Cami-knickers!
Last week, a focus group of Dentist’s assistants in Sunderland told Cami-knickers’ re-election agent that pensioners had had it too good for too long – before the week was out we had sound bites galore as to how ‘wealthy pensioners’ were going to be forced to give something back to the younger generation…
This week, someone figured out that pensioners were the only ones that voted these days, and there was an about turn. A focus group of elderly school matrons was hurriedly convened. What did they think was wrong with the country?
“Well, that Mark Williams-Thomas says its all this child porn on that Internety thingy that causes murders and he’s such a nice man with his cats and everything.”
“And that Google, they don’t pay as much tax as they could do, so you ought to do something about that”.
Thus was born this week’s initiative. In a speech to the NSPCC – who else, you wouldn’t expect him to speak to the voters would you? – he decreed that in order to purge the world of the menace of cold calling, he was banning the publication of the phone book he decreed that in future only the sort of people who go round murdering children – i.e. adults – would be allowed to opt into seeing the Google directory of sites where you can see child porn. Children wouldn’t be able to access it. That’s a relief then, pensioners need not live in fear that some five year old who can spell ‘snuff porn’ is going to murder them in their beds.
It’s a double whammy, because it also placates all those morons who can’t figure out why Google only pay the tax the law says they ought to, in the country that they are tax resident in. Just like the rest of us. It brought forward a masterpiece of a press release from Google.
“We recently donated $5m (£3.28m) to help combat this problem and are committed to continuing the dialogue with the Government on these issues.”
I translate that as – “If this is the result of donating $5m to CEOPS, then we need to talk again….”
Are we to assume that our children will be safe from the dangers of the digital screen – hardly? In a separate press release from the American Academy of Paediatrics, we learn of the 215 deaths of innocent young children directly attributable to digital screens….falling on their heads…!
How is Cameron going to deal with that? Ban the Radio Times?
Once upon a time, we had a government in hock to the Animal Rights activists, and we ended up with foxes being shot instead of eaten by the hounds. Now we seem to have a government in hock to the NSPCC, and the good people of Penistone will have seen their last tourist directed to their tourism web site…
I suppose Ms Raccoon will have to change the title of her masterpiece on the subject of the delight Sky took in showing pictures of Libyan pilots being killed – ‘Snuff Porn‘ – and as for the travails of the German people in an age of austerity – the ‘All you can eat Pussy Club‘ – that will have to go too.
Given that members of Nigel Farage’s party (or Fatage, as he was delightfully christened this morning by his press agent) are such a danger to children that they cannot adopt, I wonder whether ‘UKIP’ will make it onto the list of banned words for which one can no longer search?
Back in January, the European Commission issued its diktats for the on-line world:
‘All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politically and culturally balanced and socially diverse membership […] Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status. The national media councils should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.
[…] In addition, the new media environment increases the importance of ‘gate-keepers’, digital intermediaries who are the access route to the internet (for example search engines and social networks); whose personalisation of content risks creating a ‘filter bubble’ for the reader – or internet service providers, who have the ability to arbitrarily censor citizens’ connections to the internet. For these actors, only the EU has the effective capacity to regulate them, given its role in competition policy and the transnational character of these actors.
Poor old Cami-knickers. Just doing as he is told really…
Whoops! That’s it folks, the 83,449,239,949th person to emerge into this world has commenced its journey down a perfectly ordinary vagina – there will be no more political news until we all have to discuss how much it costs to keep it alive, whether it ought to go by bus to Waitangi to view naked breasts dancing and whether we should vote for a Head of State instead. So much cheaper, doncha know?
July 23, 2013 at 16:27
- July 23, 2013 at 16:11
-
@Moor, strangely enough I thought Mackeson but that was a stout …… was it
Skol, we used to sneak these on school bus trips !!!
- July 23, 2013 at 16:13
-
Looks good. Tastes good. And by golly, it does you good………
- July 23, 2013 at 14:08
-
……….. one thing’s for sure, he can’t take the car………….
- July 23, 2013 at 09:12
-
You mean you did not realise that while it is legal to have sex with a
16-year old, it is illegal to reward/pay him/her for it?
- July 23, 2013 at 13:47
-
@John
I recall something about my sixteen year old boyfriend not being
able to go and get me a fag…………
- July 23, 2013 at 13:58
-
or was it to buy me a beer……. so many vices, it’s hard to keep
track.
-
July 23, 2013 at 15:45
-
Five park drive and one of those tiny cans o’ lager ….. ee happy days
….. now, what was that lager called ?
- July 23, 2013 at 16:07
-
Mackeson?
- July 23, 2013 at 07:32
-
One thing Mr. Cameroon is to be congratulated upon is publicising the Law.
How many people fully recognised until recently that 16 year-olds were
“children” in real life? How many realise that so far as the internet goes, an
image of anyone under 18 is still an image of a child in the UK. The laws
seems to have changed under Labour but nobody thought to tell anyone. Cameron
made a speech I heard a little of on the radio yesterday, and he was
emphasising how people were losing their jobs, their lives, everything….
simply because they could not resist looking at under-age porn, but he hinted
that perhaps in the past they had not even realised this was illegal.
Everyone needs to fully understand this because the police will not
hesitate to arrest and prosecute you, and it is a signal of a free society
that if you are to be prosecuted then you should be fully aware that you were
breaking the law in the first place. I only realised about the over-18 thing
when I read a scholarly article recently.
https://support.google.com/images/answer/148666?hl=en
“If
you find websites that contain content that is sexually abusive towards
minors, please report the content to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) via
their website at http://www.iwf.org.uk/. ‘Child sexual abuse images’ refers to
any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual
activity or depicting erotic posing.”
-
July 23, 2013 at 13:27
-
Blimey Moor how many publications etc could caught on this one ? I take
it that this is not restricted to just websites ?
- July 23, 2013 at 13:46
-
@rabbitaway
God knows………….. or perhaps even he’s lost track……..
- July 22, 2013 at 20:12
-
Interesting that, if I were to send some violently evil kiddie-porn images
through the post, I would be committing an offence but the Royal Mail would
not be held responsible as its carrier.
How come Internet Service Providers
are expected to shoulder a burden of responsibility for content which does not
apply to the previous generation of transmission methods ?
- July 22, 2013 at 19:38
-
I am struggling with this whole internet filtering idea. The problem is
that I can see both sides of the argument. I’m a bit of a techie myself, and
have set up web filtering for my home network, via OpenDNS and their free
offering. I wouldn’t expect all parents to know how to do this, and neither do
I think that it is a panacea which obviates the need for good parenting. I’m
sure that, should my kids want to, they would be able to find out how to
circumvent it. The point is that it will prevent most accidental mishaps, and
offer maybe just a gentle nudge in addition to that which conscience already
provides.
I share the skepticism with which the government’s plans have been received
to some extent, but the howl of protest emanating from certain “concerned
parties” on teh interwebs strikes me as more than a tad imbalanced. Reading
through some comments, there seems to be the sneering attitude of an all
knowing teenager at the suggestion that pornography may not be entirely
healthy for the soul, or conducive to forming normal relationships with
members of the opposite sex. This despite the evidence that we hear of every
day from young girls who increasingly feel pressured to submit to the kind of
exploitation that their boyfriends have come to expect from their viewing of
porn. (Leaving aside the more horrific cases that have made the news
recently).
So is it the place of the government to censor the internet? No, certainly
not – but I don’t believe this is exactly what is happening here. They’ve
simply asked the ISPs to bundle in with their service the kind of offering
OpenDNS already provide to more savvy net users. To me, that doesn’t seem like
such a horrendous a crime – no matter which way the initial “Opt in” box is
initially ticked. Is this the first step on a slippery slope to the State
restricting access to and expression of political dissent? My sense is that,
whilst it’s certainly a danger, probably not.
Just as an aside, I did find out after 2 years of owning a smartphone that
there were parental controls applied. We were on holiday, and I was reminding
myself of the finer points of Texas Hold ‘em. It really didn’t make me feel
like my rights had been violated, but then again, I was brought up
pre-internet.
- July 22, 2013 at 21:35
-
I understand that some of the criticisms might look like they came from
angry teenagers, but the way the government has presented the porn filter is
downright mendacious: ‘We will clamp down on child porn by putting in an
opt-in feature for regular porn.’ Excuse me?
-
July 22, 2013 at 19:28
-
@ Engineer. I must say that I have never been accused of modesty, at least
not in the way that you mean it, although I have been accused of being either
Frigid or Tarty, depending on the circumstances and the required effect. Men
confuse me because I never know what it is that they want.
- July 22, 2013 at 20:37
-
Elena – women often confuse me, too – but surely that’s just part of the
human condition, isn’t it? Literature would be immensely the poorer if it
were not!
I do enjoy your comments on the blog, though. Independent of thought,
eloquently expressed and often funny. Keep ‘em coming!
- July 22, 2013 at 20:56
-
Why, thank you. And I do agree, my comments are often independent of
thought. And I do talk a load of old rubbish most of the time. But I might
be telling too much if I talked sense. And that really wouldn’t
do.
Literature? That which I found riveting forty years ago is only
boring now.
- July 22, 2013 at
21:07
-
-
July 22, 2013 at 22:45
-
“That which I found riveting forty years ago is only boring
now”…….bravo, an ex-aircraft mechanic pun.
- July 22, 2013 at 23:08
-
Oh Dear. I’ve done it again. Said something witty entirely by
accident. If I am not very careful I am going to get a reputation for
being the smart arse that I pretend to be. And then everybody will
expect it. God alone knows what I will do then.
- July 22, 2013 at 18:14
-
Norton/Symantec/O2 already block lots of sites – those supporting rapidly
eroding men’s rights. Currently, about 120 non-porno, non-violent sites listed
here:
“I’ve done significant research to find out the true scale the censorship
of mens’ human rights material and can exclusively reveal the most complete
and accurate list of sites currently being blocked. I can also reveal that
both O2 and Norton appear to be using the same list for their disgusting
censorship. Previous lists of banned sites totalled 21 URLs, my research more
than doubles that total to at least 48 sites and 54 urls.
As you can see from the roll of honour below, it’s just obscure or slightly
confrontational men’s human rights sites that are blocked, even more academic
resources such as manwomanmyth are barred too. For those yet to utilise this
excellent resource, much of it consists of interviews with leading figures on
gender issues, such as Erin Pizzey founder of the world’s first domestic
violence shelters and Michelle Elliot O.B.E. the founder of the children’s
charity Kidscape. ”
I see this initiative as a move to restrict the internet to only shopping
and government monitored social media. Bloggers beware.
- July 22, 2013 at 17:35
-
Oh well, I suppose at least Cameron’s poodling to American hysteria will
lead to less death and destruction that Bair’s did….
June 17, 2010
http://theweek.com/article/index/204156/the-internet-porn-epidemic-by-the-numbers
Some
child-safety advocates say the spread of online pornography has become
“epidemic.” Here, a statistical look at the all-too-big business of smut
- July 22, 2013 at 17:08
-
What are these code-words we’re supposed to use to access depraved filth on
the interweb these days then? Cockfosters? Cockermouth? Scunthorpe? Great Tit?
Bottom feeding pondlife? Prime Ministerial Initiative?
- July 22, 2013 at 15:54
-
Judging by the comments here, the camoron still has not attracted the
female vote. Time for a U-turn and another focus group, oh and a couple of
right-on feminazi ministers in the ministerial shakedown, correction, I meant
shakeup to deal with ishoos that nobody is concerned about.
Perhaps if he concentrated on real issues of sexual deviancy like muslim
groups assaulting vulnerable girls in the guardianship of the state he could
attract some support, but I suspect the focus groups consider that
“nasty”.
- July 22, 2013 at 15:09
-
It was amusing to hear “What’s a kilowatt?” Jeremy Vine run rings around
the PM on BBC Radio 2 today! Apparently the PM has got someone from GCHQ
seconded to the Cabinet Office to tell them “what is possible”. Following the
death of Mel Smith I imagine it must go something like this.
Cameron has clearly been spending too much time with Clegg, who, whenever
he opens his mouth, just reveals more and more what an idiot he is.
- July 22, 2013 at 14:13
-
I cannot tell you how reassured I am that the warm, enveloping arms of the
nanny state are taking steps to ensure I no longer need to trouble my fevered
brow over responsible parenting and will ensure that my daughter spends her
childhood uncorrupted by online pictures of naked people that she may go
searching for whilst I fail in my duty to supervise her.
Of course she will still be free to hunt for images of death, violence and
destruction. Maybe a cheerful video or two of people being punched in the face
for the lols or perhaps just brutally decapitated. Because pictures of people
loving each other are so much more harmful than pictures of people hurting
each other, right?
- July 22, 2013 at 13:51
-
POV surely means point of view, not perfectly ordinary what-you-said.
-
July 22, 2013 at 13:44
-
Cameron seems to be exploiting fears about child ‘porn’ to bring in a host
of other measures that appear to nothing to do with it.
‘Mr Cameron also called for warning pages to pop up with helpline numbers
when people try to search for illegal content.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
What about a helpline for people who have attempted to rob a bank, or
others who have attempted to sell heroin? These people need help too!
There are many other choice quotes from that article: ‘…Ms Perry argued
filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April
Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images
of child abuse.’
- July 22, 2013 at 14:11
-
“Pressed to explain the distinction between his proactive position on
online pornographic images and his laissez-faire stance on topless images in
newspapers, he said that it was up to consumers whether or not they wanted
to buy the Sun.”
As opposed to Pornography being obligatory for Internet users?
- July
22, 2013 at 14:53
-
Translation: “Oh, don’t ask me the hard questions. Lynton! Where are
you?!”
- July 22, 2013 at 12:58
-
Oooh, Ms. Raccoon. I cannot credit that you chose to use such a titillating
image to accompany this blog post. A young woman brazenly disporting herself
in her underwear, “bodice composed entirely of lace”! (At least the knickers
are closed and not open.) No doubt the free catalogue contains further risqué
images, likely to corrupt and deprave any lad who might clap eyes on them.
Surely, to protect the young and impressionable, the publication/distribution
of lingerie catalogues of this ilk should be banned?
- July 22, 2013 at 13:28
-
One hundred years ago, some poor 14 year old will have cracked one off to
that advert.
- July 22, 2013 at 14:09
-
And a mere 30 years ago a spotty oik will have cracked one of to a
Littlewoods catalog… ban them, ban them all, will no one think of the poor
wee mites.
- July 22, 2013 at
14:15
- July 22, 2013 at 14:04
-
It amazes me that any of us exist, given the ‘passion killers’ that
previous generations wore….
-
July 22, 2013 at 17:02
-
You have to admire the sheer determination and commitment of the
Victorians….
-
July 22, 2013 at 12:45
-
Well, that’s The Royal Birth put in it’s place. No, no, don’t misunderstand
me. I am dying to know, just like everybody else. I just hope “It’s a Boy” so
we don’t have to go through endless debate from hard line feminists about God
have spoken about Her image.
-
July 22, 2013 at 15:23
-
God told man that he would find obedient willing wives in every corner of
the world – then she made the world round and laughed and laughed and
laughed.
- July 22, 2013 at 15:37
-
That should have told them that men were in for some serious trouble.
And probably caused The Flat Earth Brigade. Me? I’m quite happy for God to
be a man. Everybody knows that men are pretty ineffective. And No, I am
not a feminist, just a realist.
-
July 22, 2013 at 17:00
-
Women prefer the simpler things in life. Like men.
- July 22, 2013 at 17:35
-
That made me laugh. I don’t know what sex you are, but I was once
an Air Mechanic, so you could be a woman for all I know.
As it is,
I have yet to meet a man who is as inherently clever as I am, but then
generally speaking, men don’t like clever women. So we have to be put
down, or ignored.
Defining “Clever” might be quite a good idea.
Some people are good at brain work and some people are good at the
survival stuff. My problem is that I am good at both.
-
July 22, 2013 at 19:18
-
You’re modest as well, I see!
PS. I’m a bloke, though I try to be a gentleman as well.
-
July 24, 2013 at 15:34
-
My wife is convinced that God is a woman and that she definitely has a
sense of humour. For who else would give Man a brain and a penis but only
enough blood to operate one at a time?
- July
27, 2013 at 05:57
-
Possibly so. But what God would design a woman where the play area is
right next to the garbage chute??
- July 22, 2013 at 12:23
-
So from now on Google will have a top shelf and not a dirty old man in a
raincoat insight! Exactly how naïve are the politicians that we have running
our country?
- July 22,
2013 at 12:45
-
Not naive at all. So many people have only a small amount of clue about
how the web works (what IP addresses are, what DNS is, how search engines
work), that it should be entirely possible for HMG to transfer all the blame
for naughtiness on the web, to Google, thus transferring an impossible job
to another organisation, and thereafter being able to say “any remaining
porn problems on the web are caused by Google”
- July 22, 2013 at 12:15
-
@Moor – she should take her case to the ’30 something dept’ of the Adult
Children’s Protection (Racket) Services whose offices will no doubt be
somewhere in WC1 when they get the funding …… !
- July 22, 2013 at 11:54
-
Mr. Cameroon’s expertise in the field of geekery was illustrated by
Rebbekah Brookes’ revelation that he thought lol meant “Love you lots”………
His
strings are evidently being pulled by NSPCC/CEOPS, the former of whom was
prating on the radio this morning.
Presumably the BBC will cancel Luther forthwith…………
“It
had begun with a terrifying scene where a woman came home on her own and it
turned out a masked man was lying in wait for her under her bed. It had
continued with some awful shots of this woman after she’d been killed by her
under-the-bed stalker with tape all over her face in some horrid homemade-mask
look. We then switched to another killing – nothing, I think, to do with the
first – where we saw the victim naked, trussed up in ropes on a chair with
graffiti sprayed all over him and his home.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10156599/Luther-was-so-horrifying-I-couldnt-get-to-the-end.html
- July 22, 2013 at 12:19
-
That LOL thing was priceless, pmsl when I heard it!
- July 22, 2013 at 11:19
-
Here’s a stay at home mummy barrister’s perspective on the perils of the
internet ……
Children and teenagers should not be left in their bedroom with a computer
for hours on end on their own. Sadly, you might as well put them in a room
full of paedophiles.
Parents will have to become very aware of the dangers that can exist on the
internet and protect their children accordingly. It is not as if you can rely
on the Criminal Justice system to do this for you.
Emm, ‘it is not as if you can rely on the Criminal Justice system to do
this for you.’ Quite, but you forgot to add that this is because they are too
busy chasing imaginary dangers to be bothered with real ones !
- July 22, 2013 at 15:34
-
Excellent link.
Perhaps a stay at home mummy barrister could spend some of her leisure
time learning English, and how to spell “entice”…
Your friendly neighbourhood pedant**
**For Sun readers, this is not the same as pederast or pedophile.
- July 22, 2013 at 11:03
-
@Anna – shortly you’ll be able to cut out the middleman and pay the fee of
your blog/website directly to ‘stop it now’ or the NSPCC or even Mr T himself.
They (he) will be able to screen the contents of your blog ensuring that no 53
year old ‘children’ are offended and, if they are, they will be looped back to
‘his’ chums in the Middle aged Child Protection (Racket) Services.
- July 22, 2013 at 10:56
-
“All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politically
and culturally balanced and socially diverse membership ……..”
Including those who admit to enjoying porn.
So if the media councils represent the percentages of member-states’
populations – what’ll change?
{ 54 comments }