I have been reading stories on the news sites that have made
me very angry indeed.
I am not an eloquent writer able to express my feelings, so
I shall resort to name calling and swearing instead.
The conviction of Anton Vickerman who has been sent to jail
for daring to own a website that links to online videos. He has been sent to
jail for four years after being found guilty of 'conspiring to defraud'. This
is a very woolly law that has been used against other website owners and who
have been found not guilty of exactly the same crimes that AV has been accused
of.
The story from AV's perspective is here: http://www.surfthechannel.com/ and it
makes for very interesting reading.
Here are some highlights:
- The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), who chased for a prosecution despite there being no such law as copyright theft, put AV and his wife under illegal surveillance.
- When the police raided AV's house FACT employees were allowed to be present even though FACT is a private company with no law enforcement abilities.
- Computers and data were removed by FACT employees (not the police), hard disks were tampered with, copied and then erased and chain of custody was ignored. FACT then relied on the data stored on the hard drives as evidence against AV in his prosecution.
- FACT illegally withheld evidence that could help AV's defence during his trial.
- All these miscarriages of justice were ignored by the Judge because he had already made up his mind of AV's guilt before hearing any evidence.
- In the Judge's summing up he made basic errors in what the trial had been about and instructed the jury to find AV guilty based on incorrect points of law.
AV has been sent to prison for four years even though he has
committed no crimes.
A website that simply serves up links to third party content
cannot be held responsible for what is on the other end of the link. Google has
been linking to illegal content for years and have never been prosecuted - how
are they any different? (Hint: money).
I cannot believe that this case was not thrown out of court,
the evidence had been tampered with, FACT were acting illegally and everyone on
the prosecution team were lying through their teeth.
If you haven't read the linked story, then you must, it is
simply amazing to see British justice in action. The only conclusion that can
be drawn from reading the story is that Judge John Evans is as bent as a
boomerang. Either that or he is a stupid cunt that does not belong in public
office.
Both. It is definitely both.
The Saudi Arabian government are objecting to proposals to
introduce new generic top-level domains (g-TLDs). This is the bit at the end of
internet addresses such as .com or .co.uk etc.
Surprise, surprise - they are against g-TLDs such as .gay,
.sex, .virgin and many others as they might be offensive to Muslims.
Well, excuse me, but FUCK OFF!
Treating women and gay people as second-class citizens or
not even as citizens at all - now that really is offensive. Muslims waging holy
war on the west, Sharia Law, stoning people to death, hiding and funding
terrorists, using slave labour to build infrastructure - the list goes on and
on about the fucking awful things that go on in that cesspit of a country and
now they want to interfere with the way the rest of the world uses the Internet.
The Saudi rulers are a bunch of fucking arseholes and they
should keep their grubby, oil stained hands of the Internet.
Story Three: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680
Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case. Tony is paralysed
from the neck down and can only communicate by blinking. He describes his life
as "a living nightmare". He wants to die but nobody can help him do
that for fear of them being prosecuted.
The Judge had to disallow his case because UK laws do not allow assisted
suicide.
I sometimes think that this country has got its priorities completely
wrong. We treat dogs better than humans. Pet owners are congratulated on their
bravery when they tell others that Fido has had to be put down. 'Well, it's for
the best, Fido was suffering'.
For fucks sake, aren't Mr Nicklinson and many others not suffering too?
Why can't they be allowed to end their suffering?
Some tosser called Paul Tully from the group SPUC Pro-Life
welcomed the decision saying "Compassion and solidarity are the humane and
caring responses to locked-in syndrome. To legalise killing of those who are
suffering would adversely affect many, many people.
"We trust that today's judgment will help end the
insidious campaign in the British courts to change the law on assisted suicide
and euthanasia."
Here is a man who has No. Fucking. Idea.
Who the fuck does he think he is? How can he be so stupid as
to think that "solidarity" will help someone who can only sit in bed
and blink?
'Ah Tony, it smells like you've just shat yourself. Never
mind! I know exactly what you're going through and I'm here for you. No, no I
can't clean you up until we can get someone to lift you. Just sit there and
stink for a bit.'
What a life. I truly hope that a friend or relative of Paul
Tully's does not end up with locked-in syndrome. Life would be bad enough but they'd
have to sit there and listen to him preach on and on about how good it is to be
alive. What an awful cunt he is.
