4079 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
"perpetuating the perilous practice of pursing goals"
I just wanted to say "Nice bit of alliteration there!"
... it sounds like he's being sensible, but I'm wondering if he's just looking at preserving his nice little empire?
Don't forget that the Coronors and Justice Bill includes provisions for *pornographic drawings* of "children" to be made illegal (NB that's not drawings taken from photographs, but ones created ab initio, ie which have never had any basis in reality!)
So no doubt we will soon see a UK version of the Australian case where a guy was convicted of having "child porn" because he possessed images of Lisa Simpson performing sexual acts!
And how many British jobs did that "save"?
Let's say it was 1000 for the sake of argument. So they could have given each of those workers £50,000 and said "Go and find another job or take a year off" and still have over half of that £114m left over which would probably have paid for the Israeli system...
... unless you're a *very* dedicated criminal, not having arms is pretty much of an identifier, isn't it...?
... they can launch the aircraft from the sub I'm not going to be impressed.
Stand-by to lauch Sky-Diver!
(MInes the one with the SHADO logo on it)
@Jimmy 1 - Re CEOP
"The unit is staffed by hard-nosed cops who don't feel the least bit inhibited about kicking doors down, arresting paedos "
And if they actually find any *evidence* of crime, so much the better.
Of course if they don't and they ruin some poor bastard's life and rip his family apart and destroy his career and leave him with huge legal bills when he was completely innocent, well, it was For the Good of the Children, wasn't it, so it must have been justified...
Interesting choice of words you use viz "pervert" and "get a girlfried"...
Oddly enough in the last century, those who wanted to get themselves a *boyfriend* instead were branded as "perverts" and, indeed, at times could be locked up for their actitivies.
It wasn't that they were doing any harm to anyone, it wasn't that their activities were non-consensual, it wasn't that they were a threat to children (despite the media pushing scare stories about all of these) it was simply that there were a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who thought "we don't like this, so *they* should not be allowed to do this and we'll use any justification we can find (whether it's factually based or not) in order to get laws through to stop them from engaging in their 'perversions'".
Those are exactly the same sort of arguments that were pushed to con people into passing the Dangerous Pictures Act. So, is that the sort of mindset you support? It certainly seems that way.
@Side note on trafficking
"Modern-day slavery is still very much present in the Western world. And the sex industry is just one of the areas where you can find it."
Yes, just *one*. So using claims that "trafficked women are forced to do these acts" as an excuse for saying "we must make pictures of these acts illegal" is nonsense.
I might have disagreed with you, but then I thought of my own experiences.
I saw something that excited me. It was new, it was different, it intrigued me and I enjoyed it.
But then I didn't want the same again, I wanted more, I wanted better, I wanted harder, I wanted more excitement!
... just went back to the library and got another book out.
(I would have put a FAIL icon on this, but that might have given it away)
How did you know that your colleague didn't have these interests before? How do you know it was a "progression"? How do you know it was "caused" by the porn?
You seem to be saying that, just like the idiots who proposed and passed this law, *everyone* cannot be trusted not to go out and commit murder or shag animals or abuse children just because they look at this stuff.
And if you want some evidence of how wrong you are, I suggest you look at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied the effects of the availability of porn (including "extreme" porn) in the USA and Japan and concluded:
"It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
... seems to be a cosy little club which has no interest in being accountable to anyone else yet, somehow, has arrogated powers which enables it to influence Government policy and determine (sorry, "issue guidlines") on how the law should be interpreted and exercised.
It's good to see that the Lords are expressing concerns and more kudos accrues to Baroness Miller (who valiantly lead the opposition to the Dangerous Pictures Act), but the question remains whether our Government actually *wants* to have the ACPO subject to oversight...
@What a peculiar society we are turning into
I suppose we ought to feel lucky in the UK that we could only get jailed for three years for looking at pictures of consenting adults engaged in legal sexual activities.
(Gosh, I feel so lucky...)
As of 11:49 02/09/09
At least they've fixed the "and" typo! (Maybe someone there reads El Reg?!)
"This site is currently unavailable, we are working on a fix and should have the site available again soon. Thanks. "
PS AC above, nice time machine you have... ;-)
... does not scan copyrighted works in Europe.
Which makes damn all difference when it's as easy to download something from the USA as it is from Europe.
If a book has been published in both the USA and Europe and Google has scanned it, it *will* be available world-wide, simple as that.
Adult Porn != Child Porn...
Ho hum, yet another idiot conflating consensual adult pornography with that produced featuring children (who cannot, by law, consent).
Of course, like those who wrote the "Consultation" on our "Extreme Pornography" ban, he's just using "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" as an excuse to push his narrow minded agenda.
Meanwhile: Paging King Canute...
... you develop a graduated response that has got 95 steps. So you've now asked somebody 95 times very nicely and very politely can you please stop doing that and 95 times they've refused to," he said. "What do you do?"
Err, how about getting it through your skulls that your out-moded, out-dated and obsolete revenue stream model is DEAD and try embracing the new technology instead of clinging onto something that will just make you look like greedy idiots when you try to fine grannies a million quid for "illegal" (it isn't, it's civil, not criminal) downloading.
... I thought about doing this back in the 1980s when I started getting interested in holography, but the resolution wasn't up to it at the time.
I'm glad to see that the technology is finally becoming available to do this. (Pity I didn't patent the idea, though...!)
... on earth did they expect?
Big company buys up small company, small company gets subsumed by big company's structure.
End of story.
Re: On Police bail comments
Don't forget that they'll have had their DNA and fingerprints taken and those records will be kept ad infinitum even if they turn out to have had nothing to do with the crime (if the Police and Government get their way), which has got to be a good thing, hasn't it?
> If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
And if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...
Any other dumb, cliched platitudes you'd like to trot out?
Now consider this:
A couple of weeks ago my Sky+ box glitched whilst I was on holiday and failed to record the episode of Dollhouse that was on.
I didn't want to miss it, but it wasn't available for "legitimate" download from anywhere I could access. So I downloaded it using utorrent instead, watched it, then deleted it.
So was that illegal because I didn't get it from a "legal" source? What copyright did I actually infringe? Was I contributing to terrorism (or whatever) by doing this?
What if I'd said to a mate "You recorded it, can you bung it onto video for me?"
I'm sure in your nice little black-and-white world, I'm a criminal who belongs behind bars.
Regarding previous convictions...
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission.
So the Government claims that previous convictions will stand sounds like BS to me.
... actually Card IV looks like a head-on view of someone riding a Harley Davidson whilst wearing big boots...
responses to the consultation...
... had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.
Err, excuse me? "we will be extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009"
The fucking Consultation hasn't even *FINISHED* yet, but already you're deciding what you're going to do?
Why not just admit that, like every other damn consultation you've held, it's a complete sham because you're going to do what you like anyway?
How about we all club together and buy Mandy an expensive dinner? Maybe *THAT* is the way to get Government policy changed...?
"What do make of these Captain?"
"It's a bird, a cow, a horse with a hat on."
- William Shatner in Airplane II
Minister Barbara Follett has written to trade bodies...
... asking them to accept voluntary guidelines until the relevant legislation is passed.
Now what would be *sensible* would be for them to cut out a lot of the nonsense in the VRA which, for instance, means it's an offence for someone to sell R18 videos from a website in this country, but leaves it perfectly legal to purchase them from anywhere in Europe and have them shipped over here.
Of course what will no doubt actually happen instead is that our prudish Nanny State Government will hamstring the adult industry with a whole lot more useless regulations to "protect" us from all that nasty dirty stuff...
... please explain the words "Prior Art" to the US Patent Lawyers?
What next? A patent on the wheel...?
Find me a Catholic Bear and I'll give you an answer...!
PS @David Pollard
Regarding Volunteered DNA, the recently ended Home Office consultation proposed that volunteered DNA would not be kept.
Of course that's only a consultation, so does anyone want to take a bet that when the law is brought in, this will be amended because "well, it would be a good idea to keep it, wouldn't it?"