Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Cameron and his romance films
- Thread starter Nibble
- Start date
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Bit of a strange thing for MPs to legislate on.
And they talk about Labour being the party of the nanny state. Cameron's trying to decide what individuals in their own homes can knock one out to.
And they talk about Labour being the party of the nanny state. Cameron's trying to decide what individuals in their own homes can knock one out to.
dougdeep
New member
Isn't it about protecting children?
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
- Thread starter
- #4
Supposedly. My view is that is a parents job, not the governments and I certainly don't appreciate being inconvenienced because of other people's children. I choose not to have children as I don't have the patience for them, I find them boring and a hassles for at least the first 17 years. Increasingly their requirements are impacting on my life with the advent of this massive consumer market for children which encompasses pubs, shops, sports centres, restaurants and on ad nauseum. Now I have to consider them if I want a ****. Will this madness ever end?
nwgull
Well-known member
Should be up to the parents though; I don't want to have to make a phone call to a call centre in India to ask them to allow me to access porn. It's easy enough to install software to restrict internet use to age appropriate web sites. It's the modern day equivalent of your dad putting his stash of Razzles on the highest shelf in the wardrobe.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 5,937
So what happens to this list of people who have opted in? Does it form some sort of national wa****s register?
fruitnveg
Well-known member
Pretty much. Shambolic legislation this. Should never have even got this far.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
I thought the thread was going to be about how rubbish James Cameron films are.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
The Internet is built on Porn,
Take away all the w@nkers and there'd be nobody left.
Take away all the w@nkers and there'd be nobody left.
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
should definitely be up to the parents...i do think pornography isn't particularly helpful for children and it gives them quite frankly ludicrous expectations of sex...maybe sex education needs to be better
spring hall convert
Well-known member
It's never going to work is it? It seems like a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Brian Fantana
Well-known member
I can totally understand Cameron's push to put pressure on search engines and ISPs to do more to prevent access to child pornography, but I don't see that it's the government's job to legislate on material which is totally legal.
Arthur
Well-known member
So is he also going to try and ban the fanny channels on Sky? What about page 3?
The fact of the matter is it won't work. Just look how easy is it to get to the pirate bay since that has been "banned" by the major ISPs.
The fact of the matter is it won't work. Just look how easy is it to get to the pirate bay since that has been "banned" by the major ISPs.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
the tinfoil hatters will say this is censorship of the web, and for once they might be right. once you've switched on system to block stuff its difficult to see where it stops, with the government potentially adding more and more catagories to the blocked list. i dont think that the intent, i believe they genuinely want to restrict the nasty/outright illegal stuff. there are other established ways for doing this, with the broswers, search engines and ISP already having black lists of sites reported for stuff. so theres a bit of playing to the gallery here.
mattpenfold
New member
- Sep 17, 2011
- 56
He was interviewed on Women's Hour earlier today, and asked about whether his plans included a ban on page 3. It seems they don't and when pushed he seemed unable to give a cogent answer as to why not.
mattpenfold
New member
- Sep 17, 2011
- 56
The thing is that people who share indecent images of children online go to great lengths to stop Google and others from crawling their sites. They don't want their sites coming up on Google, since that makes them visible and that puts them at risk of a visit from the authorities.
bWize
Well-known member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 1,683
Of course it's about overall censorship. You really think this is just about child porn? When you have these entertainment industries losing millions and being able to do little to nothing about it then they will try and use the most shocking examples of why it needs to be censored rather than using the real reasons. On-top of that you obviously have the Big Brother aspects of it all aswell which just goes against the human rights in my opinion.
Some will say 'If you have nothing to hide then who cares' but that is just such a weak argument. People should be allowed privacy whether in their homes or speaking/browsing online. If they become a suspect then a court order should be obtained and then eavesdropped that way. The fact EVERYONE will be eavesdropped and then data-mined is entering very shaky ground in my opinion and I hope the UK public realise this.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
- Thread starter
- #19
He didn't stick around to answer questions on R2 just now. He said he was going to answer questions, first caller asks will a register be kept of those who turn off their filter. He had left by the time the caller had finished asking. He's such a tosser.
shaolinpunk
[Insert witty title here]
It's widespread censorship of something that is legal. Once this actually happens I will be opting in out of principle.