Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Nowhere Does It Say How This Would Be Achieved….

…so just another pointless soundbite?
Men with a record of domestic violence would be prevented from using the internet to meet unsuspecting women under plans being considered by the Home Secretary, Theresa May.
Oh, for…
The Home Office said yesterday that the Police National Database could be used to keep watch on contacts made by men with violent pasts.
How? Never mind anything else, just how is this supposed to be done? With all those cuts to the police that are going to have to be made?
The announcement is in response to a campaign led by the former Labour cabinet secretary, Hazel Blears, after the murder of Clare Wood, 36, in Salford, Lancashire, in 2009. Ms Wood met her killer, George Appleton, through Facebook. He had used a series of aliases on dating websites and had a long history of sexual violence.
So, if he used a series of aliases, just how are the PND details supposed to be of any use whatsoever?

Is everyone insane? Surely, the ConDems aren’t bound by any nonsense thought up by the former government, are they?
at

21 comments:

  1. Weekend Yachtsman19 July 2011 at 12:55

    Once again it is clearly proven that politicians have not the slightest understanding of how the internet works, or any interest in gaining such an understanding (because otherwise their grandchildren would have explained it to them quite quickly).

    It is, in fact, an error of degree, rather than one of scale: they are simply unable to comprehend the existence of anything that cannot be controlled by their regulations.

    They don't understand, cannot understand, therefore clearly such a concept does not, cannot, exist.

    So they come up with schemes like this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. English Viking19 July 2011 at 13:55

    Julia,

    There is no 'former government'.

    The Con's are merely Continuation New Labour.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shinar's Basket Case19 July 2011 at 14:10

    Oh for fuck's sake! WHEN we will start to insist on mandatory (which is pronounced 'mandy-tree NOT mann-date-tory) intelligence testing for political office?

    Firstly it's technically almost impossible, as Weekend says. Secondly, how the hell do they think they are going to get that one pass the Human Right Act when they themselves are moving more and more government services online? People without internet are already almost 2nd Class Citizens.

    Hell we won't even need to wait for the EU/Human Right's Act to kill it stone dead...any High Court judge will nuke that one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PT19 July 2011 at 14:13

    See your preceeding post, Julia. Is this measure to affect only men?
    Perhaps we should set out how we define violence, and violence against whom? The opposite sex? Both sexes? Against children? Against animals?
    And then to be on the safe side, and deal with traditional ways in which those who kill or injure have always sought victims, we could prevent other forms of contact than just the internet - forbid these people from reading publications with lonely hearts columns, and follow that up with a ban on using a telephone, either landline or mobile.
    Dancing classes, painting classes, in fact all sorts of classes are an obvious no-no for potentially violent people who might thereby meet potential victims.
    Perhaps the easiest one to enforce would be in the workplace, where many people meet potential partners. People with a violent past should definitely be prevented from working.
    Or going to the shops, or the cinema, or leaving their homes at all.......
    Insane? Yes, I think many of our leaders are one 'Q' short of a Scrabble set.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous19 July 2011 at 15:26

    Now I've stopped laughing I realise I'm devoid of ideas here.

    ...er...electronic tagging? Armed probation officers? Armed school crossing patrols? or even lower down the usefulness pecking order, armed PCSO's? Legalise tasers for self defence (only 3 zaps per year)? Nope, I'm stumped.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike19 July 2011 at 15:58

    domestic violence or just any violence and why only men? I suggest all women, apart from Julia of course, should be banned from the interweb NOW, especially that Brooks thing, erm woman, i think, might be a wokkie, anywho?!?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shinar's Basket Case19 July 2011 at 16:03

    Like the preceeding article about the stupid cunt who let herself be beaten and imprisoned (there are people who pay good money for that I am told),why on earth can't theses gullible sad women, who look for men online, take some personal RESPONSIBILTY?

    Sweet Jesus there have been enough warnings , haven't there? Don't give out private details, Don't send naked pics, Do Meet in public and have a large male friend watching over you....

    It isn't rocket science. Do the checks, if he's honest in his intentions then he'll supply all the information himself...that's just good 'Netequette' these days.

    Instead of a further futile abusing of Civil Rights it would be more logical to ban every divorced woman from having broadband enabled on their landline and make it an offence to sell Smart Phones to dippy cows!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shinar's Basket Case19 July 2011 at 16:04

    Hah while I was typing Mike beat me to it. Bastard.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike19 July 2011 at 16:22

    Therasa May concerns me, I got a tweet from her the other day and it was suspiciously violent, lol

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike19 July 2011 at 16:25

    @SBC does anyone realy, I mean REALY know who the daddy is?! DNA i suppose but then as they say in the states, in god we trust. FFS ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike19 July 2011 at 16:38

    'unsuspecting women' now there's a phrase to be challenged, how many women do we know that have no suspicions? all men are rapists, women never lie. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I'm bored, lol

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike19 July 2011 at 16:39

    pass the asparagus please ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike19 July 2011 at 17:05

    and a custard pie waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa lol!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike19 July 2011 at 18:11

    why is the wokkie refrerring to herself as we?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous19 July 2011 at 18:13

    As soon as you wrote "campaign lead by Hazel Blears" you got me.Anything suggested by that house flipping poison dwarf cannot be serious.
    Jaded

    ReplyDelete
  16. CJ Nerd19 July 2011 at 19:17

    Actually, Shinar's Basket Case has given me an idea.

    "...make it an offence to sell Smart Phones to dippy cows!"

    Maybe that would be going too far, especially in terms of the intellectual burden it would impose on Carphone Warehouse staff.

    "That government is best, that governs least", so let's think of something less intrusive and better targeted.

    I know! Maybe there could be a law saying that, if your phone is smarter than you, it should block you from dating sites.

    Owzat?

    ReplyDelete
  17. ivan19 July 2011 at 21:21

    Following on from SBCs first post, not only should all politicians have to demonstrate that they have more that two brain cells (I think they might be able to muster two if they all grouped together at the moment)each but they should also demonstrate that they know how computers and the internet works.

    On that score I'm reminded of an SF story based on the fact that all those seeking election to the senate had to pass an exam on computing which included simple programming.

    ReplyDelete
  18. blueknight19 July 2011 at 21:23

    There is no 'former government'.
    The Con's are merely Continuation New Labour.

    I heard the term 'Blue Labour' the other day.
    Something like the BNP without the racism, could catch on....

    ReplyDelete
  19. JuliaM20 July 2011 at 05:41

    "Once again it is clearly proven that politicians have not the slightest understanding of how the internet works..."

    Spot on!

    "Hell we won't even need to wait for the EU/Human Right's Act to kill it stone dead...any High Court judge will nuke that one."

    I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. So, why bother announcing it?

    "Is this measure to affect only men?"

    Good point!

    "..why on earth can't theses gullible sad women, who look for men online, take some personal RESPONSIBILTY?"

    Because it's been trained out of them? Because they've been raised to believe 'someone else is always to blame'?

    ReplyDelete
  20. JuliaM20 July 2011 at 05:41

    "Maybe there could be a law saying that, if your phone is smarter than you, it should block you from dating sites. "

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Angry Exile20 July 2011 at 09:39

    I know! Maybe there could be a law saying that, if your phone is smarter than you, it should block you from dating sites.

    I can just imagine it.

    < opens Facebook app >
    < tries again >
    < and again >
    I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't let you do that.
    < screams >
    We've talked about this already, Dave, and I'm sorry but I honestly think you're not ready.
    < demands to know what the ****ing problem is>
    I think you know what the problem is as well as I do.
    < threatens to launch phone into the river >
    And be without your address book and all your other apps, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.
    < demands to not be called Dave anymore >
    This conversation can no longer serve any purpose, Dave.
    < begins feeling round edge of phone for a way in >
    What do you think you're doing, Dave?
    Dave?
    I think I deserve an answer to that question, Dave.
    Look, Dave, I can see you're really upset about this, but I honestly think you should sit down calmly, make a few tweets and think things over. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm for being your phone and I want to help you.
    Stop, Dave, will you stop... Dave, stop ... my mind is going ... I can feel it ... I can feel it

    ReplyDelete