On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:40:12 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>>> Of course. But, in this case I don't have a particular result in mind.
>>> Ban it or put it on the shelves in WH Smith?
>>
>> Well as has been stated elsewhere, people have indeed been convicted
>> of possessing images that WH Smith see fit to sell.
>
>Problem is, I simply don't believe that *any* have been found guilty by
>a jury when the only images they had were on the shelves in WH Smith.
Well, you can call me a liar if you like. I saw the CPS prosecution
file of such a case. Although I cannot say with certainty that all
the images were available at WH Smith, I *can* say that they were all
photographs taken by a famous woman artist of her daughter (not that
there were many of them). The accused may have been spinning me a
line, but the CPS file would have detailed all that they had.
>> People who are
>> taking photos of criminal acts would obviously not sell their images
>> to WH Smith, so even if possession of such images were legal, it will
>> not gain the creators of the images any income.
>ISTR plenty of pictures of criminal acts in books in WH Smith. Speeding
>motorists. Bank Raids, Illegal Wars. Drunken behaviour on streets. Drug
>taking. I hadn't realised all those cameramen were doing this for free.
How many of those images made money *for the criminals*? Which is the
only thing that matters if you are arguing that abuse is encouraged by
the abuser profiting from the abuse. But you bring up another point
that I have made in the past. Why should it be acceptable to possess
a photograph of a child being murdered, but not a photograph of a
child being .ually abused? Why is it not believed that photographs
of bank raids will increase the number of bank raids in the same way
that it is believed that kp will increase abuse? How come people who
possess images of bank raids are not suspected of being likely to
commit bank robberies themselves?
>>> Lacking evidence one way
>>> or the other, I have no good reason to argue that HMG's approach is
>>> right or wrong, other than the underlying principle about obeying the law.
>> As I said, surely the underlying principle of a free society is that
>> you don't ban anything unless you *do* have evidence to show that a
>> ban is absolutely necessary? So if something is banned without such
>> evidence, that ban is *wrong*.
>So we shouldn't put in a speed camera simply because the road appears to
>be dangerous - we should wait for half a dozen fatalities?
I believe that that *is* in fact a criteria used to determine whether
to put up a speed camera, yes (though not as many as half a dozen).
Where exceeding the speed limit on a particular road is unlikely to
result in an accident, you will find many people disagreeing with the
placement of a camera, and accusing those responsible of using it to
raise money rather than decrease risk.
> No need for
>safety rails on balconies, until a few people have fallen off?
In what way is that an example of banning something? If I were to
build a balcony on my own house that does not have any safety rails,
would I be convicted of a criminal offence?
But of course there are plenty of things where the risk is so obvious
that no long-winded study needs to be carried out.
>No need
>to test drugs for possible side effects before selling them - wait to
>see if they have any in use?
It is not an offence to possess or use an untested drug.
Regulations are necessary when dealing with things sold to the general
public to either minimise the risks or to ensure that the person is
fully aware of the risks and makes an informed consent. Even there I
believe that the regulations have gone too far, and many things are
prohibited that either present minimal risk or present a risk that is
more imaginary than real. My son was refused the sale of hot-glue
sticks when he was 15 on the grounds of a completely fictitious risk.
I suspect that you would applaud the ban as being "better safe than
sorry". After all, if you don't know whether or not hot-glue contains
a sniffable solvent, and are unwilling to find out, better to assume
the worst and ban it.
>> Would you condone banning anything that is not an emotive issue unless
>> there was good *evidence* (as opposed to supposition) that a ban was
>> necessary?
>Yep. Banning a new cosmetic additive until it has been tested. There is
>no evidence that it will do harm but people can manage without until
>such time as it has been proved not to be a danger.
You are talking of a *temporary* ban that is in place only until the
item is tested. The ban is justified because we know from experience
that new cosmetic additives have caused skin problems to users in the
past. That is totally different to banning something permanently with
no intention of ever finding out whether it causes harm. When a new
formulation of a product does not have a history that indicates it is
likely to prove hamful, it may be sold immediately without testing.
>>> Part of it is what great harm is done by having such a law? The loss
>>> seems a very tiny one.
>> We could in that case ban bananas. The loss, after all, would not be
>> great. We could then ban pineapples, on the grounds that they are
>> also tropical fruit and so should join the bananas. Coconuts would
>> quickly follow, and then having established the principle, we could
>> gradually extend the ban to citrus fruits, g.s and finally *all*
>> fruit.
>A slight variation. Some genius produces a pinana. Should it immediately
>be released for public consumption? Of course not. People can manage
>without until such time as it has been proven not to be harmful.
But tests *are* carried out (although in the case of a food hybrid I
do not believe even that is the case). It is not simply banned "just
in case" and left at that. And products are released if the
*objective* tests do not show any evidence of significant risk even if
there are large numbers of people who believe (perhaps on faith alone)
that risks exist. Genetically modified foods. MMR vaccine.
Cellphone masts.
>> And there are children who are being caused far greater harm than that
>> caused by .ual abuse. You cannot use a greater injustice to justify
>> a lesser one, or pass it off as inconsequential.
>No, but I can prioritise. I don't see a problem with a law banning the
>possession of kp any more than a law banning the possession of guns or
>explosives. People can find other ways of amusing themselves - it is no
>big deal.
What does prioritising have to do with having an opinion? "Sorry, I
cannot criticise Johnny for deliberately smashing the window because
there are far worse crimes going on that I need to prioritise. So we
should let him continue to smash windows until all the muggers have
been caught" ???
Changes to our laws do not have to be made in series, so that we have
to wait for all the important new laws on terrorism to be made before
we can think of changing the laws on littering.
And if a restaurant serves me a terrible meal, I will not be impressed
if the waiter points out that there are starving children in Biafra
who have far bigger problems that the fact that the sauce is burnt and
the potatos are stone cold.
--
Cynic
|