"Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!"
"Be a Government Informer. Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won!"
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Ignoring the ridiculous Tabloidesque anti-Lib Dem rhetoric that sounds more like something from the Murdoch Press, would Lewis Page care to tell us *who* is likely to try to lob an ICBM at the UK and *which* cities (and their millions of civilians) we are going to oblitterate in our "nation wrecking" retaliation?
In case it has escaped his notice, the Cold War has ended, so it's very unlikely that any country that actually has the ability to launch an ICBM strike on the UK *would* do so and the so-called "rogue states" like Iran or North Korea know damn well that don't have enough bombs to stop the rest of the world dropping on them like a ton of bricks if they did start lobbing nukes around.
A more likely scenario might be to put a nuke (or a dirty bomb) on a boat and sail it up the Thames, but then who do we lob a missile at in payback?
As for Space Travel, I'm all for it, but perhaps we'd better fix the big hole in the bottom of the boat before we start re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic...
There is a system used by (I think) some banks in Denmark where the customer is given a 9x9 grid (like an empty Sudoku board) with different colours in the individual squares.
You write your PIN in a way that you will be able to remember, eg the four corners reading clockwise or the four blue squares across the bottom row or the rightmost four squares on the middle row etc, then fill in all the other squares with the numbers 1-9.
This hides your number in plain sight because only you know which four squares are the real ones.
Banks could print these grids out for pennies and save everyone a lot of hassle.
... is that you are being suckered by the Police who are the ones conflating separate issues.
They want you to think that "oh, he had indecent images of children, so that justifies them misusing other laws and stretching them way beyond any legitimate bounds simply to give them a better chance of getting a conviction".
They are trying to create an association in people's minds between child porn and "extreme writings" such that they're allowed to act as the Thought Police and get laws banning anything they don't like, even when there is *NO* evidence of harm at all.
As for "freedom of speech is a good issue to right about, but only when it involves consenting adults", what about non-consenting adults? What about all those people who are killed, raped and so on in many books and films? They clearly don't consent, so should any such writings be made illegal...?
Despite the failure of the attempt by Baroness O'Caithan to introduce an "Extreme Writings" provision into English Law, it seems that Kent Police are trying to bring one in by default by suggesting that an online chat counts as "publishing"!
Of course they will probably decide to claim that this is a "loophole" in existing legislation and we'll then see some politician who's heading for defeat jump onto the bandwagon to help generate some positive headlines because "well, it's For The Children, isn't it?" and anyone who disagrees is obviously not "Thinking of the Children!"
What's next? Banning Viktor Nabakov's "Lolita"??
If that were actually the situation, they might have a case, but in these days of 24 hour rolling news, instead what we have is "publish or broadcast first and *then* check to see if the facts are correct" because the important thing is being "first with the story" even if it isn't accurate...
In other words, as many people have been saying all along, Labour have bulled ahead with this project so that, having spent huge amounts of public money, they can claim that anyone trying to cancel the project will be "wasting" that dosh.
Well, no, Mr Johnson, it is *YOU* who have wasted that money, it is *YOU* who have pissed it away on an unworkable control-freak project that has been doomed to failure from the start, don't start trying to put the blame on others now.
Take a look at http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ and see which of the policy sets there appeals most to your views.
(NB I'd strongly recommend clicking on the "Show more policy points from this set" because there are some nasty ones hidden below the "headline" policies")
... pictures of consenting adults engaged in consensual activities will be covered under the same remit as:
Forced Prostitution and the violence and forced drug addiction that may be involved;
Violence at music events;
Money laundering through dodgy casinos;
And the use of fake ID documents.
Nice to see that they're going to be targetting specialist resources effectively on relevant and related areas...!
1) Road Tax was discontinued after WWII, you now pay "Vehicle Excise Duty", ie taxed on your ownership of a vehicle.
2) Said ownership is based, now, on the amount of pollution a vehicle causes. How much pollution does a bicycle put out?
3) The administration of such a scheme would cost much more than any revenue generated unless bikes paid similar amounts of VED as other vehicles, even though they cause less pollution and less damage to the roads and take up less space as well.
4) etc etc etc in response to a tired old argument...
Oh dear, once again we get the "some cyclists are idiots, so we don't need to respect *any* of them argument"
Yes, I agree, speaking as a cyclist, there are some pillocks who give the rest of us a bad name, but that's no excuse for ridiculous cycle routes that were designed by people who don't understand that if you have to keep stopping and starting (and even dismounting if you go by the silly signs!) you are wasting energy.
It's then not simply a matter of putting your foot on the gas, it's putting your foot on the pedal and having to recover momentum that you lost due to a badly designed route which is mostly intended to keep bikes out of the way of cars, rather than actually be any use to the cyclist!
... there should be a law against the Parliamentary Guillotine which allows the Government to set a ridiculously short amount of time for *any* Bill to be discussed in the Commons, hence why the Dangerous Pictures provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act were only ever debated in the Lords.
Now that Gordon Clown realises he's screwed, this is just damage limitation, "promising" stuff that he's got no chance of delivering in the hope that the public will be confused enough to not give him the good kicking he desperately deserves.
Meanwhile "Call me Dave" Cameron is pandering to the Daily Fail reading public by trying to bring back National Service but hoping to con people by putting the word "Citizen" in the middle as if that makes a difference.
A pox on both their houses.
You keep using phrases like "appeared to be armed" and "from the perspective of the gunship" these people were the "ENEMY", but, tell me, were any of them Brazilian Electricians because it seems to me that the same "Shoot first and don't even bother asking questions" doctrine appears(!) to have been applied here.
"Are they the enemy?"
"Dunno, but if we shoot them, they'll sure as hell be our enemies then!"
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019