4515 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
"... because I could see the writing was on the wall and I was going to get the push anyway. So now I can sit here and say "Won't Someone Think of Me... erm... I mean The Children!" and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being "pro-paedo" because what they are doing is not what *I* say is "best for children" and after Operation Ore etc I should know!"
Go, go now and try not to let the door hit your arse on the way out!
@Are you dense?
Given that you're posting as AC, I have no idea if you're the same AC that came out with the nonsense of "Let's can it. Then you can walk your daughter's class to the local post office. You and previously convicted paedophiles." or not.
Presuming you are, however, you've totally missed the point I was making that a record of a "prior conviction" *WILL* include such miscarriages of justice as the Operation Ore Cautions which were induced because of inadequate "standards of proof".
So innocent and harmless people will be barred from working with children because they've been tainted with false accusations by Gamble and co.
Oh, and calling someone a "deluded wingnut" etc etc really doesn't add anything to the validity of your argument...
printer cartridges £398.
Ah, they must be buying OEM supplies from Epson or HP...
Avoiding != Evading
Avoiding paying tax is sensible, evading paying tax is illegal.
Spending government money in sensible ways is what we *want* them to do!
@Can you prove you're not a paedophile?
"a CRB check CAN prove someone IS / WAS ... does sexual preference change after a few years?"
Might I remind you of Operation Ore? Have you forgotten that people were brow-beaten into accepting Cautions for Child Porn offences which they had *NEVER* committed (they had just been the victim of credit card fraud) rather than have their names and reputations dragged through the Courts by Jim Gamble and co such that even if (when) they were acquitted, the taint of that charge would still linger?
Except, of course, now they have accepted that Caution, the CRB check *WILL* pick up on that and that is "proof" they are a paedophile, except, of course, they never were.
Meanwhile someone who wasn't caught by Gamble and Co but who has never been caught is obviously "safe" to work with children...
@"with good counselling and support"
Or just pay them by the hour...
... amidst all the "Hah! We were right all along!" gloating from both sides I put in a bid for us simply trying to use the available energy resources *more efficiently* thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses/ soot/ other pollutants and extending the lifespan of limited fossil fuel supplies whilst we try to find viable alternatives.
But I doubt anyone will pay attention as usual.
Could this be...
... the reason for the lack of spectators at many events?
They're all too busy being entertained by the thousands of sex workers....
No, the point of privatisation of the utilities...
... was to give Maggie a big chunk of money which she could use to buy the next election!
Unfortunately what we now have is oligopoly/ virtual monopoly suppliers who have no interest in *actually* competing with each other (because that will harm their profits) so they make it as hard as possible for the consumer to compare like with like and use all sorts of confusion marketing techniques to baffle people into paying more for their gas, electricity or water than they need to.
... Societe General have been *completely exonerated* by the Court who judged them to be totally blameless in this matter despite what appear to be blatantly inadequate security precautions and a lack of monitoring systems which should have prevented this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
Since when does...
... thinking that someone can do a better job that self-styled "protector of the children" and empire builder Jim Gamble mean that you are "pro-paedophile"???
He has probably done *more* to bring child protection into disrepute than anyone by pandering to the Tabloid Press and alienating the industry with his arrogant "do it my way or I'll get the media to attack your reputations" bully boy tactics and the sooner he's gone the better.
Ten thousand towers...
... the cyclonic hum of a trillion twisting gears, all air gone earthquake-dark in a mist of oil, in the fractioned heat of intermeshing wheels. Black seamless pavements, uncounted tributary rivulets for the frantic travels of the punched-out lace of data, the ghosts of history loosed in this hot shining necropolis. Paper-thin faces billow like sails, twisting, yawning, tumbling through the empty streets, human faces that are borrowed masks, and lenses for a peering Eye.
- The Difference Engine, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling
@Ian Michael Gumby
No, you are the one who has missed my point.
You brought in the political "left" and "right" which are completely irrelevant to this story and then tried to stop anyone from down-voting your post by implying that, if they did, they were "leftist leading simple thinking".
You may have had a reasonable point, but you blew it by using tactics like these.
It is high time that every country recognised that "Women's Rights" *INCLUDES* the right of a woman to decide *for herself* what she does with her body and to enjoy the same protections from violence and crime that everyone else does!
Getting paid to drive a taxi, white van, truck or anything else does *NOT* make someone a "professional driver"!
As you mention, those who think of themselves as "professional drivers" are often extremely *bad* drivers because they think they know it all and probably think they have right of way over everything else on the road too which makes them very dangerous.
But not an M-class planet...?
So what you really mean is "next time we won't go for the laid back, force legislation through Parliament technique, we'll just get the Jackboots out and kick in a few front doors."
("But don't worry, if you've got nothing to hide...)
Ok,I object to this on Civil Liberties grounds...
... but it would be incredibly useful for people like me who find it extremely hard to remember names and faces, next time I see someone, a quick zap with the camera and it can pop up their name and other details to save me having to say "Sorry, I can't remember who you are"!
Smile (for the camera!)
"lack of international support"
This is due to the long running playground spat between Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro have the rights for the game in the USA and Canada, Mattel have the rights for the rest of the world and they cannot agree to play nicely together...
Ok, it's good that ASP are challenging the nonsensical puritanical mores of their country, but I find it disappointing that they "express its opposition to violence in all its forms, " with the seeming implication that consensual (but extreme) BDSM videos are the same as non-consensual, violent sexual acts because they say "A category of Non Violent Erotica would include all sexually explicit material between consenting adults that is free from depictions of violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language."
Perhaps they're trying a "small steps" technique to slowly push back the barriers without the sort of resistance that a "legalise it all" campaign could cause, but they seem to be risking codifying another set of barriers which would be harder to get rid of because "Well, the ASP lobbied for these laws!"
It's also disappointing that they cite "a 2005 Eros summary of all recent research studies into the effects of violent media on children" when they are talking about *adult* material designed for people who are obviously *not* children and should know the difference between right and wrong and consent and non-consent.
BTW I do have to question why it was necessary to include a quote (presumably for "balance") from Vivienne Pattson the director of soi-disant Mediawatch-UK.
This organisation is just the old Mary Whitehouse brigade under a new name trotting out the tired old rhetoric of "porn is wrong because it objectifies women" as if the women who take part in it (what about the men?) are, presumably, mentally or emotionally deficient and cannot understand for themselves what they are doing without Ms Pattson and friends telling them "no, we don't like this, so you shouldn't do it".
Mediawatch are not amenable to reason and, unlike Backlash, they have no interest in engaging in sensible discussion with anyone who disagrees with their position.
"potentially some caring person is out of pocket"
Unfortunately that's what happens if you receive stolen goods. It doesn't matter whether you bought them in good faith, you have no legitimate title to them.
Presumption of innocence...?
Not for the poor bastard who had his name spread all over the papers so the lynch mob started sharpening their scythes and lighting flaming torches.
This is just another example of why the accused should be allowed anonymity in cases like this. You can bet that even now he's been acquitted, there are still idiots who will be saying "well, there's no smoke without fire" (even if the fire was set by someone else...) and refusing to have anything to do with him.
@The Indomitable Gall
But it doesn't *matter* whether the guy is a paedophile or not, it's simply possessing (oh, sorry, isn't that "making", since he "made" the images by downloading them, didn't he?) which is enough to get you branded as a witch, err, sorry, paedophile...
... this is only measly titanium, not Adamantium!
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.
(Flames because it's the best way of getting rid of them!)
'I want to do good'???
Going from Microsoft (who got so big for their boots that they thought they could tell the world what to do) to Google (who are getting so big for their boots that they think they can tell the world what to think)...?
Has anyone else's Irony Detector just gone into meltdown?
So once again...
... the Yanks decide that *they* own the internet and they can enforce their arbitrary standards (and the wishes of media companies who make big contributions to certain lawmakers' campaigns!) on the rest of the world.
The Land of the "free to do only the things that we like..."
The problem is that if you are being sued you have to waste time and effort and money hiring lawyers, compiling a defence etc.
Even if (or when) you win, you're not guaranteed to get your costs back, so you still lose out :-(
I wasted ten minutes of my life...
... checking to ensure that my system hadn't been compromised by a malware product masquerading as a "legitimate" warning before finding out that even though I hadn't been infected it wasn't a legitimate warning at all.