4118 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
"include the Association of Chief Police Officers"
And about time too!
Although I can see that going down like a lead balloon at the next Freemason's Dinner...
"the ASA has no legal remedies in such a case"
In other words, they're a toothless watchdog who can do nothing more than wag a stern finger at a an advertiser and say "tut, tut, that's naughty".
@For f##ks sake
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, as I've pointed out in previous posts on this subject, prostitution itself is *not* illegal, it's just so much that surrounds it that is.
The fact is, however, that kerb crawling, especially when it happens in or near residential areas, is a problem for local people, but the solution is not to criminalise the women or the punters, but to make it easier for women to be able to advertise their services via the web etc and allow them to work in premises with appropriate protection and security to ensure their safety thus making kerb crawling unnecessary in the first place.
Sorry, Baroness Ludford, but...
... saying “The EU cannot stand idly by while fundamental liberties are being undermined within its borders” rather over-looks the fact that the EU *has* done exactly that and continues to do so, the UK "Dangerous Pictures" and "Dangerous Drawings" Acts are just two of the latest examples.
However at least the noble Baroness is making an effort to ensure that they *can't* simply let this sort of thing slide, the problem is making sure that it doesn't keep on happening.
No, *you* don't understand!
The arguments you put forward are the same ones which allowed the USA to try to censor adult material by deciding that "local standards" (even if they're the local standards of Bigotsville in the Bible Belt) should determine what *everyone else* in the country should or should not be allowed to read/ see/ view.
You list things that *you* want and then with sheer arrogance, decide that because *you* think those things are right and good, they must be right and good for everyone, so everyone should agree with you.
Sorry, you don't speak for anyone but yourself here, so don't assume that can tell everyone else that you have the right to decide this matters for them.
The only reason...
... that Segways are not legal to use on the road is that they are not constructed in accordance with BS6102 part 1 which are the regulations that govern the use of electric bicycles, nor are they classed as either Class II or Class III Invalid Carriages under The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988.
Of the two, the latter (especially class III) are by far the more dangerous (and certainly more dangerous than a Segway) because they are allowed on the pavement and you can have 300kg or so of machine and rider capable of traveling at 13kph being driving by someone who may not have the best visual acuity or mental faculties and, indeed, they have been responsible for a number of deaths and injuries.
So before you start taking the pi$$ out of Segways and saying that they shouldn't be legal because the riders look ridiculous (or some other spurious BS such as you didn't like Lembit Opik) try looking at some facts.
Yes, we should send them all back to breaking rocks, because that worked so well in reducing the re-offending rate back in Victorian times, didn't it...?
(Cue all the Downvotes from Daily Mail reading commentards)
So why not just change the bloody batteries...!!
I had an electric car when I was a kid. I'd run it round and round the carpet and then, when it stopped, instead of plugging it into the mains to charge, I'd just take the old batteries out and put in a new set of HP7's!
So why this nonsensical assertion that you need to recharge the battery *IN* the car? All that is needed is simple bit of cooperation between the car manufacturers to pick a standard battery format/ layout, drive up to the garage, park in the right place and mechanical systems unplug the old battery (which is taken away for recharging), plug a new charged one in and away you go!
Charging up your battery "at the pump" makes as much sense as refining petrol at the garage!
... Lewis Page gives us his standard "Why would anyone want anything that isn't US manufactured and supplied and to which they have the keys to?" spiel...
Here's a hint, Lewis. I'll sell you a car, but reserve the right to tell you when and where you can drive it if I feel like it.
Is that ok by you?
Better not be...
... Really Undesirable Malfeasance in Public Office!
(Ooh missus ;-) )
Now that's what I'm talking about!
Whilst I'm not generally in favour of vague and ill-defined laws (mostly because they're used to criminalise innocent members of the public for doing things that The Powers That Be don't like) this one definitely seems to redress the balance of "One law for them..."!
Forget about piddly slaps on the wrist from the DPA legislation, *THIS* is something that should make those in Public Office really sit up and take notice that there is something that can and will be used to penalise them for being negligent with the public's data.
So if the Police, Council, MOD, whoever has a clearly stated policy of eg No e-mailing spreadsheets, no data on USB sticks, no unencrypted laptops, no posting insecure CDs full of data etc and someone breaks those policies it *won't* simply be a case of "naughty, don't do it again", it will be "You have been found guilty by this Court..."
That should stop such slip-shod behaviour from being so common place!
"That would mean the entire universe is subject to my jurisdiction...
"...and that's a really hard concept for me to accept"
Wow! An American Judge who actually understands that there are *limits* to her powers!!
"How do you respond to the problem...?"
Why, by State Control of the Right to Freedom of Expression of course!
And by bringing up the bogeymen of paedophiles and terrorists it just makes it so much easier because we're Thinking of the Children!
thumb drives with a copy of the Bill of Rights encoded into the block device
Now that's got style!
"filtering reduces the risk of abuse by...
"...preventing internet users from being accidentally exposed to child pornography."
Right, because we're all such weak-minded and morally bankrupt people that if we were to see this sort of stuff we would immediately think "Gosh, I must go out and abuse a child!"
"slightly naïve politician"?
Any politician is naiive if they're gullible enough to be suckered by a newspaper's weasel-worded question.
One that starts eg "Do you support..." or "Do you think..." or "Would you say that..." should be treated with utmost caution because it's almost guaranteed that they're looking for anything they can hook an accusation of "MP says..." onto it.
Does anyone know...
... if they have a BofH working there and, if so, were any managers trapped at the time...?
@Ian Michael Gumby
Did Birgitta Jónsdóttir "illegally steal" (do you know the meaning of the word "tautology"?) the information? No.
Is making the information available "illegal" simply because the USA doesn't like it? No.
Is the USA going on a fishing expedition to try to find something incriminating against her a breach of their own laws? Quite possibly and certainly hypocritical.
Is Twitter right to refuse to just hand over this information? I would certainly say so and so do lawyers in America.
PS as I said in a previous post 'I also feel that you should look up the term "Straw Man"...' but clearly you haven't as you clearly still have no idea of the meaning of the expression.
"offical and properly entered requests for information"
The first point is that it seems a little more than hypocritical for the US to be objecting to people "unofficially" distributing *their* politicians information, but then deciding that they can *demand* information from others.
The second point, following on from that is that this seems to be more of a fishing expedition ("Let's see who she's been talking to and what she's said, maybe we can find something incriminating") than a request for actual *evidence* of wrongdoing.
"Do they realize I'm a Member of Parliament in Iceland?"
Do you think they care?
"America. Fuck Yeah!"
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."
The Hunting of the Snark
- Lewis Carroll
Unfortunately, unlike the Bellman, your repeatedly claiming that I "blindly hate" the USA and following that false assumption up with the equally false conclusion that I therefore "blindly stick up for Assange" does not make it true.
Try some facts some time.
@Ian Michael Gumby
How do I really feel?
Well I really feel that you've rather missed the point.
Yes, there's a lot of chaff amongst the wheat here. Yes, there's trivial stuff there, but that doesn't mean that *all* the content is trivial and not worth releasing, nor does it mean that Wikileaks should decide *for themselves* what is or isn't worth releasing.
I also feel that you should look up the term "Straw Man"...
Don't you know, punters aren't supposed to make a *profit* in casinos?
"releases of methane...
"[...] will not have the capacity to influence climate"
Erm, no, but surely they'll be devastating for sea-life which relies on the dissolved oxygen in the water?
"Current laws are not strong enough..."
... to protect the profits of big companies, just like those who got the EU to introduce legislation to prevent "grey imports" from outside the EU which could be sold at cheaper prices than "official" products on the grounds of "trademark infringement"...
Re: Come on Coalition
A follow up to that post:
Kevin Webster has just been cleared of any wrong doing.
"It's good to know ordinary members of a jury can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if the law and its enforcers decide that the distinction doesn't matter."
Trust me, I'm not muddling anything up.
Both cases involve the same law (Sections 63 - 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) and involve *possession* of these images, the one that I cited just goes even further that the one mentioned in the article and takes it to its ludicrous extreme that *even though* the Prosecution accepts that the images are fakes, it falls under Paragraph 7 of Section 63 ie:
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic
way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s
anus, breasts or genitals,
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person
or animal was real.
My sincere hope is that the Jury will see sense and say "This is a stupid law, we don't care what it says, we're going to find the defendant Not Guilty".
"surely there are a large amount of horror films which are now illegal to view"
No, because the law contains a specific exclusion for films which have been BBFC classified, but only in their *entirety*
64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1) Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images
contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been
extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally
for the purpose of sexual arousal.
"Blind hatred of the United States"? Err, no. Just a dislike of policies promulgated by a country that calls itself "The Land of the Free" when that should really be "The Land of the Free to Say Stuff We Approve of".
"Assange a flake and egomaniac"? Doesn't mean that the stuff Wikileaks was publishing is wrong or that people shouldn't have a right to know it.
"Guardian reading"? Nope, don't read it any more than I watch Fox News. Do you?
"A little bit censored" is like "a little bit pregnant".
Try looking at the history of the US FOI act and see how it's been fought over by various Administrations and how the definition of "for national security" has changed (currently it allows for a retroactive determination of "for national security" *after* an FOI request is made!) and then tell me that the USA is really being as open and honest as it purports to be.
Come on, Coalition...
... you've had plenty of time, there were enough responses to your Freedom Bill consultation objecting to this stupid law , so get your bloody fingers out and get rid it before we see more cases like this one
* * * * *
A MAN who downloaded staged images of sexual violence against women has gone on trial under new laws banning "extreme pornography."
In one of the first cases of its kind in the country, Kevin Webster is accused of having "grossly offensive or disgusting" pictures, even though they are "fakes".
Darron Whitehead, prosecuting, told jurors [...] "We know the images were fake. The question is whether it is realistic or portrayed in that way.
"The intentions of the persons within those images are irrelevant. It is what is depicted in those images which is material."
* * * * *
WTF? We know they're fake, but because they *LOOK* realistic, we're going to prosecute him anyway!
The sound you hear is more high-fives being exchanged in the USA because the story is now about Assange instead of what the US Government has been up to behind people's backs...
The US Government wants to classify anything which it thinks that its people "don't need to know". The Chinese Government wants to deny people access to anything which thinks they "don't need to know".
How fine do you want to split that hair?
However it *is* hypocritical for the US to demand that people who reveal *their* secrets be censored (or even charged with "treason"!) whilst at the same time saying that it's ok when it's *other countries'* censorship!
They've got your number...?
Well, yes, when I've had to phone the Emergency Services in the past I've heard the operator say to the Police/ Ambulance/ Fire Service "Connecting you with 023 92..." so this is hardly news.
And why would they *not* keep the details? "Err, guv, someone phoned up reporting hearing a woman screaming in Clifton, Bristol just before Xmas, but we didn't keep their number"??
As for "senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation" that sounds like someone asked a typical Daily Mail weasel worded question "So, Mr Senior Officer, would you say that this information could be used against people...?" (Senior Officer shrugs) "Well, yes". "AHA! Hack scribbles down 'Senior Officer admits...''"
Whilst I'm all in favour of authorities not keeping excessive amounts of data for longer than is necessary, unless there's any evidence of this information being data mined to innocent people's detriment, this seems a total non-story.
"real impact of this is likely to be...
"price rises of between five and eight per cent as shops round up prices."
Or small businesses having to swallow the rise to keep prices down to stay competitive :-(
... have got in ahead of the rush by deciding to ditch their speed cameras and save a quarter of a million quid a year on cameras which are mostly badly sited and do damn all for actual road safety.
Perhaps they'd like to use that money put a few more traffic Police out on the streets to catch the drunks and the idiot drivers instead which would do a lot more good.