ConDms - the move to a police state continues
19 December 2010, 03:56 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ConDms - the move to a police state continues
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...overnment.html
As I have said before, same ****, different government.
No doubt those who opt in will be placed on a potential sex offenders register
As I have said before, same ****, different government.
No doubt those who opt in will be placed on a potential sex offenders register
19 December 2010, 04:24 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is that parents are quite capable of restricting what their kids can and cannot do on the net. We dont need the government to blanket ban something for us and of course the opt in records would never be used against an individual would they now?
19 December 2010, 04:26 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Just one step further towards a fully regulated internet. At least we can tell our grandkids years from now what it was like in the good old days of the nineties and 00s with freedom of information.
These people don't stop to think for a second that perhaps this might be an issue for personal responsibility. Like maybe, just maybe parents should be responsible for what their kids can look at in their house - in pretty much the same fashion they stop them playing with knives, touching the inside of the cooker, etc.
It's just the usual bright sparks coming up with a plan to get ahead in the popularity stakes, no matter the cost in the long run or to civil liberties.
Nice one guys, keep up the good work.
These people don't stop to think for a second that perhaps this might be an issue for personal responsibility. Like maybe, just maybe parents should be responsible for what their kids can look at in their house - in pretty much the same fashion they stop them playing with knives, touching the inside of the cooker, etc.
It's just the usual bright sparks coming up with a plan to get ahead in the popularity stakes, no matter the cost in the long run or to civil liberties.
Nice one guys, keep up the good work.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 19 December 2010 at 04:31 PM.
19 December 2010, 04:57 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Check out craigfromnewcastle's comment. What a complete gimp! 
Awww, someone needs to stick up for poor, confused and vulnerable people like oor Craig; Cue the nanny state to the rescue to save us from ourselves.
Edited to say - I'm sorry, I learned the word 'gimp' from internet pornography, I just can't help it.
This is the long-term mental trauma that results from being free to look at these kinds of despicable acts.
Awww, someone needs to stick up for poor, confused and vulnerable people like oor Craig; Cue the nanny state to the rescue to save us from ourselves.
Edited to say - I'm sorry, I learned the word 'gimp' from internet pornography, I just can't help it.
This is the long-term mental trauma that results from being free to look at these kinds of despicable acts.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 19 December 2010 at 05:01 PM.
Trending Topics
19 December 2010, 05:04 PM
#8
I love it 
I was just commenting to wifey last night as we searched yet again for a SINGLE programme worth watching on our 100+ channel Virgin cable TV, and found no less than NINE **** channels and one gay **** channel.
Why, oh why, are THEY attached to what is supposed to be a family pack?
I was just commenting to wifey last night as we searched yet again for a SINGLE programme worth watching on our 100+ channel Virgin cable TV, and found no less than NINE **** channels and one gay **** channel.
Why, oh why, are THEY attached to what is supposed to be a family pack?
19 December 2010, 05:08 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
19 December 2010, 05:12 PM
#12
Damn, its my thread that got the lovely fragrant ladies of Scoobynet to admit watching **** and acts of self pollution.
Now I am all for clamping down on dodgy, illegal stuff but surely pictures of ladies of a certain age with no clothes on is not exactly going to cause moral depravity, I read about a video doing the rounds on the net that shows two Ukranian teenagers battering a bloke to death with a hammer, now I do not want my boys to see that but if they get their jollies looking at some **** and **** then so be it, I am sure limiting it will cause more problems than it solves.
**** and Masturbation isn't evil, it isn't the Victorian era, this isn't China.
They will probably find a way to tax it, that me buggered, I would be a high rate taxpayer
along with most of SN by the sound of it.
Now I am all for clamping down on dodgy, illegal stuff but surely pictures of ladies of a certain age with no clothes on is not exactly going to cause moral depravity, I read about a video doing the rounds on the net that shows two Ukranian teenagers battering a bloke to death with a hammer, now I do not want my boys to see that but if they get their jollies looking at some **** and **** then so be it, I am sure limiting it will cause more problems than it solves.
**** and Masturbation isn't evil, it isn't the Victorian era, this isn't China.
They will probably find a way to tax it, that me buggered, I would be a high rate taxpayer
along with most of SN by the sound of it.
19 December 2010, 05:16 PM
#13
sex is allready taxed if you use durex , isnt it i thought there was vat on them . and any other way of wooing a bird is taxed drink chocs flowers cinema etc , with global warming ime suprised they havnt taxed farting , the eu were thinking of taxing dairy farmers because cows produce so much methane
19 December 2010, 07:49 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep. The first one sums it up - no need to read further down the comment list ...
"... It is called 'parenting' Some might have heard of it. We have some moral lobbyists who will play in to the hands of all sorts of other censorship issues. If parents were concerned, would they not take steps to stop it? You know, maybe like talking to their children about the issue? Or keeping the PC in the living room? ..."
Dave
19 December 2010, 07:59 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are people compalining about this?
It automatically stops **** being viewed in a home with children. Why is this bad?
`If` you do want access to when you have children, you can `Opt-in` and get access.
Don't see a problem myself.
It automatically stops **** being viewed in a home with children. Why is this bad?
`If` you do want access to when you have children, you can `Opt-in` and get access.
Don't see a problem myself.
19 December 2010, 08:16 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 December 2010, 08:19 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tell me, *who* will categorise all the many millions of websites out there? Who will sift through every word/picture to give each site a *12a* or *18* rating? How many millions of OUR money will be wasted by these imbeciles for NO GAIN WHATSOEVER on any metric that makes sense???
Dave
PS: sorry for shouting but this hacks me off .....
19 December 2010, 08:21 PM
#21
Opt-in, sounds fair enough to me. Its not really affecting my internet activities, as its not like they are doing what China does with internet censorship. Even if it was blocked, there are always proxies (which half of China uses to get round their censorship), so its not really workable.
What I'd prefer instead is the resources being spent on clamping down on internet fraudsters and ebay traders who don't pay their tax-dues on their earnings.
What I'd prefer instead is the resources being spent on clamping down on internet fraudsters and ebay traders who don't pay their tax-dues on their earnings.
Last edited by ALi-B; 19 December 2010 at 08:26 PM.
19 December 2010, 09:05 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opt-in, sounds fair enough to me. Its not really affecting my internet activities, as its not like they are doing what China does with internet censorship. Even if it was blocked, there are always proxies (which half of China uses to get round their censorship), so its not really workable.
What I'd prefer instead is the resources being spent on clamping down on internet fraudsters and ebay traders who don't pay their tax-dues on their earnings.
What I'd prefer instead is the resources being spent on clamping down on internet fraudsters and ebay traders who don't pay their tax-dues on their earnings.
Secondly it's yet another thing that parents think they don't have to do. Kids can surf the net all day and all night as its completely safe now... the government said so. My **** it is!!!
Thirdly it's unworkable for all the reaosns Dave has written above. It's just posturing.
Agree with your last paragraph though!
19 December 2010, 09:12 PM
#23
I never said it was workable (although China does it with parital success )- Like I said, I would rather the money be spent of policing internet fraud and tax evasion.
Parents lets their kid loose on computers as it is now. Short of social services clipping the Parent around the ears for being idiots their is little else that can be done.
Snooping, don't you think that happens already? Your ISP know exactly where you've been and probably can trace activity back for years. A warrant or court order is all thats needed for that to be divulged.
Parents lets their kid loose on computers as it is now. Short of social services clipping the Parent around the ears for being idiots their is little else that can be done.
Snooping, don't you think that happens already? Your ISP know exactly where you've been and probably can trace activity back for years. A warrant or court order is all thats needed for that to be divulged.
20 December 2010, 08:59 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a few questions.
1/ how does this differ from being premium member and giving not only your name, but address and credit card details to a register of sorts?
2/ other than removing the "democratic right" to free and sneaky ****, what difference does it really make?
3/ do we all really believe all parents out there are both responsible enough and capable of protecting our children from **** and other such content on the web?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, not read the full plan yet, but I really don't think its as bad as it's being made out to be.
Not sure which is worse, a government who could not care less what kids are exposed to, or one that maybe goes ott trying to do something about it.
1/ how does this differ from being premium member and giving not only your name, but address and credit card details to a register of sorts?
2/ other than removing the "democratic right" to free and sneaky ****, what difference does it really make?
3/ do we all really believe all parents out there are both responsible enough and capable of protecting our children from **** and other such content on the web?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, not read the full plan yet, but I really don't think its as bad as it's being made out to be.
Not sure which is worse, a government who could not care less what kids are exposed to, or one that maybe goes ott trying to do something about it.
20 December 2010, 09:08 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
But it won't stop at ****** though will it? Sure as eggs are eggs it'll get *extended* to include things that are *embarrassing* to the government or, as we've seen lately, things that are embarrassing to people with money (cf those 'superinjunctions' that celebs have taken out). As I said, thin end of the wedge!
Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.
Dave
20 December 2010, 09:13 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it won't stop at ****** though will it? Sure as eggs are eggs it'll get *extended* to include things that are *embarrassing* to the government or, as we've seen lately, things that are embarrassing to people with money (cf those 'superinjunctions' that celebs have taken out). As I said, thin end of the wedge!
Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.
Dave
Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.
Dave
20 December 2010, 09:54 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a read of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/120200...medium=twitter
There should be protection for 17 year olds as well apparently.
I don't understand why people think that the internet should be regulated or people protected from it. It is no different from telling children (young adults) not to take sweets from dirty old men, wander off into a car with someone or talk to strangers.
There should be protection for 17 year olds as well apparently.
I don't understand why people think that the internet should be regulated or people protected from it. It is no different from telling children (young adults) not to take sweets from dirty old men, wander off into a car with someone or talk to strangers.
20 December 2010, 10:03 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it won't stop at ****** though will it? Sure as eggs are eggs it'll get *extended* to include things that are *embarrassing* to the government or, as we've seen lately, things that are embarrassing to people with money (cf those 'superinjunctions' that celebs have taken out). As I said, thin end of the wedge!
Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.
Dave
Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.
Dave
20 December 2010, 10:14 AM
#30
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the Government have more important things to worry about, other than what folks are doing in their own homes 
Most parents are responsible about what their kids see, but hey, if they want to look they will find a way, no matter what anyone does or says. It's nature to be curious.
I am taking this with a pinch of salt. Nosey buggers
Most parents are responsible about what their kids see, but hey, if they want to look they will find a way, no matter what anyone does or says. It's nature to be curious.
I am taking this with a pinch of salt. Nosey buggers