In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.
I want to know where she is getting her figures before I can trust them.
This is just a piggy back on to the whining the UK government did about 2 weeks ago over young girls wearing whore clothes.
I'm having a problem with this story.
I can not find it on a respectable site. The only "news" site that is carrying it is The Sun and they are well known for making up news stories. The other sites that are carrying it are just repeating what The Sun printed.
Going through the list, I see no surprises there.
It also must be noted that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a very long way from actually being repealed. There are still a huge amount of hoops that must be jumped through to get to the total repeal stage. One of the first steps is answering the question about DoMA and discrimination against gays in the area family benefits. Most likely, it will be ruled that gays will not get any family benefits, thus discriminating against us while claiming a victory for non discrimination.
While this is good news for the tiny amount of gays that are in the military, it does nothing for the vast majority of American gays that have absolutely no protection in areas such as jobs, housing, banking, credit and countless other areas.
Just like all other homophobic attacks in the UK {and crime in general} they will get off with a tiny slap on the wrist at the very most.
The helpdesk is flooded with all kinds of basic questions that have been repeated answered all over this site.
A separate section where people click saying they read the rules won't make any difference because no one reads the rules and they will just click the button anyway, then complain at us.
Make sure you put the VIDEO_TS folder inside a folder with the proper name of the video.
The world does not live in the context of that one single video. My previous comments were based on real world that the video is based in.
Who is to say that rugby player didn't want to kiss the gay steward? Unless you have proof that it was real and not scripted like with rest of the video was, then your screams of "victim of pressured unwanted sexual advances" is moot. Rugby players are notoriously gayer than the biggest flaming queens, just watch them in the lockerrooms and pubs.
Straight men use women as sex objects all the time, so why is it so utterly horrible when they are used in the same way? Oh, that's right, we can't have them being used that way by fags.
As I previously said, gays are always supposed to lighten up, while every other group screams and moans like whores in church.
While this is extremely minor, it does show a blatant rejection of homosexuality.
Also, imagine if the video were slightly different and the rugby player rejected a black woman or whatever. Do you think the outcry would be any less?
Why are gays supposed to lighten up, but no other minority group has to?
NOTE: I'm not in favor of removing that rejection bit, just wondering aloud.
I'm not so sure.
The things she told us are in the very distant past, so maybe she doesn't mind sharing those things. Then again, it could all have been made up to justify her spot THE only valid chat show host. Another thing was she was battling Roseanne for the pot of TV's greatest diva. Roseanne already came out with all her stuff, most of which Oprah claimed to share.
If you watched her show from the beginning, you would have noticed that she often had a lot of openly gay people on her show, then suddenly they were all gone. You can't say the network forced her to do it as she was quite powerful at the time and could easily have told them to fuck off. So that laves me to wonder why she pushed all the gays off her show. It's as if she was trying to say "see, no gay people here, so I can't be a lesbian".
Countless everyday people, celebs, politicos, etc, etc have all lied about being gay, so does that make Oprah's denials any more {or less} true?!
I predicted this on a politics site I go to.
For at least the next 2 years, the bet we can hope for is nothing to change, the worst we can hope for is more hate filled laws directed toward us.
We had a thread like this before, about porn actors getting HIV from doing porn, only to find out that they actually got it from being rent boys on the side. The last one we saw the guy claimed he was given it from doing a film, yet he was the only one that had HIV. In the first 20 or so articles he did crying that he was abused and infected by the porn industry turned out not to be true. He later admitted he got it from doing bareback as a rent boy.
I'm an American and my partner is British.
He almost had his green card through work visas, but in 2001 the US government gave illegals amnesty and at the same time they were given priority over everyone else. To make a long story short, my partner's green card application ran out of time even though we applied for it the very first chance we legally could, so he had to leave.
If gay couples had the same legal rights as hetero couples, we would still be living in the US right now.
Returning to the topic of tv shows.
It has to be remembered that in Torchwood, at the beginning, Capt Jack was in love with The Doctor and still is, as well as being lovers with Yanto.
Capt Jack is a massive bisexual flirt, but he's only ever had gay loves {the Doctor} and gay relationships {Yanto}.
If you find something offensive, then use the report button and let we the staff look into it. DO NOT harass other members.
Another point is that we do not allow "name n shame" posts/threads. You can make all the posts and threads you like about bad behavior of other members, but be general in your comments and make them about the actions you do not like, not about the other member.
If you don't like something, then don't download it.
I'm not sure how this is GAY NEWS.
hXXp://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php/60537-UF-student-Zachary-Garcia-Googles-himself-finds-he-s-accused-of-murder-%28WTSP%29
hXXp://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=159559&catid=250
UF student Zachary Garcia Googles himself, finds he's accused of murder (WTSP)
GAINESVILLE, Florida – A University of Florida student is relieved to know deputies aren't searching for him...but he's still in shock that the Polk County Sheriff's Office erroneously released his photo in connection to a September murder.
Investigators originally released a driver's license photo of Zachary Garcia -- spelled with an "A" -- but it was Zachery Garcia -- spelled with an "E" -- who was charged in connection with the crime.
On September 23, authorities say two teenaged boys broke into a home in Davenport, while two other teens waited outside. One of the homeowners, Jose Oyola-Aponte, was able to grab his gun and shot one of the burglars, 15-year-old Otilio Rubio. He later died.
See how easy it is to get in trouble through no fault of your own?!
hXXp://www.slyck.com/story2135_US_Copyright_Group_Attacks_Defense_moneymaking_scheme
US Copyright Group Attacks Defense 'money-making scheme'
November 23, 2010
Thomas MenneckeThe US Copyright Group case involving Voltage Pictures (The Hurt Locker) vs Does 1-5,000, it appears the barrage of motions to quash and motions to dismiss are getting to the US Copyright Group - at least financially. In a motion filed on November 22nd, the USCG is looking to have all future motions to quash and dismiss summarily denied by the court, and to have lawyer Graham Syfert sanctioned for providing a streamlined form, allowing John and Jane Does to filed motions to quash/dismiss easily and without the need for legal counsel.
Much like the Far Cry case, the Judge's docket in this case is being inundated with motions to quash and dismiss from John and Jane Does looking to protect themselves from identification. Attorney Graham Syfert has developed a fillable form that numerous John and Jane Does have been using in an attempt to have their cases dismissed. Typically, the defendants using these forms are unable to afford an attorney, and opt for the $20 form instead. This onslaught of motions to dismiss is wearing on the USCG, who wants to see the court bring an end to this siege.
"Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the motions and any similar future motions be denied in their entirety, without the need for Plaintiff to file any additional oppositions, and that the Doe Defendants and the attorney selling the form motions be sanctioned," the USCG wrote in their motion yesterday.
Of course, it would be very convenient for the USCG to not have to write an opposition to every motion to dismiss entered. According to the motion, it has cost the USCG $5,000 to respond to these Does - responses to motions they feel are without any merit whatsoever. Additionally, the USCG wants Mr. Syfert to foot the bill.
While it's true that the form that Mr. Syfert provides indeed takes a Gatling gun approach, such as claiming innocence due to using a WIFI connection, using a VPN, claiming no knowledge of infringement, multiple connections used by multiple people, and so on (most of which have been already denied in the Far Cry case), it does bring up the very important issue of jurisdiction. As you'll recall, last week in the Far Cry case, Judge Rosemary Collyer denied the USCG's motion for a 5 year extension to process the identities of the 4,000+ Does - and also ruled that only those the court has personal jurisdiction over could be sued. Perhaps most of the claims are frivolous as the USCG claims, but certainly not the most important one - jurisdiction.
Lastly, the USCG attacks the originator of the forms, requests sanctions against Mr. Syfert and the defendants - and to top it off, attacks him for his "money-making scheme". A curious charge since the current P2P litigation campaign in the US is designed to provide an additional revenue stream to copyright right holders.
"Attached as Exhibit 1 hereto is a true and correct copy of an email from Mr. Syfert, wherein he admits that his form motions are a money-making scheme. The Court should not tolerate such actions."
We'll find out soon whether the Judge in this case, Justice Ricardo M. Urbina, will agree whether jurisdictional issues are indeed frivolous enough to warrant a summary judgment against all future motions to quash/dismiss.
Oddly, they {the evil layers} wouldn't have a thing to complain about if Mr Syfert was paid a ton of cash to be the lawyer of the victims. Their whole complaint is that he's doing it for so little {$20} and it's making it harder for the evil lawyers to extort money from their victims.
hXXp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/
Police to get greater web censorship powers
Nominet prepares to yank more domains
By Chris Williams • Get more from this author
Posted in Policing, 25th November 2010 12:47 GMT
Free whitepaper – Centralized data control and compliance
Police will effectively get more powers to censor websites under proposals being developed by Nominet, the company that controls the .uk domain registry.
Following lobbying by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Nominet wants to change the terms and conditions under which domain names are owned so that it can revoke them more easily in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.
The changes will mean that if Nominet is given "reasonable grounds to believe [domains] are being used to commit a crime" it will remove them from the .uk registry.
"There are increasing expectations from Law Enforcement Agencies that Nominet and its members will respond quickly to reasonable requests to suspend domain names being used in association with criminal activity and Nominet has been working with them in response to formal requests," the not-for-profit company told its members – the firms that sell .uk addresses – in a briefing this week.
At present, there is no specific obligation under Nominet's terms and conditions for owners to ensure their domain names are not used for crime.
Despite this, in December, at the request of the Met's Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU), Nominet revoked the domain names of 1,200 websites it said were being used to sell counterfeit designer goods. For legal cover, it said the owners breached their contracts by supplying registars with incorrect details.
Plans for more such action, which was taken without any court oversight, are likely to raise concerns over the potential for increased censorship online.
Last week, for example, the PCeU contacted the ISP hosting Fitwatch, a website the Met alleged was offering illegal advice to student protestors, and had it taken down. Mirror sites and copies of the information it carried quickly sprang up across dozens of hosts, making the attempted censorship ineffective.
By working through Nominet, however, it would be much easier for police to centrally block such efforts by revoking the domain name of any website republishing the allegedly illegal information.
Apparently aware of such concerns, in its briefing for members, Nominet said it will consider creating an appeals process, and that it will only act "if the incident was urgent or the registrar failed to comply [with a police request to revoke a domain name]". It also sees closer cooperation with law enforcement agencies as a way show the domain industry is capable of self-regulation.
Nominet's move nevertheless represents a victory for SOCA, which is also campaigning for similar arrangements internationally. It is being consulted in the policy discussions, as is the PCeU, HMRC, the Home Office, the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.
Let's be clear, this change is more about censorship of websites that are not actively pro police, than it is about closing down pirate and counterfeit websites. The UKpolice have a ong history of bully tactics against anyone who is not pro them.
Of course, Nominet is extremely eager to make the changes to lessen any potential damage that might result from them shutting down the 1,200+ websites that were accused of selling counterfeit goods. As the law currently stands, only a court can order a website shut down.
Basically, this change will mean that on the whims of the police, any website can be shut down and the courts don't need to ever be involved. So much for checks and balances.
