Worth listening to (if iPlayer allows you to), as the tone of the presenter made my flesh crawl - if she had said "... as a mother..." once more I would have thrown a shoe at the radio - and the content was cleverly presented to make it appear more substantial than it actually was.
There is a legal right to free speech - but no _absolute_ right to free speech - in the UK or any other EU state. To quote from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The exception for "protection of health or morals", in particular, opens up huge holes.
I think someone in Government had put a heavy paw on his shoulder in the interim because there was a interview on BBC Radio Four a few minutes ago in which he was much more reasonable - the word "voluntary" was used repeatedly and "censorship" was omitted - and, in any case, there was a counter-interview (didn't catch the interviewee's name or affiliation) which tore the whole thing to shreds - the probability of 100 per cent international cooperation on this issue was zero and, in the end, "policing" would best be done by parents taking responsibility rather than some half-baked State attempt which would be full of holes even before it was switched on.
In passing:
1. The Telegraph is a Tory newspaper and Burnham is Labour, so I can be sure that the most negative spin possible was put on the interview;
2. The notion of the British government negotiating with the US government on this issue is risible - the President-elect, as a former professor of constitutional law, would presumably tell it to retreat across the Atlantic with all possible haste.
The whole thing is largely a construction of a ferociously competitive media; all manner of proposals, leaks and even downright lies are published as fact because of the worry that, if A doesn't publish, B will given the outside chance that B might scoop A on what turns out to be a real story (and, if it is not a real story, it will be forgotten quickly enough).
The Daily Express, in particular, is obsessed with the contents of dustbins being spied on/weighed/charged for - there is probably a story every other week about some variation on that theme - yet I am fairly sure that no such scheme has been implemented, or is even close to implementation.
I think these are "anomalies" which will be ironed out in due course.
For example, if you look for "bracknell railway station" you get a semi-random collection of railway stations around Bracknell, but not Bracknell railway station itself, which appears to be omitted. And, if you zoom into Bracknell, the various neighbourhoods are named but not Bracknell itself...
Closer to home, I see that, around here, all the railway and London Underground stations are displayed except the most important one (Clapham Junction) - try "sw4" and zoom out a couple of notches.
Also, as ever, journey times are optimistic. I would add 30-50 per cent at least for anything starting or finishing in London.
Because the person who wrote the article, and the person who approved it for publication, were unlikely to have sufficient understanding to distinguish an established equation used for real work from one made up to get publicity with no value outside the article it was published in.
(Also, sadly, because most of the readership would be similarly incapable).
Up until about a year ago smile was a notorious browser-breaker. I - and doubtless others - managed to get the site fixed by pointing out in a letter to its CEO that:
not supporting alternative browsers was losing roughly 10 per cent of possible visitors, which was particularly dangerous for a new banking service;
not supporting alternative browsers was unethical.
The last was a pretty big lever to press, given that the Co-Operative Bank (smile parent) is very big on its ethical policy... and it worked; I received an apology and various dodgy Javascript plumbing was replaced. Now Mozilla, Konqueror and Opera all work perfectly with it.
It strikes me that the 'ethical lever' would be particularly powerful when charities are concerned.
Aria Technology are very strongly recommended - I became an 'expert' (hrmph) after Dan Technology plc, my favourite supplier, got into trouble and I decided to build my own PC from parts. It wasn't that difficult, after a bit of research, and when people saw the price they said 'can I have one too?'.
The good prices aren't at the expense of service - I've never had a late or incomplete delivery yet.
My only minor proviso is that Aria tends to be low on stocks of memory; I buy it from source via Crucial Europe instead, who are also very reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
Worth listening to (if iPlayer allows you to), as the tone of the presenter made my flesh crawl - if she had said "... as a mother ..." once more I would have thrown a shoe at the radio - and the content was cleverly presented to make it appear more substantial than it actually was.
There is a legal right to free speech - but no _absolute_ right to free speech - in the UK or any other EU state. To quote from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The exception for "protection of health or morals", in particular, opens up huge holes.
I think someone in Government had put a heavy paw on his shoulder in the interim because there was a interview on BBC Radio Four a few minutes ago in which he was much more reasonable - the word "voluntary" was used repeatedly and "censorship" was omitted - and, in any case, there was a counter-interview (didn't catch the interviewee's name or affiliation) which tore the whole thing to shreds - the probability of 100 per cent international cooperation on this issue was zero and, in the end, "policing" would best be done by parents taking responsibility rather than some half-baked State attempt which would be full of holes even before it was switched on.
In passing:
1. The Telegraph is a Tory newspaper and Burnham is Labour, so I can be sure that the most negative spin possible was put on the interview;
2. The notion of the British government negotiating with the US government on this issue is risible - the President-elect, as a former professor of constitutional law, would presumably tell it to retreat across the Atlantic with all possible haste.
The whole thing is largely a construction of a ferociously competitive media; all manner of proposals, leaks and even downright lies are published as fact because of the worry that, if A doesn't publish, B will given the outside chance that B might scoop A on what turns out to be a real story (and, if it is not a real story, it will be forgotten quickly enough). The Daily Express, in particular, is obsessed with the contents of dustbins being spied on/weighed/charged for - there is probably a story every other week about some variation on that theme - yet I am fairly sure that no such scheme has been implemented, or is even close to implementation.
I think these are "anomalies" which will be ironed out in due course.
...
For example, if you look for "bracknell railway station" you get a semi-random collection of railway stations around Bracknell, but not Bracknell railway station itself, which appears to be omitted. And, if you zoom into Bracknell, the various neighbourhoods are named but not Bracknell itself
Closer to home, I see that, around here, all the railway and London Underground stations are displayed except the most important one (Clapham Junction) - try "sw4" and zoom out a couple of notches.
Also, as ever, journey times are optimistic. I would add 30-50 per cent at least for anything starting or finishing in London.
Because the person who wrote the article, and the person who approved it for publication, were unlikely to have sufficient understanding to distinguish an established equation used for real work from one made up to get publicity with no value outside the article it was published in.
(Also, sadly, because most of the readership would be similarly incapable).
- not supporting alternative browsers was losing roughly 10 per cent of possible visitors, which was particularly dangerous for a new banking service;
- not supporting alternative browsers was unethical.
The last was a pretty big lever to press, given that the Co-Operative Bank (smile parent) is very big on its ethical policyIt strikes me that the 'ethical lever' would be particularly powerful when charities are concerned.
The good prices aren't at the expense of service - I've never had a late or incomplete delivery yet.
My only minor proviso is that Aria tends to be low on stocks of memory; I buy it from source via Crucial Europe instead, who are also very reliable.