Online Safety Bill

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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?

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?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Nothing will do that.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

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?

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.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

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.

[mrmistoffelees]

https://youtu.be/BVeZnsuY7Vc?si=a58k9X7d9w_rpgmk

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

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.

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

[Stephen]

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.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A primary school wants to ban it's 7-11 year old girls from wearing skirts as they are wearing them too short:

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

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.

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.

Looking at things from the point of view of a paedophile is one of the ways that children can be protected.

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.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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

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

[jonbxx]

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)

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

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

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.

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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)

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.

MPs urge under-16s UK smartphone ban and statutory ban in schools
Commons education committee chair says online world poses serious dangers

and parents face uphill struggle

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

You 'don't think'? Rather than certainly not etc. Strange or an odd way to think don't you agree?

If other people think that you're obsessive or weird in your thinking, don't you consider that you might be true?

I see you didn't answer or quote mrmistoffelees reply. I'd like to understand what you think about his post. My wife goes into town often and she mentions the latest fashion for the younger generation that these days is that they wear next to nothing and this is the younger teens. I find it a bit mad but the last thing I'd be thinking is what peado's will be thinking.

So why the obsession? Do you have children? It seems you want to ban everything that goes against your views, so there must be a reason.

As for the mobile phones, it's not all down to the dangerous content of the internet, it's the distractions, addictions, and the pressures that come with social media. I don't disagree that mobile phones are a bane nor that social media is a problem for mental health side of things. But we're in a digital age where there's really not a lot you can now do about it. Limit? Yes, ban? No.

Originally Posted by Paul

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

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------

There is no absolute way to protect ANYONE on the internet all of the time.To have such protection then the WWW should NEVER have been set up in the first place.

Question! Why was the WWW actually set up?For whose benefit?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

You 'don't think'? Rather than certainly not etc. Strange or an odd way to think don't you agree?

If other people think that you're obsessive or weird in your thinking, don't you consider that you might be true?

I see you didn't answer or quote mrmistoffelees reply. I'd like to understand what you think about his post. My wife goes into town often and she mentions the latest fashion for the younger generation that these days is that they wear next to nothing and this is the younger teens. I find it a bit mad but the last thing I'd be thinking is what peado's will be thinking.

So why the obsession? Do you have children? It seems you want to ban everything that goes against your views, so there must be a reason.

As for the mobile phones, it's not all down to the dangerous content of the internet, it's the distractions, addictions, and the pressures that come with social media. I don't disagree that mobile phones are a bane nor that social media is a problem for mental health side of things. But we're in a digital age where there's really not a lot you can now do about it. Limit? Yes, ban? No.

No matter what someone is wearing, if they are attacked or abused it is the fault of the perpetrator and nobody else.

However, for their own safety, people should try to take steps to keep themselves safe eg on a hot summers night a woman would be ill advised to go for a walk on her own in a secluded spot, but if she did & was subsequently attacked, the attacker is at fault for attacking, not her for wearing a bikini.

A lot of people are calling for those under 14 to not have smartphones, so it's interesting (for the reasons that you gave) that these MP's think that it should relate to those under 16.

[peanut]

So children over the age of 13 won't be able to use apple pay (etc) or use e-tickets for bus travel if they ban mobile phones.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No matter what someone is wearing, if they are attacked or abused it is the fault of the perpetrator and nobody else.

However, for their own safety, people should try to take steps to keep themselves safe eg on a hot summers night a woman would be ill advised to go for a walk on her own in a secluded spot, but if she did & was subsequently attacked, the attacker is at fault for attacking, not her for wearing a bikini.

A lot of people are calling for those under 14 to not have smartphones, so it's interesting (for the reasons that you gave) that these MP's think that it should relate to those under 16.

"I'm keen not the blame the victim, but if only the victim had acted differently this may not have happened"