and about time to.
Your point is?
Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
I think the point is that this is the start of something bigger.
No right "thinking person" can object to any of the above, but this is just the start.
Give it a few months and the restrictions will spread and before you know it we will be back to the "Good Old 1970's" with a modern day Mary Whitehouse mentality and thought Police dicating what websites we can look at and what TV content we can watch.
How long will it be before Beyonce videos are blocked for UK audiences?
The problem I have is I don't see why the government sould be concerned with my morals. I pay my taxes and I think "within reason" I should be able to watch, read and listen to whatever I want.
I can see that very soon, there going to be an ever widening gap between what I think is "within reason" and what the government think is "within reason".
That worries me because at the end of the day my opinion is worthless. It will be Cameron's opinion, Mumsnet's opinion, the Mothers Union opinion that counts.
I can't ever remember voting for the mothers union or Mumsnet? Have I missed something?
No right "thinking person" can object to any of the above, but this is just the start.
Give it a few months and the restrictions will spread and before you know it we will be back to the "Good Old 1970's" with a modern day Mary Whitehouse mentality and thought Police dicating what websites we can look at and what TV content we can watch.
How long will it be before Beyonce videos are blocked for UK audiences?
The problem I have is I don't see why the government sould be concerned with my morals. I pay my taxes and I think "within reason" I should be able to watch, read and listen to whatever I want.
I can see that very soon, there going to be an ever widening gap between what I think is "within reason" and what the government think is "within reason".
That worries me because at the end of the day my opinion is worthless. It will be Cameron's opinion, Mumsnet's opinion, the Mothers Union opinion that counts.
I can't ever remember voting for the mothers union or Mumsnet? Have I missed something?
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
"The problem I have is I don't see why the government sould be concerned with my morals. I pay my taxes and I think "within reason" I should be able to watch, read and listen to whatever I want."
There not concerned with "your" morals, they are concerened that preteen girls and boys have easy access to pornographic material, and suggestive videos and clothing....as they should be, you don't have a problem with that do you?
There not concerned with "your" morals, they are concerened that preteen girls and boys have easy access to pornographic material, and suggestive videos and clothing....as they should be, you don't have a problem with that do you?
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
For once in my life(and the only time im sure) i agre with Cameron. Something has to be done to stop the sexualisation of kids that we have seen creep in the last 10 or 15 years.
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
I repeat "No right "thinking person" can object to any of the above, but this is just the start.
? Lads magazines to be moved to the top shelf in shops or sold in covers.
Are we saying "Loaded" and "Nuts" is pornographic material now?
This is the start. This is the trojan horse.
It's going to be "Anyone who objects to this is a child molester".
Then the government move on to the next level, banning page 3 girls for instance, or insisting the Sun is sold in brown paper envelopes (not such a bad idea now I think of it).
Anyone who objects to that is as bad or just one up from a "child molester", and on it will go.
? Lads magazines to be moved to the top shelf in shops or sold in covers.
Are we saying "Loaded" and "Nuts" is pornographic material now?
This is the start. This is the trojan horse.
It's going to be "Anyone who objects to this is a child molester".
Then the government move on to the next level, banning page 3 girls for instance, or insisting the Sun is sold in brown paper envelopes (not such a bad idea now I think of it).
Anyone who objects to that is as bad or just one up from a "child molester", and on it will go.
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
You said:" In effect it means anybody viewing material that could casue distress to the anus could theoretically be prosecuted-considering probably 80% of porn now involves some kind of anal play-this is pretty much everybody on this site & anybody watching porn period."
This is complete alarmist nonsense, the defintion of "violence" in porn or art, as written in the Dangerous Pictures section of the Criminal Justice Bill, is a million miles from your assertion, that plumps, "Everybody on this site and anybody watching porn" into the same category as a homicidal maniac, purveyor of extreme porn:
Read the definitions of material which would now break the law:
(a) ?an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person?s life;
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person?s anus, breasts or genitals;
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse;
(d) a person performing or appearing to perfom an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real?.
All seems perfectly reasonable to me and I think the good and righteous folk of the BGAFD can sleep soundly in their beds knowing that 99.9% of porn doesn't include any of the above.
This is complete alarmist nonsense, the defintion of "violence" in porn or art, as written in the Dangerous Pictures section of the Criminal Justice Bill, is a million miles from your assertion, that plumps, "Everybody on this site and anybody watching porn" into the same category as a homicidal maniac, purveyor of extreme porn:
Read the definitions of material which would now break the law:
(a) ?an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person?s life;
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person?s anus, breasts or genitals;
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse;
(d) a person performing or appearing to perfom an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real?.
All seems perfectly reasonable to me and I think the good and righteous folk of the BGAFD can sleep soundly in their beds knowing that 99.9% of porn doesn't include any of the above.
<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
-
The Last Word
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State
Quote:
The report finds that "some parts of the business world and sections of the media seem to have lost their connection to parents. We are living in an increasingly sexual and sexualised culture although it is far from clear how we arrived at this point."
You could argue that the business world and the media were instrumental in how we arrived at this point.
It's a valiant report in many ways, but it's easy to see the deciding factor in this issue being what started it. Money.
The report finds that "some parts of the business world and sections of the media seem to have lost their connection to parents. We are living in an increasingly sexual and sexualised culture although it is far from clear how we arrived at this point."
You could argue that the business world and the media were instrumental in how we arrived at this point.
It's a valiant report in many ways, but it's easy to see the deciding factor in this issue being what started it. Money.
"Let's do it..."