... but not a place you'd want to be marooned off...
5194 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... but not a place you'd want to be marooned off...
... from a personal point of view, I have to comment that my perfectly legitimate and legal business selling affordable leather products to consenting adults who wish to engage in BDSM is liable to be caught up in this nonsense because potential customers are likely to find that they have to opt-in to access my UK based website which is already signed up to NetNanny, Cybersitter and has Adults Only warnings on the front page etc.
Meanwhile there are plenty of other such businesses who haven't bothered with such things and are thereby likely to slip past the filters...
Of course I'm not a parent, so I'm not supposed to respond to the consultation because I don't have a valid viewpoint!
I'm glad you're giving your child an excellent opportunity to improve his IT skills!
(In my day it was cracking protection on games for infinite lives :-) )
You don't seem to have many people up/ down voting on this option ;-)
"has anyone ever challenged the Government to defend WHY images of boobies and willies are such a menace to society that I will have to be added to a list if I want to keep seeing them on the smut-pipe?"
Because we're all such weak-willed and morally bankrupt individuals that if we see this stuff we will immediately be mentally scarred for life and want to go out and commit all sorts of horrible crimes based on anecdotal post-hoc justificatinons such as "well person X looked at porn Y and then did Z, so *obviously* it was the porn what caused it..."
Clearly words like "conscience" and "consent" and "respect" do not feature in our vocabularies at all.
So using computers means you're less likely to get dementia.
As does doing crosswords, playing chess and a whole host of similar activities...
WTF?? Maria Miller:
Voted against equal gay adoption rights.
Voted against "hate speech" being criminalised.
Voted against lesbians being able to get fertility treatment.
And quite a few other such issues.
Yep, this is *just* the sort of person we want for "Women and Equalities" Minister!!
Tsk, with a subject line like that, I was thinking you'd come up with a brilliant idea for the next Special Project!
... at least an electronic doctor should be able to provide legible prescriptions!
Royal Mail can only open letters or parcels in the National Returns Centre in Belfast, they are supposed to make a good effort to either deliver or return the item, but there have been examples of eg a £10,000 painting (sent by AirSure) being flogged off for £20 at auction!
"Personally haven't seen any obvious astroturfing/shill posts"
Whereas I have, or, at least, it seems so, when one place gets a mix of five star and one star reviews I get the feeling that someone's telling porkies...
And call in an air-strike if you forget to switch modes...!!
""The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined..." True,"
Well at least I've got *you* to agree with that, now can you persuade your fellow "blinkered troll" Mr Gumby to accept that?
All the rest of your post (and his) is irrelevant to that point.
"It seems that you don't understand the situation."
It seems you're moving the goalposts. I was referring to the OP's claim of "rape apology". Until he has been *CONVICTED* of rape (even under Sweden's extremely broad laws) there has been no "apology" because there has been no judgement that there even *was* a rape (unless you agree with the "all men are rapists" feminist who seems to have been the instigator of this nonsense).
FFS you can't even comprehend what's being discussed...
The point is that the claims of "rape apology" are nonsense since it hasn't yet been determined, even under the extremely broad Swedish law, that it *was* rape.
FFS can you not understand that he has *NOT* yet even been charged with rape let alone *CONVICTED* of it?
To say that this is "rape apology" is to totally fail to comprehend the situation.
"That's some nice rape apology you've got going on there."
That's some nice pre-judgement you've got going on there...
I work from home. If I'm answering the phone I want to deal with whatever the person on the other end wants to talk about, not whether I need a shave or my hair needs combing or I've not bothered getting dressed today and I'm sitting around in a dressing gown.
Video calling is simply not something I need and I'm sure that goes for many other people too.
Ah, well you see it's only *bad* spyware if someone else developed it.
When it's ours, it's ok...
Pants on.... aaaaarrrgggghhh!!!
"So, your idea of what a hazard is was hard-wired at 17, and can't be increased to encompass "Things that are going to put points on my license, such as bright yellow boxes"?"
Whoops, nice assumption, just totally *wrong*.
No, my idea of what a Hazard is was what I learned when I joined the Solent Advanced Motorcyclists a couple of years ago and based on "Motorcycle Roadcraft: The Police Rider's Handbook to Better Motorcycling" and "How to Be a Better Rider" by the IAM and seems to have been sufficient to allow me to pass my Advanced Motorcycle Test a while back.
And if you bothered to read my post (and especially had you ever taken any Advanced Training yourself) you'd have a) recognised the phraseology I used and b) noticed that I had *SAID* that if the van pulled out etc then it *would* become a hazard that I would have to incorporate into my Riding Plan.
The point I was making (which you also seem to have failed to understand) is that that van was doing *nothing* for "safety" on that piece of road. It was perfectly safe to Make Progress whilst observing other traffic and ensuring I could stop in the distance I could see clear on my side of the road. What was not safe (as I also mentioned) was on the journey back where in heavy rain with spray and standing water, vehicles were travelling at a speed which was *below* the posted limit but *too fast* for the conditions.
So let me sum up your position as far as I can see it from what you've written:
You like the idea of Rights, however you're happy to live in a world where they are fluid, variable things which can be removed from people you don't like when it's inconvenient, but as long as it doesn't affect you, you're not going to make a fuss and you don't think that I should either.
Well, I'm sorry, but despite your patronising "stop worrying your pretty little head about this" arguments, I *AM* going to make a fuss because I do *not* trust the state's ability to do anything fairly since history has so often shown those who have been elected to office (with all the best intentions in the world) start thinking as you do that "it would be helpful/ useful/ convenient if we just infringed this right a *little* bit to deal with the 'pikey wankers' out there" and then someone else moves that "little bit" on a fraction further and then it moves a bit more...
First they came...
"you won't spot a kid on a bike either, so you shouldn't be speeding and deserve it"
I am looking for Hazards. Hell, the Driving Test now contains the Hazard Perception Test which requires you to spot a *developing* hazard, ie something that is going to cause you to have to change your speed or direction.
A stationary van in a layby on a straight piece of road is *NOT* a Hazard, a kid riding a bike is. I can look at the van, note it, then discount it from my Riding Plan because it's not going to have an effect on me. If it suddenly starts to pull away then I will spot it in my peripheral vision as I scan the road ahead and change my Riding Plan accordingly. A kid on a bike, however, *is* a potential Hazard, so I'll keep them in mind as I plan what I'm going to do and adjust my speed and direction appropriately if needed.
Additionally, had the traffic been of sufficient density that I was unable to stop in the distance I could see clear or it was pi$$ing down with rain (as it was on the return journey on Monday) and thus increasing stopping distances, I would, of course, have slowed down accordingly, unlike some drivers who would have kept (and did keep) going at their previous speed which might have been below the posted limit but *too fast* for the conditions.
Speed cameras, of course, won't notice them, they have no brains and no discretion, they deal in a simple binary choice of "below or above the limit", not "is the speed safe for the conditions"?
You don't really understand the concept of human rights and civil liberties, do you? They are not things that can simply be voted out by the wishes of the majority (or a loud voiced minority) when they are deemed to be inconvenient or undesirable. I will stand up for the rights of *everyone* and that includes alleged "pikey wankers". If they have committed a crime, fine, arrest them and punish them, but don't consider everyone to be a potential criminal and remove *my* liberties because you don't like *them*. To paraphrase Satayana: Learn from history because the consequences of considering some people to be less deserving of rights are too hideous to risk.
"Civil liberties are continuing to move in the RIGHT direction in this country."
WTF? We used to have the Right to demonstrate outside Parliament without Police permission. No more. We used to have the Right to be charged with a crime before being imprisoned. Not now.. We have seen numerous incidences of Police abusing their powers eg Kettling, hassling people for taking photographs of famous landmarks in case they were terrorists. We now have the government saying we need to ask for permission to be allowed to look at pornography. We have a law which states that if, in someone's subjective view, a picture shows something that is "life threatening" or "risks serious injury to someone's breasts, genitals or anus" simply *possessing* that image can get you up to three years in jail! We have seen Councils using powers designed to keep an eye on terrorist suspects being used to spy on families to make sure they're not illicitly trying to get their kid into a particular school...
If this is the "right direction" I hate to think what the WRONG direction is!
You ask "HOW does it affect you" as if I'm not allowed to object if I can't justify that. Well, sorry, but I am allowed (I have the Right!) to object even when it *doesn't* affect me directly, because it affects others. And since you don't like me quoting V for Vendetta, I'll remind you of the quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller instead. Just because I'm not in an affected group doesn't mean that I will say nothing.
"Are you opposed to a national fingerprint database and centralised criminal records, too?"
No, however I AM opposed to compulsory fingerprinting, national DNA databases and anything else that considers me to be a suspect even *before* I'm suspected of doing anything wrong and that includes cameras that track me wherever I go "just in case" I might do something bad on the way.
That is what Rights are for.
"you are far more likely to be pulled over by a car than caught by a camera"
No, you're far more likely to get an NIP in the post a couple of weeks later from a "Safety Camera Partnership" who are more interested in raising money than promoting safety.
For example last Friday I was on the A34, on a straight section of road, good conditions, no side turnings, no Speed Camera warning signs, plenty of room to stop in the distance that I could see clear on my side of the road and parked in a layby was an unmarked van with a camera sticking out of the back.
It would serve *NO* safety purpose, there was nothing to make safer, it was simply there to generate revenue. Nobody was being stopped and warned or to "have a bit of a look around the car", no "pikey wankers" being done for driving without tax. Nope, just a bit of easy dosh. Kerching.
I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy with this, though.
Ah, stooping to personal insults. Bravo, that gives your points so much more credibility.
Police states don't just happen, they come about because people believe their governments when they are told "we need to temporarily abridge some of your rights, but don't worry, it won't be long and it's for your own protection".
Then "temporary" becomes "permanent" because there's a new threat. Then those in the police forces who think like you go "hey, now we can deal with the bastards that we don't like, but could never touch before!" Then it's "well you can't object to this because if you do you're obviously on the side of people we don't like..."
Then the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller come true once more...
Let me just quote you a line from V from Vendetta:
People should not be afraid of their Governments, Governments should be afraid of their people!
You seem to be quite content to give away *my* civil liberties simply because *you* have a problem with "pikey wankers", well, I'm sorry, but those liberties are NOT yours to give away!
I should not need to choose different routes to avoid Government surveillance of my movements, nor should I have to take the bus to stop the State watching where I go. Anything like that needs a REALLY good reason to be introduced, not simply "well it will make Psyx happier" or "it might make the Police's job easier (and save us a bit of dosh)"
I am not being paranoid, you are being naiive and short sighted, so let me leave you with another quote, this time from George Satayana: "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it".
"to reduce the chances of detection by ANPR".
Such as sticking a piece of electrical tape on to a P to make it look like an R, for instance?
Damn these cunning high-tech criminals!!!
"You can't equate a number plate storage system to a police state. Ever."
That's where it starts. It's very unlikely to be where it finishes.
Remember the last Labour Government wanted to put ANPR cameras at every major intersection and automatically issue speeding tickets if you got from A to B quicker than they thought you should have.
It would also have given them the ability to track everyone, everywhere and that is the sort of thing that the Stasi et al would have loved! It's all very well starting out with good intentions, but remember where that road leads...
"Perhaps because you don't know who the bad apples are?"
Right, so we should *ALL* be treated as potential bad apples, then?! Forget about presumption of innocence, forget about the Right to go about my lawful business without let or hindrence, forget about civil liberties, it's *far* better that The State can track us and monitor us and know everywhere we go.
As for trusting the Police not to abuse this dataset, remember Operation Ore? How many innocent people were accused by those Police, based on no actual evidence, of downloading kiddie porn and then coerced into accepting a Caution so they wouldn't be dragged through the Courts, not realising that that would leave them with a record that would follow them evermore any time they wanted a CRB check? Are these the Police you want to trust?
Remember: Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!
... that Rampant Rabbit has already been trade marked by Ann Summers Ltd...!
Yeah, but the lag is terrible...!
... more highbrow TV!
"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human - sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him."
Right, because that has always worked *so* well in the past...!
... Films based on video games are shite.
There, five pages summed up in one sentence!
... where you can vote for the Right Wing party or the *Really* Right Wing party!
@AC "she is still facing the Death penalty if she misbehaves?"
No, it's only suspended for two years (not she will be suspended for two years...) If she behaves herself in that time, the death sentence is rescinded.
If she'd been an ordinary person without lots of political connections she'd be pushing up the daisies by now.
That was the retrospective "Oh, look, actually we were really being very clever" justification that Reagan gave for his Star Wars SDI programme when it turned out that all the fancy ideas didn't work.
... we want Giant Robots that we can sit in and stomp around the landscape!!
... if your password "hint" is "My Password is wordPass"...!
... be a shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean...?
I was with you right up until your last paragraph when you uttered the nonsense "I suggest not downloading porn. It damages your chances of actually having sex, never mind a long-term relationship,"
May I succinctly say (and I'm speaking from not only personal experience here, but that of many of my customers who buy the BDSM gear I make and sell and who undoubtedly download and view porn): Bollocks!
I think you mean the B-Ark!
... may or may not have been here.
- Quantum Graffiti
Normally I dislike patent spats, but in this case I'll make an exception because maybe then FB will get rid of Timeline!
... but if I go out and buy a replica sword that I've seen in a movie, I'm not really going to go out and start carving people up with it, am I?
This looks more like some media bandwagon silly season "outrage" story.
... Ooo-err, missus!
... Messers Pott and Kettle-Black!