* Posts by David S 1

13 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009

Police snapper silliness reaches new heights

David S 1


...manner in which the people stopped get threatened and entrapped into committing arrestable offences by the police:

1. Photographer is stopped and questioned, being asked to give name, show permit, show the police the photos they have been taking, etc, just for the reason that they are taking photos. They may be challenged by "security people" or PCSOs.

2. There is no reasonable suspicion that they are engaged in terrorist activity, and so there is no reason for the stopped person to answer the questions. This is particularly the case if the person stopped them is a security person or a PCSO.

3. Person stopped objects and argues about it.

4. If it is not a policeman/policewomen who has stopped the person so far, the police are alerted, and we go back to step 1, with the police asking the questions this time round. If it is a policeman/policewoman, carry onto step 5.

5. For not complying with the request, stopped person is then threatened with being charged with a different offence (eg, obstruction) which would be easier to pin on them.

6. Stopped person has now been entrapped intop apparently committing this new offence which has resulted entirely from the police's unreasonable request to begin with.

It is useless expecting government officials to say something and the police to modify their behaviour: the police will just carry on until there are real consequences arising from entrapment activities and over-reaction to stopping people from taking photographs. Photographers will have to risk arrest, and having their DNA taken, etc, leading to failing future CRB checks and so on in order to try to mount successful legal challenges to all this that are not guaranteed to succeed unless there is specific protection under law to taking photos, which I don't see happening. The problem is compounded by the risk that, if journalists are at the forefront of this, then a "quick fix" will be carried out (as in the case of showing a journalist card when being asked to show a non-existent "permit") which will protect journalists and not other members of the public.

Gov slams critical database report as opaque, flawed, inaccurate

David S 1


One could almost imagine that there are now offiocial government or civil service posts with titles like "MindGuard" whose job it is to undermine and cast doubt on any report critical of them. They probably have a point about the reports failing in this case, but the manner in which the rebuttals have been phrased suggests that the same kind of "MindGuard"-like language would have been used, albeit with different arguments, if undermining a better argued report was required. How about the government being more open to criticism and just more open for a change? No chance of it, and not much chance of any other government being any different, it seems to me.

Facebook screams at users: 'Sort your privacy. NOW'

David S 1

Rubbish way of forcing any change

So, they offered us two options for each broad category of information: change to "their recommendations", or stick with the current settings. In the absence of any real explanation of what "their recommendations" were, the sensible option, which is what I did, was to stick with what was currently set since I had taken some time to positively decide on them. Thus it was a rather pointless exercise for myself, and I imagine, many others.

China executes securities trader over $9.52m fraud

David S 1


On moral and ethical grounds, the severity of the punishments meted out to this criminal in China seems to have been matched by the leniency with which misbehaviour has been dealt with in the UK in its banking crisis. In the Chinese case, accountability seems to have been pursued, though we don't know whether it was completely pursued, meaning we don't know whether there were others who failed to supervise matters in a competent manner to help prevent this criminal initially succeeding. The person concerned has certainly been held to account by suffereing consequences of the most severe kind. In the UK case, accountability may have been identified imperfectly, but there have been little or no consequences, and outright incompetence seems to have been ignored or punished by what seems to be an obscene award of retirement money to ease the people out of the way.

One might say that the two cases almost cancel each other out in terms of proper investigation of intent, competence, and accountability leading to consequences. However, in this case, the overall end result is most definitely not a "happy medium"!

Tory peers to protect kids from anuses

David S 1


So, rather than putting the onus on parents to supervise their children appropriately, the bill aims to take the anus away from games manufacturers! It seems to me to be arse about tit.

Google lobs coder's Microsoft badge into rubbish bin

David S 1

I always thought...

That they were on a similar level to the CDMs(*) that a well-known chocolate company dreamt up as part of a set of advertisments quite a few years ago.

(*) Order of the Cadbury's Dairy Milk!

Game censorship crusader sues Facebook for $120m

David S 1

I think

Mr. Thompson seems to have too much spare time on his hands. He probably also needs to get out a bit more: I hear walking in the countryside can be very helpful.

Nation's parents prepare to be vetted

David S 1
Big Brother

sowing and reaping

We are now just beginning to reap the harvest that has been sowed by the tabloid paedo-hysteria over the past few years. It as led to situations where a man has almost been unable to even glance at any child by chance in the street without being thought of as a potential child abuser; where injured children have been left for fear that helping them may lead to a charge of child abuse; and where people have been told that they cannot take photographs in public places because the risk is that the photographers are child abusers. All of these would effectively ruin lives. Up to now, only a few people have realised that these are ridiculous over-reactions on the part of the public and police, largely whipped up by the tabloid press and others who attempt to justify it with the "if only one child is saved, it is worth it" specious argument. This latest spasm may be the turning point, but I wonder whether it may be the turning point only because we now have two *policewomen* become the victims of this brain-dead application of an ill-thought out piece of legislation.

Euro project to arrest us for what they think we will do

David S 1

Time to rise up or leave, or both

Being British, I was pleasantly surprised on a return long holiday to China this summer that my previous impressions of day to dat living there were much less full of this kind of ham-fisted restrictions that seem now to be plaguing the UK. Either it is time to rise up and say firmly "no", or leave the UK for good, or do both.

Wikipedia's Gallery guy hung up to dry?

David S 1

Not a Copyright Issue but a Computer Misuse Issue surely?

The NPG clearly restricts what can do with the images it makes available to browsers on its website. The person concerned was not authorized to do what he did do with them, and the WMF is compounding this by refusing a request to remove images obtained by actions that seem to be in breach of the Computer Misuse Act.

Whatever one thinks of the copyright situation, or what one thinks ought to be the case regarding copyright, I think that is almost a red herring, as it is the Computer Misuse Act that seems to apply here. Given that, it becomes a criminal act, and extradition measures can apply.

If it is right for UK courts to hand over a guy for extradition who accessed information on the site in contravention of USA law, then it should be right for them to hand over to the UK authorities this guy and to impose corrective action against the WMF. Blacklisting all WMF if they fail to comply would fit in with the constant calls one gets from certain quarters in the USA about claimed violations of rights and laws in other countries.

Reg readers crack case of the $23 quadrillion overcharge

David S 1

interest already committed

"I wonder what would happen to interest generated on that amount of debt."

It would immediately be required to help service one of the executives' pension funds.

Extreme porn law used on beastly Chinese DVD pirates

David S 1
Jobs Horns

Conflict of interest not disclosed by MPs?

Given that the wording of these bills are often obscure, capable of being challenged, etc, then any MP who also has connections with legal work (either themselves or their spouses) really ought to declare an interest if the legal work could possibly be done by themselves or their relatives. It is not beyond the pale that some MPs would not work hard at writing clear unambiguous bills, without the inherent ambiguities of subjective terms, and so on, in the knowledge that it would likely send extra well-paid work their way or the way of their relatives (or even close legal associates) Such is the utter destruction of any views about MPs' integrity and honesty that the expenses scandals have brought about that these matters must have a bearing on all of this.

MPs turn to Black Blob to preserve their dignity

David S 1

Entrenched self-importance and corruption

The problem is that corrupt practices can, if perpetuated for a long period without challenge, become seen as normal behaviour and not corrupt at all. That is the problem of profesional groups that obtain great amounts of power and which largely regulate themselves: look (or think carefully) about aspects of the medical professions for other examples of this!

The constant over-use of the adjective "honourable" to refer to each other is amusingly ironic for the miscreants of this lot of MPs, and its over-use seems to be a desparate attempt to make it difficult for people to root out the wrong-doers amongst themselves, as well as being a blackly humorous example of the practice of giving something a desired label often and loudly enough, whereupon the label becomes a reality.

Groupthink writ large is at work here within the bosy of MPs and the Houses of Parliament. A good starting solution is total and open public scrutiny: if an MP doesn't want that, then he or she is clearly unsuitable for the position, and voters should ideally vote accordingly (so selection committees should ideally take note.)