A follow up to the comment at the top:
You have no Tea.
> Drop no tea.
Your common sense says you cannot do that.
(Mines the one with the Joo-Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses in the pocket)
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
> the chances of them winning the next election are unfortunately slim to none. Voting for them in certain constituencies risks handing power back to Labour for another term.
And as long as people keep saying (and believing) this, there isn't going to be the chance of any change!
Unfortunately too many people vote for Party X because "my parents voted for them and so did my grandparents" or they don't look further than their wallets and purses and so we're left with a two party state that operates on the principle of Buggins' Turn and neither of those parties have any inclination to change the system that keeps them in power.
This is a flawed analogy, if you set off all those nukes in one place it would not have the same effect as a big asteroid.
Consider, instead, someone about to fire a double barreled shotgun at you. One barrel is loaded with a solid lead slug, the other with a similar mass of shot. The first will make a small hole going in and a bloody big hole coming out the other side, the second will make a lot of small holes but may not hit something vital.
Which barrel would you prefer to be fired?
That is why breaking up an asteroid before it hits is a good idea.
... which defines what you may not do and anything not expressly banned is allowed.
Well, that was the way it *used* to work.
Unfortunately the way the current regime is working, soon we will be stuck with the dictum that "anything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden".
Those of us who objected to the Governments plans to outlaw so-called "Extreme Pornography" were often accused of exaggeration or just being ridiculous when we said that if such a law was passed, it would open the door to even more ludicrous and draconian forms of internet censorship by a Control Freak Government.
Given that they haven't even been able to define *what* extreme pornography actually is, how do you think they're going to get on with defining "material that promotes or encourages terrorism" or "reducing the availability of suicide sites"?
Of course they have such a wonderful justification for this: "Protecting vulnerable and young people must be a priority and a responsibility for us all."
- Translation: We want to keep you scared and confused by passing laws which we claim will protect people, but which actually won't do anything of the sort. Meanwhile we're actually whittling away your liberties and freedoms one small step at a time until you're too afraid to do *anything* that might threaten our position.
> sorry to sound harsh but some of you sound like paedo trolls. Maybe I'm paranoid
Well I'm sorry to sound harsh, but you do, indeed, sound paranoid if you think that anyone here is a "paedo troll".
In fact you sound like a News of the World "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" troll.
I have no doubt, given what you say about "exposing" people, that you'd support some form of "Megan's Law", failing to realise that, in the UK, the Police know where over 97% of people on the Sex Offenders Register are, whereas in the USA, the figure is only 70%, ie 30% of their offenders have completely evaded official surveillance and monitoring and that's not to mention the people who are completely innocent of any crime, but who have been attacked by vigilantes who have mistaken them for paedophiles.
And please don't forget that the majority of offences against children are committed by close family members, not random strangers...
Let us just take a moment to remember that Jim Gamble was Assistant Chief Constable of the National Crime Squad which was responsible for running Operation Ore, a travesty of justice that resulted in innocent people being accused of downloading child porn because their credit card details had been stolen.
He made exaggerated and, indeed, downright inaccurate statements to the Government and to the House of Lords regarding that matter, so please excuse me if I take his and the CEOP's current concerns about, for instance, the "increase" in use of P2P or VOIP "creating an even greater risk" of abuse with a large pinch of salt.
A quick read of their report shows that eg they're still bang alongside the idea of criminalising computer generated images because "The ability to generate images of children, without even having to meet a child, is a useful tool for offenders who can then go on to use that image either to increase their status in paedophile networks or in the grooming process." They also seem to want a "report abuse" button being available on social networking sites that goes *directly* to them (presumably to increase their status in the law enforcement community?)
I have no desire to protect those who abuse children, however I do have a desire to ensure that we do not get more draconian laws or state monitoring of our web usage introduced in this country based on "Won't someone think of the children!" arguments.
> the parents most likely had already taken the steps in trying to establish/maintain trust with their daughter
"Most likely"? Got any proof of that?
> If someone consistently lies to you about something, is that trust still there? No
"We don't trust you, so we're going to spy on you for your own protection". Hmm, sounds familiar, do you work for the Government...?!
The point is, however, there are better ways of doing this than installing spyware on your child's computer.
> Several items to consider: 1. Anyone under the age of 18 years old (at least in the US) is a juvenile,
This was in the UK, not the US.
> it would be very bad parenting to not provide an environment of trust where the juvenile should become a responsible family member, but that trust is earned, not given.
Is that the child trusting the parent or the parent trusting the child?! And how about a little *respect* from both sides?
> The juvenile is not mature enough to think for him/herself
So the parent *guides* the child and *teaches* them. They don't *snoop* on them.
And your Point 4 sounds like classic "Won't someone think of the children!" hyperbole.
> I do believe that it is not only my right, but my responsibility as a father to ensure that my children do not get into life threatening or emotionally damaging situations.
It is. But the point that some people are making (and that people like you are ignoring) is that this should be done *pro* actively, not *re* actively.
Firstly ask yourself how come "The relationship between the two raised earlier concerns and Lovell agreed to sign an agreement with police preventing him from contacting the girl" and then ask yourself how come, subsequently, "she became more withdrawn and started to lie about her movements".
Perhaps it was because the parents had not adequately taught their daughter what to watch out for and how to deal with this sort of situation? Maybe they just thought "oh well, she's in her room and she's being quiet, that's good enough for us"?
If they already had grounds for concerns, why didn't they move her computer into a family space instead of deciding to snoop on her behind her back?
> Surely the number of failed attempts is largely irrelevant?
No, it's entirely relevant because you neglect to factor in whether, once they'd "got it right", they could replicate those results sufficiently to make this a truly viable threat.
> Which proves what exactly? That it was a sod to get right?
Exactly! Yet, because it was *possible* (but not necessarily by any means probable), millions of passengers have had to suffer disruption and hassle.
> Well, I for one would prefer not to have been on one of those planes when they gave it a try, how about you? Would you risk your family or anyone else's on that supposition?
Why didn't you add "Think of the children!" whilst you were at it?
This is exactly the same sort of argument that is being used by your Chief Police Officers etc for ID cards, taking everyone's DNA and so on because "would you want to risk us *not* catching the terrorists/ criminals/ paedophiles/ bogeyman of the month?"
Yes, there's a potential risk, but I also take a risk every time I go out on Britain's roads where around 3,500 people die each year. Do you risk your family's lives on the supposition that it's not likely to be *you* in that number of deaths?
I don't deny there's a threat, but there's also such a thing as a sense of proportion and not getting caught up in the hype.
> I obviously can't talk about the extent of the physical evidence save to say that WE found it overwhelmingly conclusive. I can't say what would convince you or anyone else for that matter. [...] still Jury's have acquitted for reasons known only to themselves.
Again, exactly my point. With all due respect to you and your colleagues and your experience and your feelings, you are *not* impartial nor objective viewers of the evidence.
>>Not 45 minutes...?!
> An irrelevant cheap shot my friend.
A "cheap shot"? Definitely. "Irrelevant", however? Nope.
> We all understand the legal Presumption of Innocence, but that is, in reality, a very different concept than your personal knowledge of events, or mine in this particular context.
Yes, I don't deny that. The question is, however, what happens next which is why, of course, we have an independent judiciary and why we don't let the Police determine guilt or families of victims determine sentences.
> I only wish my pay reflected my constantly being on duty.
On that you will get no argument from me. Whatever else we may disagree on, the way successive Governments have treated the pay of Police, Hospital Staff, the Fire Service and other such groups is nothing short of shameful.
> Oh and If we weren't able to determine the guilty party [...] Okay, potential guilt then, but in reality it means the same thing.
No, it doesn't. Ask the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and many others who were victims of over-zealous Police Officers in the past.
> these guys did indeed produce explosives. They had even conducted a series of test explosions in the woods until they became satisfied they had something viable and potent.
I don't doubt it. But, tell us, how many *failed* attempts did they have? When it took even experienced scientists multiple attempts to get it right? And would they *really* have been able to do it on a plane? Can anyone say? Or is there a reasonable doubt?
> several of them later freely admitted to producing in their clamour to drop each other in the shit
"Look, sunshine, you admit to this and we'll go easy on you. Keep schtum and we'll maybe hand you over to the Yanks who'll send you to Guantanamo Bay" (or some other such threat).
BTW, ever heard of The Prisoner's Dilemma?
> Together with the house searches, we retrieved enough additional ingredients to potentially kill many more people, not to mention enough incriminatory evidence to convince everyone involved that we had stopped something evil from happening.
Wasn't a similar justification used for the "Ricin Terror Plot" raids?
> Thousands of innocent people were intended to die, why are so many losing sight of that fact?
So many? Or just some of the "Twelve good persons and true" who were not convinced of this by the Prosecution's case?
> It was real, it was there and it was but days away from intended use
Not 45 minutes...?!
> From my personal perspective I happen to believe they were guilty as charged because I saw far too much to convince me otherwise. [...] In English law all you have to do is to produce a 'reasonable doubt' - not prove your innocence - to escape conviction.
Yet the Jury weren't convinced. And that's the point. It's the JURY who make the decision. If they don't then, yes, there can be a re-trial, but until they are *found* to be guilty they are *presumed* to be innocent, no matter what your personal perspective may be.
The defendants do not have to prove their innocence, the prosecution must prove their *guilt*, whether you like it or not.
As to your follow up post, just out of interest, had not you, a serving officer, called in the report, how long do you think it would have taken for your colleagues to react to the incident? Perhaps it's that which your neighbours were remarking on.
(A friend called the Police one night just after midnight when some idiots were smashing up a car in the road outside his place. An officer came around to take a statement at midday the next day...)
BTW I'm pleased to hear you did something about it, but, there again, that's your JOB, ie to keep the peace, not to determine guilt, nor exact punishment on offenders.
PS I hope that your post won't prejudice any future trial...
Unfortunately all the stories above are just classic examples of CYA which we are seeing more and more in this country :-(
Because we now have the sort of "No Win, No Fee" ambulance chasing litigation which has blighted the USA, laws and safeguards that have been put in place supposedly to protect *us*, the public, are, instead, being abused and exploited by businesses and even Councils and elected officials simply in attempts to excuse themselves from any liability should something go wrong.
In other words, instead of these people and groups actually trying to *help* us, they're going out of their way to *hinder* us and protect themselves.
It is too long to post in this comments page, but if you go to http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803 on the Backlash forums you can read a letter that I wrote to Harry Cohen MP (the only Labour MP with the balls to stand up to this ridiculous law) asking him to get Maria Eagle MP and the Ministry of Justice's answers to some very pertinent and relevant questions.
I sent it on the 18th of July and Harry Cohen acknowledged it a few days later. As yet, however, there has been no response from Maria Eagle or the MoJ...
Richard said "what do all British citizens have?? A PASSPORT woah problem solved,"
Err, no, because, amazingly, not everyone has a passport, nor a driving licence, nor any other sort of photo ID.
I know quite a lot of people who neither drive, nor who wish to travel abroad, so how are they going to be permitted to vote? They have enough trouble opening bank accounts or getting credit cards because the banks and card companies make the erroneous assumption that "everyone has a passport or a driving licence", now you're suggesting that it should be made harder for them to vote too?
Just a request, El Reg, if you're going to put in footnotes, why not put them at the foot of the page the reader is currently on instead of having to skip right to the end of the article to find out that it was barely worth an explanation in parenthesis?!
PS To others, re: Philip:
Please stop feeding the troll.
Googlemaps does *NOT* give you an accurate impression of what the road is like *when you are on it*. The fact that I and Anony mouse have been there and can state this for a fact (unlike you) once again shows you don't understand this.
Trying to discredit me by asserting that I am being (in your opinion) "disingenuous" and then making comments like "I think the reader will forgive me for disbelieving your oh-so entirely coincidental choice of holiday location" is simply gutter smear tactics.
If you want more proof, I can post my holiday snaps, taken on Croyde beach and around the surrounding area. I can give you a verbal tour of the area. You can even phone up the staff at Mitchum's campsites and ask if I stayed there last week (and, indeed, the last three years). For further corroboration, ask them if I was one of the people who had to move from their Beach Site to their Village Site because the weather was so bad on Monday and Tuesday!
So I think the reader might be able to make up their own minds as to who is more credible in their opinions of whether a) speeding is possible at the location shown or that b) a speed camera would be desirable or even necessary there.
As for the rest of your arguments, you attempted to discredit Anony mouse and myself with your implication that by disagreeing with you we must be "bigoted" and the subsequent implication we must be "SCP staff", which is just pathetic.
As I have already said, the way you are presenting this and the attitude you have adopted does *NOTHING* to make myself or anyone more inclined to consider your arguments or those of the self-styled "Safe Speed" organisation worth paying attention to.
If you would care to take that chip off your shoulder you might do better in convincing people that your case has some merit.
Oh, and, no, my apologies, you didn't say cameras were "the Devil incarnate" you accused SCPs of being "EVIL" which is nonsense. You also made the fallacious argument at the same time that cameras "cost lives" which is equally ridiculous and is a perfect example of the "spin" I referred to before and repeating the word "disingenuous" doesn't make your arguments any more valid.
In closing let me re-iterate the point I was trying to make which you seem to dislike so much: "Safe Speed" might have some good points to make, unfortunately the way they (and you) present them does their cause no benefit.
Please, feel free to have the last word, I have better things to do.
Please excuse the delayed response, but for the past week I have been on holiday in Croyde and thus have not only stood at the *exact* point that the photograph in question was taken, but also ridden my motorbike along that road, so please also excuse me when I say that, unlike Anony mouse above, you clearly have *no* clue what you are talking about regarding the possibilities of speeding there unless you wish to have a very rapid encounter with an entirely unforgiving stone wall or an oncoming vehicle.
As to "irony", I do entirely understand it, I also note that you don't seem to like it when it's used to point out that the arguments you use are as flawed and spun and silly as the ones that you are decrying.
The fact that you then accuse Anony mouse and myself of being "SCP staff" simply because we disagree with you shows the shallowness of your arguments.
FYI I have often in other forums stated my objections to unnecessary cameras indeed, riding down to Croyde I was very lucky not to get caught by a camera van when I was doing a perfectly safe overtaking manoeuvre at 75mph on a dual carriageway, but neither do I therefore subscribe to the "bigotry" that all cameras are thus seemingly the Devil incarnate.
"Safe Speed" might have some good points to make, unfortunately the way they (and you) present them does their cause no benefit.
I find it ironic that you refer to "Deception" and then say you're a member of the so-called "Safe Speed" site which is notorious for its own spin and using cherry-picked statistics to make its case.
Consider, for instance, a classic example: the second photo on the following page that is entitled "This is a dangerous place to exceed the speed limit. Speed cameras are not allowed."
The first time I saw that picture I thought "Hang on, I recognise that!" It is a pub called The Thatch at Croyde in North Devon. Out of shot to the left of the picture is a road with "traffic calming" indents. Behind the camera the road "squeezes" between two high stone walls. Out of shot to the right, the road takes a tight 90 degree left-hand bend, again between stone walls and goes into a narrow street in Croyde village.
It is not "dangerous" to exceed the speed limit there, it would be virtually *impossible* to do so and all the times I've been there on holiday I've never been worried that someone's going to come blasting past at a silly speed whilst I walk down that road.
Putting a Camera there would be utterly pointless and, as far as I can tell from a bit of searching, there has never been an application to put a camera there, so WHY does Safe Speed try to use this as an example of a place where "Speed Cameras are not allowed" as if one *should* be put there but the application has been refused?
Pots and kettles come to mind...
> you don't like the list of books/documents or feel that some other freedom is being trampled on, please feel free to vote at the next election for a member you feel will represent your views.
What a marvellous idea. Unfortunately the rest of the sheeple (and those "authoritards", like you, who blindly think that simply owning/ reading something means you're going to do something bad) are quite happy in their blissful ignorance, to vote for someone who says they're going to make us all safer without the slightest clue of how this will actually be achieved or how they will lose basic rights and liberties that their forefathers fought wars to protect.
> And did any of you libtards stop to think for a second the Yanks have the AQ manual up as a honey-pot for the very stupid AQ sympathisers?
Ah, of course! It was all a cunning ploy all along! It was, indeed, so cunning, that you didn't event think to *MENTION* this in your previous "authoritard" rants about how someone didn't have a "good reason" to download "dangerous books" etc etc...
"But once the authorities start to dictate what books or documents we may possess, we are on a slippery slope. "
We are already rapidly skidding down that slope with the Government's Dangerous Pictures Act that makes it a criminal offence to possess so-called "extreme pornography" on the basis that owning it just might make us do bad things!
Of course most people don't object because they don't like that sort of stuff and think that anyone who owns it can't be trusted, just as the Matt Bryants of this world think that you should be required to provide justification for owning (currently) freely available information in case you might be a bad person and could do something nasty if you get to see it, so anyone who wants to look at it should be arrested by the Department of Pre-Crime...
PS @Philip referring to "libertards", perhaps you might also like to consider these words of Winston Churchill spoken in September 1939:
"Perhaps it may seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require as a necessary part of its progress the surrender for the time being of so many dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last two days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of bills which hand over to the Executive our most dearly valued personal liberties.
"We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us and when we shall be able to share them with peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."
I think maybe he and the other authoritards ranting "Think of the TERRORISTS!" would do well to consider when, or indeed even *IF* the "dearly valued liberties and rights" that our Government is slowly but surely taking away from us will ever be restored!
They might also like to consider the following quote:
"[...] the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Herman Goering.
> Most of the stats I have seen seem to indicate that pedos have the worst recidivist rate of any criminal type or class. no thanks to hoping they can magically make themselves better.
Then I suggest you look at a better class of stats (rather than ones which have, presumably, come from such august publications like the Daily Wail or the News of the Screws) because properly funded therapy and support group programmes have shown demonstrable effects in reducing recidivism in many (though, admittedly, not all) cases.
Of course any time someone tries to set something like this up, you get people screaming "not in my back yard" or demanding that they be established fifty miles from any schools or simply saying that these people should be locked up for good and that money shouldn't be wasted on treating them or other similarly rational arguments.
PS @Keith T
> Why did you re-elect Tony Blair so many times?
Personally I didn't, but people voted for New Labour because they believed the spin and the hype and, frankly, because they weren't the Tories who'd made such a mess during and after the Thatcher regime.
Of course it wasn't until towards the end of the Blair regime's second term that the wheels really started to come off, but the Tories were still unelectable then, so we just had an election where 40% of the people didn't bother to vote at all...
"In defence of its right to poke into individual private lives, it asks its readers whether they would not wish to know what their children’s teachers get up to at the weekend."
Actually I'd like to know what the editor and journalists of that reprehensible lying gutter rag get up to at the weekend.
Since they are obviously such paragons of moral virtue that they can pass judgement on anyone and everyone else, they clearly can't have anything to hide, can they...?
... shurely we can't pay attention to this sort of thing because we *NEED* DNA databases to protect us from all those horrible terrerists and peedyfiles and catch burgulars and rapists and so on!
Just cos the Aussies have made the odd cock-up doesn't mean it's not a really great idea to take DNA from anyone who's arrested, even if they don't ever get charged with anything, does it...?
Joke ahead? Nope, the joke is the Government we have.
... it's another Policeman claiming that our freedoms such as that pesky Presumption of Innocence are less important than something that might make their jobs a bit easier or, at least, let them accuse someone of a crime because their DNA was found at a crime scene and then effectively demand the suspect prove their innocence...
Mine's the one with the Citizen Number and DNA Barcode on the back.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019