According to the vested interests, parents are too weak minded to manage their childrens’ online activities without help from the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise, all-benevolent government.
Parents need much more help in protecting children from online porn, a review commissioned by the prime minister is to say.
The Bailey Review says parents should be able to buy computers, devices or internet services with adult content already blocked, rather than having to impose controls themselves.
The review, into the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, also calls for age-ratings on music videos.
Oh, for crying out loud! The do not need help protecting their children. Children are the responsibly of their parents, not the state and its agencies. Parents and no one else should be making decisions about site blocking. And, frankly, there are enough tools out there that are widely advertised such that there is no excuse for not knowing about them.
This isn’t about protecting children, they are merely the Trojan horse. This is about control and what better control than to have content blocked as a default rather than at the discretion of the computer owner, using software of his choosing and limits decided by the individual, based upon the needs of their children? Because, be sure, this is where this idea is heading – whether you have children or not, makes no difference. I’ve already seen it with my Orange contract.
“That’s why I am calling for a new approach where all customers have to make an active choice over whether they allow adult content or not. This is something internet service providers have told me is workable.”
Thus speaks Reg Bailey of the Mother’s Union who wrote the report. It already is workable and available and if parents want to, they can contact their ISP and have those controls put into place. It’s called “opt-in” and unlike “opt-out” is the ethical approach to such control. I presume these people can use tools such as a telephone, email or web forms to contact their ISP and make the necessary arrangements? Why should everyone else be forced to comply with the wishes of those too weak-minded to manage their children’s online activities?
And you can be certain that when those who decide that they don’t want content blocked, they will be looked upon as pervs, after all, why wouldn’t they want it blocked for the sake of the kiddies? And only a pervert will want it unblocked, surely? And it will be recorded somewhere on a database…
There is a solution, of course, buy a machine that comes with a fully functional copy of the operating system that you can reinstall using your own settings – while that option is still available.
Mr Bailey recommends music videos should carry age ratings and underage children should be banned from buying them.
Ah, yes, the nasty authoritarian mindset displayed for all to see. When faced with a problem, bring out the “it must be banned” argument. So tiresome, so predictable, so deeply, deeply nasty. Did I say that childrens’ purchases are a matter for their parents?
One final little gem from Rosemary Kempsell, the president of the pressure group responsible for this report:
“We cannot agree with the review that a purely consensual approach will be the most effective, and that further regulation or legislation would necessarily disempower parents,” she said.
Not too much cognitive dissonance there, then…
Problem is, there are an awful lot of deeply perverted (in an abusive way) people hiding behind morality. Always was, always will be.
All that’s really happened is that instead of it being religion-inspired as in the past, it is secular. Still the same intolerance of those who want the choice to be able to define and decide their own future though. Which is why privacy is impotant, so you don’t have to suffer other people’s bigotry.
l was a single parent that brought up 2 daughters. lt was my job to protect and care for them … nobody elses. The government and the self righteous busy bodies got nowhere near them. We talked and discussed everything during that time bringing them up. They had their own computers in their bedrooms and l never saw any reason to invade their privacy because we trusted each other and if there were any issues that cropped up … we talked about them. They wore what they wanted to wear and certainly not dictated to by me. The clothes they wore were what was in fashion at any particular time … as it always is. l did however teach them to ride motorbikes …oh horror! We had many parties at my house and all the kids were part and parcel of it. They learnt about life .. not government or such as mumsnet versions of life … but real life.
By the time they left home they were as ready for the real world as could be. lf you bring up children by the ideals and mantra of gov and others it’s a recipe for disaster for the children … once in the real world they are like sheep in a pack of wolves.
Yeah sure, protect the children … protect them from these idiots who think they know whats better for your kids than you!
So, Cameron, Mumsnet and the like … just F*** Off!
Let parents be parents and the let the rest of us get on with our lives.
A reprise of the idea that people should have to opt-in to “adult content” on the internet, its happened already with smart phones.
And if you opt in do you go on a watch list? Yes.
Will “adult content” include content that is politically “offensive”? Surely they will decide that young people must be protected from “hate content” such as criticising other cultures or questioning immigration.
Endgame is in sight.
I sense something more sinister to all this. I know the PTB would love to sensor the choice of sites which we watch,
can’t have the great unwashed turning into goverment hating subversives now can we? 👿
Couldn’t agree more – the state (see Digital Economy Bill) just wants to grab control of the web the same as everything else. Parents should be capable of controlling what their children see up to a certain age (say 11) and after that what are we really afraid of? – teenage boys pleasuring themselves presumably. Any adult male of sound mind will admit that there is next to nothing anyone can, or ever has done to successfully prevent this.
I am a BIG SHARK and i don’t eat the next generation. 👿
Still swimming and looking around! 😯
“This is about control and what better control than to have content blocked as a default rather than at the discretion of the computer owner, using software of his choosing and limits decided by the individual, based upon the needs of their children? Because, be sure, this is where this idea is heading – whether you have children or not, makes no difference. I’ve already seen it with my Orange contract.”
And with O2, which introduced ‘netnanny’ software that prevents me, an adult, from
I seem to have suffered from bloggus interruptus there! Let’s try again:
And with O2, which introduced ‘netnanny’ software that prevents me, an adult, from viewing ‘objectionable’ material unless I phone them to advise them that I am indeed an adult. A fact they know perfectly well. And when first imposed, their software blocked national newspapers!
And with Sky, who went from a ‘set your own parental controls’ model to ‘all our films other than U certificate ones require the PIN to be input to view’. And you can’t opt out.
That’s why there is an edit facility… 👿
The “Mother Union” are adeply unpleasant group of christians – even for christians.
My mother was on the local PCC when I was small, and point-blank refused to go anywhere near them, and old-fashioned small-c-conservative that she was, her language about the MU would have done a Marxist proud!
It would appear that they have not changed.
That last quote from Rosemary Kempsell.
Utterly chilling.