The biggest news story of the year!

Banning access to porn ffs  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Seriously though this is more forced censorship and you just wonder what they will crack down on next? Very dangerous ground and a sign of where this country is going, Big Brother is watching you alright and you can only see what we deem to be appropriate. Al Jazheera will be next to be "removed for our own safety"

I was listening to this being discussed on 5Live today. I'm not exactly the world's greatest techno expert but this guy who knows a thing or two about it was scathing. He gives talks to teenagers and has worked in IT since he was an embrio. He reckoned that some of the young whipersnappers run rings around him and even he can't keep up with them. For every block that anyone puts on these things the youngsters have found a way around it in 10 minutes and there is a website created with instructions for all. Apart from that there are so many foreign internet providers that the young people know about it would be impossible to stop them seeing this stuff even if it is a moral crusade.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the principal that letting young people watch the kind of stuff that is out there isn't the greatest education there is. Doing what is being suggested to supposedly stop them though seems finger in the dyke stuff (no pun intended).

Might prevent the under fives from accidentily coming across it.

pepsipete wrote:

Might prevent the under fives from accidentily coming across it.

Or the over 60s who might have a weak heart.

Letting over 60's look at it is doing the Country a service knecht. Look at all the pensions it will save over time. Infact it should be compulsory and prescribed on the NHS.

Probally come to nought, like the alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packs.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

Letting over 60's look at it is doing the Country a service knecht.    Look at all the pensions it will save over time.    Infact it should be compulsory and prescribed on the NHS.

It would be like the survival of the strongest ..... those who are weak & frail would die of excitement whereas those who are ailing might find a reason to live. Maybe the NHS would pay for broadband connections to old people's homes on the basis of holistic care. The survivors would be very happy people and thus need fewer nurses & drugs. I ought to be Minister for Health.

See, I knew it made sense but didn't know why. I could be Chancellor. He doesn't know why he does what he does but somebody somewhere gets shafted.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

See, I knew it made sense but didn't know why.    I could be Chancellor.    He doesn't know why he does what he does but somebody somewhere gets shafted.

..... and back to porn again.

Stopping children having access to porn is obviously right but that should be the parents concern and any decent parent will have filters set on their computers.

And I totally agree that porn featuring rape should be banned, but this is about more than that. This is about trying to restrict people's rights even more than they are restricted already and it doesn't really affect me as I'm much more likely to be studying the form on Attheraces than looking at porn.

It won't work and it gives already lazy parents more of an excuse to duck out of teaching their children some morals and some respect.

Once you start censoring the internet who knows what things could be happening around the world but certain governments deem them unfit for Joe Public to know about?

Cameron is a tw@t who likes to throw out the "I'm a parent too" card every now and then to justify pretty much anything he chooses to do.

I wonder what age group of children he is aiming this at because you can see some pretty graphic stuff in music videos and in sopa operas already and if anything I reckon it will make finding porn a challenge for some youths. How naughty you would be if you had a bit of porn on your phone? How much of a thrill would it be to have these images of rape now they are illegal?

He chose a day where half of the population are incredibly glued to their tv's and laptops to have some news about the arrival of the future King.

It's a load of shit to boost Cameron's image as a concerned parent like jock says. Does he really reckon he can control the Internet?

pepsipete wrote:

Might prevent the under fives from accidentily coming across it.

blame the parents.

children have always accessed porn, usually when older admittedly ie mate looks over 18 and bought the mags, or found them in dads bedroom.

kids are seeing too much too young most look to soaps for social barometers but that's another debate

its back on the top shelf from now on, or in the woods, or under dads bed

Load of f uckin nonsense yet again from the Tory tw@s. He should be worrying that more that half of the medical assessments for disabled people are flawed and there are literally thousands of disabled people being forced into looking for work that fit people can't seem to get, not forgetting that they closed down Remploy recently, and we get babies and porn, feckin eejits.

As a small note, my kids are ten times more computer savvy than I am, they would piss themselves laughing as they navigated around any filters that I placed on the pc and stop me using it by adding their own.

Agree with the principle of it all but you can make your computer 'filth free' already through a few clicks...seems Cameron hasn't done his homework on certain things

Plus the whole censorship proposal goes against the very ethos of companies like Google and Facebook. The child blocking of stuff they agree wholeheartedly with but the everything else that has been proposed to be blocked isn't technically illegal and Google etc have always preached about an open and free Internet

On Jeremy Vine yesterday they were suggesting that married couples should have a conversation about the level the filters are set at! Good luck with that for anybody unfortunate to be married to a woman that thinks sex is for procreation only and doesn't put out after the first year of marriage, I reckon that murder will be on the increase, that and wanking over underwear catalogues.

We once found South American Pussy in our browser history, I suggested our Son may well have been looking at feline sites, my wife disagreed..........

It's naturally a first step into Government owned/run internet.

It's a joke. The internet was invented by normal people with no real money behind them and the vast majority of it is owned and run by normal people. They don't like that. There's something insidious about normal people doing anything. I've been on the internet for about 18 years and started using a search engine in its beta stage called google. I had a pc built by a mate of mine for £50, a phone line connection barely running at 16kbs and I've been online ever since. Not once have I have ever seen anything even remotely rapey or illegal - you don't stumble upon that stuff via google image searches. It's hidden away and those who want it know where to get it. Child porn existed before the internet and people were raped and murdered long before the invention of electricity.

It's a forerunner of being able to tax the internet - look what we're doing, we're protecting you and now you have to'pay for that... it costs money to protect you. Since when has seeing a pair of giant boobs done anyone any harm?

Iggy wrote:

On Jeremy Vine yesterday they were suggesting that married couples should have a conversation about the level the filters are set at! Good luck with that for anybody unfortunate to be married to a woman that thinks sex is for procreation only and doesn't put out after the first year of marriage, I reckon that murder will be on the increase, that and wanking over underwear catalogues.

  

Tringreen wrote:

Iggy wrote:

On Jeremy Vine yesterday they were suggesting that married couples should have a conversation about the level the filters are set at! Good luck with that for anybody unfortunate to be married to a woman that thinks sex is for procreation only and doesn't put out after the first year of marriage, I reckon that murder will be on the increase, that and wanking over underwear catalogues.

  

See this pearler then from the comments section of the BBC story:

1887. Adam
22ND JULY 2013 - 12:21
Excellent news. It's one small step towards ridding society of the evil of pornography.

Sex should be for the bedroom, not for magazines and computer screens.


This guy has to be a puritan and beats his children with a leather belt for having impure thoughts and watching Eastenders  

The ironic thing is that it's usually these type of saddos that end up murdering women saying that God told them to. I'll bet he never said it was okay to feck them in the ass first though ya freak  

hairy j wrote:

It's naturally a first step into Government owned/run internet.

It's a joke. The internet was invented by normal people with no real money behind them and the vast majority of it is owned and run by normal people. They don't like that. There's something insidious about normal people doing anything. I've been on the internet for about 18 years and started using a search engine in its beta stage called google. I had a pc built by a mate of mine for £50, a phone line connection barely running at 16kbs and I've been online ever since. Not once have I have ever seen anything even remotely rapey or illegal - you don't stumble upon that stuff via google image searches. It's hidden away and those who want it know where to get it. Child porn existed before the internet and people were raped and murdered long before the invention of electricity.

It's a forerunner of being able to tax the internet - look what we're doing, we're protecting you and now you have to'pay for that... it costs money to protect you. Since when has seeing a pair of giant boobs done anyone any harm?

Zactly. He seems to think that you can go on google look and find indecent images, he is not going to single handedly prevent bad stuff on the Internet. It's just posturing and trying to make out he's a concerned parent at a time of a brewing shitstorm about the interests of his election advisor!!

hairy j wrote:

It's naturally a first step into Government owned/run internet.

It's a joke. The internet was invented by normal people with no real money behind them and the vast majority of it is owned and run by normal people. They don't like that. There's something insidious about normal people doing anything. I've been on the internet for about 18 years and started using a search engine in its beta stage called google. I had a pc built by a mate of mine for £50, a phone line connection barely running at 16kbs and I've been online ever since. Not once have I have ever seen anything even remotely rapey or illegal - you don't stumble upon that stuff via google image searches. It's hidden away and those who want it know where to get it. Child porn existed before the internet and people were raped and murdered long before the invention of electricity.

It's a forerunner of being able to tax the internet - look what we're doing, we're protecting you and now you have to'pay for that... it costs money to protect you. Since when has seeing a pair of giant boobs done anyone any harm?

Spot on Hairy bloke.