4077 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
He's said it was...
... a "race against time" to protect children from harm
They're learning... :-(
You need to grow up...
... that way the point won't be quite so far over your head.
"it seems that Joe Muslim is no happier with the lunatic fringe than anyone else. Hopefully, they can appreciate tht they are not being targetted by this."
It doesn't matter whether they are "being targetted" the fact is that they *ARE* being watched and monitored *just in case* they may be terrorists, but I'm sure your argument is "well, if they have nothing to hide..."
As for "irony and hypocrisy", again you miss the point that all those individuals who are taking photographs are not clubbing together, putting all their images on a central database and then examining them for "suspicious" or "extremist" behaviour with the intent of trying to spot anyone who might be up to no good.
Of course the fact that *nobody* might be up to no good seems to have escaped you too.
Perhaps we should all follow you with cameras and monitor your every move just to be certain that you're not breaking any laws. Still, you've got nothing to hide, have you?
Does Mr Blincoe have an axe to grind here...?
He starts by referring to "freetards" (always a nicely unbiased term) and then refers to the "self-described software freedom activist" with the sneering implication that the FSF is just the output of a lone nutcase in his bedroom (who publishes the GPL...)
Not only that, but there's a huge "Black Helicopters" icon beside the piece just in case Mr Blincoe's implicit message is too subtle for us to understand.
He also refers to Robert Stallman's "lengthy posting", yet it's shorter than quite a few El Reg articles (was this just an attempt to deter people from actually going and *reading* what it says so they only have Robert Blincoe's take on it?)
Mr Blincoe seems to want to portray Mr Stallman's output as the rantings of an insignificant individual, for what reason I am not sure, but it is clear that his piece should have included the word *OPINION* in big letters at the top.
From the steaming "Militant Islam Monitor"...
... "Since 2001, over 1,200 terrorist suspect have been arrested, over 140 have been charged and more than 45 have been convicted of terrorism offences,"
So between 11 and 12 percent of people suspected of terrorism have been charged but only a third of those were actually convicted, so the success rate has been between three and four percent.
Meanwhile what has been the reaction of the other 96% or so? "Oh well, I didn't mind being arrested and having my home searched and my family and friends hassled and maybe losing my job because it was all to protect us from terrorism, so that's ok..."???
"the areas targeted by these cameras will also benefit from (hopefully) a general reduction in crime. If this also results in catching Islamic Jihadists where is the problem?"
And if stopping and searching young men for being "suspiciously black or asian" has been shown to work so well in reducing crime, where is the problem?
Well the problem is the word "IF" because, like all the photographers being hassled under Section 44 there has not been *ONE* example of a terrorist being caught, and of the many young black or asian men, the majority were not engaged in criminal activity, but there have been a *lot* of people harassed whilst going about their lawful business.
You also sneer at another poster for alleged "cheap racist accusations", but then you raise the spectre of "political correctness" when people stand up and say "No, these civil liberties are *not* negotiable, we won't give up essential liberties for a little temporary security".
As for your nonsensical claim that "if this sort of policing had taken place as a response to the Twin Towers two large scale invasions wouldn't have taken place, and indeed the Islamic communities would not now be so prone to radicalization" except that it *DID* take place and communities *HAVE* been radicalised!
But, of course, that didn't affect you, so it's not your problem, is it...?
"the purity of English"...?
In the words of James D Nicholl...
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
Kids have always created their own slang, some of it may get absorbed into the language, but most of it just dies off and gets replaced by the "next thing" to come along.
Making a big deal about it just makes kids *more* likely to use it because it annoys the older generations.
@Do not want...
Also be careful about using unravelit.com because if you make enquiries about eg insurance through their service they pass on your e-mail address and suddenly I started getting lots of spam to unravelit.com@mydomainname and, when I complained, simply said "well, sorry, it wasn't us"
How tall was Napoleon Bonaparte...?
Boney surrounded himself with members of the Imperial Guard who all stood at least 6' tall and it didn't seem to cause him a problem!
(Although that begs the question "How tall was the Duke of Wellington"... ;-) )
You can't make this stuff up...
I have just seen an interview with Parmjit Dhanda, the former Labour Education Minister, on BBC News 24 where he made the astonishing statements that since the scheme had already been modified this was a "knee-jerk:" reaction by the Coalition and, even more mind-boggling, that "this was a sad day for children and their parents and a good day if you were a predatory paedophile"!
Well New Labour know all about knee-jerk reactions since they made enough of them during their time of office, but to say that getting rid of a scheme that relied on gossip, hearsay and unsubstantianted accusations to make decisions and that would assume that *everyone* who wanted to educate or help children was a potential threat to them was a "good day if you were 'a predatory paedophile" is utterly beneath contempt.
"But did they find any terrorists with these stops?"
Reads it again and laughs some more....
... all round!
... buys a lot of pain killers.
But not a lot of common sense...
"consumers are advised to disable Autorun in Windows"?
How about Microsoft issuing a patch that will disable Autorun instead...?
Another Portsmouth resident
A couple of weeks ago I was putting my rubbish out and noticed that there were a whole pile of bin bags stuck in front of my property, also last week someone dumped a washing machine in the alley at the back of my property.
Why does anyone think that if there is a payment or reward scheme it won't be subject to similar abuses?
One croc said to another croc...
... wow, mate, you get wi-fi on that thing...?
Oh deary me...
... Daggersedge says he's right, so that's the end of the argument...!
The point that you are missing is that it is not "what is so sacred about porn" but "why should porn be treated differently from anything else" just because you (or they) don't like it (NB I'm talking about porn featuring consenting adults before you start trying to drag in red herrings about kiddie porn)
And using phrases like "any colour as long as it's black" have a certain irony when you're talking about South Africa!! (SA refused to sign up for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948 because it required all people to be considered equal...)
PS Moderation is *not* censorship, these forums have a set of rules which people agree to abide by to post here. If you don't like those rules you are *FREE* to go and set up your own forums with your own set of rules.
Censorship is when *all* forums are forced to abide by a government imposed set of rules where you are not free to set up your own ones that have a different set of rules.
South Africa has signed and ratified the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, Article 9 of which states that "1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information" so they agree that there *is* a right to "view pornography or anything else" unless they're going to start picking and choosing which information is acceptable for people to receive.
And as this is the *African* Charter, it is at the very least the business of others on that continent apart from those living in South Africa since those others are "Firmly convinced of their duty to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights and freedoms and taking into account the importance traditionally attached to these rights and freedoms in Africa".
Yes, other countries do things differently, but when they a) accept a set of rights but then b) start restricting those rights, someone needs to call them to account.
And what if someone is searching for oh, I don't know, some stats to *verify* that claim about "116,000 searches for child pornography" per day?
Exactly what terms do you think they might use?
Oh, look, someone searching for "child pornography"...!
Can I just add a big...
... SO WHAT???
People like looking at porn, well, isn't that a surprise! Despite the best efforts of the Mary Whitehouses et al of this world, the human interest in sex and all that goes with it continues unabated.
In other news, Popes are Catholic and (oh, you know the rest...)
Dear Mr Nigel 11
It has come to our attention that you have been treated in the past for high blood pressure. As such we are increasing your life insurance and car insurance premiums as we consider you to be a greater risk.
The Big Insurance Company.
PS Still, you've got nothing to hide, so why should you worry?
@Mike JVX - Stop with the Scare Tactics
Tell me, are you some sort of shill for a company who has a nice lucrative contract for this system?
I got a letter from my local GPs office saying "We notice from your medical records that you have requested for your records not to be held on the shared electronic record" and pointing out that there is a local record that I also have to opt out from with an attached form so I could fill that in and drop it in (very helpful of them).
Also attached was a document (see the link below) basically trying to scare the reader into thinking "OMG if I don't have a summary car record I might be killed by someone in the NHS screwing up and not taking the basic precautions that they should!"
Well I don't have any allergies, on-going conditions or other medical problems that anyone needs to know about. If I did then, like my friend who is diabetic, I would carry a card in my wallet or an emergency bracelet/ dog-tag with the relevant details in, rather than having the people attending me have to a) look for some details in my wallet and *then* phone up/ log in to a computer system to hopefully find *MY* records and not someone else with the same name or, even worse, the records of someone else which have been incorrectly input by some minimum wage contract staff.
So, no thanks, I'm not going to be scared into submitting my details to something, even one which I will have "24 hour access to" in order to check it for errors (why should I have to validate *their* data input?) and I don't think that this will give me "peace of mind" when I'll be thinking "how secure is their system *really*?"
... there is usually the obligatory long drawn out chord on the Accordian to give people time to leave the area :-)
People downvoted him because he pointed out a spelling error and ignored the rest of the comment.
In any case, pedanting spelling errors is the sort of thing that you expect from commentards, not El Reg journotards.
... so this guy is effectively saying he's deliberately attempting to spread malware?
Isn't there a law against that?
They can probably get away with it...
... by claiming that this image is "not for sexual arousal".
However what would be better is if everyone writes to their MP (find their contact details on http://www.writetothem.com) and urge them to include the Cartoon Porn and Extreme Porn laws in the Government's Freedom Bill which, as stated in the Queen's Speech is to "Repeal unnecessary laws" as it's clear that these laws are most definitely unnecessary, unneeded and unenforceable.