stage where I can continue to support this government and, even if the dreaded Torys get in, we must remove Labour, at the earliest opportunity, before they assign a civil servant to look over the shoulders of each and every one of us.
It really is getting very worrying. The moment the HRA was signed, Labour then started trying to undermine it, bringing in laws based on ideology rather than evidence or worse on the back of a tabloid bandwagon. I am truly appalled at how much they now interfere, even in our private lives. Burnham is just another facist controller who wants to be the arbiter of what you or I can look at, read or listen to online and in the privacy of our own homes. It is about time they were shown that they are here to serve us, not 'lead' us. We are the masters and they have forgotten that.
Evidence lead legislation
We don't need PR, we simply need parliament, of any kind, and the media to scrutinise the evidence that is presented properly and do their jobs. The problem is that neither of these groups do their jobs, for a variety of reasons.
Parliament is rife with arm-twisting, backroom deals and personal/party "pragmatism", the media either don't have the time and resources to check the data or just don't care enough; "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?". This leaves us at the mercy of those who deliberately mislead, politicians, lobby groups and other vested interests, but if the majority were just doing their jobs, much of that would be caught and prevented.
Properly gathered statistics don't lie, it is those who wrongly interpret them and, more importantly, those who allow it, who are to blame.
We need a group, perhaps in the media who will point out the obvious misuse of evidence and maintain a list of the perpetrators. This would become a vital resource for those who wish to find out the truth about the use, and misuse, of power. Maybe, just maybe, it will shame some into actually doing their jobs.
"causes of crime"
"Beside the obviously demeaning effects simulated rape has towards women, there is growing evidence that using extreme porn is bad for the men who do it and the relationships these men are in."
I am sure we would all be interested to see this evidence and who is compiling it, could you give us a link?
According to Nancy Friday, a psychologist, 25% of her female patients and 30% of her male patients enjoy rape fantasies, both as perpetrator and victim. That does not mean that such fantasies demean them or that they really want them to become true. We all indulge in fantasies from time to time. It may be that such fantasies are cathartic and there is evidence to back that idea up; http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html Not proof, by any means, but stronger than the "evidence" for censorship of consenting porn for adults.
Adult porn, of any kind is fantasy. We should be spending more time making it clear that such things are fantasy only and unacceptable in the real world, rather than the silly, futile and damaging attempts to ban them.
We should spend less time trying to figure out what is going on in peoples heads, the so called "causes of crime" and more time and resources addressing actual behaviour.
Saying that "porn is the theory, rape is the practice" only gives the rapist an excuse, what is the difference between that statement and "she was wearing sexy clothes, so she was asking for it"?
Experienced psychologists may take years of skilled questioning to dig out the motivation of individuals, why do we think that a few blunt laws can simply remove such motivations? We have no real idea why most people commit anti-social acts, but we do know what works in curbing anti-social behaviour; take a look at super-nanny. Draw a line and punish those who cross it, consistently and without fear or favour. Unfortunately that would mean spending money on more and better trained police, so why not just pass another silly law? It's a useless and probably damaging gesture, but it looks like we are doing something and it's cheap.
Rationality not morality.
The problem with the argument for "rational morality both in government and society in general.", is; who defines what is and is not moral? The government pushed the Dangerous pictures act through the Human rights committee on the grounds that it was to "protect public morals". I have yet to see any legal definition of morality, let alone public morality. Morality is an elastic concept, able to mean many things, whether that is banning abortions or allowing them. In short morality is a matter of opinion.
A call for rationality, is not saying the government must behave rationally, clearly from their, corrupt, point of view the Dangerous pictures act was rational. It is parliament, the media and the electorate, as a whole, which must be rational. Tall order yes, but more rationality, by however small an increment, is better than less.
The insistence that data must be checked, for the media, as well as politicians and that laws are not made without credible and compelling evidence to support them is a rational approach. Okay, not all data is clear-cut and often it must be interpreted. That is the job of academics and there are mechanisms for trying to see it is done right, they are not perfect and not always completely rational, but they are a damn sight better than judgements made on the basis of morals or political pragmatism.
A well researched, clear and concise representation of the facts. Exactly the opposite of the kind of crap we usually get from the majority of the media. Unfortunately, we know from experience that merely pointing out that the evidence is utterly useless does not stop politicians, and especially lobby groups, from quoting it as fact again and again.
It really is time that we had a popular call for rationalism, too often we see a cause which politicians champion first and then, when questioned, "find" evidence to back their point of view. The worst thing about such political tactics is that the laws brought in often cause more harm than if nothing was done.
I can only think that those who push through these laws must be operating on some kind of "faith", the word according to Dworkin or some-such nonsense. How else could they deny rationality to bring in laws that harm and still sleep at night?
Bad mistake, but...
This was a dumb gaffe, watching the footage though, you can see he walked from his car to the door of number 10 and on the way covered up the papers. All in all they were visible for about five seconds. Plenty of time for a camera to take several high quality images and he should have known that, but it should be pointed out that he is not the only guilty party here. There would be much less danger from this, and similar incidents, if the press could be trusted. Let's not forget that this was on Downing street, the only people taking photos were the press who had press passes for that area. This would be embarrassing certainly, but not "dangerous", if the press could be trusted not to publish or even to blur-out the offending detail.
Free speech not allowed?
This is a carefully chosen case for a high profile prosecution of the written word. If the subjects of the story were unknown or even fictional there would be no prosecution. If there were no celebrities, or real people depicted for that matter, few jurors would give this prosecution the time of day, but with real and sympathetic people depicted, there is a far greater chance of gaining a conviction. This is not a case of harassment, defamation or any other personal injury to the individuals concerned, it is a case of the for the state, not the individual. The danger is that a conviction here will be used as a precedent to prosecute writings of a similar nature, even when they are about fictional characters.
Why is this a danger, the story is abhorrent and beneath contempt, so what's the problem? The problem is that we have yet another attempt to extend laws into matters of taste. No matter how disgusting, mad or abhorrent an idea, it is merely an idea and if it does not cause direct harm, then we must allow it to exist and people to exchange it. This is the basis of freedom of speech, to allow free discussion, even of the things we find abhorrent.
Save the children
Hasn't it occurred to those proposing this law that by making looking at cartoons of child abuse punishable in the same way that looking at images of real abuse is, then those who feel driven to look at child pornography will ask themselves why they should not look at the real thing? After all, they will be damned either way. Where is their much vaunted common sense now?
Even so, we have another law that ignores the prevailing evidence; increased access to porn, of all kinds, correlates strongly with a drop in sex crimes.
If they can sleep knowing that they are probably encouraging sexual assaults to adults, why should we expect that they would loose any sleep knowing that they will probably be encouraging child abuse?
Protect the children...
...people will accept anything if you declare it is to "protect the children".
I have no problem with genuine attempts to protect children, but it would be nice to see some credible evidence that harm is actually occurring before we start locking people up. Yet again we have another law, from this Labour government, who I voted for - three times, that will lock people up for nothing other than having bad taste.
I despair, I really do. What happened to the evidence led legislation, we were promised? Time to vote this bunch out. They have become completely corrupted by the power of their majority and are now passing laws that will make people suffer for no good reason. Along with the data collection and sharing schemes they are beginning to become a real threat to civil liberties.
Should read; "whose whole purpose shall be to oppose the allegiance of the self-righteous abstainers with the guilty indulgers in their efforts to hammer everyone into the same size, shape and outlook."
I'm serious about this. Aren't people getting tired of the "latte set" telling what is and is not acceptable behaviour? They try to rationalise their prejudices with "the effect on wider society", but as has been pointed out, in the scheme of things such expense is generally of less cost to the country than a gagle of unneeded spin-doctors.
Where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, you are free, but not to do things we find distasteful? We already have laws which will lock people up on the grounds of taste alone, so eating "unhealthily", drinking more than the recommended amount, offending our sight by being fat and wobbly or thin an rake-like or just plain not being "one of us", ie. those who believe they are our "rulers", will be next.
Time to say NO! I'll eat all the junk I decide to, I'll drink as much I as think is reasonable, not you, I'll gamble, smoke, wank and watch internet porn, not because you don't like it, but because I do. I'll play violent video games and read trashy novels, I'll think for myself and I refuse to be one of your identikit clones.
I hereby inaugurate the "GET STUFFED YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS GITS!" campaign.
Fat people are the new "underclass".
Here we have it more of the "it's okay to get fatty" culture. Next they will be proposing an obesity tax. I would like to ask, what is the yearly cost of peoples stupidity to the fire brigade? What is the cost of partaking in dangerous sports to the emergency services as a whole? Lifestyle choices, whether they are dangerous to our health or not are our choice and this continuous harping on personal decisions affecting wider society is just an excuse to dictate to people how to live their lives.
I'm sick to death of tabloids exploiting fat, one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry and government fuelling it with their incessant preaching and threats to "protect us from ourselves".
I propose a new pressure group whose whole purpose shall be to the allegiance of the self-righteous abstainers with the guilty indulgers in their efforts to hammer everyone into the same size, shape and outlook.
Come on you "guilty indulgers" I'm calling on you all to stand proud, as long as you have the breath, and proclaim your right to smoke, eat, drink and fornicate until you drop. Now is the time!
Tell the puritans to get stuffed!
Another dumb study
There is no evidence that salt causes high blood pressure, cutting down on salt may be even more dangerous than eating two or three times your daily "allowance". Saturated fat is not "poison", in fact, contrary to accepted dogma, it will do less harm than poly-unsaturated fats. There is no credible evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease or any kind of cardio-vascular problems. As for the quality of the meat products, how many of these tested kebabs were found to have levels of dangerous bacteria high enough to cause food poisoning? The only cause for concern is the level of calories consumed, on top of the large amount in most alcoholic drinks. Having said that, the evidence tends to suggest that saturated fats have a markedly greater effect on controlling, or lessening the appetite, than most other food types, so, on the whole, eat it and forget it.
Again we see some comments from those who don't understand the law or simply don't know the wording of it.
Saying it should be illegal to own images of acts that are illegal to do is silly. A large proportion of mainstream entertainment depicts illegal acts. If this law were about banning the ownership of images of actual abuse, then few would object, but it is not. The law specifically bans the owning of fictional images of abuse, including images from films which have been given a certificate by the BBFC.
The law, as it stands, will prosecute, convict, lock up an individual for upto three years and place them on the sex offenders register, with all the stigma that carries, simply for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities.
Indeed, one of the defences allowed is that if you can prove you are one of the participants in the images. Thus admitting the ridiculous state of affairs that you can do it, you can go and watch others doing it live, but if you take a photo of them doing it or simply look at a photo of them doing it, even with no intention of showing that photo to anyone else, suddenly you are a menace to society and should be locked up.
Furthermore, there is no chance that anyone in a position of authority or anyone related to them and whose prosecution may embarrass the govt. would suffer such indignity. The govt. has decided they will have the final say on who gets prosecuted and who does not..
Even this guidence is wrong.
Any image which depicts an act the may result in serious injury is part of the definitions. by may they explain, any reasonable person would think that the act would cause serious injury. So no actual need to depict the injury, fictionally or otherwise, just actions that may result in serious injury to the breasts, genitals or anus. An even broader definition than this article suggests.
They clearly don't give a damn about reality or evidence. The fact is that there is stronger evidence that access to porn, of all kinds, causes a drop in sexual assaults than the opposite case (where there is no credible evidence).
But what do they care? They can be seen to be 'doing something'. These new laws are more likely to cause crime, pain and suffering, if you assess the evidence with anything like a rational mind. More sexual assaults and more damaged children will allow them to say that they need to go even further and bring in more restrictive laws.
They have long-since abandoned the promise to only make evidence led legislation and now seem to be working on the basis of some extreme ideaology and/or the need to do something, no matter how mad and ill-conceived it may be.
The only charitable assessment of their actions would be that they have allowed themselves to be controlled by various self-serving lobby groups and have persuaded themselves that they don't need credible evidence, all they need is a 'feeling' that looking at something is wrong.
I would love for the government to explain exactly what they mean by the term "public morals".
If it does not mean attitudes which will lead to the causing of actual harm, then it is merely about what people think. Or to be more precise, what the government think people are thinking; thought crime.
Unless the government can show that viewing this fictional material causes the viewer to harm another, then they have no right to interfere. And I believe that would be a relevant argument in a court under the HRA.
Further difficulties, I think under article nine, are that no one knows what is and is not illegal. The HRA says this must be clear or the law does not comply with human rights law.
This law will fall and I hope it damages the government when it does.
Let's be clear why there is opposition to this law. Yes the vagueness of the definitions are a major concern, but it is far more than that.
No one opposing this law has argued that "anything goes" and that images of real abuse, bestiality or necrophilia should be legal to own. Though this is all the government argues on, the opposition is mainly about the fact that this law deliberately includes fictional material. Even where the defendant can prove no one was harmed in the making of it.
The government, at first, said it must include fictional material otherwise proving an actual crime took place would be an insurmountable obstacle for the prosecution. That's right you will be assumed guilty, because it may be too difficult to prove that you are.
After being challenged on this, they then changed tack and said that the law was meant to prevent harm caused by merely viewing the images. After much prodding they came up with 'evidence' that merely viewing caused harm.
How? They commissioned well established anti-pornography campaigners, who were known to already support the law, to compile a report called "The Harm of extreme pornography". Obviously they did not want to leave the slightest chance that the conclusion would not be the one they wanted.
After cherry-picking sixty years of research on this subject, in the process ignoring anything which did not support the premise of this law, the reports authors could find no evidence that those making this material are harmed, but that "some of the most sexually aggressive men may be influenced by viewing this material". some of the most aggressive men may be influenced by watching Bambi or reading the Bible or the Koran, but hey this was enough for the government.
From this extraordinarily weak conclusion they extrapolated their opinion that this "influence" could result in the committing of rape and sexual assault. This was the 'smoking gun' the government wanted to criminalise fictional material.
Now we have the situation, where a citizen of England and Wales can have their privacy invaded, be convicted on a sex offence, with all the stigma that caries, and be locked for up to three years, for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities.
Baroness Millar in the Lords debate, said that this constituted "thought crime" and she was right. This is not about what you do, it is about what the government think you are thinking of doing. And they deliberately concocted evidence to show that what they think you are thinking "may" be dangerous.
I can only hope that the anger I have heard expressed over this insane irrational law over the past few days, will be remembered when the next election comes around. Do you want a government that can persuade itself that it is right to lock people up on the grounds of taste alone?
Good in parts.
Dr. Byrons report talks a great deal of common sense in the face of some daft ideas about the material in question and a clear desire by the government to bring in legislation to 'control the internet'.
Worryingly she agrees with extending the blacklisting already in place for child abuse site, to other sites which show 'inappropriate material'. so now we must have another public space defined by what is 'safe' for children, simply because parents will not take responsibility?
Any parent who leaves their child unattended to surf the internet is committing neglect, it is that simple. The education of parents should simply be about stating what is obvious; the internet is not an electronic nanny and is not 'safe'.
Dr. Byron admits that it is almost impossible to regulate the internet and even goes as far as to say banning some sites may just drive vulnerable users to more obscure and harder to monitor sites. Attempts to restrict internet use for all do not harm those who are hardcore 'offenders', they simply move to another site or private mail group or switch to encryption. It is everyone else who has their freedoms chipped away yet again.
Games already have clear age certification. Who buys games the games certified for 18 years and older, that so many under 18s play? Can't parents read? do they never check what their children are doing?
Though there is some sense talked in this report the authors referral to contested and, far from proven, evidence as reason to move in certain areas is dismaying and an indicator of the same old knee-jerk responses. Much better is the call for more research in these areas, though I have no doubt the government will stack the deck and make sure any research gives them the answer they want, as this seems to be their way of working nowadays.
On the whole not a bad report, but too much room for Government to spin it into anything they want, which is bound to be more infringements of our rights.
"Tell the people that what you are doing is for the sake of the children and they will accept anything."
Not about justice.
The ruling was not about the law being unjust, it was about the way the jury was directed by the original judge. It wasn't made clear that owning this material was not in itself a crime, but that there also needed to be a "reasonable suspicion" that the owner would use it to commit an offence.
This isn't Law Lords "fighting the Government" and it does not mean others will not be convicted under this law, it just means the original judge cocked it up.
This has nothing to do with 'protecting' anyone. No evidence has been shown of a crime, nevermind how this law will prevent said crime. The Govt. has not named any site where they can show real serious sexual violence took place. No attempt to define or assess the extent of the 'problem' has been made at all.
They have shown no evidence that viewing this material harms anyone in any way, the individual, those who act the scenes, or society as a whole.
They present their assumptions of harm as fact and then fail to show how this law will affect even the crimes they assume are happening. People will be locked up for looking at harmless images, because the Govt. wants to be seen to be 'doing something'.
This is gesture politics of the worst kind, a junior minister, Vernon Coaker, was persuaded to jump on this particular bandwagon (by Martin Salter MP) and now the Govt. finds itself having to back this mad law.
We can only hope that the teeth are pulled form this monster in commitee or the Lords.
This will not apply to cartoons as far as I can make out, but it wouldn't surprise me if the puritan league who pushed this law would be so mad as to try and censor cartoons too. LOL! That would be a minefield and they would likely end up a lauging stock, political cartoonists would have a field day.
Again we see comments such as "it shouldn't be allowed". Why? Because you don't like it? If you are going to lock someone up for looking at a picture, then you should have a damn good reason and evidence to back that up.
The right to the freedom of speech protects even those things which may disturb Governments or any section of the population, it isn't just for what is popular and should only ever be infringed when proof of a pressing need can be shown, not merely on matters of taste.
No other country has agreed to cooperate with this law, why?
Because it's daft. On the face of it banning images of sexual violent abuse sounds fair enough, but then so does banning images of murder. Murder is more serious than even sexual violence isn't it?
So why the fuss why are people complaining, well imagine a law that bans all images of murder. Nothing wrong with that? Except it would mean shutting down Hollywood and a large proportion of T.V. production.
This isn't about real abuse, in fact the Govt. have not even shown the smallest piece of evidence this will affect real abuse in any way, this is about fictional scenes acted out by consenting adults.
Such things may not be to everybodys taste, certainly not mine, but since when did we lock people up on matters of taste?
No evidence has been presented that; anyone is being abused for real, any viewer is 'corrupted' in any way, viewing these images causes harm to society as a whole or that this law will fulfil any of its stated objectives.
This law will allow the police to invade your privacy, just on the suspicion that you have been viewing such images, confiscate your computer, separate you from your family and brand you with the stigma that arrest for a sex offence brings and all the horrendous suffering associated with that.
The Govt. has created a victimless crime. Neither the Govt., the police nor the prosecution has to show any evidence of real harm, of any kind, in order to secure a conviction and lock people up for up to three years.
To those who say, well it's just sick and this law won't affect me, this is a very dangerous precedent. The Govt. can lock you up for looking at things they don't want you to look at.
Bring on the thought police.
Cartoons are ideas and banning someone from looking at an idea, no matter how repellent that idea may be, is intollerable.
We were promised "evidence led legislation", but yet again we have another proposal for a law that will create a crime for which the govt. can show no evidence of harm.
All that is needed, apparently, are 'police concerns' and we get another law which reverses the burden of proof. You are no longer presumed innocent.
The only defences allowed (as with the extreme porn law) must be proved by you and the prosecution does not need to show any evidence of harm of any kind in order to secure a conviction.
John Reid makes Margaret Thatcher seem sane by comparison.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16