4514 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
@Definition of 'perv'
A "pervert" is someone who engages in a sexual practice that you wouldn't engage in and one that you don't think anyone else should engage in either...
... according to the Daily Mail.
I find it really disturbing that it appears that because you don't like prostitution, you are seem to be in favour of women working as prostitutes being arrested "as well as" men who use their services.
This is, presumably, to "protect" them, which, IMO, sounds incredibly patronising to those women (and, yes, there are a lot of them, despite the Government's spin) who, of their own free will, choose to work in the sex trade and will tell you what you can do with your "protection".
Not only that, you want to set yourself up as arbiter of what is "normal" behaviour or what is a "consenting" arrangement.
If you don't the idea of working in the IT business with people who might "look at you as a potential purchase" might I suggest you look for a new job? I understand the post of Home Secretary is a great one for imposing your personal tastes on everyone else...
> It's almost as if people *enjoy* getting enraged and feeling superior over nothing.
Have you never read the Daily Mail...?!
How much did these two rovers cost...?
... and how much would it cost to send a few humans to Mars?
Eventually, yes, it'll be worth sending people, but in the mean time we can do a lot more for a lot less and IMO NASA should invest in a fleet of these babies!
Time to grab a few more headlines...
It is you who are missing the point. We already *have* laws to protect women from threats of violence and assaults and other behaviours involved in trafficking, passing new laws is not going to make matters any better.
@ Tim Brown:
> "If someone makes use of the services of a prostitute who they know or believe is being coerced into providing those services, then I'm quite happy for a suitably heavy book to be thrown at them"
And how is someone supposed to *know* this? Should the punter be required to ask "have you been forced or coerced into this" when he hands over the money? How is he supposed to know if they are telling the truth?
This is another ludicrous headline grabbing law from a Government which has lost all touch with reality and is now just legislating based on the personal views of Ministers.
Alzheimers is not a death sentence!
One of the things that Terry Pratchett has been trying to get over to people is that he Aten't Dead Yet and probably won't be for a long time!
Regrettably, as some comments on here suggest, there is still widespread ignorance about Alzheimers which, coupled with the lamentable lack of funding that the condition receives, means that many sufferers, whilst they still have their faculties, feel abandoned or get treated as if they have one foot in the grave already.
This doesn't have to be the case, but only if those who research into Alzheimers and treatments for it get the support that they need.
Hush, little ones, don't argue, just trust us...
So Wacky Jaqui says she would publish a consultation paper in the new year.
What she doesn't say is that it will be biased and one-sided and not give the full facts and even then she will ignore it if it doesn't give the response the Government wants.
This Government has lost any connection with the real world, they know they've not got a hope in hell of winning the next election, so they're just trying to push through as much of their Control Freak, Big Brother, Nanny State legislation as possible before they're unceremoniously kicked out of office.
Of course this doesn't mean that the *next* bunch we get in power (the Tories, most likely, by the rule of Buggins' Turn, given the way our electoral system "works") are really going to be much better. Ok, yes, they say they'll get rid of ID cards, but what about all the *rest* of the legislation New Labour brought in which infringes on our Right to Protest, Right to Privacy, Right to decide for ourselves what we can read or see, Right to go about our lawful business without let or hindrance?
Will David Cameron give us a promise that he'll do anything about this? Or, if asked, will he just give us a weaselly, mealy mouthed statement about "well, we'll look at it and maybe get rid of it, but we can't say right now" and then, once he's in power, say "perhaps this isn't so bad after all, but maybe after the *next* election"...?
The only Party with any real gumption to do anything this are the Lib Dems, but they're stuck in third place in a system that would require a massive shift in voting patterns to give them a chance of power and neither of the other two parties have any intention of changing that.
Didn't they learn anything...
... from the Sky/ Virgin debacle?
Virgin lost, Sky won, eventually Virgin had to eat humble pie. End of story.
Three cheers for...
... Sir Terry!
And, iamapizza, if you think Terry Pratchett "lacks talent" or could be compared to those you mention, just stick to the books with the big pictures and the short words and don't bother trying to engage your brain (which you obviously didn't do in the first place).
Actually this could be rather sensible.
This isn't "Nanny State" because the Government is only issuing *guidelines* (rather than attempting some ridiculous and unenforceable heavy-handed nonsense like passing laws making it illegal for a child to drink more than X amount) so it might help children learn that going out and getting blitzed isn't necessary to have a good time.
Of course it does rely on their parents being responsible and not sitting the kids in front of the TV with a couple of tins of Special Brew...
Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 30th December 2008 16:49 GMT
Why don't you just build a five mile high wall around your country and then you can *really* convince yourself that there's nothing else in the world and nobody else would have to worry about a country with such a balanced personality that it has a chip on *both* shoulders!
(Joke ahead icon because there's no "responding to a complete joke" one...)
@AC at the top...
... Yep, you go out and get pissed and forget about this.
The fact that the Government is planning on trying to take away more of your rights and controlling what you can see or read or download with ridiculous and unenforceable laws isn't important, is it?
I have Sat Nav on my bike...
... and I can set it to give me a *warning* if I am exceeding the limit. I sure as hell would never let anything over-ride my control of the bike, nor, if I am in the middle of an overtake, would I want to have to worry about pressing a button to stop it happening.
As for Bassey's "why let vehicles go faster than 70", obviously he's never seen a "Crawler Race" where you have one HGV with its limiter set 2mph faster than the one it's trying to pass. Naturally the trucker being passed isn't going to back off ("why the hell should I?!"), so you have an overtake manoeuvre which goes on for a couple of miles.
Now imagine that you're trying to pass one of those trucks on a dual carriageway, but you can only do it at 70mph and that "end of dual carriageway" that was a mile or so off is coming rapidly closer... does that sound like a recipe for safety??
"There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. "
Well then just don't fucking LOOK at it, you pillock!
And if your kiddy starts looking at it, what the HELL are you doing leaving your child unattended whilst it's browsing the net?
Your Big Brother, Nanny State, Control Freak Party has already passed the most ludicrous piece of legislation making it illegal simply to possess so-called "extreme pornography" but you can't even *define* what the fuck you mean by this term, so how the hell is anyone going to be able to decide if what they own is illegal in the first place?
And now you want everyone else to do your job as a PARENT and protect your little ones from the nasty stuff that you don't like?
The sooner this bunch of idiots are out of office, the better!
A Scotland Yard spokesman told the BBC:
"There are strict guidelines in place regarding the use of intelligence databases and if anyone abuses it that is taken extremely seriously."
The "strict guidelines" being "don't do this, it's naughty and we wouldn't like it"?
Somewhat ironic given No2ID's just launched "Take Jane" campaign. See http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v1JqlvnZANA
If we have a National ID Database, is this sort of thing going to be:
a) Less likely?
b) More likely?
Still, if you've got nothing to hide...
The UK Government...
... is keen to retain the opt-out, believing that it suits the UK's work culture, which generally involves longer hours than that in other EU member states.
Y'know, I would have thought this Government would have been in favour of stopping people working longer hours because that way the employers would be forced to take on more workers to get the same amount of work done and thus make the unemployment figures look better!
The Top Guns...
> won't be looking forward to telling their children that there's no longer any way to win one's glorious wings of gold and the respect of the nation
Not to mention it'll make it much more difficult to try to get Kelly McGillis' knickers off in the Ladies Room...
... Mine's the one with the off-key copy of "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" in the pocket.
So this Xmas...
... at the most depressing time of year for many people, the Number One song could be "music to slit your wrists to"...!
Well, maybe there's a god above,
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you.
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah...
Happy Xmas everyone...
> "Is knowing the state has your DNA really more detriminent to a person's "privacy" than knowing that unauthorisated photos are visible to people you don't like on facebook?"
Well, yes, because only one of those is an infringement on the right to be Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty!
@Sean: 911 is not usable in the UK because some UK phone numbers start with those three digits.
@Jaowon: The other reason for choosing 999 in the UK was that, with the old rotary dial phones, it was easiest to dial in the dark, you just found the bottom of the dial and put your middle finger in the first hole which was 0, then your index finger in the hole next to it which had to be 9 and you didn't need to find any other digits thereafter.
Hello, Jaqui, this is the Real World (tm) calling...
So she promises "a review of the RIPA code of practice", whilst ignoring the fact that she has now been *TOLD* that keeping the DNA of people not convicted of crime is illegal. The "removing 70 under 10s from the database is just a sop which attempts to distract people's attention from what's still going on.
She also claims that the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who, allegedly, think that ID cards are a great idea and should be introduced immediately...
I would like to welcome...
... Our FUD spouting Overlords!
Be afraid, people. Be VERY afraid! Only through your fear can we make you safe! Don't trouble your little heads about Human Rights or Civil Liberties, such things can only make Terrorists' lives easier, so let us remove all those Rights and let us watch you wherever you go and see who you're phoning and check what websites you're visiting and record your DNA and have you carrying ID cards because only in that way will we have true Safety!
We shall prevail!
Time to start developing...
... those frickin' lasers to fit on sharks' heads and then they can zap this jellyfish menace into oblivion!
Hello Left Hand...?
... this is Right Hand. Do you have any idea what I'm doing, because I don't!
@Neil Hoskins: Basically I'm fucking sick of fucking "libertarians" telling me that I have to view their sick pictures
And I'm sick of people like you using Straw Man arguments like this! You do *NOT* have to view these pictures, nobody is forcing you to view anything. You, however are telling everyone else that because *you* consider these images to "sick pictures" *THEY* should not be allowed to look at them which is bullshit. Your personal tastes (or those of Wacky Jacqui et al) should not govern what anyone else is allowed to look at "just in case it might make them think about doing something nasty".
@Dennis: "criminalising the possession of obscene material as the obvious reaction. "
No, it was a ridiculous over-reaction, especially since it is still entirely unclear as to what will be criminalised and what won't because such decisions are going to be based on the *subjective* opinions of the Police/ CPS/ DPP/ Magistrates...
But you're right, the OPA was flawed, is flawed, and always will be flawed and the best way to fix the problem is to get rid of it entirely.
@From A Professional
> Professional in Child Care that is!!
But presumably not a professional in environmentally responsible waste disposal...!
... what a remarkable man. Most Americans would probably have been reaching for their lawyers by then...
In a public place...
In the UK you have no right to demand privacy if you are in a public place. If someone takes a picture of you, that's perfectly legal.
What they do not have the right to do is to publish or use that photograph in a "defamatory" way and, had the women mentioned in the article been in the UK they could have sued on this basis.
Had the face been blurred out or the figure only shot from the neck down they would not have been identifiable and so there wouldn't have been a problem.
PS @Help me here, please. "Can I deny a police officers demands to stop/desist and/or handover the pictures as making them available to others may prejudice a possible prosecution? Just asking..."
As far as I understand the law, yes, you can, see http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php and http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html for more information.
"There's no law underpinning this, no offence is committed by ignoring the IWF - but because there is no law, what can you challenge? [...]
"The IWF is unaccountable and they're clearly out of control - there needs to be a statutory approach to this. Myself I'd prefer no censorship, but it it's there it needs to be open, transparent and on a legal footing - and you have to ask yourself why government is so opposed to that approach...."
Excuse me? This is the Government which has brought in the Extreme Porn laws and which plans to make it illegal to possess *drawings* of "child abuse" amongst other things!
The only reason they haven't put a law in place yet is probably because they haven't found the time to do it or there hasn't been a sufficiently media friendly "moral outrage" to which their knee can jerk!
This Government is clearly out of control and has no idea about what its legislation will actually achieve, nor, indeed, how it will achieve it (see the Ministry of Justice's "Guidance" on Extreme Porn which basically says "let the courts sort out our mess") and you want them to introduce *more* legislation?
You've written some good articles in the past, but in this case I think you've got it wrong.
Ok, given that I've been involved in the campaign against this law for the last two years, let's address a few points:
1) The IWF has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with this law! The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 and the Ministry of Justice's guidance make no reference to the IWF at all. The original Consultation did, but only to say that the IWF had had no reports of this being hosted in the UK in 2003-4 and claiming that this might be due to the "deterrant effect" of the Obscene Publications Act (yeah, right...)
2) For an image to be prosecuted (as far as I understand it), firstly the Police must find it in your possession, then consider it to be an "extreme image", they then have charge you with the offence and pass the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS then have to get permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions to actually take the case to court. (In the mean time, of course, your computer has been seized, along with all your CDs, videos, DVDs etc and you're not going to see those again for a *long* time because you're not an MP!)
3) The problem (well, amongst the problems!) is that the MoJ's "guidance" is as vague and ill-defined as the law passed by Parliament. They say that "The words ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ are not alternatives to ‘obscene character’ but are examples of it. They are drawn from the ordinary dictionary definition of ‘obscene’" but they don't say *which* dictionary. Chambers says "Obscene [...] 3. (UK Law) Liable to corrupt and deprave", but the Government specifically excluded this by voting down an amendment brought in the law to include this definition.
The guidance also says that "Serious injury should be given its ordinary English meaning" but then specifically excludes case law regarding Grievous Bodily Harm which does refer to "serious injury" and which might have given some clue as to what is included or excluded.
The MoJ says "As with any law, once Parliament has passed it, it is for the courts to interpret and apply it." which sounds like a massive cop-out requiring that the Courts should try to sort out this abysmally incoherent law.
4) The MoJ says that "the new law will only catch material which would already be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959", but this is a blatant lie, since it criminalises images excerpted from films which are entirely *legal* to publish and sell under the OPA. It also creates a new definition of "pornographic" since it declares such an image "must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", something which the OPA does not do.
5) The guidance says "An image must come within the terms of all three elements before it will fall foul of the offence" ie that
a) it's "pornographic" (defined as mentioned as: "must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", ie in someone else's subjective opinion, it's to give someone their jollies),
b) its "grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character" (but it then goes on to say "The words ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ are not alternatives to ‘obscene character’ but are examples of it", which suggests that it should at the least say "and" not "or" or, even better, "to be considered obscene it must *also* be grossly offensive *and* disgusting", although that's still entirely subjective) and finally:
c) "An extreme act is one which threatens a person’s life, which results or is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals" (I'll skip the necrophilia and bestiality references)
The problem is the guidance then goes on to say that "Life-threatening is not defined in the Act. It will therefore take its ordinary English meaning and will be a question of fact for the magistrate or jury", but it only suggests what it *could* (not does) include depictions of and it doesn't even say whether those depictions *are* actual examples of what the law would cover.
In other words, again, it's up to a Court to decide if an image is actually covered under all of these criteria (presumably after the Police and the DPP have decided that it is or could be). But what this means is that you or I will have no idea if an image will fall foul of the law because it's not *our* view on it that matters!
Presumably violent films (even featuring nudity) or art won't be included, except that's not necessarily the case if you take an excerpt from one and stick it in the same folder (or on the same hard drive? Or is that just on the same computer??) as your porn collection because then the Police can argue that the "context" suggests you took it "for sexual arousal", ie they'll decide if you're getting your jollies from looking at it! (So probably images of the Crucifixion aren't going to be illegal unless someone's drawn a knob on it like some kids did on the ones in the RE books at school...!)
Of course, probably, as I've mentioned in other posts on this subject, what's going to happen is that this will end up being a "Consolation Prize Law" where if the Police have nicked you for something but can't pin it on you, they'll dig through your computer and see if they can find any "extreme porn" to justify the original arrest.
In the meantime we have a "chilling effect" produced where people are forced to self-censor just in case they have something that might fall foul of this law.
There is, however, still time to do something, so, once again, I urge people to read the above, then write to their MP via http://www.writetothem.com and get their elected representatives to demand that the MoJ produce some coherent and definitive information on what this law is or isn't intended to cover instead of saying "it's not up to us, let the people self-censor and let the Police make subjective decisions and let the Courts sort it out whilst we find something new to persecute!"
Sanity will prevail...
... right after Wacky Jacqui and friends introduce a new law making it illegal to possess or distribute videos of "criminal behaviour" because that sort of thing obviously makes people want to emulate it (unless, of course, you're a TV station broadcasting Crime Watch or America's Dumbest Criminals etc, because that shows the bad guys getting nicked and that's ok..)