egafd.com

He goes to Sri Lanka and lectures about a few things nowt is said as we give sri lanka a ton of aid.......

Go to china and try the same thing hed get one big fuck off matey..... and hed not risk the fall out over that one as he would be seen as the weakling that he is or rather we are in the grand scheme of things.

The internet has become a powerful piece of real estate beyond porn. I cant help but feel the authorities desperation to gain a foot hold on it by the demonisation of it is on a parallel to the war on terror: Think the sexualisation of children, porn addiction, peadophilia, political subversives, cyber bullies on social networks...Its not about protecting us but another way of getting in our homes and influencing the way we think under the pretext of protecting us

When you think of how much money changes hands in buy outs it makes sense that this has come at a right time despite the golden age of porn making money has sailed. The likes of ATVOD are cleaning up a little bit too late. Website owners would rather shut up shop or sell off cheap than comply with a regulatory body that is paid to ultimately sanitise and restrict sales in the same way as sex shops were restricted to selling DVDs hampered sales to those who didnt want to be seen in shops buying porn

The government just want it. Wheres my evidence? the fact that the opt in was voted against and Cameron it said in the media was infuriated and vowed it would go ahead anyway. So what was the point of the vote????

Its all there in google and I'm surprised no one has put Cameron on the spot about that

To put things in perspective, this bill is a private members bill introduced by a cross-bencher peer. It doesn't have Government support although it is in line with legislation the Government is contemplating. It is unlikely (though not impossible) to become law because the Parliamentary time is unlikely to be found to pass it.

Second, the provisions complained of seem intended only to apply to ISPs. - i.e. where the provisions refer to service providers and subscribers, it means ISPs and ISP customers, not website authors or customers of web services. Though I could be wrong, I have only looked at brief quoted extracts.

I am against censorship absolutely. For anyone no matter their age or any other consideration. No benefit to society has proceeded from any censorship, not ever. (With the possible exception of measures taken in wartime, but I am hesitant to concede even this.)

On the other hand many don't share my opinions. Therefore if the parent or guardian of a minor wishes to control a child's internet access that is likely to be considered acceptable and I see no reason why ISPs ought not to be compelled to offer that as a service to parents/guardians. I also think that if that is what society wants, it would be acceptable to have a requirement that no one under 18 or 16 may have internet access except through their responsible adult. Maybe it might also be necessary for the purchase of new internet access accounts to be available only through retail outlets where the shop assistant can notice your age weary looks, or over the internet or telephone subject to the usual credit checks etc which should be enough to establish age.

Such elementary non intrusive provisions ought to be enough to satisfy every point of view on the matter.

Forget censoring Porn and go after the largest paedo ring in the land. Found in every Catholic establishment the length and breadth of the UK.

Gosh Arginald...Far easier and less controversial to go after porn because people in it are so passive and bury their heads in the sand thinking this doesnt affect little old them with their little own sites until theyre shocked when they get the dreaded letter.

I know this because people I havent heard from for years call me to talk about it.

For everyone that signs up you are consolidating their position for them to grow in strength to control not just the porn business but the internet

You are all effectively censoring yourselves because you think they are doing good when in effect they are regulating your business to fail and not doing anything about the problem at all

If you close your site they strike that up as a win that their service is working. Look at Jessica Presley.com and BootyBox. For all their propoganda recently they didnt actually do anything lawful. One site was in neglect and the other was closed because the owner couldnt be bothered with the hassle of being told how to run his business

Oops sorry I quoted them as not doing anything lawful to achieve shutting down sites. What I should have said is they didnt do anything to enforce their decisions.

It should be interesting to see what the results are of the cases pending against them right now. Playboy won on appeal which suggests conflict of opinion with OFCOM