Yes, they are.
The NSPCC said parents’ voices were not being heard.
So, what part of “the move is not widely supported” do these nasty interfering, authoritarian mountebanks not grasp? In what way is 35% a majority of parents? The majority clearly do not want the government to impose a filter on web access – and quite right, too. There was a public consultation and the public said “no”. The NSPCC can now disappear up its own orifices. Time that the NSPCC and other such evil third sector parasites were starved of funds, frankly.
Oh dear.
The bansturbators are so disappointed.
They’ll have to try something else now. If crying “It’s for the childreeeeen!” doesn’t work very well any more, can we expect “Save the fluffy kittens”?
Why can’t they just accept that “No” is a valid answer to their perpetual demands for bans?
This story has been an interesting one as it’s a good illustration of how a relatively small group of very noisy people who take Government money can almost get laws onto statute despite having little genuine demonstrable support from the actual people they purport to represent.
Thank God that on this occasion the people have responded to the consultation and the Government have acted on the results. If only the same attitude was taken to things like the smoking initiatives, capital punishment, EU membership and road tolling
XX we have to base policy on what’s been received not what we want.” XX
Huh? Thats a new one on me…
Since when have they ever let THAT stop them?
Election in the offing?
Children should be seen and not heard.
I wis told.
And preferably then only before going to bed. The rest of the time, they should be in the nursery with Nanny until they reach young adulthood, when they become civilised human beings. 😈
” ,,, it’s a good illustration of how a relatively small group of very noisy people who take Government money can almost get laws onto statute despite having little genuine demonstrable support …”
Anyone remember the “Lord’s Day OBservance society, or the RC church?
This is exactly how they did & still do behave.
Religion gets a free pass that no-one else does.
The NSPCC & others are just using this well-tried tactic.
It’s still shite, though.
The NSPCC are absolute scum. No organisation has done more, in my opinion, to demonise men and, like any good socialist organisation, undermine the family and traditional community. I expect compliant media outlets to be pushing the idea that every rapist, murderer and child abuser reported upon in the next couple of years to be ‘addicted to internet porn.’ If they can’t do it for the cheeeldren they will undoubtedly move on to the psycho crouching behind the bins as you walk home alone late at night…
Well thanks to Call Me Dave (the Lady might not have been for turning, but he twirls like a ballerina) they are now being heard:
“After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.”
And the details of just how this is to be accomplished? Does it mean a question on application? Just your own children, or do you have to say if you regularly have children visiting?
The Bansturbator-in-Chief worries not…
XX web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.XX
Ans…how do they know that a house has wee bastards living there?
Or is “registration” a finikity little part of the plan that they forgot to mention?