4081 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
@Good/ @Right, listen up.
I thought originally that the AC who posted the "Good" comment was being ironic, but reading it again, it sounds like the sort of rant that the Daily Mail likes so much.
FYI the "core values that all good Britons should hold dear" include the rights to "go about their lawful business without let or hindrance", yet this AC thinks that any rights he doesn't like should be eliminated or that anyone who tries to exercise them should be thrown out of his "pure lands".
I suggest that he moves to somewhere ruled by the Taliban, then he can have all the "Moral Purity" he wants...
As for the AC from "Right, listen up", if someone writes something about me which is defamatory and untrue, I have a defence in law called Libel. That is why Private Eye gets sued on a regular basis (and sometimes loses).
If I tried to sue for libel simply because I "didn't like" someone writing about me, I would lose.
What you seem to be arguing for is a situation where you can *only* write something about someone if they would like it.
I'm sure our politicians would love that...!
Looks like the Aussies...
... are getting as arrogant as the Yanks, thinking that *their* laws should be applicable all over the world...
... an El Reg Playmobil reconstruction!!!
BBC - British Broadcasting Crooks...?
So after the criticism of the BBC spending licence fee payers money buying up a botnet, it seems they're also using it to buy stolen credit card details.
What next? Researching organs for sale by buying someone's kidney?
... the Cops wanted these cards to be compulsory, all they want is their jobs made easier and to hell with basic rights like the presumption of innocence.
(There's an expression I'd use here, but I'd probably attract the wrath of the Moderatrix if I used it...)
I have already opted out...
... by writing to my Doctor and telling her that I don't want my details uploaded on the NHS spine, but this suggests that I will now have to also write to the local hospital and opt out from *their* systems too.
The question then becomes will I have to opt out of any *other* systems as well?
What if I miss an opt out? Does this mean that, despite my best efforts, my details will still be available?
My consent should NOT be assumed, I should be ASKED for it.
Google maps != CCTV
People seem to be conflating entirely different issues here in their objections.
Google is taking photographs, something which *all* of us have the right to do if it's in a *public* place and provided they do not use those in a defamatory way they are not breaking any laws, nor are they invading anyone's privacy. It is simply a record of what was there at a particular location at a particular time
CCTV (especially if/ when facial recognition technology is added) and ANPR are different matters because they are a method of tracking a person or a vehicle's movements in *real time* and then storing that information for possible use by the authorities at a later date.
The first is a right we all have, the second is an infringement of our right to go about our lawful business without let or hindrance and without having our movements being monitored by the state.
"It's a FUD article. They are debating real physical objects, sounds images etc. that are created in real life to make people get boners from forbidden content. That is the debate."
No, the FUD is the BS being spouted by this Government who believe that *fictional* images can make people do *real* harm.
They are not trying to debate the *actual* harm caused to children, they're just trying to make it look as if they're doing something to protect them, instead of people realising that they're passing nonsense laws that will do NOTHING to protect children at all.
Square brackets are an editorial convention (and not just something in American English) indicating that the words contained in them have been added for clarity, but weren't in the original quote.
The quote would actually have been "provides support to the center" which would have made sense if the entire comment was printed in full, because, prior to that, the speaker would have referred to the "Kennedy Space Center", but subsequently just mentioned "the center" (ie it wouldn't be clear to the reader *which* center is being referred to without the full context) so the writer of the article adds [Kennedy Space] to make it clear.
CEOP declined to comment on progress
"saying policy announcements were a matter for the Home Office."
Sorry? Is this a different CEOP from the one that has been pushing for policies like this and many others, simply, it seems, to bolster their own position and preserve their jobs?
the result of "proper process of parliamentary scrutiny"
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
The Government's idea of proper parliamentary scrutiny is that everyone says "oh, gosh, yes, this is a wonderful idea, we cannot oppose it in any way!"
They got caught playing fast and loose with our data and got roundly kicked for it.
Now we just need to keep an eye on them and make sure they don't try to sneak this back in under the radar.
Six Hundred Foot Invulnerable PMT Lady
I've been working in secret on a 500 Megaton Evening Primrose Oil bomb!
And how, exactly, will patients be *informed* of this option anyway?
Probably in the same way that banks and so on try to coerce you into not opting out of their mailing lists by saying "Well, you could opt out, but then we might not be able to send you important information or help you if you need it ..."
Let's hear it for more FUD!
Will the last energy company to leave the UK...
... please turn out the lights!
> I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational,
I suggest you look up the name "Andrea Dworkin" for some of the most extreme (and irrational) arguments against porn (starting with "all men are rapists"!)
No, not all feminists think this way (I personally know several members of the Feminists Against Censorship group who are of the opinion "It's my body, don't tell me what I can or can't do with it just because you don't like it or think I'm letting down the Sisterhood") but the fact remains that there are those (and some of them are now in power!) who believe the sort of things that you cite.
I look at porn. In fact I could be accused of producing it as I make and sell BDSM gear and have a catalogue and website of affordable leather products that features female (and male!) models in it. But I don't think that the models (male or female) only exist for my pleasure or that their modelling makes them "less human" than me.
The assertion that "a lot" of those who participate in porn are victims of abuse or that porn is "filmed abuse" is ludicrous. Yes, there may be *some* who have been abused, yes, not *all* of it is consensual, but trying to use that as an excuse for banning something simply to protect a *minority* is pointless and short-sighted, not to mention downright insulting to all those who, of their own free will, choose to appear in it.
PS @Gregor, what, exactly, is your point apart from a bit of petty pedantry?
... if this had been greeted positively, you just *know* that El Gordo Brown and Darling Alastair would have been rubbing their hands in glee at the extra tax revenue it would have gained them...
"No feminists I know are in favour of this sort of legislation, and I don't see how it's a feminist agenda fuelling this"
I suggest you take a look at the English Government's "Consultation" on "extreme pornography" which was written by three feminist anti-pornography campaigners...
Personal political agendas? Nothing new there, then...
It is rapidly becoming clear (if it wasn't blatantly obvious already) that this is just another last gasp effort by the leaders a failed Government (who know that most of them will be out of jobs after the next election) to force through any and every little bit of legislation that will allow them to impose their personal prejudices and wants on the country without caring a jot about what the effects will be on the liberties of the people they're supposed to represent.
It's not enough to think "well, they'll be out next election" because we need guarantees from whoever replaces them that they *will* get rid of the ridiculous draconian Big Brother and Nanny State legislation they have brought in rather than getting into power and then saying "well, maybe this would still be useful, so we'll keep it".
Contact your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them you want a commitment from them that they'll not only oppose these proposals, but that they'll support all attempts to repeal them and restore the liberties and freedoms that have been taken away from us in the last decade to "protect" us.
Re: A victory for morals
Don't forget that it's perfectly acceptable to allow your virgin daughters to be raped to protect your guests according to the "Good" Book...
Still, if the Scots actually have the guts to throw out this stupid law, then it means only we English can't be trusted to act sensibly if we look at this stuff, so obviously Scottish morals are better than ours...
I find it amusing that you use the words "sense of reality" and "official stopping distance" in the same paragraph!
The fact is that those figures are well out of date, but they're unlikely to be changed at any time in the future (probably because it's better to have people err on the side of caution).
And you then go from a *car* in the outside lane to a *drunk* wandering around...
I suggest you look up the words "Straw Man".
The judge stated that...
..."there was nothing the peer could have done to avoid the crash."
Well I state BULLSHIT!
If he was unable to stop in the distance in which he could see ahead of him, then he was travelling *TOO FAST*!
He could have avoided the crash by going *slower* such that the distance illuminated by his headlamps was *longer* than his stopping distance.
One law for them...
... meanwhile the motorcyclist who (supposedly*) did 122 mph *without* killing anyone, has got 6 months in jail, but, of course, he doesn't have a high-priced Barrister to argue his "exceptional" case...
*That 122mph figure is highly dubious and he'd have had to dump a *lot* of speed to be able to take the next corner without cranking the bike over a hell of a lot more than he did.
I think some people don't quite understand the situation.
The point about Libel is that the original article has to be found to be defamatory and, in order to be defamatory, it cannot be true.
So if a Court has decided that an article is untrue, to continue to allow that (false) article to be available is to repeat the untruth.
The ECHR understands that Right of Freedom of Expression comes with an attendant Responsibility to ensure that what is being expressed is truthful.
> bloody good job no-one ever told Philip K. Dick.
I once used a forum that had automatic censoring software which changed his name to "Philip K Masculine Area"!
(And not forgetting that famous actor from Mary Poppins: Penis van Lesbian...)
"more active government intervention on the internet"
To mis-quote a Philip K Dick story title:
"We can control you wholesale!"
No, I don't read the Daily Mail, I watch programmes like the BBC's Working Lunch which, for all its faults, still gives a good understanding of how these "poor" companies who find it *so* hard to earn a crust, manage to screw everyone else out of anything they might have got by charging ridiculous fees (such as hundreds of pounds for photocopying is one example I remember)...
feature that allows willing subjects to be tracked through their phones.
As opposed to the Government's plans to introduce a 50mph speed limit on A Roads and enforce this with a "new generation" of Number Plate Recognition Cameras (which, incidentally, would also be excellent for enabling them to track us all wherever we go and facilitate building a National Road Pricing System...)
Feature creep? No, of course we don't have anything like that here!
Insolvency is Big Business....
Who gets the money? Simple:
The Tax Man
Neither of the first two give a damn about the people who are actually going to be affected by a business going into liquidation. People who worked there, companies who are owned money, people who own shares in that company and those who have legitimate claims for faulty products or goods ordered but not delivered are very much sucking hind tit and can pretty much forget about ever getting back anything because the first two are feathering their own nests.
A title is required.
"it has received funding for just five weeks and had only five people working there"
The last thing the NSA et al wants is people to actually *pay attention* to cyber security, after all, that would just make their job (of snooping on everyone and everything) more difficult, wouldn't it?!
... we hear from the government a reponse that translates as "Shit, lads, we've been rumbled", but with undertones of "never mind, we'll sneak this crap in later when they've all forgotten about it or they're distracted by something else!"
The only way this sort of nonsense will be stopped for good is when we get rid of this Control Freak Government once and for all.
But what's the Humanity Cost?
Mines the one with the copy of the Cyberpunk RPG in the pocket...
I have made a decision, and given my ruling...
... "And my conclusion is 'Fuck you, we can do what we want and there's nothing you can do about it, so yah boo sucks to be you!'"
"highest standards of security."
*WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP*
Irony level overload...!
*WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP* *WHOOOOP*
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry