Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36167678)

I’ve just been teabagged by someone in CoD, what offence* is that ?

(*Apart from being guilty of being rubbish at CoD….)

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36167682)

So this was not a real girl and was instead a test and could have been a man for all anyone knew. I understand in this case it was a female reseacher ?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167691)

This information about the online rape has subsequently come out since the BBC initially reported it, thank God it wasn't a real little girl as was first reported.

Hopefully this will prompt a change in the law as nobody should be exposed to this whatever their age.

The forthcoming age verification system will help to keep children out of adult environments and adults out of environments intended for children.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36167698)

Since the game in question is specifically for those over the age of eighteen years old and has the personal boundaries function to be explicitly disabled what else would you have them do ?

Too many parents buy their children adult/mature games such as CoD & GTA V which in the U.K. both carry an 18 rating as they think it’s ’just a game’

Software developers and games companies can put in age verification all they want but if a parent is going to buy them the game then they’re more than likely going to give them a eg a credit card to verify their ID which btw is completely useless as an identity factor on its own.

The simple fact is this, protection of children starts with, and is the primary responsibility of the parent(s) be that not purchasing the game for them, ensuring internet access is controlled and supervised etc.

Just for S&G i rang my local police force this morning told them that I had been playing CoD had been teabagged and considering the news I wanted to report a sexual assault. After the laughter stopped they told me that there was no offence…….

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36167698)

Since the game in question is specifically for those over the age of eighteen years old and has the personal boundaries function to be explicitly disabled what else would you have them do ?

Too many parents buy their children adult/mature games such as CoD & GTA V which in the U.K. both carry an 18 rating as they think it’s ’just a game’

Software developers and games companies can put in age verification all they want but if a parent is going to buy them the game then they’re more than likely going to give them a eg a credit card to verify their ID which btw is completely useless as an identity factor on its own.

The simple fact is this, protection of children starts with, and is the primary responsibility of the parent(s) be that not purchasing the game for them, ensuring internet access is controlled and supervised etc.

Just for S&G i rang my local police force this morning told them that I had been playing CoD had been teabagged and considering the news I wanted to report a sexual assault. After the laughter stopped they told me that there was no offence…….

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36167675)

A) no we don’t know it’s a "little girl", as no links have been provided.

B) If it was a "little girl" (define, please), what was a young child doing online in a VR environment without adult supervision?

Update - just seen pip’s post - it was an adult researcher….

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167726)

Children have always wanted to participate in adult activities before they are legally entitled to eg drinking under age.

A lot of paedophiles who target children on websites intended for over 18's use the defence that it is an over 18 site, this never washes with the courts as it's accepted that children nevertheless do join such sites and if they make it clear that they are a child then the fact that it's a site intended for over 18's is regarded as not relevant.

This would be the case even if any parent was irresponsible enough to buy them a game intended for over 18's.

In a real world situation a 15 yo girl may manage to get into a nightclub. If she discloses that she's only 15 to a man who she meets and has sex with, the fact that they met in an environment for over 18's would not be a defence.

If she never mentioned her age or lied and said she was older, then it would.


---------- Post added at 04:19 ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 ----------



I was verbally told about this by a colleague, so no link was available at the time. Now that it's been picked up by the media I am able to provide this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tar-raped.html

Sadly, the incident referred to by Pip appears to refer to a historical case and it was a real little girl that was targetted

Her age had not been disclosed, only that she was under 16.

The definition of rape requires physical penetration to take place, so I imagine that other laws will be used against the perpetrators until if/,when the law is updated to take into account modern technology.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167739)

The one that Pip referred to took place in 2022.

If this was taken off then, as she was a child she will have been unable to take responsible decisions.

Nevertheless, it is the men who are at fault. If a woman takes the unwise decision to walk home at night instead of taking a taxi and gets raped, it would be the fault of the rapist not the woman.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167739)

Nevertheless, it is the men who are at fault.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36167741)

I’m not sure how to get this through that thick skull of yours but I’ll try

1. Not one post is trying to say that the men are innocent, this is about minimising potential for these issues to occur

2. You cannot compare the physical act of rape or sexual assault to something that happens in a virtual environment. By doing so your doing a disservice to actual victims


3z If she can’t take responsible decisions regarding disabling personal boundary when it explicitly states what the possibilities are and you’re also requested to confirm your decision before the change is made then they should not be playing the game.

4. The child is capable of configuring the vr environment, sign up to the service knows how to disable the boundary, but isn’t responsible enough to understand the explicit warnings about the risk of disabling the boundary ?

5. Have creators implemented safeguards ? Yes. Could they potentially do more ? Possibly. Are creators solely responsible for the child’s safety in a virtual environment ? No. Should parents be engaging to make sure their children are safe ? Definitely !

If I had a teenage daughter who wanted to play VR , I’d be using the cast function of vr headsets to make sure I knew what she was doing, she would have a child account that couldn’t disable things such as personal boundaries


You’re clutching at straws and you’re being a tit.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167755)

If you'd like to post this again after removing the gratuitous rude & innapropriate remarks, I will address your points.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167755)

If you'd like to post this again after removing the gratuitous rude & innapropriate remarks, I will address your points.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167755)

If you'd like to post this again after removing the gratuitous rude & innapropriate remarks, I will address your points.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36167761)

Admitting when you got it wrong is the grown up thing to do. People will respect you so much more if before you post something you leave your ego at the log in screen. You should try it sometime.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36167768)

An interesting discussion about the incident features in the first part of this programme:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001tr3f

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------



To my knowledge I haven't got anyth8ng wrong. I sometimes do due to brain injury and, if it's politely pointed out, will apologise and make amends.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36167786)

Deep calm breaths people :)


[ nothing has been reported ].

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168070)

Good to see that the BBC news is highlighting the fact that under 18's who send explicit photos of themselves, even to their partners, leave themselves open to being charged with creating and distributing indecent images of children.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168083)

It is no longer possible for those under 18 to get married.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36168084)

That did not become law until the end of Feb 2023, so its perfectly possible for a couple married before then to still be under 18.

Also, it only applies to England and Wales, the age in Scotland is still 16, as is Northern Ireland.


Its also perfectly legal for a couple to have sex under the age of 18, so still complete nonsense that they cant take nude pictures of each other.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168093)

Colin Graves, the former chairman of Yorkshire County Cricket Club, who described racism as 'banter' is set to take over the club.

Azeem Rafiq, a former player and whistleblower about his experience of racist behaviour woke up this morning to many racist remarks on his social media. This is now being dealt with.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168093)

Azeem Rafiq, a former player and whistleblower about his experience of racist behaviour woke up this morning to many racist remarks on his social media. This is now being dealt with.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36168098)

Why do i get a feeling you found a lot of enjoyment in making that post ?.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36168098)

Why do i get a feeling you found a lot of enjoyment in making that post ?.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36168103)

Because he always does?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168108)

I don't know why you would think that racism is something that I would enjoy. Please explain exactly what you mean by this remark.

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------



Please explain why you believe that I always get enjoyment when discussing racism as opposed to other forms of discriminatory behaviour.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36168126)

I dont think you are happy about racism at all every right minded person should be fully against it, I posted that because you seem to have an agenda over anything relating to the Online Safety Bill and you seem all too happy to tell us all about it.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36168126)

I dont think you are happy about racism at all every right minded person should be fully against it, I posted that because you seem to have an agenda over anything relating to the Online Safety Bill and you seem all too happy to tell us all about it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168135)

Thanks for explaining. It's a subject I'm interested in amongst other things. I contribute to a thread about Virgin Media TV, do you class that as an 'agenda' too?

Anyway, we aren't here to discuss me- play the ball not the man.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168217)

That’s a novel idea, but it ain’t going to happen on this forum. You may as well accept it!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36167244)

You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by trying to humiliate them, but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36168128)

We all knew what you meant, wouldn't have wasted my time explaining if I were you

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168221)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168272)

This is incorrect and i'm grateful that an explanation was provided after the request.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------



I don't understand what you mean Hugh. Neuro diverse people understand hints, riddles etc. In order for them to understand what you want to say things have to be clear and concise (this is not the same as being rude or abrupt).

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Facilitator correction

Don't understand.

Cav.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168272)

This is incorrect and i'm grateful that an explanation was provided after the request.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------



I don't understand what you mean Hugh. Neuro diverse people understand hints, riddles etc. In order for them to understand what you want to say things have to be clear and concise (this is not the same as being rude or abrupt).

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Facilitator correction

Don't understand.

Cav.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168293)

The point I was making wasn’t aimed at you - it was in response to another poster lauding your comment "play the ball not the man", when they had recently just done the opposite, as shown in the quoted post…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168293)

The point I was making wasn’t aimed at you - it was in response to another poster lauding your comment "play the ball not the man", when they had recently just done the opposite, as shown in the quoted post…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168635)

If someone is making personal comments and put-downs then such responses are inevitable. It takes two to tango.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168637)

Pretty sure asking someone for to back up their assertions with evidence isn’t "making personal comments and put-downs"…

Paul said "I presume you have evidence to back this up" and "If you come into a topic and state "the moon is made of cheese" then you should be able to back that up if asked, its not up to others to provide "proof to the contrary" (of course, they can if they want)."

You replied with "Once again, another example of people who disagree with them hijacking your comments without providing any proof to the contrary. This is how one shuts down the discussion." and "You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by ttying to humiliate them, but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing."

If anyone in that conversation was making "personal comments and put-downs", it wasn’t Paul…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168652)

You are just perverse. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. If I or anyone expresses a point of view, it is not necessary to provide a link. But if you challenge that view, that is your opinion, and only becomes more credible than that if you provide a link to support that intervention.

Assuming, of course, that the link is a factual piece and not just someone else’s opinion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168652)

You are just perverse. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. If I or anyone expresses a point of view, it is not necessary to provide a link. But if you challenge that view, that is your opinion, and only becomes more credible than that if you provide a link to support that intervention.

Assuming, of course, that the link is a factual piece and not just someone else’s opinion.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168655)

So you’re saying that the post that started this discussion off was you stating an opinion/point of view, not a statement of fact?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36168653)

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. If you assert facts, or if you claim to be asserting an opinion that actually stands or falls on matters of fact, then it’s perfectly in order for someone to challenge you and ask for proof. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. The discussion can’t easily develop if all anyone does is shout conflicting opinions at one another.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168665)

https://otherweb.com/n/aBs4PuBS

The latest example of Conservative frustration with civil servants.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36168665)

aBs4PuBS[/url]

The latest example of Conservative frustration with civil servants.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36168669)

No its not, nothing in that article mentions "Conservative frustration" with civil servants.

It also has nothing at all to do with the "Online Safety Bill", the supposed topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168839)

The Government says that it's been designed to be responsive to changes.

They have acknowledged that some things might need to be changed, strengthened or weakened as required.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36168841)

Politicians that don't know what they're doing issue a holding reply. I'm stunned.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36168843)

No, this is what they said whilst it was being formed and as it was going through Parliament.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36169193)

'Omegle was a free, web-based online chat service that allowed users to socialize with others without the need to register. The service randomly paired users in one-on-one chat sessions where they could chat anonymously.'

Well no surprise there then really is it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169226)

Unfortunately not. A marvellous idea for strangers to interact with each other & learn about different cultures, lifestyles etc has again been spoiled by the actions of the minority.

If this isn't appropriately dealt with I fear that Governments will use this as a perfect excusr to curtail the freedoms offered by
the 8nternet.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36169232)

What do you mean "fear" you are the biggest cheerleader?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169244)

Thank you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-68110001
Looks like America is also losing patience
with user generated sites not protecting users. The owners of websites are openly being laughed at with the refusal to answer questions and the nonsense that they are coming out with.

All vulnerable people should be protected, but children especially so. This is why
Ofcom are Prioritising the online Safety Act to deal with this first, but complaints can still be made about other issues.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169256)

Wow, just seen a report on this on the BBC 10pm news. A warning was made to someone that what they were looking for may contain child abuse content. It then offered tools to block such content or, unbelievably, a choice to view the content!!!

There were a number of parents there who had sadly lost children as a result of online bullying. One remarked that the taps were
overflowing and they were being given a mol to deal with it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169256)

A warning was made to someone that what they were looking for may contain child abuse content. It then offered tools to block such content or, unbelievably, a choice to view the content!!!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169287)

I don't think that most people would want to proceed if there was a possibility of being exposed to child abuse.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36169291)

That doesnt make it "unbelievable" they are given a choice, when its clearly not a certainty.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169244)

Thank you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-68110001


Looks like America is also losing patience with user generated sites not protecting users. The owners of websites are openly being laughed at with the refusal to answer questions and the
nonsense that they are coming out with.

All vulnerable people should be protected, but children especially so. This is why Ofcom are Prioritising the online Safety Act to deal with this first, but complaints can still be made about other issues.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36169303)

Your welcome, picked it up on CNN and checked BBC just for you not sure if you get CNN. ;)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169459)

The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey is calling for restrictions on mobile phones for under 16's.
She wants them to only be able to have basic phones or child smartphones that don't give access to social media.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169459)

The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey is calling for restrictions on mobile phones for under 16's.

She wants them to only be able to have basic phones or child smartphones that don't give access to social media.

On the last Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme a Government spokeswoman said that she thought that an outright ban would be draconian, but that a ban at school would be sensible.

This link contains a link to the petition should anyone wish to sign it:

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk...one-age-limit/

This was also discussed on the Jeremy Vine shoe this morning where there was a call for more regulation of user to user sites because all they are interested in is continued increased usage and not the welfare of vulnerable people.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169485)

Today is safer Internet day, more information here:

https://www.saferinternetday.org/

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36169484)

Oh god yet another load of spazamataz

Most phones are bought for children by their parents in the first place

Social media can be blocked using controls that are supplied by providers such as Vodafone

People should learn that they don’t get everything handed to them on a plate and quelle surprise here we go again it’s about personal responsibilities the it’s always someone else’s fault/responsibility is quite frankly ridiculous

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36169486)

Invalid cert chain.

I mean, it’s not but would be funny if it was

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169487)

We all have a responsibility to make the internet a safer place.

Your point was brought up and it was stated that tech savvy children are able to get around blocks by using a VPN.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36169464)

While I'm sorry she lost a child, shes also totally lost the plot.

Hunting Knives are already restricted, that didnt exactly help did it ?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169487)

We all have a responsibility to make the internet a safer place.

Your point was brought up and it was stated that tech savvy children are able to get around blocks by using a VPN.

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------



Why would you find it amusing if a link to efforts to make the internet safer didn't work? I don't understand??

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36169491)

So… what’s your solution to that ban VPN services ?

There’s another radical solution here…. Parents monitor what their child is doing and if the kids are breaking the rules then, wait for it they take the device off them. Crazy I know

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

VPN traffic can be blocked as well

To add further there are plenty of dumb phones or smartphones with limited functionality available. The problem is parents will generally give in to their kids demands and that isn’t the responsibility of a telecoms company or Apple or Samsung

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169501)

I disagree. It's for everyone to try and make the internet a safer place.

Having said that, it's not my or any other members of the publics role to provide solutions. That's the job of our elected representatives and Ofcom as the regulator who need to work with websites and device manufacturers as required.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169503)

Have to disagree - as parents, we have to take some responsibility for our children, and that includes their behaviours, be it physical or on-line.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36169484)

Oh god yet another load of spazamataz

Most phones are bought for children by their parents in the first place

Social media can be blocked using controls that are supplied by providers such as Vodafone

People should learn that they don’t get everything handed to them on a plate and quelle surprise here we go again it’s about personal responsibilities the it’s always someone else’s fault/responsibility is quite frankly ridiculous

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169501)

I disagree. It's for everyone to try and make the internet a safer place.

Having said that, it's not my or any other members of the publics role to provide solutions. That's the job of our elected representatives and Ofcom as the regulator who need to work with websites and device manufacturers as required.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36169505)

Wow, personal and parental responsibility, who'd have thought it, must say it's a bold strategy, lets see if it pays off

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169485)

Today is safer Internet day, more information here

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36169520)

But as a parent it would and should be their PRIMARY responsibility to prevent or minimise harm coming to their child/children from whatever potential threat and if they can’t comprehend that then perhaps they should stick an extra rubber on and l/or stop firing out kids out of orifices that can only described as an empty headlock

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169561)

Ideally making sure that their children are safe on the internet and elsewhere should be the prime responsibility of parents, yes, but, being pragmatic, for various reasons (including those who simply can't be bothered) this doesn't happen and their children need to be safeguarded too.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36169740)

that safety on the internet was a parental responsibility

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36169741)

Parents let their kids play 18 rated video games, so the pressure on parents to let 13/14/15 year old kids have an “adult” phone so their kids can keep up with the “coolest” kids at school would be immense.