What's everyones opinion on this ( )? Personally I have a few of issues with it. 1) My internet is provided by work (as I work from home) so I guess I'm going to have to invest in my own connection. 2) What constitutes "Depicting Rape?". You could argue that bondage and other BDSM content depicts as it can appear forced. 3) "New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops". Does this affectively ban all hardcore content, including video's uploaded here? All seems very draconian to me.
This will probably go down the same route as 'minimum pricing for alcohol' and all the other 'bright ideas' Cameron seems to wake up with every morning
how are they going to define a page as porn? rely on the content settings in the header tag which is usually one of the following general mature restricted 14 years safe for kids so will nothing not labelled as safe for kids be blocked? its going to be a cluster fuck as usual and we'll probably all end up with a fucking bill for it
You will not smoke in your own car/house/smoking room/garden You will not access porn sites on the internet What are they considering controlling next .... How much should the government be actually entitled to restrict, there are no children in my home, why shouldn't I be able to access pornography providing that pornography does not break UK laws, ie it is not porn, child porn, animal sex etc, snuff movies etc. Why if it is so wrong to have porn on my pc is it ok for Virgin Media and Sky to sell me access to pornography on my TV ? You could make pornsites ask for proof of age before letting you view them, but that would do no good, if a parent gains access a child using their pc could gain access too, besides the porn that is illegal is there through sites who don't care about laws and are already breaking the laws by having their indecent images online in the first place. IS THIS A PORNSITE it contains thousands of images of naked people, people having sex, people using sex toys, cumshots, open pussy shots, group sex and more. There are webcams openly showing people having sex or just naked. Will this site be no more if the new regulations come into force, this and all the other swingers sites. What about facebook and twitter that have prostitutes advertising their services online, surely there is more chance of children accessing those profiles than there is of them going on pornsites accidently. Here is one twitter profile (contact details removed for obvious reasons) The profile contains explicit pictures and links to a personal website with more explicit pictures, videos and rates. 100% Independent british escort and web-cam girl Also Dont For Get To Check Out My Own Web-Site @ xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Netgear and OpenDNS already do something that is pretty effective. You can set your own filtering system on your netgear router using OpenDNS that actually marks what website is rated as what. The adult users can access unrestricted content by just entering a password when they connect to the internet. Adults don't give children passwords, hey presto, all devices using that router will have filtering on it. This gives the power in the hands to the adults. However, you will need some sort of technical knowledge to set it up properly. This will be the main stumbling block for Cameron. Not everybody is technical enough to ask for an adult block to be lifted and would just think the internet is broken. The second main stumbling point will be how will the ISPs prevent it? The same how they prevented the pirate bay? That worked for a whole 5 minutes... There are many other DNS servers out there that you're freely able to use. Unless Cameron is wanting to physically restrict the internet like they do in certain countries, I can't possibly seeing this even working for a month.
Quote by GnV This will probably go down the same route as 'minimum pricing for alcohol' and all the other 'bright ideas' Cameron seems to wake up with every morning
:thumbup: Will the new regulations be entirely on responsible adults putting the block on their computers? It will? Well that's it then, the kids will still get on line porn in a heck of a lot of houses as a lot of parents simply cannot be bothered, or simply do not care.
Quote by starlightcouple This will probably go down the same route as 'minimum pricing for alcohol' and all the other 'bright ideas' Cameron seems to wake up with every morning
:thumbup: Will the new regulations be entirely on responsible adults putting the block on their computers? It will? Well that's it then, the kids will still get on line porn in a heck of a lot of houses as a lot of parents simply cannot be bothered, or simply do not care. But seriously, folks. According to the BBC News this morning, all new internet connections will automatically have the filter and the parents or whoever have to opt out of the block. All current internet providers will contact their customers and ask them if they want to opt-out. The idea is that you have to physically ask for access to "adult" sites rather than ask for them to be restricted.
I don't see why I should have to opt out, I don't have children in my household (unless you count the parrot, who is only 12), children do not visit my home, why should I have to change my online habits to protect other people's children? It was bad enough when I rang 3 to get the adult block taken off my phone, the phone they had provided me on contract, because I was over 18. Yet I still had to request to watch porn and visit gambling sites. I have no qualms about asking my ISP to enable me to watch porn, I just think it should be parents that opt in, not the rest of the country that has to choose to opt out.
Quote by Redangel2013 I don't see why I should have to opt out, I don't have children in my household (unless you count the parrot, who is only 12), children do not visit my home, why should I have to change my online habits to protect other people's children? It was bad enough when I rang 3 to get the adult block taken off my phone, the phone they had provided me on contract, because I was over 18. Yet I still had to request to watch porn and visit gambling sites. I have no qualms about asking my ISP to enable me to watch porn, I just think it should be parents that opt in, not the rest of the country that has to choose to opt out.
Is your mobile phone blocked from accessing adult sites (presuming that unlike mine you have internet access on your phone) as far as I am aware, (but as I say my phone won't send or receive pics, it won't access the internet it won't record movies or take pics) but yes to get back to it, as far as I am aware all phones are blocked when you buy them and you have to unblock them to access or even receive texts from adult sites. Nobody seems to be making a fuss about having to opt out of doing that. When virgin installed my phone I had to ring them to remove the block from dialling premium numbers which include some swingers sites where you can use your phone to pay for membership
The default position of all adult and or censored sites being blocked should be the norm. If you require access then phone up to get it released. I don't see what the hardship is. If the knee jerk reaction is to scream nanny state / fascists /police controlling well unfortunately we have some c***s in our society who dont care what their children are exposed to so for the good of us alllets put it in place. It will probably mean I can not access here or many other places |I visit when away from home, but its a small price to pay in my liberties for the good of the country as a whole.
Quote by Rogue_Trader The default position of all adult and or censored sites being blocked should be the norm. If you require access then phone up to get it released. I don't see what the hardship is. If the knee jerk reaction is to scream nanny state / fascists /police controlling well unfortunately we have some c***s in our society who dont care what their children are exposed to so for the good of us alllets put it in place. It will probably mean I can not access here or many other places |I visit when away from home, but its a small price to pay in my liberties for the good of the country as a whole.
My guess is that about 70% of adults watch some sort of porn responsibly. Don't think that is the issue they are trying to address. It is not as if you are going to have to get a license from the council to watch it so not sure what the hardship will be to be honest. If they were going to compile a register of those opting in, there would be so many people on it, it would be next to useless. I think the big speech on pornography is just pandering to the chattering classes though. If they find it is a vote looser, it will be "dropped whilst more research is carried out." When you can learn how to make a bomb, poison someone or buy illegal fire arms on the internet then surely to focus on something that is by and large used for recreational purposes and not to go after the sicko's who view porn as an outlet to act out depraved fantasies or to abuse others is just a bit over the top. If however, I am not able to view certain sites(even if involving consenting adults) and this saves one person from being abused by someone mentally corrupt enough to undertake such an act, then that is a small price to pay. I had a block on my last phone, one phone call and it was taken off, simples!
And please don't forget that a previous Home Secretary (no less) in the Labour Administration (Jaquie Smith IIRC) resigned after her husband was caught out watching porn in an hotel room which was paid for by the State.... Why should we listen to these morons and accept everything they try to throw at us to control our otherwise worthless lives? You really couldn't make this up, could you
Quote by herts_darlings1 The default position of all adult and or censored sites being blocked should be the norm. If you require access then phone up to get it released. I don't see what the hardship is. If the knee jerk reaction is to scream nanny state / fascists /police controlling well unfortunately we have some c***s in our society who dont care what their children are exposed to so for the good of us alllets put it in place. It will probably mean I can not access here or many other places |I visit when away from home, but its a small price to pay in my liberties for the good of the country as a whole.
My guess is that about 70% of adults watch some sort of porn responsibly. Don't think that is the issue they are trying to address. It is not as if you are going to have to get a license from the council to watch it so not sure what the hardship will be to be honest. If they were going to compile a register of those opting in, there would be so many people on it, it would be next to useless. I think the big speech on pornography is just pandering to the chattering classes though. If they find it is a vote looser, it will be "dropped whilst more research is carried out." When you can learn how to make a bomb, poison someone or buy illegal fire arms on the internet then surely to focus on something that is by and large used for recreational purposes and not to go after the sicko's who view porn as an outlet to act out depraved fantasies or to abuse others is just a bit over the top. If however, I am not able to view certain sites(even if involving consenting adults) and this saves one person from being abused by someone mentally corrupt enough to undertake such an act, then that is a small price to pay. I had a block on my last phone, one phone call and it was taken off, simples! i think something ridiculous (could have been 2000)was the amount of probable pedophiles where tagged buy expert watcher's on the UK's internet last year but we only had enough staff to investigate 200 of them :eeek:
Quote by Mr-Powers So, if there is a choice, how will it actually stop people accessing child porn?
The blocking isn't to stop child porn - it's to stop children accessing porn. He wants search engines to not show the results of searches with dodgy terms as a means of stopping child porn. That's Pete Townsend's book research fecked.
Quote by northwest-cpl So, if there is a choice, how will it actually stop people accessing child porn?
The blocking isn't to stop child porn - it's to stop children accessing porn. He wants search engines to not show the results of searches with dodgy terms as a means of stopping child porn. That's Pete Townsend's book research fecked. I thought it was a blanket ban on porn via the Internet provider, with households needing to contact the Internet provider to opt out as such to get access to pornographic content Cameron is also trying to get the big search engines to morally remove and child porn searches, my point earlier was stress although the powers that be have a pretty big list of who's who, as far as repeated viewing of child pornography they can do little about it, due to massively being under staffed
But surely its as simple as putting a mandatory filter on every ISP connection? as soon as the key words are put in then the ip number of the household is logged...a quick letter in the post to the bill-payer saying "blah blah" has been flagged through the so and so search engine...please don't do it again... I think by proactively monitoring access to inappropriate content will soon drop in countries such as ours. Access to the internet is a privilege not a right, and the facility to be able to remove it should be there.
Quote by Lizaleanrob I thought it was a blanket ban on porn via the Internet provider, with households needing to contact the Internet provider to opt out as such to get access to pornographic content
It is. The reason for the blanket ban is to stop children accessing porn rather than to stop child porn. I doubt it will work but it's a good sound-bite.
Quote by northwest-cpl So, if there is a choice, how will it actually stop people accessing child porn?
The blocking isn't to stop child porn - it's to stop children accessing porn. He wants search engines to not show the results of searches with dodgy terms as a means of stopping child porn. That's Pete Townsend's book research fecked. Thought parents already had the choice to stop,their kids from accessing porn?
Thing is even if you don't actively look for porn it somehow pops up along with some of the most innocent of words you can type into a search engine, I once typed in leather collars as I was looking for a training lead for my new GSD and all sorts of interesting things popped up hwoar: I suppose kids get to a certain age where they will actively seek porn through sheer curiosity, but I can definitely understand why parents of anyone under the age of say 14 would want search engines to be "policed" and be able to let their younger kids use the internet freely. Myself I like to watch it now and again but not sure I would like the world to know
Quote by herts_darlings1 The default position of all adult and or censored sites being blocked should be the norm. If you require access then phone up to get it released. I don't see what the hardship is. If the knee jerk reaction is to scream nanny state / fascists /police controlling well unfortunately we have some c***s in our society who dont care what their children are exposed to so for the good of us alllets put it in place. It will probably mean I can not access here or many other places |I visit when away from home, but its a small price to pay in my liberties for the good of the country as a whole.
My guess is that about 70% of adults watch some sort of porn responsibly. Don't think that is the issue they are trying to address. It is not as if you are going to have to get a license from the council to watch it so not sure what the hardship will be to be honest. If they were going to compile a register of those opting in, there would be so many people on it, it would be next to useless. I think the big speech on pornography is just pandering to the chattering classes though. If they find it is a vote looser, it will be "dropped whilst more research is carried out." When you can learn how to make a bomb, poison someone or buy illegal fire arms on the internet then surely to focus on something that is by and large used for recreational purposes and not to go after the sicko's who view porn as an outlet to act out depraved fantasies or to abuse others is just a bit over the top. If however, I am not able to view certain sites(even if involving consenting adults) and this saves one person from being abused by someone mentally corrupt enough to undertake such an act, then that is a small price to pay. I had a block on my last phone, one phone call and it was taken off, simples! What makes you think a list of people who access adult rated sites would be useless ? because of the numbers, that is a ridiculous thought, there are around 25 million vehicles registered in the UK yet it takes only a split second for the Police number plate recognition device to search the database and flag up an unregistered car. Finding out if someone has registered to use adult rated sites does not require a split second view of something like a number plate. It is not the register that is the problem it is what is done with the information, there have been reported cases of lost information by the DHSS, the Military, Parliament and so on. there are regular hacking attacks on such records, hack this site and you will not get a lot of information about a person, their address, their employment etc, but hack a list such as the Government are discussing and you could glean a lot of information that the users do not want known, this site is legal and works within the laws of the UK, why should I have to be on a list for being a member ?
We invaded Afghanistan because we said their Government and Taliban were wrong in the controls they imposed on the citizens there, to us preventing women from working or receiving an education is wrong, in some countries you cannot access sites such as this one because Governments ban it. Who is to say they are right and we are wrong, who is to say our Government is right to prevent us accessing swingers sites, BDSM sites, Swinger Clubs sites as a carte blanche policy with the restriction of accessing adult sites ? We support an uprising in Syria because we say the Government there are wrong in how they rule, should we expect a Nation with more relaxed attitudes to invade Britain because of such policies, would they be wrong if they did. I wonder how a case would stand up in the European Court of Human Rights ? I have two objections, firstly there are no children in my house, I object to being punished for the irresponsibility of others, those same "others" who will still act irresponsibly no matter what register they are on. Secondly it is the whole Nanny State thing, how many more restraints are going to be put into place, you can't smoke in public places, you can't smoke in private clubs where membership is necessary, they want to stop you smoking in your own home and car, you are hounded and threatened with court action if you have a house without a TV licence the assumption being that you are breaking the law whilst the politicians making those laws continually flaunt them. (guilty until proved innocent).
Quote by MidsCouple24 We invaded Afghanistan because we said their Government and Taliban were wrong in the controls they imposed on the citizens there, to us preventing women from working or receiving an education is wrong, in some countries you cannot access sites such as this one because Governments ban it. Who is to say they are right and we are wrong, who is to say our Government is right to prevent us accessing swingers sites, BDSM sites, Swinger Clubs sites as a carte blanche policy with the restriction of accessing adult sites ? We support an uprising in Syria because we say the Government there are wrong in how they rule, should we expect a Nation with more relaxed attitudes to invade Britain because of such policies, would they be wrong if they did. I wonder how a case would stand up in the European Court of Human Rights ? I have two objections, firstly there are no children in my house, I object to being punished for the irresponsibility of others, those same "others" who will still act irresponsibly no matter what register they are on. Secondly it is the whole Nanny State thing, how many more restraints are going to be put into place, you can't smoke in public places, you can't smoke in private clubs where membership is necessary, they want to stop you smoking in your own home and car, you are hounded and threatened with court action if you have a house without a TV licence the assumption being that you are breaking the law whilst the politicians making those laws continually flaunt them. (guilty until proved innocent).
I can tell you have not read the article or if you have, you have not understood it. You are not being denied access to these sites at all, your broadband line is defaulted to prevent you looking at this type of content until you ring up and say open it please. Its not hard is it to make one phone call??? And its not nanny state its called responsible government, sometimes we need the government to do this as its plain that a lot of individuals can not behave responsibly in this society so our government has to do it for them.
Quote by Rogue_Trader We invaded Afghanistan because we said their Government and Taliban were wrong in the controls they imposed on the citizens there, to us preventing women from working or receiving an education is wrong, in some countries you cannot access sites such as this one because Governments ban it. Who is to say they are right and we are wrong, who is to say our Government is right to prevent us accessing swingers sites, BDSM sites, Swinger Clubs sites as a carte blanche policy with the restriction of accessing adult sites ? We support an uprising in Syria because we say the Government there are wrong in how they rule, should we expect a Nation with more relaxed attitudes to invade Britain because of such policies, would they be wrong if they did. I wonder how a case would stand up in the European Court of Human Rights ? I have two objections, firstly there are no children in my house, I object to being punished for the irresponsibility of others, those same "others" who will still act irresponsibly no matter what register they are on. Secondly it is the whole Nanny State thing, how many more restraints are going to be put into place, you can't smoke in public places, you can't smoke in private clubs where membership is necessary, they want to stop you smoking in your own home and car, you are hounded and threatened with court action if you have a house without a TV licence the assumption being that you are breaking the law whilst the politicians making those laws continually flaunt them. (guilty until proved innocent).
I can tell you have not read the article or if you have, you have not understood it. You are not being denied access to these sites at all, your broadband line is defaulted to prevent you looking at this type of content until you ring up and say open it please. Its not hard is it to make one phone call??? And its not nanny state its called responsible government, sometimes we need the government to do this as its plain that a lot of individuals can not behave responsibly in this society so our government has to do it for them. I understand what you are saying R_T but I can also see Jed's point. Why should someone have to phone up their IP to announce that they are 'perverts' or 'sexual devients' and ask for the denied access to be switched on? Is that information then passed on in good old 'joined up Government' fashion to someone who monitors paedophiles etc and you are then placed on a secret 'not yet convicted but a likely possibility' potential sex offender's register?
Bit of over blown panic here me thinks... As has already been noted, mobile phone companies prevent you accessing adult sites by default. All you have to do is give them a call and ask to remove the adult content restriction. In my opinion, it is absolutely a step in the right direction and I can remember in the early days of Internet when my then young daughter searched "Spice Girls," I was horrified as I sat next to her at the images that popped up. Not welcome, not asked for and highly inappropriate in the circumstances. As a parent, I would rather know that a child making such a search is not going to become prematurely corrupted.
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
hwoar:
