Dec 16 2012
The Daily Mail. Foreword by Spivey.
CUNT: Definition: a very unpleasant or stupid person-You stupid cunt! He’s a right cunt. Source-http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cunt_1?q=cunt
I’m sort of speechless… Enjoy it while you can, it doesn’t happen often. Is this cunt for real? Are the Msm for real? Are you people for real? What the fuck is going on?
Harriet Harman breath takingly condemning parents for being too interested in watching programs like Downton Abbey, instead of checking to make sure that their kids are not in another room watching porn on the internet. Yet that cunt wanted to decriminalise child porn – as long as no children were hurt, of course; during the making of the afore mentioned child porn – which she would presumably watch while her kids were in another room… Watching Downton Abbey.
Anyone who is too fucking psychopathic to realise that each and every single child who is made to take part in child porn will be hurt every time, not just physically but also emotionally, does not deserve to breath the same air as children. That she still is perfectly illustrates to me what a frightened, spineless, brain dead, country I inhabit.
Course, it is blatantly Obvious why the Labour Party deputy leader has written this jaw dropping, hypocritical article.
It is in fact a clear demonstration that the Labour Party is the Conservative Party is the Liberal Party is the Labour Party, is the Conservative Party and so on , and so on.
She is most certainly in cahoots with Lord Leveson and Smarmy Barmy Cameron, who are laying the groundwork in preparation for the next snatch and grab raid on our freedom, namely, censorship of the internet – The country gets closer to mimicking life in the old communist block every day doesn’t it… Don’t answer that, most of you cannot see passed the next episode of Eastenders Street farm or whatever the make believe shite is called.
Course, if the cunts get their way, then that will be the end of the AM… Never mind that the UK has the strictest libel laws in the world. Libel is not a criminal offence and as such does not remove us out of harms way.
However, criticizing the government in the same way we do at the moment, will become a criminal offence once they have their censorship in place – which you will no doubt allow to happen without a murmur because; “it will protect our children from dangerous paedophiles”. Fucking Pathetic.
Just out of interest, what kind of country would want to stop people speaking out against their corrupt government? Which type of regimes want to put dissidents in prison… Hmmm
One more thing. You will see that the cunt talks about the NSPCC during the course of the article. I have at this very moment sat in front of me a two inch thick pile of paper work that is conclusive evidence that the NSPCC knowingly employed a ‘social worker’, in a senior management position who was by his own admission – An ANC terrorist. His role was to drive car bombs into position, often in built up shopping areas, which he then detonated from a distance regardless of the number of pedestrians around.
The terrorist, named as Heinrich Johannes Grosskope, (Google him) for whom even today, it is still too dangerous for him to return to his homeland, was protected by people at the very top. In desperation, outraged staff went to two National Newspapers, one of which was the Daily Mirror. Both newspapers readily agreed to run the story, but were ordered to drop it before it could be published. Panorama were then interested in doing the Expose before being warned off.
There is much more to that story which I shall reveal in the near future.However, that people, is the NSPCC that the cunt Harmen wants to involve in internet Censorship.
Course, once the censorship laws are passed, I will not be able to tell you stuff like that. Because make no mistake,; Porn is just the beginning. A foot in the door, so to speak.
The paedophile Harmen is a cunt for even having the cheek to write this shit. The Daily Mail is a cunt for letting it see the light of day. And you lot are cunts if you just continue to let the cunts get away with it… You really, really couldn’t make this shit up. Lets go to war.
The internet has transformed our lives and brought many benefits. We have a global wealth of information at our fingertips. We can communicate with old friends, and make new ones, wherever they are. Online shopping and technological innovation are hugely important for economic growth.
But there is a dark side to the internet. Pornography, bullying, violence and websites promoting suicide and eating disorders are only a few clicks away.
That means these sites are easily accessible by children, who are spending more and more time online.
Nearly three quarters of nine to 16-year-olds in the UK go online daily. Growing numbers of three and four-year-old children – Toddlers with Tablets – are going on the internet.
The horrifying truth is that while parents are watching Downton Abbey downstairs, their children are upstairs watching degrading images of sex and violence. We need to grasp this painful reality.
According to the Government’s own consultation findings, more than four in ten parents say their children have been exposed to online porn.
Almost a third said their children had received sexually explicit emails or texts. All experts agree that exposure to pornography is damaging to children’s psychological development.
But we discovered this weekend that the Government has rejected plans to automatically block access to harmful content, so internet users would have to ‘opt in’ to seeing it.
Their argument, it seems, is that an ‘opt-in’ system – which had been supported by the NSPCC – would create a ‘false sense of security’ because not all harmful content would be screened out. This simply isn’t good enough.
Many children are clicking on to this harmful content.
Last year Childline reported a 34 per cent increase in the number of counselling sessions it held after children viewed sexually indecent images – up to a total of 641 – while the number of boys contacting the charity to say they were worried about their exposure to online pornography increased by 70 per cent. Last week Helen Goodman, our Shadow Media Minister, held a discussion with a group of teenage girls about their portrayal in the media.
They were supposed to be talking about body image, but it quickly turned into a wider discussion about pornography.
Many of the girls said they were worried about the way pornography glamorised violence and encouraged boys to think it was acceptable to direct sexually demeaning comments towards them.
They complained that they had been approached by sexually aggressive young men in the street, and argued that it was because they had been watching too much pornography.
They said they no longer trusted boys, and thought there needed to be tighter controls on what they were able to watch online.
So what does the Government propose to do instead of the opt-in? The short answer is very little.
It says that the internet service providers (ISPs) should encourage parents to switch on controls if their children are likely to be using the internet, with people being asked if they are parents and being offered filtering options. We don’t want censorship. But we do want it to be easier for parents to protect their children online, with the same protections in the online world as in the offline one.
Children are protected by 18-rated film certificates and the 9pm watershed on TV. The same principle can and should apply online – adult content should be restricted to adults.
Clearly there is a technological challenge about how to do this online, with children able to access the internet through computers, tablets and smartphones. And this is becoming increasingly urgent as more and more televisions sold are integrated with the internet.
Mobile phone companies have been blocking access to pornography and other age-inappropriate content since 2004. Mobile phone users have to prove they are over 18 before they can access it.
All of our major Wi-Fi companies have said they will not allow access to adult content where they are providing their service in public places.
So if the Government’s proposals stand, the only place it will be easy for kids to get access to porn, suicide sites and the rest is in their home. That cannot be right. The Government does not appear to grasp this urgency. And its consultation does not answer some key questions.
Where is the deadline for ISPs to make sure all their customers are given these filtering choices? All existing customers should be covered, not just new subscribers. Will they legislate to make ISPs do this if they don’t do it voluntarily?
We started a process of consultation on this in 2008. That was four years ago. This could have led to action by now.
Half of parents responding to the consultation said they wanted some content automatically blocked.
A third wanted an automatic block on harmful material, with another 15 per cent wanting to be asked what they would like their children to access, with filters switched on by default.
But the concerns of parents were largely overlooked as other groups – notably the Open Rights Group – flooded the consultation with responses.
Before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron said he wanted the next government – his government – to be ‘the most family friendly government we’ve ever had in this country’.
He wrote: ‘Enough is enough. Our children are seeing too much, too young.
‘If we want to make Britain a more family-friendly place to live – which is my passionate ambition – we have to take a stand. That’s exactly what the Conservatives would do in government.’
Since entering No 10, he has said that supporting families was ‘right at the top’ of his agenda and it would stay there.
But this is just another broken promise. The Prime Minister has put vested interests – in this case, ISPs – ahead of the views of parents and ahead of protecting our children.
Time and time again, Mr Cameron has broken promises – on the banks, on energy companies, on top executive pay, on the environment, and now on this.
We can all agree on how important it is to protect children online.
But we need to see action from the Government.
Spivs Comment Continued
And so the MSM keep the pressure up by making out that the Politicians are wrong for not wanting the internet censored.
Why are they wrong Daily Mail, do tell?
Because that is what the right minded, forward thinking members of the public want. Or at least so say Mr and Mrs fabricatedat -D’mail.
In fact the propaganda rag even hints that certain politicians are against censorship in order to further their own agenda. Surely not. Saying that is tantamount to libel. Who the fuck ever heard of a corrupt Politician?
“New Leveson enquiry please. Press standards are dropping. Blame Icke and that new fella who swears a lot”.
C’mon, get you act together people. Engage your brains… You are only stupid because that is how your brains have been wired. Break the circuits, think for yourself. You are brighter than you know.
Online porn, the fight MUST go on: Furious charities hit out after ministers refuse to order an automatic block on internet filth
Ministers were accused of putting the profits of internet giants ahead of the safety of children yesterday in the row over online porn.
Child safety campaigners said the Coalition’s decision to veto an automatic block – despite clear evidence that parents support the idea – had left them ‘back at square one’.
Rather than forcing users to ‘opt in’ for pornography, internet service providers will merely be asked to ‘actively encourage’ parents to switch on filters if children are likely to be using computers in the home.
The decision came despite more than 40 per cent of parents responding to the Government’s own consultation saying they knew their children had accessed online porn.
Children’s charities, backed by the Daily Mail, have led a concerted campaign for an automatic block on online porn but their views have also been ignored.
A Downing Street source last night claimed the package amounted to ‘the most rigorous system for protecting children from online dangers in the world’.
But Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman accused ministers of ‘broken promises’ over the issue, saying they had bowed to pressure from the internet industry, which is opposed to restrictions on the lucrative porn sector.
The Prime Minister has put vested interests – in this case ISPs – ahead of the views of parents and ahead of protecting our children,’ she said.
Claude Knights, director of children’s safeguarding charity Kidscape, said: ‘This really is disappointing.
‘We felt creating an opt-in requirement would have ensured greater safeguarding for children.
‘Of course it would not have stopped everything but it would have definitely been a big step in the right direction.
‘Where do we stand now? Really we are back to square one. We have some children who are more at risk than others.’
The Government’s response to a high-profile consultation on protecting children from online dangers was slipped out on the Department for Education’s website last Friday without fanfare.
The NSPCC and others campaigned to force those wishing to view adult sites into a new ‘opt in’ system that would require contacting their ISP.
The proposal was bitterly opposed by the powerful internet industry.
Some 35 per cent of parents responding to the consultation backed the ‘opt-in’ system, with a further 15 per cent wanting it imposed with additional controls.
John Carr, of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, said mobile phone companies have been automatically blocking adult websites for nearly a decade and there was no reason ISPs could not do the same.
‘What the Government has proposed is a step forward, we recognise that, but we are disappointed they did not go further,’ he said.
Miranda Suit, co-founder of the Safermedia charity, which campaigns for a family-friendly internet, said access to internet pornography had reached ‘crisis point’.
‘This was a wasted opportunity,’ she said. ‘The Government has taken its eye off the ball and allowed itself to be misguided by industry figures and internet users who are not parents.
‘This consultation was meant to give parents a say and make protecting children a top priority. But instead others have been able to take priority.’ Tory MP Claire Perry, who helped lead the campaign for an opt-in system, said she was ‘disappointed’ with the Government’s response.
Mrs Perry, who handed in a petition to Downing Street on the issue containing more than 115,000 names, said she was pleased that the ISPs were going to be forced to do more, saying the campaign had produced a ‘sea change’ in their attitude towards the issue.
‘But she added she was ‘obviously disappointed the opt-in option has been rejected’.
The Education Department said no automatic block could filter out all harmful websites, adding that there was a danger it would breed a ‘false sense of security’ among parents. And it said a block would not deal with other online issues, such as cyber-bullying and internet grooming, which were best tackled by parents.
In its formal response the department said parents have ‘just as much responsibility for keeping their children safe when they are online as when they are offline, and the basic principles of harm are the same’.
Prime Minister David Cameron is said to be angry about the handling of the announcement on Friday, when no ministers were sent out to explain a package he believes will be more effective than an automatic block.
A Downing Street source last night said the ‘rigorous’ package would help parents to protect their children online.
Sophisticated filters will allow parents to choose the type of sites they want to restrict.
The source said: ‘Under this new system, where there are children in the house, there will be an automatic prompt for parents to tailor filters to suit their child’s needs.
‘Over the coming weeks and months we will continue to talk to the industry to ensure these proposals are implemented. We want to end up with nothing less than the most rigorous system for protecting children from online dangers in the world.’
Other measures include configuring new computers to automatically prompt parents to consider imposing controls to protect children.
ISPs will also be told to prompt existing customers to consider imposing restrictions.