David Cameron wants to ban porn

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Why is this unrealistic? If you care about your kids emotional welfare the same way that you do about their physical wellbeing then you should take responsibility for behaviour that may jeopardise that in the same way that you would about them playing outside, or cooking or anything else that can be potentially harmful.

CiB

Sketchley wrote:

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Don't allow internet connected appliances in their bedrooms, or TVs come to that. It can be done.

^^^ this.

DDD I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do and I'm not saying you can monitor all that they do even in the same room. But you can stop them watching porn which is what this is all about.....

Two points.

One) - I don't really want to have to spend all of my free time monitoring a teenage boy for what he's up to. Much easier to do what I can by blocking it at the router and letting him know surreptitiously that I might check the logs occasionally, but...

b) We all grew up seeing the occasional dodgy mag and I like to think we all came out of our teens with sensible views on everything (some of the mags that were passed around in my days of doing motorsport were a bit worse than readers wives in Fiesta btw, coming from a Plod with links to Vice). Point being that if a 15/16 y-o does get access to a bit of porn through his smartphone it's not the end of the world. At least he's paying for it so it's self-limiting.

davis

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Why is this unrealistic? If you care about your kids emotional welfare the same way that you do about their physical wellbeing then you should take responsibility for behaviour that may jeopardise that in the same way that you would about them playing outside, or cooking or anything else that can be potentially harmful.

Aye. True. When we were kids the only TV was in a shared room, so we couldn't watch anything without the parents knowing. I don't see why that couldn't apply to t'internet.

Daz555

The pr0n filter will be so full of false postives (they all are) that 100% of consumers will be forced to opt IN.

Complete and utter waste of time and taxpayers money.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Why so?

At what age should children be allowed unsupervised access to the internet?

Would you allow them free rein in a dvd-rental outlet? Or not check what they've borrowed from the library?


When should children be free to play video games?
Is access to an Xbox/PSx a right? Who should choose the titles?

Who is the better parent: the one who protects them from the hazards of the outside world by not letting them cycle on the road or go boating in the depths of winter or the one who protects them from the internet, chat rooms and violent video games by putting them at risk of injury or hypothermia?

Risk.... love it or lose it.

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Don't allow internet connected appliances in their bedrooms, or TVs come to that. It can be done.

^^^ this.

DDD I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do and I'm not saying you can monitor all that they do even in the same room. But you can stop them watching porn which is what this is all about.....

Doing homework and socialising with friends is going to be a b*tch.

But let us not let punishing the child before they've done anything wrong get in the way. :roll:

So then, no mobile phones, internet connected games consoles in their rooms and certainly lets not send them to school or allow them to go to a friends house where we can't monitor them. :roll:

1. The more you prevent something - especially if their friends have it or access to it - the more the child wants it, will seek to have it, see it.

2. Children, like adults, need their own personal space and actually thrive on being trusted, given responsiblilities etc and - to some degree - treated like an adult. I think it is pretty shitty parenting if the default position is: despite the fact that you haven't done anything wrong, we can't trust you so you can't have it unless we watch you using it.

3. What the fuck happened to proper parenting? You put the PC, TV in the room. If they break the rules you remove it. They have to earn that trust/responsibility to get it back. Hell, if you were my Dad you didn't even have to take the TV, you'd - it was a huge 28inch CRT TV he weren't lifting that - you just said "you don't turn it on".

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Don't allow internet connected appliances in their bedrooms, or TVs come to that. It can be done.

^^^ this.

DDD I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do and I'm not saying you can monitor all that they do even in the same room. But you can stop them watching porn which is what this is all about.....

Two points.

One) - I don't really want to have to spend all of my free time monitoring a teenage boy for what he's up to. Much easier to do what I can by blocking it at the router and letting him know surreptitiously that I might check the logs occasionally, but...

b) We all grew up seeing the occasional dodgy mag and I like to think we all came out of our teens with sensible views on everything (some of the mags that were passed around in my days of doing motorsport were a bit worse than readers wives in Fiesta btw, coming from a Plod with links to Vice). Point being that if a 15/16 y-o does get access to a bit of porn through his smartphone it's not the end of the world. At least he's paying for it so it's self-limiting.

This. Always this.

sketchley

First i'm not proposing monitoring your children all the time, or not having parental controls. All i'm saying is that if they want to use the internet they have to do it in a common area of the house where other people (adults) may be at any time. Who's know you might even take an interest in what they are doing.....

Second the occassional dodgy mag we all grew up with is one thing. However a big concern comes from teenagers viewing porn on the net and thinking that is normal or worse expected behavour. Did any see the channel four program, thr joy of teen sex or something, where they looked at attitudes to an@l sex and porn in teenagers, or girls having surgery on their bits as boys expected them to look like porn stars, crazy stuff.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

...a lot...

I have 6 grandchildren and 8 nieces/nephews.
Some are well behaved, some are tired and moody.
Some have TVs and PCs/laptops in their bedrooms, some don't.
Guess which are which. Too much of a coincidence for me.
It is quite possible for children/teenagers to use a computer for socialising and/or homework in a shared living space.
Yes, they are going to get up to stuff in private, we all did. There will always be someone with access one way or another just like there was always someone with access to mags but you don't have to make it easy.

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity

Massively unrealistic.

Why so?

You are actually asking why it is unrealistic to put children in a room where you can monitor their activitiy? Hand on your heart - pick anyone of your children - now honestly say that you have monitored their every activity from birth without pause.

At what age should children be allowed unsupervised access to the internet?

Every parent is different and so is every child. There are children I trust not to abuse the freedom and there are those I know will abuse the freedom the minute my back is turned. Sexual curiousity also develops at different stages in each childs life, so, who can say.

Would you allow them free rein in a dvd-rental outlet? Or not check what they've borrowed from the library?

No but that is different from:

"place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity"

When should children be free to play video games?

This is getting silly, I'm also not sure of the point.

Is access to an Xbox/PSx a right? Who should choose the titles?

See above.

Essentially it's down to the parents, I am not every f*cking parent on the planet so I can't say. Even if I was I'd probably give a multitude of answers because there isn't a definitive answer.

Who is the better parent: the one who protects them from the hazards of the outside world by not letting them cycle on the road or go boating in the depths of winter or the one who protects them from the internet, chat rooms and violent video games by putting them at risk of injury or hypothermia?

Spare me the sanctimony and get some perspective. Risks are ever present and its about negotiating the risks while exposing your child to the real world in a measured and controlled way so that they grow up balanced. Wrapping them in cotton wool, putting them in a room where you can monitor their activity all the time is potentially as damaging as giving them complete and unmonitored free reign.

DonDaddyD

I think people are forgetting one fundamental rule.

You don't tell other people how to raise their children. Each child is an individual, each parent has their own approach and each family is unique. So there isn't one rule for many of these things.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think people are forgetting one fundamental rule.

You don't tell other people how to raise their children. Each child is an individual, each parent has their own approach and each family is unique. So there isn't one rule for many of these things.

You're missing the point. Its not my place to tell people how to raise their children, but similarly its not the government's place to restrict my freedom just because some people can't/won't take responsibility for their children's behaviour.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

First i'm not proposing monitoring your children all the time, or not having parental controls. All i'm saying is that if they want to use the internet they have to do it in a common area of the house where other people (adults) may be at any time. Who's know you might even take an interest in what they are doing.....

Who are you to tell anyone else where to put a PC in their house. Who are you to tell another parent that they cannot trust their child to use the PC, tablet, smartphone, TV, laptop etc and not completely abuse that freedom. You want to use that rule get your missus preggers and enforce it. I will raise my child as I see fit.

Are you so naive as to believe that by restricting internet access from their bedroom that you've completely removed their potential exposure to porn?

Second the occassional dodgy mag we all grew up with is one thing. However a big concern comes from teenagers viewing porn on the net and thinking that is normal or worse expected behavour.

If they think that it is normal how about being a proper parent and teaching them that it isn't normal. Attempting the impossible task of trying to completely restrict access to porn is not the answer.

Did any see the channel four program, thr joy of teen sex or something, where they looked at attitudes to an@l sex and porn in teenagers, or girls having surgery on their bits as boys expected them to look like porn stars, crazy stuff.

So instead of trying to educate and engage with teens - challenge their perceptions by offering new ones, we simply deny that the content exists, refuse to talk and remove all access to it. Brilliant parenting that, certainly won't have a generation of kids growing up with complexes. :roll:

mudcow007

how horrible is this

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think people are forgetting one fundamental rule.

You don't tell other people how to raise their children. Each child is an individual, each parent has their own approach and each family is unique. So there isn't one rule for many of these things.

A fine and fair point.

I bet you see some families where the children run riot though. That is down to parenting.
I am not saying all families with lax controls will end up like that. You are right that situations should be treated on an individual basis. However, giving a child there own PC/home entertainment room as their bedroom is a bad starting point.
Please note that I am referring to children more than teenagers as you can guide them to be aware of the rights and wrongs. Give them complete freedom at an early age and you have lost control.

Anyway, Cameron's plan is simply stupid. I think I am done.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think people are forgetting one fundamental rule.

You don't tell other people how to raise their children. Each child is an individual, each parent has their own approach and each family is unique. So there isn't one rule for many of these things.

Course you can; just be prepared for the parent you are telling to get very uppity about it. Some parents are just rubbish at it; it may be their own approach to a unique family, but some are still rubbish.

Moving aside from teenagers trying to sneak a look at some mucky pictures, if your nipper has encountered an iPad with Youtube, I'd give them maybe 10 minutes from when you leave them watching Peppa Pig before they've stumbled over something that you don't want them to watch.

rhext

I thing this is generally a good thing:

1) It's not about censorship: legal material can still be accessed.

2) It's not about tracking: if HMG wanted to know who'd been accessing porn sites, I'm pretty sure the logs are already there.

In fact the more I think about it, the more ludicrous the current situation seems to me: if I let my kids go into town, I can be fairly confident that they won't accidentally (or deliberately) find their way into a sex shop/strip club/casino/pub because they're not old enough and because the proprietors of such establishments have a legal duty to check and make sure that the people who use them are of age. And yet, if they log into the internet, the ISPs assume that everyone is OK to access anything unless we install and maintain filter software to stop them. To me, this is just about defaults: today the default assumption is 'everyone wants to access porn unless they tell us otherwise'; tomorrow the default assumption will be 'nobody wants to access porn unless they tell us otherwise'. I think the internet will be a better place with the latter.

notsoblue

mudcow007 wrote:

how horrible is this

And it all could have been prevented if we had had an opt in system....

/s

rubertoe

DDD.

No one is questioning anyones parenting skills and everyone is correct. We all stray from a path, and mostly it is upto our parents to educate us and direct us back to what is a perceived as the correct path (in the parents eyes).

What this is all about is that the Government has no right to censor what is legally available.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think people are forgetting one fundamental rule.

You don't tell other people how to raise their children. Each child is an individual, each parent has their own approach and each family is unique. So there isn't one rule for many of these things.

You're missing the point. Its not my place to tell people how to raise their children, but similarly its not the government's place to restrict my freedom just because some people can't/won't take responsibility for their children's behaviour.

I don't believe I have missed the point.

I think you have unrealistic expecations of children/parents.

Childrens/Teenagers attitudes and perception of sex hasn't been challenged for years and this is why we are where we are with them. Simply (and foolishly) attempting to remove access to porn won't change those attitudes because they already exist.

rhext

I'm sorry, maybe I misread the proposed legislation. Everyone here seems to be discussing as if DDDs original assertion about banning porn was actually correct. I thought that the proposal was simply that you had decide that you wanted to allow it into the house rather than the ISPs assuming it was OK to deliver it to anyone who asked!!

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

3. What the fark happened to proper parenting? You put the PC, TV in the room. If they break the rules you remove it. They have to earn that trust/responsibility to get it back. Hell, if you were my Dad you didn't even have to take the TV, you'd - it was a huge 28inch CRT TV he weren't lifting that - you just said "you don't turn it on".

At what point did giving your kid a games console become a measure of proper parenting?

Never had a computer, tv or games console in my room, neither did either of my siblings. Wouldn't consider putting a tv in my kid's room until they're a good few years into their teens.
We had a Spectrum followed by an Amiga 500 in the living room. The Amiga moved to a desk when a SNES got plugged into the TV. The SNES later became an N64 and the Amiga a PC.
At no point did I consider it a lack of proper parenting that there wasn't a TV and a games console in every room. It wasn't a punishment to not have my own console because I didn't consider it the normal thing to have.

DonDaddyD wrote:

So then, no mobile phones, internet connected games consoles in their rooms and certainly lets not send them to school or allow them to go to a friends house where we can't monitor them. :roll:

You've done your usual of jumping from a normal example to a silly one. Why not lock the kids in the cupboard etc.

Your parents' example of parenting is not necessarily the only model, nor is it necessarily any better or worse than another.

DonDaddyD

rubertoe wrote:

DDD.

No one is questioning anyones parenting skills and everyone is correct. We all stray from a path, and mostly it is upto our parents to educate us and direct us back to what is a perceived as the correct path (in the parents eyes).

What this is all about is that the Government has no right to censor what is legally available.

Which was my point.

Then people started talking about monitoring children and treating them like criminals.

rubertoe

DonDaddyD wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

DDD.

No one is questioning anyones parenting skills and everyone is correct. We all stray from a path, and mostly it is upto our parents to educate us and direct us back to what is a perceived as the correct path (in the parents eyes).

What this is all about is that the Government has no right to censor what is legally available.

Which was my point.

Then people started talking about monitoring children and treating them like criminals.

Then No - this is not allowed to happen

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

3. What the fark happened to proper parenting? You put the PC, TV in the room. If they break the rules you remove it. They have to earn that trust/responsibility to get it back. Hell, if you were my Dad you didn't even have to take the TV, you'd - it was a huge 28inch CRT TV he weren't lifting that - you just said "you don't turn it on".

At what point did giving your kid a games console become a measure of proper parenting?

Where in the post above did I write that giving a kid a games console was a measure of proper parenting? - This will become ironic when I get to the last section of what you wrote in your post but, I will come to that.

'Proper parenting' doesn't come from the giving. A key part of 'proper parenting' comes from how you impart trust, set the rules and boundaries, and reinforce the rules should those boundaries be broken.

Maybe you should read carefully what I wrote.

Never had a computer, tv or games console in my room, neither did either of my siblings. Wouldn't consider putting a tv in my kid's room until they're a good few years into their teens.
We had a Spectrum followed by an Amiga 500 in the living room. The Amiga moved to a desk when a SNES got plugged into the TV. The SNES later became an N64 and the Amiga a PC.
At no point did I consider it a lack of proper parenting that there wasn't a TV and a games console in every room. It wasn't a punishment to not have my own console because I didn't consider it the normal thing to have.

In my Grandad's day they had a radio and he was working at 16. By your logic in his eyes your parents failed by even thinking about having a TV in the living room.

Society moves on, when I was 15 my Dad had a mobile phone, I didn't. It's the norm that most teenagers, many younger than my 15 years old back then, have a mobile phone these days. As electronic items become cheaper and more accessible it becomes easier to purchase them, they become the norm and this plays a huge part as to why these items are in the household. 30 - 40 years ago many could only afford 1 TV. In 1997 the N64 was more expensive than the wii, wii U and game cube at launch, most could only afford one console in the house. Not every one had Sky. So you citing your life 30 years ago and applying that on the youth of today is moot, and largely pretty pointless - beyond stating that those are the values you would like YOUR household to uphold.

Honestly, this is idiotic, especially when you consider what you wrote in the last section of your post, but I will come to that.

1. I didn't say I would put a games console in my child's room.
2. I didn't say that it was lack of 'proper parenting' if there wasn't a TV or games console in every room.

DonDaddyD wrote:

So then, no mobile phones, internet connected games consoles in their rooms and certainly lets not send them to school or allow them to go to a friends house where we can't monitor them. :roll:

You've done your usual of jumping from a normal example to a silly one. Why not lock the kids in the cupboard etc.

Your parents' example of parenting is not necessarily the only model, nor is it necessarily any better or worse than another.

Really, I've jumped...? Until you can clearly state where I wrote: "giving your kid a games console become a measure of proper parenting?" Please stop accusing me with this nonsense, it didn't work the first time it won't work the upteenth time.

You have also taken what I wrote out of context.

Sketchley wrote: "Simply put place the children in room where you can monitor thier activity"
To which I responded: "So then, no mobile phones, internet connected games consoles in their rooms and certainly lets not send them to school or allow them to go to a friends house where we can't monitor them."

Why did I write that, because realisitically, while you can put the children in a room where their parents can monitor them that doesn't eliminate the risk and children can quite easily be subjected to porn via their mobile phone, games console, or that of their friends or even at school.

I never said that was my parents' model of parenting nor did I imply that it was any better than any others.

spen666

somebody is getting themselves rather too wound up it seems

daviesee

spen666 wrote:

somebody is getting themselves rather too wound up it seems

All 'cos Sagan got the Green Jersey.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't want to speak out for fear of being accused of being a pervert - porn is a taboo subject after all.

Really? Seriously? In 2013? You are saying that porn is still a taboo subject? You can be so quaint!

dhope

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't want to speak out for fear of being accused of being a pervert - porn is a taboo subject after all.

Really? Seriously? In 2013? You are saying that porn is still a taboo subject? You can be so quaint!

It can't be taboo, even David Cameron is talking about it so it could hardly be more mundane.

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't want to speak out for fear of being accused of being a pervert - porn is a taboo subject after all.

Really? Seriously? In 2013? You are saying that porn is still a taboo subject? You can be so quaint!

Matter of opinion you are entitled to yours, you do not need to ridicule mine.