4950 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
How do we know it was an undercover firearms vehicle?
Well, because the officer kept repeating this fact!
Perhaps if he hadn't *said* anything about it, his safety would not have been put at risk...?
This just goes to show...
... that some people are too stupid to be allowed on the road!
The Driving Test should include an IQ test along with reminders that a Sat Nav is an *aid* to driving, not a substitute for using your brains and your eyes.
It's a start, but...
... "five principles that the Conservative party intend to apply"
Err, most of those were established as part of the Data Protection Action in 1984!
And, of course, this relies on us being able to *trust* the Tories to actually keep their word when they get into power...
@ Rob Campbell
> Actually, it isn't the "negative statement" that is the problem it's the "prove" part. We scientists normally never actually prove anything. We may find evidence to support a hypothesis, but proving that there can be no evidence to refute the statement is more difficult. One needs to find just a single example that contradicts a hypothesis to refute it (assuming that one is using sound scientific techniques of course).
Err, Rob, that is "proving" the hypothesis, since "to prove" in this context actually means "to test"!
CaPTcHa iS A pITa!
... it's the equivalent of "L33t sp34k" (aka "Moron Text").
I have good visual skils, I am very good at spatial recognition tests, I am reasonably intelligent and can comprehend written language etc.
So why the fuck do I *STILL* have to make repeated attempts to get a web page to agree that I've keyed in one of these bloody things properly?
I fully expect a lot of people to say "sod it, I'll go somewhere else" rather than keep wasting their time being told that they've not typed the munged text correctly.
... Julius Sad Loser With No Life Jankov?
@Motards, Cycletards, Lorrytards, Pedestriantards and any other $tards
Will you all please just take a deep breath, step back and THINK about what you're saying???
Yes, there are stupid road users of ALL sorts, I know, I cycle, ride a motorcycle and (although I don't own a car now) I have driven in the past and I've seen all the stupid and downright dangerous behaviour of other road users, but the sort of idiotic vitriol I've seen in these comments (and the stupid remarks from James Martin that started the whole thing) help NOBODY!
The attitudes that you have been ranting on about mean you are not part of the solution, you are part of the PROBLEM!
The Highway code says "It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders." but going off on a rant about whatever particular road using group has pi$$ed you off helps nobody and is likely to just make YOUR behaviour on the road worse.
So, someone does something stupid, fine, it happens, so why not just take account of that in your driving/ riding/ walking and ensure that YOU are not in a position where such behaviour is going to put you or someone else in jeopardy?
It's called Defensive Driving/ Riding and I commend the idea to you all...
"those accused of illegal file-sharing"
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:
* * * * *
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
* * * * *
Yet this law allows for fines and jail based, it seems, simply on accusations. It also allows for an [quote]"ordonnance pénale" - a simplified proceeding that doesn't include the presence of the person accused of copyright infringement unless an appeal is filed.[unquote]
Hmm, so the music and media industry is more interested in protecting their profits than protecting human rights...
@The unasked question
"Do they genuinely believe that ANY cost is justifiable to save one child's life?"
Others have already mentioned the False Dichotomy and other fallacies, but there's also the "Appeal to Pity" underpinning this whole business, ie "how can you *possibly* argue against anything that might save a child's life?" with, of course, the implication that if you do object, you are a callous and dangerous individual...
The fact is that, as you point out in your article, after all this time wasted and money spent, this legislation would *still* fail to prevent another Soham and will only massively inconvenience (or implicitly criminalise) the vast majority of people who would in no way harm a child.
Pace the "Reminds me of Niemöller......" comment, it reminds me of the "vetting programme" used by the US Military in Doctor Strangelove:
President Merkin Muffley: "General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!"
General "Buck" Turgidson: "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, Sir. "
So the *real* unasked question is if (or gods forbid, when) another "slip up" happens even *after* all this vetting and barring, what will the Government and the Childrens' Charities and so on do then...?
In the news today...
... I've just noticed two stories:
One is of the Rocking Horse Nursery in Plumtree having its licence suspended after allegations of sexual assault, the other is of three pre-teen boys who have been arrested after claims of sexual by two younger children.
So, going back to the unanswered questions: 1) would the vetting scheme have prevented either of these? 2) Will the record of the second one (whether true or false) follow these three boys for the rest of their lives?
... we now have Bang Goes the Theory (aka "Mythbusters did it first"...)
@the problem is.
Err, the Daily Mail comments page is over there....
Soft information and Dangerous Pictures...
Remember that this "vetting" can include "soft information" ie hearsay and malicious gossip whereby it's enough that a kid with a grudge can accuse an adult of trying to groom them or similar, but, even if (or when) it turns out to be a complete lie, that accusation *still* remains on record.
Not only that, but the "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act" from where this database comes, included the ability to bar someone from working with said "vulnerable groups" if they had engaged in "conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate" , yet the SVGA was introduced *before* the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which made the possession of extreme pornography illegal!
In other words, it seems that the Independant Barring Board will want to know what porn you like to look at before they will allow you to work with these groups!
Of course now that these laws are *on* the statute books it's going to be a very difficult job to do anything about them.
Apology from TomTom
I also got one of these messages, but, fair do's to Tom Tom, they followed it up a little while later with an apology from Bas Komen the guy who sent it
"I've got six years to return dodgy goods?"
Excuse the slight hijack (oops, maybe the wrong word to use in this thread!) but...
The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 says that if a fault appears in a product within 6 months it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault was not inherent at time of purchase and if they can't the customer can require repair, replacement or refund. After 6 months and up to 6 years, if the customer can prove the fault was present at time of purchase and it's reasonable for the product to last that long, they can ask for repair, replacement or refund, although the retailer can decline eg repair if such repair would not be economically viable.
PS @ AC: "We have 6 years to return a faulty good? If only I had kept the receipt!!! "
If you payed by credit or debit card, a record of the transaction on a statement is sufficient proof of purchase.
... he is being charged for "beating her and forcing her into prostitution", yes...?
@Give As Good As They Get?
Surely Luxo should just make a novelty lamp in the shape of Mickey Mouse.
I'm sure Disney Corp would be fine with that...!
Gordon Brown's words of contrition...
...came in response to a petition on the No 10 website
Of course they did! But what about all those *other* petitions that have just been ignored or fobbed off with some meaningless BS or dismissed with "it's not us you should be talking to about this" or...?
I'm reminded of the BBC TV comedy show called "If I Ruled the World" hosted by Clive Anderson that they ran some years back. The final round was called "Desperate Vote Grabbing"...
If you want me to offer even "grudging support" of Jim Gamble, I'm going to have to see something more convincing than his "diplomatic language".
Remember that he was the one who, only a few months ago, said that ISPs should waive the costs of "assisting investigations" when children are involved and was roundly criticised by ISPs, especially the smaller ones, for this. Then, a couple of days ago, CEOP declared that "the vast majority of paedophiles exchange images via P2P".
Now, suddenly, he changes his tune and decides that "well, maybe small ISPs shouldn't have to be forced to adopt filtration" which sounds to me more like he'd realised that there was no way that such a thing could get pushed through without a lot of resistance that might then backfire as larger ISPs start saying "hang on, if they don't have to filter and since only 7.5% of this stuff comes from commercial websites and most of it is going via P2P, why should we be wasting our money on it either?"
Don't forget, also, that Gamble was a major mover behind Operation Ore, and that house of cards is looking extremely shaky with the Jim Bates/ Chief Constable Colin Port fiasco and innocent victims of credit card fraud being effectively forced to plead guilty to avoid a court case which, even if they won, would have ruined their lives.
Additionally CEOP wanted to censor Second Life just in case someone used underage avatars to "groom" children and they're also one of the groups that pushed for the clauses in the Coroners and Justice Bill to make pornographic cartoons of "chidren" illegal.
Now IMO Gamble is thinking that he's pissed off a few too many people and he's hoping that a bit of "diplomatic language" might smooth things over before too many questions are being asked about the power that he and CEOP have arrogated unto themselves.
Oh and your last paragraph reads like "Won't Graham Marsden Think Of The Children!", so please excuse me if I ignore it (and your title line) with the contempt it deserves.
... it sounds like he's being sensible, but I'm wondering if he's just looking at preserving his nice little empire?
... what are they going to do if the Government gets its way with the Coroners and Justice Bill and makes "pornographic cartoons of children" illegal?
... how long before someone from the Security Services has a quiet word in their ear and persuades them to add a facility which allows them to eavesdrop on the conversations in all cars, for the public good and prevention of terrorism etc, of course...
(Naturally since every car will automatically be giving off a signal, it will also help in the introduction of road pricing too)
I was just wondering...
... if she was related to amanfromMars when, lo and behold, I see a post from him as I go to the Comments page...!!
It's #14 that really makes the mind boggle...!!
@ Ian Michael Gumby
> Do any of the play toys come with blue tooth
Can I be the first to rate this story...
... "Oh Orgasmic"?
@Is that a misquote??
Damn you, Sir, I wanted to post that one...! ;-)
Come on, El Reg...
... We need the Ursine Mammal Defecating in an Arboreal Environment icon NOW!!
"perpetuating the perilous practice of pursing goals"
I just wanted to say "Nice bit of alliteration there!"
Don't forget that the Coronors and Justice Bill includes provisions for *pornographic drawings* of "children" to be made illegal (NB that's not drawings taken from photographs, but ones created ab initio, ie which have never had any basis in reality!)
So no doubt we will soon see a UK version of the Australian case where a guy was convicted of having "child porn" because he possessed images of Lisa Simpson performing sexual acts!
@Jimmy 1 - Re CEOP
"The unit is staffed by hard-nosed cops who don't feel the least bit inhibited about kicking doors down, arresting paedos "
And if they actually find any *evidence* of crime, so much the better.
Of course if they don't and they ruin some poor bastard's life and rip his family apart and destroy his career and leave him with huge legal bills when he was completely innocent, well, it was For the Good of the Children, wasn't it, so it must have been justified...
And how many British jobs did that "save"?
Let's say it was 1000 for the sake of argument. So they could have given each of those workers £50,000 and said "Go and find another job or take a year off" and still have over half of that £114m left over which would probably have paid for the Israeli system...
... unless you're a *very* dedicated criminal, not having arms is pretty much of an identifier, isn't it...?
... they can launch the aircraft from the sub I'm not going to be impressed.
Stand-by to lauch Sky-Diver!
(MInes the one with the SHADO logo on it)
Interesting choice of words you use viz "pervert" and "get a girlfried"...
Oddly enough in the last century, those who wanted to get themselves a *boyfriend* instead were branded as "perverts" and, indeed, at times could be locked up for their actitivies.
It wasn't that they were doing any harm to anyone, it wasn't that their activities were non-consensual, it wasn't that they were a threat to children (despite the media pushing scare stories about all of these) it was simply that there were a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who thought "we don't like this, so *they* should not be allowed to do this and we'll use any justification we can find (whether it's factually based or not) in order to get laws through to stop them from engaging in their 'perversions'".
Those are exactly the same sort of arguments that were pushed to con people into passing the Dangerous Pictures Act. So, is that the sort of mindset you support? It certainly seems that way.
@Side note on trafficking
"Modern-day slavery is still very much present in the Western world. And the sex industry is just one of the areas where you can find it."
Yes, just *one*. So using claims that "trafficked women are forced to do these acts" as an excuse for saying "we must make pictures of these acts illegal" is nonsense.
I might have disagreed with you, but then I thought of my own experiences.
I saw something that excited me. It was new, it was different, it intrigued me and I enjoyed it.
But then I didn't want the same again, I wanted more, I wanted better, I wanted harder, I wanted more excitement!
... just went back to the library and got another book out.
(I would have put a FAIL icon on this, but that might have given it away)
How did you know that your colleague didn't have these interests before? How do you know it was a "progression"? How do you know it was "caused" by the porn?
You seem to be saying that, just like the idiots who proposed and passed this law, *everyone* cannot be trusted not to go out and commit murder or shag animals or abuse children just because they look at this stuff.
And if you want some evidence of how wrong you are, I suggest you look at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied the effects of the availability of porn (including "extreme" porn) in the USA and Japan and concluded:
"It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
"dubious research commissioned by the music industry itself."
Come on, El Reg, we need a "Bear pooping in the woods" icon...!
I, too, have no interest in football, but at a guess, the word ends in -phile.
... should have stamped "Kilroy was here" into the dust!
Damn you...!! ;-)
... seems to be a cosy little club which has no interest in being accountable to anyone else yet, somehow, has arrogated powers which enables it to influence Government policy and determine (sorry, "issue guidlines") on how the law should be interpreted and exercised.
It's good to see that the Lords are expressing concerns and more kudos accrues to Baroness Miller (who valiantly lead the opposition to the Dangerous Pictures Act), but the question remains whether our Government actually *wants* to have the ACPO subject to oversight...
@What a peculiar society we are turning into
I suppose we ought to feel lucky in the UK that we could only get jailed for three years for looking at pictures of consenting adults engaged in legal sexual activities.
(Gosh, I feel so lucky...)
The answer has to be to filter them as quickly as possible.
Good idea, I'll ignore anything by David Tebbutt in future because there's a strong streak of hypocrisy (do what I say, not what I do) running through this article!
That's an interesting Compendium of characters, I think I ought to relax and look at the Aquarium or have a Totorum before I end up needing Laudanum.
As of 11:49 02/09/09
At least they've fixed the "and" typo! (Maybe someone there reads El Reg?!)
"This site is currently unavailable, we are working on a fix and should have the site available again soon. Thanks. "
PS AC above, nice time machine you have... ;-)
"Follow me on twitter..."?
Or is that "Stalk me on twitter?"
... does not scan copyrighted works in Europe.
Which makes damn all difference when it's as easy to download something from the USA as it is from Europe.
If a book has been published in both the USA and Europe and Google has scanned it, it *will* be available world-wide, simple as that.
Adult Porn != Child Porn...
Ho hum, yet another idiot conflating consensual adult pornography with that produced featuring children (who cannot, by law, consent).
Of course, like those who wrote the "Consultation" on our "Extreme Pornography" ban, he's just using "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" as an excuse to push his narrow minded agenda.
Meanwhile: Paging King Canute...
"Not exactly the best design..."
So how about, duh... not selling it to people who would have problems using it?
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- China building SUPERSONIC SUBMARINE that travels in a BUBBLE
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins
- Experimental hypersonic SUPERMISSILE destroyed 4 SECONDS after US launched it
- That 8TB Seagate MONSTER? It's HERE... (You'll have to squint, 'cos there are no specs)