There is a reason the law was written that way!

Bloody hell, first the French, now I'm agreeing with the fucking unions.  It must have been that extra sausage at brunch!  (Ed notes: Neither gibbering insanity nor a potty mouth being recognised symptoms of swine flu!  Nor is overcooked pork sausage a recognised way of catching it.)

Under the new rules universities are expected to monitor whether overseas students really attend their courses.

The Home Office said such things were part of their normal duty of care.

Indeed and undoubtedly. In fact:

Educational institutions have a duty of care to all their students and checking that they are attending and making progress in their studies is part of that responsibility.

The records we expect education providers to keep are those which most will keep for their own purposes anyway.

Which is exactly why the Data Protection Act 1998 states (Schedule 1, s2):

Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

So uni's can check whether you are attending lectures for the purposes of laughing at you when you fail your exams.  I'll even allow them using the attendance register to check on people who are claiming grants, student allowances or loans.

So would you just fuck off and watch your boss's hubby's p0rn collection, you bunch of fascist cunts.

Gordon Brown is a sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt.

And ill-educated to boot. The nerve of the pointless blob of cowardice:

The event was intended for prime ministers and presidents rather than royals, Mr Brown added.

"But if the queen wanted to attend these events or if any member of the royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible," he said.

So what the fuckup meant was that the event was intended for Heads of State and Heads of Government.  Oh, and I wonder who the Head of State is in Brown's Britain.  Actually, I'm scared to ask, just in case the answer comes back "Peter Mandelson".

I really hate to agree with the French, in fact, I think it may be "dereliction of duty" but:

French officials said the Queen was welcome and the UK government was responsible for deciding who should attend what was "primarily a Franco-American ceremony"

.

An Utterly Stupid BBC News Headline

Here.

Mosquitoes 'resist malaria drugs'

Well, now.  Let's see.  Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the actual story - drug resistant malaria spread from Cambodia - mosquitos aren't (deliberately) targeted by malaria drugs.  Ed notes: We did try DDT on them once but that has been fairly uniformly condemned as a "bad thing™".

Anti-malarial drugs target the malaria parasite, Plasmodium, which happens to spend part of its life-cycle in the digestive systems of female Anopheles mosquitos.

Now, I am no biologist or medic, so if I knew this (although I'll admit that I did have to google the name of the parasite genus), why didn't the BBC?

BTW: Still on hiatus!

Oi, Hang on a Minute

Okay, so the Church of Jock has finally admitted that some of its ministers are of the homosexual persuasion and has openly supported one in Aberdeen.

The certainty is a good thing - the lily-livered wishy-washy mumbling of the Church of England is definitely a bad thing.  I am not saying that any of the open-promotion of homosexual clergy as in the Episcopal Church of America, the simplistic bigotry of Gafcon or the "don't ask, don't tell" attitude of the Episcopal Church of Scotland are right - I personally think they are all wrong (Ed notes: but you are just a contrary bastard).

And some of the Jockanese laity are upset.  Well, most church-goers in the UK are older, many are conservative (note size of "C") and it's their right to be upset and even to protest about it.

But - here is the "WTF" moment:

The demonstration at The Mound in Edinburgh on Saturday was led by Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow.

"We are absolutely opposed to that on the basis of what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible," he said.

The Zion Baptist Church - "an independent church based in the south side of the city of Glasgow".  So not part of the Church of Scotland, then.  Or even, I suspect, formally in communion with it.  And, as their website makes it clear, the sort of fundamentalist evangelical Christians who make me cringe.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were "young-earth creationists".  Anyway, clearly not the sort of people you would expect to approve of poofs and their disgusting goings-on.  But about as much direct connection with the Rev Rennie's appointment as I will have with the election of the next Pope.

Oh, BTW: 

On Saturday night the 8th December, Zion Baptist Church lead by their Assistant Pastor Mr Bell, conducted a protest against the satanic influence and music of Marilyn Manson at the Braehead Arena, Glasgow."

Smirks!

BTW2: Still on hiatus - really.

Hiatus

I know you haven't noticed but this blog is having a temporary break from both profanity and its occasional attempts at profundity. 

Expect the usual whitterings to reappear in early July. 

Sauce for the Gander

So Hazel "Iain's chipmunk" Blears thinks that Woss and Brand should pay the BBC's Ofcom fine? Well, if that was what Ofcom intended, I think they would have fined the presenters for their comments rather than the BBC for their systematic failures of duty as a responsible broadcaster. But enough of that (especially as I don't think Ofcom currently have that power and giving more powers to quangos is not a good thing.)

I wonder how much of the DCLG's £230 million fine she will offer to pay? Or how much she suggest Hillary Benn will pay of DEFRA's £75 million fine? (Something from Tim on the subject of fining Government.)

Or do we have yet another lawyer publicly proposing one law (sentence handed down by the "court of public opinion" of course), for relatively harmless entertainment personalities and another for nu-Labour apparatchiks? I'll let you guess!

Can't she be struck off, together with the odious Harperson? Or are the "Solicitors (sic) Regulation Authority" a bunch of lickspittle toadies? I'll let you guess that one too.

Do I Entirely Believe This?

I have no real insight into Binyam Mohamed's detention and suffering in Guantanamo but:

In the interview, extracts of which were broadcast on Radio 4's Today programme, he said he was questioned by a middle-aged man with a ponytail claiming to be "Jim from the FBI".

Jim reportedly said he was a special agent sent from Washington to ask questions on behalf of the White House.

Now the pony tail doesn't fit with any of the FBI Special Agents I have ever met - even the female ones. (US) Special Forces, wannabee "Military Contractors", possibly the CIA (although if I had ever met any of them I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it even if I knew) but not the FBI. They are the definition of "square" as it applies to dress and demeanour.

I just wish

Lord Ahmed's barrister, Jeremy Baker QC, had argued the jail sentence could "irreparably and permanently" damage Lord Ahmed's ability to carry out community work in the future.

Oh, please. Anything to stop what that egregious fool considers "community work".

And more of the similar

Thanks to Steven at the Unspeak blog (I haven't read his book but it is now on the Amazon wish-list), I discovered the GSAT (Geek Social Aptitude Test). I got a measly 13 (out of 50).

Which, if you remember my 98% on the Geek Test, is somewhat worrying. Am I an amazingly social (Ed notes: no, not that) uber-geek? Or just a miserable wannabe with an abiding interest in trivia?

Oh, dear.

According to this test, I am apparently channelling Wesley Crusher. I am so disappointed I am not going to post the html.

By blog-iquette, a hat tip should go to Roger but I think a hat-pin may be more suitable.

A bunch of wibble dropped from a great height.

Thanks to somebody else and I am afraid I've forgotten who (sorry), this blog, via "Wordle":

Click to enlarge ...

Repeat 100 times: I must stop talking about bankers ...

Actions may speak louder but ...

There are no words of condemnation, as of 08:40 Sunday 8th March, of last night's murder of soldiers from 38 Engineer Regiment, from the political wing of the IRA via websites (main or Assembly), twitter feed or MSM.

Nor anything from Her Majesty's Deputy First Minister for the Province.

Though I did spot this and this.

I just don't have the words for it.

When "In-Band" isn't the best idea.

I got a brace of notes yesterday from an official (EU) mailing list I receive, telling me that I had been removed from the list, for 44969, 58107 and finally 63623 delivery errors.  By email.

The Myth of "Banking Qualifications"

It's a great rallying call for modern credentialism, isn't it, from last week's Private Eye:

Q: Who is the odd man out from the following list?

Lord Stevenson, HBOS; Andy Hornby, HBOS; Sir Fred, RBS; Sir Tom McKillop, RBS; John McFall, MP; A strategically shaved badger, MP & Treasury; Sir Terry Wogan, everywhere.

A: Terry - has a banking qualification.

Well, well.  The great and the good.  Unqualified for the positions they find themselves in.  And I sure Sir Terry doesn't even have a BA in Radio Presenting, or even an NVQ2 in Modern Music Analysis.  Edited to add: And, of course, Ian Hislop's degree is in English Lit, not in Journalism, so he is clearly unqualified to be the editor of a satirical news magazine and should quit with immediate effect.

What a load of fatuous bollocks.

Back in ancient times, when I ran a banking team, it was very highly qualified, had an extensive training budget, and everyone was a full member of at least one professional body (normally the BCS).  None of us had a "banking qualification".  

Q: Why ever not, you complete fraud?

A: Because we weren't providing banking advice to customers, numbskull.

In fact, we once sent back a whole bunch of business cards because they had the "will only give advice on our own products" FSA disclaimer on the back - and we pointed out that if we were giving advice on any financial products, we were so far outside the rules, the disclaimer wasn't going to help.

There is nothing wrong with banking qualifications and for the people at the customer-interacting level, they are to be encouraged.  There is nothing wrong with working your way up within a business - from the shop-floor to the boardroom.  Equally, there is nothing wrong with being in a more specialist area - law, accountancy, IT - or being a generic business manager - and getting to board level.

Let's just look at the Chartered Institute of Banking in Scotland and their "Chartered Banker" Qualification:

COMPULSORY SUBJECT

• Professionalism and Ethics
  

SECTION A - CORE SUBJECTS (Candidates must complete at least one credit from this section)

• Retail Banking
  
• Business Banking
  
• Building Society Operations
  
• UK Financial Services
  

SECTION B - CORE SUBJECTS (Candidates must complete at least three credits from this section)  

• Financial Management 
  
• Business Law
  
• Financial Economics
  
• Management Strategy and Leadership 
  

In addition to the 5 credits achieved by completing the compulsory elements, candidates must complete a further 6 credits from Sections A, B and C.

SECTION C - ELECTIVE SUBJECTS
Half Credits

• The Compliant Person and Regulatory Risk
  
• Credit Risk Practice 
  
• Private Banking and Wealth Management
• International Business 
  
• Customer Relationship Management
• Operational Risk Management 
  
• Project Management
• Money Laundering 
  
• Financial Crime 
  

Full Credits

• Corporate Finance
• Managing People 
  
• Marketing and Selling Financial Services
• Call Centre Management
• Investment 

Now, is this really the level of qualification you would require in somebody at board level?  I am not saying that none of the modules would help but, compared to, say, an MBA and appropriate experience?  Just what in this would have given Sir Fred, or whoever, the insight into international interconnectivity to predict the US mortgage security debacle?  Why is it now considered necessary for you to have a qualification for everything?

I mean, the only qualification necessary to be an MP is that you wore the right colour rosette?

Illiberal & Undemocratic

While reviewing the latest effluvia from the odious Harman, I saw:

"Nobody disputes that Sir Fred should be deprived of his pension," said its Treasury spokesman Vince Cable.

Nobody?  Are you entirely sure, Vince?  There are quite a few people speaking up for the rule of law and holding to contracts voluntarily engaged in.  You're clearly not listening to them, mind, but people like you never do.

Class War!

One of the things my English colleagues fail to understand about Scottish politicians is that you actually have the good ones in UK Cabinet positions.  When you consider that means I am talking about such luminaries of the current or recent world stage as Broon, Broone, Darling and Reid (although Bliar is Scottish, true, he was never a "Scottish policitian" per se), just think what that says about those left behind or on the back benches?

Now, Jim Sheridan, true light of the radical commune, sits in Westminster, and you are welcome to him!

Jim Sheridan, Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, has also asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate the activities of senior bankers.

Has this bigoted moron got no idea of the difference between crime and incompetence? With his colleagues in the nU-Lab conspiracy desperately moving us to le Code Napoleon, he is demanding:

I think it's only right and proper that the police has access to all the transactions to make sure what has happened is either down to bad judgement or incompetence.

Neither bad judgement nor incompetence are police matters. They may be civilly actionable, if they amount to negligence or breach of contract but for fuck's sake.  What an utter cunt.  He is so appalling, I wondering why he isn't a list MSP.

Imagine If

Just think about it:

• Every time you turned on your oven, you were forced to listen to a 2 minute diatribe on the evils of fast food.
• Every time anybody got on the bus, the driver was forced to remain stationary until there had been a 2 minute diatribe on the damage personal car ownership caused to the environment.
• Every time you started to pour a glass of orange juice, you couldn't open the container until you had listened to a 2 minute diatribe on binge drinking.

Sensible?  I don't think so.

Then why, every time I start to play a DVD, am I forced to listen to a 2 minute diatribe about copyright infringement?

Utter fucking cunts, the lot of them.

Reference my Previous

I see that the outstanding hypocrite of our times is showing, once again, why he was appointed to the 'leadership' of the Labour Party:

Brown renews banker pension plea

The prime minister is expected to renew his appeal for Sir Fred Goodwin to hand back part of his £16m pension at a meeting of Labour activists.

Gordon Brown has threatened legal action against the ex-Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) chief over his pay-out.

Come on, Gordon, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, remember?

And I see a somewhat higher circulation periodical made a very similar (though, I think - Ed notes: but you would, wouldn't you, less elegant) point:

GORDON Brown last night dismissed calls to surrender his £123,000 a year pension when he is forced to stop being prime minister next June.

Mr Brown was defiant in the face of City outrage despite the UK government's annual operating loss of £100bn, rising to £1.5 trillion when the write-down of its banking assets is taken into account.

The prime minister said: "I've been building up this pension since I became an MP, it's all completely legal and now you want to take it away because I've been catastrophically bad at my job and you're looking for a scapegoat."

To Sir Fred, A Modest Suggestion

Well, it has been an unpleasant week and a half for you.  The publication of what you thought was a private conversation, a stand-up row between you and politicians of all stripes.  And popularity has never been your strong point.

Well, please remember that the fundamental stripe of all politicians is a broad yellow one, straight down the scar where their backbones were removed before they first ran for election.

I would also like to remind you, although I doubt you need it, that the sum of the profits of RBS for the years you were CEO is still significantly positive.

Anyway, to the point.  Gordon Brown is clearly far more responsible for the mess the national and global economy is in than you are (even though he bears less direct responsibility for RBS).  You are, in no wise, a poor man and unlike our ungallant leader, have the skills and experience to earn more once the economy recovers.  You could make a lot of friends and influence by suggesting that you would forfeit, under the same terms and conditions, £2 of annual pension payment for every £1 similarly (if not identically) forfeited by the monocular clown.

That would put the ball straight back in their court.

Is it selfish to have more than two children?

No, it isn't. 

Just fuck off and mind your own business, Porritt and your "Optimum Population Trust". And fuck off the BBC for giving him the oxygen of publicity.

You bunch of statist illiberal scumbags.

Contributions may later be sought for non-reversible neutering for Sir Jonathon and his lady wife.

What an excellent idea.

Pity it is from the (US) Air Force:



Now in the UK, we have "Simple Simon" (now replaced by Nick Gurr, apparently) and the arbitrary banning process.

Today's News

It has been an interesting morning for people I know to be commentating in the news - Sally Lievesley on "Good Morning Scotland" and Bob Ayers in the Scotsman.  It is a pity that they were both so badly misled (or, worse still, maliciously misleading.)

Sally was opining (here just before 2:09 to about 2:14) on Dame Stella Rimington's comments about the appallingly statist nature of recent law and of the creeping extension of anti-terror legislation into public order and minor crime investigation (although I must stress, hopeless pedant that I am, that RIPA is not and never was anti-terrorism legislation).  Sally is a specialist in risk analysis for catastrophic incidents and regularly applies this to anti-terror issues (I have said before, here I think, that if you want to know where to put your nerve gas or cyanide bombs on a tube train to cause maximum damage, she's the woman who knows :)  However, she makes some errors on the Human Rights front.

Human Rights law is not there to protect us from criminals - it is there to protect us from the overwhelming and potentially oppressive power of the government and its agents.  Terrorists are just a highly motivated subset of criminal.  And there are already distinct graduations in Human Rights law - in the European Convention on Human Rights the right to freedom from torture is an absolute, the right to life is qualified - originally also including allowing judicial executions.  The prohibition against slavery permits conscription and jury service.  The Article 9, 10 and 11 rights of freedom of thought, expression and association are so hedged with get outs, conditions and exceptions to be almost worthless in modern Britain (as some consider Articles 5 and 6.)  

She also mentions Identity Cards with the suggestion that they might contribute to the fight against terrorism.  I strongly disagree.  At least, at the end, she is encouraging public participation rather than direction by the nanny state. 

Bob, on the other hand, seems to have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels or, at least, too much into "The Sum of all Fears".  The Harry Ricks character who, in the fiction, plays tracking games in the USS Maine with Captain Dubinin's "Admiral Lunin", or as Bob alleges Vanguard and Triomphant were doing:

"They were playing games with each other – stalking each other under the sea," Mr Ayres said. "They were practising being able to kill the other guy's submarine before he could launch a missile." 

was overtly considered a dangerous lunatic (by Clancy and the plot) for doing that with a ballistic missile submarine .  Hunter-killer (or, to use the Americanism "attack boat") captains do track other boats, absolutely - that's their job.  Neither Vanguard nor Triomphant are hunter-killer boats.

Just to round things off - a couple of stories that have nothing to do with anybody I know:

Max Mosley, from Law in Action:

"At the moment you have a tabloid 'judge' taking the decision about whether he's going to ruin someone's life, and I don't think he should be allowed to."

No, the person who took the life ruining decision was the one who decided that an S&M 'orgy' was a good idea, not the creeps who reported on it. They were merely marginal contributors.

Then we have more police abuse of powers, from those guardians of our freedom in the Met. For our own good, of course.

Error in the Liberal Test

Thanks to bella, shortly and unfortunately to depart these shores as a result of the dog-bark antics of the egregious fools who oppress us, the LPUK Liberal Test:

Created by LPUK

They need to do some more error checking on their thought processes, however (I'll assume that the test correctly reflects their opinions -they're welcome to comment if this is mistaken):

It is wrong for the police to retain the DNA of anyone not serving a prison sentence?
Your answer was illiberal

There is no reason why in a liberal society that the state should be allowed to steal the property of a person when they have not been convicted of any crime or are currently serving a prison sentence.

Clearly, I answered 'no'. I appreciate that I become (Ed notes: 'even more of') a tedious twat when it comes to investigations and the law but let us assume that the alleged offence is one for which the taking of DNA evidence is both relevant (potentially probative or exculpatory i.e. the identity of the offender rather than the nature of the offence is a fact in dispute - this would interestingly suggest that from a utilitarian point of view, taking DNA evidence in typical non-stranger rape cases - 'He raped me. No, I didn't, she consented' - is pointless. Ditto fraud. But I digress.) and reasonable (severity of the offence - as opposed to the blanket approach taken by the ACPO-Stasi). Then retaining the DNA evidence for all suspects until the completion of the trial process (which with trial, appeal, House of Lords, ECHR can be forever - look at Gary McKinnon - 8 years and counting and 'we kno he dun it, giv' - Ed notes: but for a hotly disputed value of 'it') is not just 'right', it is essential.

Come on, let's start getting things correct - it is the woolly ambiguities that allow for mission creep in the application of the law.

Edited to add: 'steal' and 'property' are hardly relevant points when it comes to DNA retention either. You are hardly being 'permanently deprived' of your DNA (the Theft Act test for 'steal') even by its massively illiberal retention by the current regime and treating as 'property' something you discard unwittingly every day is self-committed 'reductio ad absurdum'.

Just a little evil ...

You don't often catch the guys at Google out but here is a little snippet from my "iGoogle" screen earlier in the day:

if (1) {_gel("GM39threads").style.display = "block";}var GM39 = {req_count : 0,MSG_show_preview : 'Show preview',MSG_hide_preview : 'Hide preview',TPL_label_no_unread :'Inbox',TPL_label_unread :'Inbox (%NUM_UNREAD%)' +'',TPL_label_suffix :' ' +'' +'%SHOWHIDE_MSG%' +'',TPL_compose_mail :' ' +'Compose Mail',TPL_thread : '
' +'

' +'%DATE%
' +'' +'%SENDERS%%MESSAGE_COUNT%' +' - %SUBJECT% - ' +'%SNIPPET%' +'' +'
',MAP_CONTAINS_UNREAD_MESSAGES_ : 'b',MAP_DATE_ : 'c',MAP_ERROR_MSG_ : 'd',MAP_HEX_THREAD_ID_ : 'e',MAP_MESSAGE_COUNT_ : 'h',MAP_NUM_UNREAD_ : 'i',MAP_SENDERS_ : 'k',MAP_SUBJECT_ : 'l',MAP_SNIPPET_ : 'm',MAP_THREADS_ : 'n',msg : function(txt) {if (txt == 'promo') {_gel('GM39noaccount').style.display = 'block';_gel('GM39msg').style.display = 'none';} else {_gel('GM39noaccount').style.display = 'none';_gel('GM39msg').style.display = 'block';_gel('GM39statusmsg').innerHTML = txt;}_gel('GM39display').style.display = 'none';},init : function(opt_force) {var gmailjson_url = _gmail_json_url || '/ig/gmailjson';_sendx(gmailjson_url + '?hl=en&' +'et=q12L78FH&' +'url=http%3A//www.google.co.uk/ig%3Fhl%3Den&' +'cnt=' + GM39.req_count + '&' +'val=5',GM39.render);},togglePreview : function() {var threads = _gel('GM39threads');var visible = (threads.style.display != 'none')?1:0;_gel('GM39showhidemsg').innerHTML =GM39[visible ? 'MSG_show_preview' : 'MSG_hide_preview'];threads.style.display = visible ? 'none' : 'block';_xsetp('m_39_sv='+(1-visible));},render : function(data) {if (!data || data == '' ||data.length <= 27 ||data.charAt(27) != '{') {GM39.msg('Information is temporarily unavailable.');return;}var obj = eval('(' + data.substring(27) + ')');if (obj[GM39.MAP_ERROR_MSG_] &&obj[GM39.MAP_ERROR_MSG_] != '') {GM39.msg(obj[GM39.MAP_ERROR_MSG_]);return;}_gel('GM39msg').style.display = 'none';_gel('GM39noaccount').style.display = 'none';_gel('GM39display').style.display = 'block';var tpl = (obj[GM39.MAP_NUM_UNREAD_] > 0) ?GM39.TPL_label_unread :GM39.TPL_label_no_unread;tpl += GM39.TPL_label_suffix;tpl = tpl.replace(/\%NUM_UNREAD\%/g,obj[GM39.MAP_NUM_UNREAD_]);var threads = _gel('GM39threads');var hidden = (threads.style.display == 'none')?1:0;tpl = tpl.replace(/\%SHOWHIDE_MSG\%/g, hidden ?GM39.MSG_show_preview :GM39.MSG_hide_preview);tpl += GM39.TPL_compose_mail;var div

I don't actually see anything particularly sensitive in there but somebody who actually can spell DBA might know better.

More piss-poor journalism

This story is (al-Beeb, Torygraph twice, Scotsman, Gruniard) somewhat worrying - as it involves a relatively senior officer, leaks of classified information, and smears and innuendo. I will point out that I know nothing about this case so will just cynically suggest that the Met will undoubtedly discover that the inept initial investigation by the RMP SIB will have resulted in procedural flaws that would, expensively and publicly, probably see him cleared of all charges.

But this is what I object to, from the Beeb of course:

He joined the Army in 1977 as a private, was commissioned as an officer in 1995 and is said to be one of the service's most high-ranking former non-commissioned officers.

He might be "said to be" in the meeja circles around Notting Hill. But he isn't. Straight off the top of my head, I give you Major General David McDowall, GOC 2 Div and Governor of Edinburgh Castle.  Now, do I remember seeing something about him in the press recently ... Ahh, yes, the BBC:

A soldier from a harbour town in south west Scotland is to advise the UK Government on social mobility.

Maj Gen David McDowall MBE grew up in a council house in Stranraer and started his military career as a private with the Royal Signals.

He will represent the armed forces on a panel set up to help remove obstacles to accessing professional jobs.

Of course, a Major General is 3 very significant ranks senior to a Lt Col.  Now, I appreciate that knowing anything accurate about the military is a thought-crime under the new regime but if they can't even check their own archives (less than a month old.)

Update: The Jockman are at it too:

who is thought to be one of the army's most senior former non-commissioned officers, has been returned to the UK on suspicion of breaching the secrets act.

Here is their 29 Jan article about Gen McDowall, "The class warrior".  Bunch of preening journo tits, the whole bloody lot of them.

Global Warming Denier! Defenestrate him!

BBC Radio 4 weather report, 12:55pm,  Saturday 31st Jan 2009.

This has been the coldest start to the winter for a decade ...

Your job's toast when the Notting Hill mafia get back on Monday, mate. 

Stupid, jumped up, cretinous Quango-crat

Trevor Phillips, in case you needed to know.

Now, I have nothing against councils (or anyone else) providing services to help rape victims.  It is a horrible crime that leaves mental scars far more damaging (in most cases) than the physical injuries.  I have no objection to the government censuring (or even removing funding) from councils who fail to meet their legal obligations.

What I object to is one branch of the government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, wasting public money taking another branch of the government, local authorities to court.  I have no idea whether, or not, the Local Government Authority are right when they say that other public and voluntary services provide adequate cover in those areas specifically criticised.  And I have no problem with the EHRC writing letters to the councils asking them how they have assessed that the need is adequately met.  I welcome the publication of the online "Map of Gaps^*".

Local people actively lobbying their local councillors for provision of what they want as council services, rather than merely voting for their historic colour of shepherd, can only be a good thing.

Throwing money at lawyers is just stupid.  

And I note that they have mapped 10 different services - differentiating between, for example "Domestic Violence Services" and "Sexual Violence Services" - "One Stop Shop", anybody? And this list includes one specifically for Black women. Why? Does your race or colour affect your reaction to rape? (I understand that there may be specialist post-recovery services necessary where honour killings and other misogyny are common but there is no specific map for those cultures.) `because that would be racist, of course.

* Although I notice that when you enter your postcode, rather than describing the services available in your area (useful information you would think) the website throws up an automated email to the Local Authority boss, the MPs and (up here) the MSPs.  I hope that these letters are as automatically rejected as ones asking them to stop abusing their powers are.  

Yet Another Political Spectrum Test but with added :)

Thanks to Obnoxio:

My Political Views
I am a center-right social libertarian
Right: 1.45, Libertarian: 5.7

Political Spectrum Quiz

Seems reasonable to me - moderately right - because it fudges my more strongly right economic views with my less polarised social views - more strongly libertarian. Obviously, the American version of libertarianism wouldn't accept anything as socialist as a "Citizens' Basic Income" , so we can just leave them in the bunkers underneath their timber shacks in the boonies, - and there was no "flat tax" option.

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -3.04

Political Spectrum Quiz

Yes, having served in the military, I am generally opposed to the military being sent to far flung paces in the world to kill and be killed unless there is an over-riding justification in terms of the preservation of British state interests (including the protection and evacuation of UK citizens) or, in some cases (Cyprus, Lebanon, Darfur?, Israel & Palestine?) an over-riding international community interest in separating warring factions or states.

My Culture War Stance
Score: -5.59

Political Spectrum Quiz

Why is there this weird American belief that "free speech", which they are generally so strongly in favour of, doesn't apply to art? Most arty types read, watch and enjoy stuff I find incomprehensible. Some of it (very little) I find offensive. As long as they don't force me to pay for it or waste my time having it rammed into my face, do I care?

Scheudenfraude

One of the few remaining pleasures of being a liberal in these benighted and oppressive times is Trot-watching. Just when you are so depressed that you are actively looking at the Canadian and Kiwi immigration websites, along comes a smidgen of Trot infighting to brighten your day. Not quite as beautiful as the Monty Python parody but ...

I give you, George Monbiot:

Who, in the age of the one-penny ticket, is being prevented from flying? It's not because they can't afford the flights that the poor fly less than the rich; it's because they can't afford the second homes in Tuscany, the skiing holidays at Klosters or the scuba diving in the Bahamas. British people already fly twice as much as citizens of the United States, and one fifth of the world's flights use the UK's airports.

I wonder who he can be talking about?

Considering The Jimborg

Proposition 1: Wikipedia is ruined, as a reliable information source, by edit wars.
Proposition 2: Generally, edit wars happen when people care about the information.
Proposition 3: People care more about information with a high social, as opposed to factual, value.

Theorem: The value of Wikipedia as a reliable information source is strongly inversely correlated to the social value of the information sought.

1st Corollary: Smart-phone access to Wikipedia will be the death of pub quizzes.
2nd Corollary: Wikipedia, en masse, has a significant social value.

The Cynics View: It is often useful to know, not just the truth, but what the mass herd of human sheep believe. In countries where the Daily Mail is not available, Wikipedia has an role.

Dodgy BBC Graphic

Also known as - "Not even Gordon's that crap":

Look, I know it is just incompetence in Excel but, please, this is a major media organisation, funded by our money, not an independent. Editors, producers, graphic designers, a moral duty to accuracy, etc, etc.

Ooops.

Or is it? In real terms, remembering that this is US not UK law, it is just another formal step to take in the forensics process - i.e. get your warrant before you start your analysis. There is a much more detailed analysis of how this fits in with the 4th Amendment, 'zipless searches', sniffer dogs noses and 'reasonable expectation of privacy' at Arstechnica and a post on the Volokh Conspiracy which explains why anyone was looking at the computer in the first place. And you could always read the actual judgement which seems balanced and reasonable.

Hash table comparisons, both to exclude known material (NIST produce lists for standard operating system builds and application software installations) - leaving just items that may have been created or altered by the user, or to identify known bad files (malware as well as porn) are great tools for digging straight down into potentially relevant material. Couple this ability to rapidly identify potential evidence with the EnCase Gallery and Timeline views and you can often quickly include or exclude data sources from your case evidence.

The bit about platters seems to be a rather interesting aspect of an important element of US law - did the initial private citizen's viewing of a few images mean that a warrant was not required for a more comprehensive law enforcement search? (This, I suspect, is actually an administrative rather than substantive point for future investigation - would you be refused a warrant if you had a witness complaint of kiddie pr0n? I doubt it.) The contrast between the findings of the Runyan case - a search of a random selection from a collection of disks by a private individual was held to not permit a warrantless search of the whole collection - and this case where viewing some files on a disk does not permit the search of the whole disk is interesting. However, it seems to be based on a slight misunderstanding of technology - disks do not record sequentially on platters, which are an integral component of the overall disk rather than, as appears to have been believed, analogous to the individual CDs in a multichanger cartridge - the information will be scattered across them, therefore there is no reasonable belief that the initial private search did not view multiple platters. Having said that, that the EnCase search was "a search different in character from the one conducted by Hipple, and thus it cannot be defended on the grounds that it did not exceed the private party search" is obvious.

On the whole, it seems to be an excellent judgement, if of minor relevance to UK & European investigations. Anyway, it is back to the 1^st rule of digital forensics - it is your evidential processes that will screw things up, not the (ab)use of technology!

More wrong than a very wrong thing ...

H/t to Tom Paine:

There Are 0 Gaps in Your Knowledge

Where you have gaps in your knowledge: No Gaps! Where you don't have gaps in your knowledge: Philosophy Religion Economics Literature History Science Art

Do You Have Gaps in Your Knowledge?

In 21 questions they manage to comprehensively categorise my knowledge? Clearly not. Art, music, sport, literature, economics (much to Mrs S-E's disgust) - all are areas where I am notoriously weak. Science, history, law & politics - I am generally better at. Some more specialist areas, I can 'Bore for Britain' on :(

Just remember - "Any day when you don't learn something new is a day wasted!"

"unimaginable sexual depravity"

Well, Dacre P has clearly either gone through life with his eyelids welded shut and his ears stopped with wax¹ or is a screaming hypocrite for not being able to imagine a little bit of what 'charmingly' used to be called 'le vice anglaise' and that 'multi-millionaire' doesn't mean 'able to pay for it'. Guess which option, although I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive.

Update: Sorry, I was busy this morning and didn't quite finish the first thought - where does a little consensual S&M (even if some of the participants are being paid) fit in, either "unimaginable" or "depraved" amongst the stories of paedophilia, sexual slavery, torture and other activities that the Daily Hate thinks is appropriately prurient entertainment for the common masses?

Okay, I do appreciate that I am taking a BBC News report on trust but I've done the same for the Daily Mail in the past so ... Update: And the full text is available here, in Word format - haven't these people heard of pdf? And the BBC report seems to be a reasonable extract (rather than any attempt at a summary - there is lots of self-congratulatory hubristic tripe about the excellence of the career of Dacre P not covered in the report) and, to be fair to the Beeb, they did also extract his moaning about their state-sponsored power and influence. But they missed this phrase, refering to Mosely: "the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard". I refer you to the paragraph above!

Whether Mosely's activities are seen as "perverted and depraved" is completely irrelevant when you consider "the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the rich and the corrupt² sheltering behind a law of privacy". Mosely, assuming that none of what actually happened (as distinct from what was reported - even with the video evidence, the two not being as linked as journalists would like us to believe) was illegal has not committed a crime. Now, if I had evidence of a crime, being fairly old-fashioned about these things, I would expect to report it to the police³ rather than to the media - as the police can gather evidence rather than speculation and have people arraigned for trial in court rather than on the front pages.

But then I'm not a turd at the Annual Conference of Enormous Faecal Deposits trying to justify why I pong quite so much.

Update 2: If anybody from the "Society of Editors" does chance to read this, you are (technically, 'seem to be') way, way out with your Apache server updates - 1.3.33 is 6 versions out of date, 5 of which have had security functionality fixes⁴. If you can't upgrade to 2.2(currently).10 then you need to get your arses onto 1.3.41 sharpish.

1. I may be on to something here, though. You know, like blind people developing better hearing? Well, if you force yourself to be deaf and blind, maybe your voice develops a particularly penetrating screech? To 'toynbeeise' yourself, to coin a new and unpleasant word?

2. My joining. Which is probably not justified given the multiple use of 'the'. The 'rich and corrupt' are clearly a legitimate target for investigation (as would the 'rich who place themselves in the public eye' but why should the merely rich not have the protection of privacy? If you just happen to design a better widget, why is your door-step any more of prurient interest than anyone else's?

3. Unless, of course, the 'appropriate' police force is the Military Police (RMP or otherwise). In which case you tell either the miscreant's CO or, if a serious enough civil offence, the civilian police. It's just polite.

4. In case you are questioning the arithmetic, especially in the light of the post above, 1.3.38 never existed and 1.3.40, although it exists and does have two security fixes, was not released therefore I am choosing not to count it.

What to do about the BNP?

Trixy has had a little run-in with the British Racist Party, after she objected to them trying to cosy up to UKIP and claiming support from the Royal British Legion. It's early in the morning but it got me thinking.

• The BNP are a legal political party, with quite a significant number of representatives at council level and a vague possibility of some Westminster or Brussels representation next time we waste our ballots.
• Loads of organisations - police, schools, the ballet - will sack you for being a BNP member.
• Loads of (il)liberals will start screaming for your head on a spike if they discover you have any sympathy with the organisation or even if you agree with their representatives on any specific point (and I have even agreed with Scots Nats on a variety of local issues.)
  
• I doubt I am a screaming racist although I probably have some degree of xeno-phobia (the French for a sodding start) and, living the frozen North, am not going to lie to you as claim loads of black friends (or, for that matter, black enemies).
  
• Whereas the generic 'we' probably don't hold, and may even deplore, the BNP's positions on many matters, this is the thin end of an extremely authoritarian 'thought crime' stick.
• I happen to think that "Young Earth Creationists"^* and "Intelligent Design" advocates are dangerous loonies who should be kept away from any involvement in the education system. Should my opinion about their entirely legal (if credulous and unscientific) beliefs be enforceable with the sack - especially if they keep it to themselves and don't try and ram it down the throats of their charges?
  

Clearly, anybody engaging in a crime should be suitably punished after a fair trial and certain motivations for crimes are given special additional punishment because of their corrosive effect on society (e.g. attacking members of the emergency services). But holding opinions, however unpleasant? Many people want to see the return of the death penalty (I don't - I don't trust our prosecution systems and courts to get things right, especially in the sort of notorious cases that would attract the death penalty) - something specifically illegal in the UK under HRA98. Should these people all be thrown out of their jobs (however better a read it might make the Daily Mail)?

If the statist cunts that are failing to run this country had the courage of their convictions (fat chance) they would actually ban the BNP and be challenged about it in court. In the absence of that, perhaps leaving them to fester in their own bile is the best idea and punish people for what they do or try to do rather than what they believe.

Having said all that - my sympathy for Trixy - but that is what you get for poking a wasp nest full of vicious fanatics with time on their hands.

* Like my 2^nd Form Chemistry teacher. Oh joy - the basics of organic chemistry being taught by somebody who thought believed that Bishop Ussher may have been out by a whole hour! Or, apparently, by 60 years according to Alice - the joys of Google!

What we know today

1. Despite all the whining from the Europhilic liberal elite, it doesn't seem that America is as racist as they might like to portray.
2. The invasion of Iran is (almost certainly) off.
3. The electoral college system greatly magnifies relatively small differences in the popular vote. Sort of reminds me of the failings of the first-past-the-post system over here!
4. The combination of the Smirking Chimp, Sarah Crockett and his age didn't help McCain.

This blog can be read in Germany.

And, as Gerald Toben found out, you can be arrested in Britain for doing something in Australia that is a crime in Germany (but not in either Britain or Australia.)

Why is this relevant? Because this pseudonymous blog does not carry an "Impressum" - see examples here and here (from real companies) and here and here from 'real' blogs - one already in the author's name and the other otherwise pseudonymous (Ed adds: and one weird one from a - Disney - corporate blog - see what happens when you cross German authoritarianism with Yank legal paranoia.)

So you could argue that the lack of an impressum here, and in many other blogs - for example, we all know who DK and Guido really are, but neither blog carries an official impressum - is an offence against German and Austrian law (and I do occasionally visit Germany and have been to Austria once, although to the best of my knowledge I have never blogged from either country.) So, if I do something to offend the German authorities (frankly, there is so much need for offending the UK authorities, I can't see where I would find the time), I can be arrested in the UK or if I happen to have a business or private trip there (or my plane to somewhere else just diverts). And I don't want to get into the trouble RFS did. And, as ever, the lawyers are already circling around the nearly-dead body of common-law liberty (and, to extend the analogy, snatching a quick snack before the heart has stopped beating).

So, actually, we don't need cretinous Estonian socialists to invent new ways to restrict our liberties - we can be dragged away through totalitarian legislation already proxied into UK law (s3, Extradition Act, 2003). Be afraid, be very afraid.

Barbary Ape test, everybody?

Isn't Schnadenfreude Fun?

Senator John McCain, who may (or may not) be a zombie, has been bitten in the campaign by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. And Google told him/them to "bugger off".

After having several campaign videos removed from YouTube for alleged copyright violations, Republican presidential candidate John McCain wants the video-sharing web site to consider special takedown privileges for politicians and their ilk.

McCain '08 general counsel Trevor Potter yesterday sent a letter to YouTube execs claiming the site is too quick to remove their campaign videos based on "overreaching copyright claims." He wrote that on numerous occasions that the material in question was "clearly" privileged under the US fair use doctrine.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! ROTFL. That's what happens when you create bad laws. You get bad consequences. Sympathy - in the dictionary between shit and syphilis. But, I really love this bit:

Warner Music Group, CBS, Fox News, and other media conglomerates have all sent YouTube takedown notices for McCain videos.

Warner Music Group demanded YouTube remove a McCain video that uses the 1967 Frankie Vallie song "Can't Take My Eyes Off You." CBS wanted a YouTube video removed that used a clip from Katie Couric. And Fox News had a similar complaint about a McCain video that used a clip about the financial crisis.

So it's not "all those people who are abusing the DMCA by bombarding YouTube with invalid takedown notices", it is a legal difference of opinion regarding the extent of the (common law) fair-use doctrine. Which should be tested, if necessary (especially remembering this is the United States of Lawyers) in court, between the (ab)user and the copyright owner. Not by Google who, rich and Kings of the Universe though they are, are not, yet, the legal system^*.

Update: And, this, too! Well done, lawyers. Not.

* As we all know that may, or may not be, Wikipedia.

Gesture Politician

I had thought about venting about this yesterday, when I first heard about it, then calmed down and got on with some proper work. Then I read Sam's brief dit on the subject and have come crawling back to my virtual vomit.

Last time I mentioned Christine Grahame, spawn of all that is grotesque and evil in the pustulent boil that is the Scottish body politic, on this blog, I believe I was calling her a cunt. And, guess what, she still is. Spectacularly and publicly so.

So, she wants Mary, Queen of Scots body to be returned from Westminster Abbey to, well, somewhere in Scotland:

She was an iconic historical Scots figure and ultimately the victim of English plotting.

Given the House of Stuart's association with Falkland Palace, a place where Mary is believed to have spent her happiest days, that would appear to be an appropriate place to inter her remains.

Mary is, I am forced to agree, an iconic figure in Scottish history. A pathetic figure - affianced at six months to the child who would be Edward VI and then to the Dauphin, Francis, at 5, she was shabbily mistreated by the vermin that, even then, were flocking to the reeking cess-pit now sited at Holyrood.

Never mind that her happiest days were probably, when not seen through the yellow-tinted spectacles of the SNP, those she spent at the French Court between 1548 and 1561.

Never mind that her friend (and possibly lover but, frankly, who cares) was slaughtered, then her husband was strangled, then she was raped and imprisoned and forced to abdicate - all in Scotland and all by Scottish politicians (even though Darnley was born near Leeds and considered an English subject - albeit the son of a Scottish Duke) - before fleeing to England.

Never mind that England was just recovering from the slaughter and misery of the Counter-Reformation and Mary was seen by many as the Catholic pretender to the English throne (as Elizabeth herself recognised when she suggested Mary marry Robert Dudley and be acknowledged as Elizabeth's heir.) Although the facts of her, direct or otherwise, personal involvement in any of the plots^* is lost to history, she was certainly a focal point for these and one of the purposes of a figurehead is to be separated from it.

Never mind that her grave in Westminster Abbey was built by her son, James VI & I, and placed near to Elizabeth's to show that she was as great a Queen as her cousin (although, being honest and despite acknowledging Elizabeth's many faults that tend to be glossed over, Mary was nowhere near as capable).

But, hey, if it gets a couple of the sheeple voting for them rather than Gordo, who cares about history, respect or dignity? Certainly not oor Chrissy.

See what we have to contend with up here? The only realistic alternative to the nu-Labour farce in most of this benighted land, from blasted heath to sixty's slums, are a bunch of dribbling bigots who make DK's 'Barbary Apes' look like statesmen of stature.

* Yes, Walsingham did probably invent or at least provoke the Babington Plot. But even though Mary might not have been eligible to be tried for treason (she wasn't English but the Treason Act 1351 does not specifically require you to be a Crown subject), a case under the Bond of Association could have been made and the prescribed penalty was still death.

The EU is a monstrous waste of money, an affront to democracy and MEPs and Commissioners, generally speaking, don't know their arses from their elbows

and under no circumstances should be allowed a say on legislation.

Stolen, with grateful and slightly inebriated thanks, from Trixy.

Dear Kezia

While your blog is yours (well, Google's lent out to you) and therefore your rules^* apply (as long as you don't fall foul of their's), there are good reasons why many of us post pseudonymously or, even, anonymously.

For example, some of mine are:

• The government thinks that the Human Rights Act Article 10 doesn't apply to me (or Jackart).
  
• My employer does not necessarily share my opinions.
• My fellow journalists.
  
• I gain some limited mental release from indulging my potty mouth at the antics of our lords and masters.
• I think the nym is cool.
  

Just musing - we are aware that the good Mr Worstall is now Press Officer for UKIP. I wonder whether his Ts&Cs are similar to Mr Towler's (or, even, if the money paying his salary has come in part from EC / EP funding?) I'd hate to see his "ironique et eurosceptique" blog disappear too.

Update: And see the comments on the it-might-just-be-a-kite-flown-by-the-Stasi EU Blogging Code here.

* From here sidebar: " I retain the right to delete those ... posted anonymously - If I'm prepared to publish in my own name you can too."

Just what does Google know?

Reading the ever interesting Mr Worstall, I noticed some slightly disturbing Google Ads links seeming attached to the name of our glorious Foreign Secretary and putative Brutus.  See for yourself:

Trampled under the Jackboot of BKF.co.uk

You see, it's not all a horrible conspiracy! Loony bug-eyed socialist bloggers get hammered by legal threats too (actually, Tim is definitely on the left side of sensible and Craig certainly reads that way. Update 2: and, of course, I had forgotten about the undeniably left-wing Harry's Place). But 15 minutes? I can barely pour, never mind drink, a G&T in 15 minutes, nowadays ...

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Although I am quite surprised that a fairly personal letter from the daughter of an SNP councillor to the First Minister and Leader of the SNP ended up in the hands of a gossipy Trot, you can never really tell what is going to crawl out the sack of rabid ferrets that is Scottish Politics^*. So, kudos to Kezia for publishing, yah-boo sucks to Bannatyne, Kirkwood, France and Co., who, it has to be said, seem to normally make their money on the right side of the fence. Update: I notice you aren't suing the Torygraph and best of fucking luck having a go at wikileaks. I don't think they're going to be scared by you or by your mate Carter-Fuck.

Oh, and what I think about the 'good' Councillor - you were a turd before this, and a turd you remain. Anyway, if you wish to read the letter and, frankly, it shows you what an excellent role model for a modern Muslim father Councillor Hanif truly is, you can read it here.

As an irrelevant aside, isn't it an interesting coincidence, apart from sheer serendipity that gives you the Kezia Bulldogs site (which could lead to all sorts of lipstick jokes), you also have the founder of "Scotland for Obama 08" sharing a relatively unusual Christian name with Obama's step-mother.

Update & *: Including, my bad, people who copy highly personal letters to the newspapers. And, if Cllr Hanif, or his representatives do read this, exactly which of the allegations against you are false? The guns? The violence against children? The 'promise' of forced marriage? Your misogynism, temper or racism? Just asking, as a concerned voter.

This is utterly evil

This is far worse than "Sarah's Law". That would be bad enough, given the manifest inability of the British public to behave sensibly in almost every conceivable scenario - I am fairly convinced that all that publishing the names and addresses of people on the sex offenders register would do is drive them underground. And, of course, it is not as everybody on that particular register is a middle aged man into raping toddlers - no, of course not.

Young men with a slightly unwise choice of their Friday night shag; people who have accepted cautions (Ed notes: yes, I know it is an old link - but what about the 6,200 people who were cautioned for offences not involving children or rape? What exactly did they do? And what the fuck is happening with people 'cautioned' for rape? Cautions for murder and high treason, next, will we? This is taking the "Sanctioned Detection Rate" culture beyond the fucking piss into lah-lah land); and shortly people in possession of "extreme pornography", victims of yet-another knee-jerk reaction from politicians faced with a distraught mother. (Ed notes, again: You probably wouldn't be surprised at the Google Ads "sponsored links" results for the search for the link for the legislation - please sing along with me, "The Internet is for Porn, the Internet is for porn ...")

No, you can argue whether or not Sarah's Law would be a bad thing - I think it is. But everybody who would be targeted as a result of that suggestion would have been convicted (or, it has to be said, accepted a caution) and would therefore, as far as we can trust our legal system, have admitted or been found guilty of a sex-related offence. This is much worse. This is apparently allowing access to the sort of material released on an Enhanced (i.e. child or vulnerable adult protection) disclosure. Which, even when given to sensible people with no particular axe to grind (and no suggestions of kiddy-fiddling) has caused stupid and hideous problems.

Teachers, particularly, seem to be vulnerable to false allegations of sexual impropriety but it can strike anywhere. So their details will now become public - most teachers I know are ex-directory, try not to live within their school catchment area, etc, just so they can avoid the sort of petty harassment the semi-feral youth would inflict on somebody who has dared to give them homework, or a detention, or failed an exam, or "dissed 'em". I am not saying, in any way, that allegations should not be properly investigated but, if that happens, and there is insufficient evidence for a charge or, even more emphatically, if someone is charged and found not guilty in court, why should that be used by the state to ruin the rest of their lives?

The Chief Constable of West Mercia police, who should know better, is reported as saying:

They talk through this and the subject is party to this, to get a third-party assurance to the clean bill of health which he claims to have.

Wow. What an introduction to state control of our relationships. Not only can we not have a drink without official permission but they are now licencing every snog or grope. What a bunch of statist interfering cunts. And all, ALL, they could possibly be "assuring", is that he - and it is 'he', isn't it - hasn't been caught. These fuckers should be taken out and shot.

I leave the final comment on the stupidity of it all to the police's own leaflet:

Even if a subject doesn't have a record for child sex offences it doesn't mean that he or she is not potentially a risk.

Duh!

Catch 00010110

Next-door have a new computer. I couldn't persuade them to stump up for a Mac, so it's running Vista. Joy.

Anyway, I got it set up a couple of weeks ago and everything seemed fine. Then, a panicked text message - 'teh interwebs is broken'. Okay. So, I'm just back from my (thankfully brief) mission of mercy.

The box uses their wireless LAN to connect (a nice Victorian house - so no flood wiring) and I had it set up to use the manufacturer's (Netgear) connection wizard rather than the M$ standard one. The security software they had purchased and installed treated the Netgear Smart Wizard as a default-deny (not 'default-ask') application and shut it down as soon as it tried to start up. But, and here comes the irritating bit, to change the settings for the security application(s), they had to be registered / authenticated / whatever, and that required (as was explicit in the instructions) an internet connection. Which was not available because the connection wizard was default-deny. You see the problem.

So, having taken the security application round the back of the bike-sheds and given it a damn good kicking, they are finally back on the net. Why, why, do we (i.e. the security community) make this so difficult for people?

Eugene Kaspersky - you know who you are!

One rule for us ...

h/t The Shrink.

Okay, so, if you are suspected of being loopy, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires, s1(4):

A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.

Yet the interfering cunts have decided that we are not to be allowed to smoke (I don't but still, I should retain the freedom to do so if I felt like it) in our own homes, can be thrown out of parks for being a greenie in a penguin suit (not one of those either but it's her life), they're going to raise the price of booze and the age you can buy it, and all of the other statist meddling in what some politicians (and medics) might consider "an unwise decision"?

Time, as DK says, to sharpen the cockroaches and have at the fuckers.

Come friendly bombs ...

Well, okay Slough and Heathrow are close but not quite the same place ...

Like most of the commentators on this, I wasn't at the trial and I certainly wasn't on the jury. So we, the commentariat, do not actually know much about the evidence presented (but see a wider take on the statist, "we know better than you" official reaction here).

We know that the police thought it was great, they have told us so (but, then, they thought the Birmingham Six, Colin Stagg and Barry George were guilty.) We know that the CPS either thought there was sufficient to gain a conviction (their usual test) or, more sinisterly, were persuaded to go ahead with the case for political reasons - but stories of CPS incompetence are legion (eg here). We know that 'officials' were "'dismayed' by the verdicts" but they are probably a bunch of mendacious statist cunts. We know that Jacqui Smith praised the police operation but she is just egregious.

We also need to realise the huge difference between a 'Not Guilty' verdict where, until nu-Lab succeed in finally abolishing 'Double Jeopardy' things should stay put (e.g. the verdicts on both charges for Mohammed Gulzar) and 'Unable to reach a verdict.' Hence, despite the vitriol, the reason why a re-trial may actually be appropriate for some of those accused (and some of the charges.) There is also the contentious issue of the release of intelligence information to the court system - there may have been additional probative evidence held back from the jury because of the sensitive and possibly ongoing nature of the technical or human source(s) Ed notes: On the other hand, if there was exculpatory evidence held back by the prosecution (or the law enforcement and intelligence personnel assembling the original case) then this would be appalling but not surprising!

I would note that there were quite a lot of guilty pleas in this for it to have been the conspiracy in a pop bottle some have made it out to be (however incompetent or unlikely the explosives engineering may have actually been.) Not as clear cut, either as a law enforcement success or as a "was disliking the government while being Muslim" breach of ancient (but decayed) human rights.

Forgotten Heroes

I was hanging around the streets of power recently, waiting for an appropriate time to head for my next meeting, and I came across the Buxton Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.  So I took a picture.

We're not taught that much about the abolition of the slave trade and what we are taught seems only to mention Wilberforce. It is obvious that it must have taken more people to drive such a radical idea (for anywhere in the world) through Parliament.  So there we go: Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, 1st Baronet.

Ouch

Justin, at the normally excellent but recently quite quiet Chicken Yoghurt, is having a few problems:

This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota

Please contact this site's webmaster.

Wait a few minutes and use your browser's "Back" button or click here to try again.

If you are the webmaster, your account may have gotten this error for one or more of the following reasons:

• Your account has used more than its share of the cpu in the past 60 second sliding window.
  
• Your account has too many concurrent processes running simultanously.
  
• Your account has consumed too much memory.
  
• Your site was recently very busy trying to run inefficient scripts.
  

The solution would be to optimize your applications to use less CPU.
Adding appropriate indeces to your SQL tables can often help reduce CPU.
Using static .html documents instead of painful .php scripts will practically eliminate CPU usage.

Despite the (completely accurate) comments of people like Tim at Bloggerheads, regarding the manifest limitations of Blogger^* (especially when tracking down evil sock-puppets and other vermin of the great, but entirely hypothetical, right-wing blogging conspiracy), it is why I still stick with the Google Borg manifestation. Too much trouble, otherwise, it seems.

Update: It seems to be strongly intermittent. Say 3 out of 5 forced refreshes (i.e. so I am not getting the result from my ISP cache.)

* i.e. You cannot get the IP address associated with a specific comment.

Privacy on Employer Computers

There has been a recent ruling in the USA (strictly, a Supreme Court ruling in the State of New Jersey) that you have little expectation of privacy on computers at work. While I agree partly with Masons - the statement by Mr Docherty that the equivalent scenario (significant theft by employee) would allow a similar investigation in the UK, and the statement by Mr Malcolm that permitted personal use does create an expectation of privacy (but only in material covered by "permitted personal use" - i.e. not including theft from your employer or, for that matter, anybody else. Ed notes: Unless you are a lawyer, perhaps? Many people on the wrong end of a lawyer's bill consider that, like taxes, legally sanctioned theft!)

However ...

The Data Protection Act 1998, s29(1), exempts the processing of personal information for "the prevention or detection of crime"; SI (Statutory Instrument) 417/2000, where processing is "is necessary for the purposes of the prevention or detection of any unlawful act", exempts you from the explict consent requirements of Schedule 3^*; and SI 2699/2000, the appallingly titled "The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000", S3(1)(a)(iii) allows interception for "the purpose of preventing or detecting crime" and (iv) allows it for "the purpose of investigating or detecting the unauthorised use of that or any other telecommunication system".

So, actually, as far as investigation goes (as opposed to monitoring which is covered by the non-statutory Information Commissioner's Employment Practices Code - Section 3), you actually have a fairly free reign.

Mr Malcolm's suggestion that you should contact the police is interesting (and you certainly should if you think you are in possession of material that creates a strict liability offence of possession for you) but you will often be much better off (and have it sorted much more quickly) if you take legal advice and engage a professional forensic investigator. Not all abuses or malpractice are criminal and, in any case, the particular event or accusation you are worried about would have to be really quite significant (or merely high profile for one or more senior cops, if you'll pardon the cynicism) for you to be high up the priority list for the relevant police specialists.

Now, back to swearing ...


* Note that s2(g) of DPA98 makes information about "the commission or alleged commission ... of any offence" sensitive personal data.

No, No, Fucking NO!

Dear Mr Massie,

While I agree with you that our Lords and Masters, particularly those who are utterly fucking unimportant (i.e. work for the local council), are a bunch of statist control-freaks and prurient self-important jobsworths and, I also agree with you that the Anti-Terrorism Laws in this country are being abused, would you please stop making stupid mistakes?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is not an anti-terrorism law. Part I and Part II were brought in to place to bring common, existing police and other government investigative practice onto a basic legal footing (otherwise they would have been illegal under the Human Rights Act - Article 8, Right to a Private Life^*, I believe.) Yes, Part III was sold to the fools collective we call Parliament because paedophiles (mostly) and terrorists (a little, but remember this was enacted before 911) were about to destroy the world through competent use of encryption but, still, accuracy please.

* The article contains the following relevant phrase:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law

I've tried Chrome

But I am not posting from it. Not because of the EULA, they've fixed that. But because my loverly "Open (All) in Tabs" has gone. So I'm a dirty rotten holdout then. Until they fix that, at least.

I just don't get these

From this article. Yes, I get that some fanatics consider that anything other than strictly theologically defined celebrations are sacreligious - this is not an Islamic monopoly - churches in England still bear the scars inflicted by the Puritans and as for Scots and Irish Presbyterians? They are entirely with the late Ayatollah Khomeini in the clerical wing of the Fun Police.

Nope. Understand that (if still not happy about it.) But what about this:

Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al Sheik "also heads the Presidency for Scientific Research and Religious Edicts". Didn't take them long to want to top-trump Mrs Palin, did it? Scientific research and religious edicts? The Most Rev Rowan Williams for President of the Royal Society? His Holiness Pope Benedict for Head of Research at NASA? Err, no, don't get it.

And on a lesser level ...

"Buthaina Ba-Aqeel, 51, said she used to throw birthday parties at home for her children, but they were low-key and not on the same day the child was born — to avoid singling out one particular day during the year to celebrate."

No, you miserable misguided fool. You used to throw parties for children. If they were "birthday parties" they would have been on or near (Saturday after seems normal for kids with natal days falling in school seasons) their birthday.

Imagine If

Dizzy got there first but I'm going to carry on regardless ...

Imagine if Iain Dale was composing a list of the worst 100 political blogs. Would we be entertaining any notion that a blogger could reasonably demand to be excluded, even on the grounds that they regard it as "damaging to their reputation"?

Just thinking, that's all.

Chrome - some questions

Okay, I've not tried Chrome yet, 'cause I'm working in London with my MacBook but I do intend to have a go once I get home and have a Windoze box to play with.

First, though, a couple of questions.

1. Is Chrome open source, as the Googlistas claim? Well, look at the licence:

"10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing."

Looks pretty "closed source" to me.

2. After all the fuss about the stupid EULA clause (see here for a good explanation, here for the apparent retraction and here for some swearing), why (11:20BST / 10:20GMT-UTC*) does section 11.1 of the bloody EULA still read:

"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."

My emphasis, clearly. 

3. With this from the EFF as well, regarding the Omnibox, do any of you over-brained under-socialised fucking cretins actually understand what "Do no evil" actually means?

* Our more perceptive reader(s) and any associated pedants may quibble that GMT and UTC are actually different timing systems.  I do, of course, agree but would point out that as I am measuring in minutes (and it is 11:33ish BST now anyway) not fractions of a second, the difference is irrelevant.

Update: Fuck me, that was quick (11:40BST) - a refresh on the EULA now shows the following:

"11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

This, of course, is completely un-necessary in the licence agreement. I retain the property rights in my house too, without the permission of Google's lawyers. And, it has to be said again, I have few if any legal rights in the vast majority of what I view or read in any browser.

Now, the blindingly obvious

Thanks to DK, we have "The Geek Test".

98% Geek

As Homer would say, "Duh!"

Accurate Propaganda in the War on Fat

I interrupt my self-imposed silence to bring you this important public service announcement - the BBC has posted something almost accurate on its web-news:

Obesity 'equal to terror threat'

The threat to Britain and the NHS from rising obesity is as grave as that posed by terrorism, a top expert says.

I said almost, because Comrade Professor Hunter then goes on to suggest 'ministers should be taking "bold action" now'. Apart from the ridiculous conceit that the current bunch of Gordo's finger-puppets are capable of doing anything bolder than "exactly what Nanny tells them", the reason that the threats to this nation from obesity and terrorism are equal is that they are both minimal (as far as the "nation" and, in fact, the vast majority of its denizens are concerned.)

Bird Flu?

Boggle does the mind:

Hope fine, My name is M.MOUNIR working with AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) OUAGADOUGOU BURKINA-FASO. During our periodic auditing this year, I discovered a dormant accounts with holding balance of (£5,000.000.00) {Five million British Pounds Starlings} this account has not been operated for the past years. As at this moment, I am constrained to issue more details about this business until your response is received.

My emphasis :)  Why do English plurals seem to be such a problem for 419ers?  Are they generally a problem for English speakers from African countries?  Not from my limited experience but ...