Posts by Graham Marsden 6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I'm in Portsmouth and I've actually used 101 a few times for things that were worth contacting the Police for (eg idiots bombing up and down the road on a mini-moto late at night) but not worth dialling 999 about.
It was actually a good idea and I would have hoped to see it rolled out nationwide instead of being dumped...
And this is the real problem, coupled with them knowing that they're going to get a kicking at the next election.
So they're going to try to push through as much populist legislation as they can to make themselves look good in the media whislt, at the same time, force their personal agendas on the rest of us before they're thrown out of power.
When the two co-incide (as they might well do in cases like this) then we're in deep shit...
"The prof added that, counterintuitively, it is those with little confidence in their own beliefs who are least willing to consider opposing views."
I frequently have problems in discussion forums, getting accused by some people of not being willing to listen to other points of view and only accepting stuff that agrees with my own beliefs etc.
But what these people don't realise is that I've developed my opinions over 20 or more years of such discussions. I will still listen and I'm perfectly willing to change my position, but they're going to have to come up with a damned convincing argument to show why my position is wrong.
Despite the ignorance of Steve Kay, Usenet is still of use to many people.
Unfortunately now, given this nonsensical ruling (how is Usenet supposed to deal with any illegal copying?) coupled with the excuse used by certain providers that "Usenet is used for distributing kiddie porn, so we're not going to carry any Usenet groups", it looks like it's going to be wiped out :-(
... that had someone decided to hire a group of look-alike models and have them pose for photographs to "illustrate" the story, even though the story was not illegal and no illegal acts were committed in the making of the photos, if someone decided the images were "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene nature", "for the purposes of sexual arousal" and showed "an act which threatens a person’s life" then the CPS could have successfully prosecuted under the Dangerous Pictures provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act!
What a ludicrous situation...
So, let me see if I've got this right.
Someone has not committed a crime, they have been acquitted in Court of any offence, yet they should *still* be sacked for exercising their legal right to freedom of expression simply because you (or some po-faced idiot in the CIvil Service) don't like what they wrote?
In other words "you have the freedom to write what *we* like..."
> there's no shred of literary or creative merit to redeem Darryn Walker's vile, jealous filth.
Sorry, have you *READ* the Daily Star recently...?
> His employer is wholly entitled to conclude that this behaviour has brought them into gross disrepute
Why? WTF has this to do with them if he didn't write it on work time or use work computers? This is the same sort of nonsense that has teachers being sacked because they go to Fetish Clubs even though they would never mention it to the children they teach.
You, like Estariel, seem to think that hearsay, gossip and "the court of public opinion" are more important than someone's right to freedom of expression and their right to the presumption of innocence.
Would you like to apply for the job of Home Secretary?
No, *you* get *your* categories sorted:
1) Not guilty.
2) Guilty.
There are *NO* other categories, unless you believe in trial by media, gossip, hearsay and innuendo.
The guy wrote a work of FICTION, if you're going to start censoring stuff simply because you don't like it, let alone arresting people for doing so, you're on a very dangerous and slippery slope.
If you don't like it, don't read it, but don't make ridiculous and unfounded assumptions about other people based on your own ignorance.
... third party power pack suppliers start making compatible batteries with copied chips like those who make compatible ink cartridges?
"Remember folks, using compatible cartridges may give poor results or damage your printer or fund terrorism (and will stop us selling our ink at higher prices than vintage champange...)"
I'm impressed at the way someone has really "thought outside the box" in this case (instead of using it as a meaningless buzz-phrase!)
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's a start and I'm sure there are ways of fixing the problems if people are willing to think about the issues instead of just immediately dismissing it as "won't work, can't work, why bother changing what we've got" etc...
> before buying any electronical equipment you need to do some research about it, computer equipment included.
What you should do and what people actually do is another matter entirely!
"I'll have that one because I've heard of their company name".
"I'll have that one because it looks pretty".
"I'll have that one because the salesman says it's right for me (and his commission)"...
... Lord Steyn!
At least there are a few people willing to speak out about this who might actually get listened to.
Unfortunately people like him are why the Government wants to replace the Lords with a bunch of party hacks who will rubber-stamp whatever nonsense they want to push through.
Unfortunately right from the word Go the Government has been attempting to create a false association between so-called Extreme Pornography and Child Porn, eg in their highly biased "consultation document" there were repeated references to CP even though the EP law was absolutely nothing to do with children.
Unsurprisingly, now, we see someone being accused of possessing both which will undoubtedly lead to implications that anyone who might have EP is also a kiddie fiddler.
The point about this case is that the law *assumes* guilt because the offence is one of "simple possession" of the images.
The guy selling the DVDs most probably had nothing to do with the making of them, nor any acts shown on them and so didn't break any laws in that context.
But this law doesn't care about that, it just says "you possess these images, therefore you are a criminal and the only way you can avoid being convicted is by proving your innocence" which is a reversal of the usual presumption of innocence not to mention a breach of Paragraph 2 or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
