4081 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
@What is my Road Tax for?
> I was under the impression that I paid Road Tax in order to be able to utilise the highways which I, and my fellow taxpayers, have already paid for.
Which is, as usual, a completely mistaken impression.
Road Tax was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (a tax on your ownership of a car) before WWII. Unless you are about eighty years old you have *never* paid to use the road.
You don't own it, either.
Replacing the RIPA...
> the Government is expected to introduce legislation to replace RIPA in the next session of Parliament.
Well, of course. Because it's not enough that any jumped up nosey parker Council can (ab)use the RIPA to conduct surveillance on pretty much anyone for any reason, we need to get rid of any safeguards left and make sure that *everyone* with a bit of power can monitor what people are doing.
Hopefully the British Public should have enough sense to replace this power-mad, control-freak Government at the next election.
... accusations of kiddie porn or being a member of Al Qaeda?
@New word in my vocabluary
> I don't even know what a "clusterfuck" is
It's an expression warning new soldiers to not stay clustered together, because one grenade and you're all fucked!
All your server...
... are belong to Micro$oft!
And of course...
> Those who fail the vetting will be barred from obtaining such work.
... so, just to be on the safe side, we should mark them all down as potential kiddy fiddlers since there must have been *something* to cause them to fail and it's better safe than sorry...!
Of course if they're over 36, well, we all know they're paedos anyway...
> There is a very fine line between legitimate political protest, and intimidation.
There is also a very fine line between protecting people and repression.
Unfortunately this Government stepped over that line a *long* time ago and now thinks it can do what the hell it likes.
I'd shout "nonsense" but I'm worried I might get arrested as a terrorist...
... Not to visit the USA!
Why don't they just build a big wall around the country and save us all the bother?
You mean the Potentially Hostile Extremist/ Air Rage detector system? ;-)
Yet another Thought Crime...
So it's illegal to possess pictures that the Government doesn't like, even when they show legal activities.
It's going to be illegal to possess drawings that the Government doesn't like, even when they don't show anyone being harmed.
And now it's illegal to possess documents that the Government doesn't like, even when they are freely and legally available.
War is Peace!
Freedom is Slavery!
Ignorance is Strength!
Gordon Brown is Watching You!
How soon before...
... the US Government are using images of the destruction of New York from the "Heroes" TV show as "evidence" of Al Qaeda's plans to set off a nuke there...?
@What is wrong with you people? Part III
> Mr MARSDEN, I can not comment on the drug taken habits of the Cabinet and do not want to distract from this debate with talk of other activities.
Mr COWARD, I suggest you look up the word "irony".
> I would like to say that I have seen the spiral of abuse, many times,
I'm sure you would like to say that, but without some more credible evidence, I cannot take your word that this law will benefit anyone, let alone protect children.
Unfortunately neither you, nor the Government, have provided any such evidence, only your and their personal "beliefs" which, in a discussion like this have as much weight as "I heard it from a bloke down the pub".
> The law was changed to include pseudo-photographs
A "pseudo photograph" simply means a photograph like image, ie a .jpg or similar file on a computer instead of printed on paper. Unfortunately this has been creatively mis-interpreted to convict people of crimes when the "image" was clearly a photo-montage with absolutely no basis in reality.
> I still find it hard to believe that some many seemingly rational people are defending this [...] this is proposed to stop a loop hole in the creation/ possession/ distribution of images of children getting abuse.
I still find it hard to believe that many seemingly rational people believe this nonsense.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act already *closed* that loophole where paedophiles were tracing over photographs of *actual* abuse so they still had the image, but it wasn't a photograph or pseudo photograph.
What this is doing, however, is criminalising entirely *fictitious* images. Ones that have *no* basis in reality. Ones that do *not* show real children being abused any more than a film really shows someone being shot or tortured or whatever.
As you said yourself "How can that improve society?" Answer, it cannot.
> We have to protect the vulnerable; can we run the risk that this will lead to hands on abuse? Can you really think that it is ok for a single child to be abused so that certain sections of the population can convince themselves that this is art and no one is getting hurt?
Oh dear, it's the good old "Appeal to Pity" fallacy. Unfortunately I've seen it too many times in discussions to fall for this nonsense.
Neither you, nor the Government, have proven the case that this *will* protect any children in the slightest. You, however, gloss over this with a Precautionary Principle argument that if we *don't* ban this stuff a child *might* be abused, so we should ban it anyway, just in case.
You are arguing that it is ok to criminalise something based on *no* evidence, based on nothing more than supposition and belief, in the vague hope that criminalising many people who would never harm a child by creating a Thought Crime might somehow stop an act of abuse and then it would be justified.
If that is how you think laws should be written I can only hope you never come to political power.
@I better go, I have to go to school in the morning.
Good, then maybe they can teach you about things like Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty or how about "evidence based" laws instead of ones based on opinion or maybe not resorting to or Ad Hominem attacks when you can't win an argument because you have no facts to base your beliefs up.
Oh and can I suggest you take Mr "Grow up you bleeding heart liberals" Anonymous Coward with you since he also appears to have as little grasp on such things as you do.
@What is wrong with you people? Part II
"Just because no one is hurt in that picture doesn’t mean the person viewing it will not move on to real images when it no long does it for them. It is called a spiral of abuse with good reason."
Ah, the good old "gateway" theory, just like the claims that smoking a bit of cannabis will make people go onto "hard" drugs.
But given that we have had quite a few of the Cabinet admitting to using cannabis in their younger years, how many of them do you think are hooked on hard drugs now?
Because them being as high as a kite is about the only rational reason for them wanting to pass laws like this!
And the only "good reason" it's called "the spiral of abuse" is that it's a good soundbite to justify these sorts of laws without actually needing to provide any proof of harm or evidence that it's "necessary and proportionate"!
Re: What is wrong with you people?
It's good to see that it's not just guys in here that think this law is absurd! To criminalise fictional images is to criminalise thought as the Government did with so-called Extreme Porn.
Unfortunately it seems they think "hey, we got away with it that time, let's see if we can use exactly the same arguments again..."
"if any reader has a link to specific evidential reports or research conclusions confirming this then please post a link."
See "The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective" by Professor Milton Diamond PhD which 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 and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims."
Also Professor Todd Kendall who presented a paper to Stanford Law School which concluded "[...] the results suggest that, in contrast to previous theories to the contrary, liberalization of pornography access may lead to declines in sexual victimization of women."
Still, why should the Government let the facts get in the way of grabbing some headlines?
Another Thought Crime from a Failing Government
So, after banning "Extreme Porn" based on the *belief* that it may cause us to do nasty things without any credible evidence to back that up, this lame duck Government is making another desperate bid for positive headlines by saying "Look, we're doing something! We're protecting children! That's good isn't it?"
Except, again, they have no proof other than their "belief" that this will somehow protect children and they're once more pandering to the prejudices of the Tabloid readers who will start to froth at the mouth at any reference to child porn without stopping to engage in any rational thought.
Of course you can guarantee that the Tories will once again do their famous "Fence Sitting" act, they won't actually *approve* of this law, but neither will they actually have the guts to stand up and oppose it.
Probably, again, the only people with the courage to resist this ludicrous legislation will be the Lib Dems and they will be roundly ignored by those who think that it's not worth supporting them because they won't win, except that if people don't support those who oppose laws like this they never *WILL* win.
Write to your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you're not falling for the "won't someone think of the children!" argument, this is not protecting children, it is a Control Freak Government desperately rushing through another Thought Crime before they're kicked out of office.
> "Why do these self-rightous groups always try to use an extreme approach to resolve something."
Because they can always use an extreme case to get people agreeing that "something must be done" and then parlay that into a ban on porn/ free speech/ political dissent/ whatever without most people even realising until it is *way* too late and that right has already been lost.
What Free Speech? I'll tell you what Free Speech!
> Not enshrined in the Magna Carta, not in any other law in UK
From the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK has ratified:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
Tyranny of the Ignorant...
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR LITTLE CHILDREN!!!
After all, we all know that they're just defenseless little things who need to be covered in bubble wrap and cotton wool and everyone should be required to make sure that everything on the web is censored so it can't corrupt their delicate little minds.
Perish the thought that their *PARENTS* should take any responsibility for what their children see...
They've already tried...
... to reinvent the story with the Sarah Connor Chronicles (broadcast recently on Virgin Channel).
Apparently (although the first series only got 13 episodes) it's just been renewed for another 13.
Aw, poot, I thought this was an ROTM story with a teenaged AI which got a bit moody and decided to start messing around with people's credit records because it was bored...
"The fact is that eighteen years of legalised human embryo research in the UK have not produced any significant medical advances. This legislation will not change that."
In case you weren't aware, medical advances do not happen to some sort of time-table. You cannot say "if this research is allowed we will have a cure for X in Y years".
However if research is not allowed it's pretty damn certain that any chances of a cure being discovered are a hell of a lot lower!
The sweet smell of hypocrisy...
"even with a repressive regime like Burma, information cannot be repressed forever, information cannot be suppressed and it comes out of a country.""
But it's still an offence to *possess* such information in that Repressive Regime, isn't it Gordon? And "illegal" information is defined as anything the Government doesn't like.
Still, it's not as if our great and freedom loving country would pass a similar such law making it a criminal offence to possess anything the Government doesn't like, such as so-called "extreme pornography"...??
PS: Paris because even she could understand how hypocritical Brownshirt is being.
@Meaningless Publicity Stunt
> The purpose of PMQs is to ensure accountability
That may, once, have been the purpose of PMQs, but now it has turned into a Political Pantomime with the Opposition chorusing "Oh yes you did" with the Government responding "Oh no we didn't" followed by "But *you* did XYZ" where XYZ is usually barely relevant to the original question asked.
As for David Cameron, he had a site where you could "Ask David" which turned into "David will answer whatever questions he damn well likes" and, not long after, was merged completely into the Tory Party website and the opportunity to "Ask David" was lost.
So I don't see much kudos for him in all this and I have little doubt that Brown will follow the same path.
... originally Han shot first, but in the new "Official Version" it was Greedo who shot first!
Not only content with banning pillow fights, the Police have been instrumental in the cancellation of several other long-running events such as the Welsh National Bike Show and the Rock and Blues Custom Bike Show and they're currently trying to stop the Bulldog Bash from going ahead in a knee-jerk response to the shooting that happened last year.
There was also a cycle road race which was cancelled after running for 50 years because "it is not the policy of Thames Valley Police to provide support for events on public roads".
In the mean time, they're also clamping down on motorcyclists on the roads to "prevent deaths" but, oddly, I don't hear about a similar clampdown on car drivers without insurance or driving whilst disqualified or using mobile phones, all of which are responsible for many more deaths.
Not a prostitute...
Perhaps the authors of the piece in the Times and the MP quoted are too genteel to understand the difference between a Prostitute (who sells sex) and a Professional Dominatrix who engages in consensual BDSM but *not* sex.
Although how a Tory MP is ignorant of this fact, I'm not sure...
@Steven "Very Naughty Boy Indeed" Raith
Don't forget, those shown in the picture are legally permitted to own a copy because they are "direct participants", it's just everyone else, including the person who set the scene and took the photographs who will be committing a crime if they own a copy...
PS, but, please Ms Moderatrix, there are companies who sell Affordable Leather Products who would be honoured to equip you with much more suitable attire and effective equipment!
... The Thought Police, coming to a Neighbourhood near you!
Remember, sheeple, this is for your own good...
But when he jumps...
... Does he proclaim "Power Xtreme!" (tm)
... because I run a business selling "adult products" (ie BDSM gear), I will no doubt have to waste time and money trying to find a way to implement all sorts of pointless and worthless "age check" bells and whistles that will simply irritate all my legitimate customers even though I can pretty much guarantee I've not had the slightest interest from underage purchasers.
Gosh, thanks again to our Nanny State for "protecting" us.
@2000AD - Hugo Tyson
Actually it was Johnny Alpha aka Strontium Dog who used Electronux!
Don't forget that even if they can't get you for "hacking tools" I'm sure they'll be able to find something on your PC that they can call "extreme pornography" and lock you up for three years instead...
Don't forget they've also developed techniques for fighting off giant Dinosaurs, mutated moths and a whole range of other creepy crawlies!
PS: Regarding comments on the intelligence of Aliens -
"You'd better pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
"Because there's bugger all down here on Earth!"
- Monty Python, the Meaning of Life.
Now remember, boys and girls...
If you buy drugs or pirated software or share files you're funding Terrorism, but obviously if your Government is buying Oil and Gas from barely stable regimes to feed your demand for fossil fuels, they're not funding a potential nuclear arms race!
Before you get too complacent about your Freedom of Expression in the Good Ol' US of A, might I remind you of this story:
* * * * *
The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.
The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.
"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."
* * * * *
Several US suppliers who were making legal, consensual porn, were forced to quit and sell up to European suppliers because, as one said, "the staff is unwilling to fight a lengthy and expensive court battle only to emerge victorious but bankrupt"
Liz Longhurst says that "Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others"
- Paging Pastor Martin Niemoller...
Oh and here's a good laugh - Under the Law as it now stands, it is not illegal to possess a BBFC classified film as they are "excluded images", but it is illegal to possess "a recording of an extract from a classified work, and it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal" because that would not be an "excluded image".
But the BBFC has just given an R18 certificate to a film called "Girls With Guns" which features "sex scenes involving firearms duress" ie the woman is pointing a gun at someone (threatening someone's life) and it's clearly "for sexual arousal", however this will *NOT* be illegal because it is not "an extract from a classified work" as the whole thing is a classified work!
So having a whole *film* full of such material is ok, but taking a clip from a film that only shows a bit of such activity is illegal!
Any chance of a Reality Check here...?
In the mean time, write to your MPs via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you want them to support the Select Committee that Lord Hunt hinted might be set up to look again at this ludicrous piece of Thought Crime legislation.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- Microsoft reveals Xbox One, the console that can read your heartbeat