Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bias12

UK Government censorship

Recommended Posts

Once this is in place, dont think about the current justifying subject, think of this subject and then apply it to other things on-line that are "not good for x". Porn is a massive business it wont get touched just like gambling. Theres plenty of easy places to find beheading videos, hangings, war violence (helmet cams) you name it, none of them are "good for children" so think of the expanding possibilities now the "debate" is sparked by "think tanks" and a foundation is set out.

ISP's to log and hand over data partialy was rebuttled some time ago, this is just a re-packaged model under a guilt trip example to get back on track or at least a starting point. Theres plenty of safeguards via routers/software/networks/login processes/educating parents and so on already in place, but the underpinning thing is as DM mentioned "for my own good" as we are all not children online but its blanket solution for all as per normal and the typical 15 year or so trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question: is it "us" who are running around like headless chickens, or is it you who is sitting in a pot of slowly boiling water? Look, if an ISP decides to block certain content, that's a business decision, I might not like it, but it's not my company or my ass on the line when someone decides to sue.

But when the government decides to step in and filter content "for my own good".... well if you cannot see the problem there, then I guess things are good for you. If you never read the book Nineteen Eighty-Four I suggest you do so. It's a grim read but it serves as a warning for any citizen. Over-reaction? Dunno, I just don't wish for this sort of thing to become normal. Because the next step would be the government ordering ISPs not to return searches on particular words.

ISP's already don't return searches for key words relating to peadophilia, voluntarily, they were not told to by Govt. - is that a problem? You have also been taken in a little by the OP who embellished the facts. There is no phonecall involved, this initially relates to only the 4 major ISP's so there are 2 options for you to avoid it. Either untick the boxes/opt-out or go with an ISP that isn't participating. Not all ISP's will use network level filtering, the other option is software based, so just uninstall the software from your PC.

The government will not be drawing up lists of things to ban there is already a group of independent organisations that look at that for the ISP industry:

The Internet Watch is an independent self-regulatory body, funded by the EU and the online industry, that already does much of this without any input from the Govt.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-to-prime-ministers-statement

UK Safer Internet Centre

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/about

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/about/news/comment-on-prime-ministers-speech-on-child-internet-safety-

Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).

UKCCIS is a group of more than 200 organisations across the government, industry, law enforcement, academia and charity sectors, who work in partnership to help keep children safe online. It's board consists of ministers, ISP's, , Tech Industry, charities and independent organisations.

https://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/b00222029/child-internet-safety

So that is how it works, it isn't 1984 at all. It's easy for people who don't know how democracy works to believe conspiracy theories because they lack the knowledge to think critically about it. That is the point I was trying to make, if you don't understand how things work and don't have the knowledge to form an evidence based opinion, you can easily fall into the trap of beleiving anything you read. The Demos study I linked to makes that point. Check out the previous pages where Maturin was fooled into thinking I was posting links to Hitler speeches. This points to the fact that he isn't capable of objective critical thinking and too easily takes things at face value, anyone else here suffer from the same problem?

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once this is in place, dont think about the current justifying subject, think of this subject and then apply it to other things on-line that are "not good for x".

That's not what's being proposed though.

Porn is a massive business it wont get touched just like gambling.

Nobody is talking about shutting down the industry, plus, to gamble you need to be of a certain age and have money. To view porn you don't.

Theres plenty of easy places to find beheading videos, hangings, war violence (helmet cams) you name it, none of them are "good for children" so think of the expanding possibilities now the "debate" is sparked by "think tanks" and a foundation is set out.

That all this stuff exists so nothing should be done is a weak argument.

Theres plenty of safeguards via routers/software/networks/login processes/educating parents and so on already in place, but the underpinning thing is as DM mentioned "for my own good" as we are all not children online but its blanket solution for all as per normal and the typical 15 year or so trend.

The basic facts are that it's too easy for kids to access this stuff online compared to the physical world and that parental filters are not very user friendly and easy to bypass.

If an under 18 goes to a store and tries to buy an adult magazine they won't get it nor will it be on full display. The same applies to cigarettes which are entirely hidden and need to be specifically asked for. The physical world is being "censored" but these things are still accessible.

In short, what we have for the internet does not work. The internet is part of the "real world" and should be subject to the laws and social norms of the physical world.

As you can see from my previous post, I never said I agreed with the execution and I am disappointed to see that people are more concerned about their unfettered ability to access "free porn" than making the internet a place for all.

IMHO, it's clear something needs to be done and this debate has to happen.

Edited by Snafu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what's being proposed though.

See you in a few years :)

I never said I agreed with the execution and I am disappointed to see that people are more concerned about their unfettered ability to access "free porn" than making the internet a place for all.

This is the guilt trip debate I was talking about, thats what your supposed to see it as. Disagree and you agree its all ok, which isn't why people disagree.

Nobody is talking about shutting down the industry, plus, to gamble you need to be of a certain age and have money. To view porn you don't

Nor was I, but it doesn't get touched becuase of the money it creates. Gambling .... smart phones, you must have seen the latest news with the online gambling sites and purchases on mobiles.

That all this stuff exists so nothing should be done is a weak argument.

No, I said it exists and that is more of a reason to look at other things to censor for us later if this is implemented in its basic form. You put words in my typing.

It should be dealt with local level, parents, filters and other things that exist already and people should learn and be taught better to use it, not feely let there children sit online in their rooms all day, handing out smart phones like candy and everything else. It needs to be dealt with for children not globally/blanket introduced for everyone of any age. There are 2 sides to this introduction, the face value and the governmental/tech/political aspect and a platform of which can be expanded on.

The Internet Watch is an independent self-regulatory body, funded by the EU and the online industry, that already does much of this without any input from the Govt.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news...ters-statement

UK Safer Internet Centre

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/about

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/abou...ternet-safety-

Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).

UKCCIS is a group of more than 200 organisations across the government, industry, law enforcement, academia and charity sectors, who work in partnership to help keep children safe online. It's board consists of ministers, ISP's, , Tech Industry, charities and independent organisations.

https://www.education.gov.uk/childre...nternet-safety

Which begs the question why anything more is actually needed as these bodies are capable to take care of this along with personal filtering/routers and individual case filtering. Although no input from the government & "funded by the EU" (overseeing) is quite a funny centence.

There is no phonecall involved, this initially relates to only the 4 major ISP's so there are 2 options for you to avoid it. Either untick the boxes/opt-out or go with an ISP that isn't participating. Not all ISP's will use network level filtering, the other option is software based, so just uninstall the software from your PC.

So if parents do this as they are the contract owners and children know more than parents in many cases (I.T knowledge) at software level (which is already the same with routers and software firewalls anyway) its still the same results and bypassed, so who benefits isn't the "children's online safety" mantra, just soft attempt to push through the legislation again and push for the ISP level again. I also dont like this current "opt out" only but its on by default trend either, pretty much on anything.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See you in a few years.

Your usual "topics" are irrelevant to this debate and you have nothing to back up your claims.

This is the guilt trip debate I was talking about, thats what your supposed to see it as. Disagree and you agree its all ok, which isn't why people disagree.

It's not a "guilt trip" but a serious issue. You should treat it as such instead of sweeping it away and using it as a stage for your typical spiel.

Nor was I, but it doesn't get touched becuase of the money it creates. Gambling .... smart phones, you must have seen the latest news with the online gambling sites and purchases on mobiles.

The main issue here is access not its existence.

No, I said it exists and that is more of a reason to look at other things to censor for us later if this is implemented in its basic form. You put words in my typing.

You think it's quite fine for porn on the internet to be extremely easy to access but other the other stuff should be targeted?

It should be dealt with local level, parents, filters and other things that exist already and people should learn and be taught better to use it, not feely let there children sit online in their rooms all day, handing out smart phones like candy and everything else. It needs to be dealt with for children not globally/blanket introduced for everyone of any age. There are 2 sides to this introduction, the face value and the governmental/tech/political aspect and a platform of which can be expanded on.

This does not refute what I posted earlier:

The basic facts are that it's too easy for kids to access this stuff online compared to the physical world and that parental filters are not very user friendly and easy to bypass.

If an under 18 goes to a store and tries to buy an adult magazine they won't get it nor will it be on full display. The same applies to cigarettes which are entirely hidden and need to be specifically asked for. The physical world is being "censored" but these things are still accessible.

In short, what we have for the internet does not work. The internet is part of the "real world" and should be subject to the laws and social norms of the physical world.

As you can see from my previous post, I never said I agreed with the execution and I am disappointed to see that people are more concerned about their unfettered ability to access "free porn" than making the internet a place for all.

IMHO, it's clear something needs to be done and this debate has to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a "guilt trip" but a serious issue. You should treat it as such instead of sweeping it away and using it as a stage for your typical spiel.

Ok Snafu, I get what angle your coming from here from this one sentence, im not going to "argue" with you, just sating a point. on a subject, got an issue with me then report it or PM me, if a stage is a forum for views then its a pretty packed one with us all stood on it.

You think it's quite fine for porn on the internet to be extremely easy to access but other the other stuff should be targeted?

Where did I specifically post "its fine for porn on the internet"? Again your not seeing the point I was making about any issues = porn is all fine for children blanket view, which is what your try to say Im saying, in fact you answered my point exactly. Your missing the rest of what i posted about existing features to deal with it and coupled with the other bodies listed hear dealing with it.

The main issue here is access not its existence.

Stop your children's access then, its already in place and you have the hardware and software tools, and also report to the varying bodies of sites you have found and keyword block them for your children. Give them logins with rights access and dont feed them smart phones to go to school with (give them basic phones that just are .. a phone). Until they reach the right age. Im not trying to refute what your posting, its the age old debate anyway excluding the internet, but this is a two sided subject and not simply about protecting children only.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop your children's access then, its already in place and you have the hardware and software tools, and also report to the varying bodies of sites you have found and keyword block them for your children. Give them logins with rights access and dont feed them smart phones to go to school with (give them basic phones that just are .. a phone). Until they reach the right age. Im not trying to refute what your posting, its the age old debate anyway excluding the internet, but this is a two sided subject and not simply about protecting children only.

That is why this is being done, most parents don't know how to do that and don't have the time to implement it across the many different platforms that are in the home. As in other debates, your alternative doesn't work in practice. What is in place now isn't working, hence the decision to give you the option of using a filter that can be implemented and controlled from 1 place and then works on all devices in the home. If you don't want it you don't have to use it, untick the box, use another ISP or where it is software based, uninstall it.

It will probably be based on the existing Talk Talk Homesafe - problem is most ISP's haven't got this sort of network level filter implemented and some don't offer any type of filter at all. The UK Govt. after consultation and expert advice had to give them a prod to get a coherent system implemented. And yes this is only about protecting under age children, if it was anything else it would be mandatory and controlled by a single organisation. As it isn't, (implementation is being left up to the ISP's) the 1984 conspiracy theory falls apart at the lightest scrutiny as usual.

Just to get some idea of the problem try "eat", "great outdoors", "sunny", "small", "big", "inspector gadget", "nuns", "lisa simpson" in an image search engine with the filters off (takes 2 clicks to disable them so it isn't really a secure control for kids) and see what you get! Young children shouldn't see that stuff and there isn't sufficient control to prevent it.

homesafe_talktalk_block_categories.gif

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this storm in a teacup isnt about protecting children but spoon-feeding parents and implementing another layer of what's already in place local level anyway. So why does is have to be for other people to opt out of something based on parents not implementing what already exists for their children.

Seems like RTFM needs to put in place more than anything else.

(implementation is being left up to the ISP's) the 1984 conspiracy theory falls apart at the lightest scrutiny as usual.

Not on a grander scale of things, maybe placed against this smaller issue its seems OTT, but they all stack up together.

Young children shouldn't see that stuff and there isn't sufficient control to prevent it.

There is, they already exist as explained, parents are the control to prevent it with the local tech they can purchase and use, simple really. The constant needling of ISP's for blanket solutions isnt the way to go, and by highlighting it isn't supporting porn either. Check out half the "Idols" young people have now and how those idols dress sexually very early, not the best role models, you can go on and on before you get to porn online about social manipulations with sexualising children at an early age, some pretty underhanded and sick bag things in the real world everyday before you hit a search engine via a computer/device.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porn isnt harmful to kids, that is just a stupid cliché ;) This proposed block feels like massive bigotry to me.

It's the shitty tabloids that should be banned. I wonder if they will do anything about them...

Edited by ziiip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISP's already don't return searches for key words relating to peadophilia, voluntarily, they were not told to by Govt. - is that a problem? You have also been taken in a little by the OP who embellished the facts. There is no phonecall involved, this initially relates to only the 4 major ISP's so there are 2 options for you to avoid it. Either untick the boxes/opt-out or go with an ISP that isn't participating. Not all ISP's will use network level filtering, the other option is software based, so just uninstall the software from your PC.

The government will not be drawing up lists of things to ban there is already a group of independent organisations that look at that for the ISP industry:

The Internet Watch is an independent self-regulatory body, funded by the EU and the online industry, that already does much of this without any input from the Govt.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-to-prime-ministers-statement

UK Safer Internet Centre

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/about

http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/about/news/comment-on-prime-ministers-speech-on-child-internet-safety-

Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).

UKCCIS is a group of more than 200 organisations across the government, industry, law enforcement, academia and charity sectors, who work in partnership to help keep children safe online. It's board consists of ministers, ISP's, , Tech Industry, charities and independent organisations.

https://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/b00222029/child-internet-safety

So that is how it works, it isn't 1984 at all. It's easy for people who don't know how democracy works to believe conspiracy theories because they lack the knowledge to think critically about it. That is the point I was trying to make, if you don't understand how things work and don't have the knowledge to form an evidence based opinion, you can easily fall into the trap of beleiving anything you read. The Demos study I linked to makes that point. Check out the previous pages where Maturin was fooled into thinking I was posting links to Hitler speeches. This points to the fact that he isn't capable of objective critical thinking and too easily takes things at face value, anyone else here suffer from the same problem?

Thanks for a reasonable contribution Mattar. You have made a few points that I would like to counter.

1. The scheme will enforce that later this year all new customers of an ISP will be asked at account opening whether they would like to opt in to receive adult content. Given that most people open new accounts for telephone and broadband via the telephone, a customer service agent will be asking the question at that time. All existing customers will also be contacted by next year.

2. Idependent organisations like you have listed are commonly reffered to as think tanks. Member of those organisations are either appointed or must apply like any other job. Not at all democratic, or a feature of a true democracy.

More generally, I don't think anyone could say that it is a bad idea to protect kids from exposure to adult content, on the internet or otherwise. Yet once again in this country, parents are being relieved of their legal responsibility to protect their children from harm.

If parents aren't able to educate their kids on the dangers of the world, internet safety or making responsible choices it should be analogous with neglect. As a strong supporter of child safety I call for a raft of tough sentencing for neglectful parenting, updating the legislation to include the new forms of neglect a parent can put upon their child, additional funding for social education in schools and reforming the already incompetent/desperately overworked social work system in the UK.

Don't tread on me because John and Margaret down the road can't take the time to talk to their offspring. Fine them, lock them up, community service order, enforced parental education classes. If allowing your kids access to x-rated content isn't a crime now, it should be, and if it is, enforce it!

Edited by bias12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for a reasonable contribution Mattar. You have made a few points that I would like to counter.

1. The scheme will enforce that later this year all new customers of an ISP will be asked at account opening whether they would like to opt in to receive adult content. Given that most people open new accounts for telephone and broadband via the telephone, a customer service agent will be asking the question at that time. All existing customers will also be contacted by next year.

2. Idependent organisations like you have listed are commonly reffered to as think tanks. Member of those organisations are either appointed or must apply like any other job. Not at all democratic, or a feature of a true democracy.

1. That isn't how it will happen at all, the filter will be enabled by default from the start, it is then your choice to disable it online with your password once you have your router and equipment set up. Do you think ISP's will be employing 1000's of staff/hiring call centres to contact existing customers when it can be done simply and cheaply with an email? If they were being forced to spend a large amount of money on this the ISP's themselves would be briefing against it, they aren't because they have been allowed to set it up cheaply and simply. No phone calls involved.

2. No they aren't think tanks - thats something else - of the organisations I mentioned, 1 was set by ISP's, 1 was set up by regulated charities and the other has MP's on the board. This new law is being made by the usual democratic process, consultation with the public, affected industry and NGO's and other related experts, party leaders, MP's and civil servants. MP's will then vote on it unless it's going through under delegated legislation, there is already cross-party consensus on the issue. That is how democracy works, look it up if you don't know. Any further queries - go see your MP/MSP.

3. The rest - not enforceable and unworkable, children have a habit of not following good advice, worse for both privacy and human rights, no one is treading on you because you can disable the filter or ask your mommy to do it for you.

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nvm not worth the infraction lolololz

Edited by Katipo66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the views of a couple of people who have actually worked on the most serious issue - abuse of children - there is a sobering read here that illustrates the hollowness of Cameron et al.'s PR ploy.

Lies about staffing levels. Fudging that they have cut funding to CEOPS without mentiong that the effects have been ameliorated by large donations from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Google (singled out by the Tories on several occasions) and especially Microsoft.

Ignoring that from CEOP's database of 50,000 people downloading images of child abuse, only 192 have been prosecuted because there is insufficient funding for the prosecutions tp go forward.

Given a Govenrment whose primary targets for cuts are the poorest and most vulnerable in society - the sick, disabled adults, the elderly, the unemployed, disabled children, etc., why would one expect sexually-abused children be excluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

goddamn corrupted traitors of Polish nation called "Polish government" want to do the same in Poland, today's newspaper wrote that our government want to do the same, they want to ban porn here too :/

Who thought
really was the future?

:cancan:

year 1984

Porn today, so what's next? This is really unconstitutional to limit people from viewing certain and legal content :/ but knowing the British government they will probably leave homosexual porn accessible haha

yea... political correctness of the west which is forced (against our will) here in east since some time,

i think that fight with porn is trying to fight with hedonism,

when you destroy hedonism in people, they will be only working obeying slaves - which do not want to live peacefully easygoing cause live only once (opposite to hedonists who wanna have fun, not to work too much, easygoing life without stress)

Edited by vilas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the views of a couple of people who have actually worked on the most serious issue - abuse of children - there is a sobering read here that illustrates the hollowness of Cameron et al.'s PR ploy. Lies about staffing levels.

You do realise that he resigned because his ambitions to build a duplicate 'police force' under his personal control were thwarted? The man has a grudge and seeks to mislead about staff numbers. The figures he quotes are permanent staff, he ignores secondments and temporary contracts. We don't work in a world of permanent staff now. Numbers increase and decrease depending on demand.

Home Affairs Committee - The Work of CEOP - Tuesday 25 January 2011

Fullbrook: I would like to tell you my personal view. Your predecessor resigned and we never got to the bottom of exactly why he resigned. It seemed that he was taking his bat and ball home because he was going to reside under a new boss.
Fudging that they have cut funding to CEOPS without mentiong that the effects have been ameliorated by large donations from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Google (singled out by the Tories on several occasions) and especially Microsoft.

CEOP was set up in 2006 under Labour and was always funded under a partnership by the private and public sectors? It's not a donation, it's how it was always done? The public funding was cut by 10% true, but as it hasn't affected performance - whats the problem?

In 2012/2013, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre safeguarded and protected 790 children – an increase of 85 per cent on the previous year, and the highest yearly figure since the Centre launched in 2006. It now brings the total number of protected children to 2,255 in its seven-year history.

http://www.ceop.police.uk/Media-Centre/Press-releases/2013/Record-number-of-children-safeguarded-by-CEOP/

Ignoring that from CEOP's database of 50,000 people downloading images of child abuse, only 192 have been prosecuted because there is insufficient funding for the prosecutions tp go forward.

ROFL bollocks - the 50,000 is an estimate, they do not have a database with 50,000 names. They don't know who they are.

Given a Govenrment whose primary targets for cuts are the poorest and most vulnerable in society - the sick, disabled adults, the elderly, the unemployed, disabled children, etc., why would one expect sexually-abused children be excluded?

That's life - there wasn't any money left, you may remember a note was left on a desk by a departing Labour minister that stated this?:

Treasury sources said the letter, dated 6 April - the day Gordon Brown called the general election - actually read: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7732661/Labours-warning-to-new-Government-theres-no-money-left.html

article-2347524-1A7C5F28000005DC-357_634x400.jpg

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19895753

That's life - there wasn't any money left, you may remember a note was left on a desk by a departing Labour minister that stated this?:

Money is like magic when its pushed for needs elsewhere, wars arent cheap, funding of rebels isn't cheap, Olympics feel good factor isn't cheap, bonuses & expenses .. list rolls on, it can be found when its most needed and nothing in the coffers when it doesn't suite, whats new.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story of porn has been created to deceive people from the real socio-economic issues that GB suffers these days ! it's like what happened in France with gays !

Ofcourse,it concerns people but there are more important issues that the UK people want the governement to talk about ! People are jobless,starving ... the social gaps are getting wider ... so let's create something to distray them a bit or even better make them fight each other !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are jobless,starving ...

You are correct on that one, the famine is so bad in the UK that police officers are stealing food parcels from immigrants as fast as the Red Cross can hand them out! It's terrible to see people fighting over food like this! Please don't send any food in the post either, the postal workers steal it to eat, they use some naff excuse about it being against EU rules, but it's true, they are just hungry.

http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/police_swoop_on_the_homeless_taking_sleeping_bags_and_food_parcels_in_co_ordinated_raids_in_redbridge_1_2206446

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(read the comments below & sort by rating)

Double standards prevail! He wants to fight pornography, while on the other hand he promotes sexual deviations with all negative things related with homosexualism and desires them to spread around the globe. What kind of conservative politician he is? Why they are not promoting man+woman marriage and encourage people having children like mankind used to do since the beginning, what the fuck is wrong with this world?

goddamn corrupted traitors of Polish nation called "Polish government" want to do the same in Poland, today's newspaper wrote that our government want to do the same, they want to ban porn here too :/

Like nettrucker said on the 3rd page of this thread said "It's going to be kind of a trial run, expect it soon to be extended all over Europe." We didn't have to wait long for an answer from our "Dogs of Brussels", such a shame. Things are getting complicated in country as well, internet monitoring and all the shite with so called "hate speech". Soon you wont be able to speak up your opinion regarding controversial and slick topics like: homo, muslims etc etc... because they will label it as - hate speech and the police will come to your home 5am and treat like like some common thug. PM Donald Tusk and his progressive band will make sure new European laws to enforced 100% percent.

Edited by Sudayev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically UK government is saying that UK citizens are inapt an incompetent parents and the government will protect their children instead. How noble. How about educating the parents/children, did it ever cross their minds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sigh*... When do we start to collectively shun all that is wrong in society? If we do that collectively it may make a difference for the better.

I'm pro shunning politicians, anything but truly localized media, and religious factors for sowing hatred and doing evil in the name of their gods..

Do that, and the world slowly becomes a better place.. You should try it sometime, it makes you a whole lot happier! Remember, spread the word! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically UK government is saying that UK citizens are inapt an incompetent parents and the government will protect their children instead. How noble. How about educating the parents/children, did it ever cross their minds?

This is off topic but you thought that was interesting:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/416531/Parents-of-sunburnt-children-should-be-reported-to-social-services

Calling for neighbours to call social services for people letting children too long in the sun, not in this article directly but was part of news-think the other day from this. Thats right, social service who practically "act on" this information to split families. Its for the children's safety of course.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double standards prevail! He wants to fight pornography, while on the other hand he promotes sexual deviations with all negative things related with homosexualism and desires them to spread around the globe. What kind of conservative politician he is? Why they are not promoting man+woman marriage and encourage people having children like mankind used to do since the beginning, what the fuck is wrong with this world?

It's a question of equality, to have equality you have to allow both straight and gay couples the right of marriage. If you don't allow gay people to marry, you have partial equality, which doesn't make sense, does it? You might not like it, but if you think the principle of equality is correct, it's the only logical way forward. The UK was also signed up to various treaties on human rights which play a factor in this.

So basically UK government is saying that UK citizens are inapt an incompetent parents and the government will protect their children instead. How noble. How about educating the parents/children, did it ever cross their minds?

They tried that method and it isn't working, also I would like to see your methodology of educating children not to look at porn, you must have the skills of the Pied Piper? It's a choice you can disable the filter if you want.

This is off topic but you thought that was interesting:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/416531/Parents-of-sunburnt-children-should-be-reported-to-social-services

Calling for neighbours to call social services for people letting children too long in the sun, not in this article directly but was part of news-think the other day from this. Thats right, social service who practically "act on" this information to split families. Its for the children's safety of course.

Very informative, next time some campaigners say something please post it here, it's really necessary for everyone to be made aware of it.

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a question of equality, to have equality you have to allow both straight and gay couples the right of marriage. If you don't allow gay people to marry, you have partial equality, which doesn't make sense, does it? You might not like it, but if you think the principle of equality is correct, it's the only logical way forward. The UK was also signed up to various treaties on human rights which play a factor in this.

Ok,then let's also allow adults to marry children ... equality&freedom yes ... but within the morale sphere ! otherwise it will be chaos !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×