5945 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
If we had a law like that in the UK most of the population would be guilty!
... since when did the facts have anything to do with one of our rants?
... that the Yanks seem to be doing more to stop this than our government!
Consider a situation where, for some reason, traffic bunches up causing cars to come to a halt.
Now imagine that that creates a "block" of stationary traffic 100 metres long.
If the cause of the original blockage then goes away, traffic can leave the "block", however if traffic is *arriving* at the block at the same rate as traffic leaves, the block will remain.
If, however, you slow down the traffic arriving at the block, it will dissipate.
Of course this relies on people believing and obeying the "slow down" signs, however *that* relies on the Highways Agency *switching off* the signs when they are no longer needed. (For example a few days ago I was on the A3 coming out of Portsmouth and there was a big warning sign saying "Queue Ahead 40mph", but there was no queue to be seen.
These "cry wolf" signs left running without purpose don't benefit anyone.
.... was done away with before this car was even built!
Looking at Section 1.2 of the report it says:
"Most risks are encountered by less than a quarter of children"
"The most common risks reported by children online are communicating with new people not met face-to-face and seeing potentially harmful user-generated content. It is much rarer for children to meet a new online contact offline or be bullied online."
"Significantly, risk does not often result in harm, as reported by children. Being bullied online by receiving nasty or hurtful messages is the least common risk but is most likely to upset children."
"Sexual risks – seeing sexual images and receiving sexual messages online – are more encountered but they are experienced as harmful by few of the children who are exposed to them"
"1 in 12 children have met an online contact offline; this risk rarely has a harmful experience."
"Among those children who have experienced one of these risks, parents often don’t realise this [...] Although the incidence of these risks affects a minority of children in each case, the
level of parental underestimation is more substantial."
In other words, the kids *are* pretty much alright, but the parents are ignorant and need to take a bit more notice of what their kids are up to online.
... First, prosecutors judge whether the evidence against the defendant offers a realistic chance of conviction.
... Second, they decide if a prosecution would be in the public interest.
Someone forgot to mention Third: Whether the Old Boy Back-Scratching Network has been at work and with a nudge and a wink and a funny handshake and the offer of a few Directorships here and there and some lucrative contracts and "consultancy fees" tossed in as well sufficient pressure will be applied such that the decision will come back "Sorry, we haven't got enough evidence to convict anyone..."
Whilst I agree with your point about it being another excuse for more databases, I had to down-vote you because of your subsequent comments.
Many (if not most) Social Services Departments are overworked, underpaid and demoralised because of comments like yours and criticisms in the media. They are staggering under a ridiculous caseload with insufficient staff numbers and get hammered every time something goes wrong when they have to make a decision between keeping families together ("Social Services Rip Child from Parent's Arms") and protecting a child ("Why Was This Innocent Child Left With These Terrible People?")
I think the money that will end up being spent on another database would be better used to support the Social Workers who are trying to do a thankless job for people who don't understand.
... a statement from the Department of Realising the Bloody Obvious!
As Lewis Page wrote in El Reg a year or so ago, there are numerous ways that terrorists *could* launch attacks on Aircraft, Airports and many other such things, yet, somehow, those attacks haven't happened.
This is just another demonstration that the "Security Threat" we are being peddled by fear-mongers who see it as a way to increase their little empires is grossly over-exaggerated and it's about time we took a big step back and looked *sensibly* at the situation.
... block Google Analytics and DoubleClick using NoScript and AdBlock Plus, then use RefControl to ensure *you* determine what information gets passed on.
Well that's a ringing condemnation from a Watchdog who hasn't the teeth to actually *bite* anyone...
... it's Regonaut!
(Unless you want "Astrotard"...?)
Are you addressing me? It's really not clear.
But if you are, no, I don't work for Google, however I do live in the UK where you have the right to take photographs of virtually anything you like if you can see it from a public place (exceptions being eg Ministry of Defence property), you don't need someone's permission to take photographs of them, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph a building and the idea that somehow you can demand royalties is ridiculous even if it is an "original creative work".
It doesn't matter whether you're the Media, Google or Joe Bloggs, (let alone the Metropolitan Police) *NOBODY* has the right to stop you taking pictures.
And as for your irrelevant Straw Man argument of "your defending a multi-national corporation dodging taxes", I'll treat that with the contempt it deserves.
PS In the UK we *do* have the right to a) see our credit records (for a nominal charge) and b) *demand* that any errors be fixed on them. Perhaps you need to get your elected representatives to start *representing* you, instead of the people who paid for their campaigns...
... would be able to roam the streets and take pictures of everyone.
Erm, have you never watched TV news reports or anything else showing street scenes?
Despite what the UK Plod want you to believe there is *NO LAW* preventing you or anyone else (even a 'private' company) from taking pictures of anything you like.
... ah yes, with the 80's girls in the unitards and leg-warmers...
Fond memories... ;-)
... don't worry about the ones who *were* tortured, after all we didn't turn a blind eye *EVERY* time, so that makes it better...
"should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."
Not to mention the careers of US politicians and high ranking officers?
And what when it's the US putting the lives of its partners or innocent civilians at risk...?
(PS The Pentagon has admitted in an internal letter that *NOBODY* has been harmed as a result of the previous set of documents published on Wikileaks)
... just Google for the information!
Blair and Brown their New Labour cronies dug us into a huge financial hole and you think we should have elected them *AGAIN*???
... for the vast majority of their existence humans have lived in one room dwellings with a whole extended family, parents, grandparents, teenagers, children all in the same space. Do you think mummy and daddy turfed everyone else out when they wanted to make a new baby?
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded weak even to him, so he added, “or a plinth. Both is best, o’ course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
- Thud by Terry Pratchett
... actually have the slightest idea what "Sandboxing" is?
Will this be the default mode or as the phrase "offer sandboxing" suggests, something that can be switched on? If so, how many people will actually turn it on if they don't understand it?
"So *YOU* aren't allowed to see it because *WE* don't trust you to behave like sensible adults.
("Us? Oh, we're morally pure, upright citizens, so we can make those judgments for you, Nanny knows best....")
Erm, did Blair and Brown's regimes pass you by...?
I fully agree with the sentiments of "I disagree with what you say..." however with the Right of Freedom of Expression comes the Responsibility to use it sensibly.
Posting messages (as this idiot did) with the *deliberate intent* to cause others distress goes way beyond the limits of responsible comment, consider the difference between my saying "I don't agree with what you're saying" and "Hey, everyone, let's go around to DT's house and give him a good kicking for saying this!"
ie don't worry about fixing problems, just find someone to sue!
Once again the authorities demonstrate their complete lack of competence in dealing with modern technology and end up having rings run around them by everyone else.
I wonder if there's been a tweet of "drunk bloke driving jaguar crashed. he gave me funny handshake so i let him off with a warning"?
Or "saw bunch of chavs burgling house but was too busy nicking car driver for 33 mph in 30 limit on empty road"?
... was looking at the pics and also "getting a grip"?!
Obviously someone was THINKING OF TEH CHILDREN!!!111111!!!oneoneeleventyone1!!11!!
... will the message to your mobile be free, or is there going to be a "small fee" to cover "administration" or some such?
... you know the rest.
"... because I could see the writing was on the wall and I was going to get the push anyway. So now I can sit here and say "Won't Someone Think of Me... erm... I mean The Children!" and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being "pro-paedo" because what they are doing is not what *I* say is "best for children" and after Operation Ore etc I should know!"
Go, go now and try not to let the door hit your arse on the way out!
Given that you're posting as AC, I have no idea if you're the same AC that came out with the nonsense of "Let's can it. Then you can walk your daughter's class to the local post office. You and previously convicted paedophiles." or not.
Presuming you are, however, you've totally missed the point I was making that a record of a "prior conviction" *WILL* include such miscarriages of justice as the Operation Ore Cautions which were induced because of inadequate "standards of proof".
So innocent and harmless people will be barred from working with children because they've been tainted with false accusations by Gamble and co.
Oh, and calling someone a "deluded wingnut" etc etc really doesn't add anything to the validity of your argument...
... so hearsay and gossip once again rule over substantiated allegations...
"a CRB check CAN prove someone IS / WAS ... does sexual preference change after a few years?"
Might I remind you of Operation Ore? Have you forgotten that people were brow-beaten into accepting Cautions for Child Porn offences which they had *NEVER* committed (they had just been the victim of credit card fraud) rather than have their names and reputations dragged through the Courts by Jim Gamble and co such that even if (when) they were acquitted, the taint of that charge would still linger?
Except, of course, now they have accepted that Caution, the CRB check *WILL* pick up on that and that is "proof" they are a paedophile, except, of course, they never were.
Meanwhile someone who wasn't caught by Gamble and Co but who has never been caught is obviously "safe" to work with children...
... maybe we'll see some sense returning!
And can *YOU* prove you're not a paedophile?
Go on, we're waiting...
Ah, they must be buying OEM supplies from Epson or HP...
Avoiding paying tax is sensible, evading paying tax is illegal.
Spending government money in sensible ways is what we *want* them to do!
... with his inimitable brand of incomprehensible commentary!
Ah, so Google is now the Ministry of Truth...
Or just pay them by the hour...
... the reason for the lack of spectators at many events?
They're all too busy being entertained by the thousands of sex workers....
... amidst all the "Hah! We were right all along!" gloating from both sides I put in a bid for us simply trying to use the available energy resources *more efficiently* thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses/ soot/ other pollutants and extending the lifespan of limited fossil fuel supplies whilst we try to find viable alternatives.
But I doubt anyone will pay attention as usual.
... wearing a shirt saying "It's not going to lick itself" with an arrow pointing downwards?!
... was to give Maggie a big chunk of money which she could use to buy the next election!
Unfortunately what we now have is oligopoly/ virtual monopoly suppliers who have no interest in *actually* competing with each other (because that will harm their profits) so they make it as hard as possible for the consumer to compare like with like and use all sorts of confusion marketing techniques to baffle people into paying more for their gas, electricity or water than they need to.
... but what's the betting that it's so complicated to set up that most people will just go for the default settings?
... Societe General have been *completely exonerated* by the Court who judged them to be totally blameless in this matter despite what appear to be blatantly inadequate security precautions and a lack of monitoring systems which should have prevented this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
... thinking that someone can do a better job that self-styled "protector of the children" and empire builder Jim Gamble mean that you are "pro-paedophile"???
He has probably done *more* to bring child protection into disrepute than anyone by pandering to the Tabloid Press and alienating the industry with his arrogant "do it my way or I'll get the media to attack your reputations" bully boy tactics and the sooner he's gone the better.