The time is 21:20
... and it's still there!
BTW I've also noticed that they haven't even made an *effort* to obscure the card holders' signatures...!
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"er, obvious solution - move it to a new venue"
Brilliant, Kieron, why didn't anyone else think of that?
Of course you'll already know just how easy it is to find a venue that's happy to host fetish events, that won't charge ridiculous rents and possibly a "per head" fee on top, that's accessible, that's not booked solid with other events...?
Speaking as someone who makes and supplies BDSM gear (including, almost certainly, to some of the patrons of TG) and someone who has attended many Fetish Events for the last ten years or so, I can remember maybe three or four incidents of trouble over that time.
What I can also recall is several incidents where club goes have been "outed" by the gutter press, for instance when the News of the Screws did an "expose" of The Bridge which resulted in a woman teacher being sacked even though what she was doing in private had absolutely nothing to do with her job.
Now imagine the damage they could do to people if they managed to infiltrate TG or SE One and get their hands on the membership list.
The fact that the Home Office and the Police seem to think that this isn't their problem just shows how little they really care about the security of our data, they are just interested in foisting these systems on more and more people under the guise of "licensing requirements" or other such excuses.
Their aim is, of course, simply to get people used to this as part of the creeping expansion of the surveillance society, along with fingerprinting in schools and pubs being told to put in CCTV on the door or they won't get their licences renewed, so they can eventually sneak in ID cards and the National Identity Register by the back door.
... don't fix it!
What is so wrong with the "stupid old pencils" system when it *works* perfectly well? Why is it necessary to replace it with something "modern" that has shown to be flawed and subject to (untraceable) abuse?
Modernisation is all very well where it's needed, but doing it just because you can isn't sensible, as this debacle has demonstrated.
Is that 1,500 new sites every day, then...?
And as for this not being a "backdoor to censorship", pardon my derisive laughter!
We've already seen the nonsense of the bans applied to Wikipedia et al because of an album cover, what else is out there that might contain (alleged) child porn because it features young looking women? (A lot of Japanese women appear to be "underage" to western eyes)
Meanwhile a lot of kiddie porn gets distributed via IRC or P2P or other such methods, something this law will do nothing to stop...
He missed out the operative word "... yet".
Now they have the inclination and they'll probably very soon have the resources.
All they need after that is a pet Home Secretary who thinks that introducing Stasi-like monitoring of everyone is a good idea...
... oh s$$t, they've already got Wacky Jacqui...
... this killer was tracked through his use of Craigslist.
And the solution...?
Stop women from advertising services on Craigslist!
Wow! That's brilliant!
Don't think about ways of enabling women (and men!) to legally and legitimately advertise services in "the oldest profession", no, just make it *MORE* difficult for them and make them *MORE* vulnerable to nutters :-(
Apart from the large amount of GILF porn out there, I wonder how many people are aware of a group called "The Outsiders" http://www.outsiders.org.uk/ an organisation dedicated to helping those with physical and social disabilities explore their sexuality.
Protecting someone from assault or sexual abuse is one thing, equating people who are old or disabled (Does he take sugar?) with children who are unable to consent is simply insulting.
BTW The article by Dave Wedge linked to in that piece says "Pervs preying on the elderly or disabled could soon face harsh new penalties under a first-of-its-kind proposed law that would punish sicko peddlers of geriatric and handicapped porn the same as child pornographers."
I wonder if he's ever heard the words "Impartial" or "Unbiased" as applied to journalism?
"Its should be expected that the police try to push the boundaries - infact its healthly that they do so."
No way in hell is it "healthy" that the Police push the boundaries, see the G20 protests (aggressive tactics, concealed ID numbers, assaults etc) for what happens when those boundaries start getting pushed!
The job of the Police is to Maintain the Queen's Peace so that people may go about their lawful business without let or hindrance and investigate breaches of the law, however they *MUST* do it within set limits otherwise they start becoming "Judge, Jury and Executioner".
Remember that the Police are a civilian organisation subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Hmm, quoting from the Odyssey File (the book of the making of 2010 by Arthur C Clarke and Peter Hyams)...
"We have arrived at the Rectal First Big Ballute Plasma Shower Gas Saving Low Energy Fart Aerobraking Manoeuvre As Conceived By Arthur C Clarke (It can also be referred to as the old R.F.B.B.P.S.G.S.L.E.F.A.M. ploy)
Thank you for posting some of my comments to you, although I note that you didn't quote the bit where I pointed out that your "So Nazi [sic] are cool?" comment was a Straw Man.
I also added a PS saying "would you object if Max Mosley was a customer of mine...?" but you never replied to that...
"The rights of children carry more weight than unhindered mass communication."
Excuse me? Is she saying that the rights of children are more important than the right of everyone else to enjoy freedom of expression? Or that these two rights are somehow mutually exclusive? Or just that she's another clueless politician?
"Beside the obviously demeaning effects simulated rape has towards women, there is growing evidence that using extreme porn is bad for the men who do it and the relationships these men are in."
I'm sorry, but have you been reading the Government's Rapid Evidence Assessment instead of this article? Because that's the only way that you could actually come to that conclusion!
All the way through this article is pointing out how flawed this "evidence" you refer to is and the lack of factual basis for it, yet you trot out the tired old "it's demeaning to women" and "it's bad for men" arguments again.
Personally I think that Reality TV programmes are demeaning to their participants and being unfaithful to your partner is bad for relationships (for men and for women) yet I wouldn't call for legislation to ban them.
About the only point you get right is that the Government *SHOULD* "put their efforts into examining the relationship between porn and sexual disfunction / relationship problems and the relationship between the porn derived objectification of women in the media and the growth of eating disorders and plastic surgery amongs women in the UK." but only if they actually do an impartial and unbiased study (instead of cobbling together something from reports which already agree with the conclusions they want to reach) because if they do, they'll almost certainly find that there is no relationship between these.
Of course they won't do that because it wouldn't fit with their (and your) "emotion based policy making"...
I was a member of the Backlash campaign against the so-called Extreme Pornography laws practically since its instigation, so many of the references above are familiar to me, yet even I have hardly seen a more comprehensive debunking of the Government's "evidence" for legislating against what we can read or see or do.
A link to this article is going straight to my MP!
You can do the same via http://www.writetothem.com
I have a mobile phone, but I very rarely carry it on because it is simply for *MY* convenience!
I don't need people to be able to contact me instantly, I don't need to get the latest gossip without delay, I don't need to be able to text someone or twitter whatever vague thoughts happen to be passing through my head at any particular moment...
I do carry it when I'm on my motorbike just in case I break down. I do carry it if I'm visiting someone and I'm running late. I do carry it if it is to my benefit.
If the State is going to track me whilst using it, then I'll keep the damn thing switched off unless and until *I* choose to use it!
Presumed innocence? Nope, it seems it's now Presumed Guilty if the State can't monitor my every movement...
Try visiting your local Art House cinema and watch some of the stuff that is produced that equally has "no fucking plot development or acting," and some of which includes nudity.
The question is, simply, *WHY* should the BBFC be entitled to make decisions like this "for our own good" and the answer is that they shouldn't.
PS @ Richard: People have been coming up with post hoc justifications for banning stuff because of "copycat" incidents for a long time now, but that does not prove that the stuff they want banned *caused* the incident, only that there was a similarity in methodology.
And the "chances of another massacre" do not increase, only the chances of such a massacre getting widespread press coverage, hence the "epidemic of knife crime" last year that turned out to be nothing of the sort except for the fact that the media suddenly started making a big deal out of it.
And what scares *me* is people like you and Wacky Jacqui Smith and David Blunkett and Jack Straw and all other of your ilk who assume that simply by *watching* something, you're going to "encouraged" to go out and do it without any regard for the consequences or the safety of the people involved.
Ever since Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" there have been those who want to take us down the Thought Crime route of "if they don't see it, they won't do it", the so-called Extreme Pornography Legislation being just the latest example of this nonsensical argument.
Of course the fact that the BBFC has rejected this film's application for a certificate means virtually damn all now, not least because it will still be entirely legal to publish the film abroad and then import it into the UK, you just won't be able to buy it from a shop *IN* the UK!
The BBFC is an obsolete organisation that is still trying to give itself some sort of meaning in a world that has passed it by.
... as greedy bastards with their snouts in the trough for whatever they can get.
Of course if they were given a "fleet" of electric cars, no doubt they'd still be demanding milage allowances for the flash motors they drive to and from their constituencies because the electric cars "wouldn't be up to the job".
PS @ Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware
Highway code paragraph 264: Lane discipline
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. "
Which part of "Lane discipline" don't you understand?
This is just another attempt to bring in a law like that banning "glorifying terrorism" etc.
But how long before that ban on "Islamic extremist material" is extended to other "extremist material"? How long before the definition of "extremist material" is expanded to other content deemed "unacceptable" by the various state? How long before we're told that "you can't see this because we think it's bad for you"?
This is just another assault on the freedoms that the internet allows us and which are *so* threatening to our Great Leaders that they must be stopped.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019