... the Vatican have forgiven John Lennon for saying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus...?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
it was MPs who first put forward the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Cartoons legislation. Of course since the Government then Guillotined debate on the Criminal Justice Bill and the Coroners and Justice Bill, MPs never got to debate these proposals and it was left to the Lords to do something about it.
Of course since the only people with the balls to do that are the Lib Dems and since (as a Tory Lord admitted to me) Tory Peers don't vote on Lib Dem amendments, both pieces of nonsense legislation went through virtually unchanged.
... is that if anyone, anywhere in the world, publishes material on the Internet, they could liable to prosecution if they visit the USA if it violates some arbitrary "community standard" (read: prejudice of narrow minded bigots)
Of course meanwhile in the UK we only have to worry if some MP decides they don't like it...
"all they have to do is not make a judgement about it, just press the delete button."
Yep, don't worry about checking the details, just do what you're told! (I bet the RIAA, MPAA, PRS and all the others would love that too...)
PS "he'd like a remote control which could mute, or delete, people", well I can think of a few people I'd like to mute or even delete too. Does that make me a suspect...?
To get to my local recycling centre (and it *is*, as has been mentioned by others, a centre for recycling) requires a 10 mile round trip.
Consequently recycling of batteries, low-energy lightbulbs, old computer kit and much more is actually environmentally *unfriendly* unless it's possible to take an entire car-load to offset the fuel involved in getting there in the first place...
Amongst other things I'm a Moderator on the Gamehouse Discussion forums for their version of Scrabble etc and a couple of our users have found a work-around to allow access to Gamehouse games on Facebook for users in New Zealand.
NB this is not an official Gamehouse fix, caveat user! :-)
Strict liability means that mens rea ("guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to the actus reus ("guilty act") in order for a conviction to be obtained.
In other words the defendant has to prove that the image is *not* "grossly offensive" or "liable to cause serious injury" etc, which is virtually impossible.
Let's hear it for Tick-Box Justice...
No, thanks to Regina vs Church 1996 after the Club Whiplash raid where the CPS tried to get a conviction for "running a disorderly house". The Judge asked the Jury "Do you think this sort of behaviour is acceptable in this day and age" and the Jury said "Yes".
The only problem is that the Operation Spanner case R vs Laskey, Jaggard, Brown et al, says that if you leave marks which are "more than trifling or transient" then you are committing an offence...
Confused? You will be...
What do you think...?!
# Section 28 - National security. Any processing for the purpose of safeguarding national security are exempt from all the data protection principles, as well as Part II (subject access rights), Part III (notification), Part V (enforcement), and Section 55 (Unlawful obtaining of personal data).
# Section 29 - Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle.
... have all the employees of your Anti-Virus company download the updates first? There should be sufficient computers of various configurations and installations amongst them to pick up most of the duff update problems.
And it would give your workers a much greater incentive to ensure that these sort of glitches don't happen in the first place!
... for driving a coach and horses through some basic principles of English Law feels equally unmade."
The case was, of course, *never* made in the first place, just a "precautionary principle" argument that "well, this material might cause problems and we don't like it, so let's ban it".
Meanwhile, however, we still have a book-burning law which says "if you've got anything that might fall under this law, you'd better delete it youself, just in case we nick you for something else and we use it as an easier way to get a conviction".
As for our worst fears not being realised, you miss out the important word "Yet". It took some while for Councils etc to realise the power that the RIPA gave them, but when they did figure it out, abuse of these powers rapidly became widespread.
And you clearly have no idea how to construct a sensible argument!
You complain about the "sheer idiocy" of the arguments, but then you go from "we don't need to go back to the moon" to "Technically, you don't need to eat either". Tell me, have you ever heard the expression "Straw Man"?
... one of the most stupid examples of hobby-horse riding I've seen in a long time!
I have been to naturist events, I don't have an over-active sense of body-modesty, but just because British Naturism thinks that others shouldn't either is *NO* justification for treating everyone (me included) as a potential terrorist in another piece of nonsensical Security Theatre.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019