Could this affect nude photography?

[Laudrup]

I would definitely avoid an ISP that decides what I can and cannot access - people should be given a certain level of responsibility in a free society.

I have Virgin media and it doesn't allow access to a certain torrent site. Seems a bit of a waste of time though when you can access it as easily.

 

[boliston]

I have Virgin media and it doesn't allow access to a certain torrent site. Seems a bit of a waste of time though when you can access it as easily.

I wonder if they advertise this fact to potential customers?

 

[POAH]

Says who?

the definition of pornography for one lol

 

[POAH]

I'd be prepared to bet you're wrong Pete.

You might have a firm view that Penthouse is Porn and FHM isn't. But plenty of retailers, customer groups and lobbyists have a different view.

but plenty of people are also moronic nutters with no real world view

 

[Llamaman]

or those laws don't affect my life - because they are aimed at controlling the activities of criminals and terrorists and such, and as I am neither they are an irrelevance.

If I want to assemble within a mile of Westminster, i'll apply for a permit - which won't be withheld because I'm not planning a riot - since we never had the right to assemble and have a riot anyway where's the harm

Riiiiiight... so anyone wanting to protest outside our Parliament building is a criminal or a terrorist?

 

[Yves Geza]

Riiiiiight... so anyone wanting to protest outside our Parliament building is a criminal or a terrorist?

According to the Blair government and the state's sympathisers, yes!

I've linked to this old Mark Thomas radio show lots of times, but for anyone who has half an hour to enjoy it, it's still brilliantly funny comedy - far and away the best he's ever done - with an undertone of how ridiculous our legislature is becoming ...

[YOUTUBE]nRGZr2m4r7M[/YOUTUBE]


ETA, if anyone does listen to it, it's actually on YouTube in three 10 minute segments. It just builds and builds!

 

[Llamaman]

But I haven't, nor do I know of any british national who has (most of the ho ha about rendition related to allowing US rendition flights to land here to refuel - )

Oh, I see. Rendition is only an issue if it's British subjects. We can do what we like with Johnny Foreigner, what, what? *rolls eyes*
In any case, you're wrong; Tarek Dergoul, Jamal al Harith, Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul were all British subjects who was interned at Guantanemo. All five men were released within days of repatriation to the UK as there wasn't evidence to prosecute them for anything.
And it's not just a case of Britain allowing US planes to refuel in the UK. There is credible evidence of British security services being actively involved in rendition, including handing suspects to foreign powers to be tortured, and even renditioing a suspect from Belgium to the UK to be held at an MI5 safehouse and interrogated.

Again I could really give a **** about the rights of terrorists imo they forfeited their right as a combatant when they started deliberately targeting civilians

How do you know they are terrorists if they've never been tried? Unless, of course, you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and are happy to assume someone's guilt because the government told you they were an enemy of the state? You were saying something about police states earlier?
Besides, many of the "terrorists" captured haven't targetted civilians - they've been involved in combat with foreign troops who have invaded their country.

Your logic is that
a) Terrorist don't deserve human rights
b) Anyone captured by the security services is a terrorist

Both arguments are fallacious;
Firstly, human rights are universal - they are not conditional rights.
Secondly, the assumption of guilt without trial or right to appeal is a fundemental abuse of the rule of law. It has been proven to be false by evidence too - for example the 5 men I listed above who were not found guilt of any crime yet had served years in detention without trial or appeal.
The US DoD has made a big deal out of the fact that 1 in 7 Guantanemo detainees released have returned to the battle. But this also suggests that 6 in 7 haven't, and casts real doubt over whether they were ever terrorists in the first place.


You're right that Britain is a long way from being a police state - but that does not mean we should willingly surrender our rights in exchange for the illusion of security, or be willfully ignorant of the abuses carried out in our names.

 

[Phil V]

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/lobbying/

just organise a mass lobby, afaik it circumvents the assembly law.

Whereas the link you posted suggests otherwise...
"Mass lobbies

Organisers of mass lobbies should contact the following offices as soon as possible:

Serjeant at Arms' Office (020 7219 3050)
Police Operations, Palace of Westminster (020 7219 6882)
Operations and Events Office, Charing Cross Police Station (020 7321 7524)

Staff will be able to give further details of how to organise a mass lobby successfully around the daily business of Parliament."

Just the same as any protest - for which you need to register and get permission

 

[Phil V]

or those laws don't affect my life - because they are aimed at controlling the activities of criminals and terrorists and such, and as I am neither they are an irrelevance.

If I want to assemble within a mile of Westminster, i'll apply for a permit - which won't be withheld because I'm not planning a riot - since we never had the right to assemble and have a riot anyway where's the harm

But those laws don't exist to control 'terrorists and criminals' they exist to criminalise peaceful protest because Tony Blair was sick of seeing the 'peace protest' outside parliament.

I can't work out whether you really are ignorant of all of these well known facts or just playing the fool

So (why I brought it up :bang the proposed law under discussion could be used to criminalise currently illegal acts, in exactly the same way as a peaceful protest outside parliament is now illegal due to some kneejerk lawmaking.

The upshot (you should listen to the Mark Thomas show) is that loads of bureaucracy is created and nothing really improves.

 

[Dave *]

If I want to assemble within a mile of Westminster, i'll apply for a permit - which won't be withheld because I'm not planning a riot - since we never had the right to assemble and have a riot anyway where's the harm

So you don't have a right of free assembly, you have a system of asking the authorities for permission to assemble.

Hardly the same thing, is it?

 

[Phil V]

So you don't have a right of free assembly, you have a system of asking the authorities for permission to assemble.

Hardly the same thing, is it?

I think even Pete realises he's well beyond defending the point that liberties haven't been eroding over his lifetime. He clung on like a good un but it's looking silly now .

 

[ernesto]

but then while some liberties have been lost others have been gained (i.e. homesexuality law changes) so what you gain on the swings.

I would still rather live in the UK than 90%+ of other countries and if I didn't like living here I would leave and not just sit around moaning about it with a complete lack of perspective...

 

[Phil V]

but then while some liberties have been lost others have been gained (i.e. homesexuality law changes) so what you gain on the swings.

I would still rather live in the UK than 90%+ of other countries and if I didn't like living here I would leave and not just sit around moaning about it with a complete lack of perspective...

You're so right - but so wrong too, it's a democracy and we are free to disagree with the government - and that's about the most sacred freedom we have.

The most stupid part of the debate is that we're likely to end up with nowhere near the worst case scenario foretold by the original headlines, because as many have said - legislation would be difficult and unwieldy.

We'll probably have the long awaited situation where Windows comes with adult content filtering 'on' and we'll have to switch it off the same as I did with my phone.

 

[big soft moose]

So you don't have a right of free assembly, you have a system of asking the authorities for permission to assemble.

Hardly the same thing, is it?

I think even Pete realises he's well beyond defending the point that liberties haven't been eroding over his lifetime. He clung on like a good un but it's looking silly now .

We have the right to free assembly pretty much everywhere except for in one high profile area where if you are planning a legitimate demomstration you need a permit (and of course on private land where we've never had the right without landowner consent anyway) - its hardly a problem unless you were planning on breaking the law anyway

its like a lot of these supposed abuses - if you are a reasonable person behaving reasonably theres not a problem - if you want to stage a riot you can expect the police to shut you down which has always been the case.

I don't accept that my point is silly at all - as a reasonable and law abiding citizen i have the same liberties now that I had in 1973 - the law has got tougher on rioters, terrorists, and other criminals - but as i'm not intending to do any of the above thats not my concern (and in fact i like the fact that the police now have the abilty to prevent some odious scrote from EDL staging a hate march to hijack the place where a soilder was killed )

 

[big soft moose]

The most stupid part of the debate is that we're likely to end up with nowhere near the worst case scenario foretold by the original headlines, because they were dominated by hysterical hyperbole aimed at selling papers rather than a clear headed reporting of the actual facts.

FTFY

 

[boyfalldown]

as a reasonable and law abiding citizen i have the same liberties now that I had in 1973

you know thats not true don't you . If nothing else you don't hav the right to peaceful protest in parliament square (without permission that may or may not be granted). Like you did in 1973

 

[Llamaman]

We have the right to free assembly pretty much everywhere

The UN don't agree;
"23 January 2013 – A United Nations expert today urged the United Kingdom (UK) to revise a series of legal and policing measures that are having a negative impact on its citizens’ right of peaceful assembly and association.

Measures such as the use of undercover police officers embedded in protests, containing protesters through ‘kettling’, and restricting the ability of various groups and unions to peacefully protest are putting at risk the right of association, said the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai." (My emphasis)
Source: UN News Centre http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43989&Cr=protests&Cr1=

except for in one high profile area

which happens to be the seat of our government and so the most appropriate place for demonstrations

where if you are planning a legitimate demomstration

What is a legitimate protest as opposed to an illegitimate one? One pre-approved by the establishment?

you need a permit

Ah yes, the pre-approved "legitimate" protest. Hurrah. I'm so glad the government will allow me to exercise my right to criticise them, just so long as I ask nicely and it doesn't inconvenience them.

(and of course on private land where we've never had the right without landowner consent anyway)

The difference being that prior to CJA 1994 trespass was a civil matter. It is now a criminal one. Plus the police are granted pre-emptive powers so they can restrict your movements before any offence has been committed.

 

[ernesto]

You're so right - but so wrong too, it's a democracy and we are free to disagree with the government - and that's about the most sacred freedom we have.

Being free to disagree with the government and actually being able to stop them are two different things. I don't particular agree with any of the main parties polices yet I am in a minority so nothing is ever going to happen about it. This would be the same in pretty much every country so it is just a case of finding somewhere with the least amount of bad points.

 

[Phil V]

Being free to disagree with the government and actually being able to stop them are two different things. I don't particular agree with any of the main parties polices yet I am in a minority so nothing is ever going to happen about it. This would be the same in pretty much every country so it is just a case of finding somewhere with the least amount of bad points.

I agree, but that doesn't mean I should have to give up complaining.

In fact you can barely get a cigarette paper between the 3 major parties - sometimes I wonder how they manage to keep the pretence of 'opposition' up. In every major area of politics they appear to have broadly the same agenda, and a slightly differently flavoured rhetoric to appeal to their more 'old fashioned' supporters whilst they do it.

 

[viv1969]

The difference being that prior to CJA 1994 trespass was a civil matter. It is now a criminal one. Plus the police are granted pre-emptive powers so they can restrict your movements before any offence has been committed.

Now that's not strictly true.
Trespass on my property and I cannot have you criminally prosecuted.
Nor still can I legitimately erect a sign stating that trespassers will be prosecuted.
On crown and military property it has always been a criminal offence.

 

[Dave *]

Duplicate

 

[Dave *]

Now that's not strictly true.
Trespass on my property and I cannot have you criminally prosecuted.
Nor still can I legitimately erect a sign stating that trespassers will be prosecuted.
On crown and military property it has always been a criminal offence.

CLA 1977 brought in an offence of criminal trespass if founding trespassing while in possession of an offensive weapon. The trespasser can be arrested and prosecuted for this. I would presume that's what he was alluding to.

 

[viv1969]

CLA 1977 brought in an offence of criminal trespass if founding trespassing while in possession of an offensive weapon. The trespasser can be arrested and prosecuted for this. I would presume that's what he was alluding to.

Ah OK. That's an entirely different charge.

 

[Llamaman]

No, I was referring to the trespass sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1994.
Under certain conditions (assembling for, preparing for or conducting a rave or demonstration) trespass is now covered by criminal law. No need to have a weapon to be guilty of aggravated trespass.
It was passed to prevent raves, road protests and hunting sabotages.

 

[alix]

this law is compliantly pointless anyone that relay wants to access images they aint meant to can just bypass the isp filters by using proxy servers from another country that it aint illegal in

 

[Dave *]

this law is compliantly pointless anyone that relay wants to access images they aint meant to can just bypass the isp filters by using proxy servers from another country that it aint illegal in

I think everyone knows that, except the out of touch posh toff in Downing Street who's internet ability extends to thinking LOL means lots of love .

 

[ernesto]

I agree, but that doesn't mean I should have to give up complaining.

In fact you can barely get a cigarette paper between the 3 major parties - sometimes I wonder how they manage to keep the pretence of 'opposition' up. In every major area of politics they appear to have broadly the same agenda, and a slightly differently flavoured rhetoric to appeal to their more 'old fashioned' supporters whilst they do it.

But that is what 'the people' want and the only way the parties will get in. I don't think the massive swings between more extreme parties of old did the country any more favours.

I would get rid of the whole system and put in place a group of people who can actually think independently about things with more strategy for the good of the country without being tied to any party. Obviously a bit more complicated than that in practice

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I think everyone knows that, except the out of touch posh toff in Downing Street who's internet ability extends to thinking LOL means lots of love .

David

As ever e are following thkngs with the same hymn sheet!

Now far more prrsnslity based with the dpin on the hour.

Nothing more thsn the same old same old withprrsonsl outrage! Mupprts one and all.

Steve

 

[Yves Geza]

David

As ever e are following thkngs with the same hymn sheet!

Now far more prrsnslity based with the dpin on the hour.

Nothing more thsn the same old same old withprrsonsl outrage! Mupprts one and all.

Steve

Demonstrably drunk in charge of a keyboard, M'Lud!!

 

[hoochy1]

now i do understand the need to find child porn by all means find it and they who watch it ,but come on why spoil sum thing that could be a god send to some one that has problems getting up they may want/feel the need to watch porn to get them there what about all the house bound,single men ,married men and women that watch porn, if some 1 asks me would you let your 16 year old lad watch porn? well look at it this way at that age he can marry,he can fight for his country,kill for his country ,and die for his country ,so why would i stop him from watching a porn film online?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Demonstrably drunk in charge of a keyboard, M'Lud!!

No

Damn android keyboard, big fingers and tired eyes

Will treble check from now on!

 

[Yves Geza]

Oh, in that case - it's trebles all round, old boy!


And now back past the diversion of some of us wanting to retain some vestige of the civil liberties we used to take for granted to the specific question of how the Government's inept proposed legislation might affect nude photography, this forum and, for example, ndwgolf's inspiring and illuminating travelogues!

 

[POAH]

now i do understand the need to find child porn by all means find it and they who watch it ,but come on why spoil sum thing that could be a god send to some one that has problems getting up they may want/feel the need to watch porn to get them there what about all the house bound,single men ,married men and women that watch porn, if some 1 asks me would you let your 16 year old lad watch porn? well look at it this way at that age he can marry,he can fight for his country,kill for his country ,and die for his country ,so why would i stop him from watching a porn film online?

even gay porn lol

 

[ernesto]

Well clearly if your 16 year old son is gay then yes he would be watching gay porn

 

[Pookeyhead]

Not read the whole thread.... can't be arsed, but as all the new measures will require you to do is let the ISP know you wish to receive porn, then there's no problem. Just opt out.

Apologies if this has been said already.

Storm in a teacup if you ask me.

 

[evosec]

Think is a good choice for some people

 

[ghoti]

This is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

The filter will be implemented and maintained by Huawei, who have been criticised for their close and shady ties to the Chinese government. Even if you opt in, your web activity will still be routed through Huawei's systems. Effectively giving a controversial company who work closely with a government with a poor human rights record a de facto list of people who have opted in to view "adult" material.

 

[hoochy1]

even gay porn lol

lol yea even gay porn if thats was his thing