4749 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... Wacky (whack off?) Jacqui and her friends want to control everything we do and see and read and download.
Given that it's now clear she can't even control what goes on in her own home, perhaps she'll learn to mind her own business and get out of *our* bedrooms?!
Of course, as the AC in the "Britards" post points out, even if she is replaced it will no doubt be a case of "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss"
"Originally published at Kablenet"...?
Kablenet Publication date: 27/03/2009 09:50:45
Err, so how come I managed to e-mail your news desk about this at 12:32 on the 25th with this link to a BBC story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7963081.stm??
"an essential tool for the battle against crime"...
... and so are ID cards and DNA databases and Identity Registers and CCTV and ANPR and...
One wonders just how Police ever managed to do their jobs in the past...
... the way that some people who admit that they didn't even *watch* the whole show the way through find it necessary to come on here and slag it off just so they can say "hey, I didn't watch it all and you lot are all lus3rs for doing so!"
No, it wasn't perfect, yes, it had flaws, yes, it was dark to the extent that I've only just watched the final episodes because the series was emotionally draining, but if you didn't like it, why not just go and find something you *do* like instead?
Ok, the CW staff member shouldn't have been snooping around, but, frankly, this is as dumb as Gary Glitter leaving kiddie porn on his computer when he took it into PC World!
A couple of weeks ago...
... I received an e-mail from from Argos plugging their "Spring Blowout Sale", but someone obviously hasn't comprehended the idea of BCC, because it has over one thousand, three hundred e-mail addresses clearly visible in the "To" field!
...Thailand, Turkey and Pakistan have all previously banned the video sharing site.
So not long before it happens in the UK, then.
Of course it will be to "protect" us because "terrorists" have been using it to spread "messages of hate" or other propaganda...
"Solicitors are expected to uphold the law, not subvert it, "
Right, so the Police should eavesdrop on every discussion between a Solicitor and their Client *just in case* the Solicitor might be attempting to subvert the law...
Lord Carswell said "It seems to me unlikely that the possibility of RIPA applying to privileged consultations could have passed unnoticed [in Parliament]. On the contrary, it is an obvious application of the Act, yet no provision was put in to exclude them."
Why does this seem unlikely?
Why is it an obvious application of the act?
Whilst concerns were raised about much of the act, just because nobody entertained the thought that "hang on, perhaps someone could bug lawyers talking to client" (or, perhaps, dismissed it thinking "no, that would be silly, nobody would be as stupid to try to use this law to do that) doesn't mean that, ipso facto, it should be allowed.
Oddly enough, this is the same Lord Carswell who said that the police should be allowed to build the largest DNA and fingerprint database possible...
"It is not our intention..."
... does not mean "we will not..."
“the world would be no poorer if there were no more killer games”.
The world would be better if there were fewer idiots who believe that playing a game is sufficient to make someone go out and commit mass murder...
Be Pure, Be Vigilant, BEHAVE!
You'd better keep the coat on as there might be quite a draught from my point going over your head.
The AC from the "Good" post said "When speech threatens the core values that all good Britons should hold dear, it is high-time that speech was silenced" but the point is that the Freedom to express that Speech *is* one of those "core values" and that includes the freedom to say things that that AC or others may not like.
If you want to apply a logical fallacy, try "Special Pleading" because the AC seems to think that "it's different in this case".
@Good/ @Right, listen up.
I thought originally that the AC who posted the "Good" comment was being ironic, but reading it again, it sounds like the sort of rant that the Daily Mail likes so much.
FYI the "core values that all good Britons should hold dear" include the rights to "go about their lawful business without let or hindrance", yet this AC thinks that any rights he doesn't like should be eliminated or that anyone who tries to exercise them should be thrown out of his "pure lands".
I suggest that he moves to somewhere ruled by the Taliban, then he can have all the "Moral Purity" he wants...
As for the AC from "Right, listen up", if someone writes something about me which is defamatory and untrue, I have a defence in law called Libel. That is why Private Eye gets sued on a regular basis (and sometimes loses).
If I tried to sue for libel simply because I "didn't like" someone writing about me, I would lose.
What you seem to be arguing for is a situation where you can *only* write something about someone if they would like it.
I'm sure our politicians would love that...!
How about offering prizes...!
Hey everybody, join in the great new game, everyone's playing: Spying on America's borders!
Spot those illegal immigrants! Watch out for dope shipments!
The more you inform, the more you win!!
PS @Hollerith, no, it's probably not "wile" - http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-whi3.htm
Did they land on the B-Ark?
"And the wheel," said the Captain, "What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project."
"Ah," said the marketing girl, "Well, we're having a little difficulty there."
"Difficulty?" exclaimed Ford. "Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!"
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
"Alright, Mr. Wiseguy," she said, "if you're so clever, you tell us what colour it should be."
"The news print media can't figure out why they keep losing circulation even though they keep pulling this kind of crap."
I think you meant "because they keep pulling this kind of crap"!
... The Hitler Diaries
... Pictures of "British servicemen" pi$$ing on Iraqi prisoners
... Photos of Aussie politicians in the nuddy...
You'd think the Papers would be a bit more dilligent about checking the authenticity of this stuff *before* they stuck it into print...
"not fit for purpose"
What a perfect description of our current Government!
Of course since they don't agree with this report they'll either ignore it or set up (ie rig) a "consultation exercise" whereby they ask the Police, the Security Services and various other entirely biased groups if they think that such databases are a good idea and then, amazingly enough, come back with a statement that "well all *these* groups think it's fine, so we're going to keep them and change the law..."
Please, don't perpetuate the myth of the existence of Snuff Movies!
Looks like the Aussies...
... are getting as arrogant as the Yanks, thinking that *their* laws should be applicable all over the world...
... an El Reg Playmobil reconstruction!!!
BBC - British Broadcasting Crooks...?
So after the criticism of the BBC spending licence fee payers money buying up a botnet, it seems they're also using it to buy stolen credit card details.
What next? Researching organs for sale by buying someone's kidney?
... the Cops wanted these cards to be compulsory, all they want is their jobs made easier and to hell with basic rights like the presumption of innocence.
(There's an expression I'd use here, but I'd probably attract the wrath of the Moderatrix if I used it...)
I have already opted out...
... by writing to my Doctor and telling her that I don't want my details uploaded on the NHS spine, but this suggests that I will now have to also write to the local hospital and opt out from *their* systems too.
The question then becomes will I have to opt out of any *other* systems as well?
What if I miss an opt out? Does this mean that, despite my best efforts, my details will still be available?
My consent should NOT be assumed, I should be ASKED for it.
Google maps != CCTV
People seem to be conflating entirely different issues here in their objections.
Google is taking photographs, something which *all* of us have the right to do if it's in a *public* place and provided they do not use those in a defamatory way they are not breaking any laws, nor are they invading anyone's privacy. It is simply a record of what was there at a particular location at a particular time
CCTV (especially if/ when facial recognition technology is added) and ANPR are different matters because they are a method of tracking a person or a vehicle's movements in *real time* and then storing that information for possible use by the authorities at a later date.
The first is a right we all have, the second is an infringement of our right to go about our lawful business without let or hindrance and without having our movements being monitored by the state.
@secret censorship was inevitably corrupt.
But I doubt that is going to stop our Government studying the Aussie plans with great interest....
"It's a FUD article. They are debating real physical objects, sounds images etc. that are created in real life to make people get boners from forbidden content. That is the debate."
No, the FUD is the BS being spouted by this Government who believe that *fictional* images can make people do *real* harm.
They are not trying to debate the *actual* harm caused to children, they're just trying to make it look as if they're doing something to protect them, instead of people realising that they're passing nonsense laws that will do NOTHING to protect children at all.
Square brackets are an editorial convention (and not just something in American English) indicating that the words contained in them have been added for clarity, but weren't in the original quote.
The quote would actually have been "provides support to the center" which would have made sense if the entire comment was printed in full, because, prior to that, the speaker would have referred to the "Kennedy Space Center", but subsequently just mentioned "the center" (ie it wouldn't be clear to the reader *which* center is being referred to without the full context) so the writer of the article adds [Kennedy Space] to make it clear.
On the other hand...
... that bat could come back from space 50' across and start attacking the World!
CEOP declined to comment on progress
"saying policy announcements were a matter for the Home Office."
Sorry? Is this a different CEOP from the one that has been pushing for policies like this and many others, simply, it seems, to bolster their own position and preserve their jobs?
the result of "proper process of parliamentary scrutiny"
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
The Government's idea of proper parliamentary scrutiny is that everyone says "oh, gosh, yes, this is a wonderful idea, we cannot oppose it in any way!"
They got caught playing fast and loose with our data and got roundly kicked for it.
Now we just need to keep an eye on them and make sure they don't try to sneak this back in under the radar.
... does this mean an end to games of Bullshit Bingo?
Six Hundred Foot Invulnerable PMT Lady
I've been working in secret on a 500 Megaton Evening Primrose Oil bomb!
And how, exactly, will patients be *informed* of this option anyway?
Probably in the same way that banks and so on try to coerce you into not opting out of their mailing lists by saying "Well, you could opt out, but then we might not be able to send you important information or help you if you need it ..."
Let's hear it for more FUD!
Will the last energy company to leave the UK...
... please turn out the lights!
> I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational,
I suggest you look up the name "Andrea Dworkin" for some of the most extreme (and irrational) arguments against porn (starting with "all men are rapists"!)
No, not all feminists think this way (I personally know several members of the Feminists Against Censorship group who are of the opinion "It's my body, don't tell me what I can or can't do with it just because you don't like it or think I'm letting down the Sisterhood") but the fact remains that there are those (and some of them are now in power!) who believe the sort of things that you cite.
I look at porn. In fact I could be accused of producing it as I make and sell BDSM gear and have a catalogue and website of affordable leather products that features female (and male!) models in it. But I don't think that the models (male or female) only exist for my pleasure or that their modelling makes them "less human" than me.
The assertion that "a lot" of those who participate in porn are victims of abuse or that porn is "filmed abuse" is ludicrous. Yes, there may be *some* who have been abused, yes, not *all* of it is consensual, but trying to use that as an excuse for banning something simply to protect a *minority* is pointless and short-sighted, not to mention downright insulting to all those who, of their own free will, choose to appear in it.
PS @Gregor, what, exactly, is your point apart from a bit of petty pedantry?
"No feminists I know are in favour of this sort of legislation, and I don't see how it's a feminist agenda fuelling this"
I suggest you take a look at the English Government's "Consultation" on "extreme pornography" which was written by three feminist anti-pornography campaigners...
Re: A victory for morals
Don't forget that it's perfectly acceptable to allow your virgin daughters to be raped to protect your guests according to the "Good" Book...
Still, if the Scots actually have the guts to throw out this stupid law, then it means only we English can't be trusted to act sensibly if we look at this stuff, so obviously Scottish morals are better than ours...
"Faith", "Belief" etc
Obligatory Philip K Dick quote:
"Reality is that which, when we cease to believe in it, still exists."
... if this had been greeted positively, you just *know* that El Gordo Brown and Darling Alastair would have been rubbing their hands in glee at the extra tax revenue it would have gained them...
... how much money did they lose from people downloading it and thinking "damn, this is shite, good job I didn't actually pay for it!"
Personal political agendas? Nothing new there, then...
It is rapidly becoming clear (if it wasn't blatantly obvious already) that this is just another last gasp effort by the leaders a failed Government (who know that most of them will be out of jobs after the next election) to force through any and every little bit of legislation that will allow them to impose their personal prejudices and wants on the country without caring a jot about what the effects will be on the liberties of the people they're supposed to represent.
It's not enough to think "well, they'll be out next election" because we need guarantees from whoever replaces them that they *will* get rid of the ridiculous draconian Big Brother and Nanny State legislation they have brought in rather than getting into power and then saying "well, maybe this would still be useful, so we'll keep it".
Contact your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them you want a commitment from them that they'll not only oppose these proposals, but that they'll support all attempts to repeal them and restore the liberties and freedoms that have been taken away from us in the last decade to "protect" us.
I find it amusing that you use the words "sense of reality" and "official stopping distance" in the same paragraph!
The fact is that those figures are well out of date, but they're unlikely to be changed at any time in the future (probably because it's better to have people err on the side of caution).
And you then go from a *car* in the outside lane to a *drunk* wandering around...
I suggest you look up the words "Straw Man".
The judge stated that...
..."there was nothing the peer could have done to avoid the crash."
Well I state BULLSHIT!
If he was unable to stop in the distance in which he could see ahead of him, then he was travelling *TOO FAST*!
He could have avoided the crash by going *slower* such that the distance illuminated by his headlamps was *longer* than his stopping distance.
One law for them...
... meanwhile the motorcyclist who (supposedly*) did 122 mph *without* killing anyone, has got 6 months in jail, but, of course, he doesn't have a high-priced Barrister to argue his "exceptional" case...
*That 122mph figure is highly dubious and he'd have had to dump a *lot* of speed to be able to take the next corner without cranking the bike over a hell of a lot more than he did.
In other news...
... oh, you know the rest. Popes, Bears...
expect lively voting...?
You mean expect the usual politically motivated(!) voting which has rendered this tedious "contest" utterly meaningless...
I think some people don't quite understand the situation.
The point about Libel is that the original article has to be found to be defamatory and, in order to be defamatory, it cannot be true.
So if a Court has decided that an article is untrue, to continue to allow that (false) article to be available is to repeat the untruth.
The ECHR understands that Right of Freedom of Expression comes with an attendant Responsibility to ensure that what is being expressed is truthful.
> bloody good job no-one ever told Philip K. Dick.
I once used a forum that had automatic censoring software which changed his name to "Philip K Masculine Area"!
(And not forgetting that famous actor from Mary Poppins: Penis van Lesbian...)
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call
- Pic Tooled-up Ryobi girl takes nine-inch grinder to Asus beach babe