There's got to be a joke...
... about bears and woods here somewhere...
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I woke this morning to find my box was in Standby mode even though I've left it switched on the past few days to ensure this problem didn't arise, but, after pressing the on button in trepidation, I'm pleased to confirm that it's working properly again.
Hopefully (hah!) Sky will learn from this...
I, too, have had this problem after replacing the old 40GB HDD (which died) with an 80GB drive and was within a few minutes of forking out £10 a month for "Sky Protect" (or is that Sky Protection Racket) coverage for a year (ie £120 or so all told) to get an engineer to come out and replace my current box with a refurbished one because after doing all the usual resets etc, it still wouldn't work properly. Fortunately I read El Reg's last article on this just in time to save my money!
The people at Sky (who knew nothing about the problem) first told me that I'd have to buy a new box for £150 and pay £65 to have an engineer install it, but it occurred to me, how much is a Sky+ box?
Consider, a 40GB drive which (if you can even get them these days) are about £20 at retail. Add in a motherboard, a few chips, a transformer, a case and bit of assembly and you've got maybe £50-£60 worth of costs. So where is the rest of the money going, I wonder...?!
The Government have (oh so kindly) offered a "defence" that if you were a "direct participant" in the images then you are allowed to possess them. Of course this rather ignores the principle of Presumption of Innocence since using a "defence" rather requires you to be *charged* with a crime in the first place. It means, therefore, that your partner would be allowed to possess the images, but not you!
There's also the small matter of your partner needing to *prove* that they were a "direct participant", so if those involved were wearing head to toe leather or rubber it would be rather difficult to show this.
And, yes, if a photographer takes pictures of people engaging in acts that could fall under this legislation, even though they are legally the copyright holder of those images, it would be illegal for them to actually own them!
People need to contact their MPs via www.writetothem.com and demand that the Select Committee that the Government hinted at when this law was going through the Lords (and then ignored) is set up to re-examine this whole issue and this ridiculous law is removed from the statute books.
Congratulations, New Labour! You have decided that anything that in *your* subjective opinion is dangerous to *us* should be banned and that if *we* look at it, we must be locked up for our own safety and the safety of society!
The fact that there's still no "guidance" from the MoJ (oh, it's coming, honest!) let alone a stipulation to the Police that this should not be used as some sort of "Consolation Prize" law (well, we can't do them for the crime we nicked them for, but we found some dodgy stuff on his PC) just confirms that our leaders have lost all touch with reality and because they know they've already lost the next election they're just pushing through every piece of nonsense they can think of which will make the country a "better place" (in their opinions) such as locking men up for paying for sex, calling Lap Dancing clubs "sexual encounter venues" and assuming that every prostitute has been trafficked.
Time to look out that copy of Truecrypt before the Stasi^W err Geheime Staatspolizei^W^W erm Ministry of Love come knocking on my door...
... so not content with trying to ban Dangerous Pictures, not content to try to criminalise men for paying for sex, not content with having the WI write letters to newspapers to stop them running legal adverts, not content with threatening trafficked women with arrest and deportation instead of giving them the protection of the law, our New Labour Nanny State now wants to decide whether or not we are allowed to be "sexually stimulated" in the guise of "protecting women"!
What next? Banning of short skirts and the introduction of the Burkha...?
Erotica has been running since 1997, although they're now using the larger Olympia 2 hall.
Speaking as someone who used to exhibit a range of Affordable Leather Products at the show, I have to say that it's now a limp shadow of its former self. Almost all the small niche traders have been priced out of attending, the public are being absolutely ripped off (Saturday tickets were £30 on the door!) and it's now turned into pretty much the equivalent of a glorified Anne Summers event.
To compare: When I was selling my products there, the upstairs was filled with stands and the downstairs likewise. At the latest show the upstairs was virtually devoid of exhibitors and the downstairs had large empty spaces and huge aisles because too many businesses had got fed up with being charged excessive prices for stand spaces.
Of course the organisers don't give a damn as long as they can keep the punters happy, but maybe this year they will finally realise that they can't keep milking the show for all it's worth.
Anyone who is interested in buying the more niche products would be better advised to check out the London Alternative Market, the London Fetish Fair, the Birmingham Bizarre Bazaar or the South West Alternative Market and Party (or SWAMP) in Bristol.
PS @Lisa Parratt's "£200 for an electro box?" comparing the E-Stim Series 2 box to a TENS unit is like comparing a top of the range graphics/ gaming PC to something you can buy from Woolworths!
It has two independent channels for safe "above the waist" play, multiple pulsing modes and even a microphone so you can zap someone to your favourite MP3! (Erm, allegedly...!)
You've just saved me from having to fork out £10 a month for the next year to sign up to the "Sky Protect" insurance scheme (or should that be "protection racket"?!) which was going to be the cheapest way of (as I thought) getting my box fixed or replaced, as opposed to the option of paying out £150 for a new box plus £65 "installation fee" (even though I could do this myself!)
Given that I've been onto their Tech Support Division twice in the last three days (latest was this evening) and they said damn all about it, I'm glad at least *someone* knows WTF is going on!
Oh look, another MP arguing that we, the ordinary people of the UK are too stupid or too incapable of making rational, sensible decisions for ourselves that the Nanny State must step in to protect us from our poor selves and we should not worry our little heads about the fact that they are deciding for us, once again, what is or isn't safe for us to look at!
If your MP is uninformed, visit http://www.writetothem.com and *INFORM* them that you do not want to see this sort of BS being made into law in this country.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11 says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
So there is nothing to stop someone being a member of the BNP or espousing their views *provided* they are not members of the armed forces, Police or Civil Servants and provided that they do not infringe on the rights of others.
If, however, we start declaring which parties or expressions of opinion are "politically correct" simply because we don't like them (and not because they provably risk harm to others) then we are on a very slippery slope...
... hmm, hang on, this Government has already put us on that slope, hasn't it...?
Just as a point, we're not talking about kerb crawling here which does cause problems in the areas it happens, but legal brothels which are a good way of ensuring women are safe and not exploited or trafficked whilst being too scared to seek the protection to which they're entitled in law.
Incidentally, even if a woman does go to the Police to report that they have been a victime of trafficking, they risk being arrested and deported, straight back into the hands of the traffickers again.
Unfortunately Jackboots Jackie wants to criminalise those who pay for sex in some misguided belief that this will somehow stop trafficking based on an imaginary Home Office figure that some 70% of women involved in prostitution are victims of this crime.
See this interview with Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7737144.stm
There is also the fact that (unsurprisingly) the proposals are so vaguely worded that those who visit women who work as professional Dominatrices (and who don't offer sexual services, nor ply their trade on the streets) would probably also be caught by this law.
... have always to think about what the Daily Mail reaction would be...
Which is a perfect example of why the Lords should not be an elected body, otherwise they'll just end up pandering to the bigots in the media.
Meanwhile I'd just like to say "Bonzer!" to the Aussies and don't let a bunch of sad wowsers get you down!
So not happy with, again, ignoring advice about people giving consent to donate organs, the Government now wishes to assume our consent for others to rummage through our medical history to see if there's anything of interest to them...
If people like Bronek Kozicki and Paul Murphy wish to put their details or their child's details on some sort of central register of people with specific conditions who are willing to participate in trials, that's up to them, but they should *NOT* assume that because *they* are happy to do this I or anyone else will also be happy to do the same.
It is *MY* choice, not theirs and not the Government's.
> Someone (later defined as "the landlord's acquaintance") who took possession of his computer stumbled upon some of the forbidden files and reported them to police.
Or maybe the landlord's acquaintance decided to access some kiddie porn himself and then reported it?
And was it legal for that acquaintance to take possession of that computer anyway? I don't know how the US system works, but AIUI in the UK it is illegal for a landlord to take possession of a tenant's personal property, they must apply for a Court Order for Bailiffs to remove the tenant and/ or any property, not simply grab it themselves.
The original design of the Subscriber Trunk Dialling system used letters for the dialling codes of various places:
"For example Aylesbury was given the STD code 0296, where the letter A can be found on the number 2 and the letter Y on the number 9. The letter O became a zero (except in placenames beginning with O), such as Bournemouth: 0202 - 20 = BO. However as more and more places were given STD codes this system became unworkable. The use of alphabetic exchange (area) codes was abandoned in the 1960s"
From http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/UK_telephone_numbering_plan
The problem was that not all rotary phone dials were standardised to use the same layout, for instance some put O, Q and Z on the Zero finger hole instead of their standard alphabetical places, which could cause confusion.
Also, of course, it was much more difficult to get "custom numbers" back in the days of the General Post Office who originally ran the phone system (and you didn't even *own* your phone, you only rented it from them!) or even in the early BT days before number portability, so trying to get a number that spelled "plumber" was virtually impossible.
... The web being sanitised at the whim of Judges who mostly don't have a clue about it, at the behest of money grubbing lawyers who don't care about it, prompted by idiot "celebrities" who think they have a right to control it and what people can read about them...?
Not only do we have to worry about Control Freak Governments telling us what we can or cannot look at in case it's bad for us (or because it exposes their embarassing failures), now we risk seeing the most powerful tool for Freedom of Information being crippled by those who are only interested in a quick buck.
We have Rights in this country as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK Government encoded into our laws with the Human Rights Act.
Unfortunately those Rights are shot through with "weakening clauses" (or should that be "weasel clauses"?) such as Article 8's "RIght to Privacy" which says:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
The "protection of health and morals" was the way the Government managed to justify their prosecution of the Operation Spanner defendants (a bunch of gay man engaged in somewhat extreme BDSM acts) and their conviction for such "crimes" as "aiding and abetting assaults on themselves".
It's also an excuse they give for their law making it a crime to possess so-called "Extreme Pornography" because it will "protect others" (they don't, of course, explain how...).
Unfortunately it's very unlikely that any modern politician would not include exactly the same sort of weasel wording in a written constitution were such a thing to be introduced into this country.
... We have some of the best consumer protection legislation around, for example:
Sale of Goods Act 1979 - Goods must be of Satisfactory Quality, As Advertised and Fit for Purpose. If they are not, it is up to the Retailer to sort out the problem, not the consumer or the manufacturer.
Distance Selling Regulations 2000 - Goods must be delivered within 30 days unless otherwise agreed. Goods must be sold according to the SoGA 1979. The customer has 7 days to examine the goods as long as they're not perishable/ time dependant (eg newspapers) and then return them/ cancel the contract if they change their minds.
Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers 2002 - If a fault appears on an item within 6 months it's up to the Retailer to prove it wasn't present or inherent at the time of purchase, otherwise the consumer can claim refund, repair or replacement at their discretion. After 6 months and up to 6 years (if it's reasonable for the goods to last that long) if the consumer can prove the fault was inherent they can still claim this right.
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act - If you pay for goods worth between £100 and £30,000 by a Credit Card it makes the Card Company jointly and severally liable for remedying any problems (ie if the Retailer has gone bust, you can still get your money back).
The EU should not be trying to *weaken* these rights, they should be *expanding* the regulations to ensure that everyone in the EU can have them.
PS As well as being a consumer, I'm a retailer as well and I have no problems in giving customers these rights if they buy from me.
Erm, excuse me? "Eliminating the innocent"?
"Sir! We've found some DNA and compared it against the DNA of everyone in the country, so that's sixty million people we know *didn't* commit the crime!"
"Excellent, that only leaves us with a dozen or so people whose DNA matches the sample, so let's hassle them all until someone coughs..."
Hell, yes, there's plenty to worry about!
This is just another of those measures (like Chip and Pin and Verified by Visa) which are brought in "for the customers' benefit" which are actually really there to benefit the banks and card companies.
I'm sure they hate people like me because, when I moved house six years ago I maxed out my credit card, then I've been shifting it around 0% deals ever since effectively getting a six year £5000 interest free loan. Of course, to them, this simply means they're not making money out of me because I'm not paying stupidly inflated interest rates and I'm "costing" them the few pennies a year it takes them to run my account, and that's just not good enough.
If the Card Companies can see that I'm doing this, there's no way I'm going to be able to get new cards and then they can start charging me and many others lots of money...
May I strongly recommend people visit http://www.moneysavingexpert.com and sign up to Martin Lewis' weekly newsletter to find out more ways of making the system work for you!
... Invite Jackboots Jacqui to make a speech on the value of ID cards at your local Students Union etc, then, as she gets to the door, have officials standing there demanding to see her ID because "how do we know you're the *real* Jacqui Smith?"
Then make her stand there for ten minutes (preferably in the cold and rain) whilst you go inside and "check the details"...!
Err, sorry, but that's not the case.
Yes, some Lords, eg the Cross Benchers and Bishops don't have any party allegiance, but the rest of them most certainly do being Labour/ Tory/ Lib Dem peers (and often ex-MPs)
There's plenty of Party political BS still going on in there, the only difference being that the Lords don't have to worry about re-election.
"Those who desire power, are the last ones you should allow to wield it"
It wasn't Heinlein (he was just in favour of only letting the military rule), but similar sentiments have been expressed by Arthur C Clarke and Douglas Adams.
PS @what's wrong with those 150?
> Haven't they had their DNA forcibly taken and put on the database.
Nope, they were probably just in the Lords Bar when the time to vote came and the party Whips said "go and vote for this even though you haven't read it"...
> On the surface, with the negative and fear here, it sounds like people expect this would "catch you".
Have you ever heard the words "False Positive"...?
More to the point, have you ever heard the words "Presumed innocent unless proven guilty"?
> I say go for it - I loathe kiddie-pron, and as a father of 2 daughters, would fully support all attempts to curb abuse of kids.
I doubt there is anyone posting on here who approves of child pornography, however might I remind you that the person most likely to abuse your two daughters is *YOU*!
Obviously, then, the best way to give your daughters protection against abuse is to remove them from your house since you cannot be trusted not to abuse them.
I'm sure you'd support this attempt to curb the abuse of kids...