Original URL: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/27/comments/
Scientologist ASBOed for being over 36
And Vista begs you to understand
Comments A man dubbed "Leeds’s dumbest criminal" has been served with an ASBO forbidding him from posting videos of criminal activity on the internet. Andrew Kellett, 23, had been in the habit of showing off his exploits on YouTube, which made some of you wonder why he hadn't been convicted of the acts he seemed so proud of, and why he'd been effectively barred from providing evidence against himself.
Is this really the best way to deal with criminals? prevent them from giving you evidence so you don't have to investigate their crimes.
Do we have a bunch of Fred Colons and Nobby Nobbies running that police force? do they stand on street corners making sure not to see anything too alarming?
What ever happened to Free Speech? He has a right to post anything unless it is illegal surely? If he wants to give the Dibble all the info they need to get an easy arrest then that's his own stupidity but I am personally going to fund a campaign to get this overturned and have him declared a National hero with the keys to the City of Leeds and stuff.
Free speech? As far as I can tell, it's been abolished in the UK to the extent that it ever existed (ie, the government suffers the population to have it despite there being no particular legal reason for it to exist). Despite that it still kind of amazes me that you guys seem to tolerate your government having the power to arbitrarily apply any punishment to any situation. You're posting videos we don't like? You now have an ASBO to... let's see... move to London and wear pink hats on Tuesday! Right, then...
Civitas surveyed prisoners and found that the average is about 140 crimes per year - with druggies committing over 250. At that rate, it does seem likely if you've already committed a load of offences and didn't get caught, then one more won't materially affect their chances of getting nicked. So yes, it does seem like baddies can commit crimes with impunity. Likewise, I'd be surprised if the penalty for committing 140 crimes is going to be much different from committing 139, so once you''ve started down that path, where's the incentive to stop?
So this guy with his 80 offences on video - at the going rate he's somewhere between 1/3rd and halfway towards getting his collar felt. Quite a way to go before he even reaches the average for getting caught. No wonder he's not worried.
You can almost hear the plod discussing this.
Inspector - "Sargent, this youf has posted 80 videos of him taking part in illegal acts, and we haven't stopped him or caught him. He's making us look like fools"
Sargent - "Surely we're doing that ourselves sir."
Insp - "Well yes, but he is making it worst. We've got to stop him, there's nothing else we can do."
Sgt - "Certainly sir, we'll stop him posting those videos immediately."
Insp - "Good show Sargent. That'll be much easier that catching him actually doing anything illegal. Anyway it's not like he's copying MP3's or anything _really_ serious, eh?"
City of London police issued a court summons to a teenager for brandishing a sign calling the Church of Scientology a cult. The Crown Prosecution Service later decided not to prosecute, but outrage at the sign-taking is unabated:
For the student: little worries, it will take time but this will be thrown out of court and a justice will speak sternly of the police while apologizing to the student. [FFS, it's the plods that should apologize, not the justice dept.]
For next time, maybe spread the message over several independent signs --- "Scientology" "is a fuckin" "g cult" comes to mind --- and thus escape. This not only helps evade, but also increases sign-size a lot.
You could even prepare several statements, but planning ahead and training (and having a few different extra signs in reserve). Extra cunningly, train in a few silly or ungrammatical nonstatements, to claim any message is "accidental, and probably caused by a god displeased with the cult of xenu".
For those with time on their hands, go look stressed at the scientologists' little desk, that appear about every saturday just north of the square mile [Islington Angel: 100yards from the tube, opposite side, just before the split of Upper Street and .. eh, is it Essex Street?]. They are always sitting there with their "are you stressed" free test, and dianetics books (but no interdimensional aliens, natch -- that might convince me).
Marvin the Martian
where's Boris when you need him? I'm sure he would side with the protester and stand up for his right to free speech (as long as he wasn't a scouser)
Yet another example of how section 5 of the public order act gives the poilce arbitary power to restrict expression. When will the country wake up and force parliment to revoke this oppressive law?
What's wrong with "cult"?
1.formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
Sounds perfectly good. Christianity is a "cult". Maybe the cops should learn the use of proper english? Or the protesters should.
I think that the Brighton civil rights groups are going to cause problems for the protests. I've seen their little newsletter and they seem to be far more interested in fighting the plod than protesting the Clut of Scientology.
For anyone interested in this who isn't following the Enturbulation boards, the Queen Victoria Street protest (where the teenager, aka EpicNoseGuy, was issued his summons) is policed by the City of London Police, and the Tottenham Court Road one by the Met. The Met don't seem to care if the CoS get called a Cult.
Also, in fairness to the CoLP Cops, they didn't stop anyone chanting cult, and let signs that didn't directly call the CoS a cult, but did use the word, stand. Overall the police have seemed very professional and well-disposed to the protests.
The plod said: 'Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act 1986.'
Incredible, the CPS can make a judgement on that in minutes; yet 6 months ago one of my neighbours was racially abused in front of witnesses. We brought a complaint to the police who took statements and referred it on to the CPS - they still haven't come to a conclusion whether or not there will be a prosecution.
Guess we should have let Xenu into our lives to guarantee swift justice.
Lots of you don't like Windows Vista. Well, it turns out that's down to five small misunderstandings and, once they've been cleared up, you should be on your way to enjoying the new
lemon operating system. Have a read, and benefit.
Windows Search is just one of the services that is largely unnecessary for a vast number of users. I can't be the only user who always knows where a document is - it's in "Documents"! My music is in "Music" and so on.
But the Windows Search service isn't the only one that most users should disable. Superfetch is a terrible hard disk thrasher, making your PC less responsive after any change. ReadyBoost is a waste of time, and I could go on.
Vista *AND XP* should have a configuration wizard that asks you a series of questions about the use of the PC, and disables services appropriately.
The sadly forgotten disipline of OR would immediatly identify the basic problem.
Adding a feature which slows down something I do fifty times a day (like saving a file) in order to speed up something I do once every two days ( like searching for a file ) is not a good tradeoff.
Or maybe a basic software science course which would teach tham that it is possible to do thier indexing in a low priority background thread without affecting the users response time?
Sorry my coat hasnt been hung up yet - the cloakroom attendent is still indexing the contents of my pockets.
I have a Limited Account, Games Account and an Admin Login for my XP machine, I'm the only person I know who does this, even the IT Dept at work all have their default login as admin at home and at work! and any time I mention running as a Limited User they look at me like I'm mad.
Am I the only who makes use of User Accounts in XP? I've not seen much of Vista but my sister has it on her laptop and her boyfriend, also in IT set it up and there is no User Login screen so I guess this also has admin as default. I should think Microsoft have their work cutout trying to convince people to use Limited User Accounts, the only program I use regularly that requires a Admin account is my tv guide and that I have configured so it asks for the Admin password to run, everything else seems okay to me.
Anyway just wanted to get that off my chest, I've been wondering for al ong time if anyone else uses Limited Accounts.
Ahh, so I misunderstood. I've struggled with my "misunderstandings" for a year now, and they ain't gettin' any better. I have turned off all the cr*p I "misunderstood" and then I was left with a slow, resource hungery, crippled copy of XP.
Format C:, install Linux and run a VMware XP instance. Vista misunderstanding? Not anymore
I'd call myself an advanced computer user, but in general I use my computer like anyone else - browsing the Internet, writing documents, watching Divx/listening to mp3s, and the odd software like FInal Draft, Dreamweaver etc.
I bought a mid/high-range laptop three months ago, replacing a five-year-old model.
And here's the kicker: Because 'Vista is doing so much', my battery life has halved. Before I could expect a good 2/3 hours of laptop use. Nov on Vista, I'm down to 1 hour or 1 and a half hours (and this seems similar for others I spoke to).
And apart from the flashy graphics, Vista - on the surface - appears to do NOTHING different to XP. The new Search Index is probably the height of it.
Hidden usage tracking? Depends on just how 'hidden' it is.
If there is an option in the 'custom' install asking if you would like to participate etc, then that would be moderately OK.
If there is an option in the Standard/express install asking if you would like to participate, which is unticked by default, then that would be better.
I don't care about data pharming [arf], provided I have the option to, quite clearly and expressly, opt out of it.
Your argument is a bit moot however, seeing as it hasn't even been implemented yet as far as I know, and is still in the early consultation stages - the negative press attached to it may well either kill off the data harvesting idea in it's infancy.
Anyway, it installed on my machine this morning with an update, and it seems to be happy enough, fairly zippy and generally running without any issues.
Well I for one won't be downloading it because of this. As far as im concerned any company who even has ideas of this kind of thing has lost my business.
It sadens me that a company like Mozilla who are meant to be free and tax exempt are even thinking about making more money by selling peoples data.
a lot of people who use Firefox use it because they think its safer & to avoid things like this. In my op, Mozilla are very close to shooting themselves in the foot.
Yes, if Mozilla decides to spy on me, I won't use their products any more. And if my girlfriend cheats on me, I may look elsewhere, and if my car pisses me off enough, I'll be looking for a different one. Hell, if my pinky toe gives me pain every single day, I may look for the bolt cutters... But why the wildfire response to something that hasn't even been implemented, and probably will never be implemented? And if it is, you'll likely either have to opt in, or be able to easily opt out. Firefox is still one of, if not the best (and free) browser out there. God (almost only) knows what data MS is harvesting from your computer as a matter of course.
Everyone relax a little :)
Certainly it is conceptually annoying, but given that users can turn it off, no-one who is serious about user-tracking will give up the cookie/URL redirection mechanisms they currently use which you can't opt out of.
Its a light-weight system for non-critical use. Just turn it off if you don't like it. Phorm certainly won't be relying on it!
Move along, nothing much to see here.
Social networking website Faceparty has come up with a simple solution to the problem of online sexual predation: ban everyone older than 36. That's right, if you're too far into the latter half of your fourth decade (or heaven forbid, even older), you're an unacceptable risk, and your account (if you had one) is terminated.
I smell bullpoop!
However I see the reasoning, child abusers are often not children, therefore all adults should be placed in interment camps until they can prove that they are not child abusers.
How is this going to protect children? Obviously it's not. As for anyone over 36 being a paedo, words fail me. Why 36? There are plenty of offenders in their teens and twenties. And there are plenty of over 36s on Faceparty who use it to meet over over 36s.
Can't wait for the first age discimination suit.
Sounds great, here's more possible deranged ideas:
a) men are more likely to be sex pests than women, so ban all men
b) students between 18-25 are likely to pretend to be younger than they are, so just ban all of them
c) younger members of the public are most at risk, so to protect them better, ban anyone under 16
I know someone will say 'but think of the kids!' I don't condone sex offence and I can suggest a few things that should happen to such offenders, but the usual response always seems overkill, and always makes the innocent feel guilty. Sex offenders don't care, they'll just go elsewhere, use a fake email (not like there's no way of getting any kind of mailinator account or anything), etc, while people who genuinely want to join are made to feel like criminals for the minority.
Here's another thought the govt should try - why not just ban the internet, then that should stop all illegal activities and get a few more votes....
Oh and one other thing. I'm not that age yet but 36 isn't exactly an 'oldie', but ageist aren't we?
My new business pitch: a social networking website which is guaranteed not to fall prey to sex offenders using it troll for kiddies -- by having no users at all! This is a million dollar idea.
Paris, guaranteed not to fall prey to sex offenders.
Alan W. Rateliff, II
I'm 38. I suppose I'll go turn myself in.
As well you should, Jim. You're a menace to society. ®