David Cameron 'orders new curbs on Internet Porn'

[olivier renault]

Somebody! think of the children!

 

[Gackt]

Religious in oppressing sex shocker.

 

[olivier renault]

I really don't get it. Parents can't control their own kids' access to the internet now? So the government has to do it for them?

W.T.F. is this?

 

[Angilion]

From what I have read all this change is going to do is force ISPs to offer you parental control software and give you instructions on how to set it up. So no ISP side filtering, no monitoring, no government software.

But why would anyone think it would stop there? ISPs already do that, so obviously it can't possibly be the intended purpose of the new orders. It's daft to think that it is. It's either an empty gesture to buy votes from idiots or it's groundwork for state censorship. Either way, it's hypocritical given his criticism of intrusive measures by the last Labour government.

 

[Angilion]

Why? Why ask the bloody Mother's Union on a matter involving porn? It's like asking Isreal what should be done about Palestine.

He'd already decided on what answer he wanted to hear, so he asked someone who'd give him that answer.

 

[Angilion]

If the kids really want to see porn then they'll google for info on how to remove the porn blocker. They're not stupid.

Neither are politicians (and I'm including political groups such as the Mother's Union), on the whole. Any politician who is so debased that they see nothing wrong in using children as a political tool to further their own agenda is unlikely to have any moral qualms about using deceit. So, it works like this:

1) Make some indication that you're considering an extreme position, something like the control you intend to impose on people. Give people some official way to respond and pretend you'll bother looking at any of the responses.

2) Create a scheme that goes as far as you think you can get away with without provoking more than minor protests and imply that you've looked at the responses, given considerable thought to the well-reasoned arguments against the extreme position and acted on them in order to create a much more moderate position. Make sure that it won't work.

3) After a while, announce a review of the effectiveness of the scheme and then announce that the scheme hasn't worked. Imply that anyone who has any objections to your commands is harming children and is lying or deluded if they say they object to your commands for any reason other than wanting to harm children. Blame the failure of the less extreme scheme on these people.

4) Announce a more extreme scheme, which you've been forced to do by the people you've blamed - this step makes them to blame for the more extreme scheme as well as for the failure of the less extreme one.

Repeat 3 and 4 as necessary until you've got the extremist scheme you wanted all along. In this case, state monitoring of and control over all internet use.

 

[G-MAN2004]

brb downloading the Internet

My sort should fit on a USB drive.

 

[sansnom]

The sad thing is it's very typically British that the population is generally quite docile. Sure, there's a moan, or a whinge every now and then between neighbours or friends or even online communities like this one but there is never really a concerted effort to say that the Government's latest creep on our rights is a step too far.

So is it any wonder that the Government has been, and continues to, make foolish and misguided efforts to nanny us while only deminishing our rights to freedom?

I think somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten that policymakers exist to serve the people of this country and their interests. God knows if someone ran a business and employed a Manager to take care of its daily affairs and that Manager was not performing or not doing so in line with expectations they would be punished or replaced. Why is it so different for public servants?

 

[malfunkshun]

Time I gave up watching it anyway, especially after a conversation I had with the wife the other day.
I got home from work and she was watching a cookery programme on TV, I said "what are you watching that for? you can't cook" to which she replied " you watch porn..."

 

[RDM]

But why would anyone think it would stop there? ISPs already do that, so obviously it can't possibly be the intended purpose of the new orders. It's daft to think that it is. It's either an empty gesture to buy votes from idiots or it's groundwork for state censorship. Either way, it's hypocritical given his criticism of intrusive measures by the last Labour government.

I'm going for empty gesture to win votes from idiots.

Neither are politicians (and I'm including political groups such as the Mother's Union), on the whole. Any politician who is so debased that they see nothing wrong in using children as a political tool to further their own agenda is unlikely to have any moral qualms about using deceit. So, it works like this:

1) Make some indication that you're considering an extreme position, something like the control you intend to impose on people. Give people some official way to respond and pretend you'll bother looking at any of the responses.

2) Create a scheme that goes as far as you think you can get away with without provoking more than minor protests and imply that you've looked at the responses, given considerable thought to the well-reasoned arguments against the extreme position and acted on them in order to create a much more moderate position. Make sure that it won't work.

3) After a while, announce a review of the effectiveness of the scheme and then announce that the scheme hasn't worked. Imply that anyone who has any objections to your commands is harming children and is lying or deluded if they say they object to your commands for any reason other than wanting to harm children. Blame the failure of the less extreme scheme on these people.

4) Announce a more extreme scheme, which you've been forced to do by the people you've blamed - this step makes them to blame for the more extreme scheme as well as for the failure of the less extreme one.

Repeat 3 and 4 as necessary until you've got the extremist scheme you wanted all along. In this case, state monitoring of and control over all internet use.

Have you got any examples of this in UK politics?

 

[Haggisman]

Govt. bans porn, rape rate goes through the roof. Great success!!*


*may not be serious

 

[Cosimo]

I have a great idea. A “Politician Filter” so we that can not hear them, see or read them. Comes with every new internet device and tv set.

Vote for me!

 

[SlyReaper]

Here's a question: is there actually any indication whatsoever that watching porn is bad for children? It seems the government is assuming it is, and the folk saying "parents should take responsibility" are assuming it is. But is it? Is there a single shred of evidence that porn is harmful to young minds, or is this just another Daily Mail-esque moral panic?

 

[LordSplodge]

I have a great idea. A “Politician Filter” so we that can not hear them, see or read them. Comes with every new internet device and tv set.

Vote for me!

It's called "The Internet" - It is making politicians and their spin irrelevant. The 'net is the biggest threat to Government and they'll do anything to bring it back under their control.

The horse has bolted though - too late. Decentralisation of power is the new thing.

Here's a question: is there actually any indication whatsoever that watching porn is bad for children? It seems the government is assuming it is, and the folk saying "parents should take responsibility" are assuming it is. But is it? Is there a single shred of evidence that porn is harmful to young minds, or is this just another Daily Mail-esque moral panic?

Evidence says it may be causing some long term issues, especially in young males*. There is a big difference between people of my generation who saw some boobs and a hairy muff in their dads copy of Penthouse versus continual exposure to some seriously hardcore pornography.

* There is plenty of scaremongering though and I'd suggest you do some research as it is a complex subject that is difficult just to break down into harmful/not harmful.

 

[Zero5]

Here's a question: is there actually any indication whatsoever that watching porn is bad for children? It seems the government is assuming it is, and the folk saying "parents should take responsibility" are assuming it is. But is it? Is there a single shred of evidence that porn is harmful to young minds, or is this just another Daily Mail-esque moral panic?

Surely it's to do with getting an unhealthy idea of what sex is? I mean you sit a 5 year old in front of some hardcore porn what would they think that sex involves?

I would say that was the main reason. I think its important to shield younger persons from this sort of thing but not through government control.

 

[Infidelus]

Somebody! think of the children!

Somebody had to post it

 

[King Damager]

I doubt this would ever go through.

Until recently, when Social networking took over, Porn was the most visited stuff on the internet.

The loss of vote could be quite damaging...

Can you imagine being the Prime Minister who 'stole our porn'

kd

 

[Amp34]

David Cameron should get a grip of his Government and this country, and stop with the empty feel good policy intended for daily mail readers.

The next GE should be a howler. So much for the fabled Tory majority everyone has now shut up about, this is no Conservative resurgance. It's a belly flop.

\o/

Very true... The majority have now moved to UKIP because the Conservatives are seen as too liberal...

Why do people insist on using the most convoluted method... Why not just make it law that all ISPs have to offer ISP side blocking? That way those that want a filtered internet just need to ring up/email their ISP and voila, done. No software downloads, no forcing everyone to opt out, no dodgy rulings... Wait, that's too simple!

Anyway... 3 letters... V...P...N... Well that's that government ruling ******

 

[Tefal]

Very true... The majority have now moved to UKIP because the Conservatives are seen as too liberal...

Why do people insist on using the most convoluted method... Why not just make it law that all ISPs have to offer ISP side blocking? That way those that want a filtered internet just need to ring up/email their ISP and voila, done. No software downloads, no forcing everyone to opt out, no dodgy rulings... Wait, that's too simple!

Anyway... 3 letters... V...P...N... Well that's that government ruling ******

because no one will do it and the christian nutters come back going"children at risk make it optout"!!!!"

lets face it there's so much parental control stuff available now if the parents wanted it they could get it far easier than this, but they can;t be arsed because as much as they say "omg porn harms my child" they can't be arsed to lift a finger to do anything about it.

 

[Amp34]

Here's a question: is there actually any indication whatsoever that watching porn is bad for children? It seems the government is assuming it is, and the folk saying "parents should take responsibility" are assuming it is. But is it? Is there a single shred of evidence that porn is harmful to young minds, or is this just another Daily Mail-esque moral panic?

The big problem is because British people don't TALK about porn/brush it under the carpet kids watch porn and get ideas from it rather than talk to their parents and watch porn, knowing that while it's fun, porn isn't normal sex...

Most of the rest of europe is far more open, we are just a backwards society, seemingly going backwards in this respect. As someone else mentioned, killing people in films/TV is fine, anything sexual is not*.

*Sexual doesn't mean naked though, I remember watching Logans Run at around 3pm on a sunday and it had the scene where the girl gets changed (OMG Boobies etc).