One Day Iraq will Invade the UK to Free us from Dictatorship and Heavy
total of 78 police officers were used, at a cost of £7,200, in the night-time
operation to crack down on the lone anti-war protester Brian Haw in Parliament
The raid ran up a bill of £3,000 in overtime and £4,200 for transport,
catering and erection of road barriers, said Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan
The manpower involved in reducing Haw's permitted protesting space to a 10ft
"cube" outside Parliament is almost four times the 20 suggested after the raid
in the early hours on Tuesday. However, Scotland Yard said 24 of the 78 officers
were "kept in reserve".
Sir Ian defended the scale of the operation after fierce criticism by some
members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which oversees his force.
The Met was accused of "overkill" and of creating the impression around the
world that police were being used to suppress anti-war dissent.
Haw, a carpenter from Worcestershire who has dedicated five years to often very
loud protest, is being prosecuted for allegedly failing to abide by conditions
set down for his demonstration.
The Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Tope, an MPA member, said:
Some may well find
Brian Haw and his activities irritating, but being an irritant is a pretty
fundamental part of our democracy. The right to protest. . . the right to
irritate some of those sitting in Parliament feeling self-important. I do think
it brings the Met into a bit of disrepute - 78 police officers arriving in the
middle of the night to clear placards and chase mice. I really do think that it
was huge overkill.
Damien Hockney, from One London Group, said: This has been interpreted around
the world that Britain is suppressing dissent by people opposed to the Iraq war.
That is the way it is being put across - policemen being sent in overnight to
knock somebody down. From a PR point of view, that is a very dangerous thing to
The court said Haw would have to apply to the police for authorisation to
continue. He is due to appear in a magistrates' court for an alleged breach of
the Act in failing to comply with conditions.
Arrested for Flying Low
The "naked rambler," who has had numerous brushes with the law for
nudity on land, was arrested again after shedding his clothes aboard an
Stephen Gough was on his way to Edinburgh for a hearing at the Appeal
Court, where he was challenging four contempt of court citations for
nudity in Scotland.
Police arrested Gough at Edinburgh Airport.
At the Appeal Court, three justices decided that Gough's case merited a
full hearing, on a date to be set. Lord Johnston urged Gough's lawyers
to persuade their client that he was "doing himself no good" by
continuing to go naked.
There is no law saying 'Thou shalt not go naked,' Gough said at
one of his court appearances in 2004.
rambler Stephen Gough has been jailed for four months after stripping
off on a passenger plane.
He was found guilty of charges of breach of the peace and public
indecency on a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh.
Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard how the ex-marine spent 20 minutes in the
plane's toilet before emerging with only his socks and hiking boots on.
Gough, from Eastleigh, Hampshire, had denied the charges. He had been
travelling to an appeal court appearance to challenge a contempt of
Senior cabin crew member, Karen Hopewell, 24, said she had become a
little concerned when he had been in the toilet for about 20 minutes.
Initially, she had not noticed his state of undress but as he walked
down the aisle to his seat, she saw his naked bottom and that he was
only wearing socks and hiking boots.
Hopewell said she twice asked the man, she identified as Gough, to put
on his clothes, but he refused. She said some of the passengers were
smiling and giggling.
The cabin crew admitted no-one had appeared alarmed or fearful.
Gough was arrested at Edinburgh Airport and led from the aircraft in
handcuffs. He refused requests by police officers to dress.
Mandatory UK Internet
Linx, thanks to Shaun
a Parliamentary written answer the new Home Office Minister Vernon
Croaker set a deadline of the end of 2007 for all ISPs to implement a
Cleanfeed-style network level content blocking platform. New ISPs will
be required to implement such a blocking platform within nine months of
Croaker said: Recently, it has become technically feasible for ISPs
to block home users' access to websites irrespective of where in the
world they are hosted. It is clear from the various meetings that
Ministers have had with the ISPs, that the industry has the will to
implement solutions to block these websites. Currently, all the 3G
mobile network operators block their mobile customers from accessing
these sites and the biggest ISPs are either currently blocking or have
plans to by the end of 2006.
We recognise the progress that has been made as a result of the
industry's commitment and investment so far. However, 90% of connections
is not enough and we are setting a target that by the end of 2007, all
ISPs offering broadband internet connectivity to the UK general public
put in place technical measures that prevent their customers accessing
websites containing illegal images of child abuse identified by the IWF.
For new ISPs or services, we would expect them to put in place measures
within nine months of offering the service to the public.
Croaker went on to imply, but not directly threaten, future legislative
compulsion, saying: If it appears that we are not going to meet our
target through co-operation, we will review the options for stopping UK
residents accessing websites on the IWF list.
Currently, the only web sites ISPs are expected to block access to are
sites the Internet Watch Foundation has identified as containing images
of child abuse. However such a platform is capable of blocking access to
any web site added to the list (at least, to the extent that the
implementation is effective), making it a simple
matter to change this policy in future.
The Home Office has previously indicated that it has considered
requiring ISPs to block access to articles on the web deemed to be
glorifying terrorism, within the meaning of the new Terrorism Act 2006.
Writing in the context of enquiries as to whether the Terrorism Act
required network-level content blocking of the material it prohibits,
Home Office officials have said:
At present, the government does not propose to require UK ISPs to
block content and our policy is to pursue a self-regulatory approach
wherever possible. However, our legislation as
drafted provides the flexibility to accommodate a change in Government
policy should the need ever arise.
1000 Lists to Change Your Life
Out's film guide, 1,000 Films That Change Your Life, is to be
published later this week.
of the list came Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom, which draws on
the Marquis de Sade's novel to depict the final dark days of Italian
fascism as four officials inflict revolting sexual, physical and
psychological violence on nine kidnapped teenagers. The film caused
outrage throughout the world when it was released in 1975, and has
proved a hot potato for film certification boards. In Britain, the first
cinema to screen an uncut version of the film in 1977 was raided by
police. A heavily cut version was shown until six years ago, when the BBFC agreed to reclassify the movie, acknowledging its capacity to
vividly illustrate the idea that "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Other films on the list include Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers,
Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ and David
Cronenberg's Crash, which was banned in 1996 by several local
authorities in Britain. The oldest film on the list is Birth of a
Nation, directed by DW Griffith in 1915. Griffith, who said he was
not racist, used the movie to present viciously racist portrayals of
The only director on the list to ignite controversy with comedy, Terry
Jones, is granted ninth place for his 1979 movie Monty Python's Life
of Brian. Christian groups deemed as blasphemous the satire about
the reluctant saviour whose mother insists: He's not the messiah;
he's a very naughty boy.
Most controversial Films:
- Salò (1975) Pier Paolo Pasolini
- Natural Born Killers (1994) Oliver Stone
- Crash (1996) David Cronenberg
- The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) Martin Scorsese
- The Devils (1971) Ken Russell
- Pretty Baby (1977) Louis Malle
- Birth of a Nation (1915) DW Griffith
- Straw Dogs (1971) Sam Peckinpah
- Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) Terry Jones
- Bandit Queen (1994) Shekhar Kapur
eBay Bid for the Most
Arbitrary Censorship Award
are up for auction at the moment along with all of the constituent
Thanks to David
was bidding on a DVD box set via eBay only to find that when I woke up
the following day the item had been removed. I had also received an
e-mail from eBay informing me the listing had been removed by eBay for
not being within their criteria of what can and cannot be sold on eBay.
The box set in question: Box of the Banned by Anchor Bay which
features 18 certificate versions of: The Evil Dead, Last House on the
Left, Nightmares in a Damaged Brain, Driller Killer, I Spit on Your
Grave, Zombie Flesh Eaters + two documentaries Ban the Sadist
Videos & Fear, Panic & Censorship which are generally about
the censorship of video nasties in the UK.
This box set is available in Virgin, HMV etc…as well as on Amazon and
almost every other DVD retailer on the web but seemingly eBay are having
none of it.
I mailed eBay asking to explain why it had been removed and received the
Why did you stop this auction? This set of DVDs is sold in
HMV, Virgin etc etc... I am curious to know your justification in
removing this item. Every film included in this set has been
classified certificate 18 by the British Board of Film
Classification. Your rules are becoming very hostile and rather
petulant to say the least! Please explain.
Even if an item is given a rating for general sale in the UK
by the BBFC, this does not exempt such an item from eBay policy.
Under our policy, eBay does not allow items or descriptions that
graphically portray violence or victims of violence, and lacks
substantial social, artistic or political value. For example, eBay
will disallow sales of explicit crime scene or morgue photos and
videos, the type often found in this series.
eBay Community Watch Team
Case for the Most
Arbitrary Censorship Award
just read your 12th April news item, about the tossers at e-Bay banning
the sale of the UK Box Of The Banned DVD box set, and Joseph
Mulryan's response about the films, because: Under our policy, eBay
does not allow items or descriptions that graphically portray violence
or victims of violence, and lacks substantial social, artistic or
political value. For example, eBay will disallow sales of explicit crime
scene or morgue photos and videos, the type often found in this series.
If that is the case, how come on e-Bay today (18th April), I can bid on
of the following:
1 - DVD releases of "Men
Behind The Sun" and its offspring
2 - DVD of
3 - Other
Box Of The Banned DVD's
4 - A DVD pirate-copy of the uncut Dutch VHS version of
Anthropophagus: The Grim-Reaper
I feel that e-Bay seems to not have a single bloody clue about what it
allows and doesn't allow. Oh, and did we forget to mention the numerous
amount of pirated DVD's of mainstream films, and CD's, not forgetting
brand-name shoes, clothing, etc, that e-Bay also seems to not notice?!
Don't Mention It
thought you may be interested in this, eBay are making some truly fucked
up decisions, and this is another prime example of this:
I listed over the weekend the classic Fred Dekker film,
Night of the
Creeps, due to the upcoming film Slither being a lot like
this movie. I mentioned Slither in my description.
Anyway I received an e-mail tonight saying the item had been removed
because of 'keyword spamming', there reason for this is as follows: Keyword spamming is not permitted on eBay. This occurs when members
place brand names or other inappropriate keywords in a title or
description for the purpose of gaining attention or diverting members to
a listing. The inclusion of any brand names or company logos in listings
other than the specific brand name used by the company that manufactured
or produced the item is not permitted.
So it's OK to list thousands upon thousands of pirate DVDs on eBay but
it's a total no no to list a perfectly legal, original VHS tape and
mention another film in the title description!!
I have sent an email contesting the decision and for some justification
of this ludicrous decision and will provide me info if and when I get
Law unto Themselves
is the reply from ebay, I wish they would get there act together
themselves and paypal really are a law to themselves, it's about time
they were bought down a peg or two! anyway here is there response:
I will be happy to address your concerns regarding why your listings
I have reviewed your account and have found the appropriate action has
been taken. Your listing title contained the information: "Like Slither"
This is a violation of our guidelines which state "sellers are not
permitted to make comparisons between items in a listing title." The
policy further states "Avoid using comparison words such as "like,"
"style," and "not" in the title of your listing." This also extends to
the use of words such as "inspired", "similar", etc.
Please note that it is permitted to use *one* brand name as a comparison
within the item description of the auction listing, not the title.
Strange times indeed when mere
communication is deemed so dangerous
See also www.bebo.com
Schools across the country are banning pupils from accessing a
popular social networking website.
Schools have become so concerned about the site that they are also
warning parents to monitor closely their children's internet use when
they are at home.
Up to 4.5 million people in Britain have signed up to the site since its
launch last summer. It is at the heart of a growing on-line social
networking craze among youngsters. The site is aimed at people between
the ages of 13 and 30, but has proved particularly popular with school
students, and even primary school pupils. It allows members to create
mini-homepages with pictures and personal profiles. They can also share
pictures and messages with other users.
One school to have banned the site is Kent College, an independent girls
boarding school near Tunbridge Wells. Bill Burles, the school's director
of information and communication technology (ICT), said: When we found
the site, about 170 of our pupils had signed up to it. There was stuff
on there slagging off teachers, there was bad language, bullying and
inappropriate images. We held a parents information evening about it,
and there was a lot of jaw dropping from parents when we told them what
was going on. Burles added: The girls don't realise this stuff is
available to everyone. They think it is only accessible for their
friends. They don't realise the whole world can view it.
In Norfolk, the website has been blocked in all 453 schools and parents
have now been warned about their children logging on at home. It is
understood to be the first education authority to impose a blanket ban,
although others are now thought to be following suit.
Jim Scheinman, Bebo's vice president, described the decision to ban the
site from schools as "censorship".
We take privacy and security very seriously. The internet
and social networking have not created bullying. When bullying occurs
on-line, just like off line, this creates a teachable moment for
educators, parents and students. Engaging the students in these
teachable moments seems more sensible than censorship.