Happy Face

Not this then? Nah, Here's Your Future by The Thermals is an all time favourite of mine so I come at religious rock from the opposite angle. Bit embarrassing for you to be chasing me around threads though. Jesus the neocon christian wept.

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? ) The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in partnership with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material. The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union. The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge. Government policy on policing the internet is one of self-regulation... The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation I'll ask again, what process do you envision that provides oversight of what content is blocked and what isn't? Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that. All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life. "The courts" isn't a process it's a result. I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified? Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship? Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court? Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer. As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions). So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures. I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen. You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda. That's weak, even by your low standards. First of all nothing was banned. Second, it was challengable and indeed challenged succesfully as you so gleefully took (for some unknown reason) as some sort of validation that freedom of speech has been eroded in the UK. Feel free to outline the more rigorous and independently overseen (and even more challengeable) procedures you're proposing though.

Gigwise top 50 just out... http://www.gigwise.com/article.php?id=4812...image=1#gallery

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever. I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record. FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC. I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate). Taken form the BBFC site: So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference. They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others. The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me. As far as I see it, the IWF have a list of what they recommend be blocked so that ISPs aren't left open to prosecution. The IWF don't threaten legal action against anyone not conforming to their list. No ISP is forced to use the list but most choose to. The IWF react to what they receive. A Wiki page was added to the list after being reported. Amazon wasn't reported. The IWF realised it was an image widely in the public domain and quickly removed it from the list with no need for court intervention.

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? ) The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in partnership with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material. The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union. The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge. Government policy on policing the internet is one of self-regulation... The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation I'll ask again, what process do you envision that provides oversight of what content is blocked and what isn't? Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that. All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life. "The courts" isn't a process it's a result. I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified? Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship? Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever. I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record. FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC. I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate).

Weaker than clock radio speakers*, but that's not the point is it? *10 points to whoever gets the reference Liquid Swords isn't it? The points go to Alex.

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? ) The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in partnership with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material. The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union. The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge. Government policy on policing the internet is one of self-regulation... The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation I'll ask again, what process do you envision that provides oversight of what content is blocked and what isn't?

Weaker than clock radio speakers*, but that's not the point is it? *10 points to whoever gets the reference

Just read about it on the BBC. Go on Satch sonna.

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity. I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff. Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it. Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based? You should read more carefully. You have to admit it's very funny that you have though. So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have? What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases? Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile. Fop did like, because he is. can a girly virgin be a paedophile? I thought you were talking about the lass on the album cover. Took ten minutes to click that you were talking about Fop.

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity. I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff. Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it. Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based? You should read more carefully. You have to admit it's very funny that you have though. So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have? What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases? Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile. Fop did like, because he is.

Brown would have to call a snap election right now to capitalise on that, though. If he holds out until 2010, people will have seen through his economic "rescue" measures by then. ...again this is a worldwide economic crisis. Is it worldwide? Or is it only limited to those countries blindly following the Chicago school model? Admittedly, that's almost all. Brazil (Latin America's largest economy) and their state-owned oil firm Petrobras aren't doing too bad? http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/101...s_cardenas.aspx Last time I looked the owed the world bank 900 billion dollars.$ This is after some king of write down in the mid ninetees. iirc Didn't they pay off the IMF debt in full a few years back and save $900M in interest payments? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4527438.stm

Brown would have to call a snap election right now to capitalise on that, though. If he holds out until 2010, people will have seen through his economic "rescue" measures by then. ...again this is a worldwide economic crisis. Is it worldwide? Or is it only limited to those countries blindly following the Chicago school model? Admittedly, that's almost all. Brazil (Latin America's largest economy) and their state-owned oil firm Petrobras aren't doing too bad? http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/101...s_cardenas.aspx

Hasn't it always been the case? Even a vote for "change we can believe in" Obama was just a vote against Bush who hadn't quite fucked things up enough at home to warrant a beating off Kerry in '04. Both main parties policies are basically the same on either side of the Atlantic. You're only voting on personality if you see those two as your only choice.

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity. I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff. Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it. Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based? You should read more carefully. You have to admit it's very funny that you have though. So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have? What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity. I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff. Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it. Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

I'm amazed anyone could want Labour to have another term (then again I guess there are the people that voted Conservative in 1997). Obama..... chaaaaange..... I think overall Newcastle/the North East is far better off than it was 10 years ago. Maybe a result of boom and bust, but people up here won't forget what a shit-hole it was when the tories couldn't give a fuck. I can see why no-one middle class or wealthy would want Labour to have another term.

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity. I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

Aye that and you have to wonder if court action wasn't also eventually threatened, clearly it wasn't "potentially illegal" (as this shows) and the IWF knew this as they knew about the Amazon pic at the same time and did nothing. The problem is of course that this got a LOT of publicity, how much do the IWF and others like them ban without anyone knowing? I'm being independently proven utterly right so much at the moment it's scary. "We only act on the reports we receive, and as I understand it, the only report we received regarding this content, as of Friday, was the content on Wikipedia,"

Happy Face supporting US Christian Neo-Cons and Fop being completely right shocker. Not really. I think the system is pretty much fine as it is, you seem to think either we're living in a police state, or the internet is under corporate control. I'd say this decision being made within days vindicates my position more than yours.

That looks brilliant Jimbo. Have you a link? http://www.firebox.com/product/2169/MyTunes-MP3-Amp There's guitar amps like that too.... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marshall-Amp-Class...7DENMM6R4K8SSAD The Smokey amps are the nuts though... http://www.stringsdirect.co.uk/products/2384-smokey_amp

Islamic banks ftw

The international banking system fucked the economy not the goveenment - though they do deserve a bit of blame for lack of regulation. Long before the global crash people were questioning Gordon Browns borrowing and selling of our reserves. Apr 2007.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle1655001.ece The price of gold currently sits at $784.60 http://www.goldprice.org/gold-price.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm Before they blocked it page views were around 500-1000/day. Two days later and it's viewed 371,000 times (more than the combined total for the previous 12 months). http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin%20Killer