It's one of those "irregular verbs"
We protect freedom,
You infringe rights,
They repress people.
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... perfectly legal and legitimate purposes.
Once again we see the classic argument of "let's treat *everyone* as potential criminals in the hope that we'll catch a few wrongdoers in our widely spread net".
Of course all that happens is that the wrongdoers go somewhere else, meanwhile the innocent have their liberties and privacy trampled on (something which people fought a war to prevent!)
Well, I can see what anyone walking or driving past my house can see.
And even though I have very strong views on civil liberties (or perhaps that should be because) I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to take photographs in a public place.
Do you? (See "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist" on facebook for more details)
You got the title right, our current system has *nothing* to do with democracy! As you say: "you delegated to them the authority to vote on your behalf. Only problem is that they rarely do..."
MPs are supposed to *represent* the views of their constituents in Parliament, unfortunately what most of them tend to do is represent the views of their Party Leaders and Whips to their constituents and basically say "that's how it is, like it or lump it".
Cameron and his ilk are currently campaigning on an effective slogan of "Vote for us, because we're not them" and telling people that voting for anyone else is a vote for another 5 years of Gordon Brown which sounds like desperation coupled with a lack of anything that makes them actually worth electing.
IMO the only hope we have of getting any representation back into our electoral process is to tactically vote for a Hung Parliament so one party doesn't have a "majority" (even when they only got a minority of the vote) giving the ability to force through whatever legislation they like.
As far as I understand it, unless I have been arrested or believed to be committing Anti-Social Behaviour or am driving a car, I am not required to identify myself to a Police Officer.
Being "a suspect" isn't enough for them to demand my identity, let alone my fingerprints!
If you have a nice car in the drive or a TV that can be seen or whatever, I suggest you contact your local Crime Prevention Officer who will tell you some simple measures which will help prevent you becoming a victim of crime instead of sticking up a sign saying "I've got expensive stuff, rob me!"
It makes no odds whether the crooks walk past and eyeball your place or use Street View if it can be seen and they're more likely to physically walk past because for the Street View images become more out of date with every day that passes.
This post is private, you do not have my permission to read it.
The fact that it's in a public forum and visible to anyone who cares to look here is irrelevant.
In the same way you're not allowed to look at my house, neither is Google because you and they will be invading my privacy.
Oh, and I think that that the Police should be allowed to arrest anyone who takes a photograph of my house without my permission or a picture of me walking down the street.
Of course if they should arrest me for taking a photograph of a public landmark because they think I might be a terrorist, well, that's ok too.
... So more rubbish legislation gets passed without adequate examination, let alone proper debate by our elected representatives, instead it's the Party Elite who decide what's best for the country based on what will make *them* look good in the polls.
The real "wash up" that Parliament needs is someone to clean out the Augean Stables and get rid of all these crappy "nod and a wink" established procedures which have damn all to do with any democratic process.
Now don't you worry your pretty little heads about all this dirty filth and smut out there, Nanny's going to wave her magic legislative wand and make it all go away!
And don't worry that other people might get caught by this, obviously they're just perverts who obviously can't be trusted and we'll be getting around to them soon...
Sorry, have you actually looked at some of the rubbish that's already available?
And you approve of Apple tying themselves up in knots (oops!) trying to decide what sort of content they should or shouldn't allow to presumably "protect the integrity of their brand"?
Go away, troll.
This doesn't just "check for convictions" (which is sensible) it relies on gossip, innuendo and unfounded and unproven (and possibly malicious) accusations.
Consider for a moment what would happen if you worked with kids and someone (as a sick and ill-advised "joke") sent you a copy of one of those cartoons of Lisa Simpson engaged in sexual activity (which, of course, are soon to be illegal) and your supervisor or a parent saw it on your laptop or phone and reported it. That would be "significant information" as far as this law is concerned and could result in you losing your job and being banned from ever working with "vulnerable groups" again, even though you have never and would never harm a child.
Meanwhile someone like Vanessa George who was taking photos of children in the Devon Nursery where she worked would have been considered "safe" until such time as she was actually caught and convicted.
*That* is what is so stupid about another pointless, knee-jerk, "something must be done" piece of legislation from a clueless Government.
I run a business making leather bondage gear. Whilst my site www.affordable-leather.co.uk has adult content (and appropriate warnings, is signed up to Net Nanny, Cyber Sitter et al) and is clearly not suitable for children, it's not "pornography", so should I be forced to dump my old domain (and have to re-do all my advertising and get all the links changed) to make it www.affordable-leather.xxx?
If not, what possible use is a .xxx TLD going to achieve except big commissions for the bidding war that will no doubt ensue for domains like sex.xxx and xxx.xxx which will probably sell for millions?
Vince Cable for the Lib Dems is offering to answer questions from the public and there's one that says "How will you roll back the unnecessary attacks on personal liberties that Labour have introduced or planned under the guise of "protecting us" eg ID Cards, DNA databases, criminalisation of images of consenting adults, CCTV and ANPR etc?"
You can vote for this question here:
Are you really so naiive as to think that once this subsidised roll-out of rural broadband is complete the Government would then go "Oh, ok, that's done, let's scrapt the tax"?
They'll find another excuse to keep it (probably to run an online "child protection" service or some such) and then, to cover the extra "administration costs" bump it up to 75p, then a quid and once more the frog gets boiled.
... Well, first tell me, did the 7/7 bombers or anyone else publically announce exactly what they were going to do before they did it?
And please, spare us the guilt trip "would you want to call the relatives?" nonsense. Would you want to tell the relatives of someone who'd been knocked down by a drunk driver? Would you want to tell someone they had cancer? Those are much more likely than a) such an attack happening again or b) those intending to carry it out telling everyone about it.
He has admitted posting the message, but that is *not* the same as pleading guilty to "sending, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".
It is up to the prosecution to *prove* that his message was "of a menacing character", which is unlikely given that the prosecutor admits he "never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously".
... and we can probably shortly expect "smear" charges of him being suspected of having kiddie porn/ extreme porn/ dangerous drawings as well which will serve no other purpose than an attempt to taint his name in the public consciousness in the hope that it will make people think that the authorities were right to grossly over-react...
The modelling scams have been going on for many years. Mostly they involve up-front "joining" or "registration" fees, followed by "You need a portfolio, pay our in-house photographer a couple of hundred quid" etc.
Anything like this that wants a fee up front should be ignored with prejudice.
"...flexibility is not an appropriate reason for defining a power which engages individual rights without adequate precision to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny of its proportionality."
And the Government have replied "f**k you, we're going to do this anyway because we can!"
And so we get another piece of ill-thought out, ill-defined and completely vague legislation which lets the Government retroactively decide what they actually meant *after* the law has gone through Parliament, always presuming our elected representatives actually get to discuss all of it, which is unlikely because the Government is probably going to guillotine the debate to force it through before they are voted out of office...
Sorry, but we're not going to vote fascist for a third glorious decade of total law enforcement.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018