4079 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
You keep using phrases like "appeared to be armed" and "from the perspective of the gunship" these people were the "ENEMY", but, tell me, were any of them Brazilian Electricians because it seems to me that the same "Shoot first and don't even bother asking questions" doctrine appears(!) to have been applied here.
"Are they the enemy?"
"Dunno, but if we shoot them, they'll sure as hell be our enemies then!"
You do not have to wait to hear from your solicitor because Baroness O'Cathain's attempts to get a "Dangerous Writings Act" passed got short shrift from anyone with half a brain!
You won't get much disagreement from me on that!
To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke and Douglas Adams amongst others "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves elected is, ipso facto, unsuitable to hold that position"!
Of course if they actually bothered to *listen* to the people who are qualified to advise them... (howls of derisive laughter)
"departments have not always shown themselves to be intelligent clients..."
"...and sometimes show "a lack of capacity to engage effectively with suppliers"
In other news: (Bears, woods, Popes...)
The problem is that Politicians generally have damn all experience of the business world (apart from being bought expensive lunches on private yachts...) and consequently get taken for a ride by companies who see Government contracts as a cash cow because the requirements are unclear at the start and then repeatedly change according to what is flavour of the month.
This has been seen time and time again with billions of pounds of public money being pissed away on useless or ill-designed projects, yet still nothing is done to fix the underlying problem.
Perhaps they should register iAstroturf...
I blame the parents...
... the Internet is *not* a child-minding service!
How can a check catch someone who has "slipped through the net"?
It can't of course, that's why Vanessa George in that Nursery in Devon was able to carry on with her activities despite all the Government required checks...
'Is this guy all right?'
You move in with a new partner who has a couple of kids.
Since most sexual abuse takes place in the home surely her ex- should be entitled to check and make sure that YOU are not a kiddy fiddler.
Of course if he wanted custody but doesn't think he'll granted it, putting in requests for checks against you *and* her would be a good way of raising suspicion that maybe the kids will not be safe at her place...
Yvette Cloette was not killed, however her home was attacked and she had to leave see:
Come one, come all...
... lots of Government Pork for you all!
(I wonder what they call it in Islamic/ Jewish countries?!)
The Streisand Effect...
... strikes again!
"get caught doing something they are not allowed to be doing"
"Not allowed to be doing"? Allowed by whom??
There's a lot of things that a lot of people in this would would like to "not allow" others to do, be that being gay, freely protesting outside Parliament, looking at "extreme" pornography (ie something that the person advocating the law doesn't like) or visiting websites about the Tiananmen Square massacre.
If you really have no idea why people are "up in arms" about this, I suggest you consider the words of George Santayana: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
I think I smell someone at the US government Pork Barrel...
"The operational independence of Chief Constables."
Whilst I agree that Chief Constables should not be elected because that would lead to "populist policing" with the Tabloid Media trying to set the policing agenda with such nonsense as Zero Tolerance (=Zero Common Sense) and Megan's/ Sarah's Law (in the UK the Police know where about 97% of all sex offenders are, in the US some estimates say that up to 33% of sex offenders have "disappeared) when 'Sir Hugh said any idea the police were under "political influence" could undermine democracy' he rather neglected to mention that the ACPO influences politics without being accountable to anyone.
The "drought" of 1976...
... was probably the reason that the survey was done.
I remember some friends visiting from Australia who commented that where they lived they'd not had any rain for about five years and they were just considering declaring drought conditions...
... Google are all very well saying "you shouldn't censor the internet", but whilst they're amassing huge amounts of information on everyone and everything, they can't exactly claim to be "doing no evil"...
Those films are legal, because the law specifically excludes anything that's been classified by the BBFC.
However it *includes* extracts taken from such films if a "reasonable person" would assume that you owned those clips for "sexual arousal"!
In other words owning a whole film is fine, but an extract from it isn't.
Paging Mr Kafka...
The Thought Police are here!
The original idea of this law was, supposedly, to stop another death like that of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts who had, apparently, thousands of images and visited sites like Necrobabes repeatedly (despite the fact that JL admitted to a friend who later testified in court that she'd willingly and consensually played erotic asphyxiation games with Graham Coutts).
But it seems that if this so-called "Extreme Pornography" is so dangerous and corrosive that just watching *six seconds* of it is likely to result in someone committing an act of violence or murder and justifies locking them up, clearly it doesn't go far enough and we should now adopt the plans that Scotland has to include (simulated) rape images and whilst we're at it, introduce Baroness O' Cathain's proposed "Extreme Writings" law so we can't even *read* about such things in case we do them!
Obviously we are all such weak minded and impressionable idiots that we cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is not and can't figure out for ourselves whether doing something "extreme" is actually excessively dangerous, so the Nanny State must step in and take all this nasty stuff away from us and make us sit on the Naughty Step (or a jail cell) for even daring to *think* about such things...
... Given that a parsec is a bit over 3.2 light years, you'll be waiting a bit more than 280 years.
Try about 3000 years!
Why don't they test these things properly first??
A recent AVG 9.0 update didn't brick systems, but it's still incapable of working nicely with Zone Alarm and caused browsing problems for a lot of people.
The only way I found to get it working properly was to re-install it but remove the Link Scanner.
Once again I think updates should be released to the staff of the companies first, so they can properly Beta test it!
Pirates of the Caribbean IV...
... The Quest for More Money?
... Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel of Rum?
... From the Depths of Davy Jones' Locker?
... Flogging a Dead Squid?
Breach in Human Rights?
And what about the right of her neighbours to enjoy the peaceful occupation of their property whcih she has repeatedly infringed?
She and her partner can have as much nookie as they want, they just have to keep the bloody noise down!
"... Haven't we been here before and found a harmless old couple?"
"Shut up, Officer Liberal, and get that battering ram ready!"
"jumpjets have had to land on other ships than carriers in the past"
Yep, like this one from 1983: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983%20-%201110.html
Bravo the Appeals Court!
At last someone is starting to apply a little common sense to this "problem" and realising that criminalising kids for doing what kids do (you show me yours...) helps nobody!
Gamble's Empire Building again...
Jim Gamble (the man who brought you Operation Ore) wants to get Facebook to sign up because it will make his CEOP Empire a bit bigger since he can then say to everyone else "Well Facebook have signed up to this, so if they can do it, you can too, and it's For The Children!"
He probably won't be happy until every site that a child might access has a "We love CEOP" button on it and then he'll know his job is secure because they'll be inundated with thousands of spurious reports which they'll have to investigate.
Perish the thought that we might actually try *educating* children about the online risks instead of just passing more stupid legislation which will protect nobody...
"the government advised....
"...that the proposal would be legally unenforceable."
Wow! There's a first time for everything!
Oh, but, hang on, what they meant was that *someone else's* proposal would be legally unenforceable, not one of their own...
If you don't vote you can't complain when things don't go your way.
I recently had an election missive through the door from the Tories. In it there was a mini-questionnaire which said "Which of these Tory policies do you support?"
Err, excuse me? Where's the option for "None of the above"? Where's the option to say "Just because I may have voted for you does not mean I support all of your policies"? In fact where is there *anything* that lets us do more than vote for a particular coloured rosette but which allows whoever gets the most seats to claim that they now now have a mandate from the people to do X, Y and Z because one vote covers *everything* in their manifesto.
Representative Democracy? Not in this country!
"people who are "socially disadvantaged"
That would be all the people who are now unemployed because of El Gordo's inability to understand what happens when you try to fund Growth through Debt without actually *producing* anything...
Bad idea if (when) taken too far...
> all people have to do to keep porn off their machines is block all .xxx domains. If, as an existing "provider", you don't nab the .xxx when given the shot you lose the ability to resolve the site.
And, once again, I ask what happens to adult businesses like mine which deals in leather bondage gear and, thus, has adult content, but does not deal in "porn"?
Not forgetting, of course, the massive rush there will be to register sex.xxx or xxx.xxx etc, plus the cyber-squatters getting in on the act who will no doubt try to register affordable-leather.xxx and sell it to me for a hefty commission because I own the .co.uk version of it.
Now I am six...
So, six years ago, she supported Labour. Big deal.
Perhaps we could see some comments about Edward McMillan-Scott who was once the leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, who has recently defected to the Lib Dems...?
Oh, but of course, people there are too interested in sniggering like like school boys.