@No-one's mentioned the books

Well I haven't for a good reason: I was trying to repress the memory of Blade Runner 2 which tried (and completely failed) to square the circle between Do Androids... and the film Blade Runner and was a hopeless mish-mash that failed to comprehend that the two were entirely different entities.

Prior art...

Blofeld did it first!

Also speaking as a surfer...

... you've got more chance of dying in an accident on the way to or from the beach than you have of being a victim of a shark attack.

Try doing some research which might improve your "thinkin'"

Stop...

... Hammer Time!

And there is one thing I can't tolerate...

... which is people's instant knee-jerk thoughtless reaction to an accusation that someone is abusing children (or providing such images) or that it's obviously copyright infringement without actually thinking "we've only got the Police's word for this".

@Chris Miller

Belle de Jour was an *escort* not a pornographer and she's a Research Scientist with specialisations in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology, she has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science.

Let me see: ignorant person makes Straw Man argument based on their own lack of knowledge. Colour me unsurprised...!

Or perhaps...

... take a lesson from another Stanley Kubrick film and play "Try a Little Tenderness"

I like to think of the Brig like King Arthur

Remember the Sylvester McCoy story Battlefield? The Doctor was Merlin, Ace was the Lady of the Lake, so who was the Brigadier...?

@Sechin needs to brush up on his sources

Perhaps he should have googled for them...

Well it would...

... if it wasn't the same sort of skewed and nonsensical rationale which means that, in the UK, under the Dangerous Pictures Act an image taken from a film can be illegal even if the film itself isn't!

(Oh and the same goes for the "Dangerous Cartoons" Act...)

@Pete and Dud?

Whilst it does sound a bit like Pete and Dud, it's actually Fred Colon and Nobby Nobbs! :-)

@UNTIL YOU WENT AND LOOKED FOR IT !

Ah, but you have to remember that it's just *knowing* that it's out there which is the problem!

People like Wacky Jacqui simply *cannot* bear the idea of others looking at things they don't like, hence the desire to pass the legislation like the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Cartoons acts.

It's laughable that she says "The internet service providers need to take more responsibility." err, no Jacqui it's *YOU* who needs to take more responsibility and understand that everyone else *also* needs to take responsibility for what they (or their children) look at. We don't need your Nanny State saying "We think this is bad for you, so *you* are not allowed to see it".

@Wommit

You're missing the point.

I have a website for my business selling leather bondage gear, it hosts my catalogue, lets people by products etc.

What it does *not* do is supply the sort of contact linking and "like" functionality available to Facebook users and for me to try to emulate that would be massively expensive and time consuming.

I don't want to have to re-invent the wheel and create the Affordable Leather Products Social Networking site when there's something already available out there, but neither do I want to spend time and effort setting such a site up (something which I had been considering) if I can suddenly and without warning or explanation, find all that work wiped out because one person has complained to Facebook that they don't like what I do.

Facebook just need to engage in some form of consistency in their decision making, something which sadly appears to be lacking right now.

What about...

... Terpsichorean ecdysiasts as featured in the M*A*S*H books ;-)

@Am I missing something?

Nope, Google are.

We're constantly warned to watch out for spoof/ scam/ phishing sites and the URL is one simple way of checking this. Without it we lose an important safety measure.

"Idiotic"???

"It was a very different, very BRUTAL, world back then - to try and apply today's morality to it is just idiotic."

Yet there are those from the church who want to apply the morality of two thousand or more years ago to the world today!

@The Moderatrix

Please, do us all a favour and don't let this discussion turn into an irrelevant Pro/ Anti Israel rant fest...

Thanks!

Exactly...!

A site that wants to check if my Javascript is secure first asks me to enable Javascript!

Erm, perhaps they're not aware that that's a pretty good positive result already!!

I have to crouch to get through...

Clearly you're not aware that the correct position *is* bent over...!

Yeah, but..

... I bet you're also into scat as well...!

(NB to Commentards: If you don't get this joke, *do not* start searching for references. Or if you do, don't say I didn't warn you!)

"just one weapon in an arsenal."

Compare and contrast a sniper's rifle and a shotgun...

"The boxer, not the flying squirrel"

Damn, spoil my laughter, why don't you?

@Well

Unfortunately the Tories are probably too afraid of upsetting Middle England to risk trying to get rid of either the Dangerous Pictures (Extreme Porn) or Dangerous Cartoons laws :-(

"You can only put so much in one bill."

Really? See the last Government's "Christmas Tree" Bills where everybody got a chance to hang something on it, so much so that the majority of it was never debated by our elected representatives and even the Lords didn't have the time to go through it all.

As you say, the risk is that, once this (hopefully) goes through, any other such repeals/ reformations will be kicked into the long long grass with a "Well, we've spent a lot of time on this, so now we want to go on to something else".

Meanwhile people will still be open to arrest for dangerous pictures/ cartoons/ video clips of Tony the Tiger etc...