... a Chinese version of Wikipeidia which was the source of this report...?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... and are presumed to be at least as competent as most police authorities in determining whether an image is likely to be indecent.
Hmm, so basically "if you think some nonce or kiddy fiddler might possibly get some jollies from looking at this picture, ban it!"
So exactly *how many* CCTV cameras are in "terrorism hotspots"? And if they are, why aren't they being monitored in the first place...?
And how long before someone gets a couple of mates to stage a violent crime in front of a camera (making sure, of course, that the "attacker" can't be identified) and then reports it to scoop the jackpot...?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine watching a CCTV image of a boot stamping on a human face - forever...
What she should really making the headlines about is her own Government's Police and Crime Bill which, under the guise of "protecting" women, will actually make them *more* vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
Whilst the Goverment has rowed back on its plans to criminalise anyone who paid for sex by making it a "strict liabilty" issue, ie if the woman was "controlled for gain" it wouldn't matter if you didn't know that fact, you were still guilty, they still define "control for gain" so badly that anyone working of their own free will would also be caught.
Not only that, but it allows "brothel closure orders" which are effectively defined as "anything the Police think is a brothel" without the need for proof or evidence!
Also, and possibly worst of all the Police will have a financial interest in getting prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act, ie they can sieze money from working women if they think it was obtained illegally!
All this will do is force women who work in the sex industry into greater isolation or into the hands of unscrupulous pimps. meaning that any "protection" this law gives will actually make them *more* vulnerable because the women will not dare to report assaults or other crimes committed against them for fear of being arrested themselves.
... that pornographic, adult-rated material, when consumed by impressionable kids, can have untoward, sometimes dangerous behavioral consequences on researchers and members of the American Moral Minority who can't believe that you can look at this stuff *without* wanting to do bad things, even though this says more about them than it does about anyone else.
There, finished the sentence correctly for you :-)
The Extreme Pornography sections of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act don't deal with child porn. It's the proposed Coroners and Justice Bill which will make possession of "pornographic" drawings of children illegal when they're the product of nothing more than the artist's imagination (NB there is already an existing law which criminalises drawings copied or traced from *actual* child pornography)
Regarding bestiality images, however, what about Rebecca Loos who was given the job of masturbating a pig on the Channel 5 celebrity reality show "The Farm" and which was broadcast on national TV...?
You're all potential kiddy fiddlers, you just haven't been caught yet!!
PS Wait until the Government's "joined up thinking" gets to the stage of "well, whilst we're vetting them, it would be a good idea to take their fingerprints and DNA and stick them on the database..."
What about "recognise your employer" or, even better "recognise your MP"? Or how about "recognise your Prime Minister"!
"Well, I'm sorry, but you just because you *look* like Gordon Brown doesn't prove that you *are* Gordon Brown, so I'm going to have to ask for your ID card and fingerprints before we let you come into the Labour Party Conference..."
PS @AC Monday 28th September 2009 11:41 GMT "Well considering you lot (UK people) voted in Nu Labour to power in the first place..."
I sure as hell didn't vote for this bunch of incompetant, power-hungry, nanny state control-freaks! And, for that matter, 65% of the people of this country didn't vote for them either, yet still they got a "majority"!
... wheras the rest of the media gets distracted (by accident or intent) with stories about eg whether or not there's enough consultation between the Lib Dem leadership and Conference Members about new policies (as if there was *any* such consultation by Labour and the Tories!)
The BBC, especially, seem to be intent on running negative coverage of the Lib Dems, taking every opportunity to ignore what the Lib Dems want to do in favour of stories of Nick Clegg's "lack of authority" and how "senior MPs" have criticised him for proposing cuts in public spending (even though even Labour now admit that such cuts are going to be needed)
> There's a simple answer though, don't enter Wales; take your money elsewhere.
Unfortunately if bikers do that, the Police will have won, since they'll have succeeded in driving the bikers out of "their" area.
Not only that, but it will give ammunition to other attempts to "protect" bikers from themselves such as the campaign to ban bikes from the A537 "Cat and Fiddle" ride in the Peak District.
The only way for bikers to win and, indeed, everyone who respects liberties and the rule of law (rather than the "rule of Police State") is to stage *more* of these rides and point out how much time and public money the Police are wasting harassing innocent riders.
> Actually, it isn't the "negative statement" that is the problem it's the "prove" part. We scientists normally never actually prove anything. We may find evidence to support a hypothesis, but proving that there can be no evidence to refute the statement is more difficult. One needs to find just a single example that contradicts a hypothesis to refute it (assuming that one is using sound scientific techniques of course).
Err, Rob, that is "proving" the hypothesis, since "to prove" in this context actually means "to test"!
... it's the equivalent of "L33t sp34k" (aka "Moron Text").
I have good visual skils, I am very good at spatial recognition tests, I am reasonably intelligent and can comprehend written language etc.
So why the fuck do I *STILL* have to make repeated attempts to get a web page to agree that I've keyed in one of these bloody things properly?
I fully expect a lot of people to say "sod it, I'll go somewhere else" rather than keep wasting their time being told that they've not typed the munged text correctly.
Will you all please just take a deep breath, step back and THINK about what you're saying???
Yes, there are stupid road users of ALL sorts, I know, I cycle, ride a motorcycle and (although I don't own a car now) I have driven in the past and I've seen all the stupid and downright dangerous behaviour of other road users, but the sort of idiotic vitriol I've seen in these comments (and the stupid remarks from James Martin that started the whole thing) help NOBODY!
The attitudes that you have been ranting on about mean you are not part of the solution, you are part of the PROBLEM!
The Highway code says "It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders." but going off on a rant about whatever particular road using group has pi$$ed you off helps nobody and is likely to just make YOUR behaviour on the road worse.
So, someone does something stupid, fine, it happens, so why not just take account of that in your driving/ riding/ walking and ensure that YOU are not in a position where such behaviour is going to put you or someone else in jeopardy?
It's called Defensive Driving/ Riding and I commend the idea to you all...
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:
* * * * *
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
* * * * *
Yet this law allows for fines and jail based, it seems, simply on accusations. It also allows for an [quote]"ordonnance pénale" - a simplified proceeding that doesn't include the presence of the person accused of copyright infringement unless an appeal is filed.[unquote]
Hmm, so the music and media industry is more interested in protecting their profits than protecting human rights...
"Do they genuinely believe that ANY cost is justifiable to save one child's life?"
Others have already mentioned the False Dichotomy and other fallacies, but there's also the "Appeal to Pity" underpinning this whole business, ie "how can you *possibly* argue against anything that might save a child's life?" with, of course, the implication that if you do object, you are a callous and dangerous individual...
The fact is that, as you point out in your article, after all this time wasted and money spent, this legislation would *still* fail to prevent another Soham and will only massively inconvenience (or implicitly criminalise) the vast majority of people who would in no way harm a child.
Pace the "Reminds me of Niemöller......" comment, it reminds me of the "vetting programme" used by the US Military in Doctor Strangelove:
President Merkin Muffley: "General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!"
General "Buck" Turgidson: "Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, Sir. "
So the *real* unasked question is if (or gods forbid, when) another "slip up" happens even *after* all this vetting and barring, what will the Government and the Childrens' Charities and so on do then...?
... I've just noticed two stories:
One is of the Rocking Horse Nursery in Plumtree having its licence suspended after allegations of sexual assault, the other is of three pre-teen boys who have been arrested after claims of sexual by two younger children.
So, going back to the unanswered questions: 1) would the vetting scheme have prevented either of these? 2) Will the record of the second one (whether true or false) follow these three boys for the rest of their lives?
Remember that this "vetting" can include "soft information" ie hearsay and malicious gossip whereby it's enough that a kid with a grudge can accuse an adult of trying to groom them or similar, but, even if (or when) it turns out to be a complete lie, that accusation *still* remains on record.
Not only that, but the "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act" from where this database comes, included the ability to bar someone from working with said "vulnerable groups" if they had engaged in "conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate" , yet the SVGA was introduced *before* the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act which made the possession of extreme pornography illegal!
In other words, it seems that the Independant Barring Board will want to know what porn you like to look at before they will allow you to work with these groups!
Of course now that these laws are *on* the statute books it's going to be a very difficult job to do anything about them.
"I've got six years to return dodgy goods?"
Excuse the slight hijack (oops, maybe the wrong word to use in this thread!) but...
The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 says that if a fault appears in a product within 6 months it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault was not inherent at time of purchase and if they can't the customer can require repair, replacement or refund. After 6 months and up to 6 years, if the customer can prove the fault was present at time of purchase and it's reasonable for the product to last that long, they can ask for repair, replacement or refund, although the retailer can decline eg repair if such repair would not be economically viable.
PS @ AC: "We have 6 years to return a faulty good? If only I had kept the receipt!!! "
If you payed by credit or debit card, a record of the transaction on a statement is sufficient proof of purchase.
...came in response to a petition on the No 10 website
Of course they did! But what about all those *other* petitions that have just been ignored or fobbed off with some meaningless BS or dismissed with "it's not us you should be talking to about this" or...?
I'm reminded of the BBC TV comedy show called "If I Ruled the World" hosted by Clive Anderson that they ran some years back. The final round was called "Desperate Vote Grabbing"...
If you want me to offer even "grudging support" of Jim Gamble, I'm going to have to see something more convincing than his "diplomatic language".
Remember that he was the one who, only a few months ago, said that ISPs should waive the costs of "assisting investigations" when children are involved and was roundly criticised by ISPs, especially the smaller ones, for this. Then, a couple of days ago, CEOP declared that "the vast majority of paedophiles exchange images via P2P".
Now, suddenly, he changes his tune and decides that "well, maybe small ISPs shouldn't have to be forced to adopt filtration" which sounds to me more like he'd realised that there was no way that such a thing could get pushed through without a lot of resistance that might then backfire as larger ISPs start saying "hang on, if they don't have to filter and since only 7.5% of this stuff comes from commercial websites and most of it is going via P2P, why should we be wasting our money on it either?"
Don't forget, also, that Gamble was a major mover behind Operation Ore, and that house of cards is looking extremely shaky with the Jim Bates/ Chief Constable Colin Port fiasco and innocent victims of credit card fraud being effectively forced to plead guilty to avoid a court case which, even if they won, would have ruined their lives.
Additionally CEOP wanted to censor Second Life just in case someone used underage avatars to "groom" children and they're also one of the groups that pushed for the clauses in the Coroners and Justice Bill to make pornographic cartoons of "chidren" illegal.
Now IMO Gamble is thinking that he's pissed off a few too many people and he's hoping that a bit of "diplomatic language" might smooth things over before too many questions are being asked about the power that he and CEOP have arrogated unto themselves.
Oh and your last paragraph reads like "Won't Graham Marsden Think Of The Children!", so please excuse me if I ignore it (and your title line) with the contempt it deserves.
... how long before someone from the Security Services has a quiet word in their ear and persuades them to add a facility which allows them to eavesdrop on the conversations in all cars, for the public good and prevention of terrorism etc, of course...
(Naturally since every car will automatically be giving off a signal, it will also help in the introduction of road pricing too)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019