Police set to step up hacking of home PCs
- Thread starter riddlermarc
- Start date
In R v Slingsby, R v Wilson and other cases it was considered otherwise. Let me rephrase it though, people with mental disabilities can't consent in the real world to something, whereas normal people can consent to bdsm in the real world. Regardless of what the law says.
If you illegally download something your causing lost profit, so someone is getting less money somewhere, they are the victim. Drugs should be legal, (the fact that they are illegal causes the killing, theft and prostitution in the first place). Speeding causes a great risk of killing innocent bystanders.
Last edited:
So it's fine to beat the **** out of someone (occasionally to death) just so long as the audience is big enough?
It states other things besides. If you believe what you're saying, I suggest you look at the whole thing and consider the implications of no-one knowing whether or not any particular image or video is legal or not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Have you ever tried to get that to work?
You need to adjust BIOS settings, possibly even move jumpers.
Well if you have nothing to hide they won't log onto your camera either... you won't mind having a police controlled camera in the corner of every room will you? you have nothing to hide afterall.
No, however large the audience is, unless it's in the course of sport, you'll go to prison.
What makes "sport" any different then?
It's far more violent and often leads to deaths/severe brain damage. yet it;s fine because....?
[/QUOTE]
I see you were sinking that low. If I were to do the same thing, I would pretend to interpret your objection to divorce being legal as you being keen to be able to continue beating your wife. Which, of course, wouldn't be slanderous or ad hominem, would it? After all, why else would anyone object to divorce?
Maybe for as many reasons as people who object to this law have.
Does anyone actually use wake up on lan at home? I'm just curious - I don't see any use for it.
you mean the case of 'vigorous sex', which thus has nothing to do with what we're talking about as it wasn't assault..
I'm sure you know that this is a hugely contested case and the running theme is that they got it wrong. In fact, back in my student days, I won a mooting competition arguing just that
Yes, but that leads down some bizarre decisions. Can animals consent 'in the real world' - well I guess they could just walk off so yes using that test a dog could consent. Can a child consent - well yes they can say yes or no so yes they can consent. It is only when you get to moral grounds that consent is removed from the dog and the child.
Actually current academic opinion shows the opposite - that downloading actually stimulates markets.
A greater risk perhaps, but until it actually occurs there is no victim. It is thus a victimless crime unless an accident occurs - which scuppers the whole 'harm' Dicey'esque idea.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Yes.
My PC is a media, web, ssh, and FTP server. It's useful to be able to turn it on from the laptop while out and about.
Well they aren't really rape are they they're just a woman pretending to be raped...
Out of curiosity would you charge someone with wrongful/false imprisonment for using a pair of fluffy handcuffs in the bedroom?
I did that it's a lacuna that's very badly explained. Honestly I think the only reason the lacuna exists is because they couldn't exactly turn around and come to a judgement that banned boxing - they thus IMVHO fudged it.What makes "sport" any different then?
It's far more violent and often leads to deaths/severe brain damage. yet it;s fine because....?
So are you for the banning of boxing?
That's different because if you want to be 'imprisoned' then by definition you aren't imprisoned wheras if you want to be injured you are still injured!