Archive for June 1, 2012
They say the stars at night, they shine so bright...deep in the heart of Texas. And that holds true for curvaceous Texan, Blu Diamond, whose ass is the star of this cinematic fete that should go down in Ass-terpiece Theater history. Blu wastes no time in getting down to business. The minute this scene opens up, she is ready to straddle this stud's face and cock. In the blink of an eye, she is naked and getting her pussy eaten while she bounces her ass on his face. Then she is on all fours, sucking on his knob, and that's when you get to see the fullness of her caboose. And she knows you want to ride that caboose, so after some cowgirl and doggie style she tells him to put his dick in her chocolate love tunnel. And that's just what he does. He fucks her ass and then fills it with his load. It is probably the best creampie we have seen in a long time. Those Texan girls sure can take a load!
When a SCORE shipping department employee calls in sick, Kerry is the first to lend a hand in unloading SCORE Group magazines. We're not saying that the rest of us are lazy, but these boxes weigh a friggin' ton and a lot of us have spinal problems and hernias, so we have to be careful about lifting. Kerry is a doll and is always ready to pitch in. In fact, she often rings us from home, asking if any employees have called off so she can take the train into London and spend the day at our warehouse. If that's not dedication, nothing is.
The world’s worst parker? A woman spending SIX MINUTES trying to scrape into a parking spot and then driving off in a huffJune 1, 2012
O2 porn filesharers to be sent letters from film-maker
Ben Dover Productions will begin receiving letters from the film-maker shortly [LINK].
If you get such a letter DO NOT PANIC.
I suspect that there is not much he can do. Seek legal advise.
I am not sure that it would ever go to court as I presume (and I stress I do presume this – so seek legal advise as these are thoughts only, and I am NOT responsible for your actions) that its the person who dealt with the files not the broadband owner. So for instance you may have an open wifi (no password needed). So anyone in the area can use your wifi.
The letter will probably go to the owner of the broadband/ip address.
First thing to remember is that there are sites and software that can fake ip addresses. This its (I believe) possible that someone in another country can appear to be from your ip address.
But my advise is first seek legal advice before you reply to the letter. Do not admit or not admit to anything before you seek legal advice.
I suspect that they will not bother to go to court simply as its probably going to be a pain to prove who the person was who dealt with the file.
Lets face it a percentage will panic and just pay something. Its like speeding tickets, even if you get one and know you were not speeding (one presumes the machine was not working 100% that day) that most will just pay the fine, rather than go to court. Many will fear that it will be more expensive if they go to court and feat being in the press. This is why I would get legal advice. I would also suggest you contact BBC1′ watchdog too [LINK].
Note: The above are just my thoughts. I am not giving legal advice. Please seek legal advice.
I am breaking the law
That’s right, I am breaking the law.
Well a new law has now come into force that says I am supposed to do something about cookies [LINK].
Is my site a EU site? Its hosted in the USA. Its software and stuff is (I believe) from the USA. I am not sure if it is then a EU site.
Have you been on any UK sites that are now legal? By this you (from what I gather) should have a pop up stopping you using the site unless you agree to cookies. Well lets have a look at a few sites:
[Sites checked at 1st June 2012 - so they may have changed when you read this]
I went on the above sites and non had anything about cookies. Maybe they will for you as it could be my browser stops the block ups.
So if the government cannot do it, nor the BBC, what hope is some twit like me going to have? Or does the government think I have a million pounds spare to spend on a programmer?
The problem is a lot of browsers will block pop ups, and some mobile phones pop ups do not work.
Basically this is not a workable law. Nor is it a law anyone has asked for. It probably seemed a good idea at the time, but in reality it sucks.
But just to be clear, yes I am probably breaking the law. I have no idea if I am or not. I do not really care. Its just one of many UK laws that are pointless that people now ignore.
By the way if you go into Leeds city center people now openly smoke weed. Yesterday we watched a policeman take a bottle of beer off a chap in a wheelchair as apparently its now illegal to drink in the street, while his mate was smoking weed (and the policeman took no notice of him doing so). Its a crazy world.
Please note: I am not telling you to break the law. And yes, your probably like most people in the UK now who thinks most of the laws are pointless and just there to give people a job and you have no respect for the law. Also I know you will see a lot of people smoke weed, but its not legal, and yes I know its pointless making it illegal, but at least it gives people a job to play at being the law.
Also Note: I myself do not take drugs. Nor do I drink. I am also a vegan. However if you wish to take drugs, its none of my business. You know the risks. I know many many many people who smoke weed these days. And yes, some drugs do have dangers and some have side effects, but alcohol from what I gather will kill and do more harm than most illegal drugs. Also you can die from even doing sport. Today I could be run over crossing the road. As long as you know the risks, surly its up to you? What does making them illegal do? Drugs today must surly be delivered in huge quantities to supply demand in the UK. You must be looking at a lorry load each day. Drugs are also very cheap. So clearly people are brining in huge quantities without any problems. So why bother spending millions on trying to prevent them getting in the UK when clearly its not doing anything worth spit.
The Conservative MP who chaired a Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection said less than half of parents were adding filters to computers and internet-enabled devices to stop children looking at porn.
Claire Perry said an opt-in system, where people chose to get adult material, was a “much safer option.”
She debated with Big Brother Watch’s Nick Pickles after his Daily Politics film and lawyer Constance Briscoe said it was “of grave concern” that a minister could decide what people could watch online.
Why a porn opt in is a bad idea
The porn opt in that has been suggested at first may sound a simple and good idea. But its not.
One has to remember its not going to work anyway. All people will do is use websites that will allow you access to porn. In China porn is banned, but everyone can access it via websites that allow you to access such sites. Thus the system would become a joke.
Then is the question what a porn site is. Who will decide? What you may think is porn someone else may consider art. So you will end up with years of court cases deciding what content is or is not porn.
The danger it will increase illegal porn. If people cannot access porn, it will encourage people to simply start selling pirated porn on cd/dvd/memory sticks. There will clearly be an increase of people selling these in pubs, schools and so on. The problem is that this will include child abuse content. At the moment all sites must have models aged 18 or older, but there will be no way to monitor the content on pirated films or know who shot it or who was shot. There will be adults who will want to opt in, but as they are Christians are Muslims and do not want people to know they want porn will end up being it pirated rather than have people know they opted into porn.
Could it lead to divorce? Think about it, most men (lets be honest most men and a lot of women watch porn) will opt into porn. So what if there wife find out. This is going to lead to a lot of arguments at home. Surly its better he looks at his porn and she never finds out.
One thought too is that it becomes part of a slippery rout to the government controlling what you see. We are having more laws all the time telling you what not to see. For instance if you went on a site that told you how to make bombs you have to justify the reason for looking at the site, and chances are you will end up in prison on the presumption your a terrorist. Yet why should you not seek such info, just out of interest. You do not need to give me a reason why your on such sites as its not my business, and nor should it be the business of the government or/and police.
We have started to see censorship. Its been said that (I must point out that I am not sure if this is true or not) sites such as BNP are being blocked by providers [LINK]. Now I detest the BNP but I would never want sites blocked. I do not care if its a hate site or not. The only sites that should be removed are those with illegal content such as sites showing child abuse and animal abuse. Note that I call it child abuse not child porn. I object to the name child porn as people connect child porn to porn, and its not the same. I do wish the media would call it child abuse.
One should always defend the right to free speech, and remember the quote “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire