61 3 mins 9 yrs

We are told that one man’s will, and one viewpoint, are to prevail over all the images available to the whole of the United Kingdom. Forget, if you will, the alleged reasons for this draconian ban; because, weasel words aside that is what it will be! I think that the alleged targets of Cameron’s anger and ‘dismay’; namely online child abuse, child pornography and ‘rape sites’ are, collectively, an abhorrent issue, and one which all normal people would recoil from in disgust.

But take, if you will, one step further down the road where, for the ‘best reasons in the world’, either the present slimeball masquerading as our Prime Minister or another from a Party with a great deal more history in authoritative ideas of control and surveillance, namely the Labour Party, takes these steps against freedom of thought. The first step, namely the acceptance of a Diktat, no matter how well-intentioned, has been accepted almost without a murmur. Also remember that this Prime Minister hasn’t been elected by you, the voter. He has firstly been elected by a majority of his Party M.P.s; he had then, because of the lack of a Parliamentary majority, to stitch up a Coalition with the leader of the Lib-Dems, who got to where he was based mainly on viewer perceptions of three political debates on television. During that stitch-up process, he was forced to ditch many policies which formed part of the Tory Party manifesto.

So perhaps now, for whatever reason or circumstance, he decides that all of the United Kingdom will watch, whenever they switch on their computers, a five minute celebratory broadcast of the triumphs of the Tory Party in Government; before being able to surf the Web, check their e-mails, or whatevr else they wish. And he now has the power to do just that. Forget the illusion that we live in a democracy, we don’t! We have literally no ‘say’ in how our taxes are spent, we have no ‘say’ about how the many institutions of Government are run, and we have no idea about how vast amounts of our money are squandered. We live in an age where we either ‘toe the line’ and pay up without a murmur; or a squad of uniformed heavies from the local TSG  branch of our Gestapo comes calling with a warrant for our arrest.

Once any politician grasps the power of deciding what we don’t watch, and more importantly what we do watch, that is the beginning of the long slope towards authoritarian dictatorship; and ‘don’t you worry your tiny little minds’  it is all being introduced for the best possible reasons!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

61 thoughts on “‘Nanny State’ = 1984

  1. Once again Politian’s show a level of ignorance about technology and the internet that even the average five year old could put these morons to shame. Search engines are just that, search engines. They don’t control access to content, they just find it. Most of the worst stuff out there is not found using a search engine, it’s shared via underground sites by sick groups with a common interest. Also ISP’s can only block DNS name resolution, all these people will do is use ip addresses to access their extreme material.

  2. Should some of the internet material be censored?
    Undoubtedly.

    Child porn – ban it.
    The worst kinds of non-consensual, abusive porn – ban it.
    Extreme political/racist/religious/violence groups that actually encourage violence ban them.

    Sign up for porn with your ISP.. fine.
    If porn is that normal, have the thing out in the open so your family, your spouse knows you’ve signed up for it. If it’s that “normal and healthy”, why would you not want others to know?

    Should Cameron have spearheaded this crusade unilaterally? Look at it another way, had he have made it part of a Manifesto pledge how would that have affected his chances of election?
    An alternative would be for a government to float a proposal and give the Electorate three months to feed their views back to their MPs and then act accordingly.

  3. Agit:

    Child porn – ban it.
    The worst kinds of non-consensual, abusive porn – ban it.
    Extreme political/racist/religious/violence groups that actually encourage violence ban them.

    All of these are already illegal Agit.

  4. Yes but in relation to the internet they are accessible, and the ISPs need to more closely monitor what is on the web and block it if necessary. You know that “jamming” radio signals has been practiced by various governments over the years, so there must be a way that the worst stuff can be blocked.
    On the radio this morning they were saying that much of the (porn)material originates in Eastern Europe and the USA. You can’t very easily prosecute the makers and abusers, but you could block the stuff, and quite frankly when you listen to the way some people (notably in Aberdeen ;)) become obsessed with or hooked on weird websites…

    It oughta be stopped!

  5. Dave
    non-consensual, abusive porn already illegal?

    I think it depends what you mean. I think that where the people depicted were actually non-consensual, that that is illegal but where they were consensual but depicted as not (i.e. just acting the part) then I don’t think it is.

    Bit of a grey area. I remember the trial re that party where some guys were willingly being subjected to assorts but those doing the subjecting were still put on trial.

    I think it raises some big issues about consent, which is at the heart of the concept of crime itself.

  6. No Alan, it’s not the same as blocking radio transmissions. ISP and search engine providers have no control over the content of the web. There is no ‘central control’. The web is a collection of millions of devices hooked-up to world wide network. All that can be done is to police the web and try to prosecute and/or shut down offenders.

    and quite frankly when you listen to the way some people (notably in Aberdeen become obsessed with or hooked on weird websites…It oughta be stopped!

    Allan might be

  7. (Sorry, i cut that post off.)

    …..a nutcase, but I wouldn’t censor him, (or anybody). And BTW, he would still have these views even without the web.

  8. //I think it raises some big issues about consent, which is at the heart of the concept of crime itself.//

    Indeed. It also raises questions about the effects of pornography.

    If the child porn was produced with children, or anyone under 18, it should be banned and the producers and consumers dragged before the law. But if it involved only actors looking like, say, teens or only animated images, it should be allowed or banned depending on the outcome of the vexed question of the effects of porn.

    Does it lower people’s inhibition thresholds, give them ideas and whet appetites, or does it act as a release valve for people who already have these urges, and maybe thus prevent crime against real children?

    This is what needs to be answered. Virtually real sites will no doubt become “better” in future, and the need for actors will be diminished; so the question of effects is going to become more important IMO.

  9. Dave,
    I was joking about Allan. And yes he would still have those views, but think how many people would be saved from complete indifference.. As an aside, apart from his extreme views on race and Khazars masquerading as Jews, Allan is extremely reasoned and logical. I like that in a Scot. 🙂
    (You see folks, those little emoticons are sometimes necessary)

    Oh,
    and I’m Agit8ed not Alan.
    How do y’do. 😉
    Whatever the way it works Dave, something could be done. I believe China was/is able to block certain parts of the internet that the authorities deem threatening to social stability?
    And frankly it seems to me that sometimes we need to be saved from ourselves.. 🙂

  10. Guess who comforts his conscience by believing the actors only look like teenagers, and are in fact extremely youthful looking dwarfs.
    A study will have to be carried out one day on the emotional damage done to virtuous virtual porn actors whose consciences may be bothered by the harm that might be done to virtual or “animated image” children…
    🙂

  11. Sorry I called you Allan, Agit.

    I wouldn’t want the system they have in China, (They don’t so much successfully block sites, it’s more to do with limited internet access and fear of imprisonment in a dictatorship, (authoritarian regime)), and I’d hope you wouldn’t either.

  12. Aileen.

    Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you say. I remember when they introduced the new, (extremely vague), law here about abusive porn. As an MP pointed out in the commons, these laws would make movies like Hostel 2 illegal.

  13. Dave

    It is an ethical mine field.

    I tried to google the trial I mentioned but I couldn’t find it (one way of getting my search history to look decidedly dodgy). I think that they were found guilty but that there was some sort of appeal. I know someone who saw the video of the party and he just couldn’t start to get to a place where he could accept what he saw was consensual – i.e. anyone who agreed could not be deemed to be fit to give consent.

  14. Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography

    Does this mean we’ll see more of Colm on ATW now 😉

    On a serious note: All forms of non consensual pornography should be absolutely banned with the most punative sentences available within the law given to those that propogate such material.

  15. This is a conflict between the right of unlimited free speech and the duty to protect children and other victims.

    I know where I come down on this. Let a bright line be drawn.

    This is a world of conflicting rights. There are very few absolutes. It has always been thus.

  16. The thing about porn is that
    a) Most people view it alone. And it’s not necessarily single men , but it is mainly men who view it.

    b) It can become addictive and even as “a release” those “releases” can become more frequent and the stimulation required more extreme.

    c) Is it something you’d be happy talking about over tea with the wife and her mother?

    If it’s that normal and healthy how comes it also features in so many cases of rape/abuse of either an individual or a group of individuals?

    It seems to me that like drugs or alcohol it can become addictive with serious consequences, and whilst I accept that what consenting adults get up to in private is between them and their conscience, anything which leads to non consensual/abusive or degrading treatment is best stayed away from.
    And I say that as someone who knows.

  17. Phantom

    Isn’t the issue first of all more about what is possible and what is not?

  18. Anything which leads to non consensual/abusive or degrading treatment is best stayed away from

    Best stayed away from? Anything which leads to non consensual/abusive or degrading treatment should be outrightly banned.

  19. OT really annoyed about the weather. If it was an ok day I’d be off to Buck House. 🙁

  20. “Best stayed away from? Anything which leads to non consensual/abusive or degrading treatment should be outrightly banned.”

    I meant in the context of the internet.

  21. Aileen

    Its not possible to stop all of this.

    But it’s possible to stop some of it.

    Let’s do it.

  22. I meant in the context of the internet

    All forms of non consensual pornography should be absolutely banned with the most punative sentences available within the law given to those that propogate such material.

    Me too Agi.

  23. Porn where the participants are actually non consensual should be outlawed.

    There are different considerations for staged nonconsensual porn (i.e. participants willingly acting their part.

    Also I just had to remind myself that porn is not just film, it is also text. So what about non consensual porn in text form?

  24. //There are different considerations for staged nonconsensual porn //

    What’s the difference in principle between staged NC porn and any other staged crime?
    For example, on TV every night you can see staged murders aplenty, and nobody seems to be bothered too much about it.

    One difference is that porn is made to stimulate pleasure in the viewer from, I presume, imagining himelf or herself in the situation portrayed, whereas most murders on TV are portrayed as being something terrible.
    Still, some murders in film are portrayed as being good, and the viewer is supposed to identify with the murderer and feel the pleasure of doing the killing.

    For me, there is little difference between that and staged non-consensual porn.

  25. Phantom

    Its not possible to stop all of this.
    But it’s possible to stop some of it.
    Let’s do it.

    I think that those who know about these things say it is not possible to stop any of it by blocking what is available online.

  26. “Porn where the participants are actually non consensual should be outlawed.”

    Where it’s non-consensual it’s called assault, sexual assault or rape, and they’re outlawed.

  27. Aileen

    Show me where anyone said that blocking what is available online won’t have any impact at all on the availability of the product. That’s ridiculous.

    If you make finding it more difficult, that is a good thing.

    If you make viewing / selling / buying it a crime that is a good thing.

    Pete

    We have two posts because someone wasn’t paying attention. It causes lack of focus.

  28. Where it’s non-consensual it’s called assault, sexual assault or rape, and they’re outlawed.

    Pete I know that when the participants are doing so non consensually, it is illegal. I was making the distinction between that and staged non-consensual porn, where the participants are acting non-consensual roles. Overwhelming majority IMO support the ban on the former (ie the distributing the images as well as convictions for the assault). Some (but fewer) would also seek to ban the latter

  29. Phantom

    Show me where anyone said that blocking what is available online won’t have any impact at all on the availability of the product. That’s ridiculous.

    No because that is not what I was talking about 🙂
    It is the blocking itself which people are saying is not possible.

  30. For example

    If the top search engines blocked all ” results ” that led to

    child porn sites

    child porn chat rooms

    this would make life more difficult for the offender. I would make it harder for them to find one another and harder to find their prey.

    No one guarantees that there would not be a workaround, but that in itself would be an obstruction on the prohibited activity.

  31. 100 percent blocking is not possible

    Just like 100 percent blocking of crime is not possible.

    To use ” lack of perfection ” as a reason not to fight crime is frankly the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on any topic. Including all the stuff we hear at ATW!

  32. Aileen, you’re correct.

    I think that those who know about these things say it is not possible to stop any of it by blocking what is available online.

    Yep, it’s part of my job to know about this stuff. It’s not possible to block it, and the amount of work involved to even partly stem it is tremendous.

    Analogy time I think. Imaging you’re getting nasty letters through the post so you tell the post office to look out for them. First they might be stopping all envelopes from a certain address, but then the sender just changes the address, so the post office stopped that one too. Then the sender recruits 50 other senders and they all use different addresses, an impossible task. See what I mean?

    I think we have a real lack of understanding in the corridors of power, (I could probably finish the sentence here), on technology and how it works in general.

  33. Phantom

    Just like 100 percent blocking of crime is not possible.

    NOOOOOOO!

    I never said anything about 100%

  34. Phantom

    To use ” lack of perfection ” as a reason not to fight crime is frankly the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard on any topic. Including all the stuff we hear at ATW!

    Where did you hear that ridiculous argument?

  35. Phantom:

    For example

    If the top search engines blocked all ” results ” that led to
    child porn sites
    child porn chat rooms

    this would make life more difficult for the offender. I would make it harder for them to find one another and harder to find their prey.

    No one guarantees that there would not be a workaround, but that in itself would be an obstruction on the prohibited activity.

    I’d be VERY surprised if any results came up in Google for child porn. This is not how these sicko’s operate. They use private hosts and chat rooms. Google and the other search provides have very claver software that blocks any nasty references anyway already. I’m afraid (respectfully) you have a lack of understanding of how this stuff is hosted and how the internet works.

    It’s a pity the parents don’t do some parenting and stop children using peado infested chat rooms and porn sites

  36. I will doubt that all pedophiles have the extreme cleverness that is being spoken of here.

    If they did none of them would be caught now, would they?

    You guys are conceding defeat before the first shot is fired with the new technology.

    Lets see what happens.

  37. It’s a pity the parents don’t do some parenting and stop children using peado infested chat rooms and porn sites

    With all due respect Dave is that not a bit of a cop out – blaming an internet full of peados on bad parenting?

  38. Asking the parents to solve everything is the ultimate cop out.

    While parents should know about this stuff, the fact is that many do not know enough, and, and some parents are irresponsible and don’t care.

    This is a global problem and is one that will not be solved at the family table.

  39. I will doubt that all pedophiles have the extreme cleverness that is being spoken of here.

    Not all that clever. child abusers help each other.

    If they did none of them would be caught now, would they?

    why? Clever clild abusers get caught.

    You guys are conceding defeat before the first shot is fired with the new technology.

    I am going on what people more IT minded than I am tell me.

    I want law enforcement, put its focus on the feasible and thus minimise abuse.

  40. Phantom

    I will doubt that all pedophiles have the extreme cleverness that is being spoken of here.

    Who said anything about ‘cleverness’? You don’t need to be clever to meet like minded individuals online, and set-up encrypted mail to give you the ip addresses of private porn servers.

    If they did none of them would be caught now, would they?

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. The main way peados are caught, is by tracking visits to porn servers with this content on. This is by far the best method results wise, as many individuals with a shared interest in sick stuff can be caught at one. The current recommendations have nothing to do with this as this method of capture doesn’t involve the search providers or service providers. (except to ask for customer information.)

    You guys are conceding defeat before the first shot is fired with the new technology.

    What new technology?! In a knee-jerk response (pushed by the daily mail). They are asking ISP’s and search engine companies (at great expense and inconvenience) to block content that can still be accessed by IP address, and will have it’s DNS name changed as soon as it’s blocked anyway. Don’t you understand, it’s a waste of time.

    Lets see what happens.

    Knowing U-turn Dave, I suspect nothing

  41. Dave

    It’s a pity the parents don’t do some parenting and stop children using peado infested chat rooms and porn sites

    Indeed there is a significant amount of sloppy parenting in this regard but I think a major part of that is naivety on the part of less IT literate parents.

    Phantom

    Asking the parents to solve everything is the ultimate cop out.
    While parents should know about this stuff, the fact is that many do not know enough, and, and some parents are irresponsible and don’t care.
    This is a global problem and is one that will not be solved at the family table.

    Where did Dave say that parents should be asked to solve everything?

    At the same time resources spent letting parents know about child groomers online might save more kids than trying to hold back the tide on the Web. Individual kids may well be saved at the family table

  42. It would be great to get to the point where the only people in clild grooming chat rooms were child abusers and undercover cops. 🙂

  43. Paul.

    With all due respect Dave is that not a bit of a cop out – blaming an internet full of peados on bad parenting?

    What. Way to twist my words Paul. As a parent you wouldn’t let your kids go round the local area, knocking on strangers doors and asking to come in for a chat would you. No, then why let them do it online?
    Secondly, the internet isn’t full of peados. That’s just what the daily mail thinks. Most people on the internet, (as on the planet), are normal.

  44. Phantom

    Asking the parents to solve everything is the ultimate cop out.

    Whooa, where did I say the parents should solve everything. Many posters on this site seem to fond of putting words in the mouths of others, but I didn’t think you where one of them Phantom.

    While parents should know about this stuff, the fact is that many do not know enough, and, and some parents are irresponsible and don’t care.

    A recent survey found over 85% of parents in the US and Europe do not monitor their children’s internet access. Doe’s that mean over 85% of parents don’t care of are computer illiterate?

    This is a global problem and is one that will not be solved at the family table.

    Oh but to a large part, it can be Phantom. Parental controls works really well, and monitoring software takes care of the rest. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than any of the other suggestions at the moment.

  45. All of anything is not everything. No one said all net users are perverts.

    But there is much for parents to worry about when kids go on the internet.

    And half the parents are too stupid or irresponsible to be effective guardians of kids on the net. Look around.

  46. Phantom, if a parent let their eight year old child walk the streets talking to strangers, who should be ultimately responsible for that?

  47. What. Way to twist my words Paul. As a parent you wouldn’t let your kids go round the local area, knocking on strangers doors and asking to come in for a chat would you. No, then why let them do it online?

    Twisting of any words wasn’t intentional but if that’s how it came across I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick. Of course a responsible parent wouldn’t want their children knocking on strangers doors and asking to come in for a chat. I was thinking more along the lines of portable internet ready i phones, smart phones etc. How do parents police that?

    Agreed, the internet isn’t full of paedos but there are some strange people lurking on it and that thirteen year old who feels flattered because she thinks some flashy seventeen year old lad is paying attention to her is very suggestible.

    How can parenting, however vigilant, prevent that?

  48. Twisting of any words wasn’t intentional but if that’s how it came across I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick. Of course a responsible parent wouldn’t want their children knocking on strangers doors and asking to come in for a chat. I was thinking more along the lines of portable internet ready i phones, smart phones etc. How do parents police that?

    I agree, you can’t stop it completely. You can however you can lock down and monitor the latest generation of smart phones. But here’s an idea, How about giving them a basic phone?

    Agreed, the internet isn’t full of paedos but there are some strange people lurking on it and that thirteen year old who feels flattered because she thinks some flashy seventeen year old lad is paying attention to her is very suggestible.

    True. And the current changes being discussed here wouldn’t prevent that. When it comes to chat rooms go for moderated and monitored. I know it’s difficult for parents to watch who their daughter talks to, but that’s the same in real life.

    How can parenting, however vigilant, prevent that?

    It can but it will reduce the chances of it happening greatly. Which is all you can say for any situation like this. On the web or in real life.

  49. The fact that 85 percent of parents are morons who do nothing is a good argument for a) more education and b) more action by government and all other parties against the pervert industry.

    It is not a reason to go all Pontius Pilate on the situation.

  50. Here’s an analogy the non-technical posters might understand. If your twelve year old daughter started dialing random, but valid phone numbers on your land line and asking strangers to be her friend while giving out personal information, who’s fault is that?

  51. The fact that 85 percent of parents are morons who do nothing is a good argument for a) more education and b) more action by government and all other parties against the pervert industry.

    I agree with both those statements. But we where disagreeing about the part search providers and ISP’s play and the proposed changes to the law. Both of which as I’ve already explained will be next to useless and cause a lot of expense.

    It is not a reason to go all Pontius Pilate on the situation.

    No one is washing their hands on this. I’m all for more police monitoring of SUSPECT chat rooms, porn sites and hosts. This has always yielded the best results. But I’ll say the above again; The proposed changes to the law will be next to useless and cause a lot of expense.

  52. ” Whose fault is it ” is the kind of question that gets us no where. You can never get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.

    That’s a question that Johnnie Cochran would ask if you dug him up.

    The proper questions are

    What should parents do?

    -and- ( not OR )

    What should government do?

    -and- ( not OR )

    What should industry ( ISPs etc )do?

    All must be answered. All have a role to play.

  53. and quite frankly when you listen to the way some people (notably in Aberdeen ) become obsessed with or hooked on weird websites…

    It oughta be stopped!

    It’s always good to see something put on a thread which is easily shown to be nonsense and Agit rarely fails. On the thread on The First Post-Racial President

    THE FIRST POST RACIAL PRESIDENT RACE HUSTLES A BIT MORE

    I linked to:

    FIDE chess rankings
    American Bar website
    Medical News website
    Wikipedia – IQ and global inequality
    Youtube – building 7 collapse
    Ynet news – Israeli news outlet

    amongst others. None were challenged for accuracy or applicability except by poor deluded Colm who opines that using links to support opinions is a “crutch”.

    Colm, on July 22nd, 2013 at 1:15 AM Said:
    Allan -You always rely on the crutch of linking to other websites.

    Does anybody else believe that links should NOT be posted in support of an argument because, to me, when one expresses an opinion one should show why one is of that opinion?

    Colm, on July 22nd, 2013 at 1:57 AM Said:
    Allan – You are not confident with expressing your own opinion, I understand that. I realise why you need to bolster your views by trawling the net for any statistical ‘evidence’ that appears to give credence to your prejudices.

    whereas in reality, I am very confident about my opinions which is why I am quite willing to make my case against anybody, and I always link to supporting information.

  54. ” Whose fault is it ” is the kind of question that gets us no where. You can never get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.

    That’s a question that Johnnie Cochran would ask if you dug him up.

    The proper questions are

    What should parents do?

    -and- ( not OR )

    What should government do?

    -and- ( not OR )

    What should industry ( ISPs etc )do?

    All must be answered. All have a role to play.

    Are you a lawyer by any chance Phantom 🙂
    Your a smart man and I think you read my question and the light bulb came on. way to evade the answer though 🙂

  55. Allans here so I’m off down the pub. Nothing personal Allan I’m sure your a nice bloke in real life. 🙂

  56. Dave there are also quite a sizeable portion pf parents who would be illiterate in technological terms when compared to their kids.

    But broadly I agree that good sense and monitoring by parents would help prevent (though not eradicate) children’s exposure to this.

    When our girls were younger one of the rules that we laid down for their internet access was to stay away from chat rooms and if for whatever reason they found themselves contacted by someone from a chatroom they under absolutely no circumstances were to reply.

    Parenting and the internet is a problamatic subject.

  57. Dave

    I thought that I had answered your question. It would be grossly irresponsible for any parent to allow their young child talk to any random stranger on the street.

    I’m not an attorney but I deal in the law of liability contracts all the time. I spent most all of today wrestling with real or potential legal liability matters. Which can mean that I argue with lawyers at times.

    The wild concept of ” fault ” has been used and abused in the US tort and at times in the criminal law system, with the UK and other lands following the bad American example.

    Most of the time, I don’t care primarily whose fault anything is. I try to focus on how we fix it, or make it better. It is a very different mind-set.

  58. What a crazy screwed up prudish world we live in.

    So, images of consenting adults playing adult games that they enjoy are so evil and depraving that the government feels the need to step in and move us yet closer to being a police state, lest the masses become corrupted.

    If little boys want to get hold of this stuff, they will. They managed it in pre-internet days, they will manage it in post-Orwell days too.

    And in a nearby universe, films and television programs in which actors play characters who torture other characters to death are relatively common, freely broadcast and freely available. Some of these are really graphic. Sadistic murder for entertainment for the masses? Seriously?

    Its the same twisted world in medicine. A doctor who sleeps with his patients is much more likely to get struck off than one who kills his patients. I know which doctor I would rather have treating me.

Comments are closed.