Nanny will decree that all websites that display pornography will have to comply with Nanny's new content moderation legislation.
It won’t just be user-generated content platforms
like Twitter and Facebook that will have to comply with a new legal duty
of care, commercial porn sites will also have to take action (such as
using age verification technology) to stop children from accessing
explicit material.
Factoid: VPN will negate the effectiveness of these checks.
My thanks to a loyal reader from Canada who has a alerted me to some Canadian Nanny nonsense (courtesy of the National Post) regarding porn shown on AOV Adult Movie Channel, XXX Action Clips and Maleflixxx (Canadian TV channels), it seems that not enough of the porn is Canadian.
Nanny's chums from the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) have been up all night watching bucket loads of porn, and have decreed that there are insufficient levels of Canadian-made
pornography (the threshold is 35%) plus what is shown has not been close-captioned. As such, the CRTC has issued a reprimand to the three TV channels.
Incidentally, under standard CRTC policy, Canadian channels must also cater to the
blind by offering “Audio Description,” a service in which narrators
describe “graphics that appear on the screen.”
I see......erm thoughts and comments on how that would work anyone??
Good to know that Nanny spends taxpayers' money on watching porn.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I am hugely gemused to see that our governing class and their servants, whilst "beavering" away in Parliament for the "good" of their voters, have managed to find the time to access porn sites on the internet.
The BBC reports that more than 300,000
attempts were made to access pornographic websites at the Houses of
Parliament in the past year.
The data was released following a Freedom of Information request by Huffington Post UK, which published the story with the headline Oh Yes, Minister!
Now the really gemusing thing is that our "beloved" governing class has been banging on about introducing pron filters etc for the rest of us, as we are deemed not able to handle seeing people's naughty bits. Yet our elected representatives believe that they should be able to see naughty bits.
As per a parliamentary spokesperson quoted in the Huffington Post:
"We are not going to restrict Parliamentarians' ability to carry out research."
One rule for the governing class and another for the governed, 'twas ever thus!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that Cameron is to make a speech today in which he will say that every internet user in the country will be asked whether they want to have
access to pornography; ie there will be an automatic block on porn until the users tell their ISPs that they want the block removed.
Anyone care to define "porn"; eg will those searching for pictures of "Blue Tits" be banned from viewing the images?
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Now here's a "plan" by Euro Nanny that is guaranteed to be but the tip of a very large censorship iceberg.
Last week our "respected" elected representatives in the European Parliament put forward a resolution "on
eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU".
The resolution "calls on the EU and its member states to take concrete
action on discrimination against women in advertising... [with] a ban on all
forms of pornography in the media".
Kartika Liotard, a Dutch MEP, is seeking "statutory
measures to prevent any form of pornography in the media and in advertising
and for a ban on advertising for pornographic products and sex tourism",
including measures in the "digital field".
The MEPs also want to establish state sex censors with "a
mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting
the sexualisation of girls".
Dare I make a couple of observations here?
1 One person's "porn" is another's "art/freedom of expression". Who exactly will decide what constitutes "porn"?
2 Why the emphasis only on women? Are men not also "sexualised" within porn?
Many people in Europe have emailed their MEPs complaining about this flagrant attempt to infringe people's freedoms. However, can you guess what Euro Nanny has done?
Yes, that's right, Euro Nanny has blocked these emails and designated them as "spam".
As you can see this is but the tip of a very ugly iceberg, and Euro Nanny's reaction to the emails of complaint shows exactly what she thinks of the opinions of her "voters".
It is clear that the European Parliament is nothing akin to a democratic body, but is in fact a collection of petty minded dictators looking to crush us under their collective jackboots.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
"In November I wrote about Nanny Cameron's plans for ISP's to block on porn sites:
"Nanny wants all new computers purchased and ISP services signed up for
to ask their proud new owners at their first login whether they have
children.
In the event the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process
of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on
how stringent they wish the restrictions to be.
ISP's will also be told by Nanny to prompt existing customers to install the technology
to block pornography."
I noted that the plan was of course bollocks and wouldn't work:
"It is quite clear that Nanny doesn't understand how the net works, nor
indeed how cunning and bright the average teenager can be when looking
to circumvent rules and regulations."
Less than one month on, and I am gemused to see that Nanny Cameron has vetoed the idea.
For why?
1 Parents who were "consulted" on the matter said that they didn't want
it and, quite correctly, asserted that it was up to them NOT THE STATE to govern their children.
2 Nanny realised that the plan was bollocks and wouldn't work, it would
in fact end up censoring/blocking sites that are designed to help
children wrt sex etc.
3 The "danger" of the interent to children lies not so much with bums
and boobies, but with those individuals (adults and children) who use it
to bully/abuse others (hence parents would be wise to remind their kids
not to talk to strangers.....as I was always told in an era gazillions
of years before the internet).
So there we are folks, Nanny Cameron was told that the plan was bollocks
and we can, for the moment, continue to wank ourselves unconscious in
the privacy of our own home when using the net."
However, those of you who rushed out to buy a lorry load of Kleenex may well be disappointed. As I went on to warn:
"..make the most of it whilst you can, as ever with Nanny and her acolytes
she doesn't like it when her plans are thwarted. The NSPCC is already
trying to rubbish the consultation, by claiming that parents' voices
were not properly heard (I assume they mean the voices of those parents
who agree with Nanny's plans).
This isn't over!"
Well blinkey, blonkey, blimey less than five days on an Nanny Cameron has changed his mind and decided to ban it after all!
I knew he would cave in to pressure from various self appointed Nannytype bodies and change his mind, but I never thought he would so so in less than five days!
Utterly pathetic!
What was the point of consulting people if their views are to be ignored?
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
In November I wrote about Nanny Cameron's plans for ISP's to block on porn sites:
"Nanny wants all new computers purchased and ISP services signed up for
to ask their proud new owners at their first login whether they have
children.
In the event the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process
of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on
how stringent they wish the restrictions to be.
ISP's will also be told by Nanny to prompt existing customers to install the technology
to block pornography."
I noted that the plan was of course bollocks and wouldn't work:
"It is quite clear that Nanny doesn't understand how the net works, nor
indeed how cunning and bright the average teenager can be when looking
to circumvent rules and regulations."
Less than one month on, and I am gemused to see that Nanny Cameron has vetoed the idea.
For why?
1 Parents who were "consulted" on the matter said that they didn't want it and, quite correctly, asserted that it was up to them NOT THE STATE to govern their children.
2 Nanny realised that the plan was bollocks and wouldn't work, it would in fact end up censoring/blocking sites that are designed to help children wrt sex etc.
3 The "danger" of the interent to children lies not so much with bums and boobies, but with those individuals (adults and children) who use it to bully/abuse others (hence parents would be wise to remind their kids not to talk to strangers.....as I was always told in an era gazillions of years before the internet).
So there we are folks, Nanny Cameron was told that the plan was bollocks and we can, for the moment, continue to wank ourselves unconscious in the privacy of our own home when using the net.
However, make the most of it whilst you can, as ever with Nanny and her acolytes she doesn't like it when her plans are thwarted. The NSPCC is already trying to rubbish the consultation, by claiming that parents' voices were not properly heard (I assume they mean the voices of those parents who agree with Nanny's plans).
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that Nanny, in the form of David Cameron, is keen to introduce new controls over what people do with their computers at home.
Seemingly, if these plans come to fruition, Nanny wants all new computers purchased and ISP services signed up for to ask their proud new owners at their first login whether they have children.
In the event the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process
of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on
how stringent they wish the restrictions to be.
ISP's will also be told by Nanny to prompt existing customers to install the technology
to block pornography.
Here's why the idea is bollocks:
1 Kids are very adept at using the net, it will take the average teenager approximately 30 seconds to use a proxy to overcome and firewall.
2 Who decides on what constitutes porn?
3 It is a further step towards censoring the internet.
4 Parents who care about what their kids look at on the net should simply place the kid's pc in the main family room, rather than let them skulk away upstairs with it behind a locked door. Parents who don't care what their kids look at will simply lie when asked if they have kids.
It is quite clear that Nanny doesn't understand how the net works, nor indeed how cunning and bright the average teenager can be when looking to circumvent rules and regulations.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Gadzooks, it is Tuesday already, time to award another of my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.
This week it goes to WH Smith for kowtowing to Animal Aid, and banning under 14s from buying magazines about hunting and shooting.
According to the "logic" postulated by Animal Aid, magazines such as Shooting Times are pro violence, and "corrode" young minds.
WH Smith of course continues to sell books and magazines about war, which they are happy enough to sell to kids. These being the same kids who will sit through hours of violence shown on TV news and soap operas.
The irony is if WH Smith follows Animal Aid's wishes to the letter, it will not only ban under 14s from buying the magazines but place them on the top shelf by the porn.
Now what sort of message does that send to a "young mind"?
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
As I have noted before on this site, Nanny has a wee bit of an obsession about filtering what we are allowed to access on the internet. Nanny uses tired old excuse "won't someone think of the children?" as her rationale for introducing filtering which, she claims, will limit children's access to porn on the web.
Nanny wants people automatically barred from accessing "unsuitable" adult material, unless they actually
choose to view it.
Who decides what is "unsuitable" I wonder?
Define "porn"?
ROFLOL!
Clearly the cretins within the government who have come up with this idea have never heard of proxy access. I guarantee that the average teenager/kid is light years ahead of these cretins, and can easily override any anti porn filter.
Anyhoo, aside from this idea being a nonsense, it also sets a dangerous precedent and will tempt future governments to filter other content that Nanny may not approve of.
To this end the Open Right Group are asking people to email them and their MPs if they disagree with this proposal:
"Some MPs and religious groups are mounting a campaign to push 'default on' network level blocking on the UK Internet.[1] [2] There is now a public consultation considering this idea.
However well meaning, we know from our own research [3] what happens
when ISPs put blocks on the Internet. Through accident or abuse,
censorship leads to lots more content being blocked than originally
intended.[4][5]
Sites will get blocked if they casually mention sex. Sexual health
sites will get caught.[6] The websites of clubs and bars, personal blogs
and community sites get filtered. Chat sites may be banned – because
they might not be sufficiently “policed”. In short, if you’re small and
independent, you will suffer.
Innovation and free speech are threatened by this clumsy website
blocking. And the government is considering turning this on by
default.[7] You may be presented with a list of ticked “filtered”
categories, and have to untick them if you want to avoid the filtering.
And if this happens at the network, then future governments can
easily extend what gets filtered without having to ask you. Mass
censorship would be couple of clicks away.
This action helps you submit evidence to the public consultation -
and also to your MP, so they know ordinary people are concerned about
this."
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Here, in a nutshell, is why we should never trust Nanny with any data or information ever!
"The Government has been forced to suspend an
online consultation into pornography controls after a security breach
exposed respondents’ confidential answers and contact details."
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that Nanny is very annoyed that people spend their days staring at computer porn wanking, instead of working to pay the taxes that she uses to live her life of bliss.
As such Nanny intends to make us apply for licences to wank.
Needless to say Nanny is using the "won't someone think of the children?" excuse for this intrusion into our internet activities.
Nanny wants to put extra pressure on computer users to filter out
pornography when setting up internet accounts. Nanny wants people automatically barred from accessing "unsuitable" adult material unless they actually
choose to view it.
Who decides what is "unsuitable" I wonder?
Define "porn"?
The excuse used is that it will "shield" children from pornography.
Bollocks!
When I was at school (a gazillion years before the internet) the school was awash with wank mags etc, many a pupil went blind as a result of excess fiddling.
Nanny has as much chance of blocking kids from seeing porn as she does of dis-inventing the wheel.
Needless to say it will not just be porn sites that she targets, she is also looking at other sites that she deems to be "inappropriate". A list no doubt that will grow with the effluxion of time!
I must stop typing now, as I seem to have an rsi of the wrist:)
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
My thanks to loyal (but disappointed) reader Mark, who has advised me of the following:
"Hey Ken, Trying to access your site on my O2 mobile internet I noticed that it is now "subject to customer protection" and therefore restricted to over 18s.
Have I missed all the smut and objectionable content? If so, can you please put it back.
"I would like to recommend that you try to lay your hands on the Spring 2006 edition of O2, the magazine published by O2. It is not available in the shops, but distributed direct to businesses.
Anyhoo, in this edition there is a particularly fine article written against the Nanny State, in which the author (who reserves particular disdain for the Treasury) argues that state interference is throttling business.
The article is lucid, relevant, punchy and well researched.
Oh and by the way, the article is written by me."
I will drop O2 a line and ask them why they are censoring this site. I will update you if I get a response.
In the meantime, if anyone can find any smut on this site please could they send it to me:)
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Well I have to say that this coalition government is certainly beginning to show its true colours.
Despite the paralysis of Heathrow, one of the world's largest airports (a vital economic hub for the UK), the government showed a "can't do/won't do" spirit and a remarkable lack of leadership wrt actually trying to resolve the problem. All it did was to send the hapless, hopeless and somnambulistic Transport Secretary to meet with the witless board of BAA.
Meanwhile another member of the government (a foolish elderly man easily flattered by the attention of two young female reporters posing as constituents) declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Should government ministers be taking their personal prejudices and vendettas into their day jobs?
The final layer of icing on this cake of folly was added by Nanny's Culture Secretary, Ed Vaizey, who has come up with an internet censorship plan to rival the great firewall of China. He want to ban porn on the net, and block it "at source".
The excuse that he uses, as indeed all Nannys use, is that the ban would "protect the children".
Funny that I thought we lived in a world designed and run for/by adults, not vice versa.
As in the days of the Lord Chancellor (who would censor scripts for "smutty" references to "bananas" etc), the problem comes with the definition of what exactly is "pornographic" (ankles, boobs, feet??? All of these are capable of arousing some people but not others).
The reality would be that, even if it were feasible to block porn (experts contend a firewall such as China's would have to be constructed) other non porn sites would also be blocked (and most certainly would be tempting Nanny to block them).
However, I dare say that in the fullness of time a site would arise (WankiLeaks) that would enable people to jump over the wall to look at all the porn they needed.
Do not be too relaxed about this, as noted above the coalition has been showing its true colours recently; governments that lack leadership, declare private wars on sections of the media they don't like and who try to censor the net are not to be trusted.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I was, the other day, Googling a bar in London and came across a review about it on a site called "World's Best Bars".
Fair enough, I clicked on the link and was confronted with a page asking me to verify that I was over 18 (by entering my date of birth) in order for me to to be able to be granted access to the site.
Quote:
"You need to be of legal drinking age to enter our website."
Why???
Needless to say, I didn't waste my time, and simply moved on to another site. On the assumption that the site was not in fact some cover for porn or something, precisely why should an under 18 year old not read a review about a bar?
Do those who make up these rules assume that the mere reference to alcohol will cause an under 18 year old to become addicted to booze?
For good measure, there is also a link to "drink aware" on the date of birth entry form.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I amused to see that our "beloved" PM Gordon "Smiler" Brown has authorised the installation of body scanners, at all of the UK's airports, in response to the threat posed by morons who try to detonate their underpants.
Here are a few observations about Brown's "great" plan:
1 Scanners have been considered in the past, and deemed not up to the job.
2 Scanners require a human to spot the "bomb", they are therefore not infallible.
3 Scanners will not pick up certain dangerous substances.
4 Brown has ordered a review of security, with special emphasis on scanners. Yet he has overridden the review, even before it has concluded/reported, and ordered scanners.
Why?
It's an election year, and he has to look "decisive".
5 Body scanners will most likely break Nanny's anti child porn laws.
6 Why waste resources treating all passengers as suspects, when experts in the field of terrorism have stated (time and time again) that the terrorists fit a reasonably "easy to identify" profile?
Nanny is just trying to look busy, to make us think that she is useful to us.
However, do not be too alarmed, as said this is a "directive from Brown himself:
1 Orders from Brown never actually come to fruition.
2 These days orders from the Number 10 bunker carry as much weight as Fuhrer orders did in April 1945.
3 Brown/Labour will cock this up, as they have done every other thing in the past 13 years.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
It would seem that "brain dead numptiness" is spreading like a veritable plague, even that bastion of British shopping Marks and Spencer has come down with it.
Andree Evans, from South Mimms, recently toddled along to her local M&S to buy a birthday card.
She went to the checkout to pay, and the till beeped. Fortunately the M&S assistant was on hand to override the till.
Gosh, what could be wrong?
Nothing, for Andree was over 25.
Eh?
What are you saying Ken?
Ah, my loyal readers, I neglected to describe the nature of the card.
Was it porn?
No!
It had a photo of a wine glass, a corkscrew, five bottles of wine and another empty glass.
Eh?
The problem my loyal readers is that the picture related to booze, Nanny hates booze (not as much as she hates "weed", but she really does hate booze) and as such the card could not be sold to people who are under 25.
That at least was the view of the people at M&S who programmed the till, and the assistant who explained it to Ms Evans.
I assume Christmas cards featuring Santa are also age restricted, since he is a fat, red faced man who likes young children to sit on his lap and happily visits them in their bedrooms when their parents are asleep?
Sad to see M&S have gone down with "brain dead numptiness". Maybe we should send them a "get well" card?
Oh, but we had better be sure that it doesn't contain any pictures of booze; would a picture of boobs or "meat and two veg" be OK instead?
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
My commiserations to the good people of Liverpool wrt the numpties they seem to be saddled with in their local council.
Liverpool city council have decreed that smoking is evil, and the members of the council are so keen to suck up to their mistress Nanny that they have decided that all films with smoking scenes should be classified as 18 (adults only).
In order for them to get away with this "1984" style sanitising of history (Winston Smith spent his days destroying anything that may have contaminated the state's version of history), Nanny's lickspittles in the council are conducting a "consultation exercise" whereby "stakeholder" organisations, community groups, businesses, members of the public aged 18 and above, and under-age "stakeholders" will have the opportunity to give their views.
Needless to say, the council will then rig the "consultation" in order to ensure that the results will validate their desired outcome.
I would point out that by making smoking "adult and illicit" merely makes it seem all the more attractive to the young. Let's face it, porn, drugs and drink are all pretty popular with the yoof of today; no small measure due to the fact that they are classified as "adult" or illegal.
The other point is that the council will be cordoning off some film classics from youthful eyes, eg Casablanca, The Marx Brothers etc.
Sanitising history, in order to comply with a modern day fad, is as odious as rewriting history.
I trust and assume that the members of Liverpool Council who support this odious idea are expunged from the council at the next election.
Not coming soon, not to a cinema near you:
- films with fat people in, - films with men doing heroic things, - films that mention Christianity, - films with people drinking.
Drop the numpties a note and tell them what you think of them via this Have Your Say form.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Full marks to Sainsburys for going above and beyond the call of duty to win my coveted, and internationally prestigious, "Prats of The Week" Award.
Lewis Peagam, a balding 28 year old bank manager, was going about his regular shopping in Sainsburys Birmingham. Within his purchases was a DVD of the family film "Firehouse Dog" (no sex or violence), rated PG.
There he was was at checkout, ready to pay when.....
...blinky, blonky, blimey...
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, the checkout operative refused to sell him the film unless he showed proof that he was over 18.
I would remind you at this stage that the film is a family film, not a slash and gore or acrobatic porno film.
Mr Peagam's work colleague was with him, and offered her driving licence as proof of her age.
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, the checkout operative refused to sell it:
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
