Did he fail miserably because it was banned and Labour introduced the R18 rating allowing it for the first time. Because I think you'll find that's how it went.
R18 was introduced in the 80s but it was the courts that overturned the ban on explicit depictions of legal sexual activity. Straw tried to keep the old restrictions.
Cameron's porn filter "controlled by Huawei", BBC claims
The web porn filter that David Cameron wants to make mandatory is controlled by Chinese mobile company Huawei, the BBC claims. In the past, Huawei has had questions raised over its links with the Chinese government.
Huawei has denied the claim, saying it doesn't "run" TalkTalk's Homesafe, but that the system is "supported by Huawei". And the company has always denied claims that it has close ties to the Chinese government. I've contacted Huawei for comment, and will update this story if I hear back.
According to the BBC, UK-based Huawei employees can decide which sites Homesafe blocks. Huawei helped build the infrastructure for Homesafe, which has been in use since 2011.
So the great firewall of china will soon be extended to the UK.
Well you can't ethically do experiments where you expose children to pornography because if you end up proving it is harmful you get sued by the children you experimented on or prosecuted for harming children. So all the evidence is merely going to be correlation between certain behaviours and attitudes. Any assumption of causation based on correlation is going to be unprovable.
That old chestnut. While it would be grossly unethical to actually experiment on children, psychologists are very skilled at quantifying the influence of subtle factors such as nature vs nurture in IQ studies. There are whole countries where porn is legal and there must be thousands of adults who were exposed to porn as children. It would not be particularly difficult to construct a retrospective lateral study of adults asking about their childhood experiences.
The more one thinks about it, the worse this authoritarian stomp is.
But how can you possibly object?? :eek: :eek:
It's to keep the kiddies safe and to stop the "corrosion of childhood".
Seems to me that if anything is "corroding childhood" then it's the constant bombardment of materialism and brand messages that kids are subjected to these days, in which the pursuit & worship of money and "celebrity" and unattainable body images seem to be everything. Yet Dave's moral crusade seems strangely unconcerned about all this and he completely fails to address it.
Hows this for corroding childhood. How about telling kids that any degree that doesn't put them on a par with workhouse kids in China or kids studying for 20 hours a day in singapore studying maths, being useless? Or telling kids that we only want doctors or scientists who make Cameron and his mates money? Screw what you want to do in life, its all about the dosh and "competeing on the global stage".
Thats my opinion of childhood being corroded. Not having a peak at some tits wiggling when you're 13.
By the way, is it just me that is sick to the back teeth of politicians and campaigners trotting out the line "we need these measures because the internet is still so unknown and uncharted and so new to us"...ERRR mate, I, and millions of others around the world know the internet like the back of our hands. Dont lump millions upon millions of computer geeks and wider, with you old, conservative, ignorant, scaremongers.
The covers of Lads mags have come under fire from the Co-op.
Claiming that pictures of scantily clad woman on the covers are "overtly sexual" and harmful to children they've given publishers until September 9 to put the mags in modesty bags – or they will pull the offending titles from their shelves altogether.
If the momentum continues like this I'm half expecting to see women being told to wear burqas on the beach from sometime around August bank holiday - for the sake of the children naturally.
The covers of Lads mags have come under fire from the Co-op.
Claiming that pictures of scantily clad woman on the covers are "overtly sexual" and harmful to children they've given publishers until September 9 to put the mags in modesty bags – or they will pull the offending titles from their shelves altogether.
What next? Tractor Monthly and Bus Spotters Gazette told to cover up because they're considered too esoteric, minority interests and not mainstream enough for the public..?
The covers of Lads mags have come under fire from the Co-op.
Claiming that pictures of scantily clad woman on the covers are "overtly sexual" and harmful to children they've given publishers until September 9 to put the mags in modesty bags – or they will pull the offending titles from their shelves altogether.
If the momentum continues like this I'm half expecting to see women being told to wear burqas on the beach from sometime around August bank holiday - for the sake of the children naturally.
:rolleyes:
this is all part of the femonazi agenda
"think of the children"
my questions is what about Mens health etc?
that has "scantily clad" men on it "objectifying" men
with "unattainable" body images
same old PC bollox the minority ruling the majority
50% of the population (eg men) dont care
most women dont care
so a very vocal minority do so the squeaky hinge gets the oil
but my biggest issue is
IT WONT WORK
its just more Govt control
Ill make a bet with you theyll implement this
and a similar case to Hazell etc will come up and then
it will be found he will have access to kidde porn etc
So Talk Talk are held up as a demonstration of how this might be run. Taking an easy route there filter provider might be adopted by the rest of the ISPs and coincidentaly that filter provider has links to the government.
What next? Tractor Monthly and Bus Spotters Gazette told to cover up because they're considered too esoteric, minority interests and not mainstream enough for the public..?
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the next lot of control freaks jumping on the bandwagon are the more loony elements of the "animal rights" movement, complaining that hunting, shooting & fishing mags are "offensive" and/or "shocking" and/or "glorify blood sports for impressionable children" or some such nonsense.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the next lot of control freaks jumping on the bandwagon are the more loony elements of the "animal rights" movement, complaining that hunting, shooting & fishing mags are "offensive" and/or "shocking" and/or "glorify blood sports for impressionable children" or some such nonsense.
Remember - you read it here first!!
While we are at it can we remove cooking magazines from the shelves. They promote meat eating and often have pictures of cooked dead animal on the cover. Disgusting.
that has "scantily clad" men on it "objectifying" men
with "unattainable" body images
same old PC bollox the minority ruling the majority
Yes, same old lame excuses, same old nonsense, same old pandering to tiny (but extremely vocal) pressure groups who somehow are allowed to get away with punching way above their weight.
and a similar case to Hazell etc will come up and then
it will be found he will have access to kidde porn etc
will they remove the controls?? nope
1) The measures will be completely ineffective in every way (because as you correctly point out, correlation isn't causation in any case). Law-abiding citizens will be forced to "opt in" and be monitored by Nanny State, yet there will still be sex offending (as there was way before the Internet came along). Hence ...
2) A few years down the line, they'll look at the crime figures, decide that these "measures" have made not a blind bit of difference, and so ....
3) A government minister or the PM himself will announce on the Andrew Marr show (or similar) that "the measures in place at the moment are ineffective, so clearly much more needs to be done to clamp down on harmful material on the Internet and protect the vulnerable in our society". It'll be the perfect excuse they need to introduce the next raft of measures, which will be much more draconian.
Once again, You can pretty much write the script already.
While we are at it can we remove cooking magazines from the shelves. They promote meat eating and often have pictures of cooked dead animal on the cover. Disgusting.
That's true.
But it's not just about meat is it?
The sight of a large cream cake or ice cream sundae on the cover might "encourage unhealthy eathing" among "vulnerable and impressionable children" as well.
I think that cookery and food mags ought to be put in plain wrappers and carry a health warning. And while we're at it, maybe we should consider blocking Internet cookery sites as well. Just to be on the safe side .
They're going on about lad's mags in the news now, some groups are calling for them to be withdrawn from shops, the Coop has promised to cover them up.
They're going on about lad's mags in the news now, some groups are calling for them to be withdrawn from shops, the Coop has promised to cover them up.
I read that the coop were the ones insisting they be covered up or else they'll pull them from their shelves.
Comments
R18 was introduced in the 80s but it was the courts that overturned the ban on explicit depictions of legal sexual activity. Straw tried to keep the old restrictions.
So the great firewall of china will soon be extended to the UK.
Labour agree with these plans as far as I've seen.
The more one thinks about it, the worse this authoritarian stomp is.
That old chestnut. While it would be grossly unethical to actually experiment on children, psychologists are very skilled at quantifying the influence of subtle factors such as nature vs nurture in IQ studies. There are whole countries where porn is legal and there must be thousands of adults who were exposed to porn as children. It would not be particularly difficult to construct a retrospective lateral study of adults asking about their childhood experiences.
But how can you possibly object?? :eek: :eek:
It's to keep the kiddies safe and to stop the "corrosion of childhood".
Seems to me that if anything is "corroding childhood" then it's the constant bombardment of materialism and brand messages that kids are subjected to these days, in which the pursuit & worship of money and "celebrity" and unattainable body images seem to be everything. Yet Dave's moral crusade seems strangely unconcerned about all this and he completely fails to address it.
Hows this for corroding childhood. How about telling kids that any degree that doesn't put them on a par with workhouse kids in China or kids studying for 20 hours a day in singapore studying maths, being useless? Or telling kids that we only want doctors or scientists who make Cameron and his mates money? Screw what you want to do in life, its all about the dosh and "competeing on the global stage".
Thats my opinion of childhood being corroded. Not having a peak at some tits wiggling when you're 13.
By the way, is it just me that is sick to the back teeth of politicians and campaigners trotting out the line "we need these measures because the internet is still so unknown and uncharted and so new to us"...ERRR mate, I, and millions of others around the world know the internet like the back of our hands. Dont lump millions upon millions of computer geeks and wider, with you old, conservative, ignorant, scaremongers.
Claiming that pictures of scantily clad woman on the covers are "overtly sexual" and harmful to children they've given publishers until September 9 to put the mags in modesty bags – or they will pull the offending titles from their shelves altogether.
If the momentum continues like this I'm half expecting to see women being told to wear burqas on the beach from sometime around August bank holiday - for the sake of the children naturally.
:rolleyes:
this is all part of the femonazi agenda
"think of the children"
my questions is what about Mens health etc?
that has "scantily clad" men on it "objectifying" men
with "unattainable" body images
same old PC bollox the minority ruling the majority
50% of the population (eg men) dont care
most women dont care
so a very vocal minority do so the squeaky hinge gets the oil
but my biggest issue is
IT WONT WORK
its just more Govt control
Ill make a bet with you theyll implement this
and a similar case to Hazell etc will come up and then
it will be found he will have access to kidde porn etc
will they remove the controls?? nope
correlation is NOT causation
So Talk Talk are held up as a demonstration of how this might be run. Taking an easy route there filter provider might be adopted by the rest of the ISPs and coincidentaly that filter provider has links to the government.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the next lot of control freaks jumping on the bandwagon are the more loony elements of the "animal rights" movement, complaining that hunting, shooting & fishing mags are "offensive" and/or "shocking" and/or "glorify blood sports for impressionable children" or some such nonsense.
Remember - you read it here first!!
Yes, same old lame excuses, same old nonsense, same old pandering to tiny (but extremely vocal) pressure groups who somehow are allowed to get away with punching way above their weight.
Quite true.
Of course it won't work ... and (call me an old cynic
1) The measures will be completely ineffective in every way (because as you correctly point out, correlation isn't causation in any case). Law-abiding citizens will be forced to "opt in" and be monitored by Nanny State, yet there will still be sex offending (as there was way before the Internet came along). Hence ...
2) A few years down the line, they'll look at the crime figures, decide that these "measures" have made not a blind bit of difference, and so ....
3) A government minister or the PM himself will announce on the Andrew Marr show (or similar) that "the measures in place at the moment are ineffective, so clearly much more needs to be done to clamp down on harmful material on the Internet and protect the vulnerable in our society". It'll be the perfect excuse they need to introduce the next raft of measures, which will be much more draconian.
Once again, You can pretty much write the script already.
That's true.
But it's not just about meat is it?
The sight of a large cream cake or ice cream sundae on the cover might "encourage unhealthy eathing" among "vulnerable and impressionable children" as well.
I think that cookery and food mags ought to be put in plain wrappers and carry a health warning. And while we're at it, maybe we should consider blocking Internet cookery sites as well. Just to be on the safe side
Actually the bodies in men's health are usually attainable as long as you follow a decent fitness regieme
Are they going to ban mixed schools? I'm sure no sexual experimentation happens between their pupils.
And experimentation doesn't happen at single sex schools?
Aye. I went to a same sex school and it was a non-stop sausage fest :eek:
Unless it's been completely replaced, the Great Firewall of China was a Cisco project, not Huawei.
What TalkTalk is going isn't necessarily representative of what all ISPs will do if this plan goes ahead.
I read that the coop were the ones insisting they be covered up or else they'll pull them from their shelves.