Posts by Ben Bawden 65 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jan 2009
"An incredible 142,375 people were convicted and sentenced in 2011 for not paying for a TV licence last year - almost all at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale"
Shocking revelation, that people who are socio-economically worse off are more likely to commit crime.
Not sure how that is a indictment of the TV Licence though.
If the pub was called the Hobbit, had a couple of LOTR named drinks, I don't think this would be an issue.
But the pub is making money by using images from the films. I can see why the copyright holders are unhappy about that.
Having said that, issuing blunt legal threats seems counterproductive.
I suppose they can still be guilty of incitement, even if no-one was actually incited.
As I said above, a custodial sentence was probably warranted, pour encourager les autres, but I would have thought it would be more productive to have a lower custodial element, and then some community service too.
"There is a huge amount of evidence, and it's incredibly convincing,"
Empirical studies are rare
Well which is it? This sounds exactly like the people complaining of "electrosmog" with zero evidence to back it up. Andrew Orlowski clearly has an axe to grind, but he really needs to be more balanced.
"Our current knowledge indicates that there are substantial health risks from the existing exposure" - evidence please!
I'm all for the BBFC classifying films as age appropriate, but they should not be banning films.
Give it an 18, then adults can decide for themselves whether they want to watch it.
I personally think it sounds revolting, and I have no interest in watching it.
But I would like to be able to watch it, should I wish to.
If you don't want to get a speeding ticket, don't drive faster than the speed limit.
I got zapped by a camera a few years ago. I took it on the chin, and accepted that I shouldn't have been going faster than the limit. I didn't whine like a spoiled child that I was being victimised.
"Millions of children were also fed contaminated milk following Chernobyl: according to the IAEA the incidence of thyroid cancer among such children and young people rose to one case in 4,500"
Lewis, in your first article on this subject you claimed that the Chernobyl accident had basically no adverse effects on anyone other than those cleaning up the site. It was obviously wrong, so thanks for admitting it.
"There is *NO* scientific agreement that smoking causes cancer - the closest they have got is that it *MAY* cause cancer"
That is the biggest load of shit I have ever read. Care to show me a peer-reviewed meta-analysis showing this?
Argue that you should be allowed to smoke if you choose, and I will support you. But not even tobacco companies are claiming that their product doesn't cause cancer any more.
Another balanced article.
"It's important to make clear that there is no evidence to suggest that plain packaging would have any impact on smoking uptake by young people,"
Then there is also no evidence that it won't work. Might as well give it a go and see if it does work.
"it would be like Christmas for counterfeiters and the criminal gangs who smuggle cigarettes"
Yes, they have real problems duplicating the complicated patterns that are on existing packaging. I suppose it might make it slightly easier. How about a watermark or something?
"The sale of tobacco will move from responsible, legitimate retailers selling to law-abiding consumers, to irresponsible criminals who won't think twice about selling cigarettes to children."
What drivel. No-one is suggesting a ban on selling tobacco products. Law abiding comsumers will still be able to buy their product from responsible, legitimate retailers.
Anything that discourages people from starting to smoke must be a good thing, right?
Some drivers complain about cyclists getting in their way and use the "I pay road tax" argument to imply that they have more rights.
As a car owning cyclist it drives me nuts that some drivers deploy such moronic arguments.
And in any case, apart from motorways and a few other main trunk roads, road maintenance is paid for out of local council tax and not general taxation, so cyclists pay the same amount towards that as drivers do.
By that logic, a lorry has more right to be on the road than a car, as the VED on that is more.
A more polluting car has more rights on the road than a small economical one (some very efficient cars pay £0 VED).
Someone earning £100,000 has more rights on the road than someone earning £25,000, as they pay more income tax.
A smoker has more rights on the road than a non-smoker.
What utter drivel.
Also note that the majority of cyclists also own a car.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
