I hope that...
... they're not going to call the company Cybus Industries.
Next thing you know they'll be introducing a metal exo-skeleton "upgrade" for the human body...!
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"we are determined to stop criminals profiting from crimes which affect the lives of the law abiding majority."
You mean like MPs claiming huge expenses from the public purse?
Or maybe the Government doling out PFI schemes that will cost the public many billions over the next few years?
Or what about Ministers passing legislation that suddenly turns out to be incredibly useful for companies that they then take Directorships of when they leave office...?
The credibility (or lack thereof) of Dr Byron's review can been judged by the fact that she says the following about the Home Office's "Rapid Evidence Assessment" which they had cobbled together to back up their draconian plans to outlaw what they call "extreme pornography":
"[...] a recent study looking at pornography and its effects on adults did find evidence of effects, including on attitudes, beliefs, fantasies, desires and behaviour of those who use it (Itzin, Taket and Kelly, 2007)"
What she doesn't mention (or doesn't know) is that Itzin et al are feminist anti-pornography campaigners and Itzin herself said "pornography plays an important part in contributing to sexual violence against women and to sex discrimination and sexual inequality", so it seems unlikely that any report authored by here was impartial or unbiased!
Neither does she mention that all the above study really says is a statement of the bleeding obvious, ie that people who are inclined to violence tend to look at violent material, but offers *no* proof that there is a causal link.
Do you know the expression "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" Doctor Byron??
PS She also claims that "Some material on the internet, such as [...] extreme pornography is clearly illegal in the UK."
The hell it is, Doctor Byron! The House of Lords are currently kicking the Government's backsides about this one and anyone who agrees that Big Brother shouldn't try to tell us that "if you look at this you'll do nasty things" should visit the Backlash site at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and write to the Lords and their MP before we see Thought Crime enter British Law.
I've just seen a report on this on BBC News 24 where they trot out the old myth about 14 year old Stephan Pakeerah who was murdered by by Warren LeBlanc and blaming it on Manhunt, but they failed to point out that it was the 14 year old *VICTIM* who had the game, nor question *why* his parents had let him have it.
They also failed to point out that Police and Prosecution statements put the blame on it being a drugs related killing because obviously that's not as good as a "video games corrupt your children" scare story.
Facts? Who needs facts...??
Hear hear!
I don't even bother watching the F1 "highlights" these days, I record it on Sky+ then work on my computer until the commentator gets excited and I look up to see if anything's actually happened, but unfortunately usually it's not much.
Compare that with A1 GP where, with two meetings left to the end of the season (and four races!) there are at least *four* teams who could take the championship, you don't get the cars from two or three teams so far ahead that they might as well be in a different race, you get a real test of driver skill and tactics with the limited use Power Boost button and you get passing manoeuvres all the way up and down the field.
Forget about F1, it's living on past glories...
It was about 25 years ago that I learned to program and it was simple common sense (as well as good practice) that if you had a buffer that takes up to 128 characters, you checked the data that was coming into it to ensure that its length was less than or equal to 128.
If it was longer, you truncated it or kicked it back with an error.
When did this cease being the case?
Firstly what you link to is a consultation document, not an actual law and secondly, as far as I can see much of that consultation is simply designed at fixing the mess that the Government made previously which allowed Brian Haw to continue his demonstration!
BTW mixing fact with conspiracy fiction such as: 'loosing' our details and thyen doing nothing when you get fraudulated, chemtrails and stuff in our water and vaccines poisoning us, a medical health system that kills people and don't care about the rest..terrorism in general (which is ALL bullshit designed to keep you frightened and alow more conrol over you),..." isn't going to help convince people of your cause.
PS I love the word "fraudulated" though :-)
The problem with all this is that while people are arguing about Global Warming is man made (It is! It isn't! 'Tis so! 'Tisnt! Liar! You're the liar! etc etc) we're all rather missing the point that we *cannot* go on using energy and resources as if they were limitless.
We need more efficient forms of energy and resource usage whether what we are doing affects the environment or not, because otherwise we are going to run out and we'll have missed the opportunity to have done something about it.
> so a government database containing 10 million records might have between 500,000 and one million errors.
Now expand that out to the population of this country and remember that the National Identity Database is supposed to collate records from multiple sources...!
IM (cynical) O the reason that Restorative Justice wasn't continued with is that it doesn't make for attention grabbing headlines about being "tough on crime" and leaves the proposers open to charges of being "bleeding heart liberals" who want to "give criminals a slap on the wrist" etc etc.
The fact that it seems to actually *work* is a mere irrelevance.
Oh and before the "Hang them and flog them" brigade start, perhaps they'd actually like to do a little research at http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/
> surely the Reg should have a good unit of depth?
I would suggest for small measurements, the PH or Pot Hole, being 2" deep, would be suitable. (Apparently Councils have been recommended that any hole that is less than 2 inches or 50mm deep is no longer a "priority" for repair)
For greater depths, the "Blackburn (Lancashire)" or Bbn(L), being 4000 x 2" holes would be suitable.
Thus the average depth of the Grand Canyon would be approximately 8 Bbn(L) and the lunar craters around 32Bbn(L)
HTH.
> Now if you are looking for a really crap sequel, try highlander 2.
I did.
Unfortunately.
Fortunately I saw it on a copy a friend had obtained. Had I actually *paid* to see that misbegotten pile of garbage I would have been queueing for my money back!
Highlander films: There should have been only one!
... the Government would be justifying its breach of liberties by pointing to the bit (weasel clause) in the European Convention on Human Rights that says it's allowed to do so "to prevent crime" etc.
Still, we won the war, so we don't have to worry about that sort of thing in our history, eh...?
"so what is being said here?" Well, it's obviously something which has gone completely over your head!
You start off with the classic scare tactic of the threat to your "Mrs. and lil ones" and back it up with a mocking reference to the "harmless" formula, thus neatly ignoring the difficulties of actually making it and getting it on a plane, plus the tedious implication that "you're all hypocrites who would change their minds if it happened to you".
You then go on with "Thousands of flights daily, dozens of crashes each decade" well, there are estimated to be at least 60,000+ flights per day or 22million per year. So even if there 48 crashes a decade ("dozens"), the odds of you (or your Mrs. and lil ones) being a victim are about one in 4.5million, now compare that to the odds of being killed in a road accident.
"Flying isn't something most of the world gets to do-it's a priviledge of the affluent in a wealthy society." Oh dear, is this the politics of envy? We shouldn't fly because others can't afford to?
"People's obsession with themselves and their "only care about Number One!" attitude is the only thing being "denied" here."
Umm, I don't "only care about Number One" I care about the civil rights and liberties of *everyone* (even yours!) and think that they are more precious than surrendering to ignorance about the "dangers" we face according to doom-mongers like you!
"It must be interesting being so arrogant that you'll spend hours writing articles to try to discredit security experts rather than have to spend a few minutes having airport security check your shampoo bottles."
It must be interesting being so ill-informed and stupid that you'll spend hours writing posts like yours without bothering to check basic facts first.
"This is the world you wanted. You wanted your news articles of terror, to encourage terrorists to think America and Britain were weak. But you lost control of that and it turned against you. Sorry, liberals and socialists. Better luck next time."
What on *earth* are you talking about now? Who, exactly "wanted to encourage" this? You, on the other hand, want to encourage *us* to think that we are "weak" and so we will cave into your nonsense and allow our liberties (you know, the ones that the terrorists want to destroy!) to be torn down to "protect us"! Well bravo! This is the world *YOU* wanted!
"Stop the Propaganda"? I agree, you stop spouting this nonsense propaganda that says that because *you* can't understand basic facts, *we* should surrender our liberties!
> It should now be clear to everyone that there is no safe hiding place for the proceeds of tax evasion.
And what about a "safe hiding place" for all the DNA and ID and Registration Number and so on data that our Government wants to collect from us?
I wonder how much some lowly clerk on the UK's National Identity Database would have to be paid to copy it all off onto a few CDs and bung it over to another interested party...?!
... so the next time any woman tries to charter a yacht, not only will she have to present the appropriate certificate, her DNA will be sampled and checked to make sure that...
... oh I can't be bothered.
ALL HANDS, ABANDON SHIP!
(PS Jolly Roger icon for obvious reasons ;-) )
@ Ausländische fränkische Arzt
> Have I managed to present a convincing counter-argument to Chris C's "what's wrong with Porn?"
No, what you've done is to cobble together a whole bunch of the same old claims, assertions and "think of the children" fallacies without any factual proof and conflate them into something resembling a Daily Mail style rant.
> I can state categorically that there is a world of difference between sex education and pornography.
Well duh! No, really? But, wait a minute...
> pornography often portrays pedophilic, bestial, violent, voyeuristic, homosexual or multiple partner sexuality
Let's get out the Big Brush to tar all porn with...!
> which has been proven to be disturbing to children--as well as many adults.
Proven by whom? What research are you citing? If you're an "educator" surely you can quote sources? And I like the way that you manage to associate, for instance, homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality! Which century are you living in?
> Numerous of our children have been intentionally exposed to pornography as a gateway to establishing a pedophiliac sexual relationship with them.
And many more of them have found porn in their parents wardrobe or under their beds and looked at it without a problem. But still, let's drag out the tabloid bogeyman of "evil strangers who want to molest your child" (and again you attack homosexuals, do you have an anti-gay agenda?) whilst ignoring the fact that most abuse happens *in* a familial relationship.
> there is a growing body of evidence that affording children the greatest degree of innocence for the longest period possible gives them the greatest chances of a fulfilled and productive life.
Again, *where* is this evidence? Countries like the UK and the USA seem to think that "affording children the greatest degree of innocence..." by denying them access to sex education is a benefit. Oddly enough, these are the two Western countries with the highest level of teen pregnancy.
<http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/teenagers/mg18524891.300-teenagers-special-going-all-the-way.html>
> I believe that pornography is a selfish indulgence that is good for no one. But I also believe this is a decision each adult must make for themselves.
Yet you seem to want to impose *your* views on others *instead* of letting them make that decision for themselves.
"A convincing counter-argument"?
3/10 - See me.
... 'describes itself as "the nation’s most influential advocacy organisation protecting children against sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment"'
In other words, a bunch of narrow-minded, puritanical, interfering prod-noses who think that anything they don't like is, ipso facto, unacceptable.
The same sort of people who forced the writers of Grey's Anatomy to stop using the medically entirely valid word "vagina" in their stories and replace it with the childish "va-jay-jay"!
What a bunch of cunts!
... Whether those offering the "compensation packages" are actually just spammers/ ID thieves who are getting gullible people to *pay them* to harvest their details...!
"All we need to verify your claim is your name, address, bank details, credit card number, mother's maiden name...!"
> in about nine months, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be our President-Elect, and our Government will be taking steps to restore our Country's good name.
I really, *really* wish I could believe this. Unfortunately it is even easier to believe that when the Dems get into power, they'll start backtracking and saying "well we can't remove X or Y provisions or re-introduce Z because we're not safe yet"...
PS @Mark: I've been thinking about taking a snowboarding holiday in the USA, but not when I'm going to be treated as a potential terrorist for doing so...
AC: "what evidence do you have for either part of your statement?"
To quote Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty:
“Our reluctance to use phone tap evidence in terror cases like most other countries is frankly mind-boggling. Surely the Government and police recognise that this is a far more effective tool than bringing back internment by holding suspects for 90 days without charge.”
Dave: "I wouldn't think it would be difficult to falsify audio recordings."
Other have already mentioned the De Menezes "faked" photo and taking comments out of context, but consider also if the Security Services attempted to falsify recordings eg by inserting "doctored" phrases, all it would take is *one* example of someone being able to show (eg by recording their own conversations) that such a recording had been faked to cast serious doubt on *all* such evidence in future.
... this is "considered against the background of rapidly-eroding civil liberties" but the civil liberty supporters are actually *in favour* of allowing wiretap evidence to be used to secure convictions, whereas the Security Services oppose it.
Perhaps it's because allows proper examination of claims that "he's a terrorist, we know he is, we say he is, but you're not allowed to check our findings, so you'll just have to let us lock him up for 90 days until we can beat^H^H^H^ extract a confession".
In around two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles and other vehicles, it is the fault of the other vehicle's operator for failing to undertake proper observation in the first place or observing, but failing to correctly judge the speed of a bike and underestimating the bike’s time of arrival (RoSPA).
Graham's three rules of defensive riding:
1) Don't assume they've seen you.
2) Don't assume they'll respect your right of way.
3) Do assume that they're going to do something which will kill you unless *you* get out of *their* way.
That's not the way it should be (car drivers should learn to *expect* a bike to be coming and check more carefully) but thinking "Hah! I was in the right!" when you're flying through the air won't make the ground hurt any less...
"a typical vegetarian has dry and fragile hair, dull eyes and unhealthy complexion. They can hardly stand criticism and have a low boiling point. They raise their voice, swing their arms and splutter when arguing. They are weak even in their logic."
Why does this sound so similar to the old warnings about the "dangers" of masturbation, ie how it would lead to a weak constitution, sallow skin, stunt your growth etc etc...?!
"is anyone in the UK actually allowed to _own_ them? What with that draconian law banning violent pornography"
Ah, but you see it has to be "extreme" AND "for sexual arousal".
Of course how they are going to prove you were "sexually aroused" by these films unless they burst in on you whilst you're having a w@nk over them is another matter...
Still, at least there are Members of the House of Lords who are asking questions about the planned law to ban "extreme pornography" such as is "we in the Government know what it is when we see it" *really* a good enough definition for the Courts to use?!
I have to wonder whether this case is being pushed by the US Government because what they *really* want to do is to ensure that *everyone* can be forced to reveal encryption passwords etc, but they're doing it by picking the "soft target" of child porn on the grounds that most people do not apply logical thought where children are concerned.
Of course once they have the precedent that someone can be required to incriminate themselves in this way, they can then extend it to "terrorist suspects" and from there it's plain sailing down the line to allowing the RIAA to say "well we think he has encrypted MP3s on his hard drive..."
You miss the small point that if you cannot travel back in time to before Time Travel was invented, it just means that, at some time in the future, someone will say "hang on a minute, how did they invent Time Travel in 2009 when the technology wasn't available", jump back in time to see how it was done, then find that, of course, the technology wasn't available, so they have to invent it in order to make their trip possible in the first place...
Speaking as someone who started a petition which was signed by over one thousand, eight hundred people, then got a weaselly response from the Prime Minister's Office which basically completely ignored what the petition was saying, I have no doubt that this "consultation" is also going to be an utter waste of time and energy.
This Government has *NO* interest in listening to the people who elected them (let alone the large proportion of the electorate who *didn't* vote for them!) but systems like this work wonderfully for diverting people from writing to their MPs which may actually get some response!