... the Department of Pre-Astroturfing!
6066 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... the Department of Pre-Astroturfing!
From the House of Lords on the 16th of December 2010:
Asked by Baroness Miller of Hendon:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the public disorder that took place on 10 November and 9 December, they will introduce public order legislation prohibiting the wearing of masks or disguises at otherwise lawful demonstrations, marches and protest meetings.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the police already have powers under Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require the removal of face coverings worn for the purpose of concealing identity. The police also have powers to seize such items.
Might I remind you that prostitution *is* "within the law", it's just that most everything around it (street-walking, "running a brothel", "living off immoral earnings" etc) which is illegal.
There is already the International Union of Sex Workers http://www.iusw.org/ who are affiliated to the GMB in this country who are lobbying for the right to decide for themselves how they are allowed to operate without threat of criminalisation.
We don't "need a debate" on this, the facts are already out there and the arguments boil down to a) As long as it doesn't cause problems for anyone else, it's their life and their business b) We don't like it, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it and c) The NIMBYs
Of those only one argument really makes any sense and, properly implemented, would deal with the NIMBYs as well.
So first of all get rid of the ridiculous law that say that two or more women working in the same building for their own safety counts as "running a brothel".
Secondly allow them to employ security staff who *won't* be classed as pimps "living off immoral earnings" (in fact get rid of that stupid phrase altogether)
Thirdly ensure that women (and men) working in the sex industry get the *full* protection of the law that they are entitled to, such that violence and other unacceptable behaviour against them isn't just considered to be "a risk of the job"
Finally just get rid of the attitude that these women are automatically "victims" and "need help to get out of prostitution" whether they have got into it of their own free will or not. By all means protect those who are forced or trafficked into it, but if not, we don't need ham-fisted efforts like those from Harriet Harperson to close down sites like Punternet or criminalise men for failing to prove that a woman hadn't been trafficked (an impossible task)
You mean a bunch of arrogant prats who would not listen to what people were telling them, who held "consultations" which were rigged to give the answers they wanted whilst ignoring any evidence to the contrary, who pi$$ed all over people's basic rights and freedoms in a vainglorious quest for more power, who believed that the Nanny State was the best way to go and that they were going to be benevolent Big Brother watching over us because we couldn't be trusted to act responsibly on our own...???
Yes, that sounds *exactly* like what the last government stood for!
... where patents go through virtually on the nod and then people start pointing out Prior Art?
Patent troll because...
... Who Cares...?
So, absolutely no change there, then.
... any noun in the english language can be verbed...!!
I'm sorry, but anyone who uses a word like that is digging their own grave...!
Again Scorchio!! misses the point.
At the moment the Government and the Civil Service can, effectively unilaterally, decide that "the people don't need to know this" and slap a 30 year rule restriction on it when the restriction on releasing the information involved is more to do with covering someone's political backside than risk to anyone's security.
Nobody is arguing that information on current military or security operations should be released willy-nilly without any care as to the results, so please stop bringing up this specious claim.
To pick one example: "By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices."
So a) the Army were aware of the problem and b) they *still* deployed the original technology *even though* they knew there were problems. Would *we* have known about this had Wikileaks not revealed it or would it have been hushed up, do you think?
You go on "IOW he's acknowledged the probability that he has harmed people" but you're distorting "might" into "probably has" which BTW still has nothing to do with him being "unelected/self appointed".
As for the rest of your "power without accountability" argument, you're really missing the point, go back and read again what I considered the "eminently good qualifications" I mentioned were and then consider whether the "standards" of our elected representatives are what you would expect in a responsible and democratic country.
If anyone should be arrested, it is those at the top of our power structures (such as those responsible for the lack of security of the computer systems that he hacked!) not someone who reveals *their* complacency.
"The point is that Assange is not someone who has either the authority, experience, or ability to correctly disseminate information on the behalf of any government."
In other words he's not a party flunky, political spin doctor or someone with a vested interest in protecting the careers of politicians.
Those sound like eminently good qualifications to me!
As for your supposition, why would Assange be treated any different from anyone else who has leaked embarrassing things about the British Government?
And why am I "wrong" because *you* and the Government think that the people that elected them don't "need to know" things that were done in their name? Does that include things like using our own troops as guinea pigs for biological, chemical or radiological research? Does that include co-operating in the USA's "extraordinary rendition" programme where people were illegally flown from UK soil to places where they could be tortured? Does that include forcibly shipping out the population of Diego Garcia island to allow the Yanks to set up a base there? Does that... (this list could go on for a long time).
I can accept that *some* information needs to be secret if it will affect existing operations or put at hazard those who have participated in past operations, but blanket impositions of "it's secret because we don't want you know and it might make me look bad" simply don't wash.
"Assange deliberately got good people killed and he profited from their deaths."
Really? Who got killed and how did Assange profit from their deaths? (BTW You might like to look up the definition of "libel" at some point...)
... Governments should be afraid of their people.
Alan Moore - V for Vendetta.
"Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation."
And that says it all.
Governments represent their people, so the people have a right to know what the Government is doing in their names.
ITYM Gullible idiots who believe our advertising and can't be bothered to look further think that we actually offer good value for money...
... you *CAN'T* go around telling people that Chip and Pin isn't perfect and wonderful and absolutely impossible to fiddle or defraud as we've been lyin^H^H^H^H telling people for ages now!
If you did that, then everyone who's been scammed with a C&P card and been told "too bad, the technology is perfect, it must have been your fault!" might get the idea that they don't need to be fobbed off like this and *can* get their money back from us!
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF OUR PROFITS!!
- SIgned: The banks.
"[...] that have been staples of most websites for years."
Does this mean he's only just noticed, or only just decided that they're now valuable enough to make it worthwhile suing for...?
... to El Reg!
(And I don't blame you for falling asleep in front of Xmas TV, once again it's really crap...)
... is having your own domain.
That way, when XYZsite wants an e-mail address you can create an e-mail address at XYZsite@mydomain.co.uk so if you subsequently get spam it makes it blatantly obvious who has been profligate with your details.
It's a good start and one that the English Government should emulate, but it needs to go further and get rid of the nonsense legislation that requires the ridiculous amounts of ID you have to produce eg to open a bank account etc.
Is that the sound of High Fives being exchanged in the USA...?
Thank you for the clarification, I agree entirely.
(Alas it looks like those who downvoted me haven't bothered to read the read of the thread...)
Yes, I *KNOW* the quote I have used it many times myself (as a quick search of my name and the phrase will demonstrate) although actually whilst it's generally now attributed to Voltaire, it's possible that he never said it, but it's a paraphrase of his beliefs see: http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
I was not accusing you of threatening anyone, the point I was making was that in your post you put a question mark at the end seemingly querying why the opponents of the EDL should not be allowed to say what they want, however I think you would agree that sending threatening hate-mail goes beyond the right of freedom of speech.
Perhaps the people who down-voted me would like to change their votes now, or don't they agree with *MY* right to express an opinion because *they* misunderstood it?
"I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
You have the right to express a view, you do not have the right to make threats against another person because you don't like what they say...
Great, so the person in front of the person in front of you gets refused for some reason, but then you stick your card on the reader and as it authorises it allows *them* to walk through the barrier and *you* get blocked until, hopefully, someone behind the person behind you puts their card on the reader and that lets you through...
... have a backup.
Second rule of computing:
See Rule One!
But to whose benefit?
If I was running a business supplying salt and grit and could find out that a Council was buying it at £38 a tonne and I could supply it at £20 a tonne, it would be to my advantage, the Council's advantage and, most importantly, the Tax Payers' advantage for that information to be available.
In fact the only people whose interests are protected by "commercial confidentiality" are the people who are supplying it at a higher cost and thus making greater profits from the public purse!
... Ed Milliband, c/o Labour Party Headquarters and mention that Tony and Gordon should chip in too...
You mean I can't get a refund for my Betamax VCR or my DAB radio or my DAT player or my Mini Disc player or...
... which can eternal lie...!
Well if it isn't, we both have the same problem!
Although with a bit of concentration (I find it best to watch the extended leg) you can convince your brain to swap the direction she's going.
And you try looking up the dictionary definition of vengeance.
... nobody has *EVER* subsequently been acquitted on appeal or post-humously found to have been the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Tell me, how much justice can *you* afford?
... "wrong type of interviewee"!
"...such as Startling Detective or True Detective Mysteries."
Err, aren't those the ones whose covers would feature full colour drawings of busty young ladies with loose blouses or ripped skirts being bound up or attacked or fleeing from assailants along with lurid stories of vice and drugs and general depravity?
Nope, nothing for the prudes to get upset about there...!
... in the Trade Section, there was a new "toy" from Japan which was a synthetic female hand attached to a mechanism which would allow it to slide up and down in synchronisation with the motions of a young lady on a video which would play on your computer.
I can't help thinking that with that and the game in this article plus a webcam there's a whole new world of (ahem) "interactive communications devices" just waiting to be developed...!!!
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.
32 Let us get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let us get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.
38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Erm, excuse me, Amazon...!!!
So much of what appears on TV now barely needs vision *at all*, let alone 3D!
I often work whilst "watching" (well, actually listening to) something on Discovery or National Geographic channel because so little information is supplied by the pictures that I only need to glance at the screen once a minute to see if anything important is there (usually it isn't) then go back to what I need to look at.
Even the narration is often so ridiculously repetitive that the whole programme could have been shown in half the broadcast time.
3D? Flat Screen Plasma? Hi def? I'll stick to my old CRT TV!
I agree that some people with mental health problems will never be suitable for rehabilitation, but that's an argument for better mental health facilities (as is the fact that many people who are currently in prison would be more suited to secure mental hospitals if they hadn't all been cut)
As to how we decide who is or isn't suitable for rehabilitation, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to comment, but I do know that past results have shown that "give them a hard time" doesn't work, but that systems like Restorative Justice http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/ have shown greater positive results
Try looking at the history of penal systems and you might find that the "treat them like the scum they are and don't give them *anything* more that the basics" technique has been tried in the past and, unsurprisingly, found to fail to break the cycle of offending, release, re-offending and re-incarceration.
Or just go back to reading the Daily Mail.
Let's just look at some of the names who have been offering to contribute to his bail: Ken Loach, Tariq Ali, John Pilger, Jemima Khan.
This isn't "Yes, M'Lud, the defendant's Uncle Fred and his brother in law Honest Charlie are willing to write a cheque post-dated for next Tuesday"...
WTF? That's really a great idea, let's just go down to the bank and draw out almost a quarter of a million pounds in cash, jump in a taxi and tootle down to the court with it in a suitcase!
Not Bitch of the Year?
(Oh come on, someone had to say it!)
Hush! You're not allowed to say that, otherwise people might start asking the US Government about all the other leaks of politically sensitive material to the media and the word "hypocrites" start being bandied about...!
I'M ON A COVERT MISSION!!!!
No more pilots hopped up on Amphetamines as the US military has been wont to do to keep their pilots alert at the cost of impairing their judgement and causing friendly fire incidents because you can swap the "pilot" during a long mission.