OK, apologies for the long ‘copy and paste’ below, but despite the horrible topic that sparked it (Here…from my local free newspaper) I was in awe of a)the person suggesting we ban the internet to stop porn, and b)the person reeatedly engaging with them!!

Click on the original link for the comments in a more readable format…

Anyway..point being…don’t get in an argument on teh internet!!

DrP

Frankie Boil5th February 5:20 am
1Tom, is that you?
Last Updated: 5th February 6:25 am

Social Issues5th February 7:26 am
2The government has yet to do anything about the fact that the Internet is full of this disgusting stuff. It needs to be blocked. Failing to block it allows the curious and the downright idiotic (those who aren’t already deliberate paedophiles) to make criminals out of themselves by exploring what’s readily available.

But, it’s the government’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe from harm. It’s a responsibility that no government has ever tackled and the problem has just grown exponentially.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:22 pm

Ane Diaz5th February 7:33 am
4
Social Issues
wrote:The government has yet to do anything about the fact that the Internet is full of this disgusting stuff. It needs to be blocked. Failing to block it allows the curious and the downright idiotic (those who aren’t already deliberate paedophiles) to make criminals out of themselves by exploring what’s readily available. But, it’s the government’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe from harm. It’s a responsibility that no government has ever tackled and the problem has just grown exponentially.
It’s an impossible task i’m afraid. The only real solution is to stop people wanting to view that sort of content, a change in society. There’s no technical answer.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:37 pm

Social Issues5th February 7:56 am
1I don’t believe that. Simply switching all of the routers off would do it.

ISPs should be given an option. Either clean them out or turn them off. It’s your choice.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:22 pm

Social Issues5th February 8:03 am
1ISPs have successfully lobbied governments for a generation. Their stance has always been : We’re like the postal service. We just transport the stuff. We’re not responsible for what’s in it. That has always been accepted. In the early days, it probably never could have been predicted that the filth carried could do such harm. Now it can.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:37 pm

Social Issues5th February 8:10 am
2Maybe, we should borrow the Great Firewall of China. Filtering content doesn’t seem to be such a problem over there!
Last Updated: 5th February 11:02 am

Ane Diaz5th February 8:28 am
5
Social Issues
wrote:I don’t believe that. Simply switching all of the routers off would do it. ISPs should be given an option. Either clean them out or turn them off. It’s your choice.
So switch off all the Internet? I’m afraid you don’t really grasp how it works. ISPs can’t remove content from the Internet. The UK is a tiny part of the Internet. No one owns it.
Last Updated: 5th February 8:18 pm

Social Issues5th February 8:55 am
1Not the Internet the routers.

Switching off a light isn’t switching off the National Grid, is it? These things are compartmentalized, you know!
Last Updated: 5th February 11:01 am

Ane Diaz5th February 8:59 am
3
Social Issues
wrote:Not the Internet the routers. Switching off a light isn’t switching off the National Grid, is it? These things are compartmentalized, you know!
So stop people from going online? Oh dear, you really aren’t getting this at all. I can’t tell if you are naive or actually stupid.

Do you actually know what the Internet is? Do you think it’s a big black box in America? We are all the Internet. A world-wide network of connected computers. We’re all clients and servers.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:37 pm

Social Issues5th February 9:10 am
1You brought up the Internet.

I’m talking about traffic, liability and content filtering. You are deliberately talking irrelevant nonsense, because you want to insist that a technical solution to content filtering is impossible. That’s a lie. And, I don’t know why you’re so keen on it.
Last Updated: 5th February 11:01 am

Ane Diaz5th February 9:24 am
3
Social Issues
wrote:You brought up the Internet. I’m talking about traffic, liability and content filtering. You are deliberately talking irrelevant nonsense, because you want to insist that a technical solution to content filtering is impossible. That’s a lie. And, I don’t know why you’re so keen on it.
You’re very first line was ‘The government has yet to do anything about the fact that the Internet is full of this disgusting stuff.’ So YOU brought it up. Honestly you should just leave it now. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:38 pm

Social Issues5th February 9:30 am
3That’s not an argument.

The facts are simple:
The government is responsible for keeping us safe.

The ISPs transport filth without liability.

If they were liable they’d filter their traffic.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:40 pm

Ane Diaz5th February 9:39 am
2
Social Issues
wrote:That’s not an argument.The facts are simple:The government is responsible for keeping us safe.The ISPs transport filth without liability. If they were liable they’d filter their traffic.
ISPs simply CANNOT see all of it’s traffic. It is very easy indeed to privately do things online, be it using TOR, or a proxy, or a VPN. I can look at any site I choose and no one in the world would know. ISPs just cannot police that. It’s how the protocols were designed to work.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:38 pm

Social Issues5th February 10:11 am
3True. But, they can see whether the traffic is encrypted or not. And they can then choose whether to carry it or not. The police can see what traffic a suspect has on his computer and which ISP he is registered with.

In effect, if carrying such content were banned (which it isn’t) and if an ISP were found guilty, it would likely pay a large fine.

Which is why ISPs have lobbied for an entire generation to be free from any liability for the content of their traffic.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:40 pm

William Hudson5th February 10:31 am
1
Social Issues
wrote:True. But, they can see whether the traffic is encrypted or not. And they can then choose whether to carry it or not. The police can see what traffic a suspect has on his computer and which ISP he is registered with.In effect, if carrying such content were banned (which it isn’t) and if an ISP were found guilty, it would likely pay a large fine. Which is why ISPs have lobbied for an entire generation to be free from any liability for the content of their traffic.
Most internet traffic is encrypted in one way or another, that is just the way it works. The ISP doesn’t know whether that encrypted traffic is used by a business with remote users, online banking, some other service or whatever – that’s the point of encryption and the internet would be a far more dangerous place without it.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:38 pm

Social Issues5th February 10:48 am
2More dangerous? Maybe, maybe not. But, the point is that encrypted data has the possibility that it contains something harmful. It’s a risk. And somebody has to bear that risk. At the moment it’s the victims who are exploited by the perpetrators. If the ISPs took their rightful share of risk and punishment they’d likely figure out ways of differentiating between encrypted services. I’m pretty sure that adult content providers and banks use separate services.
Last Updated: 5th February 2:37 pm

William Hudson5th February 11:00 am
2
Social Issues
wrote:More dangerous? Maybe, maybe not. But, the point is that encrypted data has the possibility that it contains something harmful. It’s a risk. And somebody has to bear that risk. At the moment it’s the victims who are exploited by the perpetrators. If the ISPs took their rightful share of risk and punishment they’d likely figure out ways of differentiating between encrypted services. I’m pretty sure that adult content providers and banks use separate services.
It has nothing to do with the ISPs! I don’t see how you can’t understand this! Encrypted traffic is encrypted traffic – if there were ways to easily identify what it contains, it would no longer be properly encrypted. I would suggest you read up on how these things work before trying to debate this further!
Last Updated: 5th February 4:38 pm

Social Issues5th February 11:35 am
1You don’t need to identify what’s in it. The police do that when they examine the suspect’s computer. You just need to pay the fine if your ISP transported it to him.

Basically, this isnt a technical argument. It’s about liability and paying fines for transporting filth.
Last Updated: 5th February 2:37 pm

Ane Diaz5th February 11:41 am
2
Social Issues
wrote:You don’t need to identify what’s in it. The police do that when they examine the suspect’s computer. You just need to pay the fine if your ISP transported it to him. Basically, this isnt a technical argument. It’s about liability and paying fines for transporting filth.
Honestly just stop there. I realise you are upset about some Internet content, but you don’t understand the technology behind it.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:39 pm

Social Issues5th February 0:01 pm
0Liability has got no more to do with technology than drug dealing has to do with chemistry.

If you carried it, you pay the fine.
William Hudson5th February 11:42 am
3
Social Issues
wrote:You don’t need to identify what’s in it. The police do that when they examine the suspect’s computer. You just need to pay the fine if your ISP transported it to him. Basically, this isnt a technical argument. It’s about liability and paying fines for transporting filth.
So, the ISP should pay a fine? For what? It has nothing to do with them and if the traffic is encrypted, they don’t know what’s in it. That’s like saying the bus company should pay a fine if a passenger is caught with drugs and used a bus to get to their destination.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:39 pm

Social Issues5th February 0:14 pm
0That’s exactly what I’m saying, yes. And, to the corporate boards of the companies that don’t like it, I’d say, You think that’s unfair?

Try being the child on the other end of that video!
William Hudson5th February 0:50 pm
3
Social Issues
wrote:That’s exactly what I’m saying, yes. And, to the corporate boards of the companies that don’t like it, I’d say, You think that’s unfair?Try being the child on the other end of that video!
I realize that you want someone to blame, but you have to understand that what you are saying is not logical. The ISP is obviously not at fault as it is not possible for them to know what all traffic that passes over their networks contain. Please, for the sake of sanity, have a read up on how internet technologies work.
Last Updated: 5th February 9:26 pm

Social Issues5th February 1:11 pm
0That isn’t true any more than airlines and passengers. They choose to transport encrypted data, some of which is extremely harmful. They could choose not to. It’s a commercial decision. There are lots of business fines. This would just be one more.
William Hudson5th February 1:16 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:That isn’t true any more than airlines and passengers. They choose to transport encrypted data, some of which is extremely harmful. They could choose not to. It’s a commercial decision. There are lots of business fines. This would just be one more.
Every ISP, business and user of the internet transports or transmits encrypted data, you can’t just fine people or companies for using encryption!
Last Updated: 5th February 4:39 pm

Social Issues5th February 2:19 pm
0You’re not fining them for that. The fine is for carrying filth. The fact that it was encrypted is just bad luck.
William Hudson5th February 2:31 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:You’re not fining them for that. The fine is for carrying filth. The fact that it was encrypted is just bad luck.
So you’re suggesting that ISPs should be fined for something that is not their fault and they can’t do anything about?
Last Updated: 5th February 4:40 pm

Social Issues5th February 3:09 pm
0They can do something about it. Not transport it. If they make the commercial decision to transport it, then they can also make the commercial decision to pay the fine. Just like the airlines do.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:14 pm

William Hudson5th February 3:15 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:They can do something about it. Not transport it.
And how do you propose they do that if the data that travels over their networks is encrypted and they cannot see it’s contents?
Last Updated: 5th February 4:40 pm

Social Issues5th February 3:41 pm
0You can see that it’s encrypted. You just can’t read it. Anyway, you know that some services such as https, are encrypted. But, the point is, it isn’t my problem. How they analyse their data and their traffic is their problem.

The police would know what’s on the suspect computer and which ISP he was a customer of. That’s all they would need.
Ane Diaz5th February 4:05 pm
2
Social Issues
wrote:You can see that it’s encrypted. You just can’t read it. Anyway, you know that some services such as https, are encrypted. But, the point is, it isn’t my problem. How they analyse their data and their traffic is their problem. The police would know what’s on the suspect computer and which ISP he was a customer of. That’s all they would need.
You are like the MPs who wanted an age filter for ****, despite technical experts telling them it couldn’t be done. These same MPs dropped that motion recently, very quietly. This is what happens when people who have no clue how it works trying to force things that they know nothing about. This is exactly you.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:40 pm

Social Issues5th February 4:34 pm
0Do be quiet. I know how a fine works. That’s all you need.

All that nonsense about encryption has been one gigantic red herring.
William Hudson5th February 4:14 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:You can see that it’s encrypted. You just can’t read it. Anyway, you know that some services such as https, are encrypted. But, the point is, it isn’t my problem. How they analyse their data and their traffic is their problem. The police would know what’s on the suspect computer and which ISP he was a customer of. That’s all they would need.
The point is that there isn’t a good way to analyse all encrypted traffic for a small entity such as an access providing ISP without in some way breaking the encryption which they can’t do. Therefore you can’t just say, well that’s their problem, as it is not a problem that they can solve.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:40 pm

Social Issues5th February 4:37 pm
0Then they leave it unsolved and pay the fine.
William Hudson5th February 4:46 pm
0
Social Issues
wrote:Then they leave it unsolved and pay the fine.
In the spirit of this circular discussion, I’ll just repeat what I said a few messages ago:

“So you’re suggesting that ISPs should be fined for something that is not their fault and they can’t do anything about?”
Social Issues5th February 5:08 pm
0It is their fault. They choose to carry it. If they make a commercial decision to carry it, then they can make a commercial decision to pay the fine.
William Hudson5th February 5:18 pm
0
Social Issues
wrote:It is their fault. They choose to carry it. If they make a commercial decision to carry it, then they can make a commercial decision to pay the fine.
They only way they could not carry it, is if they didn’t carry any encrypted traffic. Clearly this is not possible for an access providing ISP. ISPs should not have pay a fine simply to operate – that is barmy logic!
Social Issues5th February 5:26 pm
0I believe they should pay it. I speak to MPs regularly. And, that is what I tell them. Ultimately, I believe that UK ISPs’ commercial choices are leading to exploited children.

And, they should pay a price for that.
William Hudson5th February 5:43 pm
0
Social Issues
wrote:I believe they should pay it. I speak to MPs regularly. And, that is what I tell them. Ultimately, I believe that UK ISPs’ commercial choices are leading to exploited children. And, they should pay a price for that.
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to believe what they like regardless of reason. However logic dictates that ISPs can in no way prevent people sharing whatever they want over encrypted mediums that pass through their networks and therefore the ISPs should not be punished for things which they cannot prevent.
Social Issues5th February 5:52 pm
0Nonsense. That’s not logic. There’s no law, natural or otherwise, stating that ISPs must allow their customers to share anything. And, there are plenty of things, hate speech, visible illegal content and so forth, which they intercept. This conversation covers illegal content which has been disguised and the extent to which they should be punished for transporting it. At the moment they are not. I foresee a time when they will be.
William Hudson5th February 6:16 pm
0
Social Issues
wrote:Nonsense. That’s not logic. There’s no law, natural or otherwise, stating that ISPs must allow their customers to share anything. And, there are plenty of things, hate speech, visible illegal content and so forth, which they intercept. This conversation covers illegal content which has been disguised and the extent to which they should be punished for transporting it. At the moment they are not. I foresee a time when they will be.
They don’t allow it, they just can’t prevent it without not being in business. If you don’t understand why this is after all of the explanations that you’ve been given, then there is literally no point in continuing this discussion, so I’m going to end it here as quite frankly I’ve got work to do and endlessly going around in circles about this with you is taking up far too much of my time! So, discussion over.
Last Updated: 5th February 6:34 pm

Social Issues5th February 6:54 pm
0Well exactly. I rather think that’s the point. But, I don’t believe that we can justify carrying this content any longer. It has to stop. Unfortunately, for some ISPs, it’s a view that’s gaining ground. The ISPs have been allowed to get away with their, we’re only transporters. We’re not responsible for the content! routine for too long. And, look at the chaos it has caused.
William Hudson5th February 9:44 am
2
Social Issues
wrote:That’s not an argument.The facts are simple:The government is responsible for keeping us safe.The ISPs transport filth without liability. If they were liable they’d filter their traffic.
The last thing that is needed is more blanket Orwellian restrictions that governments can easily abuse in the name of ‘protecting the children’ – there are enough of these already. Ane is exactly right, there is no technical answer, there will always be a way around any technical restrictions that are put in place for those that are inclined to do so, the only real solution is to stop people wanting to view that sort of content on by educating them on a moral level.

However to address your message, what stops you using a router in a different country then as your first hop via an encrypted tunnel? How does the UK government enforce restrictions on that? It can’t as the internet is not owned by any single entity.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:41 pm

Social Issues5th February 10:35 am
3It has nothing to do with foreign traffic. The concern is how it’s transported within the UK. If somehow you could setup your own provider at Telehouse and not use any UK provider at all, then yes. No UK ISP would be liable. But, as far as I know, regular customers can’t get access to international traffic without waiting for a provider to bring it to them. So, your scenario isn’t a problem.
Last Updated: 5th February 5:01 pm

William Hudson5th February 10:51 am
1
Social Issues
wrote:It has nothing to do with foreign traffic. The concern is how it’s transported within the UK. If somehow you could setup your own provider at Telehouse and not use any UK provider at all, then yes. No UK ISP would be liable. But, as far as I know, regular customers can’t get access to international traffic without waiting for a provider to bring it to them. So, your scenario isn’t a problem.
The point is that you can use any existing UK ISP (you don’t need to set up a new one!) and route your traffic over an encrypted tunnel to another country. The ISP does not and cannot know what the encrypted traffic contains so therefore cannot be held liable. It is as simple as that.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:41 pm

Social Issues5th February 11:38 am
1That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying an ISP has to bring you the traffic. And would have to pay a fine for bringing you filth.
Last Updated: 5th February 5:01 pm

William Hudson5th February 11:53 am
1
Social Issues
wrote:That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying an ISP has to bring you the traffic. And would have to pay a fine for bringing you filth.
I think we’re going around in circles here. If traffic is encrypted, the ISP does not and cannot know what the traffic contains, so it cannot be held liable to pay a fine.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:41 pm

Social Issues5th February 0:38 pm
1Airlines are fined for carrying passengers with the wrong paperwork. The government just cares more about passengers than exploited children.
Last Updated: 5th February 5:01 pm

William Hudson5th February 1:12 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:Airlines are fined for carrying passengers with the wrong paperwork. The government just cares more about passengers than exploited children.
I’d imagine that many governments would like nothing more than to try and implement more draconian laws to monitor and censor their citizens. As stated in the following wikipedia article on the subject, the ‘think of the children’ cliche is often used as a plea of pity to appeal to emotion, and therefore becomes a logical fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Regardless of the cliche, the point is that unlike an airline, who can check passengers paperwork before boarding, an ISP cannot know the contents of all of the traffic passed over it’s network.
Last Updated: 5th February 4:42 pm

Social Issues5th February 4:03 pm
0Not all of it, no. But, they can learn to avoid costs and risks, just as any other business does. How they learn to do this is their problem.
TheBandPlayedOn5th February 9:31 pm
1
Social Issues
wrote:Not all of it, no. But, they can learn to avoid costs and risks, just as any other business does. How they learn to do this is their problem.
So basically you have spent the whole day making yourself look like a complete ass in an attempt to shut down the internet, without presenting how it should be done. Quality.
Last Updated: 5th February 10:35 pm

Social Issues5th February 0:38 pm
0Airlines are fined for carrying passengers with the wrong paperwork. The government just cares more about passengers than exploited children.
Only the real truth5th February 2:10 pm
1
William Hudson
wrote:
Social Issues
wrote:That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying an ISP has to bring you the traffic. And would have to pay a fine for bringing you filth.
I think we’re going around in circles here. If traffic is encrypted, the ISP does not and cannot know what the traffic contains, so it cannot be held liable to pay a fine.
Circles, I’d say you were on a roundabout, lol
Last Updated: 5th February 4:42 pm

[Deleted]5th February 11:58 am
0[Deleted]
Last Updated: 5th February 1:45 pm

stygis stygis5th February 8:17 am
6
Social Issues
wrote:The government has yet to do anything about the fact that the Internet is full of this disgusting stuff. It needs to be blocked. Failing to block it allows the curious and the downright idiotic (those who aren’t already deliberate paedophiles) to make criminals out of themselves by exploring what’s readily available. But, it’s the government’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe from harm. It’s a responsibility that no government has ever tackled and the problem has just grown exponentially.
I did start typing a long reply as to why this approach has never worked, but got bored. The below will have to suffice:

You are a cretin who has no clue about people or the internet.
Last Updated: 5th February 9:31 pm

Social Issues5th February 8:20 am
0Right. So, switching the routers off wouldn’t stop the traffic from being transported?

Um, I think you’ll find it’s you who is the moron.
Pig-Silk-Thirst-95th February 8:37 am
5Keep talking, we’ll find the right answer eventually, I’m sure.
Last Updated: 5th February 9:32 pm

Private Individual5th February 10:11 am
1Part of what needs to happen here is that we all need to grow up a bit.

We accept, nowadays, that homosexuality between consenting adults is not socially harmful and that trying to stop people from being gay is futile. Perhaps we could expand this new-found enlightenment towards a wider demographic?

According to the article, this man has not abused any children or animals himself, nor has he paid anyone for any of the images he viewed so has in no way contributed to their creation, yet we criminalise him as if he himself had physically harmed someone.

This man has effectively been convicted of thought crime by a repressed and biggotted PC fascist state.
Last Updated: 5th February 5:08 pm

[Deleted]5th February 1:19 pm
0[Deleted]
Last Updated: 5th February 6:53 pm

[Deleted]5th February 1:29 pm
1[Deleted]
Last Updated: 5th February 6:53 pm

Gifted Mind5th February 3:27 pm
0It’s outrageous that this sort of filth can be found and sent around on the internet. It is one of many reasons why I would clamp down hard on it and ban some of it, like all this social media Facebook Twitter nonsense.

Social media is the biggest problem in the country today and is ruining people’s lives and has led to the mental health crisis we have today. Fake news on the internet is destroying our democracy and stirring up division and hatred in our society.

These internet service companies are big, capitalist corporations and it all comes down to money. They keep saying they will regulate themselves and do something about it but of course they never do because then they would lose customers and lose money.

In China the internet is practically banned, Russia is talking about banning it as well, and have put technical blocks on some content. It’s very easy for experts to do if they want to.

When I search for a picture of someone on Google it sometimes comes up that it has filtered out some dirty pictures. The fact that Google and the computer knows when a picture is dirty because of all these algorithms means they could eliminate filth immediately but unfortunately the country is full of perverts. If you cut off their supply of filth it would cost these companies millions.

I’m not an internet expert but I do read a lot of news reports and articles and as far as I’m concerned, that’s the long and short of it.
Last Updated: 5th February 3:33 pm

Ane Diaz5th February 3:43 pm
2
Gifted Mind
wrote:It’s outrageous that this sort of filth can be found and sent around on the internet. It is one of many reasons why I would clamp down hard on it and ban some of it, like all this social media Facebook Twitter nonsense. Social media is the biggest problem in the country today and is ruining people’s lives and has led to the mental health crisis we have today. Fake news on the internet is destroying our democracy and stirring up division and hatred in our society.These internet service companies are big, capitalist corporations and it all comes down to money. They keep saying they will regulate themselves and do something about it but of course they never do because then they would lose customers and lose money. In China the internet is practically banned, Russia is talking about banning it as well, and have put technical blocks on some content. It’s very easy for experts to do if they want to.When I search for a picture of someone on Google it sometimes comes up that it has filtered out some dirty pictures. The fact that Google and the computer knows when a picture is dirty because of all these algorithms means they could eliminate filth immediately but unfortunately the country is full of perverts. If you cut off their supply of filth it would cost these companies millions. I’m not an internet expert but I do read a lot of news reports and articles and as far as I’m concerned, that’s the long and short of it.
Ron, firstly this is not about social media.

As far as China goes you are talking bobbins. They are the biggest Internet users on the planet. Likewise Russia has categorically NO plans to ban the Internet. As for experts putting blocks on things, it is not an easy thing to do. Trust me on this, you know I know what I’m talking about.

When you search for something you search WITH Google, not ON. The images aren’t stored on Google’s servers, they just index them with crawlers.
Last Updated: 5th February 7:55 pm

FloJ5th February 6:09 pm
1Forgive me, Ron, for pointing out the obvious, but:

“Social media is the biggest problem in the country today and is ruining people’s lives and has led to the mental health crisis we have today.”.

You yourself use The Argus as a form of social media.
Last Updated: 5th February 7:56 pm

Miserable Git5th February 7:49 pm
1Hmmm; ban all social media, but then live a Ron commenting free life…. hhmmm, tough call.
Last Updated: 5th February 7:56 pm

Have you got the Cliff Notes?

I’ll wait for the film.

TLDR version..
Person who doesn’t understand how internet/internet traffic works thinks you can stop bad things on said internet easily.

DrP

Delightful.
POLICE charged a man for possessing indecent images of children he had been sent by a former friend on Whatsapp.

I think the first comment was a desire to see child porn blocked from the net. A reasonable wish, really. But it was written as if he wanted he whole internet blocked, I don’t think that’s what he meant, especially as he was reading his newspaper off the web.
I didn’t read any further.

Trying to read that gave me a sore brain – is there a doctor nearby?

I think the first comment was a desire to see child porn blocked from the net. A reasonable wish, really.

Oh I agree… I guess I became distracted the conversation that ensued about the merits of un-encrypting the whole of the internet data, and why this won’t be possible…!

DrP

hs=4&8*inwcibwncowc 802c 02c [../’;[][][c8b2=0cb3c c 2cb28fb8cb.

Opps,sorry I let the cat try a post.

Aye, close down the internet, we need to be getting out into the real world and attending to more pressing issues.

I’m sure there’s a library full of books needing burnt around here…

The only real solution is to stop people wanting to view that sort of content, a change in society.

Exactly, society is to blame. Time for some mass castrations.

Time for some mass castrations.

What an enormous load of bollocks.

I must say, that’s a much easier and amusing read on the paper’s own site. 🙂

The username/quote/reply is so hard to follow I gave up, and I’m used to this place.

My best guess – idiotic gammon who doesn’t understand something wants a blanket ban on the internet or possibly ISPs which would solve what he perceives to be a major issue*; without realising what he wants is physically impossible, would cripple and starve the entire nation, or both.

* I know paedophilia is no laughing matter, but what is it about the demographic of tabloid press and local village facebook groups that see it as the greatest imminent threat to humanity since Noah’s flood?

* I know paedophilia is no laughing matter, but what is it about the demographic of tabloid press and local village facebook groups that see it as the greatest imminent threat to humanity since Noah’s flood?

Apart from occasional sportives.

The username/quote/reply is so hard to follow I gave up, and I’m used to this place.

I must say, that’s a much easier and amusing read on the paper’s own site. 🙂

pondo is correct, much better on the link, got to the end. My opinion of Mr Issues is unchanged.

Judge Barnes said: “The extreme images … are not done for the pleasure of the people or the animals involved.”

I know this isn’t a funny subject, but this amused me.

I assumed the poster ‘Social Issues’ was somebody bored and stuck at home – surely nobody could be that stupid?

I dunno why the OP thought we needed to be told about acrimonious and ill informed arguments happening on the internet. This is STW after all.

Andrew Paine was sent the vile child abuse messages by Richard Burgess and thought he had deleted them.

But they were still on his Whatsapp account and were discovered when police searched his phone.

SO his defence was “I had no idea that vile and offensive material was still on my phone – all I really use whatsapp for is sending my ex-wife videos of women being **** by horses”

I’m so tempted to quote the op… 😜