66 posts • joined Monday 26th January 2009 16:43 GMT
"An incredible 142,375 people were convicted and sentenced in 2011 for not paying for a TV licence last year - almost all at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale"
Shocking revelation, that people who are socio-economically worse off are more likely to commit crime.
Not sure how that is a indictment of the TV Licence though.
Re: I think not.
And which prediction are you referring to?
So Lewis's argument seems to be: "There's more ice than normal in one quite specific location, therefore manmade climate change isn't happening".
He might as well say "It's cold at 2am, therefore the globe isn't heating up."
Please stop with this childish drivel.
Is he really saying that poor people watch less television than middle class people? Really?
If the pub was called the Hobbit, had a couple of LOTR named drinks, I don't think this would be an issue.
But the pub is making money by using images from the films. I can see why the copyright holders are unhappy about that.
Having said that, issuing blunt legal threats seems counterproductive.
During the hacking scandal, I have been very impressed with Tom Watson.
This is another + for him.
I wonder if he also refused to wear cloths of mixed fabric? No? Fucking hypocrite.
Yeah, that was entirely different.
I suppose they can still be guilty of incitement, even if no-one was actually incited.
As I said above, a custodial sentence was probably warranted, pour encourager les autres, but I would have thought it would be more productive to have a lower custodial element, and then some community service too.
A custodial sentence was probably warranted, but I can't help but wonder if it's a proportionate response, when they're getting harsher sentences than people who actually did do some rioting.
They wouldn't be slow in suing if I rebroadcast a BBC programme without paying them, especially if I was making money doing it.
Yet that's exactly what they do every time they use someone's image without so much as attribution, let alone payment.
Same old drivel
Wasn't it great before violent video games when no-one rioted.
I suppose it's easier to say "it's all the fault of video games" rather than examine the complex socio-economic reasons for this kind of thing.
Does the Reg even know what evidence is?
"There is a huge amount of evidence, and it's incredibly convincing,"
Empirical studies are rare
Well which is it? This sounds exactly like the people complaining of "electrosmog" with zero evidence to back it up. Andrew Orlowski clearly has an axe to grind, but he really needs to be more balanced.
"Our current knowledge indicates that there are substantial health risks from the existing exposure" - evidence please!
Title goes here
So how would one go about removing such an infection?
*some* Michael Bay films are OK
The Rock, for example.
But, you have to remove your brain first.
Some of them are utter drivel, like Pearl Harbor.
I don't hold out much hope for Transformers 3, but I'll probably go and watch it anyway.
Censorship is bad, mmkay
I'm all for the BBFC classifying films as age appropriate, but they should not be banning films.
Give it an 18, then adults can decide for themselves whether they want to watch it.
I personally think it sounds revolting, and I have no interest in watching it.
But I would like to be able to watch it, should I wish to.
Funny definition of facts
Seeing as our debt is no worse (as a proportion of GDP) than it has been for 200 out of the last 250 years. If we're broke now, then we must have nearly always been broke.
Here's an idea
If you don't want to get a speeding ticket, don't drive faster than the speed limit.
I got zapped by a camera a few years ago. I took it on the chin, and accepted that I shouldn't have been going faster than the limit. I didn't whine like a spoiled child that I was being victimised.
Since the 19th century?
I didn't know they were that advanced!
But they've still got to get out of bed as well !!!! They're doomed.
"Millions of children were also fed contaminated milk following Chernobyl: according to the IAEA the incidence of thyroid cancer among such children and young people rose to one case in 4,500"
Lewis, in your first article on this subject you claimed that the Chernobyl accident had basically no adverse effects on anyone other than those cleaning up the site. It was obviously wrong, so thanks for admitting it.
Am I the only one who finds it a bit distasteful
That Mr Page is capitalising on a tragedy such as this in order to bang his nuclear drum?
He should have waited a month, and then written it.
"There is *NO* scientific agreement that smoking causes cancer - the closest they have got is that it *MAY* cause cancer"
That is the biggest load of shit I have ever read. Care to show me a peer-reviewed meta-analysis showing this?
Argue that you should be allowed to smoke if you choose, and I will support you. But not even tobacco companies are claiming that their product doesn't cause cancer any more.
Sounds good to me
Another balanced article.
"It's important to make clear that there is no evidence to suggest that plain packaging would have any impact on smoking uptake by young people,"
Then there is also no evidence that it won't work. Might as well give it a go and see if it does work.
"it would be like Christmas for counterfeiters and the criminal gangs who smuggle cigarettes"
Yes, they have real problems duplicating the complicated patterns that are on existing packaging. I suppose it might make it slightly easier. How about a watermark or something?
"The sale of tobacco will move from responsible, legitimate retailers selling to law-abiding consumers, to irresponsible criminals who won't think twice about selling cigarettes to children."
What drivel. No-one is suggesting a ban on selling tobacco products. Law abiding comsumers will still be able to buy their product from responsible, legitimate retailers.
Anything that discourages people from starting to smoke must be a good thing, right?
letters and/or digits
You clearly have more faith in the ability of the average driver than I do.
Fuck the pedestrians, they don't need to get anywhere, otherwise they'd be driving, right?
Some drivers complain about cyclists getting in their way and use the "I pay road tax" argument to imply that they have more rights.
As a car owning cyclist it drives me nuts that some drivers deploy such moronic arguments.
And in any case, apart from motorways and a few other main trunk roads, road maintenance is paid for out of local council tax and not general taxation, so cyclists pay the same amount towards that as drivers do.
By that logic, a lorry has more right to be on the road than a car, as the VED on that is more.
A more polluting car has more rights on the road than a small economical one (some very efficient cars pay £0 VED).
Someone earning £100,000 has more rights on the road than someone earning £25,000, as they pay more income tax.
A smoker has more rights on the road than a non-smoker.
What utter drivel.
Also note that the majority of cyclists also own a car.
From The Untouchables
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun.
He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
*That's* the Chicago way!"
Another excellent public sector IT system
No matter what I enter - my town, street address, postcode - it tells me it cannot find a matching area.
Doesn't anyone know how to do testing in public sector IT?
"Interesting to see if it takes battery life back to 1980s levels "
You mean it might increase it?
- Analysis BlackBerry Messenger unleashed: Look out Twitter and Facebook
- Comment Mobile tech destroys the case for the HS2 £multi-beellion train set
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Things that cost the same as coffee with Tim Cook - and are WAY more fun
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL