B Rob has already resigned his position. Mr Absurd has taken over the mantle in a caretaker position.
I for one will defend to the death as a frustrated middle aged sex starved pervert the "Whose Rack? and "Would Ya?" threads on CL.
Banning the would ya and whose rack threads would be a step in the right direction. The would ya threads are an embarrassment to Charlton Athletic Football club and is an affront to female fans.
The way I see it, is that a sexist is basically the male equivalent of a feminist! The male equivalent of a feminist is a poof. in Sexism in the media. Comment by smudge7946 July 18
B Rob has already resigned his position. Mr Absurd has taken over the mantle in a caretaker position.
I for one will defend to the death as a frustrated middle aged sex starved pervert the "Whose Rack? and "Would Ya?" threads on CL.
Banning the would ya and whose rack threads would be a step in the right direction. The would ya threads are an embarrassment to Charlton Athletic Football club and is an affront to female fans.
Instead of forcing ISP's to tow the line with threats of legislation, perhaps Big Dave could start up some parenting skills classes. Money would be better spent there.
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
Instead of forcing ISP's to tow the line with threats of legislation, perhaps Big Dave could start up some parenting skills classes. Money would be better spent there.
Or if you're a parent who insists on giving their little precious an iPad at the age of eight, at least be responsible enough to get the filters put in place yourself.
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
No. Just means parents completely cut off teenagers from learning about sex (and safe sex information), and instead forces them to retreat back to the magazines and whispers of the past.
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
No. Just means parents completely cut off teenagers from learning about sex (and safe sex information), and instead forces them to retreat back to the magazines and whispers of the past.
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
Thats the whole point The vast majority of parents on the estates round us dont have the first clue or interest in protecting their kids. I just dont see what relevance your first paragraph has to this move. Parents taught their children before the days of the internet didnt they? Or do you really think its fine to let 12 and 13 year olds access modern abusive pornography? Also the move of having a flash page explaining to adults that the site they are visiting contains illegal material wont stop many, but it does take away their defence of 'accidental' page viewing.
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
No. Just means parents completely cut off teenagers from learning about sex (and safe sex information), and instead forces them to retreat back to the magazines and whispers of the past.
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
Thats the whole point The vast majority of parents on the estates round us dont have the first clue or interest in protecting their kids. I just dont see what relevance your first paragraph has to this move. Parents taught their children before the days of the internet didnt they? Or do you really think its fine to let 12 and 13 year olds access modern abusive pornography? Also the move of having a flash page explaining to adults that the site they are visiting contains illegal material wont stop many, but it does take away their defence of 'accidental' page viewing.
If the kids want to view pornography this block is not going to stop them viewing anyway. Especially when kids teach each other how to work around the law (which will happen). The pages of warnings (already in place) making the person viewing the sites agree that they're over 18 before proceeding stops most 'accidental' viewing.
Just seems like another media hype around something that takes the blame away from parents not educating their children enough about sex and what's right and wrong.
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
No. Just means parents completely cut off teenagers from learning about sex (and safe sex information), and instead forces them to retreat back to the magazines and whispers of the past.
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
Thats the whole point The vast majority of parents on the estates round us dont have the first clue or interest in protecting their kids. I just dont see what relevance your first paragraph has to this move. Parents taught their children before the days of the internet didnt they? Or do you really think its fine to let 12 and 13 year olds access modern abusive pornography? Also the move of having a flash page explaining to adults that the site they are visiting contains illegal material wont stop many, but it does take away their defence of 'accidental' page viewing.
Why don't we invest the money in educating first time parents/parents of year 6 children in safe internet use? Instead of creating a blacklist of perverts throughout the land, which I'm sure, if the daily mail has it's way, it will surely become. The tools are already there, why should everyone else pay because of a few bad parents? Educate the kids in sex ed about porn and how it is not like real sex at all. My sex ed was terrible, all they said was the man inserted his penis and they hugged... Which is the most vague description imaginable, I learnt about sex (before I ever had experienced it) from porn.
First it's pornography, then it's other websites, eventually we'll have a censored internet to the level china has, where websites are often blocked for no discernable reason but are deemed "illegal".
Have to say though that some of the porn available on net is proper women hating stuff and with an 18 year old daughter I shudder at the thought of some of the stuff any prospective boyfriend may have been 'influenced' by.
Must agree with Arthur on this. The 'Opt In' system is long overdue and it has been working successfully on mobile service providers' networks for a number of years - so it is technically possible. I'm not a Conservative (far from it) and don't wish to deprive anyone of access to on-line pornography. What does concern me is the 'pornification' of our youth. There are numerous harrowing stories of young adults being influenced by on-line pornagraphy. One related to a 15 year old boy and a 14 year old girl in a young relationship. The boy had been accessing hardcore sites for a number of years to such an extent that he tied up the young girl (she consented because she didn't know better) and he 'pretend raped' her while watching rape porn on his ipad which was on the pillow next to her head. This was on the BBC a little while ago and apparently there are a number of such cases - I've tried to find a link but can't, apologies but the article itself was a very sad and pathetic reflection of our society. Both the boy and the girl were victims in this instance. In my adolescent days access to porn was fairly limited (maybe not a good thing) but it was on the top shelf in some newsagents. After saving up some pocket money and waiting for the shop to empty you might stretch up, grab a mag and red-faced pay the Newsagent. Getting home you'd hide the mag away in your bedroom and wait for an opportune moment, after grabbing a pocket full of toilet paper from the loo. In today's society the top shelf has disappeared and the porn is readily available, never far from the kid's comics or the Blackjacks and Fruit Salads. I can't condone this and believe it's fundamentally wrong. Opting In as a better solution and for once I agree with Cameron as long as it's not the thin end of the wedge. This isn't an issue about censorship it's an issue about social morality. The Internet (in this country) has grown into the ultimate resource only because it has been unhindered by central interference (although I suspect GCHQ has a few tricks up their sleeve). It shouldn't be censored but Opting In will protect those children whose parents don't know or appreciate the full potential of the facility. Opting In also offers those more liberal minded parents to allow full unrestricted access for their children, if that is what they want. Just popping out to buy a crash helmet in readiness....
The Australian government tried this and had to abandon it, it's completely impossible to do and is done simply to garner headlines from newspapers.
Anyone with a brain knows that the paedophile scum don't go round sharing stuff on open sites, it's all done on private networks which would be impossible to close down completely.
The Internet is what it is, it enables some amazing things and some appalling things, we just have to accept that and not be taken in by fucktard politicians trying to "protect" us from it.
exactly
Except it isn't designed simply to stop hardcore paedophiles - the main idea is to reduce the ease with which children can access extreme pornography. Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
No. Just means parents completely cut off teenagers from learning about sex (and safe sex information), and instead forces them to retreat back to the magazines and whispers of the past.
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
Thats the whole point The vast majority of parents on the estates round us dont have the first clue or interest in protecting their kids. I just dont see what relevance your first paragraph has to this move. Parents taught their children before the days of the internet didnt they? Or do you really think its fine to let 12 and 13 year olds access modern abusive pornography? Also the move of having a flash page explaining to adults that the site they are visiting contains illegal material wont stop many, but it does take away their defence of 'accidental' page viewing.
Why don't we invest the money in educating first time parents/parents of year 6 children in safe internet use? Instead of creating a blacklist of perverts throughout the land, which I'm sure, if the daily mail has it's way, it will surely become. The tools are already there, why should everyone else pay because of a few bad parents? Educate the kids in sex ed about porn and how it is not like real sex at all. My sex ed was terrible, all they said was the man inserted his penis and they hugged... Which is the most vague description imaginable, I learnt about sex (before I ever had experienced it) from porn.
First it's pornography, then it's other websites, eventually we'll have a censored internet to the level china has, where websites are often blocked for no discernable reason but are deemed "illegal".
That's exactly what happened when they tried to enforce the same kind of 'filtering' technology over here, utter chaos ensued.
Indeed, when they trialed the filter they found that all sorts of sites were getting put on the 'banned' list, some because they had 'sex' in their URL (often quite innocently) and others because their images were automatically deemed pornographic (lingerie firms) when they were nothing of the sort.
Of course, the key is that you don't even KNOW what they are banning you from looking at, you have no idea as its decided by the government, which is actually how the Internet IS regulated in China and Cuba. I am not all that keen on that model myself.
The only way to regulate your children's Internet access is to monitor it yourself, that means getting off your lazy arse and taking an active interest in what they are doing and HOW they are doing it rather than slumping in your armchair and expecting a politician to do it all for you.
How the Daily Mail - the one that publishes pictures of 15 year old girls in bikinis - can try and take the moral high ground on this is staggering, but not surprising.
It's only for votes. It won't change anything. If people want to access dodgy stuff they will. The thing I object to is that because a few Daily Mail readers can't figure out parental controls on their computers, the entire country is supposed to change the way it uses the Internet. Plus it's just It's cynical from Eton Dave.
Wish the money spent on this filter was spent on educating teenagers about the difference between sex and porn. Especially extreme porn.
Because parents no longer talk to their children about sex, they grow up only using porn to learn about such things, which will obviously give them a warped view. Schools already have to cover the lack of teaching that parents give about condoms and STDs. People love to throw support behind anything that means they don't have to discuss such 'bad' topics with their children.
Serious issue but pointless gesture politics at their cheapest just to appease the the Daily Mail which is largely read by frightened old people.
Why not just appoint the Mail management to the cabinet and be done with it.
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
without wanting to undermine my own moral outrage, there was an element of achievement after finding a mag in a bush. A couple of clicks offers only a fraction of the satisfaction.
Surely you mean finding a bush in a mag!
Seriously, that Daily Mail website shot shows what a vile, hypocritical rag the Mail is, and what's worse, seeing as it's on t'internet, one can't wipe one's arse with it, as one can with the paper version.
That's the fundamental problem I can see with this.
People have taken (an arguably justifiable in this instance) dig at the irony of the Daily Mail's pictures of young girls in bikinis next to this article but are they really porn? If they are perhaps we should dictate that the 90% of women wandering around in comfortable vest tops and the like in the hot weather don burkhas instantly regardless of religion!
If, hypothetically, I like art and want to look at some acknowledged classic erotic paintings of the naked female form by, say, Rubens is that porn?
The whole thing, like so many LibLabCon policy proposals, is ill conceived and thought out and Cameron, having continually shafted true Conservatives since he came to power and thus haemmorrhaged votes to UKIP, is simply playing to the gallery with this nonsense.
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
Milliband the Toff looks like he spends most of his time upstairs in his room googling MILF porn
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
Milliband the Toff looks like he spends most of his time upstairs in his room googling MILF porn
On the other hand Harriot Harman, YES!!!
We all know Ed couldn't get a hard on whatever the video stimulation and please don't ever talk of Harriot that way in this forum again. That woman is everything to me.
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
Milliband the Toff looks like he spends most of his time upstairs in his room googling MILF porn
On the other hand Harriot Harman, YES!!!
We all know Ed couldn't get a hard on whatever the video stimulation and please don't ever talk of Harriot that way in this forum again. That woman is everything to me.
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
Milliband the Toff looks like he spends most of his time upstairs in his room googling MILF porn
On the other hand Harriot Harman, YES!!!
We all know Ed couldn't get a hard on whatever the video stimulation and please don't ever talk of Harriot that way in this forum again. That woman is everything to me.
Comments
in Sexism in the media. Comment by smudge7946 July 18
Having the opt in concept, even if it stops just one 13 year old accessing the stuff, must be worthwhile
It surely can only be a good thing, cant it?
Why don't parents install these kinds of privacy controls themselves for free if they're so concerned about their children not viewing things?
The vast majority of parents on the estates round us dont have the first clue or interest in protecting their kids.
I just dont see what relevance your first paragraph has to this move. Parents taught their children before the days of the internet didnt they?
Or do you really think its fine to let 12 and 13 year olds access modern abusive pornography?
Also the move of having a flash page explaining to adults that the site they are visiting contains illegal material wont stop many, but it does take away their defence of 'accidental' page viewing.
The pages of warnings (already in place) making the person viewing the sites agree that they're over 18 before proceeding stops most 'accidental' viewing.
Just seems like another media hype around something that takes the blame away from parents not educating their children enough about sex and what's right and wrong.
First it's pornography, then it's other websites, eventually we'll have a censored internet to the level china has, where websites are often blocked for no discernable reason but are deemed "illegal".
In my adolescent days access to porn was fairly limited (maybe not a good thing) but it was on the top shelf in some newsagents. After saving up some pocket money and waiting for the shop to empty you might stretch up, grab a mag and red-faced pay the Newsagent. Getting home you'd hide the mag away in your bedroom and wait for an opportune moment, after grabbing a pocket full of toilet paper from the loo.
In today's society the top shelf has disappeared and the porn is readily available, never far from the kid's comics or the Blackjacks and Fruit Salads.
I can't condone this and believe it's fundamentally wrong. Opting In as a better solution and for once I agree with Cameron as long as it's not the thin end of the wedge. This isn't an issue about censorship it's an issue about social morality. The Internet (in this country) has grown into the ultimate resource only because it has been unhindered by central interference (although I suspect GCHQ has a few tricks up their sleeve). It shouldn't be censored but Opting In will protect those children whose parents don't know or appreciate the full potential of the facility. Opting In also offers those more liberal minded parents to allow full unrestricted access for their children, if that is what they want.
Just popping out to buy a crash helmet in readiness....
Indeed, when they trialed the filter they found that all sorts of sites were getting put on the 'banned' list, some because they had 'sex' in their URL (often quite innocently) and others because their images were automatically deemed pornographic (lingerie firms) when they were nothing of the sort.
Of course, the key is that you don't even KNOW what they are banning you from looking at, you have no idea as its decided by the government, which is actually how the Internet IS regulated in China and Cuba. I am not all that keen on that model myself.
The only way to regulate your children's Internet access is to monitor it yourself, that means getting off your lazy arse and taking an active interest in what they are doing and HOW they are doing it rather than slumping in your armchair and expecting a politician to do it all for you.
How the Daily Mail - the one that publishes pictures of 15 year old girls in bikinis - can try and take the moral high ground on this is staggering, but not surprising.
Because parents no longer talk to their children about sex, they grow up only using porn to learn about such things, which will obviously give them a warped view. Schools already have to cover the lack of teaching that parents give about condoms and STDs. People love to throw support behind anything that means they don't have to discuss such 'bad' topics with their children.
lol I wonder why
Serious issue but pointless gesture politics at their cheapest just to appease the the Daily Mail which is largely read by frightened old people.
Why not just appoint the Mail management to the cabinet and be done with it.
On a lighter note, i have to say Dave the Toff looks very creepy and sheepish when talking about porn and I think his spin doctors should warn him against it.
Seriously, that Daily Mail website shot shows what a vile, hypocritical rag the Mail is, and what's worse, seeing as it's on t'internet, one can't wipe one's arse with it, as one can with the paper version.
That's the fundamental problem I can see with this.
People have taken (an arguably justifiable in this instance) dig at the irony of the Daily Mail's pictures of young girls in bikinis next to this article but are they really porn? If they are perhaps we should dictate that the 90% of women wandering around in comfortable vest tops and the like in the hot weather don burkhas instantly regardless of religion!
If, hypothetically, I like art and want to look at some acknowledged classic erotic paintings of the naked female form by, say, Rubens is that porn?
The whole thing, like so many LibLabCon policy proposals, is ill conceived and thought out and Cameron, having continually shafted true Conservatives since he came to power and thus haemmorrhaged votes to UKIP, is simply playing to the gallery with this nonsense.
That's the sort of filth that some depraved perves are typing into Google these days.
No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand cart.
More at www.dailysnail/perves/protectourkids/whatistheinternetanyway.com
On the other hand Harriot Harman, YES!!!