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.