Re: Online Safety Bill
 

According to Sirius, it's merely advisory...

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The proof will be in the pudding, It may now be in force but let's see how many big tech companies get fined not some token small site that they use to proclaim it's working.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Online Safety Act doesn't go far enough according to Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life at the age of just 14, after seeing harmful content online. Approximately one young person a week dies and 85% of parents want stronger online legislation.

Also includes a report about the experience of Australia banning under 16's from social media as an ITV poll says that 86% of parents support this.

Possibly to get round the new restrictions, children are now reported to be using coded emojis to bully & insult others.

https://www.itv.com/watch/lorraine/1a9360/1a9360a3829

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

By now, whatever their size, the vast majority of websites that contain user to user content will have completed what's required of them in order to comply with the new legislation. It's only those that haven't that leave themselves open to action being taken against them.

I do take your point that it always seems to be the little guy that they go after ie a sole trader is investigated for tax evasion, whilst some of the big companies seem to get away with paying very little, if any, tax.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It was reported on ITV This Morning that, in a school WhatsApp group, one member chose to make hostile & inflammatory comments whilst discussing the appointment of a new headmaster. The school made a complaint because these remarks were upsetting to their staff, Governors and children.

Six police were sent round to the house of the parent who had done this to arrest them. They were held at the police station for eight hours whilst investigations were made.about harrassment & malicious communication.

It's good that the police are taking the Online Safety Act seriously and, after eight hours, I doubt that they will be doing anything similar again, but six police officers seems like overkill to me at a time when they are saying that they have too few resources.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You know that “the process is the punishment” is not a good thing, right? :rolleyes:

It isn’t the police’s job to punish perceived maliciousness by turning up mob-handed and detaining people for hours because of *allegedly* hurty words on WhatsApp. I wonder how quickly Herts police turn up to a burglary, and how many officers they send round?

Add to that, a constable involved in the investigation has now contacted a Hertfordshire County Councillor to warn her off doing her job on pain of being made a suspect in the investigation - he has advised her against contacting the school. For the avoidance of doubt, this is an elected official, whose job includes dealing with constituents’ issues regarding their local school.

Nothing about this is good, Richard, and the only possible good that can come out of this is that the police are going to get a good slapping at the hands of the Home Secretary and people may start to wake up to the highly illiberal and undesirable risks associated with what the Online Safety Act is trying (and manifestly failing) to achieve.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How you must yearn for the salad days of the Soviet Union.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Absolutely not, free speech is essential in any democratic & civilised society, but there are right ways and wrong ways to put a point across without being malicious or offensive.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

"malicious or offensive" as defined by who exactly ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Assuming we can agree on a definition of ‘malicious and offensive’, do you seriously think a dispute on a school-gate WhatsApp group warrants attendance by six uniforms, eight hours in a police cell and threatening emails sent to elected officials? Because that’s precisely the chain of events you were so breathlessly applauding yesterday.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's a shame you forgot to mention the police have decided to take no further action, makes me think they didn't do what they were accused of. Waste of police time and public money.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Even worse, it appears the "messages" were on a private chat, not connected with the school.
What part of "Private" is hard to grasp here.

Oh, and as above ;

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Those who the remarks are about.

---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

I did say that it seemed a bit overboard when the police are saying they are short of resources. The emails were not known to me at the time.

I've heard that the police have become involved with a journalist over something she posted on Twitter/X and that she now regrets posting it.

Do you know anything about this as it was only briefly mentioned on the News.

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 ----------

Didn't 'forget', this information wasn't known at the time.

A complaint was made, it was investigated and, subsequently, it was 'no further actioned'.

We don't know the actual wording of what was posted, it could have been libellous, insulting, threatening etc.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 ----------

People are entitled to complain about what is said about them, even if it was never intended that they see the remarks. In some ways, if it was said behind their back, it's actually worse.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That’s a breathtakingly naive way to describe six coppers attending, arresting both parents in front of their kids and keeping them in a cell for 8 hours.

The response to this was grossly disproportionate and it is to be hoped that someone in Herts police suffers disciplinary consequences.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

By that measure anything can be Malicious or Offensive. In fact Richard if I reported your post to be malicious and offensive to me, I assume you would have no problem with being arrested by six policemen and held in a cell for 8hrs whilst they investigated my claim?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Eight hours does seem excessive, maybe they were trying to get in touch with or liase with the aggrieved parties, or wanted to teach them a lesson, but without taking it any further??

As I said, we don't know what was actually said. She might have used an everyday phrase like 'I'm going to kill him if he does XYZ'. Of course, as it stands that's a threat to kill, but using common sense wouldn't interpret it as such. In this hypothetical situation she would have had chance to explain that it was a figure of speech & not meant literally. They would then have had to contact the aggrieved parties to see if they accepted this explanation. They might have needed time to think it over or to seek legal advice before responding.

Recently a woman who was sacked from our local dry cleaners posted on Facebook that she was going to blow it up. The police visited her and no further action was taken because she agreed to remove her post and replace it with a public retraction and apology.

If they had decided to I imagine that they could have changed her under terrorism legislation, but understood that she was young, upset after being dismissed and had subsequently agreed to make amends.

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

I think most people would know what was or wasn't offensive and wouldn't make such remarks. However, we can all inadvertently offend people without realising, but in most cases, if the comment(s) are withdrawn and an apology made, there's no harm done.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You do realise this is not what arrest and police detention is for? Stupid question, you obviously don’t.

It is not the polcie’s job to hand out eight-hour prison sentences without trial. The power of detention has specific uses and is meant to be proportionate.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You misunderstand. "You" may make an entirely innocent and seemingly inoffensive remark, but subjectively, by your standard, If find offensive, I can call the police have you arrested and detained for 8hrs.

After you've been arrested and held in a cell for 8hrs.....and that's no harm done is it?

and why should you withdraw a comment and apologise, if no offence or malice was intended?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It might have been proportionate, we simply don't know either way. The police have been known to bend (or even blatantly break) the rules to suit themselves. If they did on this occasion, hopefully any investigation will bring this to light.

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

No, if it was clearly nothing offensive like 'Do you like apple pie', you would be given short thrift if you complained.

If someone inadvertently offended someone, for example by using a dated term for a black person, and they genuinely didn't mean to be offensive, they would be only too pleased to negate the offense caused by withdrawing and apologising for the remark. If they refuse to do so, this would call into question whether if was accidental and if it was deliberately said in order to cause upset. The incident would then be viewed in an entirely different light.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You seem to think that they did it in order to teach a lesson. That is, without doubt, disproportionate and a misuse of the power of detention. Make up your mind.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Do you even realise how incrediby daft that definition is ?
By that standard anyone can simply say anything anyone else says is "malicious or offensive".

Not to mention in this case the comments were in a PRIVATE conversation between unrelated people.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, I suggested that this may be the case. I don't know for sure either way.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

I've already addressed these points further up thread.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Which brings us, full circle, to the somewhat troubling way you clapped like a performing seal when you posted the news item yesterday. Uncritical approval of police action whose motivations you do not know, and aspects of which you admit may not look great, is not a good look on you.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, sorry I consider “do you like apple pie” as a pseudo racial slur, like “cotton picker” and I’m going to complain about you and have you arrested and detained for 8hrs.

By your standard, accidental or not, they would be arrested and detained for 8hrs whilst investigated before any option was given to apologise, indeed they would not even be advised about what it was they said was supposedly offensive.

You are clueless about what you are advocating…..clueless.

Perhaps it is down to whatever cognitive disability you claim to have, in that case I would reevaluate your statements on the matter as your often cited cognitive disability is potentially affecting your reasoning on the subject matter.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

do you get a certificate for that?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

We are more like going round & round in circles, with you making rude comments. I'm surprised at this as you have previously said that people should be more polite on here.

Again, I said that the police seemed to be going overboard.

Neither you nor I know the reasons why the police behaved as they did, they may or may not have been justified. Any investigation should hopefully find this out.

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Feel free to go through the official channels and make a complaint & let me know how you get on. Of course, you won't, because, as opposed to playing devil's advocate, you just like to troll various threads with silly comments/arguments.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

I don't understand what you mean. What kind of certificate are you referring to? For disabilities??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

i was simply asking if a person claims to have cognitive disabilities do they get a certificate of proof of the alleged condition.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Strange question. But I would have thought his posts, obsessional tendencies along with complete lack of understandings of other opinions other than his own would be proof enough. :shrug:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

i don't know who you are referring too i assume it's a theoretical person

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I can only assume you were looking in the mirror as you typed that out.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Examples?

---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

I see. The only certificate that i'm aware of is one to claim Council Tax exemption.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There’s no certificate, as with pretty much any diagnosis just a letter from the GP confirming whatever condition but you need to request it and in some cases GPs charge for it, usually about £10 but this isn’t common.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just seen a post on facebook where a group of paedophile hunters are complaining that Welsh police have again been to see one of their team regarding posts he made on the platform.

These people seem to think that laws don't apply when talking about (alleged) paedophiles. Just because someone dislikes the possibility of someone belonging to a certain group (maybe with good reason) doesn't exempt them from the law of the land.

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Yes, that's been my experience too, (though they've never charged me).

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Without knowing what/who you’re talking about it’s hard to comment on whatever the hell you’re talking about but the only times the police have ever been in touch with us (and any groups we associate with) has been when comments have been posted that could either incite retaliation crimes or jeopardise the case.

Either way any decent hunter team ought to have an admin who monitors the chat in live stings etc and removes such posts asap.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

a bit like Alfred in the Bat cave monitoring the bat computer assisting you boy wonders to clean up Gotham city, jiminy jillikers, do you get a cape mask and utility belt.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No but we do get a free keyring and a pen.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This entire thread.

And dozens more, going back years, usually related to some implied disability we’re supposed to dance around, that only seems to surface when you’re questioned or backed into a corner.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Indeed yes, they should. I can't remember their name, but the group that I saw were also 'outing' what they refer to as 'Nonce protector' judges and police who had been found to have been charged with child abuse over the years in retaliation for one of their hunters receiving a police visit whilst he was out.

Their issue seems to be that one of their hunters gets a police visit for remarks made online, whilst judges hand out lenient sentences and some police have been found guilty of the crimes that they seek to prevent. I can't see what they hope to gain by rubbing the judiciary & local police force up the wrong way though.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

So many that you are unable to provide specific examples.

You appear to be questioning my disability itself and the effects thereof. Do you do the same to any other member of this site? If someone says that they are a cancer survivor, that they have been bereaved or have some form of mental or physical disability, do you seize upon this to make snide & discriminatory remarks to try and hurt or upset them? Do you get a kick out of this?

A withdrawal and apology for these gratuitous remarks would be greatly appreciated. My carer reports that I actually look physically shaken, not helped by various things keeping me awake for most of the night.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

do you feel as though you have been backed into a corner???

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No one else goes on about their disabilities and/or illnesses and uses them to get off with getting berated for daft comments or posts. Claiming discrimination etc etc.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And this is exactly why there’s more chance that I’d get an apology (not wanted, needed or appropriate) from Pierre than RC would.

If you (plural) have a disability, there’s no need to bring it up 8 out of 10 times when you (again, plural) perceive a personal attack.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It does help though if you want to use it as a get out of jail free card for the things you've said or threats you've made. Personally I'd never bring a disability into a thread to excuse myself when I've got over excited but I easily could and you're one of the few people on here that even know what's wrong with me, the thing imo with disability or illness is if you let it define you, it will, my partner is an inspiration to me, she has form of blood cancer but never moans or complains about it and because of that it's always me that has to remind other members of the family that she even has it and she wouldn't have it any other way.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Oh absolutely, and I’m sorry to hear about your partner, I hope she kicks cancer’s arse.

A disability may explain certain behaviour, it should never be used as an excuse, or as you’ve said, a “get out of jail” card.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Hey I've advised Richard to get offline and to rest for the rest of today. Hopefully he ll be back tomorrow thanks you

Nicola facilitator

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well, that’s a new one.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Sorry about that, I needed medical assistance, but i'm feeling a little better now thank goodness. Predator Awarenes is the name of the Facebook group that I mentioned earlier and, from what I can understand, one of them was arrested a few hours ago (not sure what for).

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Just getting round to watching Sundays political programmes and, when asked if she thought that free speech was under attack in the UK (because of the Online Safety Act), Kemi Badenoch said that she "thought it was", but that "overall it was ok" even if some areas had "gone too far". She ended by saying that it was "important to ensure that individuals are not allowed to harrass others in sensitive situations". This was on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips

It all seemed a bit muddled to me.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I don't like the way he talks. It's from the side of his mouth. The tosh that comes out is beyond tolerable.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Tate is a king-sized bell end.

I won't ever claim to be dad of the year but I intend to do anything I can to teach my son to not pay any attention to whatever comes of of the Tate brothers' mouths.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The overwhelming majority of my posts aren't related to my disability. It's only mentioned when necessary, just like you with your anxiety state. People need to be informed about any disabilities where it's relevant so that they can take it into account and avoid any discrimination.

There was once someone on here who kept getting berated for his spelling mistakes. He couldn't help it because he was dyslexic and had to keep on telling people this time and time again.

Would you say that he was using his condition to 'get off' with making spelling mistakes? Would you say that the repeated remarks about spelling mistakes, despite people being made aware of his dyslexia, was discrimination?

---------- Post added at 18:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

I'm sorry to hear about your partner, i imagine that this form of cancer is particularly awful. I've mentioned her in my prayers.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think what Stephen is trying to say is there are some Really Challenging members on here who make ignorant or egregious comments but when they get pulled up for what they said, they claim it's all part of some apparent 'disability' and to take action against would therefore be 'discrimination'.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I often make a lot of spelling errors due to my sight impairment. Yet I never mention it if someone pulls me up on it. It's none of their business and its just rude to spell check someone. So I just let them get on with it.

As for my anxiety, its been under control for many years now and again I don't really bring it up or get stressed out. There are more important things in life than some anonymous person on the Internet.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I wonder what problem people have that nit pick on here. Guess the best way to go is ignore them .

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Quite!

Can always have a lie down!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As Itshim says, the best way to deal with this is to ignore it if it causes upset. If a response is made I believe that being kind, considerate and respectful, without getting personal about anyone or their disability, is the best way to avoid any issues.

Anyhow, as admin don't want anything else to be discussed in this thread apart from the Online Safety Act, I suggest we now move back to the subject under discussion.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And there you go again Richard.

Your first sentance agrees with Itshim and then you ignore it by posting further. Then you go on to advise what people should do as an extention of admin (let alone mods).

Pehaps following Itshim's advice it would be better to not post, that choice is of course yours.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ofcom have announced more rules that are coming in that are designed to further protect children:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yljn2vkn1o

A Government spokesman said today that, when these come in, the system won't be perfect, but that, nevertheless, more children will be protected from harm. And, If these regulations aren't complied with, action, including getting a court order to make the relevant sites unavailable to the UK, will be taken.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

It's now been reported that the couple weren't held for 8 hours, but 11 in connection with complaints of harassment and malicious communications, both of which are criminal offences.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So the police’s behaviour was even worse than first reported, then, you agree?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The offended have got there way, they have turned this into a country where the slightest complaint has the police blue lighting to the rescue. Mean while there could be real crime being carried out but no police to respond to it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Much easier to rush to a house where you know you'll find the so called "culprit" then spend time looking for someone who has long departed the scene of an actual crime.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Hopefully this will prevent anything like this happening again:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-WhatsApp.html

If parents use a legally checked code of conduct when posting comments, there should be no more incidents that give rise to accusations of bullying, harrassment etc or of breaking the law with regards to malicious communication issues.

It's a shame that so called adults need this in order to put their point across without being impolite, disrespectful, making libellous comments, unfounded allegations etc.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Pure nonsense, adults are free to say what they want to each other in private.

This is the real world, not some fantasy fairy land where everything is always roses.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

BUT you're still choosing to ignore the fact they were released without being charged with anything and the police have said they will be taking no further action.

The police decision to take no further action was being widely reported before your original post, which brings into question your motives for what I feel at best was a mischievous post and at worse doing something you're so desperate for this unworkable law to tackle.

If someone continued to post this sort of thing about you, after it had been acknowledged by the authorities that you'd done nothing wrong, you'd be threatening legal action left right and centre.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The 'new facts' that you are putting forward are known to participants of this thread as they have already been discussed. No need for bizarre speculation.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:01 ----------

This isn't the case if what they are discussing is unlawful and they also run the risk of the person they are making inappropriate comments about finding out and taking action (as happened here).

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Of course it is.

As has been pointed our multiple times, no action was taken.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

…..to death…

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

One example of a situation where people cannot say whatever they want in private is a situation where two people conspire to rob a bank

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

FYI, it *is* normally illegal to share private groups or conversations without permission, which I'm pretty sure was done in the case referred to.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

First of all, yes they can, it would depend on context, it would probably be illegal if they were actually serious and robbed the bank based on the conversation.
Secondly, its irrelevant as no one would know, thats the point of private discussions.

Also, as you well know, thats not the point, you're just grasping for desperate straws here.
You may as well say its illegal to give someone food, its not, unless you poisoned it of course, then it would be.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not sure I call that "no action". Multiple actions involved.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And we the public have to pay for that waste of police time. Money that could have been put to much better use. I have said many times and the proof is there for all to see, The offended can accuse anyone of anything now and the police have to waste there time dealing with it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not wanting to speak for Paul but I'm sure he meant no further action was taken.

It could have been that they did do/say something that the police deemed broke the Law, but (for whatever reason) felt it wasn't in the public interest to continue. It could have been that the CPS felt there wasn't a realistic prospect of success.

Either way, if there was a case to answer, it would have been weak at best.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If two people want to discuss that in private they are perfectly free to do so. Nothing illegal about it!

Actually committing the crime of robbing a bank IS illegal though and a crime.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

<cough cough>

https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.c...-bank-robbery/

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You are perfectly free to discuss it, as long as you dont actually agree to do it.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Ok, smarty, no final action was taken in relation to the supposed "crimes".

Just the ridiculous OTT reaction at the start.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If you are just discussing and not planning to actually do it, then no crime is committed.

Plus its in private, who would know.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Have you never heard of people being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime? If between 2 people the other party may drop the other in it and, if done online, there may be evidence available.

If, as was the case with the school Whattsapp group, there are multiple people in the group, some who you won't know IRL, even though it's a private group, it isn't in reality.

Also, it's not unknown for moles to be planted in various groups to monitor what's being said. The school may have done this or one of the other parents was unhappy with the remarks and reported them to the school.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not that WhatsApp chat again.

If two people have a daft conversation about f
Robbing a bank together thee is no conspiracy to commit anything. That's not a crime.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Its not illegal to be a "secret" member of a private group, but its a lot less legal to any pass private comments/information onto other parties without the consent of the private group members.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

“Its not illegal to be a "secret" member of a private group, but its a lot less legal to any pass private comments/information onto other parties without the consent of the private group members.”

Of course, yes it’s fine to be a ‘secret’ (for whatever that means) member of a private group, presumably someone invited said person into the group (see Pete Hegseth); legal to pass comments onto a third party - is far less legally clear, unless you have signed some kind of agreement not to, then it’s all fair game.

Think about the disclaimers at the bottom of many corporate emails. They will often include ‘this is confidential, if you have received it in error then you must delete and not pass it on.....’; completely legally unenforceable in most circumstances.

But what concerns me more is Richard’s claim that ‘maybe the schools have added moles into private groups’. OK fine, not illegal, but I would have hoped that schools would have more important things to spend money on, like teaching!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

But the fact still remains (and still ignored by you) that the police decided to take no further action.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, it hasn't. It's been discussed and accepted by all concerned several pages ago.

A complaint was made, it was investigated and subsequently decided that no further action would be taken.

There's nothing untoward about that, though people, including myself, thought it was a bit over zealous to arrest and detain for so many hours.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

“Grossly disproportionate” is the phrase you’re looking for.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The next stage of implementing the Online Safety Act will be in July when age verification measures come into force.

The Technology Secretary has confirmed he is considering further measures to make the internet safer for children, this may include time limits to restrict access to social media by blocking their access after 10pm and during school hours.

Ian Russell (who lost his daughter due to online abuse) and others say that this doesn't go far enough and urge the Government be tougher & go further

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

are we in the Soviet bloody union

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

People mustn't think for or are look after them self's, mummy must hold your hand at all times

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Pornhub banned in France due to age verification. Obviously VPN demand jumps 1,000% after Pornhub pulls out of France... Says it all. All pointless. (Pun not intended).

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They are also considering a max two hour screen time.

These measures, if introduced, would only apply to children, not adults.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Those measures, if introduced, would be as utterly unenforceable as all the rest of it.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

so what's stopping me logging on and handing the PC over to a child

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Nothing, hence the unenforcable bit.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

I'm sorry he lost his child, but frankly its time he shut his gob and stopped trying to control what everyone else does.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Seconded.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Wasn't online abuse by others. She actively sought out certain content. Her mindset was there already.
Link

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Nothing, but why would you want your child to be on social media instead of learning at school or getting to sleep at a reasonable time?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

The salient point being made is that his child ended up dead as a result of inappropriate internet content/encouragement.

This blatant fact went straight over your head as you look to constantly disagree with what anyone says both on & off this forum, coupled with a large dose of non empathy.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Nobody encouraged her. The thoughts were there BEFORE looking for any content. That is the salient point.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If they are at school, they are not on SM during lessons. If they are asleep, you are not on anything, and "reasonable time" is subjective.

That's pure unproven speculation.

Its not a "blatent fact" at all. Its time you learned to seperate facts from assumptions & speculation.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Point being made is she was already thinking about that and sought out content about it. Not viewing the content likely would NOT have changed the outcome. That's the blatant point. Controlling others is not the answer here.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Anyone thinking about ending their own life who is searching out content of this nature should not be able to find DIY guides on the internet.

The algorithm would also note that they are interested in this subject and serve up even more content.

People should not be allowed to encourage people to commit suicide in forums, chatrooms etc without consequences.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------


Responsible parents would ensure that their child is at school and in bed at a reasonable hour, so restricting the hours when these activities should be taking place wouldn't affect them. It's the children of parents who, for various reasons, don't bring up their children responsibly that this legislation aims to protect (if it is actually introduced).

The Technology Secretary doesn't believe that legislation to ban mobile phones from schools altogether is necessary as most schools are dealing with this themselves.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The more you try and control and limit children/teens the more they are likely to rebel and do those things.

Slightly different but the same idea prevails. Scottish government tried to control and limit alcohol with minimum pricing per unit and not able to purchase in a shop before 10am and after 10pm. But none of those things work as there is always a loophole and workarounds. People will just spend more on the thing they want.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

This programme from yesterday discusses the issues raised, including legislation that holds site owners being liable for what people post, forums that encourage suicide, limiting screen time for children, algorithms and more.

Some alternatives are put forward to the proposals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002d9rn

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I have an alternative but forum rules don't allow me to post them

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

That's a shame as it makes for a more interesting & fruitful debate. Could you not put your point of view across without breaking forum rules?