• Ahoy there! Why not join the UK’s largest cruising forum? The Cruise.co.uk forum is the perfect place to meet and interact with likeminded cruisers to have invaluable conversations. Whether you're a veteran cruiser or looking to set sail on the sea for the first time, everyone is welcome on our forum to participate in the hottest conversations in the cruising world. So, what are you waiting for? Join the forum today by clicking here to register!

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nannie State

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Sorry, I'm a bit late entering the debate. Is this just a simple case of introducing filters so that porn is blocked on all our computers unless we choose to remove the filter? If so, then what's the problem if it spares some young eyes from stuff they shouldn't see?

    It seems the main objection is that people fear they will be vilified if they unblock these sites or that they're having their human rights infringed.

    I don't watch the stuff so I'm not even sure if there's 'legal' porn as well as 'illegal' porn. If someone removes the filter then they have done nothing wrong but it may help identify those who are viewing anything illegal which is surely a good thing.

    Like any other activity, determined people will find a way around any obstacles put in their way but this is no reason to stop trying to put this stuff out of the reach of children.

    Nothing suits us all but sometimes we have to put up with things for the good of the whole of society.

    As a light-hearted aside.......

    I remember when I used to spend far too long on this forum. Mrs BB would say, ''Are you on that cruise site again?''.

    ''No'', I would reply, ''I'm on one of those dodgy adult sites''.

    ''LIAR!''..............''You're on that blinkin' cruise site, aren't you?''.

    Bob

    Comment


      Interesting that nobody's yet made the point about porn desensitizing its users, even to the point of seeing the "players" as objects lacking feelings. For me, this is the link between porn and abuse; once normal boundaries start breaking down, it can quickly descend into abuse - and worse

      Yes, I agree that this filtering won't be easy and can be got around if someone's determined. I also agree that Cameron - like most politicians - is really most concerned about a good headline, but that surely doesn't mean we shouldn't try??

      Cheers,
      Lynn

      Comment


        Originally posted by Mrs M View Post
        No, he didn't say that at all.

        Duncan, don't read that which isn't there. He said sick people who feed their fantasies. He didn't say all men are sick who watch porn and as for the report in the Telegraph, [2009, can't you find a more up to date paper?] interesting, but hardly a huge piece of research skimming the article.

        I'm sure most men have watched porn at some point in their lives, but there is a vast difference in 'have watched' and 'watch on a regular basis'.
        Thanks Mrs M
        Like a lot of men I have watched porn and found it far removed from reality and tends to be someone demeaning another withth no affection at all.
        Years ago we did not have this problem as the internet did not exist nor did the phones we have today.
        As a teenager no adult would ever show adult pictures to a minor unlike today?
        Technology has overtaken the laws and rules we have had in place and reseting the rules will not be easy .
        Duncans pathetic justification and interptitation of what the reality of today world is like beggars believe, From personal experience the porn sites do corrupt young minds , I worked with some of them and theirs is a odd veiw of relationships to say the least....Taffy
        ​Taffy

        Comment


          Originally posted by Taffy, Wales View Post
          Thanks Mrs M
          Like a lot of men I have watched porn and found it far removed from reality and tends to be someone demeaning another withth no affection at all.
          Years ago we did not have this problem as the internet did not exist nor did the phones we have today.
          As a teenager no adult would ever show adult pictures to a minor unlike today?
          Technology has overtaken the laws and rules we have had in place and reseting the rules will not be easy .
          Duncans pathetic justification and interptitation of what the reality of today world is like beggars believe, From personal experience the porn sites do corrupt young minds , I worked with some of them and theirs is a odd veiw of relationships to say the least....Taffy
          I'm keen to understand what exactly about my justification and interpretation you find pathetic, and take issue with?

          Maybe I'm wrong, but there may be some disagreement over what is considered corrupt. I don't believe that casual sex outwith a relationship is necessarily a bad thing as long as it's safe and consensual. This may be a modern approach to sex but should not assumed to be wrong. Most will agree that sex is better with a loving partner, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable without those elements.

          I'm interested to know in what way you consider the minds of those you worked with to be corrupt? Perhaps there's something more than I'm assuming above (in which case I will happily stand corrected), but there is a trend for liberal views of sex and sexuality to be automatically deemed 'wrong'.
          Duncan S

          See my blog!

          Comment


            Originally posted by bobbybuoy, peterborough View Post
            Sorry, I'm a bit late entering the debate. Is this just a simple case of introducing filters so that porn is blocked on all our computers unless we choose to remove the filter? If so, then what's the problem if it spares some young eyes from stuff they shouldn't see?

            It seems the main objection is that people fear they will be vilified if they unblock these sites or that they're having their human rights infringed.

            I don't watch the stuff so I'm not even sure if there's 'legal' porn as well as 'illegal' porn. If someone removes the filter then they have done nothing wrong but it may help identify those who are viewing anything illegal which is surely a good thing.
            I think you've almost answered your own question in part with If someone removes the filter then they have done nothing wrong but it may help identify those who are viewing anything illegal which is surely a good thing. Is it? Automatically those who wish to watch pornography, or even those who might remove the block on principle without watching porn, could find themselves at a heightened level of suspicion for no real reason at all. However serious you were being with this comment, there will be others who are serious and someone's decision to enjoy adult entertainment should be private.

            This is especially true when you consider that those watching illegal content like child abuse are already using underground methods that wont be affected by these proposals because the content they want is already blocked, so they have no need to remove the restrictions.

            Originally posted by bobbybuoy, peterborough View Post
            As a light-hearted aside.......

            I remember when I used to spend far too long on this forum. Mrs BB would say, ''Are you on that cruise site again?''.

            ''No'', I would reply, ''I'm on one of those dodgy adult sites''.

            ''LIAR!''..............''You're on that blinkin' cruise site, aren't you?''.

            Bob
            It's nice to inject some humour into the thread!
            Last edited by dst87, Falkirk; 23rd July 2013, 03:17 PM.
            Duncan S

            See my blog!

            Comment


              As I see it there are concerns about children gaining access to porn, however I thought that the debate was about people accessing and watching child abuse. Now! you experts can tell me "is it possible to gain access to child abuse/pornography via a search engine?" or do the sickos that watch such stuff connect up directly from one computer to another. If it is the latter then once again a government is taking the wrong path, but, something needs to be done to catch the perpetrators of such acts of cruelty and the full weight of the law brought to bear.

              Comment


                Duncan, you are projecting that you are very knowledgeable in understanding the subject area and feel very strongly against the proposals and that it's not about child abuse.
                Well I beg to differ, although I am no expert on the subject. You do make certain concerning assumptions I feel. You assume that all pornography is made by consenting adults; is the assumption made because the people appear to be enjoying themselves? You ask where is the abuse of females, so you are assuming the women are willing participants. I can assure you that is not always the case for either males or females. Another assumption is that watching pornography is not harmful to anyone, is this an assumption that because it has no adverse effect on you, it cannot have an adverse affect on anyone? Can you not consider the possibility, there is a minority of people for whom watching pornography could be a contributing factor towards committing a sexual offence later and against a child? If you can consider that as a possibility then isn't the proposal extremely worthwhile, for a little inconvenience to have to opt in?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Val, Wolverhampton View Post
                  Duncan, you are projecting that you are very knowledgeable in understanding the subject area and feel very strongly against the proposals and that it's not about child abuse.
                  Well I beg to differ, although I am no expert on the subject. You do make certain concerning assumptions I feel. You assume that all pornography is made by consenting adults; is the assumption made because the people appear to be enjoying themselves? You ask where is the abuse of females, so you are assuming the women are willing participants. I can assure you that is not always the case for either males or females. Another assumption is that watching pornography is not harmful to anyone, is this an assumption that because it has no adverse effect on you, it cannot have an adverse affect on anyone? Can you not consider the possibility, there is a minority of people for whom watching pornography could be a contributing factor towards committing a sexual offence later and against a child? If you can consider that as a possibility then isn't the proposal extremely worthwhile, for a little inconvenience to have to opt in?
                  Hi Val,

                  I maintain that this isn't about child abuse because the filters to block this material are already in place. The issue of consent is very real in the adult entertainment space and there are definitely instances of pornography that feature unwilling participants in what could (quite rightly) be deemed rape. This sort of material tends to be fairly difficult to access already because it isn't on mainstream porn sites (the vast majority of people don't want to see this sort of material). It is an issue though, and work needs to continue just as work to stop cases of abused children needs to continue. As more and more people need to take the underground route to pornography, I'm worried that the underground markets for pornography will get bigger and nobody will know about it!

                  The mainstream porn sites (even those not based in the US) tend to abide by US Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act allowing them to put a message (A USC Section 2257 Compliance Notice) on the site detailing the place where records and evidence about age and consent etc are kept. This allows officials to identify sites whose models were over 18 at the time of filming and who consented to taking part in the production. This also allows consumers to be informed about the legality of the porn they're watching. Of course anyone could add this message on, but it all goes towards helping prevent abuse as they run the risk of being checked.

                  I can accept that it's possible that for a minority of adults the influence of pornography could cause behavioural issues in the future, but I think it's fairly unlikely and would apply to an insignificant proportion of people. However there are plenty of things that you could apply the same logic to - violence in films and video games to name just one.

                  I don't believe that it's significant, but ultimately people need to be responsible for their own actions. The law is very clear on rape, assault, murder etc. People don't commit these crimes because they've seen porn or plays Call of Duty, but because they're predisposed to that sort of behaviour. People that cannot abide by the law should be dealt with within the constraints of the legal system of the country to which they belong if they cannot abide by the rules.

                  As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

                  Finally, I know that on the face of it, the inconvenience is insignificant. It's not the inconvenience that I'm worried about. I'm worried about:

                  (1) Being on a list of people who want to receive pornography which, if leaked or lost, could be used against me. As I said before, I can see the Daily Mail headlines now about 'perverted politicians and celebrities'!

                  (2) The very real likelihood that the filters will block essential teenage resources on sexual health, contraception, and LGBT issues. Other groups have expressed concerns that resources for women concerned about breast cancer could be blocked "Depending on how the filters are set up".

                  (3) The precedent that it sets for censorship in the UK. What's next? Blocking blogs that discuss more extreme political views? Blocking Facebook, Twitter and other social media the next time there are large riots? These can all be justified, in the first instance, as being for our own good and protecting children on the streets and so on. Does that mean the government should have the power to remove, at their whim, any content that they can justify? I know that's not what the current proposals are saying, but the more complacent we become about censorship the more we'll lose.

                  All concern me, but the last point terrifies me.
                  Last edited by dst87, Falkirk; 23rd July 2013, 04:54 PM.
                  Duncan S

                  See my blog!

                  Comment


                    Hi Duncan
                    The part quotes i used yesterday was a tounge in cheek,though serious comment on Cameron and the difficulty he will have putting this in practice.
                    It was in the Guardian G2 by Tom Meltzer.

                    Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense | Tom Meltzer | Comment is free | The Guardian

                    I am more angry that this promise will come to nothing,,just another cynical headline grabber.
                    In trouble over Lynton Crosby?...Lets attack porn,and child abuse,the public will love that.
                    They just cant help themselves telling lies.
                    This particular promise was made 18 months ago

                    But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.

                    He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."

                    Btw,,,,Jim Gamble was the ex head of CEOPC who resigned because the government cut its budget,,and status, by merging it into i think,the National Crime Unit.
                    Not much concern by government there.

                    At the time he was head of CEOPC,it gave 50,000 names of suspected paedophiles to the NCU,they prosecuted 192....Disgracefull!!.

                    One thing i will agree with you on is,this is not about child abuse/porn,there are already strong laws to combat that.
                    Cameron has purposely stoked it up as that, to frighten people.


                    JC
                    C P Scott,,,,,"Comment is Free,,but Facts are Sacred"
                    "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by jc, liverpool View Post
                      Hi Duncan
                      The part quotes i used yesterday was a tounge in cheek,though serious comment on Cameron and the difficulty he will have putting this in practice.
                      It was in the Guardian G2 by Tom Meltzer.

                      Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense | Tom Meltzer | Comment is free | The Guardian

                      I am more angry that this promise will come to nothing,,just another cynical headline grabber.
                      In trouble over Lynton Crosby?...Lets attack porn,and child abuse,the public will love that.
                      They just cant help themselves telling lies.
                      This particular promise was made 18 months ago

                      But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.

                      He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."

                      Btw,,,,Jim Gamble was the ex head of CEOPC who resigned because the government cut its budget,,and status, by merging it into i think,the National Crime Unit.
                      Not much concern by government there.

                      At the time he was head of CEOPC,it gave 50,000 names of suspected paedophiles to the NCU,they prosecuted 192....Disgracefull!!.

                      One thing i will agree with you on is,this is not about child abuse/porn,there are already strong laws to combat that.
                      Cameron has purposely stoked it up as that, to frighten people.


                      JC
                      Hi JC

                      Well it's obviously not working because according to this report in the Guardian in May this year, by the children's commissioner for England, it found that a significant number of children still have access to sexually explicit images.

                      The report also demands we protect children from internet pornography.
                      The Report finds evidence of a high correlation between exposure to violent and sadistic images and behaviour.

                      Also if it was working why are the two main children's charities Action For Children and The NSPCC, who have to deal with child abuse and vulnerable children on a daily basis, both welcoming these proposals. Even the CEOP welcomes the proposals, including the merging of the unit with the Natinal Crime Unit, the cooperation of the two units working together, benefitting each.

                      Yes I will also be angry if it comes to nothing, but I think it has now gone to far for him to back out now.

                      Protect children from internet pornography, report demands | Education | The Guardian
                      Last edited by Delboy, Essex; 23rd July 2013, 07:01 PM.
                      Delboy


                      Photo Albums

                      https://www.flickriver.com/photos/delboyalbums/sets/

                      or

                      https://www.flickr.com/photos/delboyalbums/albums

                      Comment


                        Hello everyone,
                        Came into this debate today, which is unusual for me because I like contentious subjects. No one as far as I can see has mentioned morality. If something is allowed once, you are then on a slippery slope. For instance all day drinking rather than sensible drinking. There are many you can dredge up, that's just an example. The ten commandments are a good bit of censorship as is under age drinking, reducing sentences which in my day would have meant the birch, jail or hanging. I read one tome from Duncan and it was an excellent commentary worthy of a QC. illustrating how clever disposition of words can reduce the seriousness of a crime, so diverting the jury, but that does not alter the seriousness of the crime. I have in my life seen pornography and any heteresexual man is fully aware of it, but my sexual experience developed with my wife, as I am sure that is the situation with the many co-respondents here. I found some titillating at first but moved on as I realised they over egged the pudding. Same as the war games, having been a soldier, I have no doubts about the results of battle. My grandson would talk about so many kills gained without any conception of the brutality. It all gives an acceptance and conditions people to that brutality. Thus so it is with pornography, believe me Duncan, there are no winners.
                        So is curtailment the answer? Yes, it is a start, but without follow up punishment it will be a no no. The Catholic Church is attempting to brush under the carpet its unsavoury history in child abuse, likewise some institutions and pillars of society. I believe the police, the judiciary can and have been persuaded to close their eyes in many cases. Read John Grishams "Right to Kill" for a discussion on cover up.
                        So what is my point? The morality of the care for children is paramount as is the care of older victims from pernicious perpetrators and their prosecution should follow. I think this will eventually happen, but it has to start somewhere and without publicity it will die.
                        Ta ra,
                        Alan

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by jc, liverpool View Post
                          Hi Duncan
                          The part quotes i used yesterday was a tounge in cheek,though serious comment on Cameron and the difficulty he will have putting this in practice.
                          It was in the Guardian G2 by Tom Meltzer.

                          Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense | Tom Meltzer | Comment is free | The Guardian

                          I am more angry that this promise will come to nothing,,just another cynical headline grabber.
                          In trouble over Lynton Crosby?...Lets attack porn,and child abuse,the public will love that.
                          They just cant help themselves telling lies.
                          This particular promise was made 18 months ago

                          But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.

                          He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."

                          Btw,,,,Jim Gamble was the ex head of CEOPC who resigned because the government cut its budget,,and status, by merging it into i think,the National Crime Unit.
                          Not much concern by government there.

                          At the time he was head of CEOPC,it gave 50,000 names of suspected paedophiles to the NCU,they prosecuted 192....Disgracefull!!.

                          One thing i will agree with you on is,this is not about child abuse/porn,there are already strong laws to combat that.
                          Cameron has purposely stoked it up as that, to frighten people.


                          JC
                          Well JC.,
                          I see you are back on song, the conservatives are bogey men, regardless of the subject, bang on with socialist clap trap. I know the political world is not perfect, but you certainly can take the biscuit.
                          I am pleased for you incidentally, maintain your health la.
                          Ta ra,
                          |Alan

                          Comment


                            Hi Duncan, I think I will drop out of the debate as your mind is firmly made up it seems. I have to say though that your "fairly unlikely" and an "insignificant amount" comments only serve to minimise the research that people have spent many years underertaking in an attempt to understand criminal behaviours and prevent abuse. I wasn't applying logic to the debate, I was trying to tell you how it is.

                            Peace!

                            Val

                            Comment


                              April Jones and Tia Sharpe.....RIP

                              Comment


                              We use cookies to give you the
                              best experience possible.


                              By continuing to use our website you
                              agree to our cookie policy

                              Working...
                              X