Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Gov't Wants Facebook To Feature Child Safety Button

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the extreme-unction dept.

Social Networks 237

judgecorp writes "Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has said that UK government ministers are 'taking action' to get Facebook to add a British child protection button (called CEOP) to its site. The move comes after the UK's Daily Mail withdrew allegations that teenagers on Facebook are continually pestered — though Facebook is still considering suing the paper. The campaign apparently ignores Facebook's assertion that it already has better child protection in place and the CEOP button would be limited to the UK."

cancel ×

237 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450026)

Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (-1, Offtopic)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450036)

Actually she probably can't

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (1, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450088)

Well we know from Parliamentary expenses that she and her hubby have rented enough porn to learn good technique

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (3, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450172)

Just to correct you, it was Jacqui Smith who was involved in the porn on expenses [dailymail.co.uk] scandal.

However, the pair of them are evil, menopausal bitches from hell - and Harriet Harlot was also the one who toured her own constituency in an armoured vest [dailymail.co.uk] .

Personally, I'm not letting the pair of them anywhere near my cock.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (-1, Offtopic)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450180)

Sorry, didn't cut and paste the second link correctly:

Harriet Harlot in an armoured vest [thisislondon.co.uk]

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450328)

Just to correct you, it was Jacqui Smith who was involved in the porn on expenses scandal.

Though they've both "got away with it". Only 4 UK politicians facing the courts, when 400 would have been a more sensible number.

owever, the pair of them are evil, menopausal bitches from hell

Do you really need to offend the Kennel Club?

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450596)

They got caught out being greedy sods, and for most, their political careers are over now because of it.
That's fair punishment (after all, the rules allowed it in most cases; the rules were wrong and they took advantage of that, which is a natural human thing to do in most cases).
Overall, I think the expenses scandal was initially good to bring in the open, it's just being overused now.. They've taken their drubbing, and I'll remember it. They need good oversight, and correct rulings. This is a 'small' thing in the grand scheme; they do much worse that I'd rather people kept their eyes on, and not fall for the old magicians' tricks.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock. (1)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450480)

Actually they probably can't.

It's the economy, stupid! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450436)

And Owebama can suck mine!

from an ft.com article today:

"During the downturn many companies, including FedEx, cut their capital expenditures in response to falling demand, moves that in turn intensified the drop-off in economic activity. The levels have yet to recover.

Boosting investment spending was crucial to catalysing a sustainable recovery, Mr Smith said, because it created jobs. When people were worried about unemployment, they tended to spend less, undercutting a driver of the economy."

Pull your head out of your ass, Owebama. People don't give a shit about your health care take-over socialist wet dream holy grail if they've been looking for a job for 9-12 months. Bills get paid in this order: food, housing, energy, communications, THEN insurance. Maybe if you wouldn't be so fucking myopic, your poll numbers wouldn't be in the shitter.

British Children?! (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450578)

Wait a sec. Since when did the British start having children again?

Re:British Children?! (1)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450660)

Hmmm

Our population is rising, if you believe the BNP & the right wing tabloid press, this is solely down to a combination of immigration (from Eastern Europe) & the large number of children in ethnic minority families.

I have not seen an official breakdown explaining the rise in population and given that our next official census is not until 2011, I doubt I will see one before then.

Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450052)

Since its Harriet Harman involved I expect that the pressing of the button will result in the immediate rounding up of all males over 12 involved in the conversation for incarceration without trial. And it obviously won't matter what was said, because it will be the "emotion affect" on the kid pressing the button that counts, not the actual words.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (4, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450074)

I think the button should be connected to a device to administer a large voltage to Harriet Harperson whenever pressed. The take up would be enormous.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450226)

I think the button should be connected to a device to administer a large voltage to Harriet Harperson whenever pressed. The take up would be enormous.

Version 2 would come up with a prompt of "Which MP/Peer do you want to shock today?" and would be even more popular.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450554)

Needs a "select all" button.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450116)

Agreed.
It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women." Heck she was even short listed for her position BECAUSE she was a women.

Ultimately we differ in opinion because she believes the means justify the ends (e.g. positively biased for women will counterbalance history and everyone will be equal), where I believe we promote *equality* and the problem will fix its self in time.

She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (4, Informative)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450222)

It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women."

Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women [wordpress.com] and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450274)

Similar to how anti-semitism is defined as being against the policies of the current Israeli government (by them anyway)?

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (3, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450316)

Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.

OK, some dipship female supremecist who calls herself a feminist makes a boneheaded definition for sexism on her blog, and you paint all feminists with that brush?

Femenism simply means the belief that all people are equal irrespective of gender. Some femenists are angrier or more shrill than others, but the fundamental definition of femenism remains, to wit

feminism /fmnzm/ Show Spelled[fem-uh-niz-uhm] - noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.

The problem is that a whole lot of angry men (and eager-to-please women) jumped on a reactionary "not in these-here parts" bandwagen and have deliberately misused the term to mean something it isn't. It makes me wonder if the blogger you linked to isn't really a right-wing troll / agent provocatuer. Certainly her definition of sexism isn't consistent wtih the definition of feminism. Clearly men and women are equal, and equally clearly, sexism goes both ways. It is simply an unfortunate symptom of history, not to mention a whole lot of mysognist cultures (e.g. much of the middle-east, though by no means limited only to that region) and institutions (e.g. the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, Penthouse Magazine, and the list goes on), that the most common experience by far is male sexism against women.

Harriot Harmon is a prime example of the opposite, and her methods should clearly not be supported, but that's no excuse to go labelling feminists as female supremecists, or pointing to some random blog by someone who doesn't even know the meaning of the word as an "authority" on how feminists would define "sexism" or any other term.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450378)

Funny how you cut 'n paste the word feminism from the dictionary definition but fail to spell it correctly afterwards.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (4, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450414)

I doubts it's a "right wing troll". Over here in 'sunny' Bristol, UK, there was a great little scandal a while ago, where a black city councilor accused an Asian councilor of being a "coconut" (brown on the outside, white on the inside) as the Asian councilor supported a bill that wasn't stacked towards Asians (though in a pragmatic sense, was geared towards the general wellbeing long term of the city for all people).
The big defense of this black councilor was that "she couldn't be racist, because she was black". That was an actual, on the record quote.
After having had many witch hunts for racism in the council, this rather more blatant (and on the public record; the "coconut" comment was made in session and thus recorded) event was rapidly swept under the carpet, and the decision of the disciplinary board was that "no action should be taken".

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (1)

Fuzzypig (631915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450582)

I believe there have several cases here in the UK where those from ethnic minorities have tried to play that card, "I'm [ethinic minority] how can I be racist?!". The question I would ask these planks is, "Race has nothing to do with it pal, you're that stupid and detached from reality, how do you manage to get your trousers on in the morning?"!!!

The problem is we're not all equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450418)

I'm not claiming I have a solution, but that is the problem. That and the fact that many people want to pretend that somehow we are all equal.

The fact that a higher proportion of monkeys sit in the trees than do wildebeests does not necessarily mean that wildebeests are *under-represented* in the trees. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, but the simple mismatch in figures is not proof of anything.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (2, Funny)

t0p (1154575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450322)

That's right. The correct term for "sexism by women against men" is "feminism". Isn't it? ;)

NB: Any women reading this post, please don't mistake that ;) for an inappropriate, lecherous gesture. I find lecherous gestures are always appropriate! ;)

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450534)

"Only men can be sexist" sounds like a gender-biased/sexist definition to me. Pot calling the kettle black?

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450260)

So Harriet Harman is your Obama?

God forbid you should criticize the president in front of black people. He's like their retarded kid who's running the race in last place and they're oh so proud of him.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450498)

It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women."

woman...

Heck she was even short listed for her position BECAUSE she was a women.

woman.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450532)

She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.

It also encourages widening of the qualification gap between men and women, since men will now have to get themselves higher qualified to get a job.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450644)

Better yet, direct 4chans /b/ towards it. I'd give it about 2 days before it was removed on abuse reasons.

Muhehehe (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450068)

We already have bad experience [radio.cz] with child protection buttons, and I seriously doubt that this one will do more good than harm. What's happened to good old parenting?

Re:Muhehehe (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450160)

Oh you mean like a few years ago when all parents were 1337 h4x0rs, and knew all about child predators and Rupert Murdoch? [bbc.co.uk]

Yeah, it's really sad that the huge Baby Boomer software development community has disbanded. Once, there were 100m people actively developing Linux, now it's just a few housewives browsing HuffingtonPost.

Re:Muhehehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450632)

Ah yes the Media Barons! These would be the same Media Barons that happily put a 16 year old girl with her tits out on one page, then two pages later start laying into paedos and asking the readership to start a lynch-mob and demand hangings in the town square for any bloke over 12 years old, who so much as looks at a child!

Re:Muhehehe (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450728)

What's happened to good old parenting?

People want the kids but not the responsibility, so they're outsourcing the responsibility and blaming everyone but themselves when they do a bad job.

And I say this as a guy in his mid-20s with a kid approaching 2. The wife and I are both annoyed at times by all of these laws and complaints from parents who basically don't want to do a proper job of bringing their kids up.

And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (4, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450078)

...that got done by the police for driving without due care and attention [timesonline.co.uk] ?

So presumably Facebook is a danger to kids whilst her talking on a mobile phone while driving is safe for kids who could be out in the street at the time?

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450156)

Not that I am a particular fan of the woman myself, but that kind of tenuous link between facts sounds like something I would expect the Daily Mail to come out with.

Come on people, some more valid criticisms? How about the fact that she is trying to force a private company to shoehorn an unproven 'solution' to a problem that should be resolved through better parenting.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (2, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450194)

print a photo of her laughing with the headline:
"Harman laughs whilst children in Africa are dying!"

That's about the level of our tabloids.

This is grossly unfair.... (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450332)

She would probably save the girl children given half a chance

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450198)

I stand by the link - if you're going to force your morality on others then it's a damn good idea to be a fine upstanding citizen yourself.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450188)

So presumably Facebook is a danger to kids whilst her talking on a mobile phone while driving is safe for kids who could be out in the street at the time?

Legally, I think it's currently ok to run over kids *if* they are fully clothed.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (0, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450256)

I hate these kinds of smear arguments. What do they accomplish? Did she come to conscious decision that she would drive without due care and attention? Does that mean she condones road accidents? She's a human being, and as such, is capable of mistakes, and making bad decisions given in split seconds.

If you think she's a bad politician, why not focus on her politics instead?

Actually, it's kind of funny. According to your article, she was allegedly in an accident and didn't stop to give the details. The primary factor in her decision not to give details would have been considering what mud-slingers such as yourself would say had she been caught and 'fessed up. So, by your twisted logic, you condone people dodging the responsibilities for their actions.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450396)

My expectation is that if my taxes are funding their salaries that pays them to run the country, then as public figures they should be expected to behave in a "whiter-than-white" manner.

I'm probably a similar age to Ms. Harman and I, and many other people like me, have managed to get to this age without criminal records because we've always taken responsibility for our actions and considered the ramifications of what we do before we do it - if you've been brought up a moral (and as an agnostic I don't necessarily mean religious) and decent person, it's fairly automatic and not difficult to do.

Yes, people make mistakes and the legal system exists to punish those mistakes accordingly - but if you're in a responsible position then you have a duty to lead by example.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450416)

Did she come to conscious decision that she would drive without due care and attention?

Yes, she did. She deliberately chose to talk on her phone while attempting to drive, meaning that she was not fully in control of her car.

Or are you suggesting she somehow accidentally answered the phone, or accidentally drove the car?

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450694)

While she was driving, the phone would have rung. She chose to pick it up. It wasn't a choice to potentially harm those around her, it was a choice to speak on the phone.

While driving the decision to pick up or not pick up a phone can be tough, especially if you're concentrating on the road. Also, phones don't ring for very long, so there's some time pressures involved.

Now, I'm not saying she didn't do something wrong, or that she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions. I'm saying she made a mistake; a very understandable, human mistake. The kind of mistake, with the kind of consequences, which shouldn't cost a person their career! It's the kind of mistake which does not a bad politician make. It's the kind of mistake to which only mudslingers would pay attention after the courts are through with you.

Do you get the point now?

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450762)

Or are you suggesting she somehow accidentally answered the phone, or accidentally drove the car?

"I'm sorry, officer. I was just sat in the car, then my hand slipped and started the ignition, then my feet slipped at the same time as my hand slipped and I ended up dropping the car into gear and driving off*, then my left foot kept slipping on to the clutch at the same time as my hand slipped on the gear stick. It was all just accidental driving."

* Note for Americans: We in the UK generally have these things called "gear sticks" and "clutch pedals" that let you change gear by yourself ;)

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450738)

hate to be her defender, but for the point of completeness, she was parking whilst on the phone.

still a crime, yes but one slightly different when travelling at 3mph as opposed to 70mph (as implied)

Typical Labour policy (5, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450084)

Allowing Children on the internet to quickly and easily label anyone they like a child abuser. What could possibly go wrong?

It gets better though, if you are ever accused of child abuse, it goes on record and will be returned whenever an employer does a background check. Doesn't matter if the allegations are complete rubbish and everyone acknowledges this. It'll still haunt you for life.

To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.

Re:Typical Labour policy (4, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450306)

To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.

In the UK the only "background checks" that are done by employers are those done for people who work with children & vulnerable adults; they are called CRB [wikipedia.org] checks. Both times I've had one done, I got a copy. Other employers don't get to do 'background checks' and even if they were allowed, you could use the data protection act to find out any information they hold on you. In short, your post doesn't apply to the UK.

Re:Typical Labour policy (2, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450506)

CRB checks are done by most employers, volunteers and a whole host of other agencies that want a criminal records check. This is the 'valid' method which is quite sane in most respects, and yes, you get a copy of your CRB check.
The post was about the "Vetting and barring database" which you'll have to register on if you have formal contact with children more than a couple of times a week. This involves schools, hospitals, taking kids to school if you do the school run, retail outlets (you do serve children under 16 if they appear in your store, don't you?), and in fact, a huge amount of places.
There is no disclosure to the applicant about anything that may appear on this, and 'soft intelligenct' (i.e. hearsay) is admissible as evidence in this database. It is sufficient to bar you from a job.

Re:Typical Labour policy (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450602)

"Soft intelligence" is only included as footnotes on Enhanced CRB checks. These are the level of check for children and vulnerable adults the parent was referring to. It is not released when other agencies or employers request CRB records.

Working in the education system, I have one every two years. My employer didn't receive the actual file; It was sent to me and I produced it when requested by my employer.

Re:Typical Labour policy (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450520)

Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.

However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play with can check.

Re:Typical Labour policy (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450696)

Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.

I understand this, but you said "you can fail a background check and never know". That's outright false. When I had mine, the CRB results were sent to me, not my employer & I had to produce it when they wanted it.

However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play with can check.

I understand this (my area is one of the pilots). The information given out in these cases isn't a full enhanced CRB. What happens is a person can go to the police and ask them about an adult in contact with someone to whom they are related (e.g a woman can ask about her new boyfriend, or an ex husband could do similar). The police then choose what (if any) information to give out and it has to be relevant. If the man is a serial child molester then they'll say, but if he was cautioned for stealing sweets when he was a teenager then they won't, or rather shouldn't.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the American route of putting all sex offenders on a totally public access database which some people were campaigning for.

Re:Typical Labour policy (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450350)

The fact that an amployer can see what you crimes where is in itself a violation of privacy. If you did the time, you should be able to do a job.

Now what could be asked for certain jobs would be some sort of security. What could be asked is a paper that verifies if you got that security level or not. With the unions pretty strict I can assume that in Europe not every job could require the highest level.
That would mean that a child molester might not get a job in a kindergaten, but could get a job at a bank. An ex-drugdealer can't get a job as police, but could as waiter.

One can dream, right?

Re:Typical Labour policy (1, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450594)

To be fair - and it twists my titties to say anything nice about Zanulabour - this is a Harridan Hormone policy, not nuLabour. She's utterly, utterly deranged.

Although of course it is exactly the sort of tabloid friendly knee-jerk bullshit policy that they do so love enacting. Fortunately they won't have time, although I'm sure they'll announce it then accuse everyone else of being Soft on Child Predators.

Re:Typical Labour policy (4, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450734)

I can't wait until my nephew in the UK is old enough to accuse various MP's of molestation, even if he's never met them.

"You want a PS4 for Christmas kiddo? Here's a list of names. Ruin their lives for me. Thanks."

johnvpetersen (1)

johnvpetersen (667799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450086)

I wonder if this begins to open the door to bringing products liability to the web....

Not surprising (5, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450090)

Frankly this isn't a shock given our current government's tracks record.
  - Licence to take kids to football practice
  - Licence to own a dog (and third party liability insurance)
  - CCTV Cameras on every street corner
  - An "equality opportunity" amendment which promotes racist and sexist hiring (what the hell?)
  - Virtual strip search at every airport
  - ID Cards
  - et al

Being extremely liberal is great. But some days I wish the UK had a little more of the things American conservatives love (e.g. Personal Freedom, less interference).

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450120)

- et al

Being extremely liberal is great. But some days I wish the UK had a little more of the things American conservatives love (e.g. Personal Freedom, less interference).

Feel free to organize a campaign to unelect all politicians and failing that effort just plant a few bombs in the cars of each politician. After all, you cannot even legally own a firearm anymore.

Re:Not surprising (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450434)

After all, you cannot even legally own a firearm anymore.

It's slightly easier to legally own a gun in the UK than it is in many states in the US. Hell, it's easier to get a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence.

Re:Not surprising (1, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450132)

well, step one is abolish the crown. Step two is abolish everything done in the name of "her royal highness," "her majesty," or "the crown." I'd say step 3 would be to auction off the crown jewels to pay off the national debt, but aren't they actually made of aluminum or something? That's not as precious a metal as it used to be...

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450206)

Step two is abolish everything done in the name of "her royal highness," "her majesty," or "the crown."

Er, sure, because you know it's all the Queens fault.

You'll just have to imagine me twirling my finger next to my head and making cuckoo noises at you.

Re:Not surprising (0)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450318)

Much can be done in the name of the crown which couldn't/wouldn't be done in a Republic. Despite the fact I think Cromwell was pretty much worse than Hitler, the Commonwealth would have given Manip the things he said he wants.

Re:Not surprising (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450344)

I'm no fan of the monarchy but I'll bet you that the Civil List [wikipedia.org] wastes about 1000 times less public money than the lazy good-for-nothings who draw unemployment benefit who can't be bothered to get a job, the proportion of the 3,000,000 drawing sickness benefit who have nothing wrong with them, and the amount the National Health Service wastes on overpaid managers & giving free treatment to health tourists.

Our monarchy hasn't helped its reputation with the silly scandals in recent years but the undeniable fact is that they do give something back to the country by encouraging trade and tourism.

And if we're going to scrap the monarchy, let's also scrap the hereditary peers and the "boys club on an endless public-funded jolly" that is the House Of Lords.

Re:Not surprising (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450364)

Abolishing the Lords would have been around step 4 or 5, I think.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450576)

Abolishing the Daily Mail newspaper would be around step 3. Then all the money spent cleaning up the papers left all over the London subways and detoxing white people from their daily fix of Amy Winehouse gossip could be used to pay for weddings for all the "partners" popping out kids on the dole, and not raising them.

Re:Not surprising (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450564)

Seeing as the money comes from the estates held by the royal family anyway, it's not the State's money "wasted" in the first place. Abolish the monarchy, and the estates would revert to the family.

Re:Not surprising (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450140)

Being extremely liberal is great

Somebody has kidnapped the word "liberal" here. I thought the word had something to do with freedom, which seems to be absent in the list above.

Re:Not surprising (3, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450182)

Indeed. The word "liberal" has very different meanings on the opposite sides of the Atlantic. The traditional UK sense of Liberal was closer to (but not equal to) the US Libertarian. True UK liberals would legalise drugs and, probably, guns.

Double-speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450248)

This is a canonical example of political double-speak.

It appears that in American, liberal (Freedom, free, unrestricted), has come to mean socialism. (WTF?)
Socialism is the polar opposite of liberalism, since (for better or worse) it requires coercion.

This is an application of Hitler's big lie propaganda idea.
To make matters worse, American "fake liberalism" has become intermixed with actual issues of liberty. How anyone knows who to vote for is a mystery to me.

All the political labels ultimately mean nothing however, as people are either fundamentally individualist, or fundamentally collectivist; with all their other beliefs cascading from these root beliefs.

Re:Not surprising (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450214)

You mean extremely communist. And American conservatives don't love personal freedom, unless it's theft, gay sex, and firing black people. The gun-toting rebels you're thinking of are "libertarian."

Liberal/conservative is bullshit and meaningless. Just semantics, yes, but it's starting to tick me off that "liberal" includes fighting global warming, and fat unemployment checks for laid-off union workers (General Motors). The two issues couldn't be more different.

Dear Parents... (3, Informative)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450110)

The following list of things should not be considered as trustworthy babysitters and are no substitute for proper parenting skills:

An Internet connected PC
A box of fireworks
A games console
A set of throwing knives

Now kindly stop with trying to fulfill your lives by shitting out more kids that you're not prepared to be responsible for and expecting the rest of us to make concessions for them.

Re:Dear Parents... (1)

Marianne013 (1323185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450456)

Well if I monitor my offspring all its waking hours (ever tried this with a 15 year old???) then I can't go to work and I am a benefits scrounger. I guess it's my fault for not having married a rich guy, but he was so cute :-)

Facebook here (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450114)

We respect your concerns about child safety, so we've installed a Child Safety Button for our younger users. It's a big "X" located in the upper-right corner of Facebook. Macs don't use X technology, so we built a red button for their Facebook instead. We're pretty sure those are the only two Facebooks anyone uses.

Re:Facebook here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450706)

Mod parent super up insightful and funny!

Not sure about who is right (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450136)

You could argue that the UK government is just trying to interfere in how a private non-uk business runs its site, but then again, if you leave it to private industry, actors claiming to be doctors would be telling you that smoking is healthy. Private industry does have a reputation for ignoring the welfare of its customers for the sake of profits.

Just as car makers prefered killing a few customers over the message that cars could be dangerous by installing seatbelts, facebook hardly wants to carry the message that social networking is not all fun and games to strongly.

From what I know of the warning button, it is just a link to a site where you can get advice about how to stay safe. So fairly similar to a "smoking can kill you" sticker. The truly stupid won't read it, but who knows, it might work and what is the harm?

Yeah, yeah, parents should tell their kids. Except a lot of parents don't have a clue about what their kids are up to. They did not grow up with the internet, don't know the capabilities. Kids are incredibly stupid if you let them, but then kids are also famous for not reading warnings anyway.

But why is facebook so opposed to it? Does it have a serious complaint, or is it seatbelts all over again? Yeah the summary says that facebook claims their own warnings are good enough. Right... and why should we take their word for it? They would hardly say "we don't want the button and our own systems suck because we don't give a shit". They got a reason not to want the button, and I need a little bit more then obvious marketing speech to see why. Because I can see a very simple reason why they really don't want it. It might scare people of using their service.

Re:Not sure about who is right (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450636)

Dude, the parents have personal responsibility, not Facebook, not the government. Neither should (in almost every instance) mess with that.

Parents, pay attention to your damned kids.

Re:Not sure about who is right (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450640)

It's not just a warning, it's a button that reports "suspicious activity" directly to CEOP. I'm assuming that said report must include some identifying information of the parties involved or it would be no use to anyone.

I know Facebook are not exactly the bastions of privacy and security that we might like, but bowing to the pressure of a country other than the one in which they are based, and in doing so firing off arbitrary personal information about their users, is an understandable place to draw the line.

It doesn't make any sense (1)

benjymous (69893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450152)

* Child meets someone online.
* Child gets on with person.
* Child agrees to meet up with person.
* Child meets up with person.
* Bad things happen.

How would having a big "Click here to report this person" button help? If they're willing to meet up, then they're obviously not suspicious about the person's intentions. Even a big flashing "Are you sure this person isn't going to try and do nasty things to you?" banner on screen would quickly be ignored and forgotten about

Re:It doesn't make any sense (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450310)

* Child meets someone online.
* Child gets on with person.
* Child agrees to meet up with person.


Most of the other ways in which people meet up do not have the previous two steps.

* Child meets up with person.
* Bad things happen.


It need not be to the "child" that "bad things" happen.

Child-Safety Button (2, Insightful)

gencha (1020671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450154)

There already is such a button on every computer. It's more widely known as the power button.

Re:Child-Safety Button (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450354)

There already is such a button on every computer. It's more widely known as the power button.

Pity there isn't one fitted to all MPs. Won't someone think of the children ;)

Simpler Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450176)

No children should be allowed on the Internet or World Wide Web for their own safety. "Think of the children." Politicians and parents these days are all idiots; maybe they should be banned from the Internet and World Wide Web as well. Problem solved - nobody allowed except adults without children.

"Arsebook", anyone? (2, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450238)

If you're a British politician, you automatically go on "Arsebook".

If you're a parent without parental responsibility, your "Facebook" account gets transferred to "Arsebook".

And if you've queued up at midnight for a computer game or an iPhone, you go into the "Arsebook" "What A Total Arse" section.

That'll soon learn them...

I can see a great flaw in your plan (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450362)

I can see a great flaw in your plan

If you're a British politician, you automatically go on "Arsebook".

Most British politicians could not distinguish this from Elbowbook.

Re:I can see a great flaw in your plan (1)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450740)

Hmmm

For MPs the ability to distinguish between the two would surely depend on whether one of them resulted in a higher expenses claim.

hmmmm (2, Interesting)

zerointeger (1587877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450262)

Good parenting is a better option.

Having a button in any type of chat application which either party can flag a conversation with is so interfering with a UI that you all hate the idea?

I don't have kids, and I cannot think of anything better then good parenting but I also cannot see any harm adding a simple for the sole purpose of making it easier to handle things such as bots, scammers, predators etc.

The only problem I can really see is misuse of the button when an ex-girlfriend decides she wants to fuck with her ex-boyfriend in a malicious manner.

I suppose filtering and priority detection can be implemented to possibly eliminate false positives etc.

Porn Director for Parliament (1)

alanw (1822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450276)

The sooner the general election comes the better - there are only weeks left of the current parliament, and so all the politicians are posturing not in the expectation of changing the law, but only in the hope of getting re-elected.

In today's news, the Lib Dem's have selected a female porn director as their prospective candidate, so perhaps there is some hope left.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/kent/8563214.stm [bbc.co.uk]

even better idea (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450278)

Lets have a hide Kids option. Unless they are related to oneself or friends.

Useless and Clueless (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450284)

Harriet Harman is, in all likelihood, the most useless fucking cunt in a position of power at this moment in time.

What do you do to such a media outlet? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450290)

However, it has since emerged that Williams-Thomas was not using Facebook for his research but a different, unspecified social network. In a message on Twitter he claims that the reference to Facebook was introduced by editors at the paper, despite being told it was wrong.

The only way to fix this is to make defamation a graduated crime. If the Daily Mail pulls a complete hail mary by putting a front page confession, then let them off lightly. If they put it on page Z30 where no one reads, then fine them to the point that they won't make a red cent in profit for two business quarters. If they won't retract it, but fight it, knowing full well that what they did was defamation, then let Faceboook and this journalist pick their bones clean.

Re:What do you do to such a media outlet? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450608)

So he made up a bunch of facts about an unknown social network, then his editors changed the name of the social network, and the suggested response is to implement a solution that has never solved any real, existing problems.

Actually, if the problem is made up, then a useless made-up solution seems like a perfect one.

Using the existing solutions would be be better and more efficient, but how's that going to pander the votes of the clueless masses who want to protect the children from this evil Internet thing that sneaks into their houses at night and eats their children while they sleep?

About those allegations... (2, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450370)

The paper got a story from a guy who did a quick-and-dirty unpublished study on how quickly they were approached on a different site entirely, the DM ghostwrote it into a different story entirely about Facebook, ignored the original author's corrections, and put it up on the front page.

OMG they're coming through the screen! (1)

t0p (1154575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450408)

So what's this panic button for precisely? So little Eric/Erica can press it when the predatory perverts reach out through the monitor?

I would have thought Eric/Erica wouldn't realise "little Chester" is a nonce until they've gone to the park to meet up with their new friend. I don't think Chester the Molester is going to properly introduce himself online. That would kinda interfere with the grooming process.

And what's wrong with the usual "report this post/message" kinda link? Would a special "OMG he's touching me" button, for Brit kids only, be more effective in some way?

Re:OMG they're coming through the screen! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450634)

It wouldn't. But it's a change to the Facebook page that everyone can see, and feel comforted by.

In order to be effective, yes, you have to have a kid who is smart enough to tell his/her parents "hey, this bloke wants to meet me at the local park at midnight to give me candy", at which point the parents pick up the phone and call (is it 999 over there on the other side of the pond? Anyway, whatever the police number is) and ask them to meet you there so Chester can get all the lovin' attention he needs from Bubba (or whatever Bubba's British cousin is called).

But it's a shiny, and when you add a shiny it makes things safer, yes? Think of the CHILDREN, man! Shiny! Vote for me!

Tyranny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450424)

"Let the sum of parents and children decide what is appropriate by giving them a way to blacklist things".

The sum of people will pretty much decide most discussions, people, and services are inappropriate for children, and this faceless entity will offer children no way to complain or get access either way. This is actually pure tyranny, even when its practiced on children.

Furthermore, social networks are about people, and the context under which this is apparently also being pushed is that you also can protect children physically - but you obviously can't know in advance who is going to rape or kill kids. Perhaps some reporting mechanism helps with harassment (which you can already report as is now), but definitely not rape or murder.

Incorrect Summary (3, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450526)

The button is not called CEOP. CEOP is the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre [ceop.gov.uk] . The button is apparently called "CLICKCEOP" [ceop.gov.uk] , but is mostly referred to as the "paedophile panic" button in the press or simply the "button" on the CEOP site.

Harriot Harmon. Never get her drunk. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31450580)

It is Harriot Harman who argues that being drunk is no defence for men accused of rape (fair enough)... but strangely, she also argues that woman cannot be held to have 'consented' if they are drunk.

She was also responsible for the repeal of the defence in murder cases of 'provocation', which was a defence used primarily by men (again, fair enough). Strange then that at the same time, Harriot brought in a new defence which allowed abused women to claim long term abuse by the husband, as a defence if they then murdered their partner - rather than, say, leave them.

She goes on to argue that the low conviction rate of alleged rapists is proof, in itself, that too many men are getting away with rape (might be true), but fails to acknowledge the alternative explanation, that too many false allegations of rape are being submitted by women.

Harriot is one awful tub of man hating menopausal angst.

This will cause so many false positives. (1)

dotKuro (1762182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450658)

Think of the kind of playground "grassing" that was so common. Miss, he's stolen my jacket! Miss, he's stabbing me with his pencil! Miss, he's put my shoes in the toilet! This will be an online version of that. An eternal hell of kids thinking other kids are pedos and reporting them for the slightest offences. Facebook will become like Club Penguin. As for CEOP, it's on some sites already and the people who run it are incompetents, and widely known to be. Any kid with a brain blocks the offending person and LOICs any hate sites. Apart from anything else, Harman is a gynosupremist bitch. Feminism's one thing, incriminating every single male in existence is another. If she was male, she wouldn't even be in. Although I'm British, I hate the bias of British politics.

Public relations exercise (1)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450714)

Hmmm

I have come to the conclusion that for professional politicians it is far more important to be seen to be doing something (anything), than it is for them to actually do something effectively.

This appears to be nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to show the voters that the government has their best interest at heart.

Think of the children... Fuck the Children! (2, Insightful)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31450720)

The most dangerous phrase ever uttered by society "There ought to be a law..." and I'm a lawyer. This shit is just out of hand.

It's a good thing George Carlin is dead, cause this would kill him. I just keep replaying his stand up bit in my head.

Daintywoman: Think of the children! Think of the children! Think of th...
George: Fuck the Children! (And this is Mr. Conductor Talking)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>