Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The Sun was reporting last week that YouTube Kids would be exempt, but I can’t find anything confirming that.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I sincerely hope that Youtube isn't going to be included in this age verification crap.

Much of my entertainment is via Youtube - Music, watching old comedy stuff, checking out games I'm thinking of getting, and occasionally searching for answers on how to change the spogthrutch linkage on cars not designed to be maintained by human hands

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yoti just looked at my face . I created an account and where Yoti is used I just log in verify and that is it no personal details

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

As noted by thenry, it does appear YouTube Kids will be exempt, I think thats what she is using (via Amazon Kids).

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

On tonights BBC News the responses ranged from "it will save thousands of generations " & "it feels like they don't trust us to use it properly".

On the local news, following an experiment in Bradford, it was "it makes me much happier and I feel hralthirr", "i've been catching up on a lot of sleep" & "it's enabled me to read books & go outside to play football or something".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Only Reform is talking sense. It’s amazing to me that so many people don’t realise this yet.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Huh ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They mean children spending hours scrolling through social media because they are addicted to it.

YouTube is classed as social media because it has user generated comments and there have been cases of inappropriate comments, bullying, harrassment etc.

Critics have said that this initiative will lead to children turning to VPN's and/or unregulated sites.

Who knows, perhaps this move will attract thousands of children to cableforum grin ��

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

I think he meant ...from the pitfalls/downsides of social media use.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You are correct. We are changing the law for a minority of children who are vulnerable and should have better parental oversight at the expense of the majority, who know and understand right from wrong.

The correct solution is to ensure the social media companies employ safeguards. It can’t be that difficult.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

Richard, did you go to a State school? Remember the playground?

What’s the difference?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's been discussed previously as to why leaving it to parental responsibility doesn't work.

Critics agree with your point about making social media companies responsible for safety instead of this ban. The trouble with this is that they tend to be located abroard and put profits before anything else & Ofcom would face the same issues when trying to enforce our laws onto them as they have found when trying to enforce over 18 legislation for porn sites thus far, if they don't comply.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You don’t get it, Richard. Kids nowadays are familiar with VPNs and know how to circumvent the system.

What you have been advocating all this time will penalise adults, not kids.

A better solution than this is required.

Incidentally, on your point about internet security, my eldest daughter used to monitor her children’s use of the internet, and if they were sneakily trying to use it outside of the approved times, she would switch off the broadband.

It’s not rocket science.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

What's going to happen in the next stage of this fiasco, you know, when 80% of the UK internet traffic is going through VPN's?

:rofl:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They'll call it a success and they'll say everything is working to plan.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

That would be a disaster for online safety and children’s private information - everything is being sent through some dodgy VPN provider, based, God knows where, offering a ‘free’ service - free, because?

See ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’!

But ‘peanut’ is right, the politicians will point to stats showing that very few under-16s are connecting to social media from UK-based IP addresses*; and laud it as a great success.

*Because they are all connecting from, apparently, somewhere in Azerbaijan!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I always remember PIA VPN when VPNs are discussed because they used "always use protection" as their slogan. Imagine ID requirements to buy condoms, contraception fall and birth giving on the rise. Proper labour that. Those college courses for young mothers were a hit during labours last tenure.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Actually, I’m not 100% sure that I understand what Richard’s position on this really is.

On the face of it, it does look as if he is in favour of increased controls irrespective of the consequences to everyone else - but then he posts that a similar scheme in Australia has resulted in some 70% of under-16s have managed to trivially bypass the requirements. Which is true and would undermine any argument he might have in favour.

So it’s all very confusing - so maybe, just to clarify things, would you, Richard, be prepared to state, unequivocally, your stance on this? Just so we all know where we all stand and can argue our cases rationally.

I’ll start; I’m all in favour of doing what is ‘reasonable’ to protect children from the murkier side of the internet - but this simply will not work. Just as in Australia, the majority of children who actively want to use social media will, absolutely will, find a way around it. Yes some will be deterred, and stop using it. But the cost, the cost to everyone else who needs to somehow prove their age?

Yes I know the argument ‘well if it saves just one child then.....’

The vast, vast majority of child abuse incidents (sexual or otherwise) take place in their own home or the home of a relative. Should it be mandated that permanently-on CCTV cameras be fitted into every room (yes including the bathroom) in every house in the UK, recording 24/7?

After all, if it saves one child then.......

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Starmer has done another u turn with this . Looking for support from his MPs. Not sure I am happy about having to prove am 76.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

My view is that any right thinking person should want to protect the vulnerable from harm by predators, scammers, bullies etc, be they be vulnerable due to age, disability, mental illness/disability etc.

Generally speaking I have a neutral stance on the attempts being made and have no axe to grind, so don't think it's helpful to try and cause political mischief, so it's all up for discussion, as long as transparency is maintained at all times.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

i suppose kids will just have to go back to joining gangs and making everyone's life a living hell now they won't have anything to do ,bit of grand theft auto, shoplifting, all the fun things that kids in bedrooms don't do

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

What; you claim to be 76, but your profile on CF clearly states that you are 75?

Citizen, we need you to come down to the station while we verify your actual status.

You see where this is headed?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I was thinking I could claim to be 21 (again) but then got worried they'd stop my pension :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Perhaps he'll be 76 by the time this comes into effect ... ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

:D. :D. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Forgive the length and the "nervousness" I am just starting out making videos, but this is a video I did recently on my new router.

Skip to the 1 hour mark to see what all ISP's should be forced to introduce and why parents should be educated on how to enable blocks.

The software has now been updated to the latest one, and I am planning on making a follow up within the next month or so, still got a lot to deal with but it gives an idea on the ease at which things can be controlled at home, without government intervention or loss of privacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGyScxlG7Cc


Although it wouldn't stop kids seeing comments, there is another option in the software where you can make it "Safe for work" essentially which is what holiday parks etc use which disables the ability to make or see the comments on YouTube.

That sort of thing could be implemented onto home routers, kids phones etc and if a kid is found with a phone that is not classed as a "kids phone" the parents get fined.

It's quite simple really but that won't make money for the companies who are taking your data, monitoring everything you do on the internet via the likes of Yoti etc and from selling you access to a VPN in order to get around the restrictions they are pushing to be implemented in order to make money from VPN sales.

The amount of bad VPN's hitting the markets is astronomical and I am telling you now, if you have kids keep an eye on what VPN they install, because they will install one, because there are ones forcing ad's to be watched, ones which are turning the mic's and cameras on, on devices and recording the user's, all this OSA and Social Media ban is doing is exposing the kids to more danger, but hey what do those with common sense know.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Thinking of when it becomes law.
: Sorry you couldn't work that out. Should have remembered what a friend for mine , whom was a TV reporter said when I asked why he asked such obvious questions," you have to ask for the most stupid person you can think of."

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Think he could and did work it out tbf, anyway, haven't you got an appointment at the station to be going to...

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Sorry you have lost me,:shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

happy to help Itshim ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Heard someone say this morning that the only way to stop children accessing YouTube on the TV app is via the router.

Good point about bad VPN's, children trying to circumvent the ban are likely to go for the first free one they come across.

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

From September schoolchildren will be taught about the pitfalls of social media.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Are there any ads on YouTube Kids?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

https://support.google.com/youtubeki...you%20selected.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yep and when you have a government who see no issues with going into schools and then telling kids, "your dad is wrong" because the kid's dad opposes what Labour are saying, you know the only ad's going to be allowed to be shown in the UK are "Labour Approved Propaganda".

When the Conservatives or Reform or who ever is in next, they will do the same, control the message seen by kids in order to try and control who they vote for, try to stop them seeing a counter argument to everything the government says.

All about control, not about protecting children.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

It's stupidly easy to block stuff, but that doesn't give data to the people who want these blocks in place, so the simple blocks will not be done.

When I get some money, I am grabbing a 3 year VPN from PIA, I will then go into my router and most of the traffic from my network will be routed over the VPN.

My brothers eldest daughter was staying here for a few days whilst her dad was doing the celtman, she couldn't go because of exams, I gave her an experience of what it would be like if she was living in the era of what it will be like when this government implement all the stuff they want to, let's just say she hated it and because she will be able to vote at the next election said she will not be voting for the clowns in charge now!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's a damn shame that this thing can't have a trial period of one week . . sometime in the next few months . . so that the general population and the Government can see the problems that are sure to arise.

it's gonna be too late once it's law

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

if the tec giants got together and banned mp's from all social media sites i think we might see a screeching u turn in a very short time once they get a taste of what they're proposing for the younger generations.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Very good Papa, I like it :tu:

They'd all go screaming to the IT Dept. and get the answer "you broke it, you fix it" :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They did a trial with a "Fake" social media platform of all different situations, it was completely rigged as they controlled the content visible, they controlled and forced content that they deem "bad" to be seen.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safe...al-media-users

Right at the start of the document they state "but almost 3 in 10 adults (27%) say they have recently been exposed to potentially harmful content", the question is how "sensitive" was the person who decided what is "harmful content, violent etc"


The Government have done this to be skewed to how they want it to come out, they were never going to do anything but what they wanted.

It's the same with my local council they say "have your say on these roadworks" meanwhile they have already instructed utility companies that the work is going ahead on X date making the consultation pointless.


Said before and I will say it again, welcome to North Korea where soon we will all have to have photos of Starmer on our wall's, wake up each morning and have to salute, bow and then say "Good Morning Lord".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Can we change the thread title to

"the state censorship and data collection bill"

:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

That'd learn them,from memory we had one watching porn in the chamber, about a dozen caught in a grinder honey trap, more caught in the ashley maddison data breach and dozens having been found to be spending time on a local affairs website, maybe they thought its was current affairs as in currently having an affair, hope elmo and the others do scupper their shenanigans

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

So as suspected all the surveys, all the consultations carried out by the Government have been nothing but a way to lie and commit fraud on the population of the UK.

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/User:L...e_verification

None of the surveys or consultations included the ability to say "There should be no ban at all" with all questions only being able to be answered as "yes there should be a ban" effectively, the only difference being what age the ban should be from.


And for those who think Yoti is safe, well think again, they have been fined for illegally tracking users, breaching GDPR and although they are appealing it and it might seem like nothing, it is actually a bigger deal than you think considering they say "we don't send or use your data" only to be found to be not only using but also sending your data to ad companies etc.

https://mint-secure.de/dataprotectio...ationapp-yoti/


I will keep saying, the OSA etc is not about safety of children!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Spies, snoopers and personal info 'dredgers' are everywhere, yet many people still keep giving their (valuable) info away.

They'd soon complain if the postman opened and read all their mail before shoving it in the letterbox :D

I read something about the UK trying to block social media,etc....

The states should do this!!

http://www.gov.uk/government/news/so...childhood-back

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Oh dear another big red flag for the Online Safety Act and Social Media Ban, and anything else the government try to say is to "Protect Children".

The company behind the software being used, is government funded and also was created in order to create the policy to force the use of their software!

They knew the policies were coming before the public even knew anything about it because the government gave them the information of upcoming policies and helped to create the products to use with them.

That is both the Conservatives and Labour!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LhvMgT_-dk

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Can we report them to the monopolies commission? :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Interesting article about the social media ban:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jy512r19ro

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

And you still support this nonsense?

All this will do is anger adults while failing to prevent children from accessing harmful sites.

Nice one, Richard.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m still not 100% sure what Richard’s position on this is? Other than supporting the idea of ‘protecting children’, which I’m sure we all are; I’m still unclear as to whether or not he would support the OSA or this proposed blanket ban on social media.

This proposed ban simply will not work, it can’t work, no more than the OSA prevents me from viewing pornographic content without first proving I’m over 18. Hint: I can, and have never been asked for age verification. It is trivially easy to bypass. You don’t even need to pay for a VPN, or even use a ‘free’ dodgy one.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

What's this got to do with the link I posted? Did you even read it? It shows a balanced view.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------

I answered your question earlier in the thread, i'll see if I can find it in the morning :)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well, did you read it yourself, Richard?

In particular:

Much of the concerns raised so far about the proposals have been about civil liberties and government overreach. But there are other, more prosaic, unintended consequences to consider too.

"Every young person I have spoken to has told me the same thing: they will find a way around it," says Paddy Crump, campaigns director at Flippgen, a youth-led non-profit group that goes into schools to try and help young people build healthier relationships with the online world.

That is certainly what seems to have happened in Australia, where seven out of 10 children aged under 16 who had a social media account before it introduced its ban in December 2025, still have some access, according to a report by the country's e-safety commission.

Crump argues that the measures offer "false hope dressed up as protection" and will simply shift young people's online behaviour elsewhere: including to smaller digital platforms which fly beneath the radar of regulatory scrutiny.
"There are some pretty dangerous places for children and teens that make Instagram look like Disneyland," notes Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It gives both sides of the argument, both for & against the banning of U16's from social media.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Post 2019

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages because it shows the measure is largely ineffective.

It’s just a sop to the complainants. A more intelligent response to this problem is required, but such solutions are beyond the wit of our career politicians.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, we don’t need career politicians, we need those who haven’t been career politicians ( rules out Farage, as he was an MEP for 20 years, was a Parliamentary Candidate 8 times, was the Leader of UKIP for nearly 10 years, and has been the majority shareholder, now company controller, in Reform UK for 7 years…)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

yep FDS

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ironic coming from someone with SDS (you've posted 17 times in the Starmer thread in the last 4 days...), soon to mutate to BDS... ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

FDS ? SDS ? BDS ?

Post in English please.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The Faragists have once again copied Trump rubbish by adapting TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome - anyone who posted anything negative about Trump, no matter if it was based in fact, was said to be suffering from TDS).

Reform supporters have just imitated Trump by coining FDS - Farage Derangement Syndrome…

SDS - Starmer Derangement Syndrome
BDS - Burnham Derangement Syndrome

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well thanks, that explains everything to those of us who don't read all the nonsense on Twitter and Farcebook :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Not on Twitter, and have tight Privacy Settings on FB - only Family & Friends.

I read about TDS in the Washington Post…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

i thought sds was a drill,but it seems it's smurf derangement syndrome :)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Never trust people that talk in acronyms, if they are even slightly dyslexic it can cause all sorts of problems :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

QFT. :erm:

:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

"Almighty Dog, we confess our sins..."

Ya I guess you do have a good point mate!

Quite a g00d point!!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's now estimated that 85% of those now banned from using social media in Australia are still doing so.

Restricting access to VPN's appears to be the next logical step by politicians. There is talk that there will be some exemptions in the UK, the legislation includes explicit exemptions for corporate networks, business-grade remote access solutions, and adult users.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Tell me, how do they 'restrict access' to VPN's without causing a shit storm of legal battles with those who are selling them?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I suppose any country can ban goods & services in their jurisdiction, even if they are legal elsewhere.

Someone could legally buy cannabis in some places in the world, but this wouldn't make a jot of diffence to our customs officers!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, of course they can, but VPN is a technology, it doesn’t really equate to goods or services. Right now, I am sitting on the outside terrace of a wine bar, overlooking a lake whilst connected via a VPN to one of my client’s network and fixing an issue with their backup system.

Yes any proposed ‘ban’ or ‘restrictions’ on VPNs will absolutely need massive exemptions otherwise, kiss goodbye to any sort of remote working, plus a mass exodus of companies from the UK. And I can promise that these legal exemptions will be so wide that anyone could drive a proverbial ‘coach and horses’ through them. In effect they will achieve nothing.

Some internet browsers, cough, Opera, cough, have a built-in, sort-of VPN - actually it’s not a VPN more of a remote proxy. Is use of this browser to be banned? How? Using Opera, it currently thinks I am in Norway (tomorrow, I’ll be somewhere else - possibly Belgium), I’ll browse to a porn site. Does it demand proof of my age? No it doesn’t, because, apparently, I’m not in the UK.

Everything eventually comes down to everyone has to prove who they are and prove they are over 18 by handing over personal information. This is not good!

You said yourself that apparently 85% of Australian under age people were still using social media (citation needed, as the last I heard it was more like 70%), which says what? Bans simply don’t work, they never have and never will*.

Now here’s a thought, what is it that we are trying to achieve, is it to protect young people from harm? Which is an admirable aim, fine. Do you try to ban the ’source of harm’, or maybe spend money in education, educate young people to identify what is wrong, if it ‘feels’ wrong to you, it probably is, move on! Encourage young people to discuss what they encounter with their parents**, or teachers, or even their friends and peers.

Education is going to be vastly more effective then legislation.

* see prohibition in the US. That worked well didn’t it?
** and yes I know some parents should never have been allowed to have children, but it is what it is.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I think of VPN's as a service that's provided.

The Australian figure increased to 85% and was reported by various places, this is just one of them:

https://news.sky.com/story/worrying-...agers-13557426

It'll be interesting to see what happens with VPN's, this is the bill if you want to see if you'll be affected:

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...n/240383en.pdf

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If you all have not figured out what Labour are up to read this book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

which allegedly is required reading if you are a Labour member

As for a VPN ban the only people this will affect are those that have no technical ability, anyone else will know how to get around it, in other words a complete waste of tax payers money that will be used to implement it.

They were unable to enforce a mandatory ID card to harvest peoples data so they are doing it through the back door with age varification.

We will all be living in the UK version of North Korea soon

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

and those people who ever they are will gladly share their knowledge with others as vlad putin is finding with his vpn crackdown in russia

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

So this is the part of the "Spying, Tracking & Restriction" BS bill about VPN's.

Lords Amendment to insert New Clause after Clause 26:
Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United
Kingdom.

Lords Amendments 37*

59 Lords Amendment 37 would require providers of virtual private network (VPN) services to
prohibit children in the UK from accessing their services. Subsection (1) would place a duty
on the Secretary of State to make these regulations within 12 months of this Act being passed.

60 Subsection (2) explains that the regulations (a) may require VPN services to apply highly
effective age assurance to determine whether a user accessing their service is a child, and (b)
must apply the prohibition to any VPN service that is or is likely to be offered or marketed to
people in the UK, or which is provided to a significant number of persons.

61 Subsection (2)(c) would require the regulations to include provision for the monitoring and
effective enforcement of the prohibition.

62 Subsection (3) would allow Ofcom to produce guidance to assist VPN providers in complying
with the prohibition.

63 Subsection (4) would make the power to make regulations subject to the affirmative
procedure.

64 Subsection (5) defines key terms used in the amendment.


So for "59" that would require all VPN providers start to collect age information, which means they have to use the likes of Yoti unless they implement their own, Yoti the company who is currently appealing a lawsuit where they have been found guilty of misusing people's data.

That would be something that VPN's are as far as I am aware staunchly against because what does the "P" stand for, oh wait "Private" so by forcing age information to be collected you remove the privacy of users.


For "60" See my response for "59" but also add in, a complete mass exodus of VPN providers and business's from the UK regardless of if you put in a exclusion for business users and a mass increase in VPN's created by the likes of Russia and China all designed at scaping as much data as possible once installed, including recording your microphone and camera, it would collect so much data even the UK Government would be jealous.


"61" this would require VPN Providers to start keeping log's, something that the vast majority do not do and any that are concerned with privacy are unable to do since they use Ram Disk's and not HDD's or SSD's and as such it would require a complete rebuild of the VPN Network, Servers and Software, something the VPN Providers will not do.



Now as it comes to "Well they can just make a legal exception for business users" well ok, I should create a company for my YouTube channels, hey presto I now qualify for the ability to use a VPN as I need to send video files from my pc to another person, I then say to my dad "hey you are technically my volunteer editor, so I need to send you some video files, we need a vpn" doesn't matter if we are in the same house on the same network, networks can be hacked, so I need protection for my network.

I sign up to a VPN, automatically because of their policies and features, I can add either unlimited number of devices or a specific limit, I then allow my dad to use it, my mum, my brother, my sister, their partners, their kids and hey presto all of us are using a VPN and no more data collecting and spying on our devices by the UK Government.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Kids phones now legally banned in schools.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cq61z67lq9lo

^^ just a silly video, the 'more on this story' link takes you back to April :rolleyes:

Anyway, if kids are found with their phones what are the teachers gonna do?

Confiscate the phone?
Send the kid home?
Give them detention?
Fine the parents?

Monday could be fun. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

they're legally banned in prisons but the places are full of them, once they start searching kids the legal nightmare will begin

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Schools want all the technology for education then doesn't want it .. confused

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Anyone else remember when calculators couldn't be used in exams . . . and you had to show all your working out to get the answer?

:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

We were allowed to use them in O level maths, but one question had to show the full workings out as it said you couldn't use a calculator for it.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Long time ago, but as I recall, we could use them, but still had to show all working out, they just made the number crunching easier.

I had a new one bought for me the following year, for college. I still have it, still running on its original Casio batteries, about 47 years old now.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I still have an old Texas Instruments TI30 scientific, it still works after all these years.

Imagine that, buying an electrical instrument that still works long after the guarantee has expired :D

https://www.picclickimg.com/6GEAAeSw...alculator.webp

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

80085

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The best one was 55378008 and the story which led up to it


Epic year 4 banter

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Can anyone remember the formula for where you go through a number of oil price calculations with someone using a calculator and, right at the end, they are asked what the name of the oil company was.

As they looked completely flummoxed, the display was turned upside down to reveal 'Shell Oil' :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I believe there are a couple of variants of it but one version is:

"If 142 Israelis and 154 Arabs are fighting over 69 acres of land for 5 days, who won?" To get the answer, you multiply 14215469 by 5, so that 71077345 appears, turn the calculator upside down, and on 7-segment displays it appears as "ShEll OIl".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

pen and paper at my school,and show working out or you got the red pen treatment

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

and with that, can we get back to the topic. :)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well for those who thought the Online Safety Act was purely about the kid's, this now proves it is about control!

Restricting the information you can see and only allowing access to what the government say is "Acceptable"

https://rsvp.withgoogle.com/events/keep-youtube-yours

The Government want YouTube and other News Sites to restrict and limit/block access to news and information that does not come either from the Mainstream Media as in the places who refuse to acknowledge the real world, and also the Government as a source!

And just in case the link get's blocked, or YouTube remove it and send it out via a different link, this is the text from the page.

"Keep YouTube Yours
Your Channel, Your Say
YouTube is yours because you built it — view by view, subscriber by subscriber, on the merit of your ideas and your connection with your audience. However, proposed new rules could fundamentally change how your content is discovered, recommended, and viewed in the UK.


The UK Government is running a public consultation called "Watch this space: a new strategic direction for UK media". The proposals include mandatory changes to how content is discovered on YouTube. This could direct audiences away from your channel.


As a UK creator, this directly impacts your future. Digital content discovery works best when driven by user choice, not legal requirements. This is a vital window for you to share your perspective before the consultation closes on 31 August 2026.


Impact of the Proposed Rules
The proposed new rules include a mandatory "prominence regime". This could require digital platforms like YouTube to prioritise and give a "privileged position" to traditional broadcasters (like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4) in user interfaces and recommendation feeds, potentially pushing your content out of sight.

Mandating prominence to traditional institutions will impact all other independent digital creators, production companies and media cos, including through:

Your content downranked: Pushing this group forward means pushing everyone else downward. Mandatory prioritisation of broadcasters would affect how your content reaches your audience, regardless of what your audience actually wants to see.
Reducing user exposure to diverse content & independent creators: Mandating prominence for established media networks would push the UK's diverse mix of independent journalists, educators, and digital-first businesses down the line.
Threat to reach and channel growth: Your ability to organically grow your community, generate views and revenue, and build a sustainable business is compromised if your content is hard to be discovered.
Undermining the creator-audience bond: The consultation repeatedly emphasises "trust" in the context of legacy broadcasters, implying that digital-first voices are less credible, damaging the foundational trust that sustains the creator economy.


How to Get Involved
The UK Government is seeking feedback from those affected by this upcoming legislation to help determine how online content should be regulated.

Help protect the level playing field that you and all independent creators rely on by responding today.


STEPS TO TAKE:

1. Review the Proposals: Read the full breakdown of the UK Government's strategic framework for online media here: Read the Full Green Paper

2. Access the Response Form: Submit feedback directly via the UK Government’s consultation website here: Official UK Gov Response Form. Click on section 4; news creator may also want to click on section 2.



Useful information to share
Give insights into how recommendations help you to find, connect with and build your audiences, and how being recommended less could disadvantage your channel.
Share your thoughts on how such changes could disrupt the discovery of your work and your audience's experience.
Tell your story. You work hard to build your channel in an ecosystem where success is determined by content quality and audience preferences, not regulatory mandates.

Sections Relevant to You
For all creators, please read:

Chapter 4.1 (Prominence of PSM content in the platform age): Explores introducing state-mandated prominence for UK Public Service Broadcasting content above all other content and asking if this should also apply to general entertainment, comedy, drama, and sports.
Question 24: Specifically asks you how proposed interventions might disrupt your business model.
If you are a news creator, please read:

Chapter 2.2 (Prominence of news on social media): Proposals to mandate prioritisation of UK Public Service Broadcasting news content and government or regulator defined ‘trusted news’ providers.



Deadline for responses: 31 August 2026"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...c-consultation

https://dcms.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/fo...fQ7ExcypoLCKZE

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Seems everyone now wants to put limits and controls on what we see, read, and eventually hear.

I'm now humming the Jam track 'going underground', which is probably where a lot of 'restricted' content will end up ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Who uses YouTube for News ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Quite a few when the likes of the BBC and Sky News refuse to cover things going on in the country and other countries.

Also let's you see what people are thinking that are not politicians or journalists, just the every day person and their experiences with everything going on.

Not seen anywhere on the BBC or Sky News or other "mainstream" places about the white lad attacked by a group of 4 "african (don't know 100%)" lads only to be rushed by a female police officer who doesn't announce herself and then arrests him for "assaulting a police officer" and then calls him a "D**khead* when forcing him in to a police car the wrong way, whilst letting the "aggressors" and "attackers" run away.

I have not seen a lot about it so I cannot say for sure that it is exactly how it sounds but if it is exactly how it sounds, then it's another example of the police arresting a victim of assault whilst helping the aggressors or letting them go.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I use you tube for some news eg what's happening in Ukraine as the Trump/Iran issue has been more of the MSM reporting because I intend going there again soon.

Yes it always has been!

RESISTANCE is the only way forward!!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

But did this actually happen? Because it has all the hallmarks of some made up AI bull***t.

Think about it, you are suggesting that a police officer (female or otherwise) saw a single white person, apparently attacking four others (brave of him), felt the need to intervene, without identifying themselves (not in uniform then), and then a police car appears - by the way how do you force someone in, ‘the wrong way’?

The reason you haven’t seen it on the BBC or Sky or other mainstream (let’s say responsible outlets) is simply because it never happened. It was a lie. But, of course if you really want to trust the cesspit of social media to provide you ‘news’, knock yourself out!

Of course if you can provide evidence, links to video footage (not obvious AI generated slop), then I will be the first to back down and apologise for doubting you.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It did happen, but the white lad was being attacked not attacking like you say, and the police arrested him for being a victim whilst letting the 4 black lads go!

The likes of the BBC etc are not reporting on it, decide yourself why that is, but there is one clear thing that has come out since the Henry Nowak incident and that is that Police are under clear instructions to always assume the White person is the "aggressor" or "perpetrator" when the "Altercation" etc is between Black and White, and people may not like that but there is proof and it has been shown on the news that the police, are under clear instructions to treat people differently depending on skin colour!

The GB News link has a bit about the "Treat people differently depending on the colour of their skin".


Here is the story about the white lad being arrested after being attacked:

The Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-by-black-men/

NDTV
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uk-m...-fled-11725534

Hungarian Conservative
https://www.hungarianconservative.co...-by-black-men/

GB News, like them or not at least they are covering it.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/west-mid...ice-birmingham

Story has not been on Sky News, BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or any UK "Mainstream" news channel from what I can see.

I hope the police in the Henry Nowak case are sent to Prison for essentially what could be and should be classed as "Aiding and Abetting / Joint Enterprise" the murder of Henry Nowak. They did this by failing to do their duty as police officers and first responders as he may have had a chance at surviving if the police had done there job instead of arresting him, taking the murderer into his house so he could get something to eat, allowing his brother and mother to conceal evidence and commit fraud, all the while Henry Nowak was dying on the ground in hand cuffs!

I hope the police in this recent incident are arrested and charged with Assault and failing to do their duty as well as clear racism and biases.

Police should be held accountable and when it's clear as day that they were biased and racist they should be removed from there jobs!


In this case the Birmingham Police department have demanded the footage not be shown because it "shows a false narrative" however it shows exactly that the Police let the attacker go and arrested a white lad.

It's two tier policing and this is the sort of news that you will not see without "Independent Journalists" and people being able to share content, because the Government do not want you to see what they have turned the police into, they do not want you to see what they are doing to the country unless it's something they want shown!

https://x.com/BrumPolice/status/2072658292921315560

Here is the thread with more videos on Twitter/X.

https://x.com/Re_mi_gra_tion/status/2072389805032305037

I just want to make it clear, I do not agree with the way it's phrased on that twitter post or the posts after, or a lot of the comments on the tweets.



Mark my words though, things are going to get worse, both from a censorship point of view, a policing view, and I am fairly confident there is going to end up with "Vigilante Justice" taking place on the streets and against people deemed to have "done wrong".

I do not agree with that aspect the whole vigilante justice, I think if people want to do something they need to do it properly and legally, but I will be able to understand the frustration behind it as I am sure many will, from all walks of life.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

OK fine, but the video clips you link to don't exactly match your deathless prose description of what happened does it? A ‘white’ lad being attacked by four ‘africans?’, when a woman police office wades in (without identifying herself, despite being in uniform) and just arrested the 'white lad’ for no reason. It gives the impression of this ‘white lad’ laying on the floor, having the proverbial kicked out of him by four Africans’ when the police turn up and basically say, ‘right off you go lads, we’ll take it form here, and arrest the ‘white lad’ for basically damaging the ‘Aficans' shoes’.

Except that’s not what the video shows it is?

I saw one person attempting to hold two others apart, attempting to defuse the situation. I see one, maybe two people assault ‘white lad’, knock him down and run off, clearly pursued by another police officer.

The ‘white lad’ does clearly assault the police office, which is why he was arrested, oh and clearly was resisting being put in the car.

Now self defence is NOT a claim to not be arrested, it is a defence against conviction.

Hypothetically, I live in an isolated cottage, and have a valid firearms licence. One night my home is broken into, I fear for my life and threaten the assailants with my shotgun’, they ignore it and advance and I shoot them dead.

I immediately call the police, who arrive and find two dead bodies and me with a shotgun; of course I’ll be arrested; which is good, because it actually gives me certain rights.

The police will do their investigation, find that both assailants were shot in the front, (not in the back hence running away), one had a knife....the CPS wouldn’t touch this with a barge pole; obvious case of self defence, no jury will convict.

Sometimes things are more complex then they might seem at first.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

As the Tony Martin case shows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The lad is knocked to the ground, when he get's up and female police officer rushes him, says nothing to him but slams against a wall, anyone would lash out especially when being attacked!

Just because you think you would be able to determine a police office wearing a black jacket from a group of lads attacking you, doesn't make it true for everyone, especially when drink is involved.

There was no copper chasing after any of the lads that assaulted him, she walked over and had a chat and let them go, which is why the Police are now trying to identify them because the POLICE LET THEM GO!!! after committing assault, whilst arresting the victim of the assault!

You can try to dress it up as much as you want, the racist coppers arrested a victim of assault because it's their policy to arrest white people even if they are the victim of the crime!

I would also be resisting being shoved in a car, especially when I was arrested purely for being white, a victim of assault by 4 men and a female police officer who was more interested in committing assault herself that trying to arrest the people who had just assaulted someone, because her actions were clearly assault, if you go with the current "you cannot put a finger on me" left wing nutjob attitudes!

This would not be heard about if it were not for the public, hence why I posted in here, because the Police tried to stop the footage being shown, the government have tried to stop the footage being shown, and now because the government don't like that people can share footage showing the police and government doing what they are, they are trying to control just like North Korea what you can see and what you cannot!



Again the OSA is not about kids, and now we have Burnham saying he is going to restrict VPN's oh the joys of living in North Korea 2!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Speaking of the OSA, back to the actual topic please.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well the EU have just put another nail in the coffin of digital privacy, it's funny how all socialist parties are determined to take away freedom and enforce control and censorship over it's population, I wonder who tried that before??

https://x.com/levelsio/status/2075210426875249056

https://www.wired.com/story/a-majori...ing-to-anyway/


It really is something when the countries in the African region of the world, America and Canada are looking more like countries to live if you value privacy although I suspect Canada and America will soon follow after all the powers that be, will ensure they get someone into power who will implement the laws they want.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Will this be eveyones emails etc, or just people they suspect of being a bit . . iffy?

When it does come into being we should troll them.

5 or 6 times a day circulate emails between a group of friends . . .

"her at 27 is at it again, curtains shut all day and lots of male visitors. On a good day there could be as many as 15 in and out hourly"

"urgent - going to a party *wink wink* and looking for balloons shaped like a penis, any ideas? "

just write any old tosh, bombard them with absolute rubbish :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Fortunately, we are not in the EU, so it wont apply to us, our government would never stoop so low, would they.

Oh wait ......... nevermind.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It is every bit of communication that is not phone calls at the moment, although I suspect that won't be far away.

In the UK, our clownshow government are pushing the same laws, everything will be checked by "AI only" apparently unless flagged as "serious" enough to warrant a full investigation by the Police etc, so text messages, photos, videos, emails etc will all be scanned before being sent on to the intended recipient.

What they want is everything being scanned though, including your computers, websites etc etc on top of the messages, emails, videos and photos, doesn't matter how old you are, they want it all scanning, although they have not publicly stated this yet but in the EU now, it is suspected that if you basically tried to say to a mate via a message or email "my (insert what ever) has just got a naughty school (insert whatever) outfit, we are going to have some fun tonight" that will get you flagged for investigation by the police, because it doesn't matter that you are over 16/18/21 or what ever age they want and fully consenting adults, because it says "School outfit" it will have you flagged as a "possible nonce" requiring investigation and not sending the message to your mate.


One person I saw said "come on Elon get Mar's sorted already, it may be the only place left in the galaxy that the lunatic left have no control over" :p:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ofcom are not satisfied that TikTok are making enough effort with regards to child safety, so are to be subject to an investigation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8l1zk9dk9o

The Government has decided not to restrict the use of VPN's for 16/17 year olds after research found that only seven per cent to ten per cent of children reported using a VPN specifically to bypass age checks. It is also concerned that restrictions could damage free speech, according to reports:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...d-out-34292153