Can I just be the first to say...
... I want one that's frickin' shark's head size!
6917 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... I want one that's frickin' shark's head size!
"Jacqui Smith: Law to remain while judgment 'carefully considered'" in other words: whilst we try to find a way to weasel out of it...
PS Jacquiavellian! I love it!!
... will it be able to deduce the existence of rice pudding and Income Tax...?
The Queen can't "fire the toss pots", a little thing called the English Civil War took care of that back in the 17th Century.
Of course at that time it was the Monarch who got so arrogant with his power that the only solution was to chop his head off, so perhaps it's time for a similar solution...
... I'd like to learn all about you nuclear systems, please!
Mines the one with the lead lining...
... and no further encroachments on individual liberties...
Call me cynical, but the word "yet" could easily follow these statements...
Thank you for your reply, at least you're willing to admit that you may be mistaken.
Unfortunately there are those, especially those who proposed and supported this law in Parliament and the Lords, who are completely unwilling to accept that they could, in any way, be wrong, and would not even listen to any arguments that perhaps their law would not achieve their aims, nor do they care that it will criminalise people for looking at "dangerous pictures".
It is, regrettably, way to late to debate this issue, in fact it was probably too late when the law was first proposed two years ago, it's pretty clear that the Labour Party was going to push this law through come hell or high water and any "concessions" were simply a sop to neutralise any opposition. Have a look at the Backlash and CAAN sites and you'll find all the information and if you think that this worthless law should be removed from the lawbooks before innocent people end up being hauled in front of the courts, write to your MP via http://www.writetothem.com
PS @Phil, unfortunately even your admirable First Amendment isn't necessarily going to protect you, when the Bush White House decided to "crack down" on "producers of sadistic porn" (at the same time as torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay) one producer said "While Intersec is certain that a potential prosecution would have no chance of success... the staff is unwilling to fight a lengthy and expensive court battle only to emerge victorious but bankrupt."
As the old saying has it "How much justice can you afford?"
"would a 'normal' person find (even faked) pain and suffering of another human being or creature pleasurable? I venture an answer of 'nay!'"
Well then you would be WRONG! I run a business making and selling BDSM gear and I have been to many fetish parties and seen "dangerous videos" where I have seen "pain and suffering" going on, but these are *consensual* acts engaged in by *consenting* adults!
You seem to make the same arrogant mistake that those who proposed this law did by assuming that your tastes are the ones that should govern what everyone else should or shouldn't see or do or be allowed to publish because you are "normal" and anyone who likes things that you don't like are "dodgy folk", well pardon me if I say BULLSHIT!
If you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't tell everyone else that, because you don't like it, they shouldn't be allowed to look at it.
If you (or the Government) could actually provide any genuine evidence of harm you might have a reasonable, logical case, but you don't, you simply have supposition and emotive arguments not backed up by any facts (and you cannot make a single *exceptional* case into a general case either).
You shoot your own argument in the foot by saying "Lets not forget that 15 years ago hardcore porn was banned in the UK", well, yes, it was and now it's legal, so by your arguments, all these "dodgy folk" would be out there on killing sprees yet, somehow, this hasn't happened. I suggest you look at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who examined the situation in the USA and Japan where this material has been available for over 20 years and discovered "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"
Meanwhile Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper and Steve Wright the Ipswich Strangler who, between them killed 18 women, justifying their behavior because, according to their reading of the Bible, they were doing "God's work". In which case, it would make sense to ban the Bible because whilst banning so-called "extreme porn" might (unprovably) have saved one life, banning the Bible would have saved *eighteen* lives!
And why do you find it necessary to drag up the hoary old chestnut of "snuff movies"? Let me spell this out for you: Snuff Movies are a MYTH!! They do not exist! Despite thirty *years* of searching, the FBI, the British Police and others have never found *ONE* example of someone being murdered for the purposes of making a porn film, nor has anyone ever being charged with possessing one, let alone being convicted of making one!
If you want a logical debate, start by debating *facts* not myths and supposition and hearsay.
So let's take one fact from your little piece:
> Making people who encourage and participate in extreme acts which DO harm innocent victims accountable to some form of legal process? Good thing.
I agree, and so does everyone else in the BDSM community, I don't doubt.
Except that we already *HAVE* these laws! It's a crime to kill someone! It's a crime to commit an assault on another person (regrettably, it may even be a crime if they wish to consent to it after the Operation Spanner case)! It's a crime to falsely imprison someone!
We already have laws to deal with these crimes, this law will do nothing to change that situation, all it will do is to criminalise people for being (according to your lights) "a bit dodgy" because you don't like the pictures they look at.
Which is it to be...?
> Why can't they just focus legislation on people who run the websites for extrem porn?
To quote from the Explanatory Notes produced by the Ministry of Justice:
"The proper functioning of the Internal Market in electronic commerce is ensured by the Internal Market clause, which means that information society services are, in principle, subject to the law of the Member State in which the service provider is established. In turn, the Member State in which the information society service is received cannot restrict incoming services."
In other words, the original idea as proposed in the Longhurst petition to "block access" to sites showing so-called "extreme pornography" would be illegal because these sites are legal in the Member States in which they are established.
That petition also called for the banning of sites "promoting violence against women", but there's never actually been any proof offered that these sites do "promote violence", it's simply a supposition (not backed up with facts) that this sort of material "encourages" violence against women (and, presumably, Female Domination sites "promote violence against men...?)
The fact that members of the BDSM community support the idea of Safe, Sane and, most importantly, *Consensual* play doesn't seem to matter to these people, nor that BDSMers are as opposed to non-consensual violence against others as anyone who signed that petition.
Probably this law will end up being used as a sort of "Consolation Prize" for the Police whereby if they nick you for a crime but are unable to charge you with it, they'll trawl through your computer and see if they can find any "extreme porn" just so they can justify the original arrest...
So we have the "guidlines" at last, except that they provide very little "guidance" and mostly just re-iterate the same old twaddle that we've heard before, not to mention that, in places, they actually contradict the law as written eg it says an image must be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an offensive nature", yet the guidance says it must fit all the criteria, ie it should be AND of an offensive nature.
We also don't know what is "life threatening". Skydiving or riding a motorcycle can be "life threatening" if done without adequate safety precautions, so if someone takes adequate safety precautions when involved in breath-play, would that be ok? I doubt it.
Ditto for "serious injury". I actually asked the MoJ if that would be defined as GBH, since that's the definition the courts used, but they've decided that, no, it isn't, presumably because that would be too stringent a test for them to catch the stuff they don't like.
"Explicit and realistic" are, frankly, tautologous. If it's porn, it's probably explicit. If it's real people (even if acting) it's "realistic", so no help there.
"Obscene" is also said to take its definition from the dictionary instead of the mass of case law from the Obscene Publications Act, yet Chambers has "Obscene: UK Law - Liable to corrupt and deprave", so is that included or not?
Also they keep claiming that this act will only catch stuff which is "illegal to publish under the OPA", yet as the article points out, it will catch excerpts from films which are *not* obscene when shown as a whole, yet *will* be obscene if taken out of context!
And, finally, we have the statement that if you've deleted the images you're ok, unless you're a techie and have undelete software, in which case you'll need to use a file shredder to be safe.
The MoJ also basically say that it's going to be up to the Magistrates or Judges to decide if an image fits the definitions given, in other words they've made a huge mess and then want the courts to clean it up and we're left with the definitions of "pornographic" returning to the 1970s where "porn is whatever gets the Judge turned on"!
PS @ I Wonder:
The BBFC would not be prosecuted because paragraph 65 says:
65 Defences: general
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 63, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
The BBFC can claim to have a legitimate reason for possession, just as the police officers who have to evaluate seized material are allowed to possess it.
PPS @ Richard Cartledge
If you think it's gross, don't look at it. But don't be as arrogant as this Government and think that *your* personal tastes should define what everyone else is allowed to look at.
PPPS @ John Ozimek: "Exteme" porn...?! ;-)
... and yet (having not blasted my eardrums at discos in my youth) I can hear these things as well as (if not better) than any teenager and I object to being treated as some sort of "unwanted presence" thereby.
And to those slagging off Liberty, you are really missing the point. These devices affect *everyone*, especially the new version, whether they are supposed to or not. They are infringing on *everyone's rights*. Liberty is protecting your rights too whether you realise it or not.
And before you start bleating "but what about my rights..." please, tell me, since when did two wrongs start making a right? How can you protect one person's rights by infringing someone else's?
Or are some people's rights more equal than others...?
.. was originally intended to be a tax on "luxuries", but it seems today that pretty much everything over the barest minimum needed to survive on is now classified as a "luxury".
This tax simply causes more hassle for businesses and should be ditched.
... I have to wonder whether the terrorists who went around looking for people with "American or British Passports" would be in favour of this technology...
... you might get arrested as a "terrorist" for revealing information that the Government wants kept hidden...
... will now be stealing music and denying the RIAss.A and the BPA (erm, I mean musicians) lots of lovely money and the music industry will collapse and the world will come to an end and...
Signed the RIAss.A and the BPA.
... if they'd had ID cards they'd never have gotten away with it (I blame those pesky kids...)
... about bears and woods here somewhere...
And, of course, we've never supported or done business with totalitarian states or dictatorial regimes in the past when it's been convenient to us either...
Joke ahead icon because (oh figure it out yourself)
... had already tried to ban the Aussies "So where the bloody hell are you" tourism advert but eventually decided it was ok in a post 9pm slot.
Personally I think most kids response to this would be "Fuck that..."!
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...
... when the Revolution comes!
... this is not the Domain Hijack Vuln you're looking for...
(Mine's the one with Luke Skywalker's lightsabre in the pocket!)
In which case the default position (which should have been explained to her) is if she has reasonable doubts the defendant should be PRESUMED INNOCENT!
ie "we want it, we think it's a good idea and we don't give a toss about what you or anyone else thinks..."
... 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...!)
... that is not VAT Registered, so do I a) not reduce prices and try to inform customers of this or b) have to re-price several hundred items in my range both on my website and on my billing system because they'll still expect things to be cheaper?
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!
... The iSniff!
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:
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!
Of course, perish the thought that anyone should offer competition to comprehensive Government snooping!
... intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes. And slowly, and surely drew their plans against us.
"Hey, Xylmx, now we can really pwn those earthers for all those cruddy movies!"
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.
... the Department of Stating the bleedin' obvious!
> 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.
... that sounds like a load of balls to me...
... Nor was Steel, but it was still a wonderfully original piece of TV SF!
Mine's the one with the series DVD in the pocket...
... *Everyone* puts in an application for their children's data to be shielded?
By the time that lot gets sorted out the kids will have grown up anyway!
... and that's the way we like it!
... their foreign colleagues with sensitive operational information
Yeah, they might leave it on a train...!
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"
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.
It's good to see a company actually owning up to and taking responsibility for its failure to protect customers' information instead of trying to bury its head in the sand or conceal the facts.
I hope the extortionists get all they deserve.
... will surely be using a system which injects caffeine directly into the engine (or perhaps the driver...!)
... 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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018