930 posts • joined Wednesday 30th May 2007 16:50 GMT
Re: ..."a whopping 80 per cent of crashes ... involved male drivers"
I guess it depends on how you look at it. One might say that small bumper clashes in car parks are worse accidents in that they show a much greater level of lack of care. Whereas high speed accidents can result from much smaller (both in magnitude and duration) lapses as the result happens much quicker etc. Is someone who constantly clashes bumpers when performing low speed actions really better than someone who has only one (albeit big accident) whilst on average driving much longer distances at higher speeds?
All insurance companies worry about is their payouts, so lowest payout (i.e. lots of small ones) wins.
Re: ..."a whopping 80 per cent of crashes ... involved male drivers"
@Dazed and Confused.
Absolutely correct. The stats on accidents are often wholly misrepresented. The following article gives the correct message, although it isn't in the best publication ;-)
The reality is that women have far more accidents than men when you allow for distance travelled etc. However, they tend to have smaller accidents, so the total value of the insurance claims is smaller than for men. Basically, women tend towards bumper clashes in car parks, whereas men tend towards leaving the road at high speed and hitting pedestrians or trees etc. Stereotype.....certainly, but actually true.
So, the reality is that women ARE (on average) worse drivers, but men cost more due to the greater level of aggression and the size of the accidents.
Re: Copying from the BBC
Amazing. Downvoted for being precise and factually correct. No wonder the whole country is falling apart. If we accept being fed inaccuracies all the time and this is the norm, no wonder politicians and the spooks can do anything they like!!
Re: Copying from the BBC
Err. So, you've said I'm wrong, but then admitted I'm right. To quote you:-
"while SiS is the official name of the agency"
That's all I've been saying. The organisation in question is called SIS, not MI-6. SIS is their title. MI-6 is simply what people know them as, largely due to literature and films, such as the Bond films. Sir John Sawyers is not the head of MI-6, but the head of SIS. I would have hoped people in IT would appreciate the importance of being precise.
Presumably, as your information appears to come from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Military_Intelligence, you would appreciate that it says MI-6 is the liaison with SIS. Therefore, even back then, SIS was never actually MI-6. They were different. One was SIS, one was the liaison. The article doesn't say that MI-6 became SIS, largely because it didn't!! So, SIS has never been officially known and titled MI-6.
It is quite amusing however, that SIS has even started referring to itself by using names other than the correct one!! One of those circumstances where fiction is affecting real life.
Re: Copying from the BBC
Interesting. Downvotes, but no comments. Perhaps people would like to comment on exactly what is factually wrong with what I've said. We need the news to be facts and to be correct. Go to WWW.MI6.GOV.UK and it redirects to WWW.SIS.GOV.UK. Yes, they've even vaguely started referring to themselves using MI6, but it isn't the name of the organisation. BBC journalists need to get their facts right and they get them wrong all the time. And I quote from their 'About' section
"The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), often known as MI6"
Often known as, but wrongly known as. Look at the history of the military intelligence sections and you'll see MI-6 doesn't exist these days.
Copying from the BBC
Not another copy from the BBC? They don't know their facts, so a copy is going to have problems. So, who are MI6 exactly? Or, do you really mean SIS (Secret Intelligence Service). MI6 is largely an invention of literature and doesn't exist. It is commonly, but wrongly, used to mean SIS. The BBC should know better and so should those who copy the error from them.
Re: Nuclear energy is expensive
"Chernobyl no problem, 56 dead people? You gotta be kidding."
On the scale of deaths caused by just about anything, it doesn't even register!! Deaths are never "no problem", but 56 is many, many orders of magnitude less than caused by most things. Government policy changes to energy have caused many thousands more than this by old people freezing to death during the winter. Wind power has caused more deaths than this during construction!! Etc. etc.
If you actually look at the number of deaths caused by nuclear power, you begin to realise it's actually one of the safest things human beings do!!
Re: Need to figure out what we are going to do with the waste.
Radioactive waste disposal is not an issue of reality, but one of scaremongering propaganda. Many people don't understand there is such a thing as background radiation and that they are actually exposed to radiation every day. Start telling them that there is Uranium in water and they'll look at you as if you're mad. It's simple ignorance and it's really easy for loons to use a bit of propaganda to make these people do anything they like. If the loony greens (not all greens, but some) would start dealing in facts rather than the rubbish they spout, this would all go away.
The exact reverse also happens. People working in WW1 munitions factories often turned yellow. This was actually them being poisoned, but because nobody said anything about it and the official line was "it's OK", they simply carried on. The massive health issues and deaths were just another casualty of the war.
Wow, 8-900 square miles of the earths surface is uninhabitable!! That's a percentage so small, I can't be bothered to type all the leading zeros. The immediate waters around the area are also a problem, but the loss of food is tiny. This is also only the case because water is leaking from the land. Once this stops, the sea will revert back to normal very, very quickly. Dilution is very rapid in the oceans etc. So, the impact is really quite tiny. And this is one of how many accidents over how many years that have caused problems?
Now, look at the wholesale destruction, deaths and effective poisoning of the land area caused by fossil fuel generation over the years and the many tens of millions who have died as a result. Start with those mining coal and dying of lung disease. Move onto the forests in various areas of the world (say Scandinavia) destroyed by acid rain. Anybody who thinks that even one of the worst nuclear accidents comes anywhere close to fossil fuel issues is completely ignorant of the facts.
Fossil fuels kill gradually over time and therefore the deaths and damage are normally overlooked. Becomes part of 'normal' life. Whereas because nuclear accidents tend to happen quicker and be more obvious, they have a completely disproportionate media impact.
Also, bear in mind that most nuclear accidents are caused by human error. Maybe design isn't great either in some cases. Chernobyl was caused by scientists messing around with the reactor. Fukishima was again made worse by poor decision making. For instance. The containment buildings were blown apart by hydrogen explosions because they didn't immediately vent it like they should. Vent a little slightly radioactive hydrogen into the atmosphere or loose the containment building? Should be a no brainer really.
Re: Real World v Perfection
just to be clear here. My previous comments were based on the filming being consensual and the girl agreeing. There is now some doubt as to whether it was or not. I did a check on Swedish news sources and one says she didn't know (i.e. covert camera), whilst all the others don't say one way or the other. Given the importance of this piece of information, I find it odd that all the reports wouldn't say it was covert if it was. It's also possible that he says she knew and she denies this. I don't know. The reporting is, in some ways, rather lax and fails to mention a lot of pertinent information.
If the boy did record the video without permission, then obviously the situation is far more serious, as should be the penalty he faces. Not sure if there's any easy way to really get to the full facts of the case.
Real World v Perfection
I think there's a large amount of real world realism against perfect world here.
In a perfect world, they could have made the video in the perfect knowledge that neither would release it to anyone without the prior permission of the other and that if one never wanted it released anywhere, only the two of them would have it. Great.
Now, to the real world. Whilst I totally agree that he should be dealt with, in a lot of matters there's a lot of real world 'sense' to not putting yourself in compromising positions, where someone could take advantage. So, for instance, it would be inadvisable for a politician to pay a visit to a brothel for research purposes unless he very openly said he was doing it in advance and was very careful about what happen. People would assume no smoke without fire etc. So, whilst the politician may be acting quite innocently and may genuinely be doing research, they would have rather put themselves in a compromising position and would probably feel the impact of that in publicity etc.
The same would apply in lots of other areas. If someone went and stood in the middle of a road, there could be an argument that anyone coming should be able to stop and avoid them, i.e. never drive faster than your clear breaking distance etc. However, if someone did this and was hit, there might be a lack of sympathy in general and people might think he put himself in a silly position.
So, the same really applies here. Yes, she should have been able to expect total privacy, but this is the real world and she did the equivalent of standing in the middle of a road. If you have a sex video, it might be used against you. If you don't, it can't. So, you take your view of the real world and either accept the risk and make one, or you don't take the risk and decline the opportunity. That's no different than not walking alone at night in some areas of some cities. They're known dodgy areas where people get mugged etc., so don't put yourself in that position unless you're prepared for the consequences.
So, I'm in two minds. Yes, the boy should be punished; no question of that. He has breached trust for the worst possible reason.....revenge. However, the girl did also put herself in a position that many would consider unwise. Yes, that's no reason or justification for his actions. Not in the slightest. But, she has put herself in a vulnerable position, partly because of societies views and prejudices.
And before someone asks.....no, a woman wearing a short skirt (or whatever) is not asking to be raped and should not expect that and anyone who does should be dealt with severely. However, whilst wearing certain clothing in some areas is no justification for being attacked, a lot of women would consider it putting yourself at risk. The fact you SHOULD be able to do it and the fact it is legal does not make it sensible to do it.
At the end of the day, you do have to take care of yourself to some extent in this world and not rely on everyone else following all the 'rules'. Assuming everyone else will behave in the same morally upright way you would, has long been called something. The world is 'naive'. Being 'naive' isn't a crime and never should be, but it can lead to issues. I would suggest the girl here was being just this. No justification for his actions and he should be punished, but naive all the same.
Re: The no campaign is grasping at straws here
As has been pointed out by most polls. There are probably more people south of the border that would vote for Scottish independence than there are north!! That's the biggest problem here. If the Scots want a vote, that's fine. Let them do so. However, as it's a 'Union' that requires that both parties want to stay together. So, those south of the border should be given a vote on whether we want to stay with Scotland. If the answers no, then Scotland should be split off regardless of their wishes.
Effectively, there are four outcomes and only one (both parties wanting to stay together) results in the UK remaining as is.
It's always the simple methods that work!!
Whilst we're all protecting the back end systems with firewalls, IPS, encryption etc.etc., the front door is left wide open!!
Re: Can't do the time, don't do the crime
Yeah, very funny. The Inspector-General is really going to do something......not.
By the way, your comment there was no evidence of war crimes.....utter rubbish. There were plenty of war crimes. Shooting up civilians in the knowledge they are civilians and not combatants is a war crime and there was evidence of that for starters. There was evidence of murders as well, which under some circumstances are war crimes. Indeed, there was evidence of prisoner abuse as well, which is a crime against the Geneva convention, not that the USA has been shown to respect that!! Guantanamo Bay being a good example of using legal doublespeak to get around such things. Placing it in Guantanamo Bay wasn't even for security reasons, but because it legally helped to not have it on the USA mainland.
So what if copies were found in Bin Ladens compound. I bet loads of people had them. If finding something you've released on the person (or in the possession) of someone heinous is a crime, then a lot more people should be prosecuted as well.
What you seem to be believing, quite naively if you ask me, is that the 'right' ways of doing things are always going to work. This is especially true when dealing with governments and government agencies and politicians. There are so many examples throughout history of people trying to do things the right way and the responsible people simply do not do their jobs. Even when it becomes public, they never seem to suffer any consequence for this. So, sometimes, doing it the 'wrong' way is actually the only way.
I think you'd have to be naive to believe the 'right' way would have worked in this case.
Re: It's a sad state of affairs
"If you want to bring murders into it, would you immediately free a serial murderer just because one of their victims turned out to be a paedophile? One right does not make up for lots of wrongs."
Interesting standpoint. So, you're saying that murdering people should be considered morally OK under certain circumstances (victim is a paedophile). Or, is it rather than both have committed heinous crimes and both should be punished for them all. You seem to be suggesting people should be allowed to murder paedophiles and even rewarded in some way for this (what you refer to as a "right" above).
Re: What will the American people do?
"The thing is, Mike; what would you expect them to do if they DO strongly disagree with the sentence?"
I know it's difficult. This is a prime case of not doing anything till it affects you personally and by then, it's too late. A wonderful example is Nazi Germany. Plenty of people objected very strongly to what was going on the 30s, but they just kept it to themselves, in fear. The Nazis created the brownshirts to help enforce that by upping the ante. If the Germans had actually stood up during the 30s, it is quite possible WWII might not have happened.
Unfortunately, these days, morals don't come very high up peoples agendas. When people protest (or sometimes even riot), I may not agree with their point of view, but I sure as hell respect them for actually standing up for something. More people should do it. Perhaps then, politicians will become better as this would seem to be about the only way of making them more accountable. The elections we laughably hold certainly aren't a means to do that.
"No, but you can say that it is always illegal. He's not going to jail for a moral wrong; he's going to jail for breaking the law.
The law is not a moral construct."
There is a well known principle in law that you may break one law in order to prevent a greater crime. There have been numerous cases in the US on this very issue and it has been upheld.
So, the question is are war crimes a greater crime than disclosing classified documents. If the answer is yes, he is allowed to break the law in order to release them and a court will back this (as has happened before). If the answer is no, the US is effectively saying that war crimes aren't much of a crime!!
Also, if he should go to jail because what he did is illegal (regardless of morals), then you're saying people who release documents from companies (under whistleblower) are equally then liable for civil action by the company and should loose. The whistleblower notion is irrelevant as it's a breach of their contract, therefore opening them up to civil action.
I know there's a tendency to prosecute laws on the strict wording of it in a blind manner these days, but all laws are effectively based on some moral basis and as such, the law is effectively based on morals.
"I expect the judge may have agreed with you, if that is what he leaked. He didn't do this, he leaked as much of everything that he could, and trusted Assange to filter out what is sensitive, like names of translators working for the military, from what is 'newsworthy', like video of civilians being massacred.
Manning's job for his country was to protect that sensitive information from being disclosed, which he really failed at."
Don't get me wrong in this, I think Manning deserved something. Yes, he released more than he should have. I'm not sure if this was due to naivety or not really thinking. Maybe he expected others to do some of the checking and redacting as appropriate and they didn't do it.
Also, it may have been he had to grab everything and get it out quickly as he was likely to be detected and caught quite quickly. Maybe he didn't believe he had the time and chance to do the filtering, so got a lot out with the idea of him or others doing the filtering afterwards. After all, someone taking that amount of documents was likely to be found quickly, so taking time to filter may not have been an option.
As someone else has said, I think the problem is that they've tried him for everything rather than the more pragmatic, 'what was not in the public interest'. If they'd done that, I think people would have agreed much more. By trying him for everything, they've effectively said that evidence of war crimes must not be released if its classified regardless.
You can't say that leaking classified documents is always wrong. There have to be times when leaking classified documents is right.....for instance when containing evidence of grievous crimes. After all, many of these documents were only classified in the first place to hide the wholesale breaking of laws, the Geneva convention etc. going on, so making it impossible to reveal classified documents for any reason just gives them a simple and easy way of hiding crimes.
I agree that classified documents should not be leaked for fun or when the crimes revealed are pretty trivial, but this definitely wasn't the case here.
What will the American people do?
If the American people as a whole allow this to happen without much dissent, it will show just how subservient they are. When they loose more and more freedoms in the future and start getting treated more and more like slaves, with abuses for anyone who steps out of line, they only have themselves to blame.
Whilst Bradley Manning may have been pretty naive in what he did and the resultant impact on him, it doesn't alter the fact that he brought a lot of bad abuses to light that otherwise would have been hidden forever. For that, he needs a lot of credit.
When, oh when, will America learn that they are generating enemies around the world at an alarming rate and what Bradley Manning revealed is a lot of the reason. Showing utter contempt for the rights of anyone else (as in non-American) is a prime mover in this, as Mannings evidence showed. Being rampant hypocrits also doesn't help, same with being unbearably arrogant. One day they will learn, but I suspect they'll be a lot of bloodshed before they do........
The issue here is Microsofts attitude to their users.
Several major applications are down and they post a simple 'we're fixing it message'. No real idea on when it will be available, what the cause is etc.etc. In other words, they're treating people as mushrooms. They're letting people know how important they are as customers. I'm still trying (as of 21:00 UK time) to log into Hotmail and it still isn't working!!
Also, Microsoft are claiming all sorts of things for their geographically dispersed services with lots of redundancy etc.etc., which this problem shows are just rubbish. Their services have no better uptime than hosting it yourself and you have little control over your service or data, customer service is bad and they keep you in the dark.
Yes, there are some stupid blokes abusing women. However, a lot of the online issue, especially with girls, is actually gangs of girls against other girls. having spoken to many a teacher, they much prefer the problems associated with boys. Boy does something against another boy; smack in the mouth; next day they're best mates. Life moves on. Girl does something to another girl. Months of constant abuse from the girl and her mates. No physical damage, but far more psychological damage, hence the suicides etc.
"the difference is they can't stop it"
But, generally, this simply isn't any different to other mechanisms. If you're getting abused in the playground, how do you get it to stop? Go to a teacher? Probably make it worse and won't stop it. If someones scrawling things on walls etc., how do you stop it? If someone knows your address, how do you stop abusive letters? In the case of the girl who killed herself, why was she still using the website up to the end? If it was so distressing, surely you would at least stop using it?
At the end of the day, if people want to say nasty things and threaten etc., they will. The only way to stop it is to take action against them through the police when they cross a boundary.
The police appear to be dealing with this and rightly so. These people need to be stopped and dealt with by the courts.
However, I never understand why the internet being involved makes the slightest bit of difference. The internet is merely the conduit over which the threat is made. It could be done by sound, a letter or even a wall somewhere. Either way, it's the threat that matters and the mechanism for carrying that threat is simply that.....just a mechanism. So, why is the fact it's over the internet a factor? Yes, it makes it easier to do etc.etc., but it is just a transport mechanism for the threat.
It's the same as the 14-year old girl who sadly killed herself recently. People abusing her over this website or that website is not the issue. The issue is the abuse. Whether it's over a website or done in the playground at school, it's the abuse that matters, not the mechanism. If people got hold of her telephone number and kept calling and abusing her, would they suggest telephones should be controlled, filtered etc.etc.? If a threat is make via the post, should letters be stopped, or filtered?
The logic simply doesn't make sense. They're trying to make an inanimate technology the scapegoat for a few sick individuals who think abusing people is funny or somehow clever.
Whilst I agree the animal abuse they come up against is horrific, they're not exactly helping themselves. Firstly, they obviously aren't 'uncomfortable' with the data as they seem to have no transparent process and have never been audited etc. Also, the membership of the RSPCA plunged some years back when they turned from being an animal charity into a political lobbying group running a lot of agendas not core to their ideals.
I've the utmost respect for anyone dealing with animal abuse (of whatever nature), but they've moved quite a way from this. Now, they seem to have unfettered, pretty uncontrolled and unaudited access to very, very personal data.
Re: tomorrow it'll be a black person or a homosexual...
I was merely commenting on the campaigning for a group rather than a person. Campaign for any person you like.
Re: Get rid of images of people
Absolutely agree. So, why was the campaign for a woman? Why was it not for a named person with their accomplishments listed?
Re: Get rid of images of people
You don't get around bias by simply introducing another bias. Positive biases are as bad as negative biases. Therefore, campaigning for a woman is as bad as campaigning for a man. The campaign should be for an individual with the reason being their accomplishments.
It's just like in employment. You want the best person, regardless of whether they're male/female, gay/straight, black/white etc. So, you need to look at their qualifications and abilities, not their 'grouping'. By campaigning for a woman, you're simply campaigning for a grouping and being as biased as those who chose not to put that 'grouping' on banknotes in the past.
It's all about the individual regardless of their 'group'. So, by all means campaign for a person, but based on their contribution, not their 'grouping'.
Re: Get rid of images of people
I certainly don't mean that I would have a problem with anyone of any sexual orientation, colour, creed, sex etc.etc. Frankly, I don't care who is on them. Irrelevant to me. What I was pointing out is that people should be on there because of their contribution to the country. Therefore, saying we should have a woman on there is as bad as saying we should have a man etc. The comment should be that XYZ should be on there because they did this or that. Their sex, sexual orientation, colour etc. is not relevant, their actions are. As you rightly say, Turing could be a good candidate because of his brilliance and contribution, not because he was gay. However, just as the campaign was to put a woman on banknotes, the campaign would probably be to put a gay person on there. The campaign is focused on the wrong thing.
So, let's have campaigns to say XYZ person should be on there and list their contributions rather than campaigns to say XYZ group should be represented.
Hence, I get rather upset with pressure groups that say someone should be on there because of some 'group' they're in. As people seem obsessed with grouping people by some characteristic rather than their acts, the easiest way is simply not to have anyone on there.
Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?
Not to mention RBS. Another classic example.
Get rid of images of people
I'm all for getting rid of the varied images on the back of banknotes. All it does is encourage people to run campaigns to have someone from group X or group Y on it. Today it's women, tomorrow it'll be a black person or a homosexual or a XYZ. All it does is cause division all the time. No matter what you do, there'll always be some group or another that feels it hasn't been equally represented. We don't have images of notable people on the backs of coins, so why do so on notes?
This isn't to say I denigrate the impact women have made on society and the leaps they have caused/supported. It's just I'm fed up with all these pressure groups all the time.
Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades
Absolutely spot on. National Insurance was aptly named. The average life expectancy was little higher than the pension age in those days. Politicians have refused to deal with this timebomb for decades. It was obvious even in the 60s and certainly the 70s. They could have gradually raised the pension age to keep the average retirement years the same proportion. We now have an average life expectancy of about 85ish, which suggest the best part of 20 years in retirement, funded by the same contributions that funded either nothing or a few years at best in the past. Simply doesn't work.
The other aspect to National Insurance was the NHS, which has been a great success, but in many ways, too much. It now deals with far more than was ever expected and therefore the costs have gone exponential and will continue unless something is done about it. There are many treatments now available that would be laughed at by those who created it. People are beginning to expect it to cover just about anything medical, which is simply not practical. There needs to be a real debate on what is and what is not covered by the NHS. For instance.....weight loss surgery. If someone doesn't have the will to diet and reduce weight, is it up to the NHS to come up with some other solution? The best solution is dieting, not surgery which has all sorts of nasty side effects. What about IVF? What about plastic surgery? What about self-inflicted illnesses, such as those associated with long term smoking?
Not saying what's right and what's wrong, but people need to realise these can't all be funded and a grown up debate needs to be had on what can be afforded and is reasonable.
Re: what have you done to actually stop the kids being pimped out in the first place?
'I don't think anyone is suggesting that eliminating child porn will completely stop child abuse. However, one thing is for certain, it isn't going to lead to an increase in child abuse, and it might reduce it a bit. So for that reason it is worth doing.'
I'm not aware of any studies on child abuse, but I am aware of studies on porn that suggest removing porn will actual increase sex crime. The reason is simple. Some will always commit sex crimes. However, there is a large chunk in the middle that get their kids through looking at porn. Therefore, they never move onto sex crimes. I'm not aware of any study that has ever suggested a causal link between porn and committing sex crimes. Yes, people who commit sex crimes normally use porn, but it doesn't mean porn caused it.
So, you have these people who don't commit crimes, but get off on watching porn. Now, take that away. Some will still not commit crimes and will simply live without the porn. However, another part of that group will need to get their kicks somewhere. As porn is no longer available, they will move up to sex crimes. Therefore, you are causing more sex crimes.
So, your assumption it can't make the situation worse is contrary to what several studies have found (in relation to porn and sex crimes). So, your assumption could well be wrong. You are mistaking correlation with causation.
Additionally, if you look at the stats, most countries with more lax porn laws actually have lower levels of sex crimes than the UK. So, there is evidence that the reverse is true.
This is not me saying that child abuse should not be wiped out (or as close as we can get). However, you only do that by controlling the people that would do it. Not those that would look at it. Those that would actually do it. If you had 100 people who carried out child abuse and 10,000 who looked at the videos, is that better or whose than 200 people carrying it out and nobody looking at the videos? In one case, you have 100 victims, in the other 200. Which is worse? If you manage to stop everyone watching it, but more 'graduate' to actually carrying it out, are you making the situation better or worse?
Re: Sense at last
'You said it yourself:
A few years time.
So my 8 year old will be in a few more years time.....
Which is pretty much what I would anticipate.
My 11 year old will be drinking in a few years time too. Doesn't mean she will be getting her hands on the booze today.
Kids are born innocent and develop maturity in line with understanding and responsibility. The fact they can get something at 18 is not an excuse to give it them at 7.'
Absolutely agree, but how does this solution prevent that? Anyone who's been in IT for any length of time can remember the days of the original content filtering. How it caused so many problems with false positives/negatives it was just a nightmare and not worth the grief. I remember Websense (downloaded URL lists) blocking the conservative website as extreme politics, but allowing the BNP!! This will result in so much grief, many households will have to turn the filter off. I also remember a friend who looked up Molten Brown (as in the cosmetics) and managed to get into a porn site by accident. So, are we banning Molten Brown as search terms and doing a company out of business? If it was on a per person basis, I would have more support, but it isn't and is never likely to be. So, it is doing absolutely nothing to protect your 7 year old and just inconveniencing everyone.
Also, if your 7 year old with no sexual feelings found a porn website, I imagine they wouldn't care less. Probably wouldn't understand and would go back to looking for Elmo of whatever. If your child is of an age and sexual maturity where it means something to them, then you should have already spoken to them about it and therefore they should be savvy.
Re: Sense at last
'Good luck educating the parents of the UK, I look forward to hearing your proposal for that scheme. Ever seen Jeremy Kyle? There are 50,000 kids in the UK that have had to be placed in foster care, and those are just the ones bad enough to be taken from parents entirely. Your happy 2.4 home might not be one of them, congrats. turn off the filter and have the relationship with your kids you describe. But next door little Mercedes could be watching an ass smoothie and wondering if its normal.'
So, what you're suggesting is we assume every parent is an idiot and stop trying to raise the standard of parenting. That is a guarantee that things will get worse no matter what else we do. A lot of the problems today is the standard of parenting and on the few occasions I've seen Jeremy Kyle, I'm amazed half of them haven't had their children taken from them. Teenage girls don't generally get pregnant because they've seen a few skin flicks. They get pregnant because their parents probably did as well and now it's quite normal. Plus, of course, all the benefits available. A good few through simple ignorance and stupidity. All these are cured by quality parenting, something you wish to ignore and simply move to an internet filter instead. That'll work then......not.
'They aren't, thanks for your concern,despite their protests because "their friends are"- but as a NM at a secondary school I think I can give a pretty good insight into what's going on with young people from 11-18 as I have around 1000 to look after on a daily basis.'
Interesting that you think staff working in a school have a better idea of what children do than their parents!! I certainly hope that isn't the case in my case. Remembering back to my earlier years, I remember what a lot of teachers thought was happening and it used to amuse us no end to manipulate this to our advantage. The teachers who had realised were normally the ones who were ignored and this is especially so now with league tables etc. After all, teachers can't possibly admit what's happening as that would result in a trip down the tables etc. and failed OFSTEDs etc.
'They dont make the videos, but they should be more responsible for dealing with what is posted on there and preventing it redistribution. Should we allow the BBC to show beheadings too?'
You know something, in some senses I do. People are so divorced from reality these days, I think we need to go back the other way a bit. I'm forever amazed that children are quite willing to eat meat all day long and yet the TV has to show all kinds of warnings etc. whenever the insides of an abattoir are shown. Quite happy to eat it, but not so happy to understand how it got on your plate. Perhaps if people saw and realised some of the more nasty elements of the world, they might care more about some things or in the case of MPs, make better decisions. It's very easy to talk about beheadings and be all righteous about it when you haven't seen one. It's all words. However, when you've seen one, you realise it's about a lot more than that. Same for any form of execution and many other things. Too many people talk about things they've never experienced or even seen (including most MPs) and frankly it shows.
'In your opinion, because you read the Reg and know how to get round them. I don't want my kids, or anyone else's kids stumbling across stuff by accident. That's the point of this. Noone is claiming it to be an undefeatable firewall.'
If your kids are intelligent and talk to their friends, they've almost certainly already got the knowledge to get round these right now. So, how is implementing this doing any good at all? Clearly, you've never seen what kids look at on your schools computers as I know for certain they've got round all the filters in my local schools. Quite a lot of the wireless networks are also cracked and they're using their mobile phones on the schools wireless!! The whole point of this debate is that generally kids that stumble across it by accident will just move on and not care. Those that search it out at some point will find a way round the system. This is largely because the two groups are pretty much age based.
'You expect to teach all parents how to filter the internet and enforce fine-grain control over each device?'
You simply buy a readily available product to install on their PC. They're not perfect, but they're very easy to use. Problem is, some parents don't care enough to pay the money. Another alternative would be for government to pay for the development of such a product and then supply it free on request.
'Yes, parents SHOULD take responsibility for their kids, but a lot don't know/understand/care and its the kids that suffer when they come across stuff that they shouldn't.'
Yes, I appreciate that. However, if children suffer as a result of their parents neglect, that is the job of social services. However, whether they do suffer as a result of no filtering is far from proven anyway.
'Honestly if you are that bothered about looking at filth then turn YOUR filter off. Hardly a big deal and some protection is better than no protection for those that do need it.'
No, I am a caring parent and therefore have implemented a suitable solution to try and get the worst of it. It's by no means perfect and I'm quite aware my eldest has found ways round it. But then, he is 16, so less of an issue now. Not caring or being unwilling to learn enough to do it are simply symptoms of bad parenting. A caring parent will learn if necessary.
Re: Ha ha!
I think you're missing the point here.
'Crikey, you seem to think that the CRB process is foolproof (and that in depth). Sadly, it isn't. It doesn't capture all the weirdos. But, hey, it does capture some, so that's a plus point. See also below.'
Nope, I don't think the CRB check is foolproof. I think it is almost as badly implemented as the idea of an internet block. It may catch a few people, but has been shown many times, also allows huge numbers through. What I was saying is that they'll probably put refusing the filter down on a CRB check as some sort of indicator that you like porn and are therefore probably at least partway to being a kiddie fiddler. That is such a leap and so far from the truth, it defies belief, but is a likely misuse of this sort of list.
'Do you have any hard evidence to suggest that it won't do ANY good? Those that can bypass it will, those that can't (or don't know) won't. So I'd suggest it will do SOME good. Perhaps not as much as the lawmakers would like, but some. It'll certainly help out those parents who have tried to educate their children, but, you know, they are in their teens and don't listen. But kudos to you for (sort of) admitting you'd be embarrassed to have the porn filter lifted. So would I...'
I won't be in the slightest embarrassed. What's to be embarrassed about? However, I do understand that some people will be and I don't see the point of making them embarrassed for no benefit. If this was likely to work at anything about minimal level, I would say this is an acceptable exchange, but it won't. So, why make people embarrassed for no benefit? That strikes me as pretty poor behaviour and some sort of moral revenge by the holier than thou. People who think sex and naked bodies are somehow wrong and perverse etc. (from your reply, I'd include you) getting their own back on people who simply accept sex and nakedness as part of nature and life.
'It is indeed their choice. But you'd be a little gutted, wouldn't you? And you wouldn't want your mates letching over her, would you? All I'm saying is just think about the fact that it's someone's daughter the next time you have a cheeky view; it'll change your view on the world.'
No, I wouldn't. Would it embarrass me? Probably, yes. Would I dislike my friends letching over her? Probably, yes. But, I'm a good enough parent to put my embarrassment and discomfort to one side in order to support my daughter in her choice of lifestyle. It's interesting here that you identify daughters particularly, as if you view it as acceptable for a son to take part in porn, but not your daughter? What's the difference? Suggests more than a whiff of sexism on your part methinks.
So, you don't have any reasonable response to my comment about your daughter taking part in a Hollywood movie in less than full attire and therefore resort to offhand distain. Actually tell me why appearing in a Hollywood film naked and having sex with someone is particularly different? Are they still naked? Are they still appearing to have sex (whether actual or not)? From your earlier comments, I would suggest you would care very much about this, but don't want to undermine your case by admitting this.
'It's very difficult to respond to this without sounding anything but, but after having spent my formative years (and quite a few thereafter) in a rugby club where the attitude to porn was extremely relaxed, I'd say you were a little off here. Let's not just assume that all those in favour are 'conservative and uneasy' and those against are porn junkies that don't want to have to 'fess up.'
I'm afraid all your replies point towards my comments. You seem to be trying to take the moral high ground and am clearly (by your own comments) uneasy with nakedness or sex in general. Maybe this is as a response to the porn you saw at the rugby club. I don't know. However, I don't really need to reply to this, as your previous replies speak volumes for me.
Re: I'm replying to everybody in one post here...
'I will make one other point that I've not seen made: while I can install filters and supervise my kids, I can't be there when they are round a friend's house.'
Agreed. However, how does this help there either? After all, they could have turned the filter off!! As a responsible parent, you should maybe ask them where the computer is etc.etc. and act accordingly. Maybe find out what their policy is?
'The evidence for harm is mucky. But any damage will be long term and subtle, hence my decision, on balance, to be cautious.'
Agreed, but if seeing something causes you to do it, what about violent films? Presumably, these should all be banned as well? After all, the exact same argument would apply. The killers of tomorrow are bred watching the violent films of today......
Jonny 5 year old would see porn, and click back and go back to trying to find whatever he wanted...
As a parent you need to get your kids balanced before they start searching for that stuff..
Nudity should not be a taboo... but I bet places such as the british naturism website will be blocked by this!'
Too right. Adults are all too quick to put their bias on other people. A 5 year old will see nudity or whatever and be totally uninterested. They were looking for something on Elmo from Sesame Street or whatever and will simply ignore it. Older ones, who understand a bit more are probably already looking for this stuff anyway. It's amazing how many adults attribute sexual thoughts to children way too young for this simply because the adult has sexual thoughts. School know about this and its a common theme in complaints. Parents complain that their 5 year old girl was grabbed inappropriately by a 5 year old boy. This all goes ballistic and they fail to see sense because they're looking at it with sexual eyes rather than through the eyes of a 5 year old. Their daughter gets upset because of what their parents are suggesting. In reality, they were simply playing tag or whatever in the playground and there was absolutely nothing sexual about it at all. However, the boys parents need to get involved etc.etc. My wife sees this sort of thing in school all the time.
Re: Ha ha!
'The (only?) reason why dissenters don't want an opt-out filter applied is because they don't want the embarrassment of asking for it to be removed! I'm thinking of the similar premise in 'Lock, Stock...''
No, it's because bigots will use it against you at every opportunity. I can imagine that being something that gets revealed on a CRB check. After all, they're already trying to make the link between watching porn and being a child molester/sex criminal. And, yes, embarrassment comes into it as well. Why make a whole raft of people embarrassed when the solution won't even do any good at any level!! That's pointless and actually quite nasty in its own right.
'All the other arguments for 'people will just get around it', 'educate the parents' etc might be partially true, but just because it won't work in 100% of cases doesn't mean you shouldn't implement it (on that basis alone).'
This is a matter of degree. It it took a long time, or a lot of knowledge to get round, then maybe this argument would hold up. However, as it takes about 15 minutes research on the net and most kids learn how to get round it in school these days (from their peers, not the school), then what's the point. In other words, if the solution were 90% effective, fair enough. However, as this one is certainly not out of single digits and arguably barely above zero, what's the point.
'And next time you're having a cheeky glimpse at the latest big busted beauty earning her corn on t'interweb, just picture your own daughter...'
And now you reveal your real feelings and motivation. If your daughter (or mine) has chosen this as their career path, that's their choice. We can like it or not, but once they become adults, it's their choice. We can try to talk them out of it, point out all the negatives etc.etc, but if they continue, that's what being an adult is all about. It's their lives. Given the way films are going these days, presumably you wouldn't want your daughter appearing in Hollywood blockbusters either?
Seems like you're very conservative and uneasy around anything related to sex.
'Unfortunately, you can blame the media for that (and probably also the government). This is about making it harder for children to access porn (not impossible, just a bit harder). However, the announcement came amongst the other news that the government is trying to enlist the help of the big search engines to make it harder for people to use their search engines to find illegal pornographic material, hence the confusion.'
A bit harder? Depends what you mean by a bit? 15 minutes of research for any decent teenager and they will be through it. So, the kind of a bit harder that doesn't really matter. As to illegal pornographic material...I think you need to read the laws surrounding this. I suspect they were deliberately left with very wide interpretations to allow maximum misuse. This has already happened many times.
'Reading the comments, it seems to be split on both these points. People seem to be taking a view to this measure similar to how Sepp Blatter did with Goal Line Technology until recently i.e. that if its not perfect then we shouldnt impement it. Well he has seen the error of his ways and realises that while no technology is ever going to be perfect, it can at least help.'
I don't really see what this has to do with football at all. Goal line technology is pretty damn good. Not perfect, not solution ever is, but very, very good. Sebb Blatter refused to implement for reasons only known to him. Any argument based on the technology not being reliable enough was clearly crock. However, this is the other way around. The technology is rubbish. Far from being not perfect, it's an absolute crock. So, why would you implement it?
Re: Normalization with the real world......@Mike
'It seems to have happened for years on the Mobile phones, and indeed the real world. Why is this any different?'
Just because it has happened for many years on other things doesn't make it right. Personally, I'm very against censorship of any kind (I accept some has to happen, but I want it to be as little as possible) because it allows oppression and prevents dissidents from getting their message across. Dissent is very important in any properly functioning society. Any block on that is to be discouraged.
Even if you don't agree with what someones saying, the best way is to argue the point and show he is wrong rather than just censor him. That just makes him a martyr.
'True. I may even have obtained such magazines myself, but they were hard to get and I had to make an effort. Whilst it might not have been my parent's choice, it was mine.'
Really. Don't know what sort of era you're talking about, but in the 80's when I was a teenager, they were two a penny and readily available.
'By 9 PM there is a chance their parents are around to supervise.'
The kind of parents who don't care enough to supervise their children on the internet or put suitable technical solutions in place are exactly the kind that won't be around at any time to supervise their TV viewing habits, whether before or after 9pm.
Re: How naive!!
Fair point. My use of always is somewhat strong. However, MANY times in history, censorship has been used to ultimately persecute.
Re: The very thin end of a *very* long wedge.
'What seems particularly disturbing with this debate is that lots of people want the Internet to have different laws to the real world. In the real world porn isn't available to children, it's kept away from them and is censored, albeit minimally.'
Absolutely not. In the real world, porn is available to children. The control around porn in the printed sense are laughable. Indeed. there has been quite a lot of talk around the current crop of 'lads mags' and similar womens publications (Cosmopolitan etc.etc.) that are arguably as pornographic as true porno mags were a couple of decades ago!! So, let's not try to pretend that porn other than on the internet is not freely available most children, certainly teenagers.
Your statement is also based on the assumption and notion that porn (of any type) is wrong and bad for children. Now, whilst I wouldn't want young children seeing porn, teenagers are maybe a bit different. The attitude in this country is a lot more conservative with many countries in Europe which are much more open about it and actually don't have any worse (of in some cases better) sex crime rates!! So, is the assumption that porn is bad and wrong etc. actually a valid assumption. I'm not really aware of any study that has found a causal link between porn and sex crime. Plenty of correlation, but we all known that correlation doesn't equal causation. Anyway, if it does, hasn't we better ban violent films as they are clearly making our children violent by the same mechanism?
Re: How naive!!
@Sir Runcible Spoon.
I agree to a point. There are without doubt parents who can't really be bothered with parenting. However, is taking the role over from them the right approach. If they don't want to be parents or can't be bothered/aren't capable, surely social services should be involved. Either way, putting half arsed solutions such as this isn't going to fix it and willy simply encourage them to not bother.
Re: some evidence would be nice
'What you wrote is commonly believed, but the evidence is sketchy to say the least.'
Not only that, but the logical conclusion if it is correct. If watching porn makes you commit sex crimes, then presumably watching violence makes you violent? Oh dear, there goes a large chunk of Hollywood. Presumably anything with a certificate over 15 should be banned as it clearly does people harm?
Ah yes, the usual argument. Easy to shoot this one down. Since some of the most draconian gun control measures were introduced in this country, exactly what has happened to the gun crime rate? Has it come down or gone up? I'll give you a hint, massively up. The reason is simple. The problem was never the legal gun owner. In general there was no issue there. Very, very occasionally one would go off the rails, but it was very, very rare. The whole problem was around those who held guns illegally. Always was and always will be. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people with guns that would never have got a firearms certificate anyway, even under 1980s rules.
Again, the same applies here. People who are going to abuse children will do so. People who are going to commit sex crimes, will do so. Contrary to what the Daily Mail etc.etc. say, nobody has ever established a causal link between porn and sex crimes. Indeed, many of the studies show the reverse. Some studies have even suggested that some people who would have been happy with pictures and videos will turn to committing actual crimes when that is taken away. So, this change could actually INCREASE child abuse and sex crimes.
I'm not going to downvote you, because we should be trying to stamp out these crimes. There's nothing wrong with that sentiment. However, politicians are amazingly bad at knowing the difference between correlation and causation. They assume that if a correlation exists, causation is proven. This is absolutely not the case. Most correlations are actually total coincidence.
Absolutely agree. However, that's exactly what this will lead to. After all, the ISPs etc. have taken care of all the bad stuff haven't they, so safe to let the little one do what they like online...............The ISP will protect them. So, far from helping, this is actually hindering.
Re: Normalization with the real world......
Why? Really simple. Two reasons. Firstly, this introduces censorship, which will then get huge scope creep. Secondly, none of the above actually work. I know of tons of under 18s who get into 18 films. Do you really believe some magazines are not seem by young kids? The 9pm watershed is a joke as most kids stay up past that today, even when very young.
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- 'Big Data' analysis Think Amazon is CHEAP? Just take a look at these cloudy graphs...