Making the Internet safe for kids

Padlocks and chains galore

By Emma Hughes: Monday, 29 September 2008, 12:09 PM

KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE online has always been an important issue, now
some of the biggest names in child protection have teamed up with the
Government to make the safe, safer.

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
announced today their plans to put together the UK Council for Child
Internet Safety (UKCCIS) which will unite over 100 organisations both
public and private.

This move is inspired by Dr Tanya Byron’s report ‘Safer Children in a
Digital World’ – by reporting directly to our friend Gordon Brown the
council will help to improve many unsafe aspects on the internet.

Problems such as online bullying, violence, sexual content and safer
search features are just a handful of issues that will be tackled
helping to ensure safer children and relaxed parents.

This Child Internet Safety Strategy will be delivered early next year
and will include such features as public information and awareness,
support for vulnerable children, assurance of responsible advertising
and the take-down of unsuitable sites.

Minister Ed Balls said, “We want to help children and young people to
make the most of what all digital and interactive technologies can
offer.”

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reinforced this point by saying that, by
working in partnership, they can intensify efforts to protect young
people.

UKCCIS will report annually to the Prime Minister at the Child
Internet Safety Summit.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/29/plans-revealed-child-interent

*****

".... ensure safer children and relaxed parents."
"... the take-down of unsuitable sites."

What about the paedos?

WM
www.critest.com

Child protection internet watchdog begins work

Harmful websites promoting suicide to children or including cyber-
bullying are to be targeted by a new internet watchdog.

By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 6:39AM BST 29 Sep 2008

From today, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which will
report directly to the Prime Minister, will monitor the web for
offensive content accessible by children. It will order that sites
illegally encouraging suicide or harmful behaviour are taken down.

The Council has also drawn up a voluntary code of conduct, under which
websites can promise to root out violent or pornographic content
within a set deadline and be vigilant in preventing bullying on
message boards.

It has been set up by the Government in response to recommendations
made by Dr Tanya Byron, the television psychologist, in a report
published in March. She was comissioned by Gordon Brown to examine how
children could be better protected from inappropriate or harmful
material online and in computer games.

Dr Byron said she hoped the Council would protect children while
allowing them to enjoy exploring the internet.

"Every parent will know that know that the internet is a part of
childhood like never before," she said. "This is extremely positive;
giving kids the opportunities to learn to have fun and communicate in
ways that previous generations could only dream of.

"But it can also present a huge challenge to parents and other adults
involved in the welfare of children."

Council subgroups are to be set up to protect vulnerable children -
including those who self-harm or are anorexic or bulimic - from
websites promoting these activities, and to oversee online computer
games, which allow children to elude cinema-style certificates that
prevent them buying the games in shops.

The Council will also introduce Kitemark-style branding for software
that it plans to have packaged with every computer sold for home use
in Britain. It is hoped the software will make it straightforward for
parents to set up controls limiting their children's access to adult
websites.

The Council is also planning to push major search engines - such as
Google and Yahoo! - to make it easier for parents to limit what
results are given in response to searches made by their children. It
wants parents to have the option of "locking" the search criteria to a
set safety level.

Under Dr Byron's plans, search companies are to be encouraged to
display helpline numbers and advice to children searching for
information on bullying, eating disorders or other problems.

Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary and Jacqui Smith, the Home
Secretary, will launch the Council in a presentation on Monday and it
will be jointly overseen by their departments.

Speaking in advance of the launch, Mr Balls said: "We want to help
children and young people to make the most of what all digital and
interactive technologies can offer.

"By putting in place the right support for children, young people and
parents we can reduce much of the anxiety that exists around the
internet."

Miss Smith said that the council will comprise industry, charity and
government experts.

"Earlier this year, the Home Office published the first ever social
networking guidance," she said.

"The Council builds on this by bringing together more than 100
organisations, all committed to keeping children safe online. By
working in partnership we can intensify our efforts to protect young
people."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3096877/Child-protection-internet-watchdog-begins-work.html

****
WM

"Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message 
news:f569f3f8-d620-4445-bd91-bd63edcbecee@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Child protection internet watchdog begins work
>
> Harmful websites promoting suicide to children or including cyber-
> bullying are to be targeted by a new internet watchdog.
>
> By Jon Swaine
> Last Updated: 6:39AM BST 29 Sep 2008
>
> From today, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which will
> report directly to the Prime Minister, will monitor the web for
> offensive content accessible by children. It will order that sites
> illegally encouraging suicide or harmful behaviour are taken down.
>
> The Council has also drawn up a voluntary code of conduct, under which
> websites can promise to root out violent or pornographic content
> within a set deadline and be vigilant in preventing bullying on
> message boards.
>
> It has been set up by the Government in response to recommendations
> made by Dr Tanya Byron, the television psychologist, in a report
> published in March. She was comissioned by Gordon Brown to examine how
> children could be better protected from inappropriate or harmful
> material online and in computer games.
>
> Dr Byron said she hoped the Council would protect children while
> allowing them to enjoy exploring the internet.
>
> "Every parent will know that know that the internet is a part of
> childhood like never before," she said. "This is extremely positive;
> giving kids the opportunities to learn to have fun and communicate in
> ways that previous generations could only dream of.
>
> "But it can also present a huge challenge to parents and other adults
> involved in the welfare of children."
>
> Council subgroups are to be set up to protect vulnerable children -
> including those who self-harm or are anorexic or bulimic - from
> websites promoting these activities, and to oversee online computer
> games, which allow children to elude cinema-style certificates that
> prevent them buying the games in shops.
>
> The Council will also introduce Kitemark-style branding for software
> that it plans to have packaged with every computer sold for home use
> in Britain. It is hoped the software will make it straightforward for
> parents to set up controls limiting their children's access to adult
> websites.
>
> The Council is also planning to push major search engines - such as
> Google and Yahoo! - to make it easier for parents to limit what
> results are given in response to searches made by their children. It
> wants parents to have the option of "locking" the search criteria to a
> set safety level.
>
> Under Dr Byron's plans, search companies are to be encouraged to
> display helpline numbers and advice to children searching for
> information on bullying, eating disorders or other problems.
>
> Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary and Jacqui Smith, the Home
> Secretary, will launch the Council in a presentation on Monday and it
> will be jointly overseen by their departments.
>
> Speaking in advance of the launch, Mr Balls said: "We want to help
> children and young people to make the most of what all digital and
> interactive technologies can offer.
>
> "By putting in place the right support for children, young people and
> parents we can reduce much of the anxiety that exists around the
> internet."
>
> Miss Smith said that the council will comprise industry, charity and
> government experts.
>
> "Earlier this year, the Home Office published the first ever social
> networking guidance," she said.
>
> "The Council builds on this by bringing together more than 100
> organisations, all committed to keeping children safe online. By
> working in partnership we can intensify our efforts to protect young
> people."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3096877/Child-protection-internet-watchdog-begins-work.html
>
> ****
> WM
What a shock.  You are against this.  Anything that could stop you preying 
on children is a good idea.

On Sep 29, 1:22 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message
>
> news:f569f3f8-d620-4445-bd91-bd63edcbecee@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Child protection internet watchdog begins work
>
> > Harmful websites promoting suicide to children or including cyber-
> > bullying are to be targeted by a new internet watchdog.
>
> > By Jon Swaine
> > Last Updated: 6:39AM BST 29 Sep 2008
>
> > From today, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which will
> > report directly to the Prime Minister, will monitor the web for
> > offensive content accessible by children. It will order that sites
> > illegally encouraging suicide or harmful behaviour are taken down.
>
> > The Council has also drawn up a voluntary code of conduct, under which
> > websites can promise to root out violent or pornographic content
> > within a set deadline and be vigilant in preventing bullying on
> > message boards.
>
> > It has been set up by the Government in response to recommendations
> > made by Dr Tanya Byron, the television psychologist, in a report
> > published in March. She was comissioned by Gordon Brown to examine how
> > children could be better protected from inappropriate or harmful
> > material online and in computer games.
>
> > Dr Byron said she hoped the Council would protect children while
> > allowing them to enjoy exploring the internet.
>
> > "Every parent will know that know that the internet is a part of
> > childhood like never before," she said. "This is extremely positive;
> > giving kids the opportunities to learn to have fun and communicate in
> > ways that previous generations could only dream of.
>
> > "But it can also present a huge challenge to parents and other adults
> > involved in the welfare of children."
>
> > Council subgroups are to be set up to protect vulnerable children -
> > including those who self-harm or are anorexic or bulimic - from
> > websites promoting these activities, and to oversee online computer
> > games, which allow children to elude cinema-style certificates that
> > prevent them buying the games in shops.
>
> > The Council will also introduce Kitemark-style branding for software
> > that it plans to have packaged with every computer sold for home use
> > in Britain. It is hoped the software will make it straightforward for
> > parents to set up controls limiting their children's access to adult
> > websites.
>
> > The Council is also planning to push major search engines - such as
> > Google and Yahoo! - to make it easier for parents to limit what
> > results are given in response to searches made by their children. It
> > wants parents to have the option of "locking" the search criteria to a
> > set safety level.
>
> > Under Dr Byron's plans, search companies are to be encouraged to
> > display helpline numbers and advice to children searching for
> > information on bullying, eating disorders or other problems.
>
> > Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary and Jacqui Smith, the Home
> > Secretary, will launch the Council in a presentation on Monday and it
> > will be jointly overseen by their departments.
>
> > Speaking in advance of the launch, Mr Balls said: "We want to help
> > children and young people to make the most of what all digital and
> > interactive technologies can offer.
>
> > "By putting in place the right support for children, young people and
> > parents we can reduce much of the anxiety that exists around the
> > internet."
>
> > Miss Smith said that the council will comprise industry, charity and
> > government experts.
>
> > "Earlier this year, the Home Office published the first ever social
> > networking guidance," she said.
>
> > "The Council builds on this by bringing together more than 100
> > organisations, all committed to keeping children safe online. By
> > working in partnership we can intensify our efforts to protect young
> > people."
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3096877/Child-protection-internet-wat...
>
> > ****
> > WM
>
> What a shock.  You are against this.  Anything that could stop you preying
> on children is a good idea.

Where does this organisation stop anyone 'preying' on anyone?

All it is, is another front to further remove your civil and Human
Rights, but you took the blue pill.

""I don't know how this will end..... where we go from here is a
choice I will leave up to you..."

WM

PM hails child web safety drive

Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed a "path-breaking" new organisation
designed to protect children online.

Mr Brown said the creation of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety
(UKCCIS) was an "important landmark" in efforts to keep young people
safe when using the internet. The challenge for society and the
Government was to strike a balance between safety and freedoms, he
said.

The premier was speaking at the launch of UKCCIS at London's Science
Museum alongside Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Children's Secretary
Ed Balls.

The council will report directly to the Prime Minister and will be
tasked with tackling issues like online bullying and violent video
games. The council will unite more than 100 industry, charity and
public sector experts.

It has been set up in response to a report by Dr Tanya Byron into how
children and parents can get the most from new technology while
protecting youngsters from inappropriate or harmful material.

Mr Brown, who had earlier been speaking to children from Holland Park
School as they used the museum's internet facilities, said: "This
revolution in communications is here to stay.

"Some people call the internet a slanging match without an umpire. The
challenge for us is to make sure young people can use the internet
safely and do so with the minimum of restrictions but the maximum of
opportunities."

He added: "The internet provides our children with a world of
entertainment, of opportunity and knowledge, a world that is quite
literally at their fingertips, just the click of a mouse away.

"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in
playgrounds or in youth clubs or in swimming pools, so we must put in
place the measures we need to keep our children safe online."

The collection of experts who make up UKCCIS will ensure a "voice" in
the development of a child internet safety strategy to be published
next year.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3027034.html?menu=

*****
WM

Webmanager_CritEst  posted
>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in 
>playgrounds or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,


Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat 
elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.

-- 
Les

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:Pu+EtYAG3P4IFwIR@obviously.invalid...
> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
>>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in playgrounds 
>>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>
>
> Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat 
> elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>
I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
What if it drowned?

mert1639  posted
>
>"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
>news:Pu+EtYAG3P4IFwIR@obviously.invalid...
>> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
>>>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in playgrounds
>>>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>>
>> Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat
>> elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>>
>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.

Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a 
playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing 
for Brown to say?

>What if it drowned?

She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a 
bus while crossing the road.

But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she 
might get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a 
safe way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it 
herself and hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the 
risk and the skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially 
zero. There are no risks, unless you count being arrested for 
downloading things the police don't like.

As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff 
in the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else 
does. It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't 
interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.

-- 
Les

On Sep 29, 5:13 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in messagenews:Puዖ珸⁜@obviously.invalid...> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
> >>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in playgrounds
> >>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>
> > Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat
> > elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>
> I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
> What if it drowned?

A child is up to 17.

WM

Gov backs kid protection plan

By STAFF REPORTER

WEBSITES could be asked to sign up to a voluntary code of conduct
launched today to protect young people online.

The new UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) will police the
web for children, take down illegal sites encouraging harmful
behaviour and spearhead an awareness campaign.

The council will report directly to the Prime Minister and be tasked
with tackling issues like online bullying and violent video games.

It has been set up in response to a report by Dr Tanya Byron into how
children and families can get the most from new technologies while
protecting children from inappropriate or harmful material.

Gordon Brown today hailed the “path-breaking” organisation.

Mr Brown said the creation of UKCCIS was an “important landmark” in
efforts to keep young people safe when using the internet.

The challenge for society and the Government was to strike a balance
between safety and freedoms, he said.

Support

The Premier was speaking at the launch of UKCCIS at London’s Science
Museum alongside Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Children’s Secretary
Ed Balls.

The council will unite more than 100 industry, charity and public
sector experts.

Mr Brown, who had earlier been speaking to children from London's
Holland Park School as they used the museum’s internet facilities,
said: “This revolution in communications is here to stay.

“Some people call the internet a slanging match without an umpire. The
challenge for us is to make sure young people can use the internet
safely and do so with the minimum of restrictions but the maximum of
opportunities.”

He added: “The internet provides our children with a world of
entertainment, of opportunity and knowledge, a world that is quite
literally at their fingertips, just the click of a mouse away.

“But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in
playgrounds or in youth clubs or in swimming pools, so we must put in
place the measures we need to keep our children safe online.”

Mr Brown said that some people would say the internet could not be
regulated while others would call for Government intervention and
others still said parents had to take responsibility.

He said: “The fact that we are here today - Government, industry,
charities, parents, teachers and law enforcement agencies, united in a
common aim - has, I believe, proved them wrong.

“I believe that the supervision of the internet is the responsibility
of all of us and that the problems it presents are ours and we must
address them together as a society.

“So today is an important landmark in bringing people together,
helping to strike a balance between keeping our children safe and
giving them the freedoms that they need to build their independence.”

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: “We have a very good record in this
country led by very many of the people that actually make sure that we
balance that freedom and those opportunities with protection and
safeguards.

“The new UK Council builds on this by bringing together over one
hundred organisations all committed to keeping children safe online.
By working in partnership we can intensify our efforts to protect
young people.”

Dr Tanya Byron said: “Every parent will know that know that video
games and the internet are a part of childhood like never before.

“This is extremely positive; giving kids the opportunities to learn to
have fun and communicate in ways that previous generations could only
dream of. But it can also present a huge challenge to parents and
other adults involved in the welfare of children.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1745767.ece

****

"Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: “We have a very good record in this
country led by very many of the people that actually make sure that we
balance that freedom and those opportunities with protection and
safeguards."

A Very Good Record

WM
www.critest.com

"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message 
news:+Rp4S5AYOQ4IFwdI@obviously.invalid...
> mert1639  posted
>>
>>"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
>>news:Pu+EtYAG3P4IFwIR@obviously.invalid...
>>> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
>>>>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in 
>>>>playgrounds
>>>>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>>>
>>> Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat
>>> elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>>>
>>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
>
> Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a 
> playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing for 
> Brown to say?
>
Of course I would, as I would allow a responsible child to go swimming. 
However, I wouldn't allow a young child to go swimming on their own.  My 
parents never allowed me to do so and nor would I.

>>What if it drowned?
>
> She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a bus 
> while crossing the road.
>
> But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she might 
> get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a safe 
> way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it herself and 
> hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the risk and the 
> skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially zero. There are no 
> risks, unless you count being arrested for downloading things the police 
> don't like.
>
There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex offender. 
Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their 
exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit 
exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time 
using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a child 
controlled until I was well into my teens.

> As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff in 
> the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does. 
> It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't 
> interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.
>
Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy 
to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.

On Sep 29, 5:47 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Big Les Wade"  wrote in messagenews:䚞ዤ؎䎂ׁ@obviously.invalid...
>
> > mert1639  posted
>
> >>"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
> >>news:Puዖ珸⁜@obviously.invalid...
> >>> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
> >>>>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in
> >>>>playgrounds
> >>>>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>
> >>> Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat
> >>> elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>
> >>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
>
> > Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a
> > playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing for
> > Brown to say?
>
> Of course I would, as I would allow a responsible child to go swimming.
> However, I wouldn't allow a young child to go swimming on their own.  My
> parents never allowed me to do so and nor would I.
>
> >>What if it drowned?
>
> > She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a bus
> > while crossing the road.
>
> > But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she might
> > get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a safe
> > way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it herself and
> > hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the risk and the
> > skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially zero. There are no
> > risks, unless you count being arrested for downloading things the police
> > don't like.
>
> There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex offender.
> Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
> exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit
> exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
> using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a child
> controlled until I was well into my teens.
>
> > As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff in
> > the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does.
> > It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't
> > interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them> Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
> to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.

Clearly.

I do not think it is a conspiracy, it is an evidenced set of facts.

It has little to do with protecting children, in theory, it has
nothing to do with protecting children, in practice ...

... and, of course, you (and others) presume that such protection is
needed at all.

WM

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:47:44 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>>>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
>>
>> Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a 
>> playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing for 
>> Brown to say?
>>
>Of course I would, as I would allow a responsible child to go swimming. 
>However, I wouldn't allow a young child to go swimming on their own.  My 
>parents never allowed me to do so and nor would I.

And what is your particular definition of "a young child"?

>>>What if it drowned?

>> She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a bus 
>> while crossing the road.

>> But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she might 
>> get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a safe 
>> way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it herself and 
>> hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the risk and the 
>> skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially zero. There are no 
>> risks, unless you count being arrested for downloading things the police 
>> don't like.

>There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex offender.

And either the child should be old enough/wise enough to handle such a
risk, or the *parent* should have sufficient supervision and control
to prevent harm.
 
>Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their 
>exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit 
>exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time 
>using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a child 
>controlled until I was well into my teens.

Exactly - it woiuld be you as a parent who protects the child and
decides what risks the child is and is not ready to face, not the
government.

>> As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff in 
>> the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does. 
>> It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't 
>> interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.

>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy 
>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't. 

Not all, but a great deal is *exactly* that.  Repression cannot be
implemented blatently, but must have the facade of a "good cause".
Protection of children is a theme that is a time-honoured front for
repressive measures by many governments throughout the ages.

Protection against grave dangers (the more nebulous the better) is
another.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:re62e4tpcjlc90qtkonoht43nak8npvqhv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:47:44 +0100, "mert1639"
>  wrote:
>
>>>>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
>>>
>>> Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a
>>> playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing 
>>> for
>>> Brown to say?
>>>
>>Of course I would, as I would allow a responsible child to go swimming.
>>However, I wouldn't allow a young child to go swimming on their own.  My
>>parents never allowed me to do so and nor would I.
>
> And what is your particular definition of "a young child"?
>
It depends on the child.  You can't just give an age as some children will 
be more resonsible than others of a given age.
For me a young child, in contect, is one that is unable to be left to go to 
a swimming pool along safely.

>>>>What if it drowned?
>
>>> She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a 
>>> bus
>>> while crossing the road.
>
>>> But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she 
>>> might
>>> get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a safe
>>> way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it herself 
>>> and
>>> hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the risk and the
>>> skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially zero. There are 
>>> no
>>> risks, unless you count being arrested for downloading things the police
>>> don't like.
>
>>There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex 
>>offender.
>
> And either the child should be old enough/wise enough to handle such a
> risk, or the *parent* should have sufficient supervision and control
> to prevent harm.
>
The parents may be unable to monitor the child's internet use.  They may not 
be IT savvy or the child could dupe them - perhaps after being groomed to do 
so by the peado.

>>Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
>>exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit
>>exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
>>using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a 
>>child
>>controlled until I was well into my teens.
>
> Exactly - it woiuld be you as a parent who protects the child and
> decides what risks the child is and is not ready to face, not the
> government.
>
Whats wrong with the government assisting the parents in their quest. 
Parents are responsible for looking after their children, but the govenrment 
help out by reducing danger when they can: traffic claming, guards on 
dangerous machines, etc.
Unless you are saying that the government should do nothing to make the 
world safer for citizens?

>>> As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff 
>>> in
>>> the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does.
>>> It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't
>>> interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.
>
>>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
>>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.
>
> Not all, but a great deal is *exactly* that.  Repression cannot be
> implemented blatently, but must have the facade of a "good cause".
> Protection of children is a theme that is a time-honoured front for
> repressive measures by many governments throughout the ages.
>
> Protection against grave dangers (the more nebulous the better) is
> another.
>
It all comes down to trust.  I trust the government, you don't.  Fair 
enough.

mert1639  posted
>>
>There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex offender.

You really have swallowed it hook, line and sinker, haven't you?

>Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
>exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.

When my sons were young I used to warn them to watch out for policemen 
on the Internet posing as young girls. Aside from that, I don't think I 
worried too much.

>I would limit
>exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
>using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a child
>controlled until I was well into my teens.

That's nothing to do with "risk".

>> As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff in
>> the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does.
>> It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't
>> interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.
>>
>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.

Ah, conspiracy again. All conspiracy theories are exactly like the JFK 
and UFOs ones, so they're clearly all false. No government  would ever 
dream of deceiving its citizens in order to further its own 
unacknowledged goals. Good Lord no. That could never happen.  All 
governments always tell the truth at all times. Also, Iraq had nuclear 
weapons and university top-up fees would never be introduced. Christ no. 
Only a conspiracy theorist would believe otherwise.

-- 
Les
"See, he admits he doesn't know the law, and yet he claims he's innocent! You
can't reason with a man like that."

On Sep 29, 9:41 pm, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> mert1639  posted
>
>
>
> >There are risks, as the child may fall prey to 'grooming' by a sex offender.
>
> You really have swallowed it hook, line and sinker, haven't you?
>
> >Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
> >exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.
>
> When my sons were young I used to warn them to watch out for policemen
> on the Internet posing as young girls. Aside from that, I don't think I
> worried too much.
>
> >I would limit
> >exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
> >using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a child
> >controlled until I was well into my teens.
>
> That's nothing to do with "risk".
>
> >> As WM says, this is all about control and censorship. Look at the stuff in
> >> the OP about computer games - that gives it away if nothing else does.
> >> It's just like the new law on "violent pornography". They aren't
> >> interested in protecting people; they're interested in controlling them.
>
> >Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
> >to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.
>
> Ah, conspiracy again. All conspiracy theories are exactly like the JFK
> and UFOs ones, so they're clearly all false. No government  would ever
> dream of deceiving its citizens in order to further its own
> unacknowledged goals. Good Lord no. That could never happen.  All
> governments always tell the truth at all times. Also, Iraq had nuclear
> weapons and university top-up fees would never be introduced. Christ no.
> Only a conspiracy theorist would believe otherwise.
>
> --
> Les
> "See, he admits he doesn't know the law, and yet he claims he's innocent! You
> can't reason with a man like that."

Subject:  	   	UPDATE 30/08/09
Phoenix 	  	TPCA
Date Posted: 	  	Sep 30, 08 - 12:03 PM
Message: 	  	TPCA UPDATE 30/08/09

www.tpcauk.com

UK Council for Child Internet Safety…..Yet another toothless talk
tank: First we would like to say that we have nothing but respect for
the work that Dr Byron does with undisciplined children, she is
clearly an expert in her field, however, we are deeply disappointed
with the governments response to some of the issues raised in her
report including a few issues that should been raised but were clearly
not.

Let us make things very clear: Dr Byron has not identified anything
new, she has not told us anything we did not already know about
boundary pushing children, un-invested parenting, the dangers of the
internet and online bullying.

What is more, the UK already has many highly respected, experienced,
well placed agencies long established but struggling to survive and do
a job they do very well, because of lack of government support and
investment.

Far from a child friendly, protected and policed online environment,
loving, invested parents find that they are routinely forced to go up
against failing Internet Service Providers (or ISPs) who refuse to
adhere to their own codes of child protection practices.

We honestly don’t need another toothless ‘talk tank’, not even one
answerable direct to the Prime minister, to set up yet another set of
voluntary ISP codes of online practice to fruitlessly police.

We need a government council with teeth, a council that will stand up
to the powerful and wealthy Internet Service Providers and force them
to adhere to their own codes of practice - especially when it comes to
inappropriate content and child exploitation.

We want our government to invest in and legally empower those agencies
already in place to tackle these problems and to enforce a code of
online practice for the ISP’s that does not rely on their voluntary
compliance.

http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/880374447/fetch/910799/

****
WM
www.critest.com

Big Les Wade  wrote:
> mert1639  posted
>>
>>"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
>>news:Pu+EtYAG3P4IFwIR@obviously.invalid...
>>> Webmanager_CritEst  posted
>>>>"But just as we would not allow them to go out unsupervised in playgrounds
>>>>or in youth clubs or in swimming pools,
>>>
>>> Er, yes, we would actually. We certainly wouldn't want a big fat
>>> elephant's fanny like him lecturing us about it.
>>>
>>I would never let a child swim unsupervised.
> 
> Would you let a child (up to 17yo, remember) go out unsupervised in a 
> playground? Or do you admit at least *that* was a grossly stupid thing 
> for Brown to say?

Brown saying grossly stupid things, whatever next :)
> 
>>What if it drowned?
> 
> She would be dead, just as she would be dead if she got run over by a 
> bus while crossing the road.

Not many pedestrians get run over by buses. Private cars carry far more
of a risk. Especially those driven by parents impersonating taxi drivers
arround schools.
Banning the so called "school run" would probably be a good way to make
children safer. 

> But you can't supervise everything your child does just because she 
> might get killed. What you do is give her skills to do risky things in a 
> safe way, and when she is sufficiently competent you let her do it 

In many cases parents might first need to learn how to assess risks
themselves. Many people's perception of risk is at odds with reality.
To the extent of avoiding something relativly safe in order to carry out
some activity which is less safe.

> herself and hope for the best. The precautions you take depend on the 
> risk and the skills involved. For the Internet, they are essentially 
> zero. There are no risks, unless you count being arrested for 
> downloading things the police don't like.

Or getting persuded by the entertainments industry.

Big Les Wade  wrote:
> mert1639  posted
>>>
>>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
>>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.
> 
> Ah, conspiracy again. All conspiracy theories are exactly like the JFK 
> and UFOs ones, so they're clearly all false. No government  would ever 

Whereas back in the real world one of the most prolific advocates of
conspiracy theories would be the CPS. Indeed it's not even unknown for
laws to actually contain the word "conspiracy" :)

> dream of deceiving its citizens in order to further its own 
> unacknowledged goals. Good Lord no. That could never happen.  All 
> governments always tell the truth at all times. Also, Iraq had nuclear 
> weapons and university top-up fees would never be introduced. Christ no. 
> Only a conspiracy theorist would believe otherwise.

A one obvious difference between the "first world" and the "third world"
is that in the former many people appear to beileve that politicans are
honest even after proved otherwise. Whereas in the latter people tend to
assume that politicans are lying, selfish, crooked, etc unless proven
otherwise...