5068 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"clear desk policy..."
"...of filing everything at the end of the day ."
"Hey, Sarge, anyone coughed to these crimes today? No? Any chance of solving them without doing some legwork? No? Ok, file them in the round file..."
It's a shame you gave up...
... because after the turgid tedium of God-Awful of Dune, the series actually picked up nicely.
... would you have told the descendants of those soldiers suffering from Shell Shock in World War I who were executed for "cowardice" to "please shut up" and "move on" instead of campaigning to clear their forbears' names after new evidence came to light about the cause of their actions?
No? Then why should these people be told to do so simply because you love the Chinook and want it to have your babies and you think that the smear on the pilots names and reputations isn't important enough to bother about?
... you beat me to it!
It's not just about the porn...
... but that seems to be what has caught El Reg's attention (unsurprisingly)
The more important part IMO is this bit from the original article "Officers have also been dismissed for using police databases to check out people’s backgrounds for personal reasons."
Now *THAT* is what El Reg should have been highlighting because with the increased surveillance of everyone and the DNA database and so on, this is what is going to be the problem in the future, not some Plod knocking one off the wrist.
The sound you hear...
... is the slamming of stable doors...
"harness the wisdom" of voters
Oh great, so even more Daily Mail based policies...
"the rights of sexual minorities"
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
What "rights" have been "protected" by laws such as the Dangerous Pictures Act making it a crime to possess so-called "Extreme Pornography"?
This was just one of the many examples of the Nanny State saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to see it/ do it even if there's no absolutely no evidence that it would make you do something nasty".
The only "right" that this Government has "protected" is *their* right to interfere in what consenting adults get up to in private and to tell us that anything that is unacceptable to their prudish "moral standards" should be illegal.
Regrettably, when they're booted out at the next election, it's distinctly unlikely that the Tories would do anything to roll back Nu Labour's moral agenda...
My tobacco-powered car has broken down...
... have you tried emptying the ashtray...?
Try getting a set of ethics!
it's not Apple's fault the Chinese don't like the Dalai Lama.
No, but it's Apple's greed and hypocrisy that means they'll still do business with China.
... Epic Fail!
What have you been sm-
... oh, right, of course.
Nothing to see here, move along...!
... of course what Plod will do is insist that they need *even more* powers to watch and record every single Facebook entry and e-mail and tweet and web access and...
"just mostly regular blokes"?
Sure, unfortunately it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel and given that in the UK we have seen Police and PCSOs acting like Constable Savage and deciding that as they are on "the front line against terrorism" they can throw their weight about as much as they like and harass people for such heinous activities as being "too tall" when taking photographs.
What's worse, however, is that whilst the rot is spreading at the bottom, the attitudes that cause it have come from the very top with the ACPO who aren't even answerable to the people who they work for, ie our elected representatives, yet they can still (and do) influence Government policy.
Yes, they're doing a tough job, they knew that when they signed up, if they can't take it, they shouldn't have joined in the first place.
... certainly not the "I'M ON THE TRAIN!!" sort of conversations....
You miss the point...
Google is used for searches by the majority of web users, yet they have the power to make a website simply disappear to those searchers.
Back in 2006 the Inquisition 21 website that campaigned against Operation Ore convictions vanished from Google search results and there was a statement that "Google may temporarily or permanently ban any site or site authors that engage in tactics designed to distort their rankings or mislead users in order to preserve the accuracy and quality of our search results."
Now is that "them behaving unethically"? And would most people know or care that their results are being manipulated?
Don't legislate, EDUCATE!
Yet again we see this Control-Freak, Nanny State Government trying to decide for us poor little people what is or isn't good for us.
Clearly we cannot be trusted with the information on the dangers of these products (or the fact that it's still more dangerous to use the roads or even get out of bed!) and be allowed to make up our own minds, we need them to say "don't you worry your pretty little heads about it, we'll make all the tough decisions so you won't need to think, so just sit down and watch the bread and circuses, erm, sorry, Get Me Out Ff Strictly Come X-Factor"
Expect a few more "last hurrahs" from this bunch of idiots before they're kicked out of power...
What though, if it isn't possible to identify the patient?
Ah, but you forget, everyone who goes into hospital or sees their doctor will automatically have their DNA taken and placed on the National Regist... erm, I mean "their health records" and hospital staff will then be equipped with DNA scanners so they can check they're treating the right person (or, at least, someone who shares the same DNA fingerprint)
And, of course, that data will never be abused by, say, checking someone's DNA with the Police Database to see if someone who comes into hospital is wanted for a crime (or, at least, whose DNA matches someone who is wanted for a crime...)
Haven't you heard of...
... policy based evidence making...?
It branded the consultation "disingenuous".
I think that's a polite way of saying "Bullshit!"
Didn't anyone teach P&O Staff how to give an ID card the "magic flick" which will identify it as genuine...?
... of derisive laughter, Bruce!
"We respect trademarks...
"...and other people's intellectual property"
I'm sorry, is this another Microsoft that we've not previously heard of...???
But, but, but...
... we're doing this because the EU *says* we have to do this...!
Well, that was what the Home Office were claiming, despite the EU not saying anything of the sort.
Glad to see the chickens coming home to roost at last, it's just a pity they pi$$ed away so much of our money first.
What Apple (and the US Patent Office) need...
... is to get a *grip* on reality!
Why don't they...
... just extradite the insurgents to the USA and charge them with doing $70,000 worth of damage to US property...?
"a mindset on the part of some officials...
"... that if the end is for the public good, then it doesn’t matter if the rules around data collection get slightly bent."
Hmm, "it's for your own good", so don't you worry your pretty little heads about it, you can trust us, we're looking after you, just enjoy the Bread and Circuses, erm, I mean go and watch X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing..."
Oh and as for "That would appear to be joined, at the lower levels of government, by a poor understanding of the letter of the law when it comes to Data Protection", and at the higher levels of government by a complete lack of understanding (or they just don't care) that the public don't trust them with our data...!
Home Office research published in 2005...
"...showed that over 80% of respondents supported the use of CCTV to deal with crime in their neighbourhood."
"Finally, although the public for the most part did not feel safer, and despite their perceiving
CCTV as less effective than they initially thought, they were still predominantly in favour of
its use. Even though they concluded that it did not reduce crime, there was no pressure to
have it removed, and there were no major concerns, once people had experienced CCTV,
about infringement of civil liberties."
That sounds like less than a ringing endorsement to me. Also look at Appendix A which is rather critical of the methodology and the lack of control groups for much of the data.
And from the conclusions: "Assessed on the evidence presented in this report, CCTV cannot be deemed a success. It has cost a lot of money and it has not produced the anticipated benefits"
Basically (unsurprisingly) the Home Office has spun the results to give the answers they want.
The complaints about TV being "All repeats" were perfectly valid when we only had three terrestrial channels to watch and no satellite or cable, let alone 4od, iPlayer, Watch Again etc.
Now we have +1 channels, BBC 3, More4, Sky 2 and 3, Dave, Alibi, Watch, Yesterday etc etc yes, we're getting old stuff shown again, but this is *not* to the exclusion of *new* material.
And are all these "repeats" such a bad thing? When Blake's 7 was first broadcast I missed the first two episodes due to my parents insisting I do my homework first (which dates me!) and it was a long while before I could actually see what happened in the beginning. These days I'd just switch to a +1 channel or watch the repeat later in the week on BBC3 or equivalent.
So, really, what's the big deal?
... how long before someone says "Hey, how about we try roasting the turkey in the LHC"?
Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTML
"Under the current situation...
"...people bring their details in and they get lost. This saves a lot of messing around."
Yes, when we have ID cards and a National ID Register we won't have to lose details one at a time, we can lose them *ALL* in one go!
That will save *so much* messing around!!!
Johnson also restated his determination...
... that the 43 year-old ought to be treated "fairly"
Just not by anyone in the UK, especially not the Home Secretary!
Who is this "Berlsuconi" bloke mentioned in the title...?
"Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying,"
Oh yeah, like if that was ever going to happen in these days of AdBlock Plus it would have *already* happened!
I read in forums about people on Facebook complaining about one ad for smilies that if you accidentally rolled your mouse over would yell "HELLO!" through your speakers. Of course every one of them wants to know how to stop that happening again and they get the same answer: Firefox and ABP.
Way to lose customers guys!!
@Nexus is a common dictionary word
So is Apple!
But try telling that to Apple Corporation and Apple Music...
Another perfect example...
... of the Streisand Effect!
How many people would have heard of the vulnerability of this system if they hadn't been so stupid as to try to sue someone for helping them?
15th December 2010 (i.e. today):
Err, can I borrow your time machine....?
... "Just Another Christmas Song" by the Tull
"Hey, Santa. Pass us that bottle!"
Why does this remind me of...
... the Great Tea Trolley Disaster of ‘67?
"The MPAA, on behalf of the motion picture industry...
"... commends Congress and the Obama Administration for this commitment to our continued large wage packets and bonuses"
There, corrected it for you :-)
Now let's hear more of this sort of thing...
... Forget all the pointless "Global Warming is Man Made", "No it isn't!", "Tis so!" arguments and let's just hear positive things that people can do to actually lower their energy consumption and save themselves money instead!
... I don't need to google for it, I live just a few miles down the road from Paulsgrove and when the News of the Screws did their "let's try to boost circulation by putting up pictures of paedos" my friends who actually lived there were more terrified of the lynch mob roaming the streets than any putative threat to their childre ...
"they have a team working full time"
Translation, they've probably got a few people googling for words like "paedo" and "pervert" and no doubt getting dozens of hits off the websites of such esteemed organisations as The Sun and the News of the World (those well known researchers and verifiers of facts!)
Of course I'm sure that if someone is convicted, but then cleared on appeal, these people will immediately correct the data in their records and point out that someone has been exonerated of any wrong-doing...
... won't they...?
PS I had to laugh (cynically) when I read the ACPO's statement that "It's a basic principle of civilised society that public protection is best served by an evidence-based approach led by law enforcement authorities..."
Great idea, guys, why not try it? (See "I'm a photographer not a terrorist!" for just one example)
The expression AIUI is actually "Strict Liability Offences" and there are plenty more of those in UK law than the two you mention.
Originally the idea was that they would stop employers from avoiding responsibility for injuries to workers by claiming that nobody was personally responsible for the accident (no "mens rea" or "guilty mind", so nobody could be charged so, quite rightly, the law was changed to make the business as a whole responsible.
But now there is, of course, the law regarding "extreme pornography" where simply possession of an image is enough to prove guilt *unless* you can prove that you were a "direct participant" in what was being done. Another examples is selling alcohol to a child (hence all those "challenge 21" stickers) because the retailer has to prove that they did *not* sell alcohol to a child.
The Government loves Strict Liability offences because they make getting convictions so much easier even though they are a clear breach of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which say you have the Right to be Presumed Innocent...
The point that El Reg is trying to make and that you seem to be missing is that it is the *arrest* which is "on suspicion of possession of a banned substance"
Note the word SUSPICION there, suspicion is not proof of guilt, you still have the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty and if the substance is found to be innocuous, you should be released without a stain on your character.
But what the Police are saying is that it is the simple matter of the *arrest* that can screw your future employment prospects, NOT a conviction for any offence!
Half and half...
I've just logged onto my FB account (look, I use it for playing Scrabble, ok?!) and some of the privacy options on the "About Me" and "Family Relationships etc" section default to "Old Settings" and others are set to "everyone".
On the "Photos and Videos", "Birthday" and "Religious Views" I'm given the option of "Friends of Friends" or "Old settings" but when I mouse over the buttons on Old Settings, it tells me that they're set to Friends of Friends already...!
And there was me thinking...
... that NFC stood for "Not For Children"...!
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Human spacecraft dodge COMET CHUNKS pelting off Mars