Ah, I think you're referring to the classic trope of "We have seen your breasts, now you must die!"
(Sorry, way off topic)
6043 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Ah, I think you're referring to the classic trope of "We have seen your breasts, now you must die!"
(Sorry, way off topic)
If you don't believe Naked Shorting is fraudulent, I can do you a very good deal on Tower Bridge...
It is clear from your post that we agree on some things as I fundamentally believe that the most important thing about Rights is you *CANNOT* protect one person's rights by taking away someone else's and you *CANNOT* pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't.
Unfortunately in your previous post you said "They were part of the industry and deserve all they get.....and some" which I disagree with and the post above titled "Some More Articles" suggests that they were not "part of the industry" (an "industry" which I consider to be mostly fictitious and a creation of the minds of empire builders like Jim Gamble) and that although you say these guys "have the same basic rights" you then appear to agree with the "give them a good kicking" Daily Mail brigade posting here.
The link in the article above says that "The police investigation into AthenaNews.com found some of its customers had actually abused children" it doesn't say that those who ran the service had abused children, nor that they knew that they were "in possession" of illegal images or that (as the BBC article says) they knew that they were "circulating" the images to "45 countries". I'd think that what that actually means is that their news server had subscribers in 45 countries who downloaded these images which is *not* necessarily the same thing.
The article also quotes DS Gibson who says "to operate a news service like this is not something a normal person could do, it needed a great deal of IT knowledge" which is IMO typical Police bollocks, it's not that difficult to set up a news service, mostly what you need is the money to run the thing, not mega IT skills.
GIven the comment from the Judge of "It seems that never once did the defendants pause to reflect that they were contributing significantly to the international market and to the abuse of children, and even if that did not concern them they did not consider that they were at risk of criminal prosecution." perhaps the reason for this is that they were *NOT* deliberately contributing to some putative "international industry" and they were the unwitting victims of the actions of others, so they chose to plead guilty simply *for* leniency.
As to you being "in the minority" regarding the sentences, that is why we have an independent judiciary who determine sentences based on the law. Having a sentence determined in this way is, of course, another Right.
How do you know I don't? Answer: You don't, you're just making assumptions like many others posting here. As the AC says in the post "We Need To Know More", not simply take as read that they're "evil paedos" etc etc.
What I am defending which is the Justice System, the Right to Presumption of Innocence, the Right to a Fair Trial and, if convicted, the Right to only suffer the punishment prescribed by law (rather than being lynched or getting kicked about by prisoners or even prison guards) to mention just a few.
If we start throwing away Rights because we have to Think of the Children we are on a very slippery slope.
... the Daily Mail forums are over there --->
No we don't! They're obviously a bunch of kiddy fiddling paedos who should be locked up with Class A prisoners in order for lynch mob "justice" to be served, why should we bother ascertaining facts or asking questions when all we need to do is to throw away the key!
(Note to certain commentards: The above post may contain irony or even sarcasm...)
Please switch off the Effector in your GCU, it's not funny!
I can download quicker!
- Doctor Strangeloop
Obligatory comments about Sharks and Frickin' Lasers...
ANPR targets *everyone* who uses the road that the cameras are on, it monitors everyone, it sees every number plate and stores *ALL* the data, not just that from "criminals". If the Police could even just be trusted to delete the information from any vehicle not on a Watch List or which is traveling without tax or insurance, that would be better, but, no, they want to keep it all.
It also does damn all to target "unsafe drivers", it doesn't stop middle-lane hogs, it doesn't stop idiots who hoon up behind you in the outside lane at 100mph flashing their lights because you're in their way when you're making a legal (and safe) overtaking manoeuvre and it certainly doesn't stop Mr Sales Rep or White Van Man with mobile phones pressed to their ears as they slalom in and out of traffic because they think they can save 30 seconds on their journey time.
So I call Bullshit on Andy Piper and I hope more people will too so their phony justifications can be shown for the nonsense they are.
"That is all"???
What about (to name a few) Ogre, G.E.V, Car Wars, Munchkin and, of course, the Awful Green Things from Outer Space!
... they should have gone into Psychiatry instead since that's a growth area in the USA!
You were in line for an Upvote right up until your last paragraph.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Now if the latest versions of Firefox or Chrome stop working on XP, then I'd be a little concerned.
"...talking to Facebook about the "privacy implications" of its facial recognition technology"
And I bet Facebook are trembling in their boots at the awesome powers the ICO have and aren't afraid to use...
So what do you suggest that she does? Handcuff the patient to the bed? Stand by his bedside whilst the copper goes and has a cup of tea, ready to rugby tackle him to the ground? Spend all her time doing the Policeman's job instead of looking after her patients?
Nurses are *Nurses* they are not police nor are they jailers and should not be asked, let alone expected to do those people's jobs and to denigrate them in the way you have is just contemptible.
... at www.moneysavingexpert.com and fix your energy prices now!
"...that doesn't seem to bother the locals who replace known keywords with codes"
Ah, my first chance to use the "No shit, Sherlock" icon!
I saw a site recently that suggested that there were several *billion* ways of obscuring, re-spelling or otherwise encoding v!@gr*a to spoof spam filters, what hope does the Chinese Government have of stoppoin people from doing similar things to bypass their controls?
Try telling that to any woman who isn't a "standard size" and she'll tell you exactly how difficult it is to get a bra that fits her properly, gives the right support and doesn't dig in etc.
I've had several girlfriends with "non-standard" figures and even with the whole underbust/ overbust/ cup size system there's still a huge variation in supposedly identical bras, so anything that may actually benefit them would be welcomed by many women.
That was exactly what I was thinking as I read that article (although showing them soap operas might count as cruelty to animals...!)
No, because the OPA covers "publication for gain", ie publishing *and selling* something.
This case wouldn't even come under the Extreme Porn Act unless it could be demonstrated that the images were intended "for sexual arousal" and that they were kept for "an unreasonable length of time" and actively sought out by the recipients instead of being sent to them unsolicited.
"... Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites."
Great, so now all the spammers and dubious SEO services are going to be increasing the spread of their rubbish on these sites in the hope that they'll be able to boost their search engine rankings :-(
"Surely they're only offenders when they're actually prosecuted?"
Fine, add the word "successfully" in between "actually" and "prosecuted". Ok?
... is that, for instance, Colin Blanchard, the man who persuaded Vanessa George and three other women to abuse children, was only caught *by accident*
So despite all of their empire building and "panic buttons" and new laws making drawing illegal and so on, this man was only arrested and his "network" broken up by sheer dumb luck.
Of course that wouldn't play so well in the media, so instead we hear that 414 children have been "safeguarded" (how?) that "513 child sex offenders" have been arrested (how do you know they're "offenders" if they've only been arrested? Surely they're only offenders when they're actually prosecuted?) and "132 child sex offender networks" have been "dismantled" (what is the definition of a "network" here? How were they "dismantled"?)
In other words, a lot of hot air, but not much detail.
Oh and in other news:
"Paedophilia warning over King's Park pupil dress sense
"Parents have been advised not to dress their schoolchildren in short skirts and tight trousers amid fears they could be targeted by paedophiles."
Perhaps they should switch to Burkhas?
The thing is, when someone says "child abuse and BDSM often go together" it pushes a big red button for me because that was the sort of thing that people were saying to justify the Dangerous Pictures Act (aka the Extreme Porn legislation)
Sure, regrettably, I have no doubts that some child abusers might use BDSM equipment (or similar) in their crimes, but that's not at all the same as BDSM between consenting adults which is why I objected to them (possibly unwittingly) being associated.
"as a victim of abuse I have to say that child abuse and BDSM unfortunately do often go together"
I'm not denying you were abused, nor that *some* people may abuse children and engage in fetish or BDSM-like activities, however I have to object to your use of the word "often".
I have been making and selling BDSM gear for 18 years and have had a similar long association with the Fetish Scene (plus a more than passing familiarity with the legal side of such matters) and I cannot off-hand think of any cases where someone had participated in BDSM activities (ie between consenting adults) *and*, separately, had abused children.
Certainly someone who abuses children may also possess "a whip, handcuffs, and sex toys" to add to their activities, but I would not count that as being into BDSM by any usual understanding of the term.
Yes, abuse, regrettably, happens and, yes, abuse happens in BDSM relationships too, however I do not feel that a claim that "child abuse and BDSM *often* go together" is valid.
... are "senior U.S. government officials" using Gmail in the first place???
... I'm sure the Americans have something better that we could buy for half the price...
... with the previous Petition Number 10 system?
Well, apart from the fact that, of course, it was totally ignored, with people getting responses that were either "we can't do anything about this" or "thank you for your comments, now fuck off, plebs"...
But why are they spending money developing a new system at all?
"...without any legitimate reason to do so, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was called in."
And the ICO decided to issue him with a firm smack on the wrist and a finger wagging whilst saying "you're a naughty boy, don't do it again!"
FFS how much longer can this bunch of spineless incompetents keep on doing this before our Government realises that the ICO is simply not fit for purpose and replaces them with a Watchdog that has both a set of teeth and the balls to use them?
If our NHS records get uploaded to some form of central database this sort of thing will be going on every bloody day!
... Frak me, the frelling grexnixes have really gone over the swutting line now!
What a bunch of turlingdromes...
.... was, of course, in the Twenty Fourth and a Half century!
What? They're Pompey supporters?
It's still pretty damn cool and I'd like one! :)
"I know a few people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years or more and there's nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all."
And I know people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years (or more) and who would *love* to work. They have been on endless "training courses" and "back to work" schemes and all the rest of the MSC (that's the Massive Statistical Cover-up because whilst they're on these schemes they're not classed as "out of work and claiming benefits), but, despite all that, when the job centre are sending thirty or forty people out for interviews for *every* job vacancy, the odds of them actually getting work are pretty bloody slim.
As for "one way would be to raise the minimum wage." who, exactly is going to *PAY* them that money? If you hadn't noticed, there's a recession on at the moment and most businesses are looking to cut costs, not pay more, so you'd actually get *fewer* people working. It's not exactly rocket science...
... that such nocturnal vision would also help those reindeer tasked with the important job of drawing Santa's sleigh...!
... that should really be 974.45 nano Wales.
Apart from that being a gift to a *different* President, if you'd done a little more research you would have found that Obama's grandfather was in Kenya at the time of the Mau Mau uprising when Britain rejected the demands of that country's people for greater representation and land reform and Churchill ordered in the military who used repressive measures and torture (sound familiar) to try to put it down. Obama's grandfather was one of the victims of these measures.
So is it really any wonder that he doesn't want a reminder of that in his office?
... I know what I'm doing for the next few days...
1) Cobble together a Beta price comparison site
2) Sell it to Google
... I don't agree with the content of this piece, but frankly it reads like a rant rather than informed opinion. Come on, El Reg, you can do better than this.
"A public interest test should be applied when one is planning to step away from the norm."
Oh really? And who decides what this "norm" Is? As I've posted before, I make BDSM equipment but it is *MY* choice to post that, not yours nor anyone else's.
What about someone being gay? If they choose to "out" themselves, that's up to them, but I don't accept that anyone else has the right to do that unless they're preaching from an anti-gay stance.
You say "the rule should be that anyone has the right to publish anything unless it can be shown that it is in the public interest to suppress" and whilst I can agree with that, it's only when that there is actually a public interest benefit in publication.
Revealing details of someone's private life simply to sell newspapers etc is *not* in the public interest because there is no benefit to the public.
You say you "can see no merit in the suppression of legitimate news stories due to the embarrassment they may cause whoever it is this week caught with their pants off... (or wearing the wrong pants)" but you miss the difference between "What the Public may be interested in" and "Public Interest (meaning "what is of benefit to the Public")
The media (bless their cotton socks) are, of course, deliberately trying to blur and confuse the distinction because the former is what sells more newspapers/ gets more viewers even though there is no *benefit* to the public other than some salacious tittle-tattle to liven up their breakfasts.
Revealing someone as a hypocrite (eg John Major preaching "family values" whilst he's shagging Edwina Currie on the side) is perfectly legitimate reporting, but stories about "We caught X in bed with Y" is just muck-raking gutter journalism.
Also does BBC Parliament Channel have to put in a time delay with a "CENSOR" button to bleep out any names that might be covered by an injunction...?
Hopefully it's a bit more interesting than that turgid, pretentious and over-long trailer...
Not added value, just added sex, violence and gore most likely.
In other words "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission" or "we'll go ahead and do what we want until someone eventually passes a law to stop us which we can't ignore or bypass..."
... of derisive laughter, Bruce!
"the complaint claims violation of the US Constitution. It names Baidu and, unusually, the Chinese government as defendants in the case."
So, typical Yank behaviour thinking that *their* laws apply to the whole world!
... I can actually agree with Matt Bryant on something!
AFAIK that's only if they're sold through eg a charity shop, not if it's a private sale.
"... ruled against this practice in 2008, but current guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) states that chief constables" can tell people to fuck off because the ACPO thinks it knows better than the ECHR and the British Government is probably going to do likewise...