I'll support those cuts...

... and ones to the Armed Forces and Civil Service etc *PROVIDED* you start at the *TOP*.

We are definitely in the position of "Too many Chiefs" whose main job is to warm seats and shuffle lots of paperwork (usually in the form of "reports") to make it look as if they are indispensible which the poor bloody infantry (or equivalent) are trying to do more and more with less and less and new recruits are harder and harder to get because the resources are just not there to support them and train them to do the jobs that are desperately required.

"Tekeli-li...!

"Tekeli-li...!"

(Flames because it's the best way of getting rid of them!)

Now that's...

... "scary"!

Again you don't get it.

You ask "Why is it a good idea to allow shops to sell adult rated games to kids?" when what you should be asking is "Why is it a good idea to have a law forbidding shops to sell adult rated games to kids?" with the concommitant legal penalties etc that such a law would include.

And pardon me if I don't waste my time addressing your silly "murder should be legal" Straw Man argument.

Think you've run out of arguments...

... that's why you're running away from this one with a desperate grab for the Burden of Proof Fallacy (not to mention a pathetic attempt to imply that because I disagree with you, I must have kiddie porn on my hard drive).

It is not up to me to come up with a "better term" for "making" here, it's up to you to demonstrate that this is actually "making" something, a term which I think most people would generally accept to imply "creating an original work", ie in this case actually taking photographs of a child, which is clearly not what is happening.

You're right, you don't get it.

The point is that the ESA wants parents to be *responsible* for what their children do and buy and play, not the State or the retail industry.

@What would you call it?

If I download a Linux distro, am I "making" Linux? I don't think so, I think I'm downloading it.

What would you call it?

Ah, but...

... then you start equipping them with lasers and guided missiles and directed EMP weapons... ;-)

@Adam West

I notice you don't mention the *cars* which tailgate motorcyclists like me at a distance so close that I first thought there was something wrong with my top box when I looked in my mirrors, only then to realise that there was a 4x4 sitting about ten feet from my rear wheel!

Nor do you mention the classic SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) as a motorist pulls out of a junction because they don't see the motorbike coming.

The DFTs own research states "Of the total cases, 681 (38%) involve ROWVs [Right of Way Violations]. However, less than 20% of these involve a motorcyclist who rated as either fully or partly to blame for the accident."

"the most common failure of other drivers in motorcycle accidents is a failure in the continuity of their observation of the road scene. Over 65% of ROWV accidents where the motorcyclist is not regarded as to blame involve a driver who somehow fails to see a motorcyclist who should be in clear view, and, indeed, frequently is in view to witnesses or other road users in the area."

It concludes:

"The main conclusions of our research are as follows:

"• A way must be found of targeting the other parties who so frequently cause motorcycle collisions. Drivers have to be made aware of the numerous ways that they can fail to perceive a motorcycle in the typical ROWV accidents that are most frequently not the fault of the rider involved. Our results suggest that interventions should be focused on (but not exclusively confined to) older drivers."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacc.pdf

So before you start slagging off bikers, I suggest you consider the log in your own eye!

"if you don't do something with it?"

I don't give a toss what you do with it, just do it *EFFICIENTLY*!

I stay out of the "Global Warming is Man Made", "No it isn't!", "Yes it is!" nonsense and just point out that if we start using that "great big puddle of oil" in a more efficient manner (instead of burning huge amounts in gas-guzzling 4x4s...) then we will, ipso facto, reduce the amount of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere *as well as* delaying the point at which those finite resources run out.

In other words, a win-win situation!

Why didn't they hand it in...?

Because if they had, the Police would have just gone "Phew! That was a close one, but not *learned* anything from the experience!"

Each story like this just illustrates the complete ignorance of basic security provisions by those who are supposed to *protect* our security and until they get the message, there will be yet more such stories.

@Well

Tell me, exactly how many crosswords do you do? (NB I'm talking cryptic crosswords, not the quick one in The Sun...)

Using a dictionary or thesaurus is not "looking up the answer in a book", it is a way of finding the precise definition or shade of meaning that the compiler has used which is often deliberately obscure or oblique.

For instance if a compiler uses the word "neat" in a clue eg "Neat offspring (4)" it may be in the sense of "clean, tidy, orderly", but it could also be the archaic term for "a domestic bovine animal" [Collins]

Now if you've never heard the second definition before, you're going to be stuck until you pick up a good dictionary and go "Aha! That was what it means, so the offspring of a neat is a calf!"

Implying that this is somehow "cheating" simply shows a lack of understanding on your part.

Dear AC, which site do *you* run?

"I have yet to speak to a single fellow website owner in the adult world who is against this."

Really? And exactly how many have you spoken to? Because I, as just one website owner who supplies adult products am entirely against this as a waste of time and energy which will just increase my costs, add extra bureaucratic hassle which I don't need and do *NOTHING* to benefit my business.

I think you will find it is only a vocal minority who are in favour of this.

As for: "For others that do not have such a good domain name, this is good news."

Is it really? Do you think that someone who has anyadultdomain.co.uk will get preferential treatment if .xxx is brought in and will be the first person allow to register anyadultdomain.xxx?

Of course not, what will happen is a frantic "land grab" where the cybersquatters and domain resellers will bombard the system with applications for all the "good" domain names (and probably every other adult related domain name they can find and then offer to sell them to legitimate businesses for many thousands of pounds or dollars more than the $60 registration fee they paid.

@Sly and Tim Bates

Once again I have to point out that whilst my site might deal with BDSM gear, it is *less* "pornographic" that what you can legally buy off the top shelves of newsagents.

So should I be compelled to ditch affordable-leather.co.uk and re-register as affordable-leather.xxx because my product images offend your delicate sensibilities?

Or should I do (as I have already mentioned) put appropriate warnings, register with blocking services etc and expect *YOU* as (presumably) responsible parents to do *YOUR* job of protecting *YOUR* children from material that *YOU* don't like instead of you wanting *ME* to do the job for you?

But...

... that's not important right now.

See the Unfair Contract Terms Act for details:

11 The “reasonableness” test

(1)In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M1 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M2 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770050_en_1

As mentioned by AC, the contract is made when a price is agreed and money is exchanged. Unless the EULA forms part of that it is not "reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."

Cheating??

Exactly *how* is using a dictionary (or a thesaurus) "cheating" when doing a crossword?

Using a word finder would be, using a crossword solver would be, but not using a dictionary or thesaurus to check a definition or find the right "shade" of meaning to crack a compiler's clue.