The Nanny State: Ideological Policing & Internet Censorship

Vardoger

Bring the Beat Back!
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,165
Points
184
Location
Scandinavia
#1
Now council bans the use of 'political correctness' at work
By CHRIS BROOKE Last updated at 10:41am on 1st November 2006

Comments Reader comments (17)

Cllr Robert Light: Kirklees council leader blamed his political opponents and said the booklet was no longer being used by council staff
Headlines

A council has warned staff against using the phrase 'political correctness' at work because it might offend people.

A booklet outlining 'equality' policy to council workers claims using the term at work can be damaging and even linked it to the Ku Klux Klan.

See also...
Council worker paid £91,000 to fix the lights

The bizarre publication also orders staff not to use words like 'policeman', 'fireman' and 'chairman', suggesting they are classic examples of 'exclusionary language.'

While the word 'ethnic' is also outlawed for being not 'appropriately descriptive.'

The 44-page training book called 'Equality Essentials' has been used for staff training courses at Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire.

The publication outlines forms of damaging behaviour in the workplace and rates them on a five-level scale.

The authors claim that moving things around on someone else's desk is as serious as punching or kicking them.

And workers are instructed to come up with 10 things they can do every day to make colleagues feel better.

Tory MP for Shipley Phillip Davies, a patron of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, branded the pamphlet 'extreme and patronising.'

'How much is it costing to produce all this garbage?' he said. 'The policy is full of either the blindingly obvious or utterly ridiculous nonsense.'

A section of the 'PC booklet is devoted to denouncing the use of the words 'political correctness'.

It states:'Political correctness is often used to describe what some of us think are unnecessary changes which don't really bother anyone.

'The term political correctness was coined in 1988 by John O'Sullivan III, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He was making an after dinner speech complaining about how Black Americans were being allowed to take the jobs traditionally reserved for the white majority because of a wave of political correctness.

'Since then the phrase political correctness has almost universally been used to decry changes which aim to prevent offensive behaviour.'

It goes on to say because this takes the form of 'blaming the victim, denying peoples experience or expressing the view of a popular majority,' using the phrase can represent a 'physical attack.'

The authority's new Tory leader Robert Light blamed his political opponents and said the booklet was no longer being used by council staff.

'We don't think it is relevant to use this booklet. We are trying to achieve the situation where the council has a more professional, modern approach. Diversity is still an issue for us but we will be taking a common sense approach rather than being part of the PC culture.

'Kirklees Council has had the title of most PC Council in Yorkshire and we are determined to change that view.'

Mr Light added:'References to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Germany are really extreme to use in a training guide even as a reference, it's very bizarre.

'I find it more unbelievable that they complain about the use of the word ethnic when it is the term that Government bodies, think-tanks and local leaders all use. It's very off the wall.'

Kirklees Council employs more than 18,000 people and has a budget of more than £470 million.
Article link
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,686
Likes
18,855
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#2
Race complaint over Dandy reprint

The comic strip was included in a reprint of the 1939 Dandy annual
Publishing giant DC Thomson has been criticised after it reprinted a 1939 annual which contained racist references to black people.
A reader condemned the inclusion of a comic strip from the original 1939 Dandy annual which included a term deemed unacceptable in modern society.

The issue has led to calls for the withdrawal of the "facsimile" publication from sale.

Dundee-based DC Thomson said it would be unfair to tamper with the reprint.

The row blew up after Winston Walker, who lives in the city, said he was left disgusted after buying the publication for a friend.

He was left feeling upset by one story strip which featured blacked-up minstrels and the liberal use of a word considered highly offensive in modern day multicultural society.

Mr Walker said: "I found the material very offensive, the wording and the amount of times the word 'nigger' was used.

It is a true facsimile copy and we don't feel it is something we should edit

DC Thomson spokesman

"When you're trying to promote in Scotland that there's no place for racism, putting out literature like this is total hypocrisy."

The Glasgow Anti-Racist Alliance (Gara) called for the annual, which has been distributed to shops ahead of Christmas, to be removed from bookstores.

"This kind of thing cannot be permitted with ease at this point in our development as a society," said Gara spokeswoman Anita Shelton.

"It is an outrage and is terribly disturbing."

Facsimile copy'

However, DC Thomson said the annual was "of its time" and it would not have published the word in the Dandy of today.

"It is a true facsimile copy and we don't feel it is something we should edit," a spokesman said.

The view was echoed by Dundee-based comic expert Douglas Hill, who said it was not right to apply 21st Century values to work from the 1930s.

He said: "The people who want to buy these annuals probably had them at the time."

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) said it had not received any complaints about the annual.

"We should celebrate the fact that we live in a time where such ideas around race are no longer seen as appropriate and our society does not condone this kind of language," said a spokeswoman.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 147898.stm
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
6,313
Likes
3,314
Points
259
#6
I don't think that the past should be tampered with - it is, after all, the past, and we might get sucked into some space-time conundrum. But seriously, as Yith said - it is a historical document, and to be honest I think it's good that it's been made widely available.

On a related note, has anyone ever seen those Bumper Book for Boys type thing from the '30s? They're absolutely hideously racist :shock:
 

gerardwilkie

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 17, 2001
Messages
606
Likes
30
Points
49
#7
He should be philosophical about it and appreciate that some things have changed for the better since 1939.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,589
Likes
5
Points
69
#8
no doubt some italian fascist handwringers will be complaining about the beano reprinting "musso the wop" next. people didn't fight in world war II just so they could be insulted in this way.

welcome to blair's britain. :roll:
 

gordonrutter

Justified & Ancient
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,216
Points
184
#9
If this guy is going to complain about this book it's a good job he didn't see the first Beano annual reprint last year!

Gordon
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,686
Likes
18,855
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#10
ted_bloody_maul said:
no doubt some italian fascist handwringers will be complaining about the beano reprinting "musso the wop" next. people didn't fight in world war II just so they could be insulted in this way.

welcome to blair's britain. :roll:
Or they will complain about the stereotyping of german soldiers. I det they didnt go around calling people schweinhunds or saying himmel.

what about about the italians? they didnt spend all of their time surrendering and shouting mama mia!

we need new PC versions of the Victor Valiant & Hotspur!
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
26,624
Likes
10,956
Points
284
#11
I think Commando is still going, I wonder how they get around the potentially offensive minefield? Do the Nazi soldiers still say "ARGH"! and the Japanese soldiers still say "AIEEE!" when they get killed?
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,685
Likes
998
Points
194
#12
H_James said:
.

On a related note, has anyone ever seen those Bumper Book for Boys type thing from the '30s? They're absolutely hideously racist :shock:
I had a couple that belonged to my Dad, and thinking about it they probably were. Having said that there was some pretty suspect stuff in boys comics and those Bumper Story Books up to the 60s.

I don't think they should tamper with the Annual, it's of its time and essentially a reproduction of an historic document.

Whitewashing the past doesn't help anyone.

Just spotted gncxx's post, I didn't know that was still going.
 

gordonrutter

Justified & Ancient
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,216
Points
184
#14
Pietro_Mercurios said:
gordonrutter said:
If this guy is going to complain about this book it's a good job he didn't see the first Beano annual reprint last year!

Gordon
Damn! Where can these thing be got? :)
Strictly limited edition and they were changing hands on ebay for silly prices quite rapidly.

Sorry.

Gordon
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,273
Likes
8,876
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#15
H_James said:
I don't think that the past should be tampered with - it is, after all, the past, and we might get sucked into some space-time conundrum. But seriously, as Yith said - it is a historical document, and to be honest I think it's good that it's been made widely available.

On a related note, has anyone ever seen those Bumper Book for Boys type thing from the '30s? They're absolutely hideously racist :shock:
Good Grief!

Next, you'll be telling me that Biggles was racist! :shock:
 

TheQuixote

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,297
Likes
26
Points
69
#16
gncxx said:
I think Commando is still going, I wonder how they get around the potentially offensive minefield? Do the Nazi soldiers still say "ARGH"! and the Japanese soldiers still say "AIEEE!" when they get killed?
Sorry, OT, but there's a 'Commando' comic 2007 calendar. I saw some on sale in 'The Works' at Telford the other day and was a bit tempted tbh.
 

DerekH16

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
869
Likes
5
Points
49
#17
rynner said:
H_James said:
I don't think that the past should be tampered with - it is, after all, the past, and we might get sucked into some space-time conundrum. But seriously, as Yith said - it is a historical document, and to be honest I think it's good that it's been made widely available.

On a related note, has anyone ever seen those Bumper Book for Boys type thing from the '30s? They're absolutely hideously racist :shock:
Good Grief!

Next, you'll be telling me that Biggles was racist! :shock:
And he smoked ciggies... :shock:

Back to racist books - talking to my dad earlier about this story got us wondering if anyone's going to reprint 'Little Black Sambo'? ;)
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,686
Likes
18,855
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#20
I loved MacTavish and O'Toole, the WWII BA sergeants of Irish and Scottish extraction who lived up to every stereotype of their races. Despite being pals they would get into at least one physical fight with each other in each issue of the comic. They also had a handy number, never seemed to have any troops to command.

Anyone remember which comic they appeared in?
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
5,378
Likes
36
Points
114
#21
Having read extensivley of Capt johns I always got the impression that though Biggles was very much a man of his time, he was quite forwards thinking with it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid.

Almost unreported, the UK Criminal Justice Bill is slowly wending its way toward becoming law. It includes a section (Clause 63) on "extreme pornographic images" that may, or may not, affect a very large proportion of the adult population in the UK. But that – the Bill's uncertain scope – is part of the problem.

On Monday 21 April, the Bill returned to the House of Lords for further debate. Lib Dem peer Baroness Miller brought forward a set of amendments that would effectively have removed the extreme porn clause from the Bill.

She pointed out that the evidence linking pornography with violence was weak and that the new rules would be out of kilter with the Obscene Publications Act. In her speech, the Baroness commented that "the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police... we do not have any evidence to justify an intrusion in people's lives".

Further, "the Government's contention is that by viewing it [extreme porn] people are more likely to commit violent offences. Therefore, they justify walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something."

Labour peer, Lord McIntosh of Haringey added: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."

Despite considerable support from all sides for the amendment, the House voted to keep the clause in the Bill (66 votes to 30). According to the conventions of the House, Baroness Miller will not be able to resubmit the same amendments at 3rd Reading.

She will, however, introduce a new amendment. As the Bill stands, someone could be charged for owning images of acts that are lawful, but which could be construed as extreme pornography. The Minister made very weak commitments to address this problem. Baroness Miller will introduce an amendment that provides a proper defence for those who possess pornographic images of lawful acts.

As matters stand, there are two serious issues with the proposal. The first is the wholly uncertain scope of the offence. A Ministry of Justice impact assessment suggested that in the first year, there might be 30 prosecutions under the extreme porn provisions (Criminal Justice And Immigration Bill Regulatory Impact Assessments, Ministry of Justice, June 2007).

If true, this is unlikely to make the slightest dent on an industry worth billions of pounds in the UK alone.

On the other hand, experts reckon that up to two million people could have such images on their computers – often unaware that they breach the law. In many instances, pictures could be downloaded to cache the moment an individual opens a blog. They might not even be aware of what they had downloaded: but they would have a very hard time proving that. This raises the spectre of police unable to prosecute someone on another unrelated matter taking a peek at their hard drive to see if they can get them for possession of porn.

The second issue is the role of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) – and an almost inevitable increase in "prior restraint" on websites. At present, a degree of low-level internet censorship is carried out by the IWF. This is a shadowy and unelected industry body. The IWF has taken it upon itself to lead the fight against child porn, by maintaining watch lists of websites that are potential sources of such material.

Sites on these lists are incorporated into blocking software, such as Cleanfeed: and they are then blocked by most ISPs. The ordinary user will be told simply that the site is now "unavailable". Meanwhile, the site owner will only be aware that something is up when traffic to their site drops off. Fair enough if they are indeed disseminating child porn. Not so fair, if their business is perfectly legitimate: for they are effectively guilty until they can prove themselves innocent – and this may take weeks.

If child porn leads the IWF to recommend blocking a few thousand sites, stand by for that list to grow by many tens of thousands. At least the subject mattter of child porn is reasonably objectively defined. But "extreme"? Particularly when the IWF guiding principle seems to be: when in doubt, recommend a ban. Many small site owners will find themselves closed down and if they are not aware of the role of the IWF – and many are not – they will never know why.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25 ... reme_pron/
 

AMPHIARAUS

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
494
Likes
6
Points
49
#23
Yeah - bit undeveloped this law.

Something perfectly lawful to do is illegal to take a pic of. Bit strange really.

Was NuLabours Knee jerking too high to prevent rational thought?
 

Scunnerlugzz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
149
Likes
0
Points
32
#24
"Was NuLabours Knee jerking too high to prevent rational thought?"

Knee jerking is on the list of banned images I'm afraid.
 

Stormkhan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
3,894
Likes
56
Points
79
#25
Knee jerking is something NuLabour does particularly well. Well considered legislation is a bit too non-populist for them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
Google must divulge YouTube log

Google must divulge YouTube log

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.

Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

The UK's Premier League association is also seeking class action status with Viacom on the issue, alleging YouTube, which was bought by Google in 2006, has been used to watch football highlights.

Legal action

When it initiated legal action in March 2007 Viacom said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site.




The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.

But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

Google's senior litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera said in a statement: "We are disappointed the court granted Viacom's over-reaching demand for viewing history.

"We will ask Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymise the logs before producing them under the court's order."

The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.

Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

YouTube and Google had "compelled" it to go to court, Viacom said, "by continuing to defend their illegal and irresponsible conduct and profiting from copyright infringement, when they could be implementing the safe and legal user generated content experience they promise".

It said it would not be asking for any "personally identifiable information" of any user.

"Any information that we or our outside advisors obtain will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against You Tube and Google (and) will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner."

'Erroneous ruling'

Leading privacy expert Simon Davies told BBC News that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened.


He said: "The chickens have come home to roost for Google.

"Their arrogance and refusal to listen to friendly advice has resulted in the privacy of tens of millions being placed under threat."

Mr Davies said privacy campaigners had warned Google for years that IP addresses were personally identifiable information.

Google pledged last year to anonymise IP addresses for search information but it has said nothing about YouTube data.

Mr Davies said: "Governments and organisations are realising that companies like Google have a warehouse full of data. And while that data is stored it is under threat of being used and putting privacy in danger."

The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.

"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."

The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data.

The court also ruled that Google disclose to Viacom the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm


threre go's my f..king privacy.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
26,624
Likes
10,956
Points
284
#27
By the time they sift through all that information it'll be 2012 and the world will have ended.
 

PeniG

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
2,391
Likes
169
Points
94
#28
Have you heard of datamining? It's done by computers and sifts much faster than if you had to do it all by brain and eye.

Privacy in the classic sense hasn't existed in America for some time. It isn't even recognized as a right by all U.S. courts, and the Present Administration's insistence that it doesn't need a warrant to eavesdrop on citizens, examine their private reading habits, or shuffle through their mail is insufficiently addressed by the current FISA legislation.

It's July 4, I just finished my annual viewing of 1776, and I'm homesick for democracy.
 

BuckeyeJones

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
339
Likes
7
Points
34
#29
Greetings,

PeniG said:
Have you heard of datamining? It's done by computers and sifts much faster than if you had to do it all by brain and eye.

Privacy in the classic sense hasn't existed in America for some time. It isn't even recognized as a right by all U.S. courts, and the Present Administration's insistence that it doesn't need a warrant to eavesdrop on citizens, examine their private reading habits, or shuffle through their mail is insufficiently addressed by the current FISA legislation.

It's July 4, I just finished my annual viewing of 1776, and I'm homesick for democracy.
I read you loud and clear, Peni, I miss democracy as well.

As a member of the 'Duck and cover!' generation, I was told that American blood was spilled so that we could enjoy our freedom.

I moved from Cincinnati to Philadelphia a couple of years ago, and I guess for me the move was akin to a Catholic going to Rome.
My first day in Olde City, my friend and I sat 100 yards away from the building where the declaration of independence was signed, found my self thinking about the freedom of ownership.

When I buy a CD or a DVD or a Guitar, don't I then own it?
(I am not directing that question to anyone, more like a thinking out loud thing)
I do not pay a dime when I go visit youtube. The owners of these films should be happy that there is a vast Library of hard to find stuff.

Look up the Nicholas brothers on you tube, you cant just see that stuff any where.

We of the internet have won every battle so far, if they take away my library I will be pissed.

Peace!
Buck

( no more Cat face )
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#30
Net Set To Tighten On Downloaders

Britain's six biggest internet service providers are clamping down on people illegally downloading music and films.
Computer use

Illegal file-sharing costs the industry millions

The ground-breaking fightback against online piracy will begin with service providers sending letters to thousands of the most prolific downloaders, telling them their activity has been detected and is being monitored.

It is thought that around 6.5 million Britons have downloaded files illegally over the past year.

Estimates suggest that the practice will cost the music industry up to £1bn over the next five years.

But the six biggest internet service providers - BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse - have signed up to a government drive addressing unlawful file-sharing.

It is understood that the ISPs have agreed to commit themselves to developing legal file-sharing services and to ensure their customers know that it is illegal to share copyright-protected music.

It has been reported that people who are downloading illegally and ignore warnings could be subject to online surveillance and have their internet speeds reduced - making it very difficult for them to download large files.

Fergal Sharkey, the former Undertones singer who is now chief executive of British Music Rights, the body which represents musicians, said: "This is something of a step into the unknown for the internet providers, music industries and ministers.

"But we can't go on without it - no business can survive after losing as much revenue as the music industry has."

ISPs and film and music companies are also expected to develop a new code of practice together on how they will deal with infringements - which could be backed up by new laws.


link

big url tidied up - stu
 
Top