@ Ian Michael Gumby
> Do any of the play toys come with blue tooth
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Don't forget that the Coronors and Justice Bill includes provisions for *pornographic drawings* of "children" to be made illegal (NB that's not drawings taken from photographs, but ones created ab initio, ie which have never had any basis in reality!)
So no doubt we will soon see a UK version of the Australian case where a guy was convicted of having "child porn" because he possessed images of Lisa Simpson performing sexual acts!
"The unit is staffed by hard-nosed cops who don't feel the least bit inhibited about kicking doors down, arresting paedos "
And if they actually find any *evidence* of crime, so much the better.
Of course if they don't and they ruin some poor bastard's life and rip his family apart and destroy his career and leave him with huge legal bills when he was completely innocent, well, it was For the Good of the Children, wasn't it, so it must have been justified...
And how many British jobs did that "save"?
Let's say it was 1000 for the sake of argument. So they could have given each of those workers £50,000 and said "Go and find another job or take a year off" and still have over half of that £114m left over which would probably have paid for the Israeli system...
Interesting choice of words you use viz "pervert" and "get a girlfried"...
Oddly enough in the last century, those who wanted to get themselves a *boyfriend* instead were branded as "perverts" and, indeed, at times could be locked up for their actitivies.
It wasn't that they were doing any harm to anyone, it wasn't that their activities were non-consensual, it wasn't that they were a threat to children (despite the media pushing scare stories about all of these) it was simply that there were a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who thought "we don't like this, so *they* should not be allowed to do this and we'll use any justification we can find (whether it's factually based or not) in order to get laws through to stop them from engaging in their 'perversions'".
Those are exactly the same sort of arguments that were pushed to con people into passing the Dangerous Pictures Act. So, is that the sort of mindset you support? It certainly seems that way.
"Modern-day slavery is still very much present in the Western world. And the sex industry is just one of the areas where you can find it."
Yes, just *one*. So using claims that "trafficked women are forced to do these acts" as an excuse for saying "we must make pictures of these acts illegal" is nonsense.
I might have disagreed with you, but then I thought of my own experiences.
I saw something that excited me. It was new, it was different, it intrigued me and I enjoyed it.
But then I didn't want the same again, I wanted more, I wanted better, I wanted harder, I wanted more excitement!
... just went back to the library and got another book out.
(I would have put a FAIL icon on this, but that might have given it away)
How did you know that your colleague didn't have these interests before? How do you know it was a "progression"? How do you know it was "caused" by the porn?
You seem to be saying that, just like the idiots who proposed and passed this law, *everyone* cannot be trusted not to go out and commit murder or shag animals or abuse children just because they look at this stuff.
And if you want some evidence of how wrong you are, I suggest you look at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied the effects of the availability of porn (including "extreme" porn) in the USA and Japan and concluded:
"It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
... seems to be a cosy little club which has no interest in being accountable to anyone else yet, somehow, has arrogated powers which enables it to influence Government policy and determine (sorry, "issue guidlines") on how the law should be interpreted and exercised.
It's good to see that the Lords are expressing concerns and more kudos accrues to Baroness Miller (who valiantly lead the opposition to the Dangerous Pictures Act), but the question remains whether our Government actually *wants* to have the ACPO subject to oversight...
... does not scan copyrighted works in Europe.
Which makes damn all difference when it's as easy to download something from the USA as it is from Europe.
If a book has been published in both the USA and Europe and Google has scanned it, it *will* be available world-wide, simple as that.
Ho hum, yet another idiot conflating consensual adult pornography with that produced featuring children (who cannot, by law, consent).
Of course, like those who wrote the "Consultation" on our "Extreme Pornography" ban, he's just using "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" as an excuse to push his narrow minded agenda.
Meanwhile: Paging King Canute...
... you develop a graduated response that has got 95 steps. So you've now asked somebody 95 times very nicely and very politely can you please stop doing that and 95 times they've refused to," he said. "What do you do?"
Err, how about getting it through your skulls that your out-moded, out-dated and obsolete revenue stream model is DEAD and try embracing the new technology instead of clinging onto something that will just make you look like greedy idiots when you try to fine grannies a million quid for "illegal" (it isn't, it's civil, not criminal) downloading.
> If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
And if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...
Any other dumb, cliched platitudes you'd like to trot out?
Now consider this:
A couple of weeks ago my Sky+ box glitched whilst I was on holiday and failed to record the episode of Dollhouse that was on.
I didn't want to miss it, but it wasn't available for "legitimate" download from anywhere I could access. So I downloaded it using utorrent instead, watched it, then deleted it.
So was that illegal because I didn't get it from a "legal" source? What copyright did I actually infringe? Was I contributing to terrorism (or whatever) by doing this?
What if I'd said to a mate "You recorded it, can you bung it onto video for me?"
I'm sure in your nice little black-and-white world, I'm a criminal who belongs behind bars.
... had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.
Err, excuse me? "we will be extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009"
The fucking Consultation hasn't even *FINISHED* yet, but already you're deciding what you're going to do?
Why not just admit that, like every other damn consultation you've held, it's a complete sham because you're going to do what you like anyway?
How about we all club together and buy Mandy an expensive dinner? Maybe *THAT* is the way to get Government policy changed...?
... asking them to accept voluntary guidelines until the relevant legislation is passed.
Now what would be *sensible* would be for them to cut out a lot of the nonsense in the VRA which, for instance, means it's an offence for someone to sell R18 videos from a website in this country, but leaves it perfectly legal to purchase them from anywhere in Europe and have them shipped over here.
Of course what will no doubt actually happen instead is that our prudish Nanny State Government will hamstring the adult industry with a whole lot more useless regulations to "protect" us from all that nasty dirty stuff...
Find me a Catholic Bear and I'll give you an answer...!
PS @David Pollard
Regarding Volunteered DNA, the recently ended Home Office consultation proposed that volunteered DNA would not be kept.
Of course that's only a consultation, so does anyone want to take a bet that when the law is brought in, this will be amended because "well, it would be a good idea to keep it, wouldn't it?"
... just how many people are in favour of the sort of "Freedom of Expression" which is defined as "Freedom to say/ read/ look at things that *I* approve of".
Not to mention those who are immediately willing to dismiss anyone who makes or watches such things as "sick" or "not normal" or "not having a healthy mind" or those who think that we need to be "protected" because we're obviously so mentally feeble that we're not capable of exercising our own consciences and not going out and emulating what we might have seen.
Isn't it good that we have people like you who are such fine, upstanding citizens that *you* are capable of deciding for *us* what we should or shouldn't look at!
I'm sure the Taliban would applaud your morality and would want to recruit you for their groups that eg go around beating women who let their burkhas slip because obviously seeing a bit of female skin is just the first step on a slippery slope to the commission of depraved acts...
So Matt 89 doesn't understand this stuff, therefore it should be banned.
Wow, what a great argument!
Personally I don't understand why people would want to regularly watch stories of people being threatened, abused, intimidated, having relationships torn apart and so on, but since these are (apparently) regular staples of EastEnders, presumably there is *some* desire on the parts of some people to watch such stuff.
If Matt 89 or anyone else doesn't like it, then, in the words of Kenny Everett to Mary Whitehouse "You've got a knob, use it".
But don't be so arrogant as to try to tell everyone else that because *you* don't like it, *they* shouldn't be allowed to watch it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019