5066 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
'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...
If you don't vote you can't complain when things don't go your way.
I recently had an election missive through the door from the Tories. In it there was a mini-questionnaire which said "Which of these Tory policies do you support?"
Err, excuse me? Where's the option for "None of the above"? Where's the option to say "Just because I may have voted for you does not mean I support all of your policies"? In fact where is there *anything* that lets us do more than vote for a particular coloured rosette but which allows whoever gets the most seats to claim that they now now have a mandate from the people to do X, Y and Z because one vote covers *everything* in their manifesto.
Representative Democracy? Not in this country!
"people who are "socially disadvantaged"
That would be all the people who are now unemployed because of El Gordo's inability to understand what happens when you try to fund Growth through Debt without actually *producing* anything...
Has anyone tried explaingin databses to _civil servants_?
"It's all done by magic pixies"
Bad idea if (when) taken too far...
> all people have to do to keep porn off their machines is block all .xxx domains. If, as an existing "provider", you don't nab the .xxx when given the shot you lose the ability to resolve the site.
And, once again, I ask what happens to adult businesses like mine which deals in leather bondage gear and, thus, has adult content, but does not deal in "porn"?
Not forgetting, of course, the massive rush there will be to register sex.xxx or xxx.xxx etc, plus the cyber-squatters getting in on the act who will no doubt try to register affordable-leather.xxx and sell it to me for a hefty commission because I own the .co.uk version of it.
Now I am six...
So, six years ago, she supported Labour. Big deal.
Perhaps we could see some comments about Edward McMillan-Scott who was once the leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, who has recently defected to the Lib Dems...?
Oh, but of course, people there are too interested in sniggering like like school boys.
I think you'll find...
... that she *was* a Labour supporter until they started turning into the Thought Police and banning anything that they didn't like simply because they didn't like it.
Best of luck to her!
Perhaps if we have a few more people with actual real world experience in Parliament instead of the current clueless bunch of toffs and lawyers and ex-activists we might actually get some sense out of the place.
It's one of those "irregular verbs"
We protect freedom,
You infringe rights,
They repress people.
Let's not forget about the accounts being used for...
... perfectly legal and legitimate purposes.
Once again we see the classic argument of "let's treat *everyone* as potential criminals in the hope that we'll catch a few wrongdoers in our widely spread net".
Of course all that happens is that the wrongdoers go somewhere else, meanwhile the innocent have their liberties and privacy trampled on (something which people fought a war to prevent!)
It may be dangerous...
... but so are a lot of things.
At what point should the Nanny State step in and day "No, you can't do that because it's too dangerous for you"?
... and because I never blasted out my eardrums at discos etc, I can hear the damn things too.
Thank the gods there's none of them around my area, otherwise I'd be walking into shops "protected" by them and informing them that they've just lost my custom!
I can see my house from here...!
Well, I can see what anyone walking or driving past my house can see.
And even though I have very strong views on civil liberties (or perhaps that should be because) I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to take photographs in a public place.
Do you? (See "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist" on facebook for more details)
Re: Nothing to do with democracy
You got the title right, our current system has *nothing* to do with democracy! As you say: "you delegated to them the authority to vote on your behalf. Only problem is that they rarely do..."
MPs are supposed to *represent* the views of their constituents in Parliament, unfortunately what most of them tend to do is represent the views of their Party Leaders and Whips to their constituents and basically say "that's how it is, like it or lump it".
Cameron and his ilk are currently campaigning on an effective slogan of "Vote for us, because we're not them" and telling people that voting for anyone else is a vote for another 5 years of Gordon Brown which sounds like desperation coupled with a lack of anything that makes them actually worth electing.
IMO the only hope we have of getting any representation back into our electoral process is to tactically vote for a Hung Parliament so one party doesn't have a "majority" (even when they only got a minority of the vote) giving the ability to force through whatever legislation they like.
HDM obviously hasn't heard of the maxim...
... when you're in a hole: STOP DIGGING!
What's the betting...
... he found the data left on a train...?
"can take prints from suspects"
As far as I understand it, unless I have been arrested or believed to be committing Anti-Social Behaviour or am driving a car, I am not required to identify myself to a Police Officer.
Being "a suspect" isn't enough for them to demand my identity, let alone my fingerprints!
Another statement from the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious
Most people don't like emotionally manipulative adverts and "guilt trip" messages and thus such things fail to achieve their aims.
Who would have believed it...
May I be the first to welcome...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Downrange Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
- Origins of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE fished out of SCOTTISH LAKE