Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Internet access is a right, judges rule
32 views
Skip to first unread message
MM
Nov 13, 2012, 12:29:58 PM11/13/12
to
"Michael Jackson was convicted of using a secret camera to film a
14-year-old girl in the shower and banned from accessing the internet.
"But in a ruling that effectively renders access to the internet as a
human right, Appeal Court judges ruled it is 'unreasonable nowadays to
ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home'.
"Jackson, 55, of Kent, doctored a shampoo bottle and hid his mobile
phone inside it in order to take a surreptitious video of the girl as
she showered.
"He was arrested after the suspicious youngster spotted a flashing
light in the bottle and investigating police found hundreds of sex
images, featuring animals and children as young as four, stored on
Jackson's computer.
"Jackson was sentenced to a community order with three years
supervision at Woolwich Crown Court in June this year.
"He was also hit with a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO),
banning him from owning a computer, using a camera in public, coming
into contact with children at work and allowing the police to raid his
home at any time.
"Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, sitting at London's
Criminal Appeal Court, overturned the strict SOPO, replacing it with
an order that he simply make his internet history available for
viewing by the police.
"The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
"His lawyers argued that the SOPO imposed by the Crown Court judge -
which he said should last until the day Jackson died - was unnecessary
and disproportionate.
"Mr Justice Collins told the court: 'The judge imposing the SOPO said,
'I anticipate that you will die subject to this order - that is my
wish anyway.' They were not appropriate remarks to have made.'
"Also criticising the 'lurid language' used by the judge, he concluded
that the SOPO imposed on Jackson was 'entirely excessive'.
"'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
about this yet.
MM
14-year-old girl in the shower and banned from accessing the internet.
"But in a ruling that effectively renders access to the internet as a
human right, Appeal Court judges ruled it is 'unreasonable nowadays to
ban anyone from accessing the internet in their home'.
"Jackson, 55, of Kent, doctored a shampoo bottle and hid his mobile
phone inside it in order to take a surreptitious video of the girl as
she showered.
"He was arrested after the suspicious youngster spotted a flashing
light in the bottle and investigating police found hundreds of sex
images, featuring animals and children as young as four, stored on
Jackson's computer.
"Jackson was sentenced to a community order with three years
supervision at Woolwich Crown Court in June this year.
"He was also hit with a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO),
banning him from owning a computer, using a camera in public, coming
into contact with children at work and allowing the police to raid his
home at any time.
"Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC, sitting at London's
Criminal Appeal Court, overturned the strict SOPO, replacing it with
an order that he simply make his internet history available for
viewing by the police.
"The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
"His lawyers argued that the SOPO imposed by the Crown Court judge -
which he said should last until the day Jackson died - was unnecessary
and disproportionate.
"Mr Justice Collins told the court: 'The judge imposing the SOPO said,
'I anticipate that you will die subject to this order - that is my
wish anyway.' They were not appropriate remarks to have made.'
"Also criticising the 'lurid language' used by the judge, he concluded
that the SOPO imposed on Jackson was 'entirely excessive'.
"'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
about this yet.
MM
Yellow
Nov 13, 2012, 12:56:16 PM11/13/12
to
In article <2k05a8lfgkb9fs5ks...@4ax.com>,
kyli...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> "'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
> the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
>
> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
> last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
> about this yet.
>
You disagree with this?
As a general principle, of course it is unreasonable as many people now
run both their home and work life via the internet so as a precedent
this is brilliant news.
There are lots of people out there who see the removal of internet
access as fair and reasonable punishment for trivial infringements and
making access a "human right" nips the whole bally institution in the
bud.
kyli...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> "'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
> the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
>
> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
> last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
> about this yet.
>
As a general principle, of course it is unreasonable as many people now
run both their home and work life via the internet so as a precedent
this is brilliant news.
There are lots of people out there who see the removal of internet
access as fair and reasonable punishment for trivial infringements and
making access a "human right" nips the whole bally institution in the
bud.
MM
Nov 13, 2012, 3:11:23 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:56:16 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>In article <2k05a8lfgkb9fs5ks...@4ax.com>,
>kyli...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>> "'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
>> the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
>>
>> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
>> last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
>> about this yet.
>>
>
>You disagree with this?
Where did you get that? Of course not!
>In article <2k05a8lfgkb9fs5ks...@4ax.com>,
>kyli...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>> "'Nowadays it is entirely unreasonable to ban anybody from accessing
>> the internet in their home,' the appeal judge concluded."
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9674906/Internet-access-is-a-right-judges-rule.html
>>
>> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at
>> last? Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard
>> about this yet.
>>
>
>You disagree with this?
MM
Yellow
Nov 13, 2012, 3:57:29 PM11/13/12
to
Steve Firth
Nov 13, 2012, 4:35:14 PM11/13/12
to
MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
There's many a brainless perv been caught as a consequence of a light
> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
flashing when they didn't expect it. The most ludicrous ones are caught in
shopping centres.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Ophelia
Nov 13, 2012, 4:48:03 PM11/13/12
to
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:577411995374534694.034529%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 13, 2012, 4:58:27 PM11/13/12
to
WM
totallyconfused
Nov 13, 2012, 5:04:34 PM11/13/12
to
On Nov 13, 9:48 pm, "Ophelia" <Ophe...@elsinore.me.ku> wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:577411995374534694.034529%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyBe9Abf_Y
TC
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:577411995374534694.034529%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> >> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> >> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
>
> > There's many a brainless perv been caught as a consequence of a light
> > flashing when they didn't expect it. The most ludicrous ones are caught in
> > shopping centres.
>
> I had heard something about that ...
> --
> --
>
> http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
Gee, all I thought was this:
> > MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> >> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> >> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
>
> > There's many a brainless perv been caught as a consequence of a light
> > flashing when they didn't expect it. The most ludicrous ones are caught in
> > shopping centres.
>
> I had heard something about that ...
> --
> --
>
> http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyBe9Abf_Y
TC
Jacob Von Hogflume
Nov 13, 2012, 5:05:51 PM11/13/12
to
it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 13, 2012, 5:15:13 PM11/13/12
to
On 13/11/2012 22:05, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>>
>>> There's many a brainless perv been caught as a consequence of a light
>>> flashing when they didn't expect it. The most ludicrous ones are
>>> caught in
>>> shopping centres.
>>
>> arf.
>>
>> WM
>
> A PhD and the twat
Very rude.
>>>
>>> There's many a brainless perv been caught as a consequence of a light
>>> flashing when they didn't expect it. The most ludicrous ones are
>>> caught in
>>> shopping centres.
>>
>> arf.
>>
>> WM
>
> A PhD and the twat
>can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
> it? The education system has a lot to answer for
(2) I really did not give damn, whether it was or not, at the point of
compromise.
WM
Steve Firth
Nov 13, 2012, 7:11:09 PM11/13/12
to
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 13, 2012, 7:47:15 PM11/13/12
to
On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>
> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>
> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
FTR - I did not leave it, I stored it and released it when I decided to
do so.
WM
Steve Firth
Nov 13, 2012, 8:25:30 PM11/13/12
to
Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>
>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>
> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>
>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>
> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
known some extremely thick PhDs.
> FTR - I did not leave it, I stored it and released it when I decided to do so.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 13, 2012, 8:52:15 PM11/13/12
to
On 14/11/2012 01:25, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>>>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>>
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
> Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
> known some extremely thick PhDs.
Better than, the top 5% of the top 5% (depending on how one wishes to
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been using
>>>> it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>>
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
> Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
> known some extremely thick PhDs.
measure 'intelligence'), you may start your journey, here ...
How Brainy Is Your Major?
Where does your major rank on smarts?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201108/how-brainy-is-your-major
I am 'Physical Science', of course ;)
How could you possibly understand, unless you are amongst us? ;)
Well, you may (possibly), but, the point is, you have not proven so,
academically, by ratification. When you have, then you may comment, with
some validity.
I also have to say, your input, here, also indicates that may find such
a task 'challenging', but not impossible.
Am I safe to presume that you do not have a PhD?
>> FTR - I did not leave it, I stored it and released it when I decided to do so.
>
> What makes you think anyone is talking about you Wiggy? Guilty conscience?
WM
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 9:07:30 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:25:30 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
>Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
>known some extremely thick PhDs.
Which is beside the point, because whether or not a person is likely
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
>Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
>known some extremely thick PhDs.
to leave evidence of their wrongdoing has very little to do with
intelligence. The biggest factor is how much they *perceive* to be
the risk that anyone will ever look for such evidence, and the second
factor is how careful and tidy they are in general.
As a trivial example - how many people who have satnavs in their car
will bother to erase the track history after every journey in which
they might have broken the speed limit? Yet not doing so will clearly
leave incriminating evidence. Do you think that the people who do
erase their track history are likely to be more intelligent than those
who do not?
--
Cynic
Jethro_uk
Nov 14, 2012, 9:41:24 AM11/14/12
to
>
> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at last?
> Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard about this
> yet.
>
Not really sure what the point of this is. Freedom is a human right, yet
> What is happening! British justice acquiring some common sense at last?
> Gobsmacked when I read this. I wonder if Abu Qatada has heard about this
> yet.
>
can be taken away after due process. So why not internet access ?
Jethro_uk
Nov 14, 2012, 9:42:22 AM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:25:30 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been
>>>> using it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>>
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
> Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I
> have known some extremely thick PhDs.
I've known some even thicker judges ;)
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 00:11, Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>> A PhD and the twat can't even clean up a computer after he's been
>>>> using it? The education system has a lot to answer for.
>>>
>>> Many people with PhDs are thick and leave evidence on their computer.
>>
>> Not one PhD is 'thick' - by definition and outcome.
>
> Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I
> have known some extremely thick PhDs.
MM
Nov 14, 2012, 11:09:47 AM11/14/12
to
PhD.
MM
Jethro_uk
Nov 14, 2012, 11:17:58 AM11/14/12
to
average speeds. It's reasonable to assume it's got some sort of cache of
locations it's fixed as part of it's operation (to display the map) which
could be interrogated and used to form a log of where the *vehicle* has
been.
Brave New Britain
Nov 14, 2012, 12:11:44 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:41:24 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
Access was taken away, and returned, both by 'due process', as being
unreasonable in the circumstances'. The judgment didn't mention 'human
rights'.
--
Brave New Britain
wrote:
unreasonable in the circumstances'. The judgment didn't mention 'human
rights'.
--
Brave New Britain
LebesgueMeasure
Nov 15, 2012, 5:54:49 AM11/15/12
to
"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:o4Oos.323586$Tf3.1...@fx12.am4...
Er, because it is too wide ranging a punishment. Like telling someone that
they are not allowed to walk down the high street, any high street, in this
land. And also does nothing for child safety. How does preventing a
convicted child sex offender from getting the best energy tariff over the
internet improve child safety? It doesn't. It is done to appease the
unwashed chav mob that gets arounsed by such things,.
news:o4Oos.323586$Tf3.1...@fx12.am4...
they are not allowed to walk down the high street, any high street, in this
land. And also does nothing for child safety. How does preventing a
convicted child sex offender from getting the best energy tariff over the
internet improve child safety? It doesn't. It is done to appease the
unwashed chav mob that gets arounsed by such things,.
MM
Nov 15, 2012, 6:44:26 AM11/15/12
to
since it's largely the gutter press who is responsible for creating
the chav mob in the first place, just to make the wily press barons
rich.
MM
Jethro_uk
Nov 15, 2012, 7:41:29 AM11/15/12
to
every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 15, 2012, 7:45:11 AM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 12:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
> But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
> every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
> internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
A blanket ban has been deemed disproportionate (and has been, before).
> But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
> every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
> internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
WM
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 9:41:57 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:29 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
*punishment* for a crime, and should be proportional to the crime.
The deprivation of the Internet was imposed for life (which is
disproportionate), and was not in any case imposed as a method of
punishment.
--
Cynic
wrote:
unwashed chav mob that gets arounsed by such things,.
>But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
>every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
>internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
Because the amount of freedom or goods that a person is deprived of is
>But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
>every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
>internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
*punishment* for a crime, and should be proportional to the crime.
The deprivation of the Internet was imposed for life (which is
disproportionate), and was not in any case imposed as a method of
punishment.
--
Cynic
Jethro_uk
Nov 15, 2012, 10:30:21 AM11/15/12
to
punishment, then it could be mandated - possibly for life ?
Richard McKenzie
Nov 15, 2012, 11:31:37 AM11/15/12
to
>
> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
We had a client who had hooked up a camera in a shop toilet.
> "The court heard that the victim noticed a shampoo bottle with a hole
> in it and a flashing light whilst taking a shower and police were
> alerted when suspicion fell on Jackson.
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 1:12:54 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:30:21 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
>>>But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
>>>every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
>>>internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
>> Because the amount of freedom or goods that a person is deprived of is
>> *punishment* for a crime, and should be proportional to the crime. The
>> deprivation of the Internet was imposed for life (which is
>> disproportionate), and was not in any case imposed as a method of
>> punishment.
>So if the law permitted the removal of internet access as a possible
>punishment, then it could be mandated - possibly for life ?
It would be rather like prohibiting a person from reading books or
listening to music, or prohibiting a person from making use of
running water or electricity.
I suppose the imposition of *any* hardship *could* be used as a form
of punishment. If *any* punishment, no matter how mild is imposed for
life however, it should only be for extremely serious crimes.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>But as I pointed out, we deprive people of their freedom, of their goods
>>>every day. Through the courts. So why has depriving someone of their
>>>internet caused a fuss ? Unless it's *not* mandated in the law ?
>> Because the amount of freedom or goods that a person is deprived of is
>> *punishment* for a crime, and should be proportional to the crime. The
>> deprivation of the Internet was imposed for life (which is
>> disproportionate), and was not in any case imposed as a method of
>> punishment.
>So if the law permitted the removal of internet access as a possible
>punishment, then it could be mandated - possibly for life ?
listening to music, or prohibiting a person from making use of
running water or electricity.
I suppose the imposition of *any* hardship *could* be used as a form
of punishment. If *any* punishment, no matter how mild is imposed for
life however, it should only be for extremely serious crimes.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Nov 15, 2012, 1:16:47 PM11/15/12
to
boon to a voyeur.
http://www.mscspytek.com/Products.aspx?cID=8f11fd13-1188-4f15-a928-74aa7863b65d
--
Cynic
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 15, 2012, 5:10:41 PM11/15/12
to
WM
Cynic
Nov 16, 2012, 12:00:44 PM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:10:41 +0000, Nigel Oldfield
<wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose the imposition of *any* hardship *could* be used as a form
>> of punishment. If *any* punishment, no matter how mild is imposed for
>> life however, it should only be for extremely serious crimes.
>Just to remind, a SOPO is not a punishment, ***formally***
Yes, quite. Which is why the prohibitions imposed must be justified
<wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose the imposition of *any* hardship *could* be used as a form
>> of punishment. If *any* punishment, no matter how mild is imposed for
>> life however, it should only be for extremely serious crimes.
>Just to remind, a SOPO is not a punishment, ***formally***
with reference to matters *other* than punishment for wrongdoing. IOW
what must be assessed are:
1) The probability that the person will carry out a prohibited act in
future
2) The amount of harm such an act will cause and
3) The probability that the prohibition contemplated will prevent the
person carrying out the prohibited act.
Once those things have been assessed, it must then be assessed as to
the amount of hardship the prohibition will cause, and then that
amount of hardship must be balanced against the probable amount of
harm reduction to decide whether it is proportionate.
--
Cynic
Steve Firth
Nov 16, 2012, 12:10:59 PM11/16/12
to
[snip]
> > Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
> > known some extremely thick PhDs.
>
> Better than, the top 5% of the top 5% (depending on how one wishes to
> measure 'intelligence'), you may start your journey, here ...
Really no, there's no element in the PhD that is per se a test of
intelligence. It's a test of determination and luck and ability to
butter up one's supervisor. One has an advantage if one is in at least
the upper 50%ile or possibly even upper quartile of ability to stand a
reasonable chance I suppose.
But as I say I've known people obtain a PhD who would have great
difficulty passing even a simple test of intelligence such as finding
the start of a roll of Sellotape or even balancing a bank account.
> How Brainy Is Your Major?
> Where does your major rank on smarts?
I haven't got a Major, I'm not in the armed forces.
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201108/how-b
> Well, you may (possibly), but, the point is, you have not proven so,
> academically, by ratification. When you have, then you may comment, with
> some validity.
>
> I also have to say, your input, here, also indicates that may find such
> a task 'challenging', but not impossible.
>
> Am I safe to presume that you do not have a PhD?
It's never safe to presume anything. My education was in the university
of life and hard knocks. I have no formal qualifications at all to my
name. Why I am no one of consequence nor do I desire to be. This
statement void where prohibited by law.
> >> FTR - I did not leave it, I stored it and released it when I decided to
> >> do so.
> >
> > What makes you think anyone is talking about you Wiggy? Guilty conscience?
>
> Always like to assist, just in case.
Guilty conscience it is then.
> > Wrong. A PhD says nothing useful about intelligence and believe me I have
> > known some extremely thick PhDs.
>
> Better than, the top 5% of the top 5% (depending on how one wishes to
> measure 'intelligence'), you may start your journey, here ...
intelligence. It's a test of determination and luck and ability to
butter up one's supervisor. One has an advantage if one is in at least
the upper 50%ile or possibly even upper quartile of ability to stand a
reasonable chance I suppose.
But as I say I've known people obtain a PhD who would have great
difficulty passing even a simple test of intelligence such as finding
the start of a roll of Sellotape or even balancing a bank account.
> How Brainy Is Your Major?
> Where does your major rank on smarts?
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201108/how-b
> rainy-is-your-major
>
> I am 'Physical Science', of course ;)
>
> How could you possibly understand, unless you are amongst us? ;)
Believe me Wiggy, I don't want to be one of you.
>
> I am 'Physical Science', of course ;)
>
> How could you possibly understand, unless you are amongst us? ;)
> Well, you may (possibly), but, the point is, you have not proven so,
> academically, by ratification. When you have, then you may comment, with
> some validity.
>
> I also have to say, your input, here, also indicates that may find such
> a task 'challenging', but not impossible.
>
> Am I safe to presume that you do not have a PhD?
of life and hard knocks. I have no formal qualifications at all to my
name. Why I am no one of consequence nor do I desire to be. This
statement void where prohibited by law.
> >> FTR - I did not leave it, I stored it and released it when I decided to
> >> do so.
> >
> > What makes you think anyone is talking about you Wiggy? Guilty conscience?
>
> Always like to assist, just in case.
Brave New Britain
Nov 16, 2012, 6:12:40 PM11/16/12
to
reduction as they are experienced by different people (or groups).
If I lose a �50 mote and you pick it up, then, assuming we are of
equal means, there is an exact 'balance' between us and you don't have
to return it.
--
Brave New Britain
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 16, 2012, 7:46:37 PM11/16/12
to
On 16/11/2012 17:10, Steve Firth wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/2012 01:25, Steve Firth wrote:
> [snip]
All noted, TY.
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/2012 01:25, Steve Firth wrote:
> [snip]
WM
Cynic
Nov 19, 2012, 12:58:19 PM11/19/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:12:40 +0000, Brave New Britain <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>1) The probability that the person will carry out a prohibited act in
>>future
>>2) The amount of harm such an act will cause and
>>3) The probability that the prohibition contemplated will prevent the
>>person carrying out the prohibited act.
>>
>>Once those things have been assessed, it must then be assessed as to
>>the amount of hardship the prohibition will cause, and then that
>>amount of hardship must be balanced against the probable amount of
>>harm reduction to decide whether it is proportionate.
>I don't see how you can 'balance' the hardship against the harm
>reduction as they are experienced by different people (or groups).
It is difficult to do, but we must all do it to some extent. Does the
pleasure you get from a party balance the harm to your neighbour who
is kept awake? In general there must be a very significant imbalance
before it justifies any deliberate interference from the state to
correct the situation.
>If I lose a �50 mote and you pick it up, then, assuming we are of
>equal means, there is an exact 'balance' between us and you don't have
>to return it.
Not necessarily. In many cases the harm caused by losing �50 is
greater than the benefit of unexpectedly gaining �50. You will
hopefully survive quite happily without a �50 windfall, but you might
not be able to pay rent or top up your electricity meter if you were
to lose �50.
A better analogy would be if the state were to forcibly take �1
million from a billionaire and share it out between 100 poor people.
In that case the benefit to each poor person would probably be far
more than the disbenefit caused to the billionaire.
We could reduce all crime to a fraction of what it is now by imposing
a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew on everyone. It is quite obvious however
that the benefit of having less crime would be less than the
disbenefit of not being permitted out of the house after dark.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>1) The probability that the person will carry out a prohibited act in
>>future
>>2) The amount of harm such an act will cause and
>>3) The probability that the prohibition contemplated will prevent the
>>person carrying out the prohibited act.
>>
>>Once those things have been assessed, it must then be assessed as to
>>the amount of hardship the prohibition will cause, and then that
>>amount of hardship must be balanced against the probable amount of
>>harm reduction to decide whether it is proportionate.
>I don't see how you can 'balance' the hardship against the harm
>reduction as they are experienced by different people (or groups).
pleasure you get from a party balance the harm to your neighbour who
is kept awake? In general there must be a very significant imbalance
before it justifies any deliberate interference from the state to
correct the situation.
>If I lose a �50 mote and you pick it up, then, assuming we are of
>equal means, there is an exact 'balance' between us and you don't have
>to return it.
greater than the benefit of unexpectedly gaining �50. You will
hopefully survive quite happily without a �50 windfall, but you might
not be able to pay rent or top up your electricity meter if you were
to lose �50.
A better analogy would be if the state were to forcibly take �1
million from a billionaire and share it out between 100 poor people.
In that case the benefit to each poor person would probably be far
more than the disbenefit caused to the billionaire.
We could reduce all crime to a fraction of what it is now by imposing
a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew on everyone. It is quite obvious however
that the benefit of having less crime would be less than the
disbenefit of not being permitted out of the house after dark.
--
Cynic
Brave New Britain
Nov 19, 2012, 5:42:52 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:58:19 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:12:40 +0000, Brave New Britain <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>1) The probability that the person will carry out a prohibited act in
>>>future
>>>2) The amount of harm such an act will cause and
>>>3) The probability that the prohibition contemplated will prevent the
>>>person carrying out the prohibited act.
>>>
>>>Once those things have been assessed, it must then be assessed as to
>>>the amount of hardship the prohibition will cause, and then that
>>>amount of hardship must be balanced against the probable amount of
>>>harm reduction to decide whether it is proportionate.
>
>>I don't see how you can 'balance' the hardship against the harm
>>reduction as they are experienced by different people (or groups).
>
>It is difficult to do, but we must all do it to some extent. Does the
>pleasure you get from a party balance the harm to your neighbour who
>is kept awake?
What you're really balancing there is your pleasure against your
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:12:40 +0000, Brave New Britain <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>1) The probability that the person will carry out a prohibited act in
>>>future
>>>2) The amount of harm such an act will cause and
>>>3) The probability that the prohibition contemplated will prevent the
>>>person carrying out the prohibited act.
>>>
>>>Once those things have been assessed, it must then be assessed as to
>>>the amount of hardship the prohibition will cause, and then that
>>>amount of hardship must be balanced against the probable amount of
>>>harm reduction to decide whether it is proportionate.
>
>>I don't see how you can 'balance' the hardship against the harm
>>reduction as they are experienced by different people (or groups).
>
>It is difficult to do, but we must all do it to some extent. Does the
>pleasure you get from a party balance the harm to your neighbour who
>is kept awake?
empathetic appreciation of your neighbour's displeasure - which could
be a lot or a little depending on what you think of him. Or your fear
of arousing your neighbour's anger - depending on how much you fear
him. You may even be misinterpreting your neighbour's likely
experience - he might *enjoy* your music.
> In general there must be a very significant imbalance
>before it justifies any deliberate interference from the state to
>correct the situation.
are generally perceived. If what you want to do is regarded as 'bad',
such as smoking, drinking or buying sex, much less weight is likely to
be given to any benefits these activities give to the individual as
opposed to things regarded as 'good', such as sports and exercise.
[...]
>We could reduce all crime to a fraction of what it is now by imposing
>a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew on everyone. It is quite obvious however
>that the benefit of having less crime would be less than the
>disbenefit of not being permitted out of the house after dark.
concentrating on all the bad or trivial things people get up to when
they go out. Much safer for the plebeians to be tucked up in front of
the telly where the authorities know where they are.
--
Brave New Britain
Cynic
Nov 20, 2012, 12:52:46 PM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:42:52 +0000, Brave New Britain <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>We could reduce all crime to a fraction of what it is now by imposing
>>a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew on everyone. It is quite obvious however
>>that the benefit of having less crime would be less than the
>>disbenefit of not being permitted out of the house after dark.
>
>I wouldn't be very difficult to introduce such a curfew selectively by
>concentrating on all the bad or trivial things people get up to when
>they go out. Much safer for the plebeians to be tucked up in front of
>the telly where the authorities know where they are.
Such is the thinking of a police state. The UK state does indeed
impose curfews in some areas - so far applying them only to
unaccompanied children. Which is a step *much* too far IMO.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>We could reduce all crime to a fraction of what it is now by imposing
>>a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew on everyone. It is quite obvious however
>>that the benefit of having less crime would be less than the
>>disbenefit of not being permitted out of the house after dark.
>
>I wouldn't be very difficult to introduce such a curfew selectively by
>concentrating on all the bad or trivial things people get up to when
>they go out. Much safer for the plebeians to be tucked up in front of
>the telly where the authorities know where they are.
impose curfews in some areas - so far applying them only to
unaccompanied children. Which is a step *much* too far IMO.
--
Cynic
0 new messages