/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

>>I think that I am lucky.

[Anonymous No.]

Minori, is that you?

[Anonymous No.]

Well, he's right.

[Anonymous No.]

Though his English may be incredibly broken, his honest feelings are still carried to us.

[Anonymous No.]

Am I the only one who thinks broken English is cute? Anyway, what they're saying is true.

[Anonymous No.]

I hate you Canada.

[Anonymous No.]

http://trump.sakura.ne.jp/_a_/Explanation_0.htm

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680005
No, you're definitely right.

[Anonymous No.]

It's also hard as fuck to get rid of a law that bans lolicon, the only case that I know of is the American supreme court overruling one because the law was too ambigous.
In a country where such a law is well established and has been around, getting rid of it is near impossible.

[Anonymous No.]

Now in convenient CopyPastable form:

In the Japanese porno comics, sexual intercourse of children is often drawn. It is why?

Children who appear to the comics and the novel are not children of real existence. They are stories of fictitious. There is no problem though it might be immoral even if the comics by which children of fictitious which does not exist are raped are drawn. Even if the story which rapes the child is drawn, the author does not have the intention by which it is actually done. It is a mistake that you think that the author has such a hobby even though the author makes those stories. The author does not necessarily have such a hobby even though the author makes those stories.

The act by which the story of fictitious is restricted is very dangerous thought. These are prohibited by the law in some countries. It is a very frightening law.

Japan is a safe country where people can have free thought. Therefore, I think that I am lucky.

[Anonymous No.]

Probably about 5 days until imagination is made illegal in Britain. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/coronersandjustice.html
Sucks to be me I guess.

[Anonymous No.]

>japan
>free thought

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680077
Oh lol. "This bill intends to change things about death certificates, coroners, assisted suicide, and loli."

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680092
They all seem to fit together logically, it isn't like anything has been thrown in their clumsily so it sails through in an incredibly long bill without getting any real discussion in commons.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680092
Gurochan is hereby banned in Britain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3679950

>I like KEMONO(furry, anthropomorphic) characters.
>I like huge breasts, therefore the breasts of the women I draw are big.
>I suffer from a disease of wanting to draw big cocks and fat girls.
>I like stories about hermaphrodites and remodeling the body.
>I think that the comic which I draw is classified as an abnormal comic.
>I like dogs very much.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680086
Funnily enough, their constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of thought. Their restrictions mainly are cultural, not legal. Both types can be overcome with the appropriate strengths and cunning.

>>3680077
Yeah, this culture sucks shit. Some nutter in power was putting forward a proposal to ban extreme porn writing. Words in the English language, illegal fiction!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680100
Strangely, it appears that looking at pictures of young girls being cut to pieces and horribly tortured will be perfectly fine under the law, so long as it doesn't focus on their anus or vagina, nor show penetration of the anus/vagina by an object. Penetrating their soft defenseless flesh with sharp objects is fine, so long as you don't touch their anus/vagina.

[Anonymous No.]

>Why are "Copyright stamp" and "Do not redistribute" written at the center of the image? The picture is hard to see.

>The master of a certain furry web in the United States is using a lot of images without the copyright stamp. He is selling them without obtaining the permission of authors. To defend my art from outlaws, I am writing the copyright stamp. The reason why the copyright stamp is written at the center of the picture is that the copyright stamp is not made easy to delete.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680100
As long as they look 18 (unlikely for cute anime women, admittedly) and non-photo-realistic, guro will remain legal. This year.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680115
>so long as it doesn't focus on their anus or vagina, nor show penetration of the anus/vagina by an object. Penetrating their soft defenseless flesh with sharp objects is fine, so long as you don't touch their anus/vagina.

So loli blowjobs are okay?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680101 I suffer from a disease of wanting to draw big cocks and fat girls.
>I suffer from a disease of wanting to draw big cocks

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

Frankly I'm amazed people still think banning something makes it magically go away, rather than just making it illegal.

[Anonymous No.]

>Probably about 5 days until imagination is made illegal in Britain.

Not sure if it is implemented yet, but I heard talk about a "viewing" law in Sweden. So soon just pressing on /b/ and seeing loli will be enough to get a couple of months in jail.

However they stated that it isn't like they will spend time scanning which sites people visit to bust people who view them.

Which makes you wonder why they even bother adding it. It's like every anti-CP law they add, removes 10% of all pedophiles. Just keep adding laws and pedophiles will cease to exist automatically.

We'll reach the climax when you get jail for writing the word "child porn" because then they can't make laws without getting jailed themselves.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680105
I know. I think I stared in disbelief for several minutes when I read that proposed amendment. Still, at least we haven't gone that far yet, but I also remember having to facepalm reading about some MP asking about whether the anti-loli law could be extended to writing when it was going through parliament. Sadly I think that one really does stand a good chance of going through one of these days, and once it does it leaves the path open for the extension to extreme porn writing.
Old Labour nearly sent our economy into third world status in their time, now New Labour wants to put our culture into middle-east tier.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680142
Technically in Britain, and I think America, just viewing wouldn't count as posession, it would count as creation. Since your computer would make a copy of it. I haven't seen any confirmation that it's been done that way before, but it could be done. In any case, possession of electronic copies is routinely put down as creation, which is why you'll almost always read "N counts of creatin, 1 count of possession" for these things.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680124
No, child oral sex is one thing listed. Read the bill and my ranting here:
http://anarcho-escapism.blogspot.com/2009/07/coroners-and-justice-bill-looming.html
sage for pimping my dormant blog
I've decided that politics really isn't for me.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680118
>as long as it remains non-photo-realistic
*buzz* incorrect.
The bill says that the only requirement for it to now be just as bad as a photograph is that the "predominant impression conveyed" is that of a child, "even if it includes features not normally found on a human child".

It can have tits the size of watermelons, a futa dick/pussy combo, catears, and a tail for all they care, but if it's not almost as tall as the male? Instant high-sec jail on a Child Pornography charge.

[Anonymous No.]

Japan sucks, they can have tentacle rape, loli rape, just about anything rape and sexual but GOD HELP YOU IF YOU SHOW THAT CLITORIS OR PENIS, YOU BE V& IF YOU DO, everything else is cool tho.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680138
Frankly, I'm amazed people still think banning something makes fewer people practice it rather than just making more people into criminals. Drug dealers only exist because drugs are illegal, the mafia was only a problem because it got a foothold via bootlegging during the Prohibition, etc.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680124
Actually no, oral sex is out. You can have all the pictures of lolis sucking on popsicles, weiners or even dildos that you want, just so long as it's not a penis.
Also, for some reason, people having sex in the presence of a child is out. Despite the fact that people did so for hundreds of years when they were moving to the cities in the industrial era, its suddenly a travesty to even draw.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680164
So we draw our hentai from the loli's point of view, so that all we see is the busty schoolteacher or tentacled monstrosity having its way with her. That's still fine, right?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680164
May I just remind you of the context of this particular conversation thread: guro. I'm not talking about standard loli porn. Guro might not be considered porn. I collect a few images in that category, but I don't fap to them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680166
They still have enough freedom left to make porn whose quality far exceeds the meager offerings of every other country.
>>3680164
Indeed. However my interpretation of what they probably mean by "image conveyed is that of a child" is that anyone who likes flat or small chested women is going to jail, even if they're attached to tall, adult women who act like adults. And that anything in a school uniform is insta-ban (child in this bill means anyone under 18, so good luck finding any 2D porn you're allowed to keep).

[HelenXonpool !a0yHhBwvus No.]

>>3680167

It's only a matter of time before we have to put in effort to be amazed anymore.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680175
>>3680164
What if the loli is still a loli but as tall as a man? (giant sized) or if it's two kids. Or fairies?

Either way, I guess the world is going back to the 90s where 13yo anime girls have giant tits the size of their head.


Wait, what happens to anime already sold if it has sexual situations involving minors?

[Anonymous No.]

I would like to draw everyone's attention to a potential loophole.

Section 5b excludes images that are part of a larger work that isn't, considered as a whole, pornographic. Could this provide protections for "grossly offensive, disgusting or [...] obscene" depictions of children within, say, a game containing substantial amounts of non-erotic text, graphics and audio? Considering the purpose of this law and the purpose of these games, that would be rather humorous.

VNs with enough plot might be defensible under the law as it's written. Hooray!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680210
is the point of the VN to eventually get her to have sex with you?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680211
A typical VN has many 'points'. Humour, escapism, non-sexual excitement, social propaganda.

That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680210
Clearly we must make a massive photo-mosaic containing every animu image ever created; as long as we include 2x the number of stills of big breasted adult animu characters to loli characters, I think we'll be fine, and since the loli are part of this larger artistic work they're thereby alright in Britain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680210
You say that as if your case will be heard fairly. The prosecution will probably go something along the lines that it is sick and disgusting, and a game containing such sick and disgusting things could only have been produced and obtained for the purpose of arousal. Also the fact that it's rated 18+ won't help.

I'm wondering if there's even enough chance of a fair trial to be able to get A Certain Scientific Railgun through, what with a sizeably lengthed scene of Kuroko groping Misaka's flat chest in the first episode, amongst other things.

[Anonymous No.]

>>You can have all the pictures of lolis sucking on popsicles, weiners or even dildos that you want, just so long as it's not a penis.

i guess it's time to become good friends with tentacle monsters.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680226
It's why they were created, mate!

[Anonymous No.]

is this loli in UK?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680225
Well fuck and bugger. I'll have to put those .isos back in the truecrypt volume.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680226
Wait, wait, wait. I've got it.

Penis is to Tentacle as Loli is to...

Find a way to finish that sentence and we have something on our hands that may simultaneously get around these legal issues, AND develop into an incredibly hot fetish on its own!

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680235
I was really disappointed when I learnt that this character isn't supposed to be a "skinless" Hatsune Miku.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680241

dwarf?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680241
Chibi? Robot? Shape shifting slime girl?

[Anonymous No.]

Supreme Court, already ruled simulated child pornography under free speech, etc.

Got convicted? Appeal it

Unless you live in Canada or Britain, but in either of those cases you're living in third world countries that are trying their damnest to follow 1984 to the letter

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680186
May I remind you of the word "sexual", not "porn".
Whether she looks like she's in pain or enjoying it, or if she's so much as shirtless, you can guarantee that it'll be considered as though it were any other sexual fetish. Key word being "sexual".

>>3680193
A point that comes up a lot on non-2d obsessed boards; it's not exclusive to drawings, so because of the "image conveyed" part, real people who are, in reality, over 18, but don't *look* over 18 (Little Lupe being the most extreme famous example, practically every "barely legal teens" type site out there coming a close second) now count as under 18s.

They've actually made it illegal to look at something that you're allowed to fuck, as if the 16/18 difference wasn't enough idiocy already.

>>3680207
>What if the loli is still a loli but as tall as a man?
I have no idea. I wouldn't rely on loopholes to save you in a case like this, where denial leads to being raped to death in prison when Bubba finds out you're in for "Creating child pornography".

>going back to the 90s where 13yo anime girls have giant tits the size of their head.
"even if it includes features not normally found on a human child". The tits can be as large as you want, if it's on a child-looking-person, it's still CP.

>>3680210
>part of a larger work that isn't, considered as a whole, pornographic
VNs are considered, as a whole, pornographic. No matter how much plot is in them.

The idea of that line is to protect things like Trainspotting, where the main character fucks a 15 year old.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680252
We've got the European court of human... oh fuck it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680243
Miku is a program. How can she be skinless? Also drossel is kind of cool.

>@UK laws.
do any of those laws make it illegal to have an <18 under dressed or naked around you? There's places in America where underaged girls can do strip dances, even as they try to follow in UK's footsteps.

Eventually it'll be more legal to watch 14 year olds oil wrestle in your room than to watch anime.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680258
European charter of human rights: People have the right to freedom of expression, unless someone might get a little uncomfortable about it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680252
First, we're talking about the new UK and Jap laws.
Second, they ruled that for the old law, then passed a new (more restrictive) one a few years later without so much as a murmur.

>>3680258
Fun fact of the day: The Lisbon treaty was ratified today, which guarantees all citizens of Europe rights to free speech, free assembly, free this, free that, it's basically the US constitution without the second amendment.

England and Poland applied for, and were granted, exemption from the citizens rights clause.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680257
>>going back to the 90s where 13yo anime girls have giant tits the size of their head.
>"even if it includes features not normally found on a human child". The tits can be as large as you want, if it's on a child-looking-person, it's still CP.

I mean those yoko from GL type characters. I didn't even know most girls in anime under 18 were under 18 until they mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680268
>Eventually it'll be more legal to watch 14 year olds oil wrestle in your room than to watch anime.
Unfortunately, if I knew how to get 14 year olds to oil wrestle in my room, I wouldn't be watching anime.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680257
>May I remind you of the word "sexual", not "porn".
Whether she looks like she's in pain or enjoying it, or if she's so much as shirtless, you can guarantee that it'll be considered as though it were any other sexual fetish. Key word being "sexual".
So nudity implies sexuality. Okay.
Clothed guro exists too.

>VNs are considered, as a whole, pornographic. No matter how much plot is in them.
By who? Most people don't know what they are. And what they are, essentially, are books. Illustrated semi-audio eBooks with music and a bit of interactivity. They don't even need to have a hint of sexuality.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680252
at what point did 1984 condone pedophilia?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680281
Nowhere, but at every point did it indicate an nationalistic authoritarian nation bristling with cameras and "Televisions that watch you back"

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680257
I swear officer, I didn't know people think she looks under 18!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680272
># (Article 3) Prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings
Wow, rather than laws that could potentially be used to defend human rights, we just get ones that hold back humanity as a whole.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680257
>when Bubba finds out you're in for "Creating child pornography".
There are Bubbas in Britain? I thought they were all a bunch of pansies who'd spend their time in jail having tea parties. The pedos have to drink theirs bitter.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680268
>Eventually it'll be more legal to watch 14 year olds oil wrestle in your room than to watch anime.
It already is. Technically. Same reason as it's not technically illegal to watch kids at the swimming pool.

>>3680281
>condone
I think you mean "condemn"

>>3680279
I think you missed my point. If it's presented to the court, it won't be shown to the jury. It'll just be called "obviously sexual fetish images involving the murder of underage girls". Whether it really is sexual or not is irrelevant.

I didn't mean all VNs, obviously. I mean VNs that include sex scenes. Anything that has sex scenes in it is going to be cast as porn. It'd be about as easy to convince people that the sex wasn't the point as it would be to convince them that you read playboy for the articles.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680295
Their Bubbas are Chavs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680279
>They don't even need to have a hint of sexuality.

The opening videos. "Oh that's cute. ...wait what was that in the background? Is that in her ass?"

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680281
Junior Anti-Sex-League anyone?

[Anonymous No.]

>herp derp gubment's gonna take my porn

That's you right now.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680299
But chavs are the child rapists. Stupid Britain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680298
No I meant condone. I was asking when 1984 was a statement against the censorship of loli and cp.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680298
>If it's presented to the court, it won't be shown to the jury.
You sure about that. I'm pretty damn sure I read about a case where some dude who lived with him mum was convicted of making pseudo-photographs, and they showed the images to the jury.

here we go
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/09/26/child-porn-in-cartoon-style-man-convicted
-84229-21906841/
>Jurors were told they should convict if they concluded that a picture looked like a photo.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680316
Yes, probably, but they're rarely pedophiles. A chav would only rape a child because they enjoy dominating and causing pain and suffering to other humans; a chav would never dare to differentiate themselves from their group identity enough to be a pedophile.
And in any case, even if they did have repressed desires of their own, they'd probably beat you even harder to try and pretend to themselves that they don't, that's what chavs are like.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680315
Yes. What of it?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680315
They can take it from my cold, dead, encrypted hard drives.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680316
Nah, chavs usually have sex with kids while they're kids too, get knocked up, then have babies at 14. No rape involved because of the "not an adult doing it" loophole.

>>3680315
The UK has already put into place a system that records every connection made by every computer, and stores it for two years. Police are allowed to access the records at any time, without a warrant. It's less "gub'mint gonn' take mah porn", more "if Joe Bloggs who visits not4chan gets caught for real cp, everyone who ever visited not4chan can be vanned."

>>3680317
Ah, I see. I thought you meant 1984 in-universe, rather than as a political statement.

>>3680320
Completely different situation, and only happened because whether it counted as a photograph or not was important. It's a lot easier to label something sexual than to label it as photo-realistic.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680328
Well they sound like our niggers, alright. But what about the actual niggers and sandniggers slowly sappin' Britland? Do they represent a considerable prison population?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680350
All non-whites put together make up less than 15% of Britain's population.

They're about as disproportionately represented in prison as they are in America (twice as many as there "should" be if they were equal), but it's not quite so obvious.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680320
It clearly says it was poser porn and not 2d. You need to be careful with your custom girl mods.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680293
Sócrates sucks and everyone is riding his cock!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680342
>>3680238
You both seem to be forgetting that in the UK the police can demand your encryption keys or you can face jail time. ALL HAIL BRITTANIA
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/10/uk-can-now-demand-data-decryption-on-penalty-of-jail
-time.ars

If we're lucky RIPA might get reformed because of all the commotion over it ATM, but that's a big might

[Anonymous No.]

I'm gonna miss canada and uk when they're banned from 4chan.

well not really though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680423
We both... are one and the same person.

I'm all too well aware of RIPA. I'll use the plausible deniability/steganography thing. Hidden volumes. That'll work. Maybe.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680446
Probably worth pointing out that they can use your other actions to "prove" that you're capable of something.

For example, if you've ever used a proxy, you can't rely on the "oh! I must've left my wireless network unlocked, and someone else used it without my permission 0:3" excuse when your real IP is found somewhere you'd rather it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.]

The problem with the UK is that everyone will bend over and take it up the arse in order to stop paedophiles and terrorists. Most of the bullshit laws we have no were brought in under the guise of stopping terrorism, even though the majority of them have very little practical use for that, and are mostly used to fuck with normal people, due to the police mostly being made up of power-tripping chavs and old gimmers who have no fucking clue about the real world.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680467
I've used a proxy once or twice, but that has nothing to do with other people using my wifi. I have a shitty old router that can only support security protocols up to WPA TKIP, which is supposedly just about cracked wide open.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680495
There are no fully secure wireless security protocols right now. It's just the difference between a few minutes and a few hours.

Of course, if it's secured at all, it's more likely that whooever wants to get on your internets would spend the time looking for an unsecured network instead.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680474
Fun fact of the day number 2: The number of times I've been searched under the Anti-terrorism legislation outweighs the number of times I've had any other interaction with the police. The same is true of everyone I know, including several drug dealers.

The best part is when they say "Do you consent to a search under [any non-Anti-Terrorism law]?", and when you refuse, they get to say "Under the anti-terrorism act, I'm now authorised to force you to comply with a full search".

The law specifically mentions that refusing consent to be searched *under that law* is not grounds for reasonable suspicion (and thus, forced search), but it says nothing of other searchable laws.

Yay for catch 22!

>>3680495
>that has nothing to do with other people using my wifi
That doesn't matter. It's to prove you have a certain level of competancy with a computer, thus you should've taken steps to prevent it. Similarly, if you have any kind of IT qualification, they're not going to believe "I don't know how they got there! Someone must've hacked me, that's it."

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680423
>the UK the police can demand your encryption keys

Plausible deniability.

First volume, pig disgusting 3D porn. Hidden volume, your real stash.

[Anonymous No.]

Did you guys see that thread a few days ago about some guy in Ottawa who pretty much had his life ruined (lost his job, lost his wife, some jail time, registered as a sex offender for a long time, forced to see a shrink, etc) because, get this... he had ten erotic stories involving teenage girls on his hard drive?
Canada is already punishing severely for "thought crimes", even if they're normal.
That guy is right... he's exceedingly lucky to live in Japan.

[Anonymous No.]

What if you don't remember your key, like you hit your head after creating it and forgot it?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680556
Do you have to even ask?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680556
The Lords ruled that Courts are allowed to draw "Negative implications" from a refusal to give information.

If you're suspected of having CP, but they can't find it on your computer, and you "just happen" to have a Truecrypt volume that you "forgot" the password to, they're allowed to treat it as though it were CP, AND tack on a "perverting the course of justice" charge.

It's what a more sensationalist person would call "guilty until proven innocent".

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680556
Then you are a terrorist and and a paedophile and must go to jail for 3 years under RIPA.
Also, for all those of us lucky enough to live in Britian, this bill brings in the right for the government to hold their secret trials without juries. So now we can be even safer from those nasty terrorists lurking behind every corner!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680550
Notice how Canada started going to shit the second Stephen Harper came into power. And I live in the bluest fucking province in the country as well.

[Anonymous No.]

Should I burn my old Megami volumes?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680538
I've never been searched. All my life, including my crimes are online.

And damn, this useless computer science degree won't get me a job, but it can be used against me.

Considering moving to another EU member state.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680582
I think it mostly happens only in London, or if you take a photograph near a train or an under 18. Heaven forbid if you take a photograph of a train/under 18, or near a train/under 18 when in London, then you'll be arrested, taken to the police station, have your camera stolen, and be threatened with being thrown in jail like the terrorist/pedophile scum you surely are.
And if you take a photograph of a train when you're in London, you'd better have written your will...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680582
My experiences are from 07 and 08, when I was still being forced to leave the house to go to college and having panic attacks on my lunch-break.

The guy who looks like he's terrified of everything, cuts his own hair, and is wearing clothes that wouldn't be out of place on a homeless person is a prime target for cops looking for drugs, I guess.

The record-storing legislation is EU-wide. Judging by the recent "violent pornography" ban being spread EU-wide after the UK introduced it a while back, I wouldn't be surprised if this spread too.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680593
Hm. I live in London. I took a photo of a poster on the Tube once.

Did they take your camera?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680593
I'm outside of London, and I get searched on a semi-regular basis. Hell, I don't even live anywhere near, I'm in a little village on the outskirts of Leeds.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680593

I was reading a photography blog once and the guy was complaining that after he took a photo of a train, the cops took his camera and when he tried to get it back a few weeks later, the cops said they already destroyed it. It was like a $2000 camera too.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680593
They can hold you for up to 60 days (Not a matter of hours like most countries, DAYS) without charge, lawyer access, phone access, or trial. They only need "reasonable suspicion" that you're breaking ANY law. Anything from Section 5 of the Public Order Act (Being too loud in public) to a good ol' Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Littering) can be met with 2 months in prison. The cop gets to be judge, jury, and executioner, all in one.

Isn't that just peachy?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680629
60 days without access to a lawyer? Seriously what the fuck. Try pulling that anywhere else and that's grounds for a gigantic shit storm.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680629
>The cop gets to be judge, jury, and executioner, all in one.

You mean we are rediscovering Confucian justice? Oh wait, we forgot that education part...

[Anonymous No.]

I always thought America would be the first one to turn Orwellian after 9/11. Seems like the UK beat us to the punch.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680652
The British public have no say in the matter really. Very few people know about what these laws actually mean other than "stopping terrorists", and those that know about them can't do anything about them due to the fact people just get brushed off with "You're too stupid to understand this law" by MPs.

Also, the majority take the view of "If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", so anybody who is opposed to anti-terrorist and anti-paedophile laws for common sense reasons ends up being viewed as a terrorist/paedophile by the general public.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680670
You've managed to skip past the most important part;
The British people don't have a say in the matter because we *don't have a choice about it during elections.*

Only two parties have any chance of getting to power, like most democracies. Unlike places like America, where the opposing parties try to distance themselves from eachother as much as possible, both the UK's parties agree on everything.

Labour says "No guns!" Tories say "No guns!"
Labour says "No self-defence!" Tories say "No self-defence!"
Labour says "No right to privacy!" Tories say "No right to privacy!"
Labour says "No habeus corpus!" Tories say "No habeus corpus!"
Labour says "Loli = CP!" Tories say "Loli = CP!"

We don't have any way to fix anything that we disagree with.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680670
So indirectly terrorists are fucking up the enjoyment of anime for people in the UK. Good going.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680668
America is far more likely to follow the blueprint of Brave New World than 1984

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680670
The thing is that the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is something you can't refute :/
>>3680701
Vote Lib Dems.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680720
I always refute it on the grounds of "Innocent until proven guilty"

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680706
Kind of. But I don't like the way your statement absolves the government of responsibility, as if it is an automaton determined inevitably to react this way, while terrorists are somehow free agents capable of originating new action.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680670
>"You're too stupid to understand this law" by MPs

I always thought that MPs don't understand shit themselves, and just vote the way their party leaders tell them to?

As in, an American senator might pretend to be informed in a bill or someone on a committee might actually know what he's talking about, but an MP doesn't even bother googling things.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680720
You can refute it on the basis that EVERYBODY has something to hide, and if they don't right now, they soon will with all the bullshit law changes, long after they could have kicked up a shitstorm about it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680720
>The thing is that the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is something you can't refute :/
True. The problem comes when the thing you're hiding *shouldn't* have to be hidden, but does because of draconian and nonsensical laws.

>Vote Lib Dems.
Mentally tack on "Lib Dems say "[identical thing here]"" to all those statements, along with "but we'll never get in power anyway, so who cares".

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680731
Yep, God bless the Whip and party politics

[Anonymous No.]

MPs have a fuckload to hide, and complain shitloads when it comes to light, yet they think it's okay to take privacy away from normal people without giving them a right to complain without being branded a terrorist? Fuck them, we need V.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680737
If you want to avoid 1984, Lib Dems are your best choice.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680731
>but an MP doesn't even bother googling things.
Very true. I actually asked Bill Rammel (my local MP) about his opinion on the whole Coroners and Justice thing. He had no fucking clue what it included, but assured me he had voted "Yes" to it because it "protected our country's youth".

I've never felt like punching someone quite so much in my life.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680731
Pretty much true. MPs are supposed to listen to their constituents, and stand up for what they want etc, but instead, they actually just bend over for their leaders, and reply with patronising letters of denial.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680747
I wouldnt trust the Lib Dems to run a lemonade stand, let alone the country

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680761
Why?

[Anonymous No.]

/uk/

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680747
Which really, really says something about how pathetic our political system is.

Anyone remember the Halloween Special of the Simpsons where Kang and Kodos run for president? That's what the UK's been under since the Conservatives realised how much people hated Thatcher.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680768
More like /everywestencountrysoon/.

[Anonymous No.]

It's 2AM, and we're discussing politics on /jp/

Doesn't matter what we think, none of us will change a damn thing, because it involves getting out of bed before 3PM and leaving the house.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680778
>because it involves being born into a multi-millionare family, or agreeing with the current regime

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680745
Hypocrites in government? Surely you jest. If the MPs expenses scandal has taught us anything, and being British, it hasn't, is that the general populace cares only enough about politics to be outraged at what the newspapers (perhaps too generous a word?) tell them to.
Case in point: Jacqui Smith, forget all the fucked up laws she is either directly or indirectly responsible for, SHE CLAIMED FOR PORN. Did she resign for being incompetent or infringing on our civil liberties? No, she did it to save as much face as possible, and if her appearance on Question Time a week ago is anything to go by, she still doesn't think she did anything wrong on either of those issues.
>>3680747
You're right, but until 75% of the population realize that there is a choice other than Conservative or Labour, we are basically going to be repeatedly fucked in the ass till we have the good sense to move

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680784
>we are basically going to be repeatedly fucked in the ass till we have the good sense to move

I'm actually planning to move to Tokyo. I know they hate whites, but I don't care.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680784
Jacqui Smith falls into the special catagory of "People too stupid to deserve life". I honestly have no fucking idea why anybody thought she was even decent. She went to a shit school, her parents weren't millionaires or anything, and she has the charisma, and approximate intelligence, of a dog turd.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680798
> she has the charisma, and approximate intelligence, of a dog turd.
She appeals to her voters on the basis of similarity, then.

[Anonymous No.]

You know what we need? A chav party.

[Anonymous No.]

Hi /jp/. I've come to legalize lolicon in Britain.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680784
>I am a wishy-washy liberal who can only complain and has no idea what to do with the country

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681099
I'm not him, but it's pretty obvious that we need to abolish capitalism and kill most of the ruling class.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681126
Please tell me you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681143
It's called "sarcasm", not trolling.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681143
I'm not. Capitalism is extremely harmful and oppresses the vast majority of the world's population in one way or another.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681126
Well, capitalism is one of the least broken systems we still have, when it works properly
>>3681099
Actually, I have several ideas on how to improve the country, but they don't sound nearly as catchy as "THE PAEDOPHILE TERRORIST IMMIGRANTS ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR JOB AND HAVE SEX WITH YOUR FIRST-BORN SONS" so I wouldn't garner many votes from the average citizen

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681147
I'm not >>3681143, but there exist people who think exactly that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681158
Sup angie

Get back to /ck/

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681158
>Capitalism is extremely harmful and oppresses the vast majority of the world's population in one way or another.
How is this a bad thing? If people want money they have to work, if they want to sit on their asses all day and not do anything they won't get shit. Capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681158
Yeah, I'm feeling oppressed right now too. This is the third job in the row where I get screwed. Probably not going to get the last two months of wages. Going out of business I get fucked in the ass.

I hate my life.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681170
I don't think he means everyone should get a free ride, not even the real hardcore socialists really think that, but that we should cut down on sending our shit off to be manufactured in chinese sweatshops

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681175
Why?
That benifits both us (With cheaper goods) and them (selling them to us)
And don't give me the 'but them chinks take our jawbs' shit, the Theory of Comparative advantage states that everyone would be better off if they made what thier country is good at

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681175
If you want that then you need to examine why they are sending jobs overseas in the first place.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681175
But the reason for that happening isn't capitalism, but corporatism and government interference. There is a difference.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681170
Planned obsolescence and extremely advanced marketing are just two shitty shitty things that would not exist without capitalism.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681192
The term Capitalism is very loaded. The original definition Marx gave was essentially State-Capitalism, wasn't it? Now it can mean many things, from the aforementioned State Capitalism to Market Anarchy.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681188
>He actually believes in neoliberal economics.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681203

>Planned obsolescence

Not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it'd be nice it goods lasted longer in general but increasing the durability of goods may lead to greater increases in costs of production than the market would be willing to pay for.

>extremely advanced marketing

The freer the market, the less likely this would occur without advances in technology needed to produce the good and/or quality of the good itself without increasing its cost to produce.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681242
I'm not one for extra laws, but planned obsolescence is a recent phenomenon. Once upon a time, we made things to last. If we could do it then without "blowing our budget", why not now?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681261
Only argument I've seen that made any sense is to encourage new technology adoption. Things move so fast now, after all.

>>3681242
What's your opinion on this year's economics Nobel Prize winner? I'm curious.
>>3681242

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681261
The reason for that is simple. Interest rates are too low, so there is no respect for saving or conserving assets at the corporate level. America's chief export is the dollar, so it only makes sense that we have to continually buy cheap items from other countries in order to maintain the illusion that we have any significant economy.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681261

Once upon a time there were no such things as global or even national markets, which greatly reduced the total consumer base. If we treat consumers as a scarce resource, companies had to be willing to go to greater lengths to obtain them.

Nowadays, we have a greater range of goods, in both types and quality, to choose from, depending on our budgets. This can be perceived as a good or bad thing, depending on the circumstance.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681290

Someone who has studied too much theoretical mathematics. The Nobel Prize in Economics is the biggest joke there is, which is saying something.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681314
Are you saying the Nobel Prize in Economics is a bigger joke than the Nobel Peace Prize? Now, that is really saying something.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681314
yeah, but an economist didn't win it this time. I was hoping for some sort of rage about this.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681314
What about the nobel peace prize?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681324

>he thinks economists win the Nobel Prize in Economics

reactionimageofpeoplelaughing.jpg

But seriously, only about 5 people have ever won that prize that have deserved to win it, and that's mainly to due with the most annoying pre-req for the prize.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681328
>>3681321

Unlike with the Peace Prize, recipients of the Prize in Economics stand to cause far greater strife in the world due to how influential they can be. Granted, they can also help herald in greater prosperity to all if their theories pan out.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681344
I see what you are saying. Economics laureates normally do most of their damage to the world after they win the prize, while Peace ones have already done the majority of their damage before they win it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681572

I was going for more the idea that no one gives much a shit about the Peace Prize anymore but if that's how you want to interpret it, knock yourself out.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681582
Makes for great rhetoric. Obama's prize is going to be mentioned so fucking much, more than Gore's even.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681592

Loses its prestige after a few years. The Prize in Economics can set you for life.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3680716
I thought Brave New World was pretty close to being a perfect society. There's the whole frowning on individuality thing, but that's supported through conditioning, a person can pull away from it if they stop worrying about everyone thinking them odd if they don't spend time in the group.
And the fact that people don't put sex on a ridiculous pedestal and get all emotional about it is also good, they managed to wipe out all the puritan bastards, and even celebrate sex as a leisure activity, from an early age. I remember fapping to the descriptions of sexuality at the primary school when I read Brave New World, back when I was young. (I wonder if Brave New World would eventually end up as a banned book then; if these new laws spread to the written word...)
Somehow I don't see America going down those lines.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3679948
plz stop spamming ur shitty board on www.DCECtalk.com ( replace DCEC w/ anon ) were tired of ur constant fucken spam and ddos attack's also stop lying about AT ok now gtfo dumbo's

[Anonymous No.]

>>3679949
plz stop spamming ur shitty board on www.EEADtalk.com ( replace EEAD w/ anon ) were tired of ur constant fucken spam and ddos attack's also stop lying about AT ok now gtfo dumbo's

[Anonymous No.]

>21. Kono te no saki ni...

Have a good one, Anonymous.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3681765
I meant that it's going to be mentioned by his opponents

[Anonymous No.]

This is the only person who tried to stop it. How does that make you feel?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3683562
Actually there was one other guy.
>Shadow justice minister Edward Garnier tabled an amendment to replace the offence of 'possession' with one of 'publishing by any means whatsoever to another', thereby excluding any individual who produced an "imaginary image" for his own gratification which was not shown or published to another party. And Lib Dem MP Jenny Willott sought an amendment to restrict the bill's scope to computer-generated images. The parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice, Maria Eagle, stated that she believed possession offences were "a way of trying to control these images when the internet is the main means of distribution" and that cartoon images could be used as a grooming tool by offenders. Both Mr Garnier and Ms Willott withdrew their amendments.
http://www.politics.co.uk/legislation/legal-and-constitutional/coroners-and-justice-bill-$1242083.ht
m
Feels bad man.

[CINERIA !DoLLFaGERs No.]

Its pretty good that Cineria looks over 18, I guess. Still, with all of these bills being passed, it makes me think about what we will be able to do legally in a decade's time.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3683616
The way things are going, in a decades time they'll probably be legislating against indecent thoughts of children.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3683631
They'll be legislating against children themselves soon enough.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3683642
They already are. Taking naked photos of themselves, you know the story.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3683646

Yea, I love that part. You committed a crime against yourself, now pay the consequences!

Also, a UK survey among young girls showed that about 50% of them would perform plastic surgery to look better if they could. This is 7-18 year olds. Like the society has any grounds to claim CP ruins kids lives... media ruins so many more kids than CP ever will, and they are immune since they are the ones spreading the information about what is bad.

[Anonymous No.]

I'm not for child abuse and child porn, but IMO banning child models, lolicon, erotic literature and teens sending their own nudes to a boyfriend is nuts.