Should Porn Be Banned From The Internet?

Camoron is on a crusade to get porn removed from the Internet. Is this a smokescreen to deflect attention from plain cigarette packets or minimum priced alcohol? Personally if you have an off button or parental lock facility why interfere with a wanker's delight?
I think it's a deflection, what does that Cnut know about the life of oils like us?
Nanny state!

I think it is disgusting people who look at porn. It is seedy, grubby, horrible and just wrong.

Soul Kitchen wrote:Camoron is on a crusade to get porn removed from the Internet. Is this a smokescreen to deflect attention from plain cigarette packets or minimum priced alcohol? Personally if you have an off button or parental lock facility why interfere with a wanker's delight?
I think it's a deflection, what does that Cnut know about the life of oils like us?
Nanny state!

I think the current campaign is really about dealing with kiddy fiddlers rather than the general population at large. According to one of the stats boffins at Google, 85% of men between 16 and 65 view pornographic images on the net. This is probably a conservative estimate..

It isn't an offence to view pornography on the internet but viewing indecent images of children being abused or women being raped and tortured is another matter altogether.

The problem as I see it is that pornography is too readily available on the internet and not all parents are diligent enough when it comes to adding parental control filters on their PC's. Kids being kids, they will view the images if they get the chance. I certainly wouldn't allow or recommend allowing children to have a computer in their own bedroom with access to the internet.

The danger of viewing pornographic images at a young age is that children can become desensitised to these images and assume that the behaviour depicted is the norm.

Once we deprive our children of their innocence we have failed them. Internet availability has been phenomenal in opening up the world to any youngster with access to a computer and a thirst for knowledge. Unfortunately there is always a seedier side to modern technology.

We owe it to our children to protect them until they are old enough to make an informed decision as to whether or not pornography is appropriate.

Like gay marriage he's focussing on minor non issues that solve none of our actual problems but give him and his government an impression of progress and success. 

He shouldn't be allowed to choose what people look at on the internet (so long as its legal) the mans a twat and I can't wait till he's voted out.

bwfc1874 wrote:Like gay marriage he's focussing on minor non issues that solve none of our actual problems but give him and his government an impression of progress and success. 

He shouldn't be allowed to choose what people look at on the internet (so long as its legal) the mans a twat and I can't wait till he's voted out.

I agree. It's just another red herring to deflect attention from other more pressing government issues. Nevertheless, Paedophilia is a particularly odious type of crime and as such, the authorities and the internet providers should do more to protect our future generations.

Soul Kitchen wrote: Is this a smokescreen to deflect attention from plain cigarette packets!

Do they seriously believe that selling cigarettes in plain packets will prevent hardened smokers from buying them?

They should either ban cigarettes altogether, on health grounds or shut the fcuk up. It's not an offence to smoke cigarettes as long as you are old enough. Smokers know the risks but it is their personal choice.

Michael Bolton wrote:I think it is disgusting people who look at porn. It is seedy, grubby, horrible and just wrong.

  

bwfc1874 wrote:Like gay marriage he's focussing on minor non issues that solve none of our actual problems but give him and his government an impression of progress and success. 

He shouldn't be allowed to choose what people look at on the internet (so long as its legal) the mans a twat and I can't wait till he's voted out.

 

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote: Is this a smokescreen to deflect attention from plain cigarette packets!

Do they seriously believe that selling cigarettes in plain packets will prevent hardened smokers from buying them?

They should either ban cigarettes altogether, on health grounds or shut the fcuk up. It's not an offence to smoke cigarettes as long as you are old enough. Smokers know the risks but it is their personal choice.

The problem with this RT is that one of his mates cuddles up to the fag and booze companies leaving Camoron with his kecks round his ankles!

The government makes an absolute fortune on taxes on beer and fags. Most of the leading brands of cigarettes on sale in the UK are actually made here. We import the tobacco from America and Africa and we then manufacture the cigarettes for general sale. We also sell the same cigarettes throughout the world. How is it that our cigarettes are cheaper in Spain, France and most of Europe and Africa.

We have paid import tax on the tobacco we bought and our buyers abroad would also have had to pay import tax, so why are cigarettes so dear in the UK? Tax, tax and more tax.

Swindling Shysters the bloody lot of them. The same goes for fuel and just about every other commodity you would care to mention.

Reebok Trotter wrote:
Do they seriously believe that selling cigarettes in plain packets will prevent hardened smokers from buying them?

They should either ban cigarettes altogether, on health grounds or shut the fcuk up. It's not an offence to smoke cigarettes as long as you are old enough. Smokers know the risks but it is their personal choice.

It's not about the hardened smokers but about discouraging kids from starting what is an addictive and harmful habit. The evidence from Australia shows plain packaging does have some effect. The only reason Cameron has dropped this (and the minimum price for alcohol) is blindingly simple - the Tories get very large amounts of money from tobacco and alcohol companies.

bwfc1874 wrote:Like gay marriage he's focussing on minor non issues that solve none of our actual problems but give him and his government an impression of progress and success. 

He shouldn't be allowed to choose what people look at on the internet (so long as its legal) the mans a twat and I can't wait till he's voted out.

absolutely agree.

this is the final straw for me with this guy.

I don't think it matters who is in power. They all come out with these sound bites just to curry favour with the masses. They think the majority of us are all bloody stupid and we just sit at  home hanging on their every word as if they are the answer to all our woes.

Next week it will be abortion.....

The week after it will be genetic crop modification....

The following week it will be embryo ethics..... ad nauseam

There's no evidence of young people who watch porn being more likely to behave sexually inappropriately. It's just an assumption that's neither right nor wrong.

You could put forward the opposite argument which is that it's a healthy form of sexual expression and for it to be unavailable is the route to sexual repression, which can ultimately have nastier consequences. 

There was no such thing as online porn when Jimmy Savile was growing up. Just saying.

If porn is the problem why is the treatment of women so much worse in Muslim countries that ban porn?

A typical example is the Norwegian woman who was raped in Dubai and then charged with perjury, having extramarital sex and drinking alcohol, receiving a 16-month prison sentence.

doffcocker wrote:There's no evidence of young people who watch porn being more likely to behave sexually inappropriately. It's just an assumption that's neither right nor wrong.

You could put forward the opposite argument which is that it's a healthy form of sexual expression and for it to be unavailable is the route to sexual repression, which can ultimately have nastier consequences. 

There was no such thing as online porn when Jimmy Savile was growing up. Just saying.

You make a good point. There is no correlation whatsoever between viewing porn and committing sexual offences. Yes, there have been individuals who have viewed violent pornography and have then gone out and attacked women to enact their fantasies but they are only a small minority.

The vast majority of people who view pornography are not rampant sexual predators, far from it.

Strangely enough, the same criteria applies to people who view images of children being abused. They download the sickening images but do not actually physically assault the children themselves.

When the US Postal service uncovered a Paedophile ring operating in America they discovered that the Ringleader had over 1,000 members who subscribed to his site by providing credit card details.

Over 200 subscribers lived in the UK and their details were passed to Police Forces throughout the UK. Every single one of the individuals concerned was arrested and interviewed. Two were judges and there were also Doctors and policemen in the list. Some had previous convictions for similar offences and they were charged, but those who had previously unblemished characters and no criminal history were treated more leniently. Provided they admitted the offence and accepted that they acted as voyeurs they were given a police caution. ( Whether or not they had to sign the sexual offenders register is debatable, as this is normally ordered by a court )

xmiles wrote:If porn is the problem why is the treatment of women so much worse in Muslim countries that ban porn?

A typical example is the Norwegian woman who was raped in Dubai and then charged with perjury, having extramarital sex and drinking alcohol, receiving a 16-month prison sentence.

Absolutely.

Again, it boils down to sexual repression. The men in Turkey for example have a reputation for behaving inappropriately towards female tourists. As a regular visitor, I understand entirely where this comes from. What you find is a lot of the bar workers aren't originally from those tourist destinations, but major inner cities where attitudes towards sex and women are of a traditional nature. They see areas like Marmaris, Icmeler, Kusadasi etc as dreamlands for picking up easy (or easier) fanny, they move down for the summer and are like kids in sweet shops.

doffcocker wrote:

xmiles wrote:If porn is the problem why is the treatment of women so much worse in Muslim countries that ban porn?

A typical example is the Norwegian woman who was raped in Dubai and then charged with perjury, having extramarital sex and drinking alcohol, receiving a 16-month prison sentence.

Absolutely.

Again, it boils down to sexual repression. The men in Turkey for example have a reputation for behaving inappropriately towards female tourists. As a regular visitor, I understand entirely where this comes from. What you find is a lot of the bar workers aren't originally from those tourist destinations, but major inner cities where attitudes towards sex and women are of a traditional nature. They see areas like Marmaris, Icmeler, Kusadasi etc as dreamlands for picking up easy (or easier) fanny, they move down for the summer and are like kids in sweet shops.

In other words a bunch of leering wankers?!

Although he's being a bit hypocritical- I don't think he's actually on about banning porn. He's saying that it will automatically be filtered out and that those who want to watch it will have to positively choose to do so. I think that's an approach that has some merit about it. If you don't want your nippers to see images  that are deemed to be too sexually advanced for them- then the ability to filter them out should be available to them. At the minute half a dozen clicks gets you some really hard stuff (so I'm told!!).
I don't often support politicians of any colour trying to get the moral high ground when in reality its just about getting votes so they and their cronies stay in their jobs - but on this occasion ,I think giving people the option to keep porn away from their kids is a good move.
 I wonder how many of our current crop of MPs watch a bit of the hard stuff on their taxpayer subsidised laptops and paid for service providers

I'm more concerned with the bigger picture, in that by any other name this is another attack on people's rights. I'm all for the removal of child porn, and the imprisoning of anyone involved with it, but to expect a nation to actually ask to be allowed to watch porn is wrong.  Like just about everything else, it should be our choice. Our rights are being eroded in all sorts of ways, cameras, manipulation of foodstuffs and drinks, controlling of medicines on a financial basis, and the cessation of medical and other public services to suit the public purse. and not the people. It won't be long before we allow euthanasia for 'specific'  cases, although we've already lost thousands of lives needlessly through badly run hospitals who could hide behind rules and regulations.