I went for one earlier thank you

Well no, obviously not. Changing direction/the subject isn't really a debating tool either. Unless you had actually countered the arguments I put forward to explain why those statistics are irrelevant in context of this law change, then it doesn't really make sense for you to keep repeating them as though it's new information.

But that is, as always, your choice.

Now that is something I'd opt out of ever having to see.

It probably goes something like "Gosh, one is arriving".

But was that not in the spirit of the original poem?

Censorship? Yes, you're right. But porn? definitely not.

It's just an appalling comparison in my view, when you strip the topic down with what that poem was originally about. I know you were coming at it from censorship, but still, just not right.

Correction: I said the parents that are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own children, please point out where I referred to you?

Also I hate it when people go 'Oh, you don't understand, you don't have children'. No, the act of squeezing a baby out of your vagina does not instantly imbue you with a magical sense of newfound wisdom nor does it give you the right to talk down to anyone else just because you have a kid. I have as much right to an opinion on this matter as anyone else does and my opinion is that the block will achieve nothing but pacify distant lazy parents who wants the world to raise their children because they can't be bothered to. It will not prevent child porn or anything dodgy and it won't even prevent kids from looking at porn. It's just a big annoying dent to everyone's rights.

Will you and are you able to monitor and restrict these little ones access to the net when they are at their friends house, or at an after school club, or out on their bikes, or at a sleep over?

Changing the subject, how did I do this?
How on earth can I 'counter' an argument based on proposed legislation.... I don't have a crystal ball do I to know if these measures will work.
You can't 100% say that the 2/3 increase in internet corruption based crimes is not the reason for this change either, it is new information....
What does not make sense is trying to maintain the status quo when things are not working.

No, but when they're in my care I can and that's all I can do, forcing this on the whole nation is just ultimately selfish and it could lead to a very dark path.

To be fair though, you will never be able to monitor that as the parents of their friends could have opted in, so unless you are going to ask the question to all the parents you will never know what they are accessing when they are not under your direct supervision, it's so difficult and an age old problem where in the past big brothers / friends etc passed on the porn mags, now its the internet but its the same story, it will be impossible to monitor it completely ever.

So let me get this right, by you not having the right to masturbate it makes all parents selfish and it will lead down a dark path, where is this path and where does it go?...

Does Cameron not realise children actually have parents who can/should control what they're using the internet for? Completely unnecessary

It's an easy target because he knows no one will admit to watching porn and stick up against it because of the embarrassment, and it's just another ploy to get votes onside in time for the next election

You'd never be able to let your kids go outside or meet other people if you wanted to shield them from all the world's horrors ranging from murder to porn but that's no way to live a life. Instead of shaming people into admitting they like to watch porn, would the government not be better off striking a deal with ISPs to share these warnings about mature site content (which already exists nowadays, they'd just need to strengthen parental locks on Google searches) as they've said they're going to do and then monitor anyone who chooses to ignore such warnings and make arrests, if they were so concerned about people accessing porn? But of course, Mr Cameron is speaking from the POV of a parent, so it's only natural that we're focusing on what parents can do to minimise the chances of their kids seeing things - and having full control of what their kids do on the internet is a great idea; but it should only be applying to parents and not just the population en masse. The reality is you can't just not allow your children to use the internet, but as a parent you have to accept that you are giving your child access to a device that will allow them to look up anything in the world, whether that be war atrocities, porn or sensitive material that you don't want them to know about. I don't see how the government can take it upon itself to decide what the population en masse can and can't look up online - that's exactly what China has done and as such its people are persecuted for going around the filters. Obviously censoring porn is not the same thing as censoring your country's atrocities but it's the principle - as Sticks posted previously, it's a short step away from full blown censorship and suddenly we're powerless to do anything about it because we said it was okay to censor some things in the first place.

I'de rather look after Percy the boy,than Percy the pecker:joker::joker:

To who it may concern

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

It's just the start of the internet being completely regulated, and everything we do being monitored

Yes, but I am responding to the comments that parents should be supervising their childrens internet use continually and that if you don't you are a crap parent, it is just impossible to do this 24/7.

I provided reasons why it wouldn't address the problem, and you came back with a quip about me suggesting that only men access porn, thereby ignoring my actual point.

You didn't need to counter an argument based on proposed legislation at all. My point was the people who are already accessing the kinds of things as highlighted by that article, are the kinds of people this won't touch. These aren't your everyday people having a wank to fapdu, they are already accessing the unregulated part of the net, which this legislation will have zero impact on them.

Also, I'm sure idiots out there do access child porn, and that's how they are caught by the police. I think it's more dangerous to drive these people onto the unregulated parts of the net to meet like minded people in secrecy.

Not one person I've ever spoken to about it, has ever accidentally come across an image or video clip of child porn.

Anyway, we can go round in circles all day but you have your opinions on why you think it's good, and I have mine on why I think it's a huge infringement on us, and basic misguided policy making.

As I said to Annie I am responding to the comments that parents who allow their children to access the net without supervision are irresponsible.

The not being able to monitor children's internet use all the time argument is flawed, there are ready made programs/systems you can put on computers, passwords, parental locks which kids will not be able to get past, maybe Cameron's time and money would be better spent promoting these instead of punishing everybody

It's not about porn, you'd know what if you bothered to ever read a post of mine and not just ignore everything you don't like.

It's about extra unnecessary government control and them using an easy cause to justify it. When you start using children as an excuse to limit and censor things then the potential to go too far with it is always there. This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Snowden business in the US with their government spying on their own citizens and claiming it's in the interest of stopping terriorism. People who opt out of the block will undoubtedly be watched more then those that don't.

Yeah. That's my main worry in all of this. I'm not even that bothered by the the porn law change itself, more about what it'll all eventually lead to.

It's scary to think what the internet will be like in 10 years time.

I recall a story where a fire station in the US banned its staff from reading Playboy, or something of that ilk. Those affected were supported by a number of Christians who reasoned, if they can ban Playboy today, then they might end up banning our Bibles.

How about a few lessons from the episode of Star Trek the Next Generation called Drumhead



See from 52 seconds

And Picard's final words

Exactly. As a kid my mother set up a lock thing straight away, wouldn't let me get on some gaming websites, let-alone porn