Safe Speed Forums

They’ve then gone on to not only misquote me but print something which was totally made up from start to finish.

I hope you are pleased with yourself. I have just spent an hour reading first this blog then, upon following a link in the blog, the 419eater site.

You should be ashamed at yourself at providing such addictive material via the web.

Police officers & staff can’t be trusted with access to an email system. We are also delicate little flowers who need protecting. To this end, we have a system in place which does not allow us to accept emails of a certain nature. For instance, we can’t accept anything with a picture in it, in case the picture is "inappropriate". For a while this meant that we couldn’t accept any emails with the force logo in it, until they corrected that. We can’t accept anything with an attachment, in case it contains a virus. So you can’t email anything to use which has, for instance a Word document or a pdf file; well you can, but you have to email someone in an office somewhere & get them to release it individually to you.

Any email which has bad language in it is blocked also. They send you an email to say that someone has sent you an email with ‘bad language’ in it. This is the fantastic part. They have classified all swear words on a scale of badness. You’ll get an email which says something along the lines of "you have been sent an email containing offensive or inappropriate language. The language contained is of a value of 60 points. The word was either one of the following or a derivative of: fuck, fucking, fuckers, mother-fucker, fuck-off". You can apply to have the email unblocked if you think you need to have access to it, which is handy if it’s a statement or a description of an incident which happens to have bad language in it.

Fantastic, so if you were going to be offended by the original email which they blocked, how offended are you going to be that they’ve used a really bad word AND all it’s variations?

And the other thing which intrigues me, is that somewhere in the Home Office a committee has sat around a table wondering how many points to give swear words. You can imagine it. A whole afternoon, or more, debating how many points to give ‘bollocks’. "OK, we’ll give ‘bollocks’ 50 points, agreed?" "No, if we give ‘bollocks’ 50 then we have to give ‘arsehole’ 65, surely", "Yes, but if we give ‘arsehole’ 65 then we have to reduce ‘wanker’ to 63." "OK, let’s give ‘bollocks’ 45." "No we can’t do that because ‘balls’ is 45."

Can I have a discount for saying the whole concept is about 250 points’ worth.