|26th May ||
One Day Iraq will Invade the UK to Free us from Dictatorship and Heavy Handed Policing |
A 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 Square.
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 police commissioner.
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 have done.
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.
|19th May |
Arrested for Flying Low |
From Fox News
The "naked rambler," who has had numerous brushes with the law for nudity on land, was
arrested again after shedding his clothes aboard an aircraft.
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.
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.
25th June || Update: Naked Injustice |
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 court ruling.
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.
|18th May || Mandatory UK Internet Censorship
From Linx , thanks to Shaun
In 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 starting operations.
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.
|12th April |
eBay Bid for the Most Arbitrary Censorship Award |
Several copies are up for auction at the moment along with all of the constituent films.
Thanks to David
I 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 response
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
|20th April |
Opinion: Strong Case for the Most Arbitrary Censorship Award
I 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 any
of the following:
1 - DVD releases of "Men Behind The Sun" and its offspring
2 - DVD of shockumentary footage
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?!
|| Opinion: Don't Mention It |
I 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.
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
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 it.
|| Opinion: Law unto Themselves |
Here 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 were removed.
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",
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.
|9th April || Slagging Off Teachers
Strange times indeed when mere communication is deemed so dangerous
From The Telegraph ,
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.
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".
He said: 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.