Sim-O

Two articles I’ve come across today, both relating to the use cameras.

I’m not into photography, I like to take a good snap, but it always ends up blurred and what I think would be a great picture never quite turns out like it should.

But whatever you use a camera for, for your living or for holiday memories, the two stories below are an indication of something that will have an affect on you becoming more common:

Via Tygerland, from the British Journal of Photography (quoted in full cos it’s only short)…

A police officer has destroyed a journalist’s images of people sledging arguing that it represented an act of voyeurism.

According to the St-Albans local newspaper, The Review, reporter Alex Lewis took several photos on his mobile phone in Stanborugh Park on 03 February when he was threatened by a man who apparently thought he was photographing his children for sexual purposes.

The reporter called the police, however, an officer told him that his phone would be confiscated as evidence for a charge of ‘voyeurism’ unless he agreed to delete the images. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced the offence of voyeurism.

‘The act defines a “private act”, in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public’.

The Review has asked Hertfordshire Constabulary how photographs of fully clothed people in a public park are covered by the legislation. No response has been given.

It may be an over-zealous copper, but when someone slaps the Sexaul Offences Act in your face, most people are going to relent and destroy the pictures. That is the fear of the label ‘sexual offender’.

And another from the Devil himself…

From the 16th of this month, you will be liable to a maximum of ten years in prison for taking a photo of a fucking policeman.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.

What the fucking fuckity-fuck is this fucking shit? Ten years and a fucking fine? Fucking hell…

So, I would say that you can expect far fewer pictures showing the police kicking in protestors’ heads, wouldn’t you?

We can be watched what ever we do, where ever we go, but try and return the favour at a demo or protest…

Guardian:

Carol Thatcher faces being banned from the BBC after she referred to a tennis player as a “golliwog”.

Thatcher, the daughter of former prime minister Lady Thatcher, made the remark in a private conversation in the green room of The One Show after the broadcast of the BBC1 programme on Thursday night.

Stupid cow.

Didn’t stop the BBC getting her on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday to do the papers though, did it?

/insert favourite digs at Carols mother here/

Aaron has stuck a post up on Tabloid Lies. About the beleaguered BBC and that gob-almighty Jon Gaunt.

As Aaron says…

Now exhausted and emasculated, having been poked, beaten and punched by both the left and right, the BBC has to contend with the flabby frame of Jon Gaunt piling on like an over-excitable school-yard bully.

At the end of the day, if the BBC stood up to the bullies, the response would be the equivalent of the ‘you have to do as I say, I pay your wages’.
With the likes of News Corp. and the Daily Mail on it’s back, the BBC can be kept cowering in the corner, trying not to offend anyone, becoming poorer and poorer until it truly becomes not worth keeping.

The BBC needs to realise that it’s very presence is the reason for the vitriol, not its’ output. The sooner it does, the better it will be to answer it’s critics.

So the fascination with celebrities by politicians carries on.

Telegraph:

David Cameron was due to unveil a package of proposals aimed at improving numeracy, including a maths task force headed by former Countdown host Carol Vorderman.

I don’t deny Carol is good at maths. To most ordinary people the speed at which she can multiply 7×6 is phenominal. The way she does division, what I’ve always found rather taxing, is just well, stunning. But how good is she? Really? She may be the most famous maths person, but that doesn’t make her the best person for the job. She could be the Austin Allegro of the maths world for all we know.
Does Carol know anything about teaching or teaching methods? I’d guess not. In reality, she is just a TV presenter “with good mathematical skills“.

See also Dungeekin: Vorderman to Front Tory Numeracy Initiative

The Times:

In its relentless quest for world living-room domination, Nintendo is preparing to take on the might of the world’s biggest broadcasters by launching its own television channel.

Viewable by anyone with a Wii games console and an internet connection, the Wiinoma channel is expected to deliver a family- oriented blizzard of cartoons, “brain-training” quizzes, cookery, educational and other lifestyle shows: all of it original content produced exclusively for Nintendo.

Broadcasts in Japan should begin in the spring and the console maker is considering international expansion that would lead to the channel being available in the homes of about 40million Wii owners by the end of 2009.

Mark Steel:

The gap between the might of Israel’s F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters, and the Palestinians’ catapulty thing is so ridiculous that to try and portray the situation as between two equal sides requires the imagination of a children’s story writer.

The reporter on News at Ten said the rockets “may be ineffective, but they ARE symbolic.” So they might not have weapons but they have got symbolism, the canny brutes.

It’s no wonder the Israeli Air Force had to demolish a few housing estates, otherwise Hamas might have tried to mock Israel through a performance of expressive dance.

The rockets may be unable to to kill on the scale of the Israeli Air Force, said one spokesman, but they are “intended to kill”.

Maybe he went on: “And we have evidence that Hamas supporters have dreams, and that in these dreams bad things happen to Israeli citizens, they burst, or turn into cactus, or run through Woolworths naked, so it’s not important whether it can happen, what matters is that they WANT it to happen, so we blew up their university.”

Wikileaks, Northern Rock vs Wikileaks:

The combined publishing might of the British press and the Internet has proved unfit (with the exception of Wikileaks), to provision a key document in British politics to the public. Every insider has it. Surely the British people deserve to see it, after all they’ve paid for it — £400 each.

The UK press is the most injuncted, litigated and censored among the liberal democracies. The population suffers accordingly and as we have seen, this hobbling of the UK press is now exported world wide via extra-territorial claims. The claims have limited power in theory, but are effective tools of suppression in practice as neither profit motivated ISPs nor publishers with UK business dealings will stand their ground. It is time for urgent reform.

And now

Wikileaks previously released the gag order for the Northern Rock bank collapse, now we release the secret gag order made by High Court Justice Tugendhat on Dec 15, 2008 aimed at covering up an email leak from the British establishment. The secret order first targeted UK newspapers, but our copy was destined for the UK Parliamentary blogger ‘Guido Fawkes’, editor of ‘order-order.com’. The summary states:

1. The identities of the Applicants/Claimants must remain confidential.
2. The fact of the existence of the Orders must remain confidential.
3. The terms of the Orders must remain confidential.

(PDF)

Via

Telegraph:

The Culture Secretary is young and media-savvy; can he really believe that cyberspace is susceptible to top-down regulation from government? The notion of ratings for websites betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works. Dubious, bizarre and revolting material can be accessed from virtually any computer screen in Britain, and teenagers are probably quicker at finding it than anyone else. Mr Burnham talks about “child-friendly web access”; in fact, this is readily available, but it needs parents or responsible adults to install and monitor the appropriate software.

At risk of sounding like a libertarian. It is your responsibility to ensure that your child is viewing only child friendly stuff on the internet. Just like it is your responsibility with regards to what your child watches on the telly. No ratings there is there?
More to the point, how is this going to be implemented? With registration of websites? What are the sanctions going to be if the age rating isn’t displayed? Are only websites that have an age rating going to be allowed through the government firewall? Doesn’t it sound a bit like what everyone is giving China shit for?

It. Isn’t. Going. To. Work.

Via

I just got back from the Next sale in Luton with Mrs -O. What a horrible experience. And that’s not even taking into consideration the rampant consumerism.

We were there an hour and got bumped about. unintentionally I will admit, but only three people said sorry, or excused themselves before pushing past. Ignorant fucks.
What does it take to just murmer one or two words instead of standing expectantly close behind me in the hope that I will telepathically know that they want to get past. How about a bit of a warning with the words ‘excuse me’ before bouncing me out the way? I don’t expect a full on apology, but at least an acknowledgement that I’m here and they’ve tried to stand in the same place as me at the same time.

But the things that really pisses me off is the queue. Why do other people have to stand so close that the coat hangars they are carrying poke me in the back? They’re bags on the floor, why do they have to push them forward so they keep hitting the back of my legs? Just back off a bit, eh?

Let’s all give each other a bit of room and curtesy. It doesn’t cost anything and it might stop stop someone ruining your day.

Being as organised as ever, I haven’t sorted out a proper Christmas post. Y’know the sort, funny, satirical, thought provoking or just a plain ol’ ‘fuck Christmas’ item.

I would just like to say, and I don’t do heartfelt nicey nicey stuff very well, at the end of this year:

Cheers guys. It’s been fun.

Next year there will be a couple changes, for a start I’m changing software to wordpress so there will be those little extra functionalities that make things easier and one or two other things that I’m keeping quiet about in case it doesn’t happen.

Anyway thanx for reading and commenting and have a good time over Christmas/New Year.