Illegal porn in usenet newsgroups
Neil
Hi,
I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which happens
to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
world - but is illegal in the UK
As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws to
protect the British people from seeing something as horrific in print as
sex and you're not allowed to show any kind of penetration, etc in the
pictures or they are illegal.
My point - there is lots and lots of illegal stuff coming into this
country from the USA and Europe where it's perfectly legal.
Surely customs officers / police will impound all the machines
containing the illegal material - as they are legally bound to 'correct'
any wrong doing which is brought to their attention.
Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to why
no action has been taken by the police - are they waiting for a
complaint from the public before they are forced to act, etc, etc, etc.
Thanks
--
Neil McAliece
Phil Payne
In article <1yo+PSAN...@no.adverts.please>
Andi...@see.sig.at.end "Andi.ns1" writes:
> You call sex horrific??? Jesus Christ! You are doing it wrong. Go see
> a sex therapist and get some help in treating your partner with more
> respect.
Assuming he has a partner. As "Not the Nine O'Clock News" once pointed out,
most people's reaction to hard-core porn should be simple envy.
> Do you carry your PC through customs?
Yes, frequently. Never been checked at all. The only people interested are
the security wallahs, who seem to be convinced that even a technically
sophisticated terrorist would be unable to hide a weapon in a laptop without
disconnecting the power switch.
--
Phil Payne
ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021
Duncan Corps
+-- This was written by Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>...
|> Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to why
|> no action has been taken by the police - are they waiting for a
|> complaint from the public before they are forced to act, etc, etc, etc.
Please look for information about the Internet Watch Foundation
(www.iwf.org.uk) which is IMHO the only workable response to hard-core
pornography passed around via The Internet. There is simply too much data
for any one body, organization, or company to monitor effectively.
However, my suggested solution is for parents to pay more
attention to what their children do with their computers (etc.) and just
leave alone what doesn't concern them.
Other than that, average troll. Please go away now.
duncan
--
_| _ _ _ ___ _ ___ | HOME: dun...@fwei.demon.co.uk | WWW: (prototype)
(_| \_// \\_ /-\\ / | WORK: duncan...@dialog.com | www.fwei.demon.co.uk
Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone else, and no-one else speaks for me
Ashley Hinton
Phil Payne <Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Andi...@see.sig.at.end "Andi.ns1" writes:
[snip some other stuff]
> > Do you carry your PC through customs?
> Yes, frequently. Never been checked at all. The only people interested are
> the security wallahs, who seem to be convinced that even a technically
> sophisticated terrorist would be unable to hide a weapon in a laptop without
> disconnecting the power switch.
:-) I know, and the silly thing is they always get me to do the same
with my walkman (DAT thing, it has more switches and the like than most
other walkmans), video camera, Apple Newton[1] and anything else that
has batteries in it. They seem to think that if something doesn't work,
or doesn't have batteries, it's definately a bomb (and visa versa).
[1] The currency conversion program is good and it only cost me just
over 100 quid when computer warehouse were selling the original ones off
cheap.
--
_/_/ Ashley -= Ashley Hinton, Oxfordshire, UK =-
_/_/ <ash...@chal.demon.co.uk> <http://www.chal.demon.co.uk>
_/_/ ICQ (UIN) <4650058> -=- IRC <AshBunny>
Ashley Hinton
Neil^H^H^H^HMary Whitehouse <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
Hello.
> I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
Oh dear, what are we to do! Porn you say? that's a shame. It's almost
as bad as the spam, or as one person put it "quite, the spam gets in the
way of the porn"
> We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which happens
Glad to hear it.
> to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
> world - but is illegal in the UK
Free hint: you don't have to download it.
> As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws to
Not that it stops you - or are you not the person that a number of
people have said is a "pornographic spammer"? now, I've not seen any of
said spam or porn... but so many people can't be wrong, can they?
> Surely customs officers / police will impound all the machines
*laughing out loud*
> Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to why
No, post it to the relivent newsgroups (this is: demon.service) and
please stop trolling.
Tony Finch
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
>which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
If you find this upsetting or offensive, please feel free to take
your custom to an ISP with a censored news feed.
Tony.
Phil Payne
In article <1997121520...@chal.demon.co.uk>
ne...@chal.demon.co.uk "Ashley Hinton" writes:
> Oh dear, what are we to do! Porn you say? that's a shame. It's almost
> as bad as the spam, or as one person put it "quite, the spam gets in the
> way of the porn"
No. The _cancels_ get in the way of the porn.
Damien Burke
On 15 Dec 1997 20:20:24 GMT, fa...@demon.net (Tony Finch) wrote:
>If you find this upsetting or offensive, please feel free to take
>your custom to an ISP with a censored news feed.
Don't raise our hopes like that you fiend.
--
Damien Burke (replace d.c.u in address with demon.co.uk if replying)
Neil Barker
In article: <6743e8$2...@info.noc.demon.net> fa...@demon.net (Tony Finch)
writes:
>
> Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> >which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
>
> your custom to an ISP with a censored news feed.
I'll translate that for you, Neil :-
He means - "FOAD."
--
Neil Barker.
Ashley Hinton
Phil Payne <Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ne...@chal.demon.co.uk "Ashley Hinton" writes:
> > as bad as the spam, or as one person put it "quite, the spam gets in the
> > way of the porn"
> No. The _cancels_ get in the way of the porn.
Ahh, that's it then.
Neil
Hi,
"Andi.ns1" <Andi...@see.sig.at.end> writes:
> >I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> >which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
> >
> >We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which
happens
> >to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
> >world - but is illegal in the UK
>
> How about all the magazines on the top shelf of every newsagent in UK.
> Are they illegal? I don't think so. Arrest the whole world for such
> smut eh? Get real.
No - my post was intended to point out that these laws are a load
of unenforecable bullshit.
> >As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws
to
> >protect the British people from seeing something as horrific in print
as
> >sex and you're not allowed to show any kind of penetration, etc in
the
> >pictures or they are illegal.
> >
> You call sex horrific??? Jesus Christ! You are doing it wrong. Go
see
> a sex therapist and get some help in treating your partner with more
> respect.
>
> As for sexual penetration, the out of date snobbish attitude that we
> gained from the Victorian era is changing.
Not very fast
> >My point - there is lots and lots of illegal stuff coming into this
> >country from the USA and Europe where it's perfectly legal.
>
> So you think that you are justified in spamming us even more from the
> UK? Two wrongs do not make a right.
I don't spam
> >Surely customs officers / police will impound all the machines
> >containing the illegal material - as they are legally bound to
'correct'
> >any wrong doing which is brought to their attention.
>
> Do you carry your PC through customs? Gary Glitter was only found out
> about his love of child pornography when he took his machine back to
be
> repaired. Read the newspapers much do you?
Sure do, bt if you were to encrypt everything with PGP using a 4096 bit
key then it may be hard to gain access to what oy have on your PC.
I'm glad hat Glitter didn't use this tactic or he would never have been
exposed as a pedophile although I'm sure he'll come up with a suitable
excuse for his actions - like it was on the PC whn he purchased it or
something lame like that.
> >Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to
why
> >no action has been taken by the police - are they waiting for a
> >complaint from the public before they are forced to act, etc, etc,
etc.
>
> Oh yeah! I have got my own policeman watching what I do on my
computer.
> If I swear he raps me on my knuckles. And if I so much as think of
> downloading a picture of a semi naked woman he arrests me and takes me
> down the station. It's a fair cop guv!
Semi naked women pictures are not illegal.
> I have recently seen your poor attempt at belittling others in this
> newsgroup with your own twisted idea of what is right and wrong. I
> believe that you have need of some help. Your sort of scare mongering
> is what gives the internet a bad reputation. One of the stereotypes
> that you see regularly on TV is that the internet is full of porn. I
It is - the vast majority of traffic consists of adult only type
material.
> don't go out looking for it and I have not found it. However, go and
> look and there it is! You have to go looking for it first though. I
do
> get email adverts (spam) for sex sites and think that is wrong. Now
go
> and play with yourself and stop trolling this newsgroup.
You're wrong so shut up.
>
>
> Andi
>
>
--
Neil
Neil
Hi,
Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne) writes:
> > Do you carry your PC through customs?
I often do and it doesn't get checked, unfortunately they often search
my luggage.
Customs officers are despicable little weazels when it comes to porn
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
ne...@chal.demon.co.uk (Ashley Hinton) writes:
> > Surely customs officers / police will impound all the machines
>
> *laughing out loud*
Don't laugh at this, I've heard of cases where it's happened in the
past, ISPs have been raided and had entire networks confiscated -
although this happened in the USA where in some states porn is hated and
destroyed to the level it is by the UK government,
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
fa...@demon.net (Tony Finch) writes:
> Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> >which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
>
> If you find this upsetting or offensive, please feel free to take
> your custom to an ISP with a censored news feed.
I find it neither offensive or upsetting, and certainly want to have
access to this porn.
My point is - why is no action being taken by the authorities.
It's against the law and that's that - as much as nobody likes the law
it still stands and is being ignored.
> Tony.
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Duncan Corps <fw...@clues.com> writes:
> Please look for information about the Internet Watch Foundation
> (www.iwf.org.uk) which is IMHO the only workable response to hard-core
> pornography passed around via The Internet. There is simply too much
data
> for any one body, organization, or company to monitor effectively.
> However, my suggested solution is for parents to pay more
> attention to what their children do with their computers (etc.) and
just
> leave alone what doesn't concern them.
> Other than that, average troll. Please go away now.
Maybe I should report two or three hundred obscene images per day to
them just to see if they action them all.
--
Neil McAliece
Paul L. Allen
In article <425085...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
[...]
> Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to why
> no action has been taken by the police - are they waiting for a
> complaint from the public before they are forced to act, etc, etc, etc.
The police are far more interested in the people who post the porn in the
first place, like you.
Trolling for addresses to sell on to junk mailers again? You sure you're
not really called John McGrath?
--Paul
Mike Barnes
In article <882199...@isham-research.demon.co.uk>, Phil Payne
<Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <1yo+PSAN...@no.adverts.please>
> Andi...@see.sig.at.end "Andi.ns1" writes:
>
>> a sex therapist and get some help in treating your partner with more
>> respect.
>
>most people's reaction to hard-core porn should be simple envy.
>
>
>the security wallahs, who seem to be convinced that even a technically
>sophisticated terrorist would be unable to hide a weapon in a laptop without
>disconnecting the power switch.
A decade or three ago, I visited Bahrain with some half-inch magnetic
computer tapes in my baggage. The customs bloke was very interested in
one of the tapes, in fact he held it up to the light and unreeled a few
feet to see what was on it.
Yes, you guessed it - he was looking for pornographic[1] cine film.
ROFL.
Fortunately he got bored well before the BOT marker so I didn't have to
stop him putting his fingerprints on the recorded area.
[1] actually any exposed female body, or male/female contact of any
kind, would have been enough.
--
-- Mike Barnes, Owner, Exodus Computer Systems, Stockport, England.
--
-- Get more out of Turnpike with "TP Assistant". For details and a free
-- 30-day evaluation copy, go to http://www.exodus.demon.co.uk/tpassist/
Peter McDermott
In article <425085...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>,
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
>which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
>
>We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which happens
>to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
>world - but is illegal in the UK
>
>As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws to
>protect the British people from seeing something as horrific in print as
>sex and you're not allowed to show any kind of penetration, etc in the
>pictures or they are illegal.
>
It wouldn't be cutting into your markets, would it?
After all, you'd have to be a real sad case to actually *pay*
someone like you for your stroke fodder when you can download
it from Usenet for nothing, wouldn't you?
Fuck off and die, toad.
Chris Malme
In article <64400...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne) writes:
>
>
> my luggage.
>
> Customs officers are despicable little weazels when it comes to porn
I think you've just added H.M Customs & Excise to my Christmas Card list.
Chris
Jon Rouse
Neil wrote:
>
> I'm glad hat Glitter didn't use this tactic or he would never have been
> exposed as a pedophile although I'm sure he'll come up with a suitable
> excuse for his actions - like it was on the PC whn he purchased it or
> something lame like that.
From my experience more viruses are encountered when PCs are sent for repair
than are ever experienced in everyday running. Glad Hat Glitter may have a
valid defence.
--
The views expressed are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Phil Payne
In article <rkE5psB3...@exodus.co.uk>
mi...@exodus.co.uk "Mike Barnes" writes:
> A decade or three ago, I visited Bahrain with some half-inch magnetic
> computer tapes in my baggage. The customs bloke was very interested in
> one of the tapes, in fact he held it up to the light and unreeled a few
> feet to see what was on it.
About as long ago, one of my customers found a bug to which IBM had already
made a patch available. This was before binary-capable networks - I sent a
message round the globe (remember GE time-sharing?) asking for copies on tape
ASAP. About five arrived in Hannover - I took one to the customer and semi-
forgot the rest in the bonded store at the airport. Finally I got sick of all
the reminder postcards and went up to clear them all. Usual third degree - I
got bored and told the customs girl that I didn't need or want them anyway, and
would she just destroy them?
Mistake.
Neil
Hi,
Thomas Lee <t...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
> >which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
>
> and how Much of it posted by you?
Actually I posted none of it and hevent posted anything to these groups
for a few months now.
Can't be bothered and don't need to.
> --
> Thomas Lee
> (t...@psp.co.uk)
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Andy Bodkin
In article <388390...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
>It's against the law and that's that - as much as nobody likes the law
>it still stands and is being ignored.
The point is, you are wrong and as someone who has friends and
colleagues amongst the 'weasels' here's the definitive answer for you.
It is not illegal to possess pornography involving penetrative sex
amongst adults full stop. If it were, those who like to 'video
themselves' would be committing an offense and for once the law
recognises this absurdity. Where you may have heard of cases of seizures
of amateur porn in the news it is because those concerned were importing
it.
It is illegal to possess pornography involving children or animals and
that is to protect what is considered the weakness of the child or
animal and cruelty against them.
Therefore, your PC is in no danger of being seized in your own home if
the only pictures involved do not depict sex involving animals or
children or possibly sado/masochistic sex where it could be considered
that one party has committed an assault against the other. Had Gary
Glitter's pictures not involved children they'd have been returned
without a word said.
Going through customs, the law is different as it relates to
importation. In the case of importation or distribution the law is
stricter - it is illegal to import or distribute pornography (in the
case of distribution for monetary gain would be of more interest)
without a valid licence. This does not only apply to 'hardcore' porn by
the way, were someone to carry a copy of Mayfair or Penthouse through
customs they have committed an offense even though it is available here
because they are importing pornography without licence.
Thus, your PC pictures would be illegal when you carry it through
Customs - if found I suspect would either be ignored or simply deleted
and the carrier cautioned at worst. However, in the case of Internet
Porn who is responsible for the 'importation' - the individual
downloading the porn ? The ISP ?
Where the only importation involves down a phone-line then it is
difficult to say, although ISP's such as Demon who knowingly carry
groups likely to contain child or bestial sex would find it difficult to
defend charges of possession at least. Certainly, in the case of
newsgroups, it would probably be relatively easy to make a case that
Demon is responsible for the importation of all the images and thus has
committed an offence. With the web, well, probably everyone who
downloads porn technically commits an offence but if they do not then
distribute it further the offence is minimal.
However, in the final analysis, there is the recognition that the law is
out of date with common views of what is 'o.k.' and more importantly
there are resource implications. There would be little point in pursuing
all those who now possess 'hard-core' porn on their computers to try and
prove they imported it and given the free availability and modern
'import' methods of the phoneline it is better to work with ISP's than
against them.
Thus over time, I would expect to see a lessening of the laws involving
consenting adults as has already transpired in practice and a tightening
of that involving children or animals with co-operation between ISP's
and enforcement bodies to trace those responsible for its distribution.
This would enable Customs to get on with its current main tasks - trying
to stop the importation of drugs, firearms and child/bestial porn and
stop it being seen as a bugbear out to stop basically harmless
pornography. It is not that in practice now, anyway, the law just hasn't
caught up yet.
Regards,
--
Andy Bodkin
Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> came forth and spoke thusly:
>Hi,
>
>Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk (Phil Payne) writes:
>
>> > Do you carry your PC through customs?
>
>I often do and it doesn't get checked, unfortunately they often search
>my luggage.
>
>Customs officers are despicable little weazels when it comes to porn
As they should be, unless it's the 'top shelf' sort of stuff. If you
have any problems with it, you are a sad little man.
--
"Mr. Worf, scan that ship!" "Aye Captain, 300 D.P.I.?"
http://www.bryanmac.demon.co.uk/colen for my Warhammer Page
----co...@whitten.demon.co.uk for e-mail, if you please----
[[[AFPurity Rating 14%]]] Wargames and Terry Pratchett Fan
Neil Barker
In article: <581030...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Maybe I should report two or three hundred obscene images per day to
> them just to see if they action them all.
That would be good - whilst you were downloading all that porn, you
couldn't be spamming porn yourself.
--
Neil Barker.
Neil Barker
Ladies and Gentleman - for your continued enjoyment of demon.service, I
bring you this priceless gem :_
In article: <64513...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I don't spam
--
Neil Barker.
David G. Bell
In article <349658...@it.post-office.co.uk>
rou...@it.post-office.co.uk "Jon Rouse" writes:
> Neil wrote:
> >
>
> > I'm glad hat Glitter didn't use this tactic or he would never have been
> > exposed as a pedophile although I'm sure he'll come up with a suitable
> > excuse for his actions - like it was on the PC whn he purchased it or
> > something lame like that.
>
> From my experience more viruses are encountered when PCs are sent for repair
> than are ever experienced in everyday running. Glad Hat Glitter may have a
> valid defence.
Viruses are a damn sight smaller than feelthy .gif files. This needs
more than the usual carelessness with floppy disks loaded with Norton
Utilities, or whatever.
But, yes, the CPS would have to tread very carefully to provide a clear
chain of responsibility for the evidence, since it is so trivial for
some half-competent person in a computer repair shop to change the clock
time, and download stuff to the hard drive, and so on.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Phil Jones
>>it still stands and is being ignored.
Andy Bodkin <and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The point is, you are wrong and as someone who has friends and
>colleagues amongst the 'weasels' here's the definitive answer for you.
[big snip of stuff, much of which is plain wrong]
Discuss the legal position by all means (though please try harder to get
it correct). But, if you really know the way the "weasels" work, please
stop describing it in detail for this bloke's benefit.
--
Phil Jones
Damien Burke
>Ladies and Gentleman - for your continued enjoyment of demon.service, I
>bring you this priceless gem :_
[snip priceless gem]
Perhaps we should have demon.service.best.of ?
Neil
Hi,
Andy Bodkin <and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> writes:
> This would enable Customs to get on with its current main tasks -
trying
> to stop the importation of drugs, firearms and child/bestial porn and
> stop it being seen as a bugbear out to stop basically harmless
> pornography. It is not that in practice now, anyway, the law just
hasn't
> caught up yet.
>
The customs officers will confiscate and fine you for any porn you have,
believe me, they are interrested in collecting their fines, I know as
I've fallen foul of their bullshit regulations and have been arrested by
them for trivial matters in the past regarding porn which neither
consisted of children or animals, matters which wouldn't have raised an
eyebrow in most of Europe or the USA.
--
Neil McAliece
Mike Pellatt
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:36:54 +0000, Andy Bodkin
<and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <388390...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
><ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>It's against the law and that's that - as much as nobody likes the law
>>it still stands and is being ignored.
>
>colleagues amongst the 'weasels' here's the definitive answer for you.
[ snip a clear and rational explanation of the UK legal position (!!)
vs. possession and importation of pornography ]
Hey, don't try and dicuss logically with a product of Bots R Us.
It just doesn't work.
See ? It ignored all the logic.
--
Mike Pellatt
Steve
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> >In article <388390...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
> ><ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>it still stands and is being ignored.
>
> >The point is, you are wrong and as someone who has friends and
> >colleagues amongst the 'weasels' here's the definitive answer for you.
>
> Discuss the legal position by all means (though please try harder to get
> it correct).
So which bits are wrong then?
A post like this adds nothing of value to the discussion.
If it is wrong you obviously are in possesion of some correct
facts to know they are wrong. Please share these.
-Steve
Chris Hayes
Fearing the most worse, I hesitantly opened the door. It was Andy
Bodkin. My temporary relief was soon a memory, however, as they began
rambling about 'Illegal porn in usenet newsgroups'.
>Had Gary
>Glitter's pictures not involved children they'd have been returned
>without a word said.
I've been trying to work out /why/ they were viewing any pictures in the
first place? I mean, they can't be a source of whatever the problem was,
can they? So unless they are put in a suspiciously labelled directory or
group, there should have been no reason to even look at them... except
as an invasion of privacy (which some people, I am sure, think is reason
enough).
--
It's not between the Devil and the deep blue sea _\_;__:_|__ ;_/_!_
Not between the truth and hypocrisy | Spanner@larrrrrd |
Not between freedom and democracy | .demon.co.uk. |
But between you - and me. - ABC \_o____________o_/
Andy Bodkin
In article <slrn69f0u...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
<mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> writes
>[ snip a clear and rational explanation of the UK legal position (!!)
> vs. possession and importation of pornography ]
>
>Hey, don't try and dicuss logically with a product of Bots R Us.
>
>It just doesn't work.
>
>See ? It ignored all the logic.
You're right, I just thought I'd give it a go, anyway as I was
completely wrong apparently, it may for once have recognised faulty
logic.
I apologise for misleading everyone else, perhaps there's a lawyer
reading who can give the actual legal position,
--
Andy Bodkin
Andy Bodkin
In article <rfOfSNA$G8l0...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hayes
<Spa...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk> writes
>I've been trying to work out /why/ they were viewing any pictures in the
>first place? I mean, they can't be a source of whatever the problem was,
>can they? So unless they are put in a suspiciously labelled directory or
>group, there should have been no reason to even look at them... except
>as an invasion of privacy (which some people, I am sure, think is reason
>enough).
Alternatively, it could be as someone else suggested when they mentioned
more viruses are picked up when machines are in repair and that these
were added to his computer while there, thus Mr. Glitter is possibly an
innocent party.
Regards,
--
Andy Bodkin
Neil
Hi,
Chris Hayes <Spa...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Had Gary
> >Glitter's pictures not involved children they'd have been returned
> >without a word said.
>
> I've been trying to work out /why/ they were viewing any pictures in
the
> first place? I mean, they can't be a source of whatever the problem
was,
> can they? So unless they are put in a suspiciously labelled directory
or
> group, there should have been no reason to even look at them... except
> as an invasion of privacy (which some people, I am sure, think is
reason
> enough).
Maybe they were in a directory called 'pedo_pics' or perhaps the people
working there were just nosey bastardswanting to find out all his
personal business - like salary details, etc.
>
> --
> It's not between the Devil and the deep blue sea _\_;__:_|__ ;_/_!_
> Not between the truth and hypocrisy | Spanner@larrrrrd |
> Not between freedom and democracy | .demon.co.uk. |
> But between you - and me. - ABC \_o____________o_/
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
{R}@nospam.demon.co.uk (Richard Ashton) writes:
> So you have been fined for breaking the law, that's great. Do you have
> a criminal record now ?
>
> Would it be correct to call you "The criminal Mc-a-lice" ?
No, not at all, they said I could pay a fine or go to court, I just paid
the fine.
>
> {R}
>
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <YkCeyBAm...@b0dders.demon.co.uk>, Andy Bodkin
<and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> writes
>Where the only importation involves down a phone-line then it is
>difficult to say, although ISP's such as Demon who knowingly carry
>groups likely to contain child or bestial sex would find it difficult to
>defend charges of possession at least. Certainly, in the case of
>newsgroups, it would probably be relatively easy to make a case that
>Demon is responsible for the importation of all the images and thus has
>committed an offence.
This is not the case; the whole IWF arrangement is based on the
assumption that the ISPs are not responsible at law.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email:
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | <cl...@demon.net> |
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <rfOfSNA$G8l0...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hayes
<Spa...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Had Gary
>>Glitter's pictures not involved children they'd have been returned
>>without a word said.
>I've been trying to work out /why/ they were viewing any pictures in the
>first place? I mean, they can't be a source of whatever the problem was,
>can they? So unless they are put in a suspiciously labelled directory or
>group, there should have been no reason to even look at them... except
>as an invasion of privacy (which some people, I am sure, think is reason
>enough).
I notice that there don't seem to have been any charges preferred
against him.
Loe van Haarlem
In article <780255...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
>{R}@nospam.demon.co.uk (Richard Ashton) writes:
>
>> So you have been fined for breaking the law, that's great. Do you have
>> a criminal record now ?
>>
>> Would it be correct to call you "The criminal Mc-a-lice" ?
>
>No, not at all, they said I could pay a fine or go to court, I just paid
>the fine.
>>
--
Loe van Haarlem
Roy Brown
In article <565792...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, M(c)Ali(e)ce Aforethought
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>The customs officers will confiscate and fine you for porn which
>wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in most of Europe or the USA.
Isn't that the wrong bit, though?
Phil Payne
In article <zQ2U$EA0S+...@b0dders.demon.co.uk>
and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
> Alternatively, it could be as someone else suggested when they mentioned
> more viruses are picked up when machines are in repair and that these
> were added to his computer while there, thus Mr. Glitter is possibly an
> innocent party.
a) Mr Glitter is _very_ _definitely_ an innocent party unless and until
convicted by a court, and anyone even implying anything else is laying
themselves open to legal action.
b) It is not the function of PC World or the police to determine if anything
is illegal. PC World probably, like many chemists, tries to err on the
side of caution - remember the Sommerville incident? Gary G. might have
done nothing at all, or might merely have filmed his children in the bath
and played with his multimedia extensions. Perhaps this will end the same
way as the Sommerville affair.
Andy Bodkin
In article <mstk3zAc7$l0E...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>, "Clive D.W.
Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>This is not the case; the whole IWF arrangement is based on the
>assumption that the ISPs are not responsible at law.
Er, that's what I meant when I said later that it made more sense to co-
operate with ISP's than prosecute them. I still think without the
arrangement it would be easy to argue ISP's are responsible for the
importation of Usenet only. Thanks for the clarification,
--
Andy Bodkin
David G. Bell
In article <rfOfSNA$G8l0...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk>
Spa...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk "Chris Hayes" writes:
> Fearing the most worse, I hesitantly opened the door. It was Andy
> Bodkin. My temporary relief was soon a memory, however, as they began
> rambling about 'Illegal porn in usenet newsgroups'.
>
> >Had Gary
> >Glitter's pictures not involved children they'd have been returned
> >without a word said.
>
> I've been trying to work out /why/ they were viewing any pictures in the
> first place? I mean, they can't be a source of whatever the problem was,
> can they? So unless they are put in a suspiciously labelled directory or
> group, there should have been no reason to even look at them... except
> as an invasion of privacy (which some people, I am sure, think is reason
> enough).
Possibly the problem being fixed involved some corrupted files, and the
easiest way to check a potentially corrupted JPEG file is to look at the
picture.
Tom
In article <780255...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
>{R}@nospam.demon.co.uk (Richard Ashton) writes:
>
>> So you have been fined for breaking the law, that's great. Do you have
>> a criminal record now ?
>>
>> Would it be correct to call you "The criminal Mc-a-lice" ?
>
>No, not at all, they said I could pay a fine or go to court, I just paid
>the fine.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Do you realise that Neil McAliece is an anagram of "ice me in cell"?
--
Tom
Pedt Scragg
In article <QqkClBAf...@tgmead.demon.co.uk>, Tom
<t...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>Do you realise that Neil McAliece is an anagram of "ice me in cell"?
>
>
I menace celli
enamel icicle
nice male lice
--
Pedt Scragg <postm...@pedt.demon.co.uk>
In principle, is there uncertainty that
Heisenberg was working his best in chaos?
Ashley Hinton
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[porn]
> consisted of children or animals, matters which wouldn't have raised an
> eyebrow in most of Europe or the USA.
It's simple really, if you have a problem with the laws here regarding
pornographic material and seem to know what the laws are in other
countires (which you seem to visit for that reason, from what I gather
through reading this thread) and *prefer* the laws in other
countries....
... move to another country.
--
_/_/ Ashley -= Ashley Hinton, Oxfordshire, UK =-
_/_/ <ash...@chal.demon.co.uk> <http://www.chal.demon.co.uk>
_/_/ ICQ (UIN) <4650058> -=- IRC <AshBunny>
Phil Jones
>Phil Jones wrote:
>> Discuss the legal position by all means (though please try harder to get
>> it correct).
Steve <st...@proph.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So which bits are wrong then?
>
>A post like this adds nothing of value to the discussion.
>
>If it is wrong you obviously are in possesion of some correct
>facts to know they are wrong. Please share these.
You snipped my main point. I'll repeat what I said to Mr Bodkin, who
claims to have friends and colleagues amongst the "weasels": "...if you
really know the way the "weasels" work, please stop describing it in
detail for this bloke's benefit." I think that adds something to the
discussion.
But if you must have more, in my view Mr Bodkin does not distinguish
properly between importation, which is the concern of Customs, and other
offences. A few points:
1. "Pornography" is not a concept recognised by C&E. The offence with
which they are concerned is the importation of items which are "indecent
or obscene", contrary to a prohibition under the Customs Consolidation
Act 1886 [yes, eighteen eighty-six] IIRC.
2. What was regarded as "indecent or obscene" in 1886 might have been
different from today but, if I knew, I wouldn't tell Mr McA where the
line is drawn. Such a law provides quite nicely for changing values and
has stood the test of time.
3. There is a difference between carrying a PC (or disks) through
Customs and downloading something from the Internet.
4. Customs are not the only people concerned with such material. There
are other offences relating to the downloading of material from the
Internet.
--
Phil Jones
David G. Bell
In article <qPVVuJAl...@prioryv.demon.co.uk>
DELETETHIS...@prioryv.demon.co.uk "Not Trevor" writes:
> In article <882299...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>, "David G. Bell"
> <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> artesticulated
> >But, yes, the CPS would have to tread very carefully to provide a clear
> >chain of responsibility for the evidence, since it is so trivial for
> >some half-competent person in a computer repair shop to change the clock
> >time, and download stuff to the hard drive, and so on.
>
> One wonders just what else we put at risk when the PC goes into repair?
> Quite a bit of personal & financial data from everyone who uses this
> thing for instance...
Just so. That question might be worth raising in uk.legal, and it seems
likely to me that any business doing computer repairs would have to be
registered under the Data Protection Act--not dreadfully expensive--
although this wouldn't affect whether or not they could report an
apparent crime to the Police.
James Green
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:07:55 , Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
>which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
>
>We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which happens
>to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
>world - but is illegal in the UK
>
>As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws to
>protect the British people from seeing something as horrific in print as
>sex and you're not allowed to show any kind of penetration, etc in the
>pictures or they are illegal.
*That's* how the Lover's Guide series sold so many copies - 'cause
they were illegal?! And yes, you can compare, because you are not
talking about things in context.
>
>My point - there is lots and lots of illegal stuff coming into this
>country from the USA and Europe where it's perfectly legal.
It's true that the US and Europe have different laws to us, but that
doesn't mean that dubious material doesn't get through. Look at what
the authorities are doing in the States, they're making it the
responsibility of the user/viewer to control what they want
downloaded. If you don't want to see something, don't ask for it. The
Americans do at least know that they cannot control sexual images
and/or textual descriptions, so they don't try to (unless of course it
involves minors).
>
>Surely customs officers / police will impound all the machines
>containing the illegal material - as they are legally bound to 'correct'
>any wrong doing which is brought to their attention.
Erm, so what are you saying, post a guard at every ISP and business
cache, router and server in the country scanning it's storage
facilities 24hrs a day? Theoretically, yes, the police could seize
Demon's newsservers which hold the porrn groups, but diplomacy is
needed first. Demon have got the right attitude, let the customer
sensor what they don't want.
>Can anyone please send me some info by email or in this thread as to why
>no action has been taken by the police - are they waiting for a
>complaint from the public before they are forced to act, etc, etc, etc.
Neil, ISPs are working with the authorities all over the world on this
issue, but self-regulation and customer self-sensorship is being
advertised as the way forward. Try actively banning porn in ngs in the
UK and I guarantee the amount posted from the UK will increase, just
as when the Netherlands (I think) made certain porn legal, demand
lessened, some people just seem to like things that are illegal for
the hell of it.
--
James Green
** Change nospam to cyberstorm in e-mail address before replying **
Win95 OSR1 + Service Pack 1 + DUN 1.2 (Scripted) + 16Mb RAM + 1Gb Hd Calling from 01603 465 to 0845 079.
Chris Malme
In article <882380680s...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
{R}re...@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <565792...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>
> ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk "Neil" writes:
>
> } The customs officers will confiscate and fine you for any porn you have,
> } believe me, they are interrested in collecting their fines, I know as
> } I've fallen foul of their bullshit regulations and have been arrested by
> } them for trivial matters in the past regarding porn which neither
> } consisted of children or animals, matters which wouldn't have raised an
> } eyebrow in most of Europe or the USA.
>
> So you have been fined for breaking the law, that's great. Do you have
> a criminal record now ?
Hmmm... if this is so, would the gentleman possibly have trouble entering
the US for his intended stay in NYC?
Not that any of us would think of telling the authorities, oh no.
Chris
Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister
Phil Payne <Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> came forth and spoke
thusly:
>Gary G. might have
> done nothing at all, or might merely have filmed his children in the bath
> and played with his multimedia extensions.
Bad choice of words there, methinks...
--
"Mr. Worf, scan that ship!" "Aye Captain, 300 D.P.I.?"
http://www.bryanmac.demon.co.uk/colen for my Warhammer Page
----co...@whitten.demon.co.uk for e-mail, if you please----
[[[AFPurity Rating 14%]]] Wargames and Terry Pratchett Fan
Newsmaster
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 at 14:40:19 in article <xgfUjCAT...@b0dders.dem
on.co.uk>, Andy Bodkin <and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> wrote
>I apologise for misleading everyone else, perhaps there's a lawyer
>reading who can give the actual legal position,
>
:-)
--
John Dexter
Note: Emails directed to Newsmaster at our account will normally be deleted
unread. If you want us to read something, please use one of our real ids.
Chris Lawrence
Re:<34a137f7...@news.demon.co.uk>
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>There's a nice little utility called secdev - secure drive. It provides
>an encrypted pseudo drive for your private data. Don't forget PCs are
>sometimes stolen.
I use the excellent SFS - Secure File System. This guy knows his
crypto.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/sfs.html
--
Chris Lawrence, Liverpool, UK - http://www.spacetime.demon.co.uk/
WARNING - you must replace 'news' with 'cml' to reply by email
Newsmaster
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 at 19:24:20 in article <qATOjNAk...@whitten.dem
on.co.uk>, Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister <co...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote
>Phil Payne <Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> came forth and spoke
>thusly:
>>Gary G. might have
>> done nothing at all, or might merely have filmed his children in the bath
>> and played with his multimedia extensions.
>
>Bad choice of words there, methinks...
>
Neil
Hi,
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> >One wonders just what else we put at risk when the PC goes into
repair?
> >Quite a bit of personal & financial data from everyone who uses this
> >thing for instance...
>
> There's a nice little utility called secdev - secure drive. It
provides
> an encrypted pseudo drive for your private data. Don't forget PCs are
> sometimes stolen.
The secure drive systems that I've looked at don't work properly with
windows 95.
What I would like to see is a secure filesystem program which works like
the drivespace utility works in windows except it should use 4096 bit
PGP style cryptography.
I regulary use the new windows version of PGP to keep my
archived 'private' zip files from prying eyes - I zip it all up into an
80 or 90 mb zip file then PGP it using a pass phrase at least seven or
eight words long.
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
mins...@filklore.demon.co.uk (Chris Malme) writes:
> Hmmm... if this is so, would the gentleman possibly have trouble
entering
> the US for his intended stay in NYC?
>
> Not that any of us would think of telling the authorities, oh no.
Possibly - if I had a criminal record - but I don't you moron.
>
> Chris
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
Loe van Haarlem <l...@spam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> Would it be correct to call you "The criminal Mc-a-lice" ?
> >
> >No, not at all, they said I could pay a fine or go to court, I just
paid
> >the fine.
> Interesting. and you think that isnt written down anywhere do you ?
Doesn't matter - it's not a criminal record - this was made very clear
to me by the customs 'weazel' in question.
I couldn't give a crap what they have written down about me.
> >>
>
> --
> Loe van Haarlem
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
ne...@chal.demon.co.uk (Ashley Hinton) writes:
> It's simple really, if you have a problem with the laws here regarding
> pornographic material and seem to know what the laws are in other
> countires (which you seem to visit for that reason, from what I gather
> through reading this thread) and *prefer* the laws in other
> countries....
>
> ... move to another country.
You're right - and I'm considering doing this right now.
>
> --
> _/_/ Ashley -= Ashley Hinton, Oxfordshire, UK =-
> _/_/ <ash...@chal.demon.co.uk> <http://www.chal.demon.co.uk>
> _/_/ ICQ (UIN) <4650058> -=- IRC <AshBunny>
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
hi,
Tom <t...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Do you realise that Neil McAliece is an anagram of "ice me in cell"?
very strange
>
>
> --
> Tom
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Peter McDermott
In article <OQuHdPAQ...@ynystawe.demon.co.uk>,
Phil Jones <p...@ynystawe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>If it is wrong you obviously are in possesion of some correct
>>facts to know they are wrong. Please share these.
>
>
>You snipped my main point. I'll repeat what I said to Mr Bodkin, who
>claims to have friends and colleagues amongst the "weasels": "...if you
>really know the way the "weasels" work, please stop describing it in
>detail for this bloke's benefit." I think that adds something to the
>discussion.
No it doesn't. It seeks to *close down* discussion.
>But if you must have more, in my view Mr Bodkin does not distinguish
>properly between importation, which is the concern of Customs, and other
>offences. A few points:
>
>1. "Pornography" is not a concept recognised by C&E. The offence with
>which they are concerned is the importation of items which are "indecent
>or obscene", contrary to a prohibition under the Customs Consolidation
>Act 1886 [yes, eighteen eighty-six] IIRC.
>
>2. What was regarded as "indecent or obscene" in 1886 might have been
>different from today but, if I knew, I wouldn't tell Mr McA where the
>line is drawn. Such a law provides quite nicely for changing values and
>has stood the test of time.
While the original poster might not have used the correct terminology
or cited the precise laws involved, it seems to me that this was
precisely the point he was making.
McAliece is a fuckwit because of his spamming. As far as his
role as a pornographer is concerned, good luck to the man. I'm
quite happy for him to sell as much porn as he likes to the sort
of sad old wankers who are stupid enough to fork out for that
sort of thing. I see no reason at all to deny him or anyone
else accurate information about the way that customs and excise
work.
Neil
Hi,
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
> McAliece is a fuckwit because of his spamming. As far as his
> role as a pornographer is concerned, good luck to the man. I'm
> quite happy for him to sell as much porn as he likes to the sort
> of sad old wankers who are stupid enough to fork out for that
> sort of thing. I see no reason at all to deny him or anyone
> else accurate information about the way that customs and excise
> work.
You might note that I haven't posted a single picture to the groups in
question for several months now.
But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
with whatever ISP I want to.
--
Neil McAliece
Dave Williams
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: You might note that I haven't posted a single picture to the groups in
: But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
: with whatever ISP I want to.
Within the terms and conditions of use of whatever ISP that is, I hope.
D.
Jon Browne
In article <882380...@isham-research.demon.co.uk>, Phil Payne
<Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> writes
>a) Mr Glitter is _very_ _definitely_ an innocent party unless and until
> convicted by a court, and anyone even implying anything else is laying
> themselves open to legal action.
Mr. Gadd had videos confiscated from his boat and flat. It wasn't just
the contents of his hard drive. But as you say, innocent until proven.
>
>b) It is not the function of PC World or the police to determine if anything
> is illegal. PC World probably, like many chemists, tries to err on the
> side of caution - remember the Sommerville incident? Gary G. might have
> done nothing at all, or might merely have filmed his children in the bath
> and played with his multimedia extensions. Perhaps this will end the same
> way as the Sommerville affair.
We shall see.
--
Jon Browne
Do you wanna be in his gang? Thought not.
Phil Payne
In article <kfqWvLAI...@comics.demon.co.uk>
j...@comics.demon.co.uk "Jon Browne" writes:
> >a) Mr Glitter is _very_ _definitely_ an innocent party unless and until
> > convicted by a court, and anyone even implying anything else is laying
> > themselves open to legal action.
>
> Mr. Gadd had videos confiscated from his boat and flat. It wasn't just
> the contents of his hard drive. But as you say, innocent until proven.
If someone comes under suspicion, _EVERY_ video they possess will be taken.
Of course his homes will be searched. The search team can hardly be expected
to sit through every single video he possessed - he's a pop star, for freak's
sake, and probably has hundreds if not thousands of videos. Some poor sad sod
is probably sat in a dark room in one of the forensic labs going through the
lot.
Neil Barker
In article: <266964...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> Neil
>
> Hi,
>
> ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
>
> > McAliece is a fuckwit because of his spamming. As far as his
> > role as a pornographer is concerned, good luck to the man. I'm
> > quite happy for him to sell as much porn as he likes to the sort
> > of sad old wankers who are stupid enough to fork out for that
> > sort of thing. I see no reason at all to deny him or anyone
> > else accurate information about the way that customs and excise
> > work.
>
> question for several months now.
Hmmmm. I wonder why that might be then....
--
Neil Barker.
Paul Copsey
In <zQ2U$EA0S+...@b0dders.demon.co.uk>,
Andy Bodkin <and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Alternatively, it could be as someone else suggested when they mentioned
> more viruses are picked up when machines are in repair and that these
> were added to his computer while there, thus Mr. Glitter is possibly an
> innocent party.
Weren't there a few video tapes of a similar nature retrieved from his
homes?
Paul
Paul L. Allen
In article <kfqWvLAI...@comics.demon.co.uk>
Jon Browne <j...@comics.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <882380...@isham-research.demon.co.uk>, Phil Payne
> <Ph...@isham-research.demon.co.uk> writes
> >a) Mr Glitter is _very_ _definitely_ an innocent party unless and until
> > convicted by a court, and anyone even implying anything else is laying
> > themselves open to legal action.
>
> Mr. Gadd had videos confiscated from his boat and flat. It wasn't just
> the contents of his hard drive. But as you say, innocent until proven.
Or, as others said (since this happened on the Thursday and he was due
to appear on a certain TV charity show the next day): Gary Glitter pulls
out of Children in Need.
When I take another look at some of his lyrics, in the light of the
accusations against him, many of them take on a different meaning. If the
case against him is proven, I doubt it will have been a recent abberation.
None of which has anything to do with demon.service.
--Paul
Ian Stirling
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Hi,
: mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
:> >One wonders just what else we put at risk when the PC goes into
: repair?
:> >Quite a bit of personal & financial data from everyone who uses this
:> >thing for instance...
:>
:> There's a nice little utility called secdev - secure drive. It
: provides
:> an encrypted pseudo drive for your private data. Don't forget PCs are
:> sometimes stolen.
: The secure drive systems that I've looked at don't work properly with
: windows 95.
Look at SFS.
It needs a little fiddling to get windows to understand that it will
work in "32 bit" mode whatever that means, do dejanews.
--
Ian Stirling. Designing a linux PDA, see http://www.mauve.demon.co.uk/
----- ******* If replying by email, check notices in header ******* -----
Money is a powerful aphrodisiac, but flowers work almost as well.
Robert A Heinlein.
Malcolm McMahon
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:33:02 , Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>
>> >One wonders just what else we put at risk when the PC goes into
>repair?
>> >Quite a bit of personal & financial data from everyone who uses this
>> >thing for instance...
>>
>> There's a nice little utility called secdev - secure drive. It
>provides
>> an encrypted pseudo drive for your private data. Don't forget PCs are
>> sometimes stolen.
>
>
>The secure drive systems that I've looked at don't work properly with
>windows 95.
>
It works for me. Windows 95 complains about it in the system performance
window and it's probably not as fast as it might be but I've never had
any trouble with it.
Mike Pellatt
>
>> ... move to another country.
>
>You're right - and I'm considering doing this right now.
I suggest Singapore.
--
Mike Pellatt
Mike Pellatt
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:06:15 +0000, Pedt Scragg
<postm...@pedt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <QqkClBAf...@tgmead.demon.co.uk>, Tom
><t...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Do you realise that Neil McAliece is an anagram of "ice me in cell"?
>>
>>
>
>I menace celli
>enamel icicle
>nice male lice
I reckon the last. Pubic lice, of course.
--
Mike Pellatt
Andrew Martin
Neil (ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Hi,
: I've noticed a large amount of illegal porn in the usenet newsgroups
: which are carried by nearly ALL ISPs in the UK.
: We're not talking about child porn here, just regular porn which happens
: to be perfectly legal in the USA and the rest of the civilised
: world - but is illegal in the UK
As I understand the law, only child and animal(?) porn are specifically
illegal in the UK. Other things which are illegal are those which
are 'deemed to deprave and corrupt'. Persuading a jury of this is on
a per-image basis and is increasingly difficult to do. None of these
other pictures is illegal to possess, only to publish (although publish
is equally poorly defined so it can mean just to show to another party).
Customs laws are totally different and importation is a completely
different area of law.
: As many of you will be aware here in the UK we have very strict laws to
: protect the British people from seeing something as horrific in print as
: sex and you're not allowed to show any kind of penetration, etc in the
: pictures or they are illegal.
This is simply not the case. It is very very easy to buy hard core
pornography by post or in many shops throughout London (apparently...).
These shops simply don't get any bother from the police any more
since they cannot guarantee a conviction. Just walking down Tottenham
Court Road there are at least 4 shops within 2 or 3 minutes walk
from TCR police station... The only trouble the shops have now is
with the council who prosecute them for being unlicensed sex shops.
Andrew
Anthony R. Gold
In article <dXMRm...@sktb.demon.co.uk>
p...@sktb.demon.co.uk "Paul L. Allen" writes:
> When I take another look at some of his lyrics, in the light of the
> accusations against him, many of them take on a different meaning. If the
> case against him is proven, I doubt it will have been a recent abberation.
What case? There has never been a charge laid against Mr. Gadd, and
these "accusations" that make you reconsider his lyrics were spewed
by a tabloid. At least it was a broadsheet that set upon Clive :-)
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <266964...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
>with whatever ISP I want to.
Once.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email:
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | <cl...@demon.net> |
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Loe van Haarlem
In article <765290...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
--
Loe van Haarlem
Loe van Haarlem
In article <620541...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
--
Loe van Haarlem
Loe van Haarlem
In article <slrn69j0j...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
<mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> writes
--
Loe van Haarlem
Ashley Hinton
Loe van Haarlem <l...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>> ... move to another country.
> >>You're right - and I'm considering doing this right now.
> >I suggest Singapore.
> May I be helpful and suggest Iran ?
You bugger, I was going to suggest that one :-)
Neil
Hi,
"Clive D.W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:
> <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
> >But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
> >with whatever ISP I want to.
>
> Once.
There are so many of them these days.
--
Neil McAliece
Neil
Hi,
Loe van Haarlem <l...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Possibly - if I had a criminal record - but I don't you moron.
> And you think that matters do you ?
It does, in fact if you have a single conviction you are allowed into
the USA, unless it's severe like a felony - that's the way I understand
it.
Would you believe they actually ask you if you were in the nazi party
during the war on the same form... I suppose they've got a list.
>
> --
> Loe van Haarlem
>
>
--
Neil McAliece
Mark Lowes
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:28:22 , Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>"Clive D.W. Feather" <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
>> >with whatever ISP I want to.
>>
>> Once.
>
>There are so many of them these days.
You are Ron Chew and I claim my five pounds.
Mark
--
Mark Lowes <ham...@lspace.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
Work : ma...@ftech.net http://www.ftech.net/
Play : ham...@wibble.org http://www.wibble.org/
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis
Malcolm McMahon
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:30:01 , Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Loe van Haarlem <l...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> >Possibly - if I had a criminal record - but I don't you moron.
>> And you think that matters do you ?
>
>It does, in fact if you have a single conviction you are allowed into
>the USA, unless it's severe like a felony - that's the way I understand
>it.
>
That's probably the question on the imigration form about "Moral
Turptitude"
M Wright
In article <349ec742....@news.ftech.net>, Mark Lowes
<ham...@bofh.org.uk> writes
>>You are Ron Chew and I claim my five pounds.
>
> Mark
>
--
M Wright
Loe van Haarlem
In article <141908...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>, Neil
<ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Would you believe they actually ask you if you were in the nazi party
>during the war on the same form... I suppose they've got a list.
--
Loe van Haarlem
Peter McDermott
In article <266964...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>,
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
>
>> McAliece is a fuckwit because of his spamming. As far as his
>> role as a pornographer is concerned, good luck to the man. I'm
>> quite happy for him to sell as much porn as he likes to the sort
>> of sad old wankers who are stupid enough to fork out for that
>> sort of thing. I see no reason at all to deny him or anyone
>> else accurate information about the way that customs and excise
>> work.
>
>You might note that I haven't posted a single picture to the groups in
>question for several months now.
That wouldn't be because you got a 'final warning' the last time
you spammed usenet, by any chance?
>But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
>with whatever ISP I want to.
I reserve the right to shit on the floor wherever I please --
but if I don't actually ever do it, I'm really just posturing,
aren't I?
Peter McDermott
In article <130061...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>,
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
>> >with whatever ISP I want to.
>>
>> Once.
>
>There are so many of them these days.
And the sooner you take your business to another, the
happier we'll *all* be...
Paul L. Allen
In article <OOhmXbA$Brn0...@prioryv.demon.co.uk>
"Trevor (Not Trevor)" <DELETETHIS...@prioryv.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <dXMRm...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, "Paul L. Allen"
> <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> artesticulated
> >When I take another look at some of his lyrics, in the light of the
> >accusations against him, many of them take on a different meaning. If the
> >case against him is proven, I doubt it will have been a recent abberation.
>
> You're sounding suspiciously well-briefed on the lyrics of
> Mr.Glitter.... record collection hidden behind the radiator? ;-)
Ummm, more being at University at the height of his popularity (the first
time round).
--Paul
Peter McDermott
In article <dYozT...@sktb.demon.co.uk>,
"Paul L. Allen" <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You're sounding suspiciously well-briefed on the lyrics of
>> Mr.Glitter.... record collection hidden behind the radiator? ;-)
>
>Ummm, more being at University at the height of his popularity (the first
>time round).
That must have been a uniquely un-hip university :-)
Andrew Gambier
In article <OOhmXbA$Brn0...@prioryv.demon.co.uk>, "Trevor (Not Trevor)"
<DELETETHIS...@prioryv.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <dXMRm...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, "Paul L. Allen"
><p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> artesticulated
>>When I take another look at some of his lyrics, in the light of the
>>accusations against him, many of them take on a different meaning. If the
>>case against him is proven, I doubt it will have been a recent abberation.
>
>Mr.Glitter.... record collection hidden behind the radiator? ;-)
nah.... then it would be warped wouldn't it? :-)
--
andrew mailto:and...@gambier.demon.co.uk
Il n'y a aucune solitude plus grande qu'un samourai à moins
que peut-être celui d'un tigre dans la jungle
Peter McDermott
In article <EGUG2EA5...@gambier.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Gambier <and...@gambier.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>You're sounding suspiciously well-briefed on the lyrics of
>>Mr.Glitter.... record collection hidden behind the radiator? ;-)
>
>nah.... then it would be warped wouldn't it? :-)
A bit like the overweight, overaged pop singer himself perhaps? :-)
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
In article <155453...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>
ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk "Neil" writes:
> No it wasn't, I have never got a warning for spamming as it's not spam
> when you post hundreds of DIFFERENT pictures - DIFFERENT being the word
> here.
Bollocks [tm]! You know damned well that all those pictures are
"substantively identical", since their *substance* is to advertise your
web site(s). As such, they are cancellable spam (and I believe you've
been cancelled). We can't expect Demon to break a customer confidence
and confirm that you've also been warned by them, but it would not
surprise me that you are lying.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"The fundamental design flaws [of the products of the Micros^WSirius
Cybernetics Corporation] are completely hidden by their superficial
design flaws." SLATFATF 1983 --- wasn't Douglas Adams prescient?:-)
Spark
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
> In article <155453...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>
> ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk "Neil" writes:
>
> > No it wasn't, I have never got a warning for spamming as it's not spam
> > when you post hundreds of DIFFERENT pictures - DIFFERENT being the word
> > here.
>
> Bollocks [tm]! You know damned well that all those pictures are
> "substantively identical", since their *substance* is to advertise your
> web site(s). As such, they are cancellable spam (and I believe you've
> been cancelled).
[snippers]
1) "Substantively identical" isn't some URL or message imprinted on an
image, else anyone who uses a .sig file would be ripe for cancellation.
2) Were they (these images) in a binary group or not? Any binaries
caught in a text-only group are legit targets for cancellation. If they
were safely tucked into a binary group, do know that some newsgroup
charters differ, and binaries found to be adverts are in some binary
groups cancelled outright, depending on the group (alt.binaries.nospam.*
is an example of this.) anything x-posted above BI 20 is also dead meat.
--
-http://www.wilhelp.com/spark/index.html
"After reading your posts, I am convinced that you would
shoot someone on the slightest provocation - imagined or real."
-Jennifer Williams in <65qf63$q...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>
Peter McDermott
In article <155453...@njmcov.demon.co.uk>,
Neil <ne...@njmcov.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> That wouldn't be because you got a 'final warning' the last time
>> you spammed usenet, by any chance?
>
>No it wasn't, I have never got a warning for spamming as it's not spam
>when you post hundreds of DIFFERENT pictures - DIFFERENT being the word
>here.
Ah, so you *didn't* get a final warning for abusing Usenet then?
That *is* a surprise.
>> >But I reserve the right to do what the hell I like whenever I want to
>> >with whatever ISP I want to.
>>
>> I reserve the right to shit on the floor wherever I please --
>> but if I don't actually ever do it, I'm really just posturing,
>> aren't I?
>
>Yesm but it wouldn't surprise me if your type do shit on the floor
>whilst inside.
While your type will always be there to record the act and
spam it all over Usenet, right?