Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Absolutely. Sufferers are neuro diverse, not snowflakes and cannot simply 'get a grip', which is another way of saying 'pull themselves together'. It was an ignorant and offensive thing for itshim to say.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As I stated that's not at all what he meant.

I wouldn't even call them neuro diverse. It's a strange term that's only appeared recently and don't think it's a good description at all. Having known a number of people with Dementia/Alzheimers including my mum and wife's mum as well as other residents of the care home they were each in. It's certainly a disease that affects everyone differently and how long it takes someone to determinate varies greatly. On such a personal level too, it takes a lot to wrap your head around and even accept it. Wife's and husbands are usually those who struggle most with acceptance and then willingness to seek and accept help.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Have lived with this.my problem is people jumping on the bandwagon as a reason for following the latest fashion .

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, it's a terribly sad disease, including for those around them.

We all have our problems, but there is always someone worse off than ourselves.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------


I still don't understand what you mean. Are you saying this in reaction to the Government saying that depression & anxiety should no longer qualify for sickness/disability benefits and that sufferers should be required to go back to work?

If so, these conditions can be very debilitating. I suspect that the Government know this and it's electioneering to try and appeal to their more right wing supporters.

The term 'neuro diverse' encompasses a host of conditions that affect th8ngs such as memory, cognitive skills, speech, personality, behaviour etc etc.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In answer your question YES , sitting around feeling sorry for yourself really works well:dozey: if the pandemic showed anything its sitting at home is not the solution :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Rubbish.

Government can’t just invent rules and regulations with no consideration of how they work in actual reality for everyone, from large social media outlets down to websites run as a hobby.

With the best will in the world dementia has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So, if someone were to make innapropriate comments because they had started to develop dementia (or any other neuro diverse condition) you don't think that this should be taken into consideration if they got into trouble with the authorities for
said comments? They should simply be treated as though they hadn't been affected by the issue?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What about the ones that just use it as an excuse...

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thanks for confirming what you meant. Conditions such as depression and anxiety are complex conditions. There are different types, how severe they are varies from person to person and it can be very debilitating. Self harm or even suicide are prevalent with sufferers.

We're not talking about the normal ups & downs of life or times when we are anxious like before an exam or driving test, but real mental health problems. These cannot be treated with a broad 'pull yourself together' approach.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

If someone has been accused of falling foul of laws designed to protect others on the internet and it comes to light that they have a certain condition then, in order for this to be taken into consideration, they would have to have the condition verified by a mental health professional and have confirmation that said condition could lead to whatever it is that they've been accused of.

Steps would still have to be taken to prevent them from causing harm to others.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

By "the authorities" I assume you mean the police, or the prosecution service. They would be obliged to consider this under the Equality Act.

However if you are proposing that disabled people have to declare this to every Internet forum, social media platform they use, and their ISP (and all of these become arbiters of what disabilities are sufficient, and which aren't) then you are having a laugh.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think the answer to this is for everyone to identify as neuro-diverse with Tourette’s and we’ll be able to get away with almost anything.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------



However for the most of these problems are just that. Just look at the numbers prior and post pandemic. It's a excuse to avoid people's collective responsibility , the I can't/Won't mob strikes again :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I can see where you're coming from as website owners/moderators are unlikely to have had training into how neuro diversity affects a person's ability to communicate effectively and in an acceptable manner.

How would you deal with neuro diverse people if they behaved innapropriatey (even if they couldn't help it or didn't know that they were causing problems) whilst remaining compliant with the Equality Act?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:shocked::shocked: any answers I post would get me banned :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All I can say is that I hope that you don't get to find out what serious depression &
anxiety are really like.

I hope that the Government are talking about milder cases where continuing to work may be advantageous, but I suspect
not.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thing is, most people go for the free speech thing all the time and feel they can say anything they want and not have to limit what they say to what's right or wrong. Social media has been like that for years, op3nly being discriminatory, abusive or down right racist.

So whether anyone may or may not have any mental issues just complicates things further. People believe they are right all the time and don't have to answer for anything. So having online safety bills or rules is just pointless in some respects. Most big social media sites have points in their t&Cs that what people post is their responsibility and the site doesn't take and ownership of what is posted by users.

The Internet is just a mess.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Dealing with such issues is straight forward from a site owner's / moderators point of view. Such as warnings, deleting, breaks, and then banning. It's when the person with the issues can't handle the responses due to their own actions / posts which is more of an issue. Then the threats of legal actions and cries of discrimination just makes it all worse for everyone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, I agree. Some people are used to just saying whatever floats into their mind without thinking or caring about the consequences for others (and now
themselves).

The Online Safety Act now puts the responsibility for what's posted firmly onto site owners and moderators and supercedes any previous t&c's that conflict with this.

It's very selfish for people to post innapropriate things because they can now also get other people into trouble by way of fines or even imprisonment, even though these individuals didn't post the offending material, agree with it or even 'like' it.

In fact, the law now expects those responsible for the administration of websites to be proactive in dealing with innapropriate posts, even before they have been brought to their attention or flagged up in some way.

I remember during the consultation a gentleman saying "If this goes through, people will have to think about it before
they post something" and that's exactly what it's designed to do.

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

Yes, it may prove to be difficult to deal with a neuro diverse person in the same way as a non neuro diverse person in order to prevent innapropriate posts being uploaded to comply with the Online Safety Act and run a website in a proper manner because, if a person is disabled, adjustments have to be made to reflect their disability.

I did think that any relevant disabilities could be highlighted upon sign up, but jfman makes some fair points as to why this isn't such a good ides.

Some laws do conflict though. For example, a man built a structure without planning permission, so the local authority ordered him to demolish it.

Meanwhile, a number of bat's had made their home in the building. Another part of the council threatened him with legal action if he did demolish the structure as it would disturb the bats.

In the end the solicitor advised him to leave the building intact as the consequences for disturbing the bat's was more severe than the punishment for ignoring an order from the council to demolish a building built without planning permission.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Richard … you write at great length but you lack insight. Legislation such as this always makes allowances for the fact that different operators have different resources available to them. Reasonable steps in moderation on Facebook are simply not the same as reasonable steps on a volunteer-run discussion forum like Cable Forum.

If you think anyone here is going to jail if someone posts something you find offensive, and we don’t immediately spot it and take it down, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Personally, I would appreciate seeing a little less of the obvious glee you feel at the thought of the law making our task here harder than it already can be.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I take no glee at all, you're mistaken. The fines do take into account turnover because, as you say a million pound fine for facebook would be a minor inconvenience to them, but impossible to pay for a small website.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You’re still missing the point by a country mile. To get fined at all, you have to get found guilty first. To get found guilty you have to have failed to take *reasonable* measures to moderate offensive content. The test of what is *reasonable* varies depending on the resources of the website involved.

Small volunteer community websites do not have the same resources as Facebook. They are not, and will not be, required to act as if they do have the same resources as Facebook.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and author. His work focuses on how smartphones & social media affects people's minds, thoughts & mental health.

He recognises how difficult things are for parents and says the fundamentals are:

-No smartphone until they are 14.

-Smartphones to be banned in schools.

-No social media until the age of 16 with legislation to enforce this if possible.

- Give them more independence & freedom in the real world.

His experiments show that adopting these norms are the best way for parents to fight social addiction and give them back a normal childhood:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ist-and-author

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

TikTok are challenging the constitutionality of the new law to ban them from the USA unless they sell the company by 20/1/25.

America & the UK fear that the Chinese Government will use the platform for their own ends (they are believed to have very recently hacked into our MOD system containing details of personnel).

---------- Post added at 02:50 ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 ----------

Ofcom to require changes to be made to 'toxic' algorithms to comply with the Online Safety Act:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...0plans%20today.

---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 ----------

Parliament sometimes passes laws using the word 'reasonable'. On the one hand it allows for common sense and fairness, but on the other it leaves what is 'reasonable' to be open to interpretation.

I'm told that what usually happens is that the relevant law is tested in the courts to establish a precedence. After this, case law is generally used to argue for or against the issue in any future litigation.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

An arbitrary figure, I chose when they went to secondary school.

They’re Already banned in most schools, in mine they’re allowed to have them on their person but they’re not allowed to take them out whilst on school premises

Depends what how you classify “social media” Mine only use WhatsApp and Roblox But watches YouTube.

Legislation to enforce a ban of u16 is unworkable

ironically having the phone is what makes me comfortable to give them more independence, as I can see where they are and contact them as and when required.

What’s normal?

The childhood I had, or any adult had, is very different to childhood now for lot’s of reasons. Having a smartphone is “normal” for todays kids.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In situations like these the legislation almost always uses terms like ‘reasonable’. It’s the reason why your small, local coffee shop in the village centre probably doesn’t have a wheelchair accessible toilet or ramped access - it is not reasonable to install such large, expensive, intrusive measures in a small building that lacks the space or the financial resources. In my favourite local seaside town almost none of the cafes have any toilet at all. This is reasonable; they are long established in Victorian and Georgian buildings and it would not be reasonable to expect them to undertake prohibitively expensive measures to comply with the general requirements of the law.

You seem to be hoping to cast doubt on the word ‘reasonable’ as something a small business owner - or, in this case, a small website - can dare to rely on as a defence in court. You are, as usual, wrong. The different levels of responsibility of business with different levels of resource is uncontroversial.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There was actually a case where a disabled person couldn't access a cafe because it had a few steps at the enterance. They couldn't install a ramp for the reasons you mention, so a discussion was arranged.

It was mutually decided that there was a third way that would satisfy both parties which was for a notice to be placed in the window asking anyone having trouble with the steps to ring the bell that had been installed below the notice and a member of staff would come outside to help them into the premises.

New builds are generally required to have disabled access, but one council required new pub licensees taking over existing premises to have a disabled toilet in place.

She did this, even though the bar was about six flights of steps from the ground floor!

It's not a problem now because the smoking ban made it impossible to do business on those premises, so she moved to new premises on the ground floor.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Forgot to mention earlier that as well as dealing with 'toxic algorithms', Ofcom will require robust age verification.

There is currently an issue with children joining adult websites such as dating sites. Those making sexual comments to them often use the fact that it is an over 18 site as a defence.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How is giving firms access to copies of id more secure?
Why not tackle the dangerous content on mainstream media?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Bereaved parents of eleven young people who lost children due to online activity say that the Ofcom measures announced today do not go far enough.

They have written an open letter criticising Ofcom. Ofcom said on BBC Breakfast that they are taking things slowly to make sure tjat they get things right and to ensure that there won't be any loopholes. They also want smartphones to be set up to be appropriate for children at the point of purchase.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Bereaved Families for Online Safety sent their critical letter to both the PM & the leader of the opposition.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In other, equally surprising news, its been noted the sky often looks blue.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Are you confusing disabled toilet and access facilities with wheelchair access? As not all disabled people need or use wheelchairs. Some may even be physically able to walk up and down stairs.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Fake news in Scotland. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What you say is perfectly correct, what i'm referring to is the law pertaining to disabled people in general and how a one size fits all approach doesn't fit every situation, however well meaning it's intentions were.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They're obviously keen that other parents don't go through what they have with the loss of a child and see stricter controls as a way to achieve this. It's remarkable that they can find the time and energy to do this at a time of bereavement, there again they may find this a useful way to deal with & channel their grief.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Latest Ofcom research shows that 27% of 3-4 year olds have a phone and 61% of 8-11 year olds have a phone. This figure rises to 90% for 11 year olds.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

A concerning 50% of 3-12 year olds use at least one social media app. It's a paedophiles dream come true.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

61% of these report that they have been upset by messages that they have received.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

61% of these report that they have been upset by messages that they have received. It's reported that a growing number of parents are joining the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign due to the social & emotional issues arising as reported by teachers & parents.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Whose fault is that? The parents bought the phones in the first place. Perhaps a bit of forethought may have made a difference.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not sure if you mean the bereaved parents or the parents from the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, but yes, some forethought wouldn't have gone amiss .

Either way I think that they want parents to consider the wider implications of allowing the children of today and the future to have access to a smartphone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You can hear one of the bereaved parents here about 15 mins in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yxfn

They are calling for a system where certain words that are used are flagged up. It should be technically doable as forums are able to identify bad language.

Some words eg sex are appropriate for adults in private messages, but not for children, so maybe they could cross reference with a person's age so that the system can decide whether to flag it up for attention or not.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

A lot could be said that it's just one side of the story from these parents. Blaming the internet etc, is that really 100% truthful?

I'm not saying the internet doesn't contribute, but then it's already been proven that one of these parents used it as an excuse rather than face up to other issues that aren't quite so clear. So in extreme cases it's easier to blame something like the internet than face up to other certain truths / failings / realities or blame.

I can't see the big social media companies really doing much about it as not always so quite clear cut. Parents have to take some responsibility, as do the child / user. If too many restriction, pampering, and shielding or whatever you call it, might help a bit but in the end then they won't last 5 mins in the real world. If all this continues, then if you think GenZs are snowflakes then it's only going to get a whole lot worse. And so will the consequences will be too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m afraid that these days, everyone needs someone to take the blame - just not themselves. It’s deflection.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The parents have said that children from a very young age now know more about the world of IT than them and know how to circumvent things like parental controls. One spoke of children accessing the dark Web.

They were happy to let their child go online thinking they would be safe, but this was not the case.

Some parents lack the knowledge to protect their children or, unfortunately, simply can't be bothered and these children need to be protected too, which is why it's essential that those making so much money out of it all should be putting in place safeguards. They failed to follow a voluntary code of practice, so now the Government has had to legislate to force them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Dame Melanie Dawes, the Chief Executive of Ofcom, said on BBC News earlier that one of the sanctions for websites that fail to protect children is that they could be banned from having under 18's on their site.

This is hit on the heels of WhatsApp reducing their minimum age from 16 to 13 in line with other social media apps.

I wonder if some of them might find the new requirements too onerous (they've been able to get away with ignoring complaints, requests to take down posts, not being overly helpful in aiding the police trace users etc up until now) and may decide to raise their minimum age to 18, which wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. The new robust age verification requirement should keep children out and will help to keep adults out of sites aimed at children.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What is your obsession with this ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

‘ The new robust age verification requirement’

This keeps getting thrown about by politicians etc and not one of them can speak to what it is on what it will consist of they just keep repeating ‘ The new robust age verification requirement’

It won’t happen

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think it'll be 'Are you 18?' - Yes or No. The robust part will mean that it'll come up with 'Are you sure'? - Just to be safe...

How many children actually have any kind of ID? A passport maybe.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Best question I have seen for age's :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Paul

Is it possible to block a whole thread from showing up when i scroll through the forum. I understand i can block a person but can i block a complete thread.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Please please please :sleep:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, but I can ban you from viewing it if you want. :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Good point, but adults will. I think that the way it will work is that anyone unable to prove they're over 18 won't be allowed onto sites not appropriate for children.

---------- Post added at 01:43 ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 ----------

I can understand your cynicism as this has been promised in the past and not followed through.

I have met Dame Melanie Dawes and she is a very determined woman who now has the backing of the law requiring the protection of children.

---------- Post added at 01:43 ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 ----------

I can understand your cynicism as this has been promised in the past and not followed through.

I have met Dame Melanie Dawes and she is a very determined woman who now has the backing of the law requiring the protection of children.

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 ----------

The Dark Net is often used by some people for illegal content such as paedophilia. David Cameron said that the National Security Council that he chairs has already made this a security priority

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5yzm

---------- Post added at 02:01 ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 ----------

A doctor on ITV reported yesterday morning that by the age of 11 91% of kids have a smartphone and that 40% of these will be classified as overweight/obese.

He blames this on mindless eating whilst looking at a screen so that they do not recognise when they are full.

Something else for parents to think about.

---------- Post added at 02:16 ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 ----------

There are lots of threads that I have no interest in on here, so I just ignore them and hope that those participating have an enjoyable & fruitful discussion.

I certainly don't go in and start making negative remarks. Just ignore it and use your time interacting on those that you do find interesting if you have no interest in the attempts being made to protect the vulnerable/children.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There is absolutely zero chance that the adult (voting) public will entertain such an invasion on their privacy as to “prove” their age to every website that might host content unsuitable for children.

Kids are fat because their parents keep them inside. A consequence of the last curtain twitching crusade that would have you believe that every public space is crawling with paedophiles so it’s safer to lock up kids with an Xbox.

Its amazing how many people DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIER PRIVACY ANYMORE (@ least here in the states)

More might not mind doing this than we realise :(

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There’s a reason it’s been promised in the past and then subsequently not followed through on. Do you know why this is the case ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I do find this topic quite interesting but also comical at the same time.

Children over the age of 13 will have to show evidence of their age. What kind of ID? Their Hotwheels drivers license?

Adults (and children) proving their ID with all the security leaks these days, not a chance of that happening.

They'll be no anonymous accounts.. Goodbye Reddit etc.

If you watch porn and the site get hacked, then you're open for blackmail.

Ban VPNs? Well good luck with that.

All what's going to happen in 2025 is the usual statement 'Delayed... Pushed back... Blah blah blah'

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So…completely unworkable? We’ve been saying that from the start. I don’t know what the right answer is but I certainly know what it isn’t.

Well if enough people resist this and complain it will eventually be dropped........

But the people have to speak up and make thier voice heard!! (Before this goes into effect)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Richard Madely was on yesterday's 'This Morning' promoting a fictional book he's written about a girl who is targeted by an internet troll. It affects her so much that she goes on to commit suicide.

I'm torn as to what I think about this. On the one hand it's probably based on the real life events of the children who ended up killing themselves that was mentioned earlier so could be viewed as crass, insensitive and opportunistic.

On the other hand it may draw attention to the issue to people who might not have been aware of these tragedies.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's a plot, it's current, and I'm sure it's not the main part of the story either. To look into it too deeply without reading it seems a bit pointless.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's all about making money for the author unless this book is based on fact and is there to educate based on facts. If it is based on facts then it will have a list of subject matter used by the author to support the facts. But as this is fictional then it is there to make money end of.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If its fictional it can't be based on actual events. Real events could possibly have influenced the writer a bit or given him an idea but that's probably all it is

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Meanwhile….. a bit of common sense ?

On Tuesday Saqib Bhatti, the technology minister, told a Westminster Hall debate: “We are aware of the ongoing debate regarding the age at which children should have a smartphone. We recognise the risks that technology such as smartphones pose, but I would argue that a ban would not necessarily achieve the outcome we wish.
“The decision on whether a child should have access to a smartphone should not be one for government.”

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Prime Minister spoke about the Online Safety Act a few times in an interview from two days ago:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1RzRN02G_xk

He also said that his children didn't get a smartphone until their last year of primary school.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That worked well in Wales re the speed limit :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Excellent

There are plenty of people bleating on about this,thankfully they are not the ones who make the laws and those who do make the laws see this as unworkable and costly to implement even if they tried. It will go the way of the dodo eventually.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, but who would they be able to vote for to achieve this. All the political parties appear to be as woke as each other!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Doesn't mean for the most part it's true:erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Did you mean "not true" ?

Either way, I dont understand what wokeness has to do with children owning phones. :confused:

Ya if they are all for this,it might be hard I dunno.........

Ya I see wha ya mean!!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The mental health of MP's is being impacted by incessant trolling on top of the pressures of the job, so much so that one member of Parliament tried to take his own life.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zdf4

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m not condoning such attacks on politicians. But the hatred is understandable when the member (or party) in question has a rich (no pun) history of treating the common man with contempt whilst lining the pockets of their wealthy benefactors.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Are mobile phones woke or anti-woke?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I suppose a lot of people think catering to the tiny affected minority over a vast unaffected majority can be taken as being woke. Probably because they like to get their voices heard above whatever that's not necessary at the time. Just to look like they are 'special, trendy or current'.

I knew what OLD BOY meant, and it shouldn't take that much working out. But it doesn't stop people doing the same thing as above though. Question whatever just for the sake of feeling superior or just being antagonistic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There's a long FT article on the subject of a middle way for smart phones and children. Some parts of it:
https://www.ft.com/content/c122775a-...2-eba077367757

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

are you half Palestinian?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Stop being a snowflake, words are not going to cut you , bash you over the head , or any other physical injury doubt they on there own will even steal your money :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Nope. How about you?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Since I'm quite sure you know the anser to that would be 'No', what exactly is the point of the question ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No problem:


Point being it’s the same argument used to justify the Oct 7th attacks being used to try to legitimise attacks on Tory MPs.

Literally straight out the playbook.

In either case, there is no excuse.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Oh right.

Guess you missed the part where I said I don’t condone attacks on anyone?

Congratulations on the effort at drama but at no time have I justified, or tried to justify, an attack.

In the words of Joey Swole, you need to do better.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No I didn’t miss it, it was there front and centre.


“I don’t condone”……god forbid. But I fully understand…………I mean who wouldn’t under the circumstances?

Just rhymes with, I’m not racist but………….just a little bit.

So no, I didn’t miss it, I ignored it because it’s not what you really think.

I’d have respected you more if you said you did condone it, as that’s what you really think, you know for members of the tory party.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

???????

If you are not trying to justify or explain away an attack

Then what is the point of this statement?

Not condoning…………..but it’s “understandable”

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In the past 21 years you’ve come out with some absolute weapons-grade dogshit on here but you’ve truly peaked now.

Adding words I did not say to twist my post to suit your own agenda? Truly nothing is beyond you.

And you’d have respected me more? To be honest I’m more offended that you assume I care whether you respect me or not.

Take your word twisting agenda elsewhere and stop pretending to know someone you genuinely know nothing about.

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

Are you truly this dense?

Let me use smaller and simpler words for you.

I don’t agree with, advise or condone (apologies if that’s bit too big for you) physical attacks on any person or country. If I knew it was going to happen and I had a way of stopping it from occurring then I absolutely would.

However I understand the anger. Before you quote-edit this post too, let me qualify that but. Understanding anger, and condoning attacks are a world apart (perhaps not in yours but definitely in the minds of rational people).

I make no attempt to hide my disgust of the Tory Party. Doesn’t mean I want to see any of them harmed.

That clear enough for you?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The words that we use are very important. Care must be taken because they can lead to self harm or suicide as has been pointed out many times along with the tragedies that resulted.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think I’ve got a few more years in me.

I think I’ve called it right. You can protest all you want, that’s how I see it. You’ve said your bit and I’ve said my bit.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That enough of this utter nonsense, back to the topic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

St Albans is the latest place to want to ban smartphones for children (under 14 in this case):
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s%20for%20them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You can keep posting stuff like this. But, take a breath, sit down somewhere nice and comfy and really take in and understand the following.

It’s. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Thanks for your time.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I want to ban tractors from the road between 6am and 8pm, I suspect I have about the same chance of it happening. ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Schools seem to be on a roll with wanting to ban things. A primary school wants to ban it's 7-11 year old girls from wearing skirts as they are wearing them too short:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n%20the%20idea.

Is this innapropriately sexualising children or a good idea to deter paedophiles from taking an interest in them?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I take anything printed in the mail with a pinch of salt.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Nothing will do that.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's a skirt for crying out loud. Females have worn them forever. Who is even suggesting it's sexualising girls at all? Certainly not that article.

Also what's that got to do with online safety?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, I suspect not. I was just thinking that a paedophile may find a skirt thats too short to be titilating and encourage their interest in particular individuals.

---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 ----------

A discussion on TV yesterdat morning where it was suggested that this extension of schools wanting to ban things was sexualising children. For balance there were also others who supported the idea.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I don't know how your mind works but it seems you're a bit too obsessed and it does look a bit unhealthy.

Why can't the school in question just apply the rules to a uniform, after all that's what a uniform means. Skirts should be knee length, and they should just enforce that as a rule. No need to ban skirts at all. To look into everything from a paedo's point of view constantly to me is just a bit weird.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Looking at things from the point of view of a paedophile is one of the ways that children can be protected. This is why it was brought up on the Channel 5 discussion yesterday.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

From about 0:09 this segment speaks about the experiences of a headmaster who, along with others, banned smartphones in their schools. One of the things that she said was that it was found that, as soon as one child in a class got one, all the others started getting them too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001zdw2

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Sorry but I don't need to see a clip to know that once one kid has something then the rest want it too. It's called FOMO.

Like if I got the latest He-Man figure chances are everyone at school would soon get it too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, a Primary School Head wants too.
Perhaps all these skirts are just bothering him. :sleep:
Maybe he needs to look a bit closer to home. :erm:

Or maybe hes just another of these idiots who thinks girls should not wear skirts because its 'girly' and we cant have that now can we. :rolleyes:

Makes you wonder how such muppets get to be head teachers in the first place.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, girls wear skirts to school (and at home, and on holiday, etc etc) and life goes on as it always has.

You seem to think every everyone is "a paedophile", and everyone on the internet is a predator (actually, I'm pretty sure you just think every male is one or the other).

You obsession with all of this is starting to look very weird.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

for me, this is starting to get dangerously close to the 'they were wearing a short skirt, therefore they were asking for it' gibberish.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I have done a quick scan through of the mobile phone policies for the local secondary schools including the one my kids go to. Five out of six have a mobile phone ban in place as part of their online safety policy. Interestingly, the one that doesn’t as far as I can see is one of the top performing state schools in the country (Watford Grammar School For Boys)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I don't think that most males/people are paedophiles, predators or trolls, but it's not these people that children & parents have to worry about. It's not weird or obsessional to want to discuss the safety of children, Ofcom are prioritising children as their first task of the Online Safety Act and quite rightly too.

---------- Post added at 07:34 ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 ----------

Yes, it does rather appear to be the case that many or even most schools have a smartphone policy in place.

MP's

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ry-ban-schools

---------- Post added at 07:38 ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 ----------

I think that MP's & pressure groups are wanting a more standardised & stricter approach.

and parents face uphill struggle