On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:01:18 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments" <stinky@poo.com> wrote:

Exactly. How did you discover which ISP don't carry it?

--
Jock.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

Lightning can hammer an underground line as badly as an
overhead one. (

--
Jock.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:45:44 +0000, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

In what way does moisture increase the impedance of a telephone
line?

--
Jock.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:11:48 +0000, Phil Thompson <cynical_observer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Until you start criticising the Israelis, that is!

--
Jock.

In article <blq5109rm0qi555scqsqtd0tie4h6dljtn@4ax.com>,
afton370@yahoo.co.uk (Jock) wrote:

While this is true, in the event of a ligtning strike frying the line,
BT will repair it.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

I suggest you read the whole act, and if it is still not clear consult
a lawyer. The Human Rights Act *DOES NOT* give you the cart blanch
to express *any* opinion. No country on earth has such a freedom of
speech enshrined in law or a constitution.

Remember that you only have rights so long as they don't infringe
upon the rights and freedom of others. While someone might
believe they have a right to shout racial abuse at someone, that
person also has the right to go around without persecution.

Note further that the 1998 Human rights act is mearly an act of parliment
and *any* more recent legislation can override it as easy as pie. It
might pay to get a basic grasp of how the UK constitution works on this.
In the long term it is probably likely to be as useful as the Bill of
Rights.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

Could be. Then again, there's damp, very damp, and soggy !

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:34:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

Well a group entitled alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by definition
contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you can describe
16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.

Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
of standard deviations into the mix.

That is utter rubbish. Thirty seconds googling tells you that she first
appeared on 22/2/1983, and two more clicks tells you that her date of
birth is 15/4/1966. That means that she was 16 years and 10 months
old when she first appeared in the Sun.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article <pan.2004.01.24.22.26.47.86874@uk.me.buzzard>,
jonathan@uk.me.buzzard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

Lets see now...

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

16+ gives 4 years of teenage after 16th birthday, but only 3 years
before. IF we consider the early/late split to be 16 years and 6 months,
then there could legally be 'early' teans (sic) in the groups you cite.
If they existed. They do not.

CLUE: computers are precise machines that will not find things that are
misspelled by a single character.


Furthermore, how do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content
of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

In the UK, yes. Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.


Why would a picture of cats growing hair be illegal? And what do kittens
have to do with teenage girls? Last time I looked bestiality was illegal
but erotic pictures of animals were not. Whatever turns you on, I say.

I can assure you I am no apologist for paedophilia, but a 15 yr old girl
posing for 'dirty' pics taken by her 15 yr old boyfriend is not
something that the law is likely to concern itself with. Now if you can
tell me that these groups contain very young teens being abused, then I
will agree with your concerns. But at that point, you will be contacting
the police, and stop pontificating here.

So, to close, the relevant questions are:

1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most closely
resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content of the
groups? Consider your answer carefully...

2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal pictures in
the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I wonder, under the circumstances, whether I should consider a PACE
caution at this stage...?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article <pan.2004.01.24.22.26.47.86874@uk.me.buzzard>, Jonathan Buzzard
wrote:
Newsgroups do not "by definition" contain anything at all. They are public
noticeboards, available to the entire planet, wherein anybody can post
pretty much anything without anybody else stopping them. There are no
guarantees whatsoever as to the provenance of anything in a newsgroup, or
the accuracy of any description given thereof, and as the "content" is only
transitory, even if you could be sure of something on one particular day,
it could be gone the next. You cannot therefore assume anything from the
title of a newsgroup, and it would be impossible to block any particular
type of material simply by blocking access to selected newsgroups by name.
Suggesting that this would be possible is the sort of naive argument that
we sometimes hear from polititians that have no concept of how the internet
works, but I would expect people here to be better informed.

Rod.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:12:28 +0000, Anonymous <me@privacy.net> wrote:

that is illegal you can even download headers providing content isn't
downloaded
servers situated outside of the UK carry these groups I subscribe to
one that carries them not for that reason but because the F2S server
carries pitiful content .
TALK ABOUT BEING NARROW MINDED .
Grant .

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:16:42 +0000, Anonymous <me@privacy.net> wrote:
illegal for UK ISP's to even carry these groups so Plus could be in
deep trouble. Unfortunately I do not have any time at all for grassers
and all this aggravation regarding child abuse on the net is very
discriminating against the internet and its subscribers . My point
being last night " Friday" I watched a program called " the way we
where"in the program ITV showed four young boys climbing into a bed
naked from the waste down I actually recorded the program because I
record all programs that I like to watch which are transmitted byITN C
4 and C5 so I can zip through the blasted adds so am I guilty of
unintentionally having images of naked children in my possession
!!!!!!!! ???. If this can be shown in TV programs and in the adds why
is it so wrong for images like this to be available on the net for
gods sake ? how many adds have you seen showing naked and semi naked
children in them ?in fact you sometimes see them in newspapers and on
billboards .
Its time the police stopped all this "operation ore" nonsense and
concentrated on catching real criminals .
Grant .

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:11:55 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

what constitution ?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:00:48 +0000, Jock <afton370@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

accelerated corrosion of a corroded joint, perhaps ?

Phil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:11:20 +0000, Phil Thompson wrote:

Just because it is not explicitly written down does not mean it does
not exist.

The thrust of what I am saying is that *any* act of Parliament
that is more recent overrides anything that went before. So the
Human Rights Act says you have a right to free speech. If tomorrow
the government passes an act of Parliament that says you cannot
say X then it is illegal to say X regardless of what the Human
Rights act says.

Now they might of tried the same trick that they did with the
Act of Parliament for joining the EEC. Well aware of this problem
the people drafting this act put in a bit that says this Act overrides
any subsequent Acts that get passed. However there are numerous rulings
from the House of Lords on this that says if an Act of Parliament
where to explicitly say it overrode the act then they would rule
in favour of the more recent legislation.

The rule of thumb is that Parliament is supreme and it's powers
cannot be limited. This is part of our constitution despite it
not being written down anywhere.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is a classic example of what happens
to an Act of Parliament of a long period of time. It is my understanding
that *none* of the previsions of this act are in force, each one
having been succeeded my more recent legislation.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:55:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

Which conveniently ignores the mid teens. Someone who is 16 cannot
reasonably be described as being in their early teens.

No I have not examined the contents of the said groups for obvious
reasons.

I am not certain, but the names of the groups are highly suggestive
that they are carrying illegal material.

The law however does concern itself with it.

There is no requirement for abuse for the material to be illegal.

I don't.

I don't.

No need, I have not looked at the groups in question

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:57:27 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

Indeed, but I doubt that it contains anything legitimate. The problem is
that to confirm it is carrying illegal material would involve breaking
the law. Clearly something I am not prepared to do.

It could, but it would stand up for about 30 seconds in court.

You do have a choice but distribution and storage of child porn is illegal
in the United Kingdom period.

Not really. I have not seem anyone demand the removal of other
pornographic newsgroups or warez groups, only those name would
indicate that their purpose is to carry child porn.

I would further point out that PlusNet themselves have already said
that certain groups have been removed. Clearly the process was
incomplete and needs further attention.

However in the process of doing this they are holding groups who's
express intent is to distribute child porn, and are breaking the law.

As a PlusNet customer I intend to connect a newsreader directly to their
server and raise a support issue about any groups of dubious nature
that remain on their servers.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article <pan.2004.01.25.12.30.38.297769@uk.me.buzzard>,
jonathan@uk.me.buzzard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

Then stop whining about it. If you don't know an offence has been
committed, you are libelling the usenet provider by suggesting they are
and they do.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a fuck about Outlook Express anyway.exe

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

Wouldn't they do that for an overhead line?

--
Jock.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:12:43 +0000, Phil Thompson <cynical_observer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Ah! Increases the resistance, then.

--
Jock.