4506 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
@THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PARTY ALLEGIANCE
Err, sorry, but that's not the case.
Yes, some Lords, eg the Cross Benchers and Bishops don't have any party allegiance, but the rest of them most certainly do being Labour/ Tory/ Lib Dem peers (and often ex-MPs)
There's plenty of Party political BS still going on in there, the only difference being that the Lords don't have to worry about re-election.
> subdue the bastards by whacking them with a walking-boot
Wow! Whack-a-mole with real critters...!
"Those who desire power, are the last ones you should allow to wield it"
It wasn't Heinlein (he was just in favour of only letting the military rule), but similar sentiments have been expressed by Arthur C Clarke and Douglas Adams.
PS @what's wrong with those 150?
> Haven't they had their DNA forcibly taken and put on the database.
Nope, they were probably just in the Lords Bar when the time to vote came and the party Whips said "go and vote for this even though you haven't read it"...
> On the surface, with the negative and fear here, it sounds like people expect this would "catch you".
Have you ever heard the words "False Positive"...?
More to the point, have you ever heard the words "Presumed innocent unless proven guilty"?
> I say go for it - I loathe kiddie-pron, and as a father of 2 daughters, would fully support all attempts to curb abuse of kids.
I doubt there is anyone posting on here who approves of child pornography, however might I remind you that the person most likely to abuse your two daughters is *YOU*!
Obviously, then, the best way to give your daughters protection against abuse is to remove them from your house since you cannot be trusted not to abuse them.
I'm sure you'd support this attempt to curb the abuse of kids...
Dear Hazel Blears...
"mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy"
... have you ever asked yourself *why* that should be?
Possibly it's because people *do* have "disdain" for the political system and politicians like you who engage in scandalous behaviour, sneak through laws by conspiring with others and then make hypocritical comments about what "legitimate protest" should be whilst denying the people their right to legitimate protest without Police permission...!
Try taking the log out of your own eye first.
Big Brother is watching...
Obviously this is an attempt by The Party to encourage goodsex whilst oulawing sexcrime because the idea of pleasure and enjoyment is a threat to society and a corruption of morals.
It is already clear that The Party doesn't like the idea of people engaging in non-approved activities, or even looking at "dangerous pictures", this is just another step on their path of Moral Purity, banning anything that doesn't fit in with their views.
I, for one, do not welcome our Puritan Overlords.
> To be honest, I think this is a great idea. I work in E-Safety
Hmm, so no conflict of interest there, then?
> with the help of government organisations such as CEOPs sites that deliver child pornography can be targeted more effectively.
"WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"
> What people need to appreciate here is that there is a minority of people who express an interest in the type of material being targeted for filtering. So why not filter it out.
Of course! Perish the thought that the Majority shouldn't decide what the Minority are allowed to view.
> The more that the ISPs can do to restrict the delivery of child pornography and other illicit material the better.
Ah, and so we see the classic attempt to link child pornography with anything else that you don't like. This is exactly the same thing that the UK Government did when they published their "consultation" on so-called Extreme Pornography which made repeated and irrelevant references to CP.
But who decides, Mr Clarke? What material would you define as "illicit"? What do you think is so unacceptable that people should not be allowed to view it just in case it might make them think about doing something nasty? Fifty years ago it was gay porn. Now it's "extreme porn". Why do you think your personal tastes should decide what others can or cannot view?
Why should ALL adults be treated as children because some parents are incapable of monitoring what their children do on the net?
We're at risk of labouring our point here...
... but the black boxes don't and won't "hold" data.
Oh, well that's alright then...
Well, no, of course it's not. But why shouldn't El Reg take the chance to sneer at the Indy instead of re-iterating the point that "That will allow GCHQ to target persons of interest for wiretapping via the black boxes." means that *everyone* will be treated as a suspect by our Database Overlords...?
This sort of material
... "is currently being filtered by a number of ISPs in countries such as the UK.
"This is not strictly true"
Well, not yet, anyway, but given the attitude of Mr Salter and friends...
Also Mr Salter says "No one is trying to stop consenting adults doing whatever they want in the bedroom" but this is BS because if they want to take photographs in their bedrooms, they might be committing a criminal offence!
There again, Mr Salter also believes that snuff movies actually exist, instead of being a well known urban myth...
Virgin are currently also sending out advertising offering you the chance to "Experience the internet in Fibre Optic - The mother of all broadband from only £4.50 a month for the first 12 months and £9 a month thereafter".
Of course this is only for *NEW* customers, those of us who are already on that service are stuck with paying £18 a month.
Isn't that nice, we get to subsidise new customers...!
I'm off to see if I can tell them I'm cancelling the service and then re-instating it because then I'll be a "new customer"...
So, because two over-paid idiots staged a stupid prank which came back to bite them, the Daily Mail seems to think this woman is now "fair game".
What she and her clients get up to as consenting adults is nobody's business but theirs. She didn't consent to Brand and Ross' s "joke".
The Daily Mail should learn to tell the difference.
There again, in their story of the "gutsy pensioner" who "foiled a raid on a jewellery shop" I'm more interested in how he "causally" caught a bus...!
@ Anonymous Coward 17:26
> The problem with this strategy is that it's very "convenient" for a bunch of bigots and racists to buy into what these people are saying, invent their own little parallel universe with its own little revisionist history, and then use this new-found folklore to attack innocent people
> when such idiocy has an impact on the welfare of other human beings, it certainly isn't inappropriate to draw a line and to take sanctions against anyone who seeks to cross that line.
And the problem with your strategy is that there will *always* be some people/ bigots/ racists/ idiots will buy into this sort of thing or make up their own versions and believe what the hell they want.
But unless someone is *actually* calling for something that will "impact on the welfare of other human beings" it certainly *is* inappropriate to draw a line and take sanctions because then you get the Great Firewall of China or so-called Extreme Pornography Laws or some other form of repressive CrimeThink simply because *you* don't like what someone else says.
Kudos to the Dad for refusing the Caution because that would have been an admission of guilt, even though the Police seemingly try to convince people that it's not a big deal.
Of course what it really means is "we don't have to do any more investigation and chalk up another successfully resolved crime to make our figures look better..."
Looking at the posted link, in the last 12 months he's had 9 Negative Feedbacks and 10 Neutral, so why threaten legal action now?
Perhaps leaving negative feedback instead of neutral was a bit harsh, given that the customer got a full refund, but threatening legal action because of this...?
The Government did a poll...
... which said most people didn't want ID cards...
... but they "lost" the results...
How many times has a car/ van driver heard someone say to them, "Sorry mate, I didn't see you"?
How many times have cyclists/ bikers heard the same phrase?
Yes, there are *some* two wheel users who give the rest of us a bad name, but how many of them are responsible for the majority of the three and a half thousand or so deaths on the UK's roads every year...?
> Boxing and martial arts doesn't involve sex (mostly).
Apart from women's topless boxing, female on female "submission" wrestling and a few NSFW others...!
> if someone makes a video of himself and his wife dressed in bondage gear, and engage in some mutual slap n tickle - but *don't* have sex on tape, then it's OK?
No, because the offence is having *possession* of that video and, in someone else's entirely *subjective* opinion, it fits the criteria for "risking harm" and you had it for "sexual arousal".
There is a "defence" in the CJIA that says you *are* allowed to own it if you can prove you were a "direct participant" in the acts shown, but that means that if you were videoing two other people you wouldn't have been a "direct" participant and even if it was you in it, were you to be dressed in head to toe leather/ rubber etc, how would you "prove" it was you? (Oh, and, of course, Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says you have the right to be presumed innocent, ie you do not have to *prove* your innocence, but when did this Government ever let trivialities like that get in the way of a Moral Crusade?
> has this kind of nonsense been going on since before Precious Jacqui got her grubby little mitts on the levers of power?
Oh yes, it started under the reign of David "I'm blind, but I'll ban things I can't see" Blunkett, then was followed by Charles "ID Cards are good for you" Clark, followed by John "Jackboots" Reid. Wacky Jacqui is only the latest in a line of Home Secretaries to decide that we can't be trusted to look at pictures they don't like.
@Sir Runcible Spoon
> Now you can't take a photo of a politician in a kinky sex act (can you say oranges) and publish it in the news of the screws
Actually you can, because they can argue that it's "not for sexual arousal".
Unfortunately publishing anything on how to engage in asphyxiphilia (asphyxiation for sexual arousal, which is what Stephen Milligan MP was doing) with photographs about how to perform such acts more safely *will* be illegal, so the Government will actually be creating a greater risk to people's lives by denying them important and relevant information!
... the Highways Agency would like to use this service so variable speed limit signs are *switched off* once the congestion they were intended to eliminate has actually *been* eliminated!
When you're cruising down a virtually empty motorway at 1am and see a "Congestion Ahead, 40 MPH" limit sign, it does rather make them look a bit silly.
A sensible piece of legislation from a Government that seems to have actually comprehended something about the net!
Wish it could happen here...
Twenty Questions for the Ministry of Justice
(Yes, I know I've posted comments on this before, but *still* there has been no response or "guidance" from the MoJ with only two months to go before they introduce this law...!)
Here are some questions which the MoJ need to supply answers to in order to give us *any* clue as to what this law will *actually* affect...
<Title deleted by Government Censors>
"Jacqui Smith said last week that she wants an open, reasoned debate to build consensus around the Bill. "
A "consensus" that will then be ignored if it doesn't agree with what Wacky Jacqui and friends want, because they've already decided that this is "good for us(tm)" and so will be implemented anyway.
I'd suggest a "Big Brother" icon for stories like this, but that would just allow Jacqui and co to zero in on those of us proles who fail to engage in "blackwhite" thinking (The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out) and, instead are engaging in illegal crimethink (even considering any thought not in line with the principles of the party)...
Hmm, let's see...
Do we allow children to drive cars? No.
Do we allow children to go into pubs and drink alcohol? No.
Do we allow children to go into cinemas and watch 18 certificate films? No.
So the answer is simple, we simply ban children from the internet entirely!
I'm sure we could get the Daily Mail onside, any parent found allowing their child to access the internet should be arrested and charged for neglect and failing to protect their kiddies from all that nasty stuff, *that* should teach them a lesson!
Or (ok, I know this is a stupid idea, but...) how about we expect parents to be *responsible* for the upbringing of their children and monitoring what they do online?
Nah, that's daft and wouldn't allow our Big Brother Government to introduce even more ridiculous and unworkable Thought Crime legislation...
... They should have used the classic 80's hit "99 Red Balloons" by Nena:
"This is what we've waited for,
This is it, Boys, this is war!
The President is on the line as
99 red balloons go by.
"99 Knights of the Air
Ride super high-tech jet fighters
Everyone's a super hero,
Everyone's a Captain Kirk.
"With orders to identify,
To clarify and classify,
Scramble in the summer sky as
99 red balloons go by."
Still, it's only a song about a massive military over-reaction, isn't it...?!
On one internet forum I used, in a discussion of the works of the author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, his name was rendered by their software as "Philip K Masculine Area"!
Mine's the one with a copy of Monty Python's "I bet you they won't play this song on the radio" in the pocket...
Rearrange these words...
... to get a well known phrase or saying.
Petard, Hoist, One's, Own, By.
Obviously McCain is one of those politicos who think they have special privileges (the word derives from "private law"!) and that the sort of legislation they pass is only for the "little people" to obey.
So how about...
... all the baggage handling staff have to leave work via the main concourse wearing a sign saying "Baggage Handler" and any of the airline travelling public can, at their whim, call them aside and search them, just in case they might have nicked something...
"It's as if people don't trust the financial system."
More importantly, it's as if people don't trust this system and the people operating it and the governments who'll be spying on it (and us) and will probably then find ways of levying taxes on it, not to mention the risk of money disappearing from your account when someone hacks it, followed by the operators saying "we think you were careless with your card, so we're not going to pay you back even though we didn't ensure we had a secure system", to name just a few things...
Did anyone else...
... read this as "Black WiNdows" and got really puzzled...?
@Stings are evil
> Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Maybe you're just misinformed.
Entrapment is where a law enforcement officer or agency actively *encourages* people to commit crimes.
A sting is where they allow criminals to commit crimes so they can be arrested.
For example them saying "Go on, steal that car with the window open" is illegal, but leaving a car unattended with the window open that turns out to lock itself when someone tries to nick it is entirely legal.
Unless someone from the Law Enforcement community on DarkMarket actually instigated any criminal behaviour, then I have no problem with them simply making it easy for crooks to incriminate themselves.
> The government can rush the one-page bill through if they've declared a national emergency. I can't remember off-hand exactly under what conditions they have can declare national emergency
For more information (at the risk of a Godwin!) see the "Enabling Legislation" which allowed Hitler to seize power from the Reichstag in 1933...
... what effect is this going to have on Screen Scraping services?
We've already seen in El Reg how Ryan Air have cancelled or refused to honour tickets that were booked through companies that do this (in order to allow customers to find the cheapest deals), now, it seems, this will give legitimacy to their actions and make life more difficult for the public to save money due to the "confusion marketing" techniques Ryan Air et al use.
> Believe me, there ain't nobody more fascist & draconian than a "liberal" given power.
Speaking as a liberal (with a small 'l') I can't say I recognise many liberal principles (Civil Liberties, Basic Human Rights, Presumption of Innocence etc) in the control-freak, nanny state legislation that has been brought in by this country and by the USA.
So, are Blair, Brown and Bush really "closet liberals"...?
- On the matter of shooting down Amazon delivery drones with shotguns
- Review Bring Your Own Disks: The Synology DS214 network storage box
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- IT MELTDOWN ruins Cyber Monday for RBS, Natwest customers
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle