Relevant part of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK)

Section 65 (regarding what “child” means in the context of indecent images)

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

(end quote)

In other words, an image can be treated as an indecent image of a child if the “impression conveyed” is that the person is under 18, even if that person has older “physical characteristics”.

This legislation is more directed at non photographic imagery (so hentai / CGI etc) and the reference to physical characteristics is apparently a reference to a large breasts or “1000 year old vampire teeth” not being viable as an excuse that the image doesn’t give the impression of a child.

I can’t recall specifically what legislation was used regarding the age play couple I referenced. I can’t find a specific law that says it’s wrong for a photograph of an adult to appear underage. So it may just be that they were reported to police because they shared their images online without context. I don’t know if they were subsequently prosecuted.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Any sexual representation of a child is illegal in the UK whether it looks real or not. In fact I believe it doesn’t need to even be a child, it’s a illegal if a reasonable person would believe it was depicting a child. This came up when adults who were into age play got into trouble distributing their images because it looked convincingly underage.

Bound to be tested in court sooner or later. As far as I understand it one is “in possession” if they have access to a set of steps or procedures that would recover an image. So this prevents offenders from hiding behind the fact their images were compressed in a zip file or something. They don’t have a literal offending image, but they possess it in a form that they can transform.

What would need to be tested is that AI generators are coming up with novel images rather than retrieving existing ones. It seems like common sense but the law is quite pedantic. The more significant issue is that generators don’t need to be trained on csem to come up with it. So proving someone had it with the intent of producing it would always be hard. Even generators trained on illegal material I’m not sure it would be straight forward to prove that someone knew what it was capable of.

While these are both certainly true it has also been annoying when I’ve added a regular contact but it doesn’t show up in WhatsApp straight away

Seems incredible that leaders on either side of a conflict like this would set foot in their home yet it seems to be a norm…

deleted by creator

Yawn

Amazon’s cloud based Simple Storage Service (hence the S3). It is, in ELI5 terms, a file storage service like Microsoft’s OneDrive or Apple’s iCloud. A bit like a harddrive reached over the internet. You transfer files to and from it.

That’s grossly oversimplifying of course. S3 has some important technical differences to a straight up “cloud drive”. And it comes with a mind boggling array of options so it can be customised to be the storage of all sorts of very large real world applications and websites.

That’s definitely the case for some, depends what kind of politician they are.

Having 0% chance of ending up in the UK because you’re processed offshore and automatically denied entry is what actually works.

This is what Australia did and they reduced deaths from illegal crossings to 0.

They also reduced trafficking in Indonesia because it turned out a lot of that was making its way to the south coast to illegally enter Australia.

Stopping the system of exploitation from working has benefits that ripple outwards.

If we didn’t have an asylum system breaking under the strain of false and bogus claims we might actually be able to open new legal routes to those facing a real emergencies. The largest cohort arriving in 2022 was working aged Albanian men. There is no emergency in Albania. About 90% of claims were rejected at enormous cost via accommodation, legal fees, court time etc. This is grossly unfair on those we should actually be helping.

You need to know who exactly you’re dealing with on the French coast.

I think there should be more safe, legal routes to the UK away from danger. But I think these have to be political decisions supported by voters and passed by parliament. (Like we had for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, there should be more of that, so long as the UK population supports it). I think we should also take our fair share of refugees entering Europe (obviously that’s now complicated by Brexit).

The decision being made on the coast in France is not whether or not to flee some horrible thing in, say, Pakistan. They’ve already done that. The actual decision being made is whether to stay in France or risk going to the UK. So the question really is “What’s so bad about France?” (Or any other safe country passed through for that matter).

The criticism about how genuine some of these claims are is that someone actually fleeing truly terrible things would kiss the ground as soon as they got to Italy, or Greece or Germany or France and so on. Unless, perhaps, they’re not in a genuine emergency, rather they’re just fed up of home and want better economic prospects elsewhere. That’s what we find when we look back at, say, 2022. The largest cohort arriving illegally in the UK was working aged men from Albania. There is no emergency in Albania. About 90% of their asylum claims were rejected.

So why the UK for these guys? Well it’s probably due to the fact that’s it’s much easier to work here illegally partially due to us lacking an ID card system like the rest of Europe. Plus our particularly humane welfare net providing free accommodation, free healthcare and free legal costs is easily taken advantage of while a bogus asylum claim can be strung out for years and years.

That’s why a portion of them are thinking a risky channel crossing is better than staying in France. If they know their asylum claim is bogus, far better to spend some years working cash in hand (illegally) in the UK than having a rougher time in France, or be found out sooner in Germany and so on.

Many claimants are genuine, of course, primarily women and children were granted asylum in the UK. But the question again is, if one is fleeing a genuine emergency, what’s so bad about the rest of Europe?

Many are trafficked there. So their decision to cross the channel illegally is not really theirs. But rather it’s the assumption of their abuser that they’re more easily exploited in the UK. Again, the lack of an ID card system makes this more likely.

Ultimately it may be impossible to have a full window on to how the decision to get into a bad dingy is made when you’re already standing in a safe country like France. But what is certain, is they would not do it if it meant a 0% chance of ending up in the UK.

Almost all illegal crossings are intercepted. They’re then documented and put in the UK asylum system. If instead being intercepted meant you would be processed offshore and denied entry to the UK automatically then that takes away the single biggest cause of dangerous crossings. In other words, an actual deterrent.

Obviously the Rwanda plan was flawed. But the portion of it that has automatic offshore processing and automatic denial of entry to the UK are the parts that actually worked and started having an effect on decisions.

This is what Australia did too and they managed to reduce deaths from illegal crossings to 0.

I think there should be more safe and legal routes to the UK for genuine emergencies. I think we should take our fair share of refugees entering Europe that are found to have genuine claims. I think illegal crossings to the UK should be 100% precessed offshore and should have automatic disqualification from ever entering the UK. I think the asylum system needs far more investment so that cases are progressed quicker. I think we should not be afraid to deport false claimants to dangerous parts of the world. All in all I think our asylum system should be rigourously defended from false claimants, gangs and traffickers so that resources can be prioritised for those in genuine need of help and rescue.

Oh I get it now. Gave me a giggle.

Joking aside. The state of the UK is no deterrent to economic migrants who are coming to work cash in hand. The largest cohort arriving illegally in 2022 was working age Albanian men. There is no crisis in Albania. About 90% of male asylum applications were rejected. It was a bunch of guys taking advantage of the fact that they were one dodgy dinghy ride away from grifting in the UK. Our lack of ability to deport most people means they get free accommodation, free healthcare free legal representation for years on end.

A special agreement to allow deportation to Albania was signed last year but that’s just one country out of many.

Having a more efficient asylum system won’t deter anyone that we can’t actually deport. The incentives are basically all wrong and encourage fake asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They generally don’t stop in other safe countries in Europe because I) for many their goal is not safety, it’s the UK ii) the lack of ID cards in the UK makes working illegally trivial compared to many other European countries iii) the UK is more attractive because it’s more easily taken advantage of (generous legal system, free housing etc) compared to other countries and especially compared to when they’ve come from.

I think there should be safe ways to claim asylum from actual disaster zones that parliament has approved. There are a couple, but getting more agreed is something that voters should support.

I think the UK should take its fair share of refugees arriving in Europe. Again, this should be a formal legal process. Not dangerous illegal boat crossings.

The last piece then had to be a guarantee that if you arrive via an illegal boat you will not end up in the UK. That is the only thing that will stop them. Nearly 100% of illegal crossings are intercepted, it’s just that current that means they’re housed in the UK and enter the legal system.

If that was changed so that 100% of illegal boat arrivals are processed outside the UK without any prospect of asylum then illegal boat crossings (and deaths) would end. This is exactly how Australia stopped the same problem.

Obviously the Rwanda plan did not work. But an actual deterrent means arranging a safe 3rd country when illegal entrants are moved to automatically.

I think legal paths into the UK should be more generous. But again that needs to be a voter / political process.

We have a deterrent. It’s called being the UK. It’s not working.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/uN5iwZB2v2dH2/giphy.gif

Need a deterrent, now. Anything else is just hand wringing while this awfulness continues.

Just select yourself to chat with in Teams (top option in contacts) and put a battery on the delete key like a professional…

That’s what I used to be able to do. It was pressing the back and cancel buttons in some combination brought up a hidden menu where you could reset the toner levels. You can still bring the menu up on mine but now it ignores any reset you do.

Firing from a populated residential area in order to use civilians as a shield is commonly accepted as a war crime.

I’m sure Israel eagerly awaits Hezbollah’s summons to the Hague.

I’m the meantime, if you fire a rocket at another country, it’s going to get blown up no matter where it is.

Brother invalidates its laser cartridges after a certain number of revolutions irrespective of how much toner is left. You used to be able to override this manually but they removed that in a software update recently. Am livid. If you know different do you mind sharing what model you have?