Taliban policing usenet?
AlanG
Justin Credible
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:ms7bt51aqm5pbvbtm...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/obscene_publications_chat/
If it sees Corley meet a nasty end for his years of making Usenet sometimes
unusable, I'm up for it.
AlanG
Except you may well find it is you who gets shlurped.
The problem I'm pointing at is this
"During consultations on the extreme porn law (pdf), a number of
police forces argued that the provisions proposed by government be
made more strict. One police force in particular stood out, arguing
that the new law should apply not simply to images, but to written
material as well.
A Detective Sergeant wrote at the time (p.297): "There remains a
legislative gap in terms of written fantasy material specifically
about child rape and murder, which is now commonplace. The legislation
should include the possession of written or printed material of this
nature as it is equally as disturbing as the images and equally
contributes to an offender’s motivation and fantasy behaviour."
The force in question was none other than Kent. ®"
Now why should the police have any input on legislation other than in
regard to the difficulty they would have in enforcing a particular
law? This is plod making law and it should not be permitted
Justin Credible
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:m9mbt51tuejch7t1a...@4ax.com...
>
> Except you may well find it is you who gets shlurped.
>
But when I become deranged and start spamming several thousand newsgroups,
using deliberately cunning deceptive email addresses and message headers to
fool the filters, I wouldn't care if I get "shlurped".
But it's irrelevant; Corley is a Govt plant to monitor Usenet activity to
his "condition".
Spot the (deliberate) irony :-)
smurf
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/obscene_publications_chat/
What is shocking is the calculating nature of their first move. They
establish precedent by picking on the most unsympathetic of characters.
Who would want to defend it?
Big Les Wade
Yes, that's an important observation.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of
one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that
oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the
beginning if it is to be stopped at all' (H.L. Mencken)
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
AlanG
<matt....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Already replied to this but it seems to have gone missing..
Corley is easily avoided by anyone who bothers to set filters on a
newsreader. The only time he appears is when some dork replies to him.
And this is the worrying bit.
"During consultations on the extreme porn law (pdf), a number of
police forces argued that the provisions proposed by government be
made more strict. One police force in particular stood out, arguing
that the new law should apply not simply to images, but to written
material as well.
A Detective Sergeant wrote at the time (p.297): "There remains a
legislative gap in terms of written fantasy material specifically
about child rape and murder, which is now commonplace. The legislation
should include the possession of written or printed material of this
nature as it is equally as disturbing as the images and equally
contributes to an offender’s motivation and fantasy behaviour."
The force in question was none other than Kent. ®"
What the hell are the police doing having any input on lawmaking other
than how it can be enforced?