Blimey! (Was: Re: What a fucking hypocrite!)
When I first read that article and was pissed off enough to make that OP, I wasn't expecting over 100 upvotes! Thanks everyone.
(And one downvote, it seems, from the Vicar of St Albions...!)
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"Individuals need to have private communications, he said, but at the same time there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped. Politicians, however, need privacy to function, "
And there we have Blair, once again, in a nutshell: One rule for them, another for us.
The man who tried to give us DNA databases, ID Cards, ANPR and CCTV on every corner with facial recognition to track us everywhere we go and watch everything we do thinks that he and his cronies "need privacy to function" but *NOBODY* else does!
Of course, don't you know that your job is simply to advise Government *how* a policy that they've already decided on can be implemented.
You're not supposed to be consulted on whether the policy is actually a good idea.
- Signed: Sir Humphrey
... if you go to google.com/history and sign into your Google account you can click on the “Remove all Web History” button deleting its record of your actions whilst signed in.
This also automatically pauses Web History, meaning no more information will be collected until you click the blue “Resume” button at the top of the page.
For more information see the full article on Digital Trends http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-to-delete-your-google-web-history/
Oh deary, deary me. Once again, rtli- you ignore the argument and, instead, attempt a pathetic point-scoring exercise. "Oh look, Graham said ten instead of a hundred, I WIN!!!" Yeah, whatever.
As for your "rebuttal" this is *why* we have things like the Right to Silence and the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process and the requirements for Search Warrants and Habeas Corpus and all those other pesky little things that you seem to be quite content to sweep away just to "help Police with their enquiries."
I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons":
* * * * *
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
* * * * *
Feel free to get the last word in (I'm sure you will). I've wasted enough time here.
"This is precisely why we have laws: to protect society from individuals who believe they are more important than other people."
Society has Rights such as the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Silence to protect individuals from the authorities (and people) who believe that convicting someone of a crime is more important than protecting the liberties of everyone.
(I'm talking about you there, by the way.)
"Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." - William Blackstone.
"Better a hundred innocent men suffer, than one guilty man go free" - rtli-
"How fortunate we have a jury-based legal system based on evidence, rather than the deranged examples of an internet poster."
Yet one particular deranged internet poster seems to be happy with the idea of instead of a Jury being told "If the prosecution can't prove their case, you *cannot* find the defendant guilty" them being told "if the defendant cannot prove his innocence you *must* find them guilty".
"Now explain to me why a dichotomy is a bad thing in law?"
Apart from playing sad little word games, you really don't understand this principle of "Presumption of Innocence" do you? Under the system you propose, you either have to incriminate yourself by revealing your password or incriminate yourself by saying "I don't know it" in which case the prosecution says "AHA! He clearly has something to hide therefore the jury must find him guilty!"
Presumed guilty until proven guilty. Bravo.
Try researching a little law. Obstructing a Police Officer means, for instance, deliberately getting in his way when he's trying to arrest a suspect. Simply saying "I'm not going to help" is not an offence, nor should it ever be.
As for "if they don't -know- the password", under the sort of laws you seem to prefer, the prosecution could simply claim "the defendant *does* know the password and is refusing to reveal it, so he should be locked up for obstructing us until he tells us what it is!"
In vain would the Defence say "he doesn't know it" because you have presumed guilt and require the Defence to prove innocence. Corrupt cops would *love* that...
Remember than in Britain it's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it.
Naturally this law was introduce simply to protect us from terrorism. It's not as if anyone else would ever be convicted under it, is it...
[quote]The first person convicted under this law was a vulnerable eccentric who refused to decrypt the files on his laptop when the Met's terror squad told him to. He was convicted and jailed despite prosecutors accepting that he was not involved in terrorism at all.[/quote]
Once again it seems it's necessary to remind people of the principle of Presumption of Innocence.
Requring (or forcing) someone to incriminate themselves or even simply "facilitating the analysis of evidence" means that a suspect has to prove they have not committed a crime, rather than the authorities demonstrating that they *have* done so.
"The first mass driver known in print was actually called the "electric gun" and described in detail as a way to launch vehicles into outer space from the Earth's surface in the 1897 science fiction novel A Trip to Venus by John Munro and published in 1897 by Jarrold & Sons, London"
Heinlein's story was good, but not the first.
And yet every news report on BBC News 24 today has started with something like "remember the barbecue summer that wasn't?" as if it was the Met Office that got it wrong, rather than the media misunderstanding the fact that a 60% chance means that there's a 40% chance of it *not* happening.
... the only reason 111 wasn't chosen as the Emergency Services number many years ago was that, in the days of pulse dial systems, if the phone lines got blown together in a high wind it was too easy for 111 to be "dialled" by accident (just as you could call a number on a rotary dial phone with a lock on it by tapping out the number on the phone cradle!).
So they picked 999 because it was unlikely to be dialled by accident and it was easy to call it in the dark.
... because there are perfectly legitimate businesses who make it clear up front that if you sign up to their services you'll be charged for texts and will stop when requested.
Why should those businesses be affected by an overly broad and draconinan piece of "big boot" legislation?
The term "right of way" specifically means the right to "pass and re-pass" along a piece of land, but it does not mean that you get to go first.
"Priority" occurs when the law states you do have to let someone go first, for instance if you are turning from a major road into a minor road across a Stop or Give Way line and a pedestrian is crossing, they have priority. At a Give Way line going from a minor road into a major road other vehicles have priority, as do those who are approaching from your right at a roundabout.
Pedestrians do have priority when they have taken possession of a Zebra Crossing or when they are on a pedestrian crossing (Pelican, Puffin, Toucan etc), but they do *not* have the right to step out into the road and force traffic to stop for them.
If googling someone's name *was* all the "research" you'd done, you might have a point, but since it clearly wasn't, it seems that I'm the one who's hit a nerve.
It also seems that your claimed "experience" of the BDSM scene *could* do with some more research, because you appear to have as little clue about that as anything else.
Never mind, you feel free to get in the last word with another "funny" little dig at me and I'll feel free to ignore it.
Ah, I see, you think swearing and calling people names is funny. Right, noted.
BTW you seem to be fascinated by which Graham Marsden I am, well, sorry, but you're wrong again, because I'm not the Graham Marsden you mention.
FYI I'm the Graham Marsden who has been running a business called Affordable Leather Products, making leather bondage and BDSM equipment for almost 20 years.
I'm the Graham Marsden who has been on the BDSM/ Fetish scene for around 15 years and knows many people whom some bigots might consider "deformed" because they have tattoos, body piercings or, indeed, have breast augmentations, not to mention, of course, people who have actual physical disabilities such as people who are members of the aforementioned Outsiders organisation.
I'm also the Graham Marsden who has written many times on these and other forums about my support for the right of people to make their own decisions about how they behave and what they can see and what they can say (provided what they say is not aimed at hurting others).
I'm the Graham Marsden who put a lot of time and effort into lobbying MPs and Lords to vote against the last Government's Dangerous Pictures law banning "extreme pornography" because they didn't like it, so they couldn't understand why anyone else should like it either.
And, of course, I'm the Graham Marsden who doesn't like someone doing the forum equivalent of a bunch of mouthy chavs sitting on a wall passing rude and ignorant comments about women passing by such as "how could anyone fancy that?"
Aaron Em, do you *really* think that calling someone a "thicko" and swearing in your posts because someone disagrees with you actually adds anything to the validity of your points?
Loyal Commentor actually asked a good question ie "Why do people do these things to themselves?" and one valid response is that they may suffer from Body Dismorphic Disorder where their self-image doesn't match what they actually look like, no matter what medical advice they receive.
You, however, chose to respond in a way that says "I can't find this attractive, so how could anyone else do so?" as if your opinions are the only ones that matter and, to top that, described her *choice* as a "deformity" (by that argument you might as well describe tattoos or body piercings as "deformities" too...)
I pointed out that there are many people (some of whom I *have* met personally, ItsNotMe) who not only have "deformities" but who have as much right to be found attractive as anyone else, whether or not *you* personally can understand why anyone should find them appealing.
Unfortunately you appear not to like having your unthinking bigotry questioned, so you simply chose to respond with abuse and insults.
The thing is, it's not just "pseudo photography" or jpegs etc, nor is it any longer drawings taken from actual photographs of the abuse of children (which were already, quite rightly, illegal).
With the passing of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, even entirely fictitious images (ie drawings created without reference to a living subject) or Poser renderings have been deemed to be "child pornography" meaning that a whole load of Anime and Manga could be caught by this simply because, in someone's mind, a drawing looks "underage".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018