Has been linked...
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to stupid political headline grabbing and other bullshit has been linked to people wanting to punch politicians lights out!"
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
For those who think this is the Nanny State, would they say that making Drinking and Driving an offence is *also* the Nanny State? Would they argue for the DD laws to be removed then?
And as for the motorists bitching about cyclists, yes, there are idiots who cycle on pavements or without lights etc and, as a cyclist myself, I wish they wouldn't do it, but if you're driving a tonne and a half of metal you are a serious risk to *OTHERS*, not just to yourself. *Very* few people have been killed or injured by stupid cyclists apart from themselves, so stop using this Straw Man argument.
I think the word you were looking for is "infamous"!
And from that BBC article:
"The Home Office said the data was a vital tool for investigation and intelligence gathering."
I think they meant "a vital tool for fishing expeditions and data trawling and the hope that, after the event, we can find where the criminals came from".
> make it an offence to buy sexual services from someone who's been forced into it, as an extension of rape.
Nobody here is disagreeing with this, but that's not what is under discussion.
The proposal is that the default situation becomes that the woman is *assumed* to have been trafficked unless the punter can *PROVE* that the woman was not.
That is like (to wrench things back towards an IT footing!) assuming that unless you can prove that you have a valid EULA for your software, you must have pirated it and should be prosecuted.
There is a fundamental principle of Human Rights called Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty. The argument from the Government is, once again, that someone has to *prove* their innocence which is a complete reversal of this legal principle.
I find it really disturbing that it appears that because you don't like prostitution, you are seem to be in favour of women working as prostitutes being arrested "as well as" men who use their services.
This is, presumably, to "protect" them, which, IMO, sounds incredibly patronising to those women (and, yes, there are a lot of them, despite the Government's spin) who, of their own free will, choose to work in the sex trade and will tell you what you can do with your "protection".
Not only that, you want to set yourself up as arbiter of what is "normal" behaviour or what is a "consenting" arrangement.
If you don't the idea of working in the IT business with people who might "look at you as a potential purchase" might I suggest you look for a new job? I understand the post of Home Secretary is a great one for imposing your personal tastes on everyone else...
It is you who are missing the point. We already *have* laws to protect women from threats of violence and assaults and other behaviours involved in trafficking, passing new laws is not going to make matters any better.
@ Tim Brown:
> "If someone makes use of the services of a prostitute who they know or believe is being coerced into providing those services, then I'm quite happy for a suitably heavy book to be thrown at them"
And how is someone supposed to *know* this? Should the punter be required to ask "have you been forced or coerced into this" when he hands over the money? How is he supposed to know if they are telling the truth?
This is another ludicrous headline grabbing law from a Government which has lost all touch with reality and is now just legislating based on the personal views of Ministers.
One of the things that Terry Pratchett has been trying to get over to people is that he Aten't Dead Yet and probably won't be for a long time!
Regrettably, as some comments on here suggest, there is still widespread ignorance about Alzheimers which, coupled with the lamentable lack of funding that the condition receives, means that many sufferers, whilst they still have their faculties, feel abandoned or get treated as if they have one foot in the grave already.
This doesn't have to be the case, but only if those who research into Alzheimers and treatments for it get the support that they need.
... Sir Terry!
And, iamapizza, if you think Terry Pratchett "lacks talent" or could be compared to those you mention, just stick to the books with the big pictures and the short words and don't bother trying to engage your brain (which you obviously didn't do in the first place).
So Wacky Jaqui says she would publish a consultation paper in the new year.
What she doesn't say is that it will be biased and one-sided and not give the full facts and even then she will ignore it if it doesn't give the response the Government wants.
This Government has lost any connection with the real world, they know they've not got a hope in hell of winning the next election, so they're just trying to push through as much of their Control Freak, Big Brother, Nanny State legislation as possible before they're unceremoniously kicked out of office.
Of course this doesn't mean that the *next* bunch we get in power (the Tories, most likely, by the rule of Buggins' Turn, given the way our electoral system "works") are really going to be much better. Ok, yes, they say they'll get rid of ID cards, but what about all the *rest* of the legislation New Labour brought in which infringes on our Right to Protest, Right to Privacy, Right to decide for ourselves what we can read or see, Right to go about our lawful business without let or hindrance?
Will David Cameron give us a promise that he'll do anything about this? Or, if asked, will he just give us a weaselly, mealy mouthed statement about "well, we'll look at it and maybe get rid of it, but we can't say right now" and then, once he's in power, say "perhaps this isn't so bad after all, but maybe after the *next* election"...?
The only Party with any real gumption to do anything this are the Lib Dems, but they're stuck in third place in a system that would require a massive shift in voting patterns to give them a chance of power and neither of the other two parties have any intention of changing that.
This isn't "Nanny State" because the Government is only issuing *guidelines* (rather than attempting some ridiculous and unenforceable heavy-handed nonsense like passing laws making it illegal for a child to drink more than X amount) so it might help children learn that going out and getting blitzed isn't necessary to have a good time.
Of course it does rely on their parents being responsible and not sitting the kids in front of the TV with a couple of tins of Special Brew...
Why don't you just build a five mile high wall around your country and then you can *really* convince yourself that there's nothing else in the world and nobody else would have to worry about a country with such a balanced personality that it has a chip on *both* shoulders!
(Joke ahead icon because there's no "responding to a complete joke" one...)
... and I can set it to give me a *warning* if I am exceeding the limit. I sure as hell would never let anything over-ride my control of the bike, nor, if I am in the middle of an overtake, would I want to have to worry about pressing a button to stop it happening.
As for Bassey's "why let vehicles go faster than 70", obviously he's never seen a "Crawler Race" where you have one HGV with its limiter set 2mph faster than the one it's trying to pass. Naturally the trucker being passed isn't going to back off ("why the hell should I?!"), so you have an overtake manoeuvre which goes on for a couple of miles.
Now imagine that you're trying to pass one of those trucks on a dual carriageway, but you can only do it at 70mph and that "end of dual carriageway" that was a mile or so off is coming rapidly closer... does that sound like a recipe for safety??
Well then just don't fucking LOOK at it, you pillock!
And if your kiddy starts looking at it, what the HELL are you doing leaving your child unattended whilst it's browsing the net?
Your Big Brother, Nanny State, Control Freak Party has already passed the most ludicrous piece of legislation making it illegal simply to possess so-called "extreme pornography" but you can't even *define* what the fuck you mean by this term, so how the hell is anyone going to be able to decide if what they own is illegal in the first place?
And now you want everyone else to do your job as a PARENT and protect your little ones from the nasty stuff that you don't like?
The sooner this bunch of idiots are out of office, the better!
"There are strict guidelines in place regarding the use of intelligence databases and if anyone abuses it that is taken extremely seriously."
The "strict guidelines" being "don't do this, it's naughty and we wouldn't like it"?
Somewhat ironic given No2ID's just launched "Take Jane" campaign. See http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v1JqlvnZANA
If we have a National ID Database, is this sort of thing going to be:
a) Less likely?
b) More likely?
Still, if you've got nothing to hide...
... is keen to retain the opt-out, believing that it suits the UK's work culture, which generally involves longer hours than that in other EU member states.
Y'know, I would have thought this Government would have been in favour of stopping people working longer hours because that way the employers would be forced to take on more workers to get the same amount of work done and thus make the unemployment figures look better!
> won't be looking forward to telling their children that there's no longer any way to win one's glorious wings of gold and the respect of the nation
Not to mention it'll make it much more difficult to try to get Kelly McGillis' knickers off in the Ladies Room...
... Mine's the one with the off-key copy of "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" in the pocket.
... at the most depressing time of year for many people, the Number One song could be "music to slit your wrists to"...!
Well, maybe there's a god above,
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you.
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah...
Happy Xmas everyone...
@Sean: 911 is not usable in the UK because some UK phone numbers start with those three digits.
@Jaowon: The other reason for choosing 999 in the UK was that, with the old rotary dial phones, it was easiest to dial in the dark, you just found the bottom of the dial and put your middle finger in the first hole which was 0, then your index finger in the hole next to it which had to be 9 and you didn't need to find any other digits thereafter.
So she promises "a review of the RIPA code of practice", whilst ignoring the fact that she has now been *TOLD* that keeping the DNA of people not convicted of crime is illegal. The "removing 70 under 10s from the database is just a sop which attempts to distract people's attention from what's still going on.
She also claims that the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who, allegedly, think that ID cards are a great idea and should be introduced immediately...
... Our FUD spouting Overlords!
Be afraid, people. Be VERY afraid! Only through your fear can we make you safe! Don't trouble your little heads about Human Rights or Civil Liberties, such things can only make Terrorists' lives easier, so let us remove all those Rights and let us watch you wherever you go and see who you're phoning and check what websites you're visiting and record your DNA and have you carrying ID cards because only in that way will we have true Safety!
We shall prevail!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019