4984 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
Tower Bridge? Marble Arch??
Yours must be fakes, because I'm selling those next week...!
Who is dumb enough...
... to buy Tiffany Jewellery (let alone luxury cars or aeroplanes) from an online tat bazaar and *not* wonder whether they're getting the genuine article or going to get ripped off?
Whoever they are, I'd like to offer them Nelson's Column which I have for sale...
Same old Same Old...
... from Gamble who wants to expand his ego-trip online empire a bit more and is resorting to ridiculous "if you don't agree with me you agree with paedos and rapists and murderers oh my!" accusations to try to get his way.
So what, exactly, is their problem?
UKIP claim to be "Libertarian", yet when it comes to a little bit of what turns out to be consensual sex games, they suddenly throw their hands up in the air and reveal themselves to be just another bunch of control-freak hypocrites...
Desperate vote grabbing...
Now that Gordon Clown realises he's screwed, this is just damage limitation, "promising" stuff that he's got no chance of delivering in the hope that the public will be confused enough to not give him the good kicking he desperately deserves.
Meanwhile "Call me Dave" Cameron is pandering to the Daily Fail reading public by trying to bring back National Service but hoping to con people by putting the word "Citizen" in the middle as if that makes a difference.
A pox on both their houses.
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!
Someone please tell me...
... this is an April Fool's gag...???
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.
... have you taken a look at the UK's internet policy recently...?
"protect the online privacy of netizens...
"...from government snooping...."
Great, now what about Microsoft's and Google's snooping...?
Bravo Ross Anderson!
Nat West's current slogan is "Helpful Banking", but what they really mean is "helping themselves to our money"!
Perhaps they should register iAstroturf...
I blame the parents...
... the Internet is *not* a child-minding service!
Beahvioural Targetting works, claim study...
... AdBlock Plus works even better, assert users!
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...
Re: I don't need a eCRB/Pedo Check.
"I do think that the ability to check is important... "
So "you don't need a check", but everyone else does?
Why does the word "hypocrisy" come to mind...?
'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:
... Captain Pugwash!
(And, yes, I know it was an urban myth...)
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!
You can't counter-steer it...
... and you can't get your knee down either!!
It wasn't just 1984, look up the term "Enabling Act"...
"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".
Keep Your Laser Handy!
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...
Please tell me...
... that Bill won't be "helping" by giving them copies of Windows for Nuclear Reactors...!
(Insert obligatory reboot jokes here)
... 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"...
If only other crooks were as dumb as them!
JPEGs future proof...?
But not proof against lossy compression and pictorial artifacts...
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!
And of course...
... to access our wonderful new system, you'll just need to sign up to our new iDcard...
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!"
And you thought...
... that that Lap Dancer was just being very enthusiastic...
"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...
... it's not Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but "presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence"...
... Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!
"trial to test crisis management procedures"
Well now they've got a media crisis to manage, so I guess it sort of worked...
Paris because... ;-)
"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...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Top Gear Tigers and Bingo Boilers: Farewell then, Phones4U
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- Stephen Pie iPhone 6: Most exquisite MOBILE? No. It is the Most Exquisite THING. EVER
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM