Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

"The Archbishop of Canterbury said he was "embarrassed" and "irritated" that the Church of England invested indirectly in online lender Wonga.
It comes after the Most Reverend Justin Welby told Wonga the Church would try to force the firm out of business by helping credit unions compete with it.
But the CofE later admitted it invested in funds that provided money for Wonga.
The amount of Church money indirectly invested in Wonga was about £75,000 out of investments totalling £5.5bn, according to the archbishop."- BBC

Forget who they were investing in isnt it nice to know when you put your money on the collection plate in Church you are just helping their stock investments!
You might think at a time like this your money would be going to the poor and the needy- but no 5.5 billion in investments to keep the Church filthy rich and in ermine robes and gold candlesticks.  

[azriel]

Yeah, & when you donate clothes, shoes, handbags etc into a metal recycling bank on the roadside, (ie The Salvation Army) You THINK your old coat will go to some poor chap thats homeless, destitute, poor ? NO! it goes to a textile recycling company, churned up & the money goes everywhere else, like holidays in USA for 2weeks for the "management" in the "sally army" ! I know as I used to work for them. GOOD clothes,shoes etc are sold privately or on Ebay. In reality, poor Hobo gets shit all   The money ecrude goes to the coffers of the Salvation Army & is spent on a weeks stay, in the penthouse suite of the dearest hotel in...........wherever ! Ive know people to accidently leave a watch or a ring or money in a pocket of an item, contact "sally army" & report it but, "sally army" amazingly know nothing of item ?? So you lose item forever.

[Pettytyrant101]

Makes you sick doesnt it- oddly enough Jesus warns about listening to people who preach as they 'love their own voice more than God'.
I suspect when he said charity begins at home he meant dont give it to the established churches do it yourself- that way you help who needs help not help keep them rich.

[Eldorion]

So, uh, if our UK members find themselves having difficulties accessing this site in the future, it might be because David Cameron's porn blocking/Internet censorship plans will block web forums unless you specifically disable that part of the censoring software.

http://boingboing.net/2013/07/26/uk-censorwall-will-also-block.html

UK PM David Cameron and Claire Perry say that they plan on forcing Britain's ISPs to have a "default-on" censorship app for every connection in the UK. But the UK Open Rights Group have been talking with whistleblowers from the ISPs that have met with the government's censorship grandees, and they report that the censorware will come equipped to block an enormous swath of legal Internet content, and unless you untick the boxes, this will all be censored for your Internet connection:

Do you want to block

pornography
violent material
extremist and terrorist related content
anorexia and eating disorder websites
suicide related websites
alcohol
smoking
web forums
esoteric material
web blocking circumvention tools

NB Given that "esoteric material" is on the list (what the fuck does that even mean?), Ally might want to make her move to Poland sooner rather than later.

[Eldorion]

Seriously, Cameron's reasoning for this move would make Helen Lovejoy proud.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action

I want to talk about the internet, the impact it’s having on the innocence of our children, how online pornography is corroding childhood and how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children and that must be stamped out. Now, I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger but because I feel profoundly, as a politician and as a dad, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.

Interestingly though, The Guardian argues that Cameron's plan does not in fact change very much, but that he has simply convinced British ISPs to publicly state that they're going along with his plan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn

Food for thought, I'm sure, but what bothers me more is that apparently enough people in the UK believe that Internet porn is some sort of evil demon that is devouring children left and right, to the point that the Prime Minister can basically order private companies to change their business practices and even his critics in the press are worrying that he isn't doing enough.  (Though at least The Guardian acknowledges that "default on" is stupid.) And in a twist that should surprise absolutely no one, the whole "children are looking at porn!" frenzy is being used as an excuse to censor other non-pornographic content as well.

[Eldorion]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but a Telegraph blogger has the best write-up I've seen so far of why trying to block Internet porn in general won't do anything to stop child sexual abuse.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100009396/david-cameron-cant-protect-us-from-child-porn-because-he-doesnt-understand-the-internet/

[Lancebloke]

As far as I am concerned, people will find a way to satisfy themselves. I think we would much rather a 14/15 year old be watching porn than going out and raping someone. It is all over TV and music videos etc anyway so it isn't like hormonal kids arent going to be getting thoughts and young kids arent going to be exposed to that kind of world.

[Kafria]

Two things to say,
First
I agree with the article that there is a difference between legal porn and the serious illegal stuff and they are being intermixed here.
Second
If you want to deal with the serious side of this, the grooming etc a limit on people accidentally stumbling on stuff is not going to do it. It's education and communication or parents actually engaging with their children about their online activities

[Eldorion]

I think I agree with both of you guys.

When I first read Cameron's statement I figured he was talking about younger children seeing online porn, but it turns out he was actually referring to teenagers.  (It's not like young children are going to be interested in porn since most people go through the "sex is icky" phase and it's actually pretty hard to accidentally stumble across porn.)  The Conservative party's hilariously overblown website contains this gem:

http://www.protectingourchildren.co.uk/

81% of children aged 14 to 16 have viewed adult material online

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most of the remaining 19% lied about whether they viewed porn.  More importantly, I don't see anything wrong with this number being so high.  14-16 has always been an age at which people are exploring their sexual identity, and it always has been.  Granted, the ease with which one can find Internet porn if one is looking for it does change things somewhat, but acting as if teenagers have some sort of "innocence" that could be preserved if only we keep the dirty nasty porn away from them is laughable.

It's even more laughable when this moral outrage is coming from noted peddlers of smut and leering misogyny like the Daily Mail...

[Eldorion]

I think part of the reason this is bothering me so much is because this sort of hypocritical moral conservatism is something I've grown to expect in the US but that I thought/hoped was less mainstream in other countries.  David Cameron is crushing my Anglophile dreams.

[Lancebloke]

Says it all really Eldo... that page almost shows the definition of hypocrisy.

[Pettytyrant101]

this sort of hypocritical moral conservatism is something I've grown to expect in the US but that I thought/hoped was less mainstream in other countries.- Eldo

What on earth gave you that idea Eldo! Conservatives are the same everywhere.
The last Tory government under John Major largely collapsed because they went on a moral preaching set of law making and announcements under the title 'back to basics'- and then so many of them got caught with hand in till or willy in secretary the government was brought down by sleaze and scandal.

Complete moral hypocrisy is one of the main ways you can tell a conservative.  

[azriel]

Hear Hear !!

[Eldorion]

Wishful thinking I guess.

[Pettytyrant101]

Cameron is just makng noises on this issue- his proposals mean next to nothing- same as going after google ect to prevent certain phrases being looked for in search bars- if there is a pedo and they have a dodgy webaddress they are not going to put it in a search bar in google- they will put in the address bar and bypass all the services anyway. Or use file sharing or that underweb thing thats totally outside eveyrones laws.
There is no point going after google. But it looks and sounds like they are doing something.

This is just political noises in the run up to the next election- whilst I think the US elections go on too long (although understandable given he size of the place) I do envy that there is at least a start point to electioneering- here its just sort of starts ad you have to work it our from the sort of rubbish they are talking.
This stuff is purely for elections, they dont actually think it will make the slightest bit of difference.

[Kafria]

This is just political noises in the run up to the next election

Sorry isn't that most of Tory policy since the last general election. Every thing has been about what sounds good not what is effective, realistic, practical or necessary?

Mind if I was an editor at the mo I must say this would just make me start prying about what he is trying to hide!

[Pettytyrant101]

Agreed Kafria- its been a lot of sound and fury and little actual done except as far as I can tel to increase further the gap between haves and have nots, justified by vilifying and blaming the have nots for their own plight.
(Although in fairness they do seem to have successfully collapsed both education and health in England- I suppose thats sort of an achievement)

and yeah usually the louder the moral noises the Tories make, the more immoral and dodgy the deals are going on behind the scenes.

[Kafria]

I'm going to be good and resist the urge to rant   I'm not thinking about that till September   

[Pettytyrant101]

I have to admit over the past year whenever Groves little piggy face has come on the news explaining the problem with education is the teachers (as opposed to endless Government meddling and target setting) to wondering what your reaction to it all was (beyond furious I mean)

[Kafria]

Hmmm at this point all I will say is that the affects within school are such that it has been a very busy and stressful year. I will at some point sit down and put some thoughts together if you wish, but inspired by what I've read today I am trying to start doing some writing. I have only sat down two or three time since Christmas to write, that in itself is probably a telling fact.

[Pettytyrant101]

I can wait to hear of the horrors of the english education system Kafria if it means getting to read more of your stories.  

[Eldorion]

I haven't followed the education debacle that closely but I'm sorry to hear that it's been so stressful for you, Kafria. I hope that things clear up a bit for you sometime in the near future.

[Kafria]

Thanks Eldo, it's as much about the position we are in as a school and local perceptions at the moment. Gove and his policies don't help and have certainly contributed. Next year is likely to be as busy, but we have a plan and a direction so that has to be better I think.

[Pettytyrant101]

The UK government continues to try to control the UK internet- a panel of MP's looking into e-crime made the following recommendations-



   Requiring banks to report all e-fraud, however small, to the police
   Obliging web firms to explain data security tools to new users
   Prosecutors to review sentencing guidance for e-crimes
   Increased funding for European e-crime co-operation
   Mandatory code of conduct for removal of indecent material
   New body to report on and remove online terrorist content


The first four seem perfectly sensible- but the last two worry me.
Who decides what is 'indecent?'
In the 50's , 60's and 70's in the UK there were a series of battles fought by publishers and writers to stop the censoring of free speech on the basis of the 'decency laws'- court battles that were won and seen as great triumphs- over things like publishing Lady Chatterleys Lover.
Do we want to go back to that? Having to go to court to get the right to be heard?
When government gets to decide things usually go ill for free speech.

The last one is potentially even worse- what counts as a terrorist site?- Al-Jazeera was declared a terrorist news station because it was not reporting the western line, would it be blocked if it suited the governments agenda to do so?

[Eldorion]

Is there a specific reason why the UK seems opposed to Internet freedom? At first I thought the Twitter prosecutions might have been anomaly or a quirk of British law but following the web censorship attempts lately makes me wonder what factors are at play to make the British government so opposed to the open Internet. We've known for some time that the Internet will become less like the wild west as governments and corporations catch up with it, so is Britain just at the forefront of these changes or is there some unique reason for this?