Posts by Malcolm Boura 2

Compulsory perv scanners upset everyone

What a fuss about nothing

Naturists put at risk by bodyshame. It's not a privacy issue in a world that is even half way sensible about the body.

http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/news/detail.asp?article_ID=93

California school pulls 'oral sex' dictionary

Health ed

Now of course this couldn't have any connection with the USA having the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion and STIs in the Western World could it? It should be a criminal offence for an adult to harm children by foisting their personal prejudices on them.

Wikileaks pledge drive hobbled by PayPal suspension

USA exporting harm

No, in at least one case a perfectly legitimate not for profit organisation which PayPal took exception to for no rational reason was, without any warning, denied service. For example http://www.soonews.ca/viewarticle.php?id=16445 If that had been here in the UK I would have been looking into a libel/human rights action against them. (I do a lot of the legals for British Naturism). The behaviour of a number of US dominated corporations with near monopolies, YouTube is another example, in imposing the attitudes of the USA, some of which cause a lot of harm, on the rest of the world is completely unacceptable.

NZ police pursue cuffed and naked fugitive

Prudery = well interntioned child abuse

Why not? It's adults who have a problem with nudity.

Discrimination warning over airport body scanners

Law harms children (and adults)

The fuss over children and scanners has nothing to do with chid protection, well not on any rational consideration of facts. It is driven by prejudice and paranoia backed up by badly written legislation. There is strong evidence that the present mess causes far more harm to children than it prevents but it is an emotive issue and the political process panders to popular prejudice and paranoia.

For those who don't know, the core of the present legislation was rushed through Parliament in a in a climate of moral panic whipped up by Mary Whitehouse. It doesn't matter how good the intentions, acting on emotive rabble rousing assertions instead of facts, and causing so much harm, is unforgivable.

New Labour bring old Nuremberg Laws to Britain

Identification of police

There is only one way to verify the identity of a police officer beyond reasonable doubt. Phone the police station and ask. Since the number is probably not readily available then that means 999. Do you know what police id looks like well enough to detect a forgery? A uniform is a bit better but they have been faked/hired/stolen on occasion. Even a police car if my memory serves correctly.

Of course the law will take the line that the police are the police because they say that they are the police so you will be guilty of mucking them about. Conversely you are a terrorist because, well actually, they don't have to have a reason.

Google leaves censorship to China's experts

Hypocrits?

I would have more respect for the announcement if Google did not systematically censor services to the Weatern World, often therby imposing US prejudices on the rest of us.

OpenDNS taunts Google with real-time directory

Censor

OpenDNS do not just provide a DNS service, they are also censors. What is worse, they are almost completely unaccountable. If anybody can find a practicable way to appeal against their misclassification of a domain then I would be delighted to hear of it. On second thoughts, why should we even need to appeal against a self appointed censor?

'We must all stop washing to save the planet'

Naturism one, prudes nil

Nice to see an article that backs up what British Naturism have been saying for some time.

Lord Carlile: Police are taking the proverbial on terror

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

Our politicians have this quaint idea that all police officers are sensible, logical and moral super-humans, whose only interest is in pursuing justice and who are completely immune to prejudice of any sort. Well, as somebody who spends quite a lot of free time dealing with police prejudice and police abuse of powers and abuse of prosecution, I see a completely different picture.

For example, prosecution despite no evidence to support an essential part of the charge, a part that Parliament put there specifically to protect people like the accused. He is just above the legal aid income threshold, does not have the ability to defend himself adequately, and especially not against the principle witness, a highly experienced police officer. How on earth is he expected to find the £2,000 which it will cost to pay for an adequate defence? Fortunately a not-for-profit has agreed to fund at least the first part of the defence but that is not justice.

We have a government which has pushed through enormous amounts of vague catch all legislation so that even if no offence is committed the authorities can punish people they don't like with legal fees and the stress of proceedings. The government has used terrorism and "yob culture" as an excuse to do the terrorists work for them.

Lots of young adults still sexting shock

It's attitudes, not the nudity, which is the problem

If we as a society had a more sensible and mature attitude to nudity then nude photographs would not be a problem. There is no evidence to show that nudity is inherently harmful to anyone of any age. There is substantial evidence that the attitudes associated with prudery result in widespread and often serious harm but there is incredible reluctance to face up to the implications.

It is a classic example of what happens when dealing with social issues is driven by prejudcice. Identify a problem, misidentify the cause of the problem, and then make it worse by targetting the wrong thing.

Prudery is child abuse with good intentions. The research evidence is absolutely clear.

MoD redefines 'public' with online poll

Overload

And now, the server is overloaded. If they can't get the trivial right, what hope have we got that they will get the difficult right?

Today's bright idea. How about body armour that only lets bullets through with the right password? Perhaps I should try to sell that research project to them. You never know.

Upminster top for tupping on UK bonkmap

Privacy breach

Google map resolution 300m. So if you live in an area where houses are more than 300m apart then the purchasing household can be uniquely determined. MPs seem to like mansions and large gardens, very large gardens judging from some of the gardening bills, so perhaps their sexual pecadilloes can now be examined as well as their expenses.

Immigration authorities swoop on Currys depot

Administrative penalties

Whatever happened to the idea that the law defines what is illegal? The principle behind much legislation of the last decade or so has been make it so all encompassing that everyone is guilty until some government agency decides to let you off. That is not law and it's not justice but of course the agencies love it.

Airport rethinks strip-scanner for kids

Bad law, bad consequences

This problem reflects a fundamental problem with a law which is so badly defined that nobody actually knows what it means. What is worse, it reinforces the myth that children are inherently sexual and that they must be viewed as inherently sexual objects. The Act is a significant contributor to the problem. It illustrates what happens when legislation is passed in a climate of moral panic whipped up by the likes of Mary Whitehouse.

One in three kids believe Google measures truthiness

Censorship can be harmful

Unfortunately most filtering software is based on prejudice rather than evidence of harm and most of the software reflects US prejudices which are particular harmful. Try comparing the teenage prengnancy rate for the USA or any other prudish country with those for the most enlightened. Then think long and hard about the attitudes which make such enormous differences.

Cambridgeshire cops get coy with FOI

Nobody knows what is an illegal photograph

Neitehr the IWF nore the police, nor the CPS, indeed not anyone is able to judge what is illegal. The law is inherently vague beyond belief. It largely depends on the prejudices of the dominant personalities on a jury. NB it is not child pornography that is illega. The law is much, much wider than that.

A few days ago I was reading statements from the IWF and the major child protection charities that attempted to define illegal photographs. I then read an appeal court judgement which said the opposite. This law is a mess which is not surpising. It was passed in hurry in a climate of mass hysteria whipped up by Mary Whitehouse. Fortunately her organisation is well on the way to extinction with only a tiny memberhsip. Unfortuanately the media don't seem to have realised that yet and continues to give them publicity.

China scales back censorship plans

Semantics

Pornography - Anything I don't like.

Violence - Anything I don't like

Protecting children - My prejudices are right and never mind the harm that I cause

Tourist magnet blows off Speedo-wearing men

How to harm children through ignorance

Body shame is harmful. The harm is widespread and often serious. It is not coincidence that the USA, one of the most prudish western countries, has such appalling outcomes compared to places like Denmark or The Netherlands. A US teenager of average becomes sexually active neary a year younger, is less likely to use a condom or contraception and is more likely to be promiscuous. The results are predictable. Several times more likely to have an abortion, nearly ten times more likely to become pregnant and about seventy times more likely to catch gonorrhea. This isn't about family values. It is about prejudice and encouraging attitudes that are little better than child abuse. Is an irrational adult prejudice really worth the life of even one child?

There is one genuinely family friendlty weekend event of the year at Alton Towers is when the entire Splashlandings Hotel and water park is taken over by naturists for the weekend.