Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

(deleted) (60)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

22 Jun 09, 8:59 AM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 12 yrs

Mr_Frost wrote:
Unless the guy took his PC in to ask why his movie files where not playing or why his images where not loading there is no valid reason for anybody to be opening them up at the repair shop.

So you think a PC repair guy who sees a file called "8 year old Lolita rape" should ignore it to respect privacy?

Mandated reporting of child pornography by the PC repair chains has been known about for some time, what is notable is how fast this has been extended to include extreme porn (my guess by police advice on the new law sent to the large pc repair companies).

- Chris

This is my voice, my weapon of choice

Edited 22 Jun 09, 9:00 AM by Backdooruk

22 Jun 09, 11:36 AM
keithunder
UK(M), 10 yrs

The new law only covers penetrative sex or oral sex. It does not cover masturbation of an animal for example.

I fail to see the point of this law. So what if people have pictures of the Honeymoon of the man that married his horse! It's not my cup of tea, but if anything I think most people find this kind of thing more amusing than disgusting.

It is so hypocritical to say that this is anything to do with the welfare of the animal, when we quite legally kill millions of them each year for food.

The penalties for real animal cruelty are laughable, but this government seems to find it more important to imprison people for animal porn (whether it was cruel to the animal or not) than to do the same to real bastards who have done unspeakably nasty and cruel things.

Still this government will soon be gone and good riddance to the bastards. This is more to do with trying to look good for the Daily Mail voters.

So far as I am concerned Doris the sheep is a lot better off if Farmer Giles shags her than she would be if she ended up at the slaughter house. In the normal course of events I doubt it is much different to her than artificial insemination.

Edited 22 Jun 09, 12:57 PM by keithunder

22 Jun 09, 12:35 PM
FairyGirl
UK(YO), 2 yrs

keithunder wrote:

I have to agree - I read once how three men gatecrashed an animal shelter and murdered, in obscenely digusting and immoral ways, a menagerie of animals. And the most any of them got wasn't even a year. Hideous.

Nothing saves anyone's life Sir. It just postpones their death.
All it takes for bad English to prevail is for literate people to do nothing.

Edited 22 Jun 09, 12:36 PM by FairyGirl

22 Jun 09, 4:52 PM
Dimswitch3
UK, 5 yrs

My thoughts on PC repair shops.

(1) If the staff are looking at the contents of your hard drive when it's not relevant. They're doing it in your time, take it somewhere else.

(2) Often they'll need to image your hard drive, quite legitimately. eg if they're replacing hard drive. Leaving aside qestion of porn, you might have all sorts of private stuff on there and you've no control what happens to their copy - keep your data on a separate drive that never goes to the repair centre.

(3) Beats me why repair shops report folk to plod. It's obvious who grassed 'em up & shop windows are expensive.

22 Jun 09, 10:16 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

Another point I've just noticed (from the earlier article at http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/4427000.Man_g... ) is that the date given for the possession offence is February 10 - just 15 days after the law came into force! Random chance, or could this suggest that employees of this PC shop were perhaps briefed on the law?

I bet he's wishing his computer broke down just a couple of weeks sooner :/

SirOpenSource wrote:
Although you mention Counselling and the article is only a brief snapshot of the trial, there is no specific reference to though The defendant's legal Counsel may have suggested to them that accepting the offer of counseling would go in their favour. The supervision order in a case such as this may involve 'mentoring' which is very different from therapy.

There are different schools of therapy who would approach such an issue as this differently and so it would be wrong for me to state the best approach. I can say that any Counsellor who tells a client 'This is wrong' or 'You shouldn't do that' would have to look again at their code of ethics but to give a full description here of how each model approaches different issues would take too much space.

Thanks for the info - I'm glad to hear that counsellers wouldn't take that approach, even for one required as a result of criminal conviction. Given that he doesn't seem to be a zoophile, just someone who had the images out of curiousity, I wonder what one could possibly get out of mentoring or counselling.

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

Edited 22 Jun 09, 10:18 PM by emark

Next page