Slashdot Mirror

Are you stupid or just trolling? The issue is not one of fearing anything which might possibly happen, but with giving someone so much power that all that's required is a minor change in the law for you to be fucked. Anyway, it's commonplace for people to be found out selling medical records in a legally dubious manner (why do you guys think you have HIPAA - or, rather, why do you think it took such a long time for HIPAA to appear?) - if you concentrate hard enough you might also find some fairly strong government pushes to sell medical data to private companies, part of the reason there was such a backlash at attempts to NHS records.

And anyone with the most basic security clearance will know that you do disclose information on your purchases because they will find out and ask you about it anyway otherwise. It used to be that homosexuality was considered a liability for certain intelligence work (Martin+Mitchell, Cambridge Five...). In the UK for tax or welfare investigations various public bodies (not just the police!) have the power to obtain copies of financial transactions without your consent, and government has repeatedly tried in the last decade to use its investigative powers to discover and freeze the accounts of suspected terrorists and their families - although some such orders have fortunately been quashed by the courts after years of fighting (HM Treasury v. Ahmed (2010)). So, in short, centralised databases of everything are used to abuse power all the time.

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane? Napalm? Or just set the plane on fire?

This kind of comment always comes up in these discussions: suggesting that it isn't possible to construct a liquid bomb in a regular drinks bottle by mixing precursor liquids taken through the security checks.

Watch this video on BBC News of a 500ml drinks bottle bomb being detonated in an aircraft. It is possible. The man who built that bomb was Dr. Sidney Alford, an explosives and IED expert who does work for the Ministry of Defence. Here's an article about the liquid bomb. They state that they used 400ml of liquid which could be mixed from individual 100ml bottles. There was even a plot to use this exact method to blow up several aircraft simultaneously over the Atlantic. People were prosecuted and jailed for life for it.

At this point a lot of people refer me to an apparently widely read article at The Register, Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? which suggests that the plot would not have worked: "But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living." Hmmm. What people missed is that The Register later backpedalled and decided that, Yes, there was a viable liquid bomb plot. The bomb plot that The Register originally ridiculed was a complete strawman - the bombers never intended to make TATP in the toilet of a commercial plane.

This man and his sprawling NewsCorp media empire have almost single-handedly ruined/corrupted objective journalism, and done so across multiple countries where NewsCorp is active.

How can that be true? The BBC is as objective as ever.
The idea the Murdoch has corrupted the entire media is silly

This man will just try to spread his twisted, f^cked up neocon-ultra-jingo-conservative values to school children, given the chance.

You apparently missed the part where it states this is about software to track student performance, not curriculum or instructional materials?
But I can understand your concern - no schools should permit any deviation from "progressive" messages and practices, or "progressive" programs like racist curriculum .

I don't know what attacks the other poster was referring to, but the UK courts established that the liquid bomb plot would probably have worked, based on evidence from explosives experts, including testimony and video of experimental explosions.

Here's a pretty convincing video. Note the bomb is liquid held in one 500ml soft drinks container, which could be carried through most airport security checks. To make the point that 100ml was just as unsafe, the liquid for this particular bomb was actually combined from several individual 100ml containers as would be allowed through airport security at the time (more details here). Also note that no special measures or precautions were needed to mix the precursor liquids into the final solution, you can see him just pouring the liquids together into the larger bottle in the video, thus establishing that this could easily be done in a departure lounge toilet after security checks. Dr. Sidney Alford (the man who built that particular bomb) is a recognised improvised explosives expert who has carried out work for various Defense departments and governments around the world, including anti-IED work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Black culture (and not just in the US - my experience is in the UK) is going to be more negative about education/qualifications because of the much higher exclusion rate in schools and the far lower achievement levels. This is probably almost exclusively due to the higher rate of single families raising black children, with the knock-on effect of a lack of a male role model etc etc blah blah. So to me this is not surprising and unlikely to change anytime soon.

This is why black culture is generally anti nerd, because being intelligent/educated isn't cool. To be fair, this is hardly purely a black-only thing; there are plenty of white kids in exactly the same situation, but the figures are out there.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-3497925-move-to-boost-black-pupils-exam-results.do
etc

Nine people were later arrested after gangs of youths ran amok, threatening the public, flashing knives and causing riding school children as young as five to be thrown from their horses.

The terrifying scenes came two weeks after teenager Frederick Moody-Boateng was murdered having attended a similar water pistol fight in Holland Park.

Given the fact that the police have just finished dealing with country-wide rioting and looting organised via BBM and that they're already investigating messages, maybe they are just being overly sensitive/cautious rather than out-and-out draconian?

It's right here on google or here.

My argument wasn't that we should bow down to all this and censor ourselves at all. I was just pointing out that with incidents like the above, I see no hyperbole at all in GP's post. Giving these people a database like that IS just like giving a toddler a loaded gun with the hammer pulled back.

While that particular incident was in the U.K., there is plenty to go around, including the great Boston Light Bright scare.

I don't think 'the rich' will leave.That argument is just as much as demagoguery as the 'tax-cuts for the rich' sleight mentioned in your post above.

Are you seriously saying that nobody would move from a high-tax area to a lower-tax area? Because there are plenty of examples.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/study_the_rich_are_leaving_new_jersey_a5E4Ti0z6CxWelbf6nGwOL

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23735878-darlings-50-percent-tax-sends-tycoons-to-switzerland.do

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8466160/Rich-Chinese-consider-leaving-China.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/07/20/more-rich-americans-renounce-u-s-citizenship-for-lower-taxes/

It won't be 100% of course; some rich folks will stay, even if taxes get really high. (There's a cynical old rule of thumb: if you want to hang onto your money, do the same things that retired Senators and Congressmen do. There will always be a way for the rich to keep their money, as long as retired politicians have money.) And some people will just pay the taxes. But there are limits, and the more severe the tax rate, the more it will encourage people to leave.

I don't think it's fair to accuse me of demagoguery.

steveha

Yes, it is a fact well known to those of us with tinfoil hats on top of our tinfoil hats that there is no longer a single white male CEO at any US company. It's true! And it's now illegal to vote unless you're a foreigner!! And Obama's 'birth certificat' is a blatant forgery!!! And I'm hoarding gold and guns against the coming Apocalypse as prophesied in the Turner Diaries!!!!

You seem to share a vice common among some Europeans of having difficulty telling friend from foe.

WikiLeaks: fear of offending Muslims allowed extremists into Britain ahead of 7/7 London bombings
University campuses are 'hotbeds of Islamic extremism'
Being too PC led us to shelter terrorists, says ex-minister
Muslim group claims royal wedding is legitimate terror target
Does the BBC view Israel's existence as a legitimate 'grievance'?
Sadly, I've been proved right. Britain IS a centre of terror. Tragically, our rulers can't see the truth

Well, at least someone is being deported:
Afghan Christians to be deported despite death fears

You should probably get out more. Mmm... quite

Well,... do let us know how that whole thing works out. I'm sure you'll be happier with that lot than any Americans. Cheers! (You might want to take that literally ... I understand they aren't too keen on alcohol.)

So, who's been hurt? So far, nobody.

What kind of sociopath would go on an international public forum like this and deny that anyone had been hurt just to win a pro nuclear power debate. People have been hurt.

Or don't burns, hospitalisations and the potential of greatly increased cancer rates count as hurt to you? Not to mention the two who are 'missing', tell me with a straight face that you believe someone can go missing for weeks in an area where radiation suited workers are allowed to go for only 15 minutes per year and still be alive. The government is warning people for many mile around not to drink the water, and this in a disaster stricken region where access to water might be hard for many people anyway. Sometimes I despair of the human race. Nobody has been hurt!?

Seriously, "I even wear a hat always when I go outdoors, never carry a cell phone, and never look up"?

Unless you're wearing the hat because you're bald and want to protect your scalp from UV exposure or the cold, or are a fugitive from justice, you probably should seek some psychiatric or counseling help.

Either you need help, or you live in the UK and you don't want your face on every CCTV camera in town... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390407-uk-has-1-of-worlds-population-but-20-of-its-cctv-cameras.do

Although the GP post was a bit harsh, there is no denying that the BBC, one of the great institutions of British society, is biased as an institution. It has been admitted repeatedly by the BBC over the years on various matters (and you don't have to read it in the Daily Mail). Perhaps the first one I quote from 1994 helps explain the others.

Birts admits BBC has London bias - Friday, 25 March 1994
The BBC is too London- based and 'must make a huge leap forward in reflecting life, activity, culture and events in the whole of the UK,' John Birt, the corporation's director-general said yesterday.

In a speech in Glasgow, Mr Birt conceded that the BBC had 'developed far too much' in London, where more than 80 per cent of network television and radio programmes were made.

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives - 22.10.06
BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased.

The revelation came after details of an 'impartiality' summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran.

BBC was biased against Thatcher, admits Mark Thompson - 02 Sep 2010
The BBC was "massively" biased against Margaret Thatcher and journalists allowed their left-wing politics to set the corporation's agenda, director-general Mark Thompson has admitted.
Critics of the BBC have long accused it of left-wing bias and a hatred of the former Tory leader.

Confirming their fears, Mr Thompson said: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left.

"The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher."

Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed, says Stephen Ward - 22 August 1993
ANTI-SEMITISM in the higher ranks of the Foreign Office and the BBC during the Second World War led to a policy which suppressed news about Germany's attempt to exterminate European Jews, new research will show this week.

The attitude was reinforced by a belief that the British population was anti-Semitic and that anti-German propaganda about atrocities in the First World War, which was often fiction, had made the public sceptical of such stories. Early in the war the Government and the BBC agreed that this time, British propaganda would contrast Nazi 'lies' with British truthfulness and a 'good clean fight'.

Most of the CCTV in use in the UK is privately owned, and therefore not paid for by the government.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that a large portion of it is owned, bought and paid for by the government:

There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with Home Office grants totalling about £200million.

Though one could argue that since they are using them to issue parking infringements the system is paying for itself, which ultimately brings us back the the point, since very few people actually like these, who do we vote for to get rid of them in our democracy?

Interesting reply - you did lead me to do a little more digging to make sure I wasn't mistaken.

If you're interested on learning a bit more about the pope's involvement in the cover-ups, this article lays out some of the evidence against him.

It sounds like your church has a much better attitude to homosexuality than many, which is great. To me, though, the pope's efforts to oppose equal legal rights for homosexuals seems to fly in the face of tolerance. He does, at least, advocate 'respect and compassion', but his words and actions seem to be at odds in a lot of cases.

Finally, I'd say that political organisations absolutely do interfere with my life, and that is precisely the same context I meant when I said that the church does so. They don't simply impose their own moral values upon themselves and their followers, they attempt to sway legislation to impose these values on all. The pope does not simply state the beliefs of the church, he attempts to leverage the power of his followers to ensure that all people are influenced by them.

I'm part of a the NTBPT (No to Bike Parking Tax) demo group in London which protests at having to pay parking fees in Central London. The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges. http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/

Westminster Council also employs CCTV cars that roam the streets of London spying on the populace & catching any "traffic violations", but we've caught on to that and now we follow the CCTV cars and we film them & alert motorists about them and occasionally post evidence of them committing their own traffic violations to Youtube :-)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23883049-bikers-blow-cover-of-cctv-cars-snooping-on-drivers.do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOazGC7alk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNfeL71ojg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztfKB8SGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZb9jIfGv0

If you don't like what your elected memebers are doing then 1] try and vote them out, 2] organise, protest & demonstrate 3] take direct action to hinder their effectiveness (all legal and above board direct action mind.

Thanks for trying to help, but I don't get this figure you keep throwing around:

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't see that in the article, and I hope nobody else believes what you are saying without checking up your facts too.

I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you. All these figures come from this article, and this one.

From the first line of the first article: "London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million" (over the last ten years).
From the second article: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year"

Now here's the maths bit:
If there are 10,000 cameras (which there are), and 1/1000 crimes are solved with CCTV; that is 10 crimes per year solved by CCTV. With me so far?
Those 10,000 cameras cost £200 million over ten years. That is £20 million a year for 10,000 cameras.
Remember, 10,000 CCTV cameras solved 10 crimes per year. £20 million divided by 10 is £2 million.

So it cost £2 million to solve one crime. That's £2 million per crime solved.

Bit more expensive than employing a £30,000 Bobbie; and way more than a PCSO. I'd hope that it wouldn't take more than 50 rozzers to solve one crime per year.

This is not one network of cameras ...

This is a large number of independent sets of cameras - Each one is mostly one or two outside a shop going to their own recorder in store

Note this also does nt include the council run high street systems Or the ones who did not bother with a grant from the government Or the in store systems that do not qualify for a grant ...

Publicly owned and run camera systems are mostly run by local councils and are independent of each other and (outside London) only cover one town centre ....

No it's not. Those are NOT included. Read the article again. This is *PURELY* Government CCTV.

Right at the bottom of the article you didn't read: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."

You missed one statistic. In areas of CCTV, how many crimes has it PREVENTED by just the aspect of them being there.

Unfortunately this is a statistic that is not easy to calculate, unless we employ mind reading.

Well, the numbers of crimes haven't gone down* significantly - so, essentially, none.

Also, if you look at the percentage of crimes solved, from the link I posted originally, you'll see that the crime-clear-up figures are below average, and haven't increased - and are worse in the areas with more CCTV cameras.

Oh, and the police are saying it too.

Does this make me a mind-reader now?


* specifically: "of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed. Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities."

That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist? That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman considering mistakes are made all the time without CCTV too. With really crappy quality CCTV it isn't that much use as evidence (I should know our CCTV system completely sucks here at work, wish they'd get a decent system), but with high quality stuff it's a lot more useful. A lot of businesses around here run their own CCTV, it isn't costing the government anything. The Police occasionally request some footage of certain times if there's been dodgy goings on on our street (which there often are as we live next to one of the roughest areas in the city).

Of course mistakes are made with other systems, but they don't cost £200 million to solve 10 crimes over ten years.

CCTV was originally called a PREVENTATIVE measure. It hasn't worked. So what happens now? The Government push for more, and more.

I'd prefer that £200 million to pay for the 666 new police officers we could've had for the last ten years, not some childs' plaything.

You don't best stop crime by constantly monitoring people. You best stop crime by trust and education.

That's because the "massive CCTV system" is largely a sprawl of private cameras owned and run by businesses to benefit themselves, rather than (even nominally) the public. Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.

10,000 cameras for £200 million is a small scale operation?

It's only "tired out" because you refuse to listen to it. What is wrong with cameras in a public place? As I said above, would you prefer to switch off all logging on a server until after you start having problems? I doubt it. Seriously, what's your problem with having cameras in already very public places?

Would you also pay £200 million for your server logging, when it fails 999/1000 times?
Or if it logs the wrong thing or perhaps happens to murder the wrong person?

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME. It costs about £5,000 for the Fuzz to solve a crime. And half of them move around less than a CCTV camera.

It isn't so much the CCTV, but what it is being used for, that the real crimes it records are being ignored, and that it is constantly misused due to a lack of controls.

Hope that helps you to understand.

It's only "tired out" because you refuse to listen to it. What is wrong with cameras in a public place? As I said above, would you prefer to switch off all logging on a server until after you start having problems? I doubt it. Seriously, what's your problem with having cameras in already very public places?

Would you also pay £200 million for your server logging, when it fails 999/1000 times?
Or if it logs the wrong thing or perhaps happens to murder the wrong person?

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME. It costs about £5,000 for the Fuzz to solve a crime. And half of them move around less than a CCTV camera.

It isn't so much the CCTV, but what it is being used for, that the real crimes it records are being ignored, and that it is constantly misused due to a lack of controls.

Hope that helps you to understand.

10,524 CCTV Cameras - £200 million over 10 years.
Crimes Solved: 10 per year
Cost to solve once crime with CCTV: £2 million per crime.

Crimes per year: 4.4 million
Crimes solved by police: 22%
Police: 136,000
Crimes solved per year: 968,000
Crimes solved per officer per year: 7
Average Police wage: £30,000
Cost to solve one crime: less than £5,000.

I don't see how this is workable. Either I've got my figures wrong, or some CCTV company is making way too much money.

Got any more stupid arguments you'd like to trot out as excuses so that nobody can watch you while you're shopping?

Sure, I'll bite.

I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.

Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.

I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.

That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.

You know that when you step outside your door, other people can actually see you, right? Your Mak'tar stealth haze isn't working.

If you want to protect your privacy from prying eyes, you can wear a hoodie, burqa or that tiresome de rigueur V mask that all the cool paranoid kids are sporting, anywhere you like in public, without let or hindrance. The UK isn't France.

I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.

Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.

It's very easy to invite people to your party on Facebook. perhaps too easy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8012043/Girl-14-fears-21000-party-guests-after-Facebook-invite-blunder.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/12/facebook-party-mayfair-riot-police http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23722118-im-proud-my-facebook-party-cost-police-10000.do

Except that it has been gradually re-branded from a Mosque - through a mosque including a community centre to a community centre including a mosque. And that the site was damaged in the attacks, making it part of ground zero

The BBC tried this in the UK with a set of free-as-in-beer Beethoven symphonies. The music industry whined about it and the typically gutless response of the BBC Trust was to promise never to do it again:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23652107-end-this-downloads-ban.do
http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/070207-NL-downloads.html

They hardly cost the country billions, £37M is barely enough to put together a premier football team these days. In return I like the fact that we don't have a president - the power of the monarchy might only be theoretical these days but it's a reminder that parliament is not meant to be an absolute power, and the royals themselves contribute a lot in terms of bringing tourism (around £500m per year) and business investment to the country. I used to be anti-monarchy, and I'll admit I still like to grumble about them from time to time, and they do seem to enjoy making life difficult for themselves with contoversial public actions, but I've come around to thinking they probably are, on balance, good for the country.

Fuck that pedo The Prophet Muhammad.

Yeah, because what a man may or may not have done a thousand years ago with one girl is so much more important than what at least the last 2 popes have incontrovertibly condoned being done to thousands of boys by threatening the victims with excommunication if they talked about it.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

Then there is the Crimen Sollictationis in effect from 1962 to 2001 which guaranteed secrecy for the pedophile priests instead of a trial a court of the law in the country they resided. And the loons talk about a "muslim nation" separate from local laws...

There is a lot of belief in politics that if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.

They are fully aware that this is not true; but stopping people doing it isn't the objective. That's not even close to being foremost on their minds. Politicians are driven by personal power and political motives. They want to be seen to be "doing something", "being tough" and "sending a strong message".

Due to recent well covered events it's easier to demonstrate my point when discussing drugs. Whilst it obviously isn't the same issue, it's an area I think most people would agree that has many similar issues, is highly related and is subject to similar attitudes from politicians, the public and the media.

Politicians have numerous advisers with a very solid understanding of the situation. However (at least here in the UK) when the experts give actual opinions based on expertise, they get sacked. Or they get frustrated by the sole political motivation and quit.

Claudia Rubin from Release – a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – said the expert should not have been penalised. "It's a real shame and a real indictment of the Government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.

Meanwhile we rely on unelected Lords for a bit of reason. The then (unelected) Science Minister reacted furiously:

As science champion in Government' I can't just stand aside on this one.

Prof Nutt (the guy who got sacked see above) himself wrote more recently:

the niceties of legal process and proper procedure on drug classification are as nothing beside the media-driven political demand that something must be done, and done now.

(I'll point out the sources above are across the political spectrum, as far as the broadsheets go the "Torygraph" is perhaps the furthest to the right and the Guardian furthest to the left; the Independent supposedly dead-centre but generally considered to be a lefty. The government they're all criticising was the centre-left Labour Party.)

there's no evidence that SPOT is actually effective.

Seems it works pretty go for El Al.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23795196-heathrow-staff-taught-new-way-to-spot-a-plane-bombers.do

It's worse than that.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.

this is an inaccurate account of what happened. In 2001, Ratzinger's "bureau", the CDF, was given authority to prosecute certain types of canonical cases. Among these was sexual misconduct of priests against minors. When the CDF reviewed the document that gave it this authority, they requested that the same court standards that had applied to the previous authority (the Roman Rota, or Vatican court (in ways, similar to the SCOTUS)), should be applied to them. One of these was known as the "Pontifical Secret", which simply means that court proceedings should be sealed, under penalty of excommunication.

Note: this only applied to proceedings -- not to identification of priests accused of misconduct, not of the results of the proceedings, just the proceedings themselves... just like in the U.S., cases may be sealed.

This has nothing to do with blocking secular criminal proceedings, or hiding the names of those accused. Unfortunately, a poor job of translation (along with a healthy imagination and anti-Church bias) has turned this into an urban legend that just won't go away. Real shame that the BBC bought into it, five years ago.

From the Wiki article on "Pontifical Secret":

Thus the procedures of the Church tribunal were covered by papal secrecy (called at that time secrecy of the Holy Office), but the crime of the priest was not: "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."

I can totally see why this is newsworthy. I mean it's not like it's happened before.

/sarcasm

It's worse than that.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of reason that isn't wrong or evil, but I'll be over here with a couple moral absolute:

Concealing the abuse of children is evil.
Abetting the abuse of children is evil.
Making sure that people who abuse children get to keep abusing children is evil.
Threatening children with excommunication for speaking the truth is evil.

People who do those things are evil people.

The Fine Article states "The City's gossips were pushing two tales: that Apple is considering a bid for ARM Holdings and that Vale could make an offer for Xstrata." (emphasis mine) not "An article in the London Evening Standard claims that Apple has made an $8 billion offer to acquire ARM Holdings." as the summery puts it.
Yeah yeah, I must be new here. Still, it is the first sentence of the article. As many have pointed out, given ARM's core strength is how just about anyone could license their IP and modify it to suit their needs, for Apple to buy the company as a whole makes very little sense. On the other hand, I can see Apple making a substantial investment (but not a controlling stake) in ARM, not unlike the investment in Imagination Technologies.

Apple to win tomorrow?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23826703-city-aflame-with-takeover-talk-of-arm-and-xstrata.do

Yeah, it's sensationalist. The dog's DNA was just additional evidence.

I think the fact that witnesses came forward was probably a more prominent reason as to why the guy got sent down.

This is what happens when you use the likes of The Times though as a source and don't bother checking any others. The same story, from two different British news publications for example, we have from The Times as in tfa:

"Killer convicted using dog DNA in legal first"

Suggesting he was convicted using the dog DNA, and putting the emphasis on that. In contrast, The Guardian:

"Dog DNA used in conviction for teenager's murderer"

Which puts more of an emphasis on the fact the DNA was simply used in the conviction.

Neither story gives much detail on the rest of the trial sadly, but I guess it's because they're both focussing on the dog related part (as dogs are currently the latest think of the children target). Subtle differences in headlines though tell completely different stories. I pointed this out elsewhere the other day- the BBC used a headline along the lines of "Government climate ads exaggerated climate change", when the actual story was that only 2 out of 3 ads were found to be misleading, so a more accurate headline would've been "Majority of climate change ads vindicated" - obviously these two headlines tell completely different stories, yet the former, which gives an inaccurate impression was used.

It's typical media fact raping. This story is a bit more useful, it mentions the fact there were 3 of boys victim in the same assault, all who survived (and hence, you know, kinda make good witnesses) as well as pointing out other eyewitnesses were around:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23816750-man-guilty-of-teenagers-weapon-dog-murder-in-south-london-park.do

Sorry, didn't cut and paste the second link correctly:

Harriet Harlot in an armoured vest

So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias?

If you're right-wing, then even centrists will appear to have a left-wing bias. That's why the phrase crops us so much in the Daily Mail, Express, Sun, Times, Telegraph, ...

To the raving nut-jobs in the UKIP, BNP and beyond, practically everyone looks left-wing and liberal.

I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch.

So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias?

a cursory glance at the mainstream UK news media will provide all the proof you need
or parliamentary reports for that matter
also guessing their lawyers are a bit busy coping with the billions of pounds of compensation claims against them
though they did have a crooked labour peer in their pockets
you could start here or here

2005 would like its analysis back. Tasers are now being issued and used by street Plod in many forces.

How many of the taserings reported above did you read about "for weeks after"? The beauty of taser is that it's the perfect punishment and compliance tool. No big bruises, no lasting damage except in rare cases, where the excuse is always "underlying medical condition".

(Some) Plod who don't have them say they don't want them. Plod who have them love them, and will never go back. Police PR is about covering up their actions, not about altering them.

2005 would like its analysis back. Tasers are now being issued and used by street Plod in many forces.

How many of the taserings reported above did you read about "for weeks after"? The beauty of taser is that it's the perfect punishment and compliance tool. No big bruises, no lasting damage except in rare cases, where the excuse is always "underlying medical condition".

(Some) Plod who don't have them say they don't want them. Plod who have them love them, and will never go back. Police PR is about covering up their actions, not about altering them.

Or, both.

UK has 1% of world's population, 20% of its CCTV cameras
General public to view CCTV, report crimes

"prudent security precautions"

Based on what level of risk is this "prudent" ?

For what level of reward ?

Link : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23790729-body-scanners-unlikely-to-find-al-qaeda-bombs.do [thisislondon.co.uk]

Quote : "It was unlikely that it would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al Qaeda," he said. "It probably wouldn't have picked up the Detroit Delta Airlines bomb on Christmas Day."

"grow a backbone, grow concerned about your freedoms when they are REALLY threatened"

I should surrender to the indignity of performing nude acts for no appreciable benefit ?

"Recent attempts were about destroying the airplane, not about hijacking it and then making demands."

I agree that the tactics have changed - but not so much the risks.

There are risks in everything we do, but there are some things that simply don't make sense.

Link : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23790729-body-scanners-unlikely-to-find-al-qaeda-bombs.do

Quote : "It was unlikely that it would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al Qaeda," he said. "It probably wouldn't have picked up the Detroit Delta Airlines bomb on Christmas Day."

And still people want us to pose nude for some ineffectual piece of privacy invading junk ?

I'm pretty sure you pulled those "statistics" out of your ass, or from an NRA newsletter, same thing.

Here's an article: Tube crime plummets with knife scanners at stations: "knife-enabled offences on the London transport network had fallen from a mid-2006 peak of about 70 a month to about 20 today." "300 per week" is 1200 a month. So you're exaggerating by a factor of 60.

And as for the "no issues" of MARTA, Wikipedia mentions :"high-profile crimes on or near MARTA have created the impression with some that MARTA is unsafe and lacks a strong police presence, even though it has its own police department.[76] From 2005 to 2008, two homicides and one rape were reported on MARTA property. The most common crime reported was larceny. The most common area for crime was MARTA's rail service, followed by MARTA's parking lots. For fiscal year 2008, MARTA had a crime rate of 2.61 per 1000 riders (0.261%)."

So you're misinformed about that too. But don't worry about facts, you know you're right.

Gun nuts... gah.

Yep, it was a really great move which has saved many lives.

The only statistic that changed when the laws were introduced, were gun related suicides, however other forms of suicide increased to make up for the difference, so that is moot.

Shooting is as much a "sport" as chess and cards are-not at all.

The olympic committee would disagree with you in regards to both chess and shooting, as do I, but I'm sure this would not change your opinion.

I would like to see ALL guns banned from society with a mandatory 10 year sentance for possesion of them. Life for second offence.

Because that has been so effective in the UK at reducing violence. I fail to understand why people blame the tools instead of the person. Remove legal firearms and knife violence goes up (also firearm violence too funnily enough).

So what do they do, up the penalties for having a knife with you anywhere to four years jail. So they try to remove the knives (nearly impossible task) what next? Cricket bats? the ultimate bludgeoning weapon.

I am reminded of one of my favourite quotes

"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

It is thoughts like yours sir, that are the problem with society, to you it's never the persons own responsibility, but that of the government to protect people from themselves. I sincerely disagree.

Yep, it was a really great move which has saved many lives.

The only statistic that changed when the laws were introduced, were gun related suicides, however other forms of suicide increased to make up for the difference, so that is moot.

Shooting is as much a "sport" as chess and cards are-not at all.

The olympic committee would disagree with you in regards to both chess and shooting, as do I, but I'm sure this would not change your opinion.

I would like to see ALL guns banned from society with a mandatory 10 year sentance for possesion of them. Life for second offence.

Because that has been so effective in the UK at reducing violence. I fail to understand why people blame the tools instead of the person. Remove legal firearms and knife violence goes up (also firearm violence too funnily enough).

So what do they do, up the penalties for having a knife with you anywhere to four years jail. So they try to remove the knives (nearly impossible task) what next? Cricket bats? the ultimate bludgeoning weapon.

I am reminded of one of my favourite quotes

"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

It is thoughts like yours sir, that are the problem with society, to you it's never the persons own responsibility, but that of the government to protect people from themselves. I sincerely disagree.