Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Oh joy another professional commenting on something outside of their remit.

You do realise adults and kids can mix on YouTube right ?

Every service can have educational content…….

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There is no way they will be able to stop under 16's using adult phones. It does not take a lot to get around age controls and Ebay Amazon or Facebook marketplace will be more than willing to sell a phone to anyone that asks.You can also bet your bottom dollar that should that type of phone we required by law the mobile phone makers will put a premium on the cost.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Sounds like Dr Ranj isn't aware of that.

Perhaps they will be able allow children to use YouTube, but restrict adults from contacting them and restrict any content innapropriate for those u16??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Perhaps they’ll just leave the status quo since the numbers of people meaningfully harmed are infinitely small.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What's an "adult" smartphone?

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

Already exists.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And how would they do that as they have failed miserably for years and i don't see any technical system that cannot be circumnavigated. If you ask me as a very well informed person as far as telecoms is involved this is all just pie in the sky to make it look like they are doing something to placate those who have nothing better to do than get offended because others are not offended and they think they should be. I can assure you that the more they block and ban stuff the more the clever people will get around it.

I will give you an example. They bring in ULEZ zones so the first thing you see is a massive increase in number plate cloning. Ask any traffic copper how bad it has become.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/fea...owing-problem/

Again my point put a ban or cost to something and someone will always find a way around it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And all these suggestions have very easy workarounds. Unless you introduce the most draconian measures going gathering biometrics from the entire population and only allowing access to certain sites or services with biometrics confirmed by a device.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Of course you can get round things but if your child wants you to pay for it you can put the rules both technological and personal in place. You can make the phone part of a family group you control and place restrictions on the device as you want. The controls could be at the user account level as well as the device.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Any measure like this just makes an adult phone a status symbol which plenty of parents would readily buy for their kids regardless. It is pointless and unworkable.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Sounds like Dr. Ranj needs to pipe down then

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

He is accessible on social media if you wish to politely let him know your views.

This mornings Thought For The Day was by Brian Draper who is an Associate Lecturer of the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity.

Mr Draper believes that it's sad that it's taken the death of a child to spark the debate about whether children should have non child smartphones.

Over half of 13 year old reported seeing hard-core msyoginistic material on social media and the earlier a child gets a phone, the higher the chances of them suffering from depression & anxiety. Their childhood ends the minute they get a smartphone because it distracts them from drawing, reading and playing.

He found himself apologising to his son and explaining that he just didn't know how addictive the technology would be when he first got one. His son responded that his generation needed a year away in the mountains to detox and learn how to live again.

He went on to say that this where the spiritual question kicks in because it's not just about damage limitation. The onus is on adults to lead a way back to life ourselves by limiting our own digital overconsumption now that we know the effects and learning to live well within & without our technology.

Lent starts next week when Christians recall Jesus going into the desert for 40 days to a place beyond distraction to work out what life in it's fullness really meant.

He has started small by banishing phones in his bedroom. As a Christian his source is God, but whatever one believes in, it's worth asking what is the source of my life, love, energy, joy if it's not a phone? What gets me up in the morning? What was I made for?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Jesus had a smart phone? Are you reading an electronic version of the Bible?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What the f**k has god to do with it?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Nothing, just another excuse to further an agenda.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

To be fair I'm sure most 13 year olds will do their own searching for porn and not 'accidently coming across on it' on social media. Also I'm sure that's not the reason for their anxiety and depression either.

Do I think kids should have mobile phones? To me that's a stupid question. I think they should have them but I also think they should be banned in schools. Then it's on the parents more so, and that's not a bad thing. Other than that, there's nothing else you can do or stop.

Education is everything and not banning everything because a minority of weak minded Gen Z/A's / weirdos that are upset or offended over the slightest thing because it's trendy or whatever.

Question how it's got to this point. That there are people are just soo pathetic these days that just can't seem to cope with anything... Where did it go wrong?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think that a parent whose child has been murdered will be infinitely more than 'offended'.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------


I'll ask again. What is this 'agenda' that you repeatedly refer to?

It's all in the post as to why Brian Draper felt it appropriate to involve God and why it's also pertinent to those who don't believe in God.

I also think it's inappropriate to use a thinly veiled expletive in the same sentence as God too. Note the correct capitalisation as well.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm happy to correct capitalisation, Please do not use asterisks to circumvent the swear filter - offending word removed god.
Happy now?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Most schools (at least around here) already ban the use of mobile phones in the school, and have for a few years.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, this has been mentioned in a lot of the discussions about this. It seems that the bereaved mother wants a more uniform approach rather than an ad hoc approach as it's currently down to the discretion of each school.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You can’t ban kids from having mobile phones.

Would you ban kids from having tablets?

Would you ban kids from having a PC?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

OMG you have just added fuel to the fire ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Of course you can. If her campaign is successful in persuading our elected representatives that a ban is appropriate then they will pass a law banning U16's from having an adult mobile smartphone.

The only phones they will be able to have will be a child smartphone or a basic phone and probably not at school.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You're in fantasy land now, never going to happen.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Completely unenforceable!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Richard, the technology already exists here’s just one example

https://parentshield.co.uk

This can be device or SIM only

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What about Tablets?

What about PC’s?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Her campaign will not be successful because it is totally unworkable for all the other reasons everyone else here has patiently explained to you. You need to stop obsessing over this and move on - you haven’t found a new folk hero, you’ve found a parent speaking out of grief.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm not obsessed about the issue, mainly because it won't affect me one way or the other.

I've just updated the thread with the latest news and tried to respond to various points that have been (politely) made.

If they decide to pass legislation the question as to what they would do with tablets & PC's is a good one.

As for enforceability, I doubt that would come into it. Lots of laws have been passed where they aren't particularly enforceable and don't come to light until something goes wrong.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If a law can’t be adequately enforced, it’s not fit for purpose, and therefore only electioneering.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:tu:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm not sure that the Tories would do this for electioneering purposes. A lot of Tories don't like state involvement of citizens lives.

Lots of laws aren't fit for purpose and/or cannot easily be enforced, bur it doesn't stop Parliament from passing them.

MP's could choose to amend the Online Safety Act to ban U16's from having an adult smartphone and some parents could decide to break the law and still allow them to have one.

In practice it's unlikely that they would be caught, particularly if phones are banned in schools. Sure, some will be caught if they decide to utilise spot checks, but I imagine that most will be caught when something goes wrong eg murder, child sex abuse and it's found that the child had access to social media.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

A bit like the fox hunting law then.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Whats an "adult" smart phone ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If we go with the let's ban people from doing things then maybe we should ban people from driving until they are 25 as the 17 to 24 age group is statistically over-represented in reported road accidents in comparison with older car drivers aged 25 and above.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Given that insurance for those in that age group can be many thousands now. They are effectively banned unless they (or Mummy/Daddy) are rich.

Let's also ban :-

• soap operas
• Reality tv
• Any programmes about housing or cooking
• Piers Morgan
• Those motorised scooter things
• Dog/cat shit irresponsible owners
• German cars
  

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

we could cut the murder and violent crime rate by 90%, if we just jailed the male population from the age of 18-80.

Sensible policies for a sensible Britain.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This refers to a bog standard smartphone ie not a child phone. Child phones generally refer to basic phones or smartphones that are specially designed or modified for use by children.

Things could be worse, a village in France has just banned everyone from scrolling on their phone in public and are offering 'dumb' phones to children under 15 :D

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articl...dian%20reports.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

We should call it "The world according to Richard daily broadcast" :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

My guess any smartphone, would need to have dumb phones :rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's not the world according to me at all. You're not obliged to read this thread if you don't want to do so, in fact you are able to put me on ignore completely if you so wish.

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------

No, they can have child friendly smartphones if parents are happy with this.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Borecast more like :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

On this I do have to agree. The personal comments directed at you are wholly unnecessary.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Point of order. It’s not for no reason.

Carry on….

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I told you the other day interacting with you upsets me because you're so unpleasant, it's why as a general rule I don't reply to your posts, seeing as you're unable to do the same why don't you put me on ignore instead

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What about Tablets?

What about PCs?

What about Smart Watches?

What about smart TVs?

Social media is available to any device that can access the internet, do you suggest all are banned?

It will never happen so I would advise you to stop obsessing about it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Us moderators can't put you on ignore so we have to read your nonsense contributions.

I can't see that anyone has been particularly rude towards you just robust in speaking out about the nonsense you spout.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Explain why you believe that being rude to me personally is acceptable.

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

Explain how I am so unpleasant and provide examples.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

What 'nonsense' are you referring to?

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

As I said to Chris, i'm not obsessed about children using smartphones. If this law comes to pass it won't be for us to decide the details or how to enforce it.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Indeed and thank you. A minority on here like to do this sort of thing, yet whenever they are asked for their reasons and to provide examples of the nonsense they come out with, they are never able to do so.

Just to warn you that you may get a backbiting message to stir things up by a certain woman on here as that's how she likes to do things.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'd like to know what you think about that 14 years old knows how to access the Dark Web. And how you think that should be regulated?

Do you think restricting mobile phones is going to change anything? Take the Brianna murder, (Quoted from the Guardian) - 'They had “massive battles” over Brianna’s mobile phone, she said, with Brianna changing her passcode on her 16th birthday so that her mother could not check up on her.' - So what would happen if you take a phone away from someone highly vulnerable? How does a parent of someone highly vulnerable work around that? Easy to say, impossible to do don't you think?

If someone wants to search or find something, there's no way you can stop them, no matter what age they are or whatever restrictions you put upon them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The call for banning smartphones to protect U16's from social media appears to be gaining traction.

Every day since there's been something in either the paper or television. Today it was discussed on This Morning. Some of the points made on here have been raised, today Dermot O'Leary said "How do you put the genie genie back in the bottle?"

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How are they going to stop parents from buying adult smart phones for their teenagers under your dystopian scheme? You do know that many parents will be persuaded by their kids to buy them adult phones, don’t you?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

An idea so bad OB and I agree.

It's completely unenforceable at that level.

I don't support the idea - and I know it won't happen - but from a tech perspective the idea that manufacturers will develop different product lines for the under 16s of the UK is wild. In reality (if such a bad idea were to happen) it's giving big tech companies biometric data and having differentiated services available on the device depending on who is logged in.

The entire population won't sign up to that, nor sign their children up to that. I recognise that a significant proportion of the population (myself included) do use fingerprint or facial recognition to unlock devices but the idea it would become mandatory is quite objectionable.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

My scheme? What are you talking about?
It's not me that started the petition.

There was a phone in today and every parent and expert that rang in supported the idea, with some suggesting that U16's should only be allowed to have a basic/dumb phone.

Some seemed to think it's a good idea as it would restrict screen time as opposed to social media. Some thought that a better idea would be to ban U16's from social media instead.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It could reasonably be inferred from your posts that you support the idea. It is not unreasonable for OB to use the term.

If he (and I) are incorrect, what do you actually propose?

What mechanisms of enforcement (more important than the idea) do you propose? I didn't go to the greatest of schools but if you tried particularly hard you could probably find many prohibited substances (of multiple classes) and/or weapons on a given day. And I'd consider that pretty average for teenage education in this country.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I remember people on here saying that the Online Safety Act would never pass into law. I urged people to put their objections forward to the consultation, but only one person confirmed that they had done so.

I've no idea if the Online Safety Bill will be amended to take account of this, my salient point is that it has been the subject of discussion every day since the petition was started. Most petitions don't get this much attention or coverage.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Online Safety Act that does what exactly? White noise in a void from a toothless regulator ill equipped to handle global platforms.

I'm not sure anyone stated it would never pass. However, it was massively watered down to get there to the point of irrelevance.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I only recall the legal but harmful provision being dropped (for adults, it still exists for children).

Ofcom is in the process of prioritising internet safety for children, other vulnerable groups will be dealt with after this is complete (but complaints can still be made now for investigation later).

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And if Ofcom have a yawn, a fart of just feel a bit unsteady. How does that become the law of the land?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I know you didn’t start this, Richard, but you certainly seemed to me to be promoting it, which is why I said ‘your scheme’.

It’s always possible for broadcasters to find a small minority who support something the vast number of people don’t. They do it all the time, particularly the BBC, which has lost all its credibility as far as I’m concerned.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

A variety of radio & TV broadcasters as well as newspapers have been covering this.

As i've already said, this won't affect me personally at all either way. My only interest in this is keeping abreast of developments intended to keep children safe online.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think we all want to keep children safe, but this is not the way.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Channel 5 had an item on the Jeremy Vain programme earlier about bereaved parents joining forces against online harm. It's shocking that online bullies have been allowed to bully both children and adults with their relentless harrassment that is purposely designed to belittle, upset and humiliate to the point of suicide.

Apparently, this is the subject of a current storyline in Coronation Street.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Happy to be corrected but if it upsets you , can't you switch off/ block or just ignore it :dunce:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Before it was on line it was in the school yard or at work, they never managed to stop it there when they could see it going on, so how will this magic process work when they already know it can be circumnavigated by even the least technology minded user who just gets a vpn or buys a phone on ebay and swaps the sim in the "child phone" into the "adult phone". Lets face it phone companies will not make special phone for this they will just sell the same phone with different firmware and call it a "child phone". There could even be a blackmarket of "Adult phones for sale in school playgrounds by the local money savey kids .Then the child will go to a pc search for "how to route my child phone and update with adult firmware. I have a grandson who would be able to do that even if he is 8 years old. He's a clever lad already :)

My point is you put a child phone in the hands of a child and they will see it as a challenge to upgrade it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/...or_encryption/

Well well

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Indeed the supporters of forcing backdoors on providers will be crying in their hot milk. :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Responsibile parents will do spot checks to check if this has been or is being done and apply appropriately sanctions for this behaviour.

For children of less responsibile parents who know how to circumvent the law and are prepared to be disobedient, I agree that it's unlikely they will be caught unless serious consequences arise as a result of their law breaking, where their phones will be forensically analysed.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That's the post of the week even possibly the year. I'll be chuckling for days.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Children who are prepared to be disobedient … perish the thought. I’ve never met one of those :rofl:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m not sure what planet you’re on, Richard, but this bears no resemblance to the world I am familiar with.

And isn’t it the ‘less responsible’ parents’ children who are most likely to be watching this stuff anyway and encouraging their mates to do things they shouldn’t?

I really cannot see this working, but I suppose the politicians will have been seen to do something, albeit almost totally ineffective.

What it will do is create a major headache for social media providers for absolutely no benefit to anyone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This sounds like Richards laws not the reality everyone else lives in. Thankfully i and others live in the real world.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Why do you think this?

Paedophile hunting groups advise parents to check their children's devices to check they aren't being groomed (this would also help to highlight any cases of bullying by or to their own children).

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Why do we ALL think this? Because you're a fanatical fantasist that's why. That sums you up in one sentence.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In the last few days discussion of this subject has continued on the Today programme and was featured on Any Questions, Any Answers and Today's Jeremy Vine programme. In Any Answers someone suggested that the way to deal with this is to close any site that causes problems for 6 months to encourage them to be responsible.

As suggested earlier, The Daily Telegraph is reporting that the Government response is to give head teachers the power to ban mobile phones and to tell them to search them for mobile phones.

In places where this has been done it has significantly improved behaviour, learning and social interaction.

Child phones are now being used in Americ and calls to introduce them here continue.

---------- Post added at 12:11 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------

Nonsense.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So all the comments so far that say you don't live in the real world is just 'nonsense'... Just think about that for a moment...

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The focus of attention about children & smartphones appears to be being broadened to include the amount of time that they spend on them.

The news on TV is reporting that some children spend over fifty hours a week on them- that's longer than the time they are at school or most adults spend working.

One lady said that she went up to her child's school at break time and saw most of them on their phones rather than playing or interactive with each other.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:12 ----------

People are entitled to their opinion and to express them. What you need to think about is that debate should be about expressing & politely challenging views that don't fit with your own rather than constant personal attacks.

Giving reasons as to why you don't agree with the various views of other people and providing alternative ways to the ones being suggested is much more constructive.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

Facilitator correction

Expressing your own views.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Child phones already exist in this country and have existed for many years. How many times do you need to be told ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You may wish to politely contact The Daily Telegraph about this then.

However, I have no recollection of being told this previously. If correct this may be due to
my cognitive disability and I thank you for your clarification but, going forward, I do
ask you to be more polite, empathetic & respectful if the need ever arises again.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There was a 'phone in on LBC the other day about the requirement for 'kids' 'phones.

The conclusion was that everything needed to protect kids on their mobiles already exists and the problem is most parents are just not interested or prepared to enforce rules on their own children's 'phone use.

You can get talk/text 'phones only still - and you can control app use on 'phones via another 'phone which the parent can have.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I can certainly believe that this is the case.

I've just been listening to the former CEO's
of Instagram & Twitter.

The key point from the Instagram guy was that at the time he was solely interested in increasing the amount of time on Instagram, but that he regrets this now.

The key points from the Twitter guy was that he thinks that it's relatively easy for children to mislead their parents, so his own children are not allowed smartphones. They are allowed to use his & his wife's in the home, but are closely monitored.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just to let you know, the CEO guy of Instagram may say one thing publicly but is under Meta the comapany that owns it which is the same company that owns Facebook and ultimately ends up at Mark Zuckerberg.

The CEO of twitter is not a guy but a woman, Linda Yaccarino who is ulimately under the direction of the owner, Elon Musk.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And I ask you to stop playing your disability card because you can’t be bothered to read replies due to your incessant need to spout utter gibberish.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In fairness quite often previous post are misread or ignored, OK so Richard does it more than most :p: perhaps I should get my cards out .

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You are being deliberately offensive now and this has upset me greatly.

You are fully aware that I have a cognitive disability that affects memory, yet believe it to be appropriate to refer to my decision to remind you of this as 'playing a disability card' and referring to this as not being able to be bothered.

Tell me, if a relative or friend of yours got dementia (as many of us will) and they started repeating the same question over and over again (as sufferers do), would you rudely say that you'd already told them and then say "How many times do you need to be told?"

If they explained that the reason for this was that they had dementia, would you accuse them of 'playing a disability card?

Would you then refer to their attempts to communicate and live a normal life as possible as an 'incessant need to talk gibberish'?

My disability affects all parts of my life as it affects my thought processes and I don't believe that I do badly in communicating, all things considered. I have asked the facilitators here and they agree. They also agree that you should withdraw and apologise for your inappropriate remarks, so i'm giving you an opportunity to do this now.

Rather than continuing to make personal attacks it would be much more productive if you set out what you disagree with, why you disagree with it and offered any alternatives of your own to deal with the matter in hand.

Admin have previously asked for people to stick to the subject under discussion as opposed to attacking other individuals, but you have clearly chosen to ignore this.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Some Ofcom statistics:

- 44% of 9 year olds own a mobile phone.

- By the time they are 11, 91% own a smartphone.

- Over 29% of children aged from 8 to 17 have experienced online bullying.

Teachers report that excessive screen time results in children being tired in class, unable to focus and that it impacts relationship development.

-Psychologists report that it could affect children into adulthood if tougher boundaries aren't set at home.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yep, if you want me to point you in the way of Ukrainian charities rather than scammers, no problem.

If you want to back UK servicemen actually risking there lives there I can put you in touch for donations.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It’s amazing how your cognitive impairment appears to allow you to selectively block out what you choose. And since you do have a cognitive impairment how can you say for sure that I’m being deliberately offensive ?

When you play this card you do a disservice to every single one of us who has a disability (visible or not)

You refuse to be educated, you refuse to consider alternative possibilities. It’s just you and your agenda and when someone corrects you or attempts to guide you down a different path all of a sudden your cognitive impairment comes into play.

Grow up, stop acting like you’re being so hard done by. The reality is if a message board can get you this defensive then please don’t go out into the real world because it will eat you for breakfast

The world owes you nothing, just like the rest of us

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As previously stated, my facilitators have read your comments. They informed me that they believe that your comments are discriminatory, arrogant, offensive as well as unnecessarily rude.

To clarify, are you questioning the stated
effects of my disability?

Is there any particular reason why you are repeatedly ignoring the request to stop making person comments and focus on the subject under discussion?

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Various television programmes have been covering the Government's decision regarding phones in schools.

Some interesting points were made. One was that some parents ask their children to text them to make sure that they got to school safely and that some schools allow children to take phones to schools, but make them put them into lockers or hand them in at the start of the day and collect them at the end of the day.

It was stated that having a phone can make children the target of muggers either on the way to or on the way back from school.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just to be clear, your "facilitators" are not running this forum, nor do we base decisions on what they "believe".

No one is being "discriminatory". In fact, your posting manner (which we could also label as arrogant, offensive or whatever else you want) has, over the years, annoyed/upset/irritated countless members (inc team members), and you have been warned about it numerous times, but we've still allowed you to continue posting.

No one is forcing you to be here, or post, you can stop and/or leave at any time, if other peoples views bother you so much, then perhaps you should take a break.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, therefore all the upset and anguish you’re experiencing is totally subjective and down to you and no one else.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In a report on the news last night, a headmaster gave his views on mobile phones in the school. He said it's not a problem or the main priority to take phones out of schools. Mobile phones in schools are a distraction but it's not the main issue. Taking phones out of the school will just mean they'll spend more time on them out of school and would still be subjected to whatever the main cause is such as the apps, social media and certain content they come across (or searched). It will not make any difference.

Another report on the news on the same night was about mental health for children. When you read this thread it seems certain people/person assumes everything is down to online content. Well it would be more helpful if you actually hear about the causes of what is affecting children's mental health issues, but that's something that just never get mentioned. Why?

I don't think a single person here would dispute that social media is a major cause that is affecting mental health for children, but this is something that can not and will not change. But as always there has to be something else. It also highlights that there is no prevention or help with mental health due to the budget cuts.

To me, it's just passing the buck with this phone lark. We live in a shit world in a shit country that's knackered and on it's knees. And kids are affected by this in so many ways because they can't cope with it all.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I couldn’t give the square root of bugger all if your facilitators (or should they be called ego massagers) think I’m genghis khan reincarnate their opinion counts for nothing.

You post articles or links to articles that are factually incorrect, you fail to do your own research on them. Yet when you’re corrected you either a) tell the person to take it up with the source you’re quoting or b) claim that your cognitive impairment meant you didn’t see them.(odd how it’s so selective) and try to absolve yourself of any responsibility to your posts

My non visible disability means I double and triple check things, you would be wise to do the same. It might just save you in the long run.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:confused::confused:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You asked a question about how l knew and I gave you the answer. More fool me for thinking I could have a reasonable conversation with someone with such a rude posting style.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This programme looks at the effects that online bullying can have on children up to and including suicide. Please be advised thar it contains an interview with the mother of a a schoolgirl who took her own life, so is pretty upsetting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wjb1

---------- Post added at 02:36 ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 ----------

The rise in social media threats to players & their families has prompted the Premier League to set up a unit to track down internet trolls. A 19 year old man has already been charged with harrassment:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68293359

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I listened to about 3 mins of that podcast and thought what a load of shite, like it's aimed for 6 year olds. It seems today no one is willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, problems or addictions.

Richard do you have children? If not, do you accept you have an fanatical addiction on this subject? Do anyone here share your views or interest on this subject for that matter? Would you be a happier person in yourself if you stopped with this crusade and fixate on something a little more fun or healthier perhaps. No one here is stopping you from having an opinion. You do have a choice but your choice is making you - 'in your words' - greatly upset, offended, discriminated against etc etc etc. You could just stop and walk away and find something else that could benefit you in a positive way. It's either that or you're looking for a reaction to feed your attention issues. Which is an issue in itself.

What if, that all this negativity towards you that you do get here makes you feel sad, enough to harm yourself for example. I hope this is never the case, but what if it does have an effect on you to take such actions. Who then is to be blamed for that effect on you? The responders, the owners of this forum, the internet or yourself? Do you not understand the issue here?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I have an interest in this subject because I have been targeted myself in the past and know someone who ended up dead because of a post on Facebook. I do a lot of work behind the scenes to help vulnerable people (and others) with the problems that they face, not just in relation to this area.

Unfortunately, many people don't have the benefit of being able to deal with such incidents due to a lack of funds or legal advice. The police often aren't much help due to lack of expertise and resources.

The Online Safety Act places the onus on website owners and their moderators to keep people safe. If it had of been in force at the time, facebook would have been in serious trouble for failing to appropriately deal with the incident that was reported to them.

You make some very important points. It's all very well for keyboard warriors to get a kick out of bullying, harassing, stalking people etc, usually by publically belittling, embarrassing or humiliating them in order to frighten them or wreck their confidence and self esteem, (there has been an increase in threats to send embarrassing photos or videos to peoples friends, family & work colleagues), but nobody knows anything about the issues that the victim may be going through.

This can lead to mental health problems, self harm, suicide or even murder/manslaughter.

Thank you for your concern, but I have a
lot of support around me regarding this, but in the wider world I have found that most people are in favour of the Online Safety Act and this has been reflected in the media and all the major political parties.

On this particular forum most people seem to be against the Act and some valuable & useful information has been received.

The media continue to expose on a daily basis the things that people have suffered Online. The two young ladies at the beginning of this programme were mercilessly stalked by an individual who targeted 60 women in total and who is now in prison.

https://www.itv.com/watch/this-morni...60/1a1960a9660

Can I Tell You a Secret is available on Netflix.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I've got nothing against the Online Safety Act because it doesn't actually do anything.

It's the pretence that it does and associated panty wetting that grates.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, because to be blunt, they are completely clueless about what it actually means and/or does. They're just told, "it protects children" so of course they are in favour of it. They havent a clue how it might actually do what they are told - you can sell anything to the masses if you tell them it protects children, even if its clearly complete bollox in reality.