... or should that be "Senatards"?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
So, let me see if I've got this right.
Someone has not committed a crime, they have been acquitted in Court of any offence, yet they should *still* be sacked for exercising their legal right to freedom of expression simply because you (or some po-faced idiot in the CIvil Service) don't like what they wrote?
In other words "you have the freedom to write what *we* like..."
> there's no shred of literary or creative merit to redeem Darryn Walker's vile, jealous filth.
Sorry, have you *READ* the Daily Star recently...?
> His employer is wholly entitled to conclude that this behaviour has brought them into gross disrepute
Why? WTF has this to do with them if he didn't write it on work time or use work computers? This is the same sort of nonsense that has teachers being sacked because they go to Fetish Clubs even though they would never mention it to the children they teach.
You, like Estariel, seem to think that hearsay, gossip and "the court of public opinion" are more important than someone's right to freedom of expression and their right to the presumption of innocence.
Would you like to apply for the job of Home Secretary?
No, *you* get *your* categories sorted:
1) Not guilty.
There are *NO* other categories, unless you believe in trial by media, gossip, hearsay and innuendo.
The guy wrote a work of FICTION, if you're going to start censoring stuff simply because you don't like it, let alone arresting people for doing so, you're on a very dangerous and slippery slope.
If you don't like it, don't read it, but don't make ridiculous and unfounded assumptions about other people based on your own ignorance.
... third party power pack suppliers start making compatible batteries with copied chips like those who make compatible ink cartridges?
"Remember folks, using compatible cartridges may give poor results or damage your printer or fund terrorism (and will stop us selling our ink at higher prices than vintage champange...)"
I'm impressed at the way someone has really "thought outside the box" in this case (instead of using it as a meaningless buzz-phrase!)
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's a start and I'm sure there are ways of fixing the problems if people are willing to think about the issues instead of just immediately dismissing it as "won't work, can't work, why bother changing what we've got" etc...
> before buying any electronical equipment you need to do some research about it, computer equipment included.
What you should do and what people actually do is another matter entirely!
"I'll have that one because I've heard of their company name".
"I'll have that one because it looks pretty".
"I'll have that one because the salesman says it's right for me (and his commission)"...
... Lord Steyn!
At least there are a few people willing to speak out about this who might actually get listened to.
Unfortunately people like him are why the Government wants to replace the Lords with a bunch of party hacks who will rubber-stamp whatever nonsense they want to push through.
Unfortunately right from the word Go the Government has been attempting to create a false association between so-called Extreme Pornography and Child Porn, eg in their highly biased "consultation document" there were repeated references to CP even though the EP law was absolutely nothing to do with children.
Unsurprisingly, now, we see someone being accused of possessing both which will undoubtedly lead to implications that anyone who might have EP is also a kiddie fiddler.
The point about this case is that the law *assumes* guilt because the offence is one of "simple possession" of the images.
The guy selling the DVDs most probably had nothing to do with the making of them, nor any acts shown on them and so didn't break any laws in that context.
But this law doesn't care about that, it just says "you possess these images, therefore you are a criminal and the only way you can avoid being convicted is by proving your innocence" which is a reversal of the usual presumption of innocence not to mention a breach of Paragraph 2 or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
... making power exercisable by the Secretary of State to set out the steps he will take to meet them.
Whilst the "set out the steps" doesn't exactly sound like a massive sanction, I'm just a little worried that this will turn into some form of "enabling legislation" where all sorts of other dubious laws can be pushed through because "well, they'll help with child poverty and we're legally obliged to 'do something' about it..."
... if you want to watch some *real* racing, watch the A1 GP series.
A grid full of identical cars, one per nation (so no dubious "team tactics"), with a limited number of Power Boosts for overtaking and racing all the way down the field and a real test of the skill of the driver, not who can spend most money on development.
The end of the last season was an absolute corker with four teams all in with a chance of snatching the title, better than any F1 race I've seen in the last decade!
Well I've been to their website and opted out, even though I'm not entirely sure I was on their system in the first place, in which case, I've just given them my number.
They say I'll now be marked as "ex-directory" if someone tries to contact me but but there was, however, no option to say "I don't want my number passed on to anyone, anywhere, any time which strikes me as dubious.
Still, I've saved their number on my phone under the name "Junk", so anything that appears from it will be ignored!
A simple rebuttal of having the filters default switched on?
Certainly: Opt in or opt out?
Phorm wants us to have to opt out of their service.
118800 wants us to have to opt out of their directory.
This bunch want us to have to opt out of their filtering.
I prefer to make choices like this myself.
Once again we see those who wish to enforce a Nanny State blaming the "evil internet porn" for problems which existed long before the internet ever came about.
And, of course, when they talk about "acceptable content" what they mean is "content that is acceptable to THEM"
Well I find their content "unacceptable" so obviously it should be banned.
> that kind of disgusting crap needs removing so we're not all surfing in massive feckin toilet.
If you have *PROOF* of crime, prosecute the crime.
But when you start removing "disgusting crap" you end up with the nonsense of the "Dangerous Pictures Act" banning so-called "extreme pornography" because some people find that "disgusting or abhorrent", not because there's any evidence of harm.
And don't forget all those innocent people who were victims of false accusations of downloading kiddie porn by Operation Ore after their credit card details were stolen...
.... well in Tony Smith's opinion, anyway.
And that's all it is. OPINION.
In my opinion I think El Reg should ban Tony Smith because I don't like what he writes...
(Well, actually I don't, but, come on, El Reg, let's try to keep things balanced rather than just letting one of your writers go off on a rant)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019