Britain - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

In an effort to piss off Katie Hopkins, they could always call it Argentina, or Democratic Republic of the Congo...

 

[Liquid]

Henry or Edward.

I want there to be a IX.

 

[Dotini]

Henry, the Ninth of his name.

 

[PeterJB]

I hope one day we a have a Henry LXIX.

 

[axletramp]

This will be very interesting. If its a boy, its likely the next King of England will be Jewish.

Didn't the Jewish Genealogical Society discredit that claim?

 

[Blitz24]

Didn't the Jewish Genealogical Society discredit that claim?

Didn't hear that part. If Kate's mother's mother is Jewish as reported, then the genealogical society could say the moon is made of cheese and it wouldn't matter, still Jewish.

EDIT, read it over, yeah I guess so. Although it was pretty silly to hear that the information was not based on anything but names.

 

[axletramp]

Fair enough.

I wish the moon was made of cheese...

 

[PeterJB]

I doubt it'll matter much, unless they all convert to Judaism, since the only reason we have the current family is because there were 50 Catholics who weren't allowed to inherit.

 

[Blitz24]

I doubt it'll matter much, unless they all convert to Judaism, since the only reason we have the current family is because there were 50 Catholics who weren't allowed to inherit.

Also, due to some silly reason, we cannot have a King and Queen simultaneously unless we go all boondocks.

 

[Sphinx]

It appears Cameron's eureka moment of filtering porn will come in the form of software being installed on your computer.

 

[Liquid]

Also, due to some silly reason, we cannot have a King and Queen simultaneously unless we go all boondocks.

William III & Mary II was an equal regency.

However, due to androphilia/misogyny, a male consort is never known as a King.

 

[Maccer_42]

Quick!

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/24297542.jpg

Before it's gone!

 

[axletramp]

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[Famine]

Currently the Faily Trail are trying to break all known forms of satire and irony by running a story about how everyone should love these new laws about porn filters because it stops the sexualisation of women and children...

... directly alongside several other stories, all but three of which feature women in bikinis. The three that don't involve Heidi Klumm topless, a feature on 16 year old Chloe Moretz and how sexy she is and a piece on a fourteen year old Kardashian progeny modelling her mum's sexy bikinis.

 

[Liquid]

Google Daily Mail and "come of age"

 

[axletramp]

http://shouldireadthedailymail.com

 

[DK]

I wonder when the Daily Mail will learn about VPNs and proxies.

 

[Carbonox]

I wonder when the Daily Mail will learn about VPNs and proxies.

Only after they're done with the baby.

 

[lbsf1]

On the porn issue my facebook has litterally exploded. Lots of hormonic teenagers who's parents will not opt into the system and thus loosing their access to porn isn't going down well.

I kinda support a larger crack down on child porn however normal porn should be left for people to access without having to opt in to be able to view parts of the internet.

I highly doubt they will block everything though, there is just to much out there. If anything it may just drive the porn industry to be underground to a certain extent and then more people may use the darknet to attempt to view porn and thus exposing themselves to much worse things. In all its very badly thought out.

 

[mattythedog]

And also didn't Cameron say no to a ban on Page 3- saying it was up to people not to buy it if they didn't want it? It all seems like an excuse to have tighter Internet control in general.

Edit: found it.

David Cameron has said he would never support a ban on topless images on page 3 of the Sun newspaper, as he set out plans for greater regulation of online pornography.

Pressed to explain the distinction between his proactive position on online pornographic images and his laissez-faire stance on topless images in newspapers, he said that it was up to consumers whether or not they wanted to buy the Sun.

"This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators," he said in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

From here.

 

[Dotini]

Cameron must be a Christian, Puritan variety - he can't stand the notion that somewhere, someone is having fun.

 

[Famine]

I kinda support a larger crack down on child porn however normal porn should be left for people to access without having to opt in to be able to view parts of the internet.

Can't be done.

In fact the former can't be done on its own and that's the problem. They think they have to do something and so they do anything. The technical challenge of preventing everyone in the UK from seeing things prohibited by the Obscene Publications Act is vast, expensive, foolish, unlikely to succeed and futile. A committee is always going to be one step behind a determined individual.

The challenge is even trickier when you think about it for a minute. Where the hell is the child porn anyway? I've never accidentally stumbled on it - I've stumbled on pretty much everything else - and it's most probably not on websites called "childporn" (dot whatever) - so where is it? Chances are that only paedophiles know and that means the circulation of it isn't something you can control by locking down bits of internet.


It's by its nature a very underground hobby - like anything else illegal and/or morally reprehensible. You won't achieve anything by trying to cut off its public face because it clearly doesn't even have one.

Except you'll get a warm glow of feeling like you've done something - and no-one can object because if they do they support child abuse and the degradation of women in mainstream pornography.

 

[lbsf1]

Can't be done.

In fact the former can't be done on its own and that's the problem. They think they have to do something and so they do anything. The technical challenge of preventing everyone in the UK from seeing things prohibited by the Obscene Publications Act is vast, expensive, foolish, unlikely to succeed and futile. A committee is always going to be one step behind a determined individual.

The challenge is even trickier when you think about it for a minute. Where the hell is the child porn anyway? I've never accidentally stumbled on it - I've stumbled on pretty much everything else - and it's most probably not on websites called "childporn" (dot whatever) - so where is it? Chances are that only paedophiles know and that means the circulation of it isn't something you can control by locking down bits of internet.


It's by its nature a very underground hobby - like anything else illegal and/or morally reprehensible. You won't achieve anything by trying to cut off its public face because it clearly doesn't even have one.

Except you'll get a warm glow of feeling like you've done something - and no-one can object because if they do they support child abuse and the degradation of women in mainstream pornography.

Yes I know, child porn is mostly on the dark net, which is quite seperate to what we view day to day (Saying that though I did once accidentally stumble upon child porn whilst searching for something else.). Trying to clam down on it won't have any difference on our day to day lives and almost no difference into the levels of child porn that those who so wish can access. However yes it is mostly the moral aspect which is why the government want to clamp down on child porn, they have pressure from the media and its very easy for them to say these plans to keep the media happy.

However as you will note in my post I used the word kinda before I said about agreeing which clamping down on child porn as I realised the points you made however didn't want to make a huge paragraph on those reasons

I agree the ban/opt in system will fail spectacularly, as did the ban on a p2p site that I shall not mention. Proxies and similar will also mean that people will be able to access porn without opting in, the ban may cause inconvenience to those wanting to access the porn however is unlikely to deter many.

The discussions I have been having on facebook have pretty much echoed this thread on the actual impact on "normal" porn. In reality the ban will do little to the ability to watch porn, however people are annoyed with the idea of the banning rather then the technicalities. The daily mail see this as a win for themselves as they have got the opt in system however in reality people will find their way around the ban, as has been proved so many times. YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE INTERNET.

 

[Ellis]

I was about to make a thread about this topic but seems there is no need.

I believe you should have access and instead of opting out of not having access, opt in. So you say that you want to have these sites blocked. Which thinking about it, we already have. Family blocks etc. I mean I can imagine it would be quite embarrassing to send your provider a "YES I want to be able to watch porn" notification. Imagine what the list would be called? List of ******* Seems so absurd!

One of the women at the centre of the debate described it perfectly this morning on daybreak. To the best of my knowledge her daughter/granddaughter (cant remember was busy eating my bran flakes to remember) was killed/raped and the police found the killer had watched aggressive pornography on that day. And she was asked "Do you think the block will stop instances like this happening" and she said firmly "No" "People who would do things like that have the impulse already in them, pornography just feeds it" which makes sense. Watching a bit of porn has never made me nor anyone I know want to go out and kill someone

And plus, it provides some (if not the best by any means) sexual education for people I suppose. If that makes sense?

Ban on 'rape like' porn - Yes

Ban on porn - No

I see it as a cut in freedom of internet usage.

 

[PeterJB]

And plus, it provides some (if not the best by any means) sexual education for people I suppose. If that makes sense?

Well, it does show you the extensive variety of ways in which you can use your genitals and other orifices in the body...and foreign objects too.

 

[Ellis]

Indeed. I would never know the different ways household objects could be used to satisfy

 

[Wiegert]

Currently the Faily Trail are trying to break all known forms of satire and irony by running a story about how everyone should love these new laws about porn filters because it stops the sexualisation of women and children...

... directly alongside several other stories, all but three of which feature women in bikinis. The three that don't involve Heidi Klumm topless, a feature on 16 year old Chloe Moretz and how sexy she is and a piece on a fourteen year old Kardashian progeny modelling her mum's sexy bikinis.

I mean I can imagine it would be quite embarrassing to send your provider a "YES I want to be able to watch porn" notification.

I've only ever thought about what it would happen if you end up having to phone your ISP about unblocking pornographic sites. It would end up being a fairly awkward affair of course, until you realise that millions of other people in the UK will most likely be calling them up around that time.

 

[Ellis]

I've only ever thought about what it would happen if you end up having to phone your ISP about unblocking pornographic sites. It would end up being a fairly awkward affair of course, until you realise that millions of other people in the UK will most likely be calling them up around that time.

"Hello how can I help you today?"

"Hello, I was wondering if I could cancel the restrictions on my internet please for erm, scientific purposes?"

"Yes sir but I will need you wife's confirmation for this as she is the bill payer"

"Oh erm well then never mind thank you"

 

[Touring Mars]

Breaking News


















Only kidding!

Jeez, BBC News 24 are in hog heaven right now, which is probably just as well since there is precisely NOTHING to report. Right now there is some old codger trying to tell us that "Bucklebury used to be an insignificant little parish that no-one had heard of, but now you can go anywhere in the world and say 'Bucklebury' and people go, 'Ah yes, Bucklebury!'"...



And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what counts for reportage in 21st century Britain.

 

[Dotini]

Is The Game of Thrones considered pornographic? It features full frontal nudity, both male and female, incestuous and gay sex scenes, and plenty of normal romping in the hay. I hope they don't cancel it due to the blue-nosed Cameron and his pals. Heck, HBO employs tons of British actors and actresses to produce that show.