UK Gov't Wants Facebook To Feature Child Safety Button

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."

Comments

Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[maroberts]

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.

[pandrijeczko]

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

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

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[mpe]

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.

[TheMidget]

Actually they probably can't.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[malkavian]

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.

[mdwh2]

...whilst she also supported a recent UK law criminalising possession of adult material that she didn't like.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[Hognoxious]

the pair of them are evil, menopausal bitches from hell

Do you really need to offend the Kennel Club?

I hear Satan's not very happy either, and he's not a good person to get on the wrong side of.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[Opportunist]

Only 4 UK politicians facing the courts, when 400 would have been a more sensible number.

Sure, but think of the next elections! You look at the ad poster and know not a single face because everyone you remotely knew is busy in courtrooms.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is Harriet Harperdaughter you insensitive clod!

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[mike2R]

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.

But will they?

My view is that being politicians they have participated in making decisions that will have broad, far reaching, consequences. With winners and losers, many of the latter not deserving of being crapped on from above. I don't blame them for that, it is how government works. But it does mean that I don't feel any compulsion to rush to their defence if any individuals get an unfair outcome from the expenses scandal; they were the ones who chose to play the big boys' game after all.

I also don't think our current crop of MPs is anything special. The vast majority are career politicians, and there is another load of them preparing in university debating societies right now. Losing even a large number of them to the scandal won't hurt Britain one bit.

My view is that we should try and burn into the institutional memory of parliament the consequences of their actions. In decades to come, I want future MPs to look back at this period, and remember that they can't just claim to be following the rules they themselves made - when a scandal comes they need to be whiter than white if they want to ensure their own survival. It happens so rarely that public anger actually manages to get over the various obstacles and political spin that when it does we should make the most of it. I just don't see any downsides to roasting our MPs on this issue as hard and for as long as we can, and I think we'll come out the other side with a better House of Commons.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[thetoadwarrior]

Isn't she the one whose husband's porn ended up in her expenses? At a guess she wouldn't know how to suck cock otherwise he wouldn't be try to get free porn through her expenses.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[gbjbaanb]

I also don't think our current crop of MPs is anything special. The vast majority are career politicians, and there is another load of them preparing in university debating societies right now. Losing even a large number of them to the scandal won't hurt Britain one bit.

amen. I watched Question Time last night (with an all-female audience to, I assume, show up the stupidity of the current political parties obsession with all-female candidate short-lists), and one woman said that she had no chance of becoming a Member of Parliament because she didn't go to the right university or know the right people networks, and she was dead right - we've thrown away the old nepotism in favour of a new one based on a different set of people's mates (at least the old lot were trained to be the ruling class and perform acceptably at that, the new lot are simply self-centred power-hungry t*****rs).

Maybe things will change, come the revolution!

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[maroberts]

Thankyou. I get all these controlling harridans confused.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[mpe]

They got caught out being greedy sods, and for most, their political careers are over now because of it.

They get a large amount of money when they stop being MPs, a generous pension and quite possibly have a "fat cat" job lined up (possibly even in the public sector).

That's fair punishment

"Punishment" would include fines, being charged interest on repayments, being tossed in a jail cell, etc.

Re:Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

[mpe]

Sure, but think of the next elections! You look at the ad poster and know not a single face because everyone you remotely knew is busy in courtrooms.

That would be a bad thing how exactly?

Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Chrisq]

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

[maroberts]

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

[Manip]

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

[makomk]

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 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

[mpe]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[FreeUser]

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

[t0p]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[malkavian]

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

[dominious]

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

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[Stormwatch]

Needs a "select all" button.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Fuzzypig]

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?"!!!

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Stormwatch]

For a moment I thought: "Huh, a brown-skinned asian, that's rather unusual!"

Then I got it: in UK, when you say "Asian", you mean Indian or Pakistani. Technically, that is not wrong; but in most other countries, I believe, if you say "Asian", everyone will think of a person from the Far East -- i.e., Japan, China, Korea. And even if you do say "Indian", you still have to specify: Indian as one from India, not the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[VJ42]

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"

I've had this insult thrown at me; I make a point of calling it out as a racist one, though the people using it usually don't realise it... It would be funny how other Indians\Asians react when called out on blatant racism if it wasn't so serious.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's really funny:

Sion Simon, the MP for Birmingham, Erdington recently resigned. Harman's all-women shortlists were promptly abandoned for the selection of the next Labour candidate because ... her husband wanted the job. And he was given it without any kind of selection procedure.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[BlackBloq]

Try reading a dictionary, not some losers 5 page rant on feminism! It's backed by page turners like "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality" sounds like someone is into the movement (movement= leftist fascist elite). Try humanism if you want to grow up.
All dictionary's consider sexism to be " 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

The author of that book, in his web write up he talks about women and Jews being the focus of "paternalistic prejudice toward women, envious prejudice toward Jews"
  I guess we all envy Jews and patronize women! According to him we ( I guess non Jewish men only) either hold women down by looking down upon them or, hold them down by looking up to them! (see Hostile and Benevolent Sexism). It just keeps getting better!

I understand the ideas they just don't apply to me. I do believe all people are created equal with some talents being inherently stronger. We work every day at being better and those who stick with "it"prevail!
how hard was that!
http://glick.socialpsychology.org/ (the authors web writeup)

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.
>>>

No.

We just observed the obvious - a lot of feminists are anti-male sexists who would like to see (for example) me fired and replaced with a woman. We didn't twist the definition - they did that themselves and if they don't like it, then they should act to SILENCE the male-hating feminists instead of promoting them to higher levels of power inside NOW.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[kria]

As one of those rare female posters here on slashdot, thank you for this post. People on one of the feminist geek sites I go to (www.girl-wonder.org) like to point out that people are different even when they claim a particular group name. People disagree. We see this all the time with people on the fringes of political parties and religion, so why not feminism?

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[jombeewoof]

Here in the states we use the simple dots or feathers qualifier to determine which kind of indian it is.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Machupo]

As one of my brahmin friends says: "dude, I'm dot not feather"

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[makomk]

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?

Sorry, but she's no dipshit female supremicist. A female supremicist would be someone like m Andrea, or Mary Daly, or... (though it's worth noting that most of those are reasonably widely tolerated and defended even within the mainstream of feminism). This is a normal, common feminist definition from a mainstream site - in fact, a site that people on a lot of other feminist website use. It's founded and run by tigtog, of Hoyden About Town, who's about as far from an extremist as you can get.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[commodore64_love]

Looks like google's webcrawlers/bots are now doing spell-checking.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[cgenman]

The button is a perfect interface for this by people who clearly know what they're doing. Other things Harriet is advocating:

Emergency reigns to pull back on when your Prius stops responding to your orders.
Extra large sceptres of power for small videoconferencing screens.
Home witchburning kits with reduced carbon footprint.
"Please Sir, Don't Hit Me." embroidered shirts for abuse victims.
Big fluffy St Bernards with tiny barrels of hot chocolate around their neck for children lost in World of Warcraft.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[makomk]

Try reading a dictionary, not some losers 5 page rant on feminism! It's backed by page turners like "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality" sounds like someone is into the movement

Errm, yes? The whole point of linking that article is that it's the feminist definition of sexism that's relevant here, not the dictionary definition or society in general's definition... (Though if you're paying close attention, the dictionary definition is actually not that different to the one I linked. The biggest difference is that, in the linked definition, prejudice based on gender alone is not counted as sexism unless it's backed by institutionalized power. )

It's an interesting definition, and it does have its uses - though how useful an approach it is when the woman in question is the Leader of the House of Commons is another question entirely.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[FreeUser]

Sorry, but she's no dipshit female supremicist. A female supremicist would be someone like m Andrea, or Mary Daly, or... (though it's worth noting that most of those are reasonably widely tolerated and defended even within the mainstream of feminism). This is a normal, common feminist definition from a mainstream site - in fact, a site that people on a lot of other feminist website use. It's founded and run by tigtog, of Hoyden About Town, who's about as far from an extremist as you can get.

Sorry, but her definition of sexism as something only men can do to women clearly disqualifies her as a feminist, as it has inherent in it the assumption that men and women are NOT to be treated as equal. If men and women are equal, than women are as capable of being sexist as men (which, in fact, they are, as Harriot Harmon amply demonstrates). Sexism, racism, and every other *ism is a two way street: either party is capable of dishing out hatred and bigotry toward the other, and there is almost always a fringe in every group that does exactly that.

She may or may not be an extremest, but she is certainly NOT a feminist, as made obvious by her fundamental belief that men and women are NOT equal. An activist, maybe, but by the very definition of the word she is not a feminist, no matter what she chooses to call herself.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[HopefulIntern]

This is one of the things my home country of Norway does quite well. Sexism, under the law, refers to sexual discrimination; when someone is treated differently because of their sex. Not "because they are a woman". Here in Britain, companies like "Sheila's Wheels" (a car insurance company that only insure women) are fully able to operate, whereas in Norway it would be considered gross discrimination. Gender is not a factor in deciding insurance premiums in Norway. And too right, if you can discriminate against sexes based on statistics, why not other things, like race? Why don't they ask me whether I am black or white or asian when I get car insurance? There must be some statistics that show which race is a more careful driver.... No, god no, that would be racist...

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[rhyder128k]

No, feminism is the study of gender issues from a feminine perspective. That's why many of us who believe in male-female equality feel that feminism should have no part in law and social policy.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[rhyder128k]

If I said that I was opposed to communism, I wouldn't expect to be forced to provide proof that I had met and interviewed every communist. If I said that I was opposed to organised religion, I wouldn't be making the statement that I was opposed to every doctrine of every religion that has ever existed. Any philosophy of gender politics that views things from the perspective of a single gender is flawed, unreasonable and biased. I'm opposed to that.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[makomk]

Sorry, but her definition of sexism as something only men can do to women clearly disqualifies her as a feminist, as it has inherent in it the assumption that men and women are NOT to be treated as equal.

That is a common misinterpretation. "Equal" does not mean "the same", at least in this context*. In fact, there's a really important argument that treating women and women's issues differently from men and men's issues is required in order to achieve equality, due to the unequal treatment men and women receive from society in general. (Do not comment on any feminist blog or website in a way that fails to grasp this idea. I've seen it happen often, and it won't get a good reaction at all.)

* In fact, it's fairly obvious that men and women are not the same. For example, men generally don't get pregnant. Most feminists consider the differences to be minor overall, and certainly no justification for discrimination, but there are still differences.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Notegg Nornoggin]

Pot calling the kettle black?

RASCIIIIST!!!!!

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[mike2R]

Heh, this has confused me in the other direction. Thankfully we have this great educational resource called 'pornography,' which taught me what ethnicity Americans mean by Asian.

I don't know exactly why people from the subcontinent are called Asians in Britain. Presumably something to do with having a large amount of immigration from their in the post-war period and needing something politically correct to call them.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Opportunist]

Racism has nothing to do with whether you're white on the outside. It has something to do with whether you're brown (as shit) on the inside.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

Why women put up with this I dont know. Not only is she sexist against men, but in doing so she is painting women as been helpless, needy, fragile and need urgent protection. If that isnt being downright sexist AGAINST women I don't know what is.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Hognoxious]

Then I got it: in UK, when you say "Asian", you mean Indian or Pakistani.

Well we can't call them all Indians because, as you point out, some of them aren't - there's Bangladeshis too. Last time I looked India is part of Asia. The only other people from Asia who were at all common in the UK at the time they started arriving were the Chinese, who already had a name[1]; what's more we already had the term Orientals to mean Vietnamese, Japanese and suchlike.

Looked at like that, it makes complete sense.

[1] Chinese, oddly.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[VShael]

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

A dangerous observation to make, if you were not an A.C.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Duradin]

"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..."

So shouldn't they be calling this "femenism" Humanism or Peopleism or Egalitarianism?

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Benevolent Atrium]

Fantastic how a link to some random blog gets 5 points for insightful, but a well thought out reply doesn't.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[red456]

Sheila's Wheels do insure men, though they tend not to promote the fact

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Nuskrad]

Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men

Actually, under UK law it can be either way round. Section 2 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 states "Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite".

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[gilgongo]

For a moment I thought: "Huh, a brown-skinned asian, that's rather unusual!"

Then I got it: in UK, when you say "Asian", you mean Indian or Pakistani. Technically, that is not wrong; but in most other countries, I believe, if you say "Asian", everyone will think of a person from the Far East -- i.e., Japan, China, Korea. And even if you do say "Indian", you still have to specify: Indian as one from India, not the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The reason why people in the UK do not refer to Asians as "Indians" is because of a county called Pakistan. I am Scottish, and if you called me English I would, respectfully, rip your teeth out.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[dkleinsc]

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?

Both of you are wrong to a degree. Not all feminists think that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. To imply that the feminist writing that particular blog is outside what is considered part of feminist thought is also incorrect though.

There are feminists who do define sexism as sexism against women, just like there are feminists who argue that it is impossible for women to rape men. As far as I've been able to tell, those sorts of positions are most common among feminists who really got involved in feminism 40-60 years ago when sexism against women and rape of women were significantly more socially acceptable than they are today, but I've definitely heard it from younger feminists as well.

An example of where this comes into play: most feminist groups support efforts to ensure women can volunteer for the military and take on any role (including combat infantry). But many of these same groups are not at all interested in ensuring that the legal requirement to register for the draft is extended to include women or eliminated for men.

In short, while it's wrong to paint all feminists as being equivalent to Valerie Solanis, it's also wrong to paint all feminists as being willing to acknowledge and oppose discrimination against men.

And I write this as a guy who grew up reading Ms and books by the Boston Women's Health Collective, and took Women's Studies courses in college.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Pax681]

I am Scottish, and if you called me English I would, respectfully, rip your teeth out.

Spot on sir! Gaun yersel!

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

And many feminists paint all men as chauvanistic, womanizing pigs who see women only as objects.

Not saying I see either side in that way, but I'm just saying there's two sides to the coin. Equality DOES go both ways, you know.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[kalirion]

Here in the states we use the simple dots or feathers qualifier to determine which kind of indian it is.

I've never heard that myself. When there's a chance of confusion, people just say "Native American."

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[mpe]

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?!"

Wonder if they've heard of a country called The Republic of Rwanda?

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?"!!!

Isn't being "detached from reality" kind of a requirement for career politicians in the first place?

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[mpe]

This is one of the things my home country of Norway does quite well. Sexism, under the law, refers to sexual discrimination; when someone is treated differently because of their sex. Not "because they are a woman". Here in Britain, companies like "Sheila's Wheels" (a car insurance company that only insure women) are fully able to operate, whereas in Norway it would be considered gross discrimination.

Wonder if a car insurance company selling to only men would be able to operate in the same way. It's quite possible that this company is actually operating entirely against the law, but the authorities just turn a blind eye. They might not even be legal in Australia...

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[mpe]

Why women put up with this I dont know. Not only is she sexist against men, but in doing so she is painting women as been helpless, needy, fragile and need urgent protection. If that isnt being downright sexist AGAINST women I don't know what is.

Many self identified "feminists" have been doing exactly this for at least the last 20 or so years. However you are unlikely to get any sort of explanation since such people tend to be masters (or possibly mistresses) of argumentum ad hominem. (Typically with some stock non sequiturs thrown in. Along the lines of if you disagree with them then it must be because you believe X).

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Many extremists do often sound similar or employ similar ways to attempt to silence critics. Maybe the fact that an ad hominem "argument" can be an effective political technique has something to do with it.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually use qualifiers - south-east Asian and south-central Asian. Makes life easier for everyone.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

For rest of the world you are still part of great britain and that means english.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[kria]

Combining what you're saying with the blanket statements being responded to, you're saying that you believe that most feminists are man-hating sexists, to the point that it is fair to say that all of them are. I disagree with that statement quite vehemently. I suspect that you would object if I claimed that the majority of men are misogynists who just want women to do traditional feminine things like child-rearing and cooking. I also respectfully disagree with your statement that feminism views things from the perspective of a single gender. In general, the ones that associate with are concerned with examining multiple perspectives.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[ChrisLynx]

I would hope that it would be against the policy of the Israeli government to act in an anti-semitic fashion. Why would you think they would be in favor of that?

If they tried to claim the reverse, that any opposition to the Israeli government was by definition anti-semitic, that would be out of line. But opposing commonly-accepted religious intolerance sounds okay to me.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Hurricane78]

But Vietnam, Japan, etc are not in the Orient. The Orient are all countries where you could imagine that Ali Baba could have lived. ;)
Or: Arabic countries & co.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[Anonymous Coward]

The Orient are all countries where you could imagine that Ali Baba could have lived. ;)
Or: Arabic countries & co.

Bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental#British_English

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[AmiMoJo]

But seriously, what will the response be?

We already have people failing checks when applying for jobs working near children simply because they were once associated with someone else who was suspected of abuse (but they can't be told why, only that they failed, so no way to challenge it). This button sounds like a great way to ruin someone's life, especially if they are a teacher etc.

If the message gets sent to the police you can bet someone will find a way to spam the system.

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[FreeUser]

* In fact, it's fairly obvious that men and women are not the same. For example, men generally don't get pregnant. Most feminists consider the differences to be minor overall, and certainly no justification for discrimination, but there are still differences.

That is a completely spurious and irrelevant argument. We are discussing women and men's equality under the law as intellectual beings, not reproductive or biological differences that anyone over the age of two is already well aware of and have long since been factored into the discussion.

Women are often sexist. Most often sexist against themselves (remember the recent poll that found 50% of women are inclined to blame the rape victim, usually a woman, for the crime, rather than the perpetrator, usually a man), sometimes (as in Harriot Harmon's case) against men. Either way it is sexism, practiced by a woman, against one gender or another. To argue women cannot be sexist, even if you buy into a politicized, logically indefensible definition such as "sexism can only be applied against women" is nonsense. To argue sexism can only be applied against women by men is even stupider, as some of the worst offendors in propogating sexist behaviours are in fact women, and if those aren't addressed in tandem with male-instigated sexism progress will fail to be made on all fronts.

As for expecting equality from others, but being unwilling to practice equality yourself, well, in that case you really do end up getting exactly what you deserve: dismissal and contempt from those of us who do believe in equality for all, irrespective of gender, race, or anything else. And that most assuradly includes men (including white men) as well as women (or any other of the numerous groups we've chosen to subdivide ourselves into).

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[HopefulIntern]

I have tried (through confused.com) and they always say I am not eligible..

Re:Well - Since its Harriet Harman involved

[makomk]

That is a completely spurious and irrelevant argument. We are discussing women and men's equality under the law as intellectual beings, not reproductive or biological differences that anyone over the age of two is already well aware of and have long since been factored into the discussion.

A side note, but neither spurious nor irrelevant. For example, the fact that woman can generally give birth and men generally cannot means that female employees of child-bearing age are rather more likely to require long chunks of time off at an inconvenient time than male employees of the same age, and this does actually make companies more reluctant to hire or promote them. (This is illegal, but impossible to prove.) Just burying your head in the sand and pretending these differences don't exist leads to discrimination, not equality.

To argue women cannot be sexist, even if you buy into a politicized, logically indefensible definition such as "sexism can only be applied against women" is nonsense.

Ah, the old "but that's illogical" argument. In fact, the definition is entirely logical - that is to say, it follows logically from the assumptions. Now, the actual assumptions themselves may be inaccurate or philosophically dubious, but that's another matter entirely.

Women are often sexist.

That's not generally in dispute. What is controversial is whether they can be sexist against men.

Muhehehe

[K. S. Kyosuke]

We already have bad experience 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

[OrangeCatholic]

Oh you mean like a few years ago when all parents were 1337 h4x0rs, and knew all about child predators and Rupert Murdoch?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[IBBoard]

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.

Re:Muhehehe

[commodore64_love]

"you come across something worrisome on the internet - child pornography or extremism for example - you anonymously push the button on your browser, and the police are notified and check it out. What happened in practice though was that the button was sending not only the site in question but your recent browsing history as well"

Oh that's just great. I can hear the police officer now as he visits my home, "Thank you for reporting that child porn site. Unfortunately you also self-reported yourself to be buying illegal copies of Nintendo games on ebay, and browsing the danish site seventeen.com. You are under arrest."

Re:Muhehehe

[red456]

..and lest we forget the Daily Star condemning the 'pedophile' edition of Brass Eye whilst at the same time commenting on the size of 15 year old Charlotte Church's breasts

Re:Muhehehe

[Bigbutt]

Anecdote is not Data of course.

A friend has a daughter who was around 14 at the time. She didn't like dad's rules regarding homework and not staying out late. So she bailed to a friend's house. He went to find her, located her at the friend's place and went in to get her. He was busted for trespassing. Ok, good call. Next time she bailed, he found her and called the police. "Sorry sir, she's not breaking any laws" so he couldn't do anything about it. Third time she bailed, he simply waited for her to return. He was accused of neglect and threatened with having his daughter taken away by Child Services.

On my side, my daughter was 13 or so at the time. As punishment, she got a couple of swats on her ass with my hand[*]. She reported me to the school councilors. Child Protective services was in my house when I got home and I was investigated. I received a pamphlet detailing my "crime". Ultimately I was found not guilty and advised I should sue my daughter for false reporting. I'm also in a database as an "unfounded child abuser", just in case it happens again.

[*] Yes, I "hit" both daughters. Seldom. Never in anger (unlike my parents) and when it happened, it was the open handed swat.

[John]

Re:Muhehehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he shouldn't have trespassed on her friend's parent's property, and instead gone through the parents.

And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[pandrijeczko]

...that got done by the police for driving without due care and attention?

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....

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

[Fred_A]

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....

[abigsmurf]

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.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[pandrijeczko]

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....

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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....

[pandrijeczko]

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....

[Gordonjcp]

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....

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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....

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[IBBoard]

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....

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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.

Have you ever thought that perhaps this expectation is unrealistic? Do you know anyone who would be capable of being "whiter-than-white", especially under the pressures of being a politician? Trust me; every politician knows the need to be whiter-than-white and the penalty for not being so. It's not for lack of trying that they get caught.

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.

As you say, many people manage to go their life without a criminal record, but then again, they're not having their every move scrutinised by people who hate them, and who would like nothing more than to see them in trouble with the police. They also only have to worry about legal issues; most people have the luxury of being able to act "immorally" (i.e. in a way less than considerate to others) without it destroying their careers.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[Gordonjcp]

It wasn't a choice to potentially harm those around her, it was a choice to speak on the phone.

Yes, but choosing to speak on the phone while driving drastically increased the risk of harm to others around her. Supposing she'd chosen to drink a bottle of vodka instead of answering the phone?

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[RMH101]

"whiter-than-white"
Racist!
I'll get me coat.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[RMH101]

The point is that she is an official in the Labour government that has changed drivign laws to make it an offence not only to use your phone, but also to eat an apple in a car. Whilst on my lunch today, I saw a black and white Smart car with "CCTV" logos all over it with a Google-Streetview-style camera apparatus on its roof. Turns out that these are CCTV cameras designed to catch motorists talking on their phones, smoking, eating, etc with a view to prosecuting them.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7994449.stm as an example.
"Anyone seen driving while distracted - eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance - is filmed by the cameras.
Later, a letter is sent to the owner of the car, in many cases along with a fine.
Anyone caught using their mobile will be asked to pay £60 and have three points added to their licence. Fines could also be handed out to anyone who is thought to be driving without due care and attention, or similar offences. "

Whilst I appreciate that you shouldn't drive dangerously I'm hugely against the potential criminalisation of everybody by the Labour party.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[Anonymous Coward]

*GASP*

Please tell me more about the wonderful, fantastic land you come from! Cars with gear sticks AND a third pedal? whooooaaah!

*Pulls up a blankie and a juice box ready for story-time*

:D

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:

a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?
b) Should someone lose their job (same hypotheses) for driving with a bottle of vodka?

If your answer changed from no to yes, or even if b) was more difficult to answer than a), then your argument is hyperbole. The dilemma is a), not b), and thus considering the b) dilemma does not actually help us.

There's absolutely no doubt that her choice was bad, and that it significantly (dramatically might be a stretch) endangered those around her. But my point is that it does not make her a bad politician, or even necessarily a bad person.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[Anonymous Coward]

it's my choice to shoot at you - It's the bullets choice if it kills you!

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[hairyfeet]

That is cause you poor little Limey folks have them little beep beep mini cars, and you need that gear shift to poke the hamsters in the ass to get the little suckers to run harder on the hamster wheels to get your little beep beep up the hill.

So don't blame us just cause our cars are big and we still get gas by the gallon. Poor little Limeys, do you use a shoehorn to get into those little beep beep cars?

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[mpe]

Well, put it this way: answer these two questions:
a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?

A suitable approach to dangerous driving might well be for that person to be barred from driving. In some cases (unlikely to be applicable to a London MP) this might mean they can't do their job.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[shutdown -p now]

While driving the decision to pick up or not pick up a phone can be tough

It's not. No, really, it's not. Here's how the decision process should go:

1. Don't do this.

It's not exactly hard to understand or remember.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[shutdown -p now]

a) Should someone lose their job (assuming their job doesn't involve more or more competent driving than other jobs) for driving with their phone?

b) Should someone lose their job (same hypotheses) for driving with a bottle of vodka?

If that person writes laws, then yes for both cases, and for any other violation of the law (I could give an exception if she was supporting a campaign to repeal the law she violated).

Similarly, a fireman who breaks fire safety rules should be fired, even if his actions did no harm in the end; and a cop who is speeding off-duty should be fired, even if he didn't run over anyone.

Re:And This Would Be The Same Harriet Harman....

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If that person writes laws, then yes for both cases, and for any other violation of the law (I could give an exception if she was supporting a campaign to repeal the law she violated).

Well, all I can say is that I disagree. The way laws are today, everybody breaks them, including politicians. It's the price of having a legal system largely without loopholes. If a politician is caught, they should be punished, but no worse than the rest of us. The same goes for a fireman or a cop.

It's as I said before in the thread: it's this kind of expectations from public figures that cause them to try to dodge their responsibilities. They know that as soon as they take responsibility for life's little mistakes, their days are numbered. This expectation doesn't cause them to become better people, just more secretive. It causes public institutions to become opaque when transparency is sorely needed. It is, without a doubt in my mind, a bad mentality to have around public figures. It does neither us nor them any favours.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. Clearly what is reasonable to expect from our public figures is a judgement call, and clearly you have a different opinion. I think I've explained just about every angle on this thread.

Typical Labour policy

[abigsmurf]

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

[VJ42]

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 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

[houghi]

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

[malkavian]

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

[abigsmurf]

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

[Rogerborg]

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

[L4t3r4lu5]

"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

[VJ42]

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

[VShael]

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."

Re:Typical Labour policy

[makomk]

Harriet Harman is the Leader of the House of Commons and often stands in for the Prime Minister himself when he's not available. She's not exactly some minor rogue backbencher...

Re:Typical Labour policy

[dintlu]

So, have your kid create a Facebook account and visit the profiles of every Labor party representative, employee, and intern you can find, accusing each and every one of them of child abuse.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[mdwh2]

The definition is so broad that it covers at least 11 million employees (that's by the Government's own statistics - some estimates I've read place it closer to 14 million). And these days you also have to pay a load of money for the privilege of being checked.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[VJ42]

The definition is so broad that it covers at least 11 million employees (that's by the Government's own statistics - some estimates I've read place it closer to 14 million).

I'm against most "for the children" measures, but of all the people I've heard who've had an CRB, I've not heard of an inappropriate case. The argument could of course be made that there should be no CRB checks at all, and I have some sympathy with that view point, but if we're going to have them as far as I can see, the rules (for once) have been applied consistently. Those numbers just show how many people have contact with vulnerable individuals on a regular basis.

And these days you also have to pay a load of money for the privilege of being checked.

The two times I've had them, my employer has paid, not me. If an employer tried to get me to, I would negotiate it as part of my salary; the small amount it costs is cheaper to them than re-advertising and re-interviewing for the post.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's almost completely incorrect.

It is true in so far as that is the situation for people today, but the law has already been changed and the changes are being phased in over the next year or so and will affect many more people.

For example, if you have an arrangement with other parents to give their kids a lift home with yours from an after school club more than once a month, you will have to personally apply to be vetted by the police. There were some incredibly high profile protests from authors earlier this year/late last year when it was revealed that if they regularly visit schools to give talks, they would have to be vetted too.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK the only "background checks" that are done by employers are those done for people who work with children & vulnerable adults;

So the nefarious and unfounded accusations will only appear on the background checks of the people who also happen to be in positions where they might have angered the child by telling them "no" one too many times, thus motivating the spiteful child to make baseless claims.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Typical Labour policy

[VJ42]

That's almost completely incorrect.

It is true in so far as that is the situation for people today, but the law has already been changed and the changes are being phased in over the next year or so and will affect many more people.

For example, if you have an arrangement with other parents to give their kids a lift home with yours from an after school club more than once a month, you will have to personally apply to be vetted by the police. There were some incredibly high profile protests from authors earlier this year/late last year when it was revealed that if they regularly visit schools to give talks, they would have to be vetted too.

If* & when the vetting and barring scheme is introduced then you will be correct; I was talking about the situation as it is now. I still hold out hope that the scheme will be quietly dropped by any incoming government before it starts as an "efficiency saving". My logic is this: it's easy to cut things that haven't started yet. I think ID cards and the NIR will be dropped for the same reasons.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[abigsmurf]

Police forces can put a condition on elements of CRB checks that threaten the employer with jail if they reveal what they say (including to the subject of the check). They're pretty rare but they do indeed exist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/07/crb_checks_and_secret_letters.shtml

Re:Typical Labour policy

[VJ42]

Police forces can put a condition on elements of CRB checks that threaten the employer with jail if they reveal what they say (including to the subject of the check). They're pretty rare but they do indeed exist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/07/crb_checks_and_secret_letters.shtml

Thanks for the link; interesting.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[Rogerborg]

Sure, she's a major rogue frontbencher. Also, a mental.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[Belial6]

So, we have to hope that if this goes through, the children of the UK will take up action, seek out politicians on sites that implement this, and mark them all as child molesters. They should then immediately report to the nearest and most scandalous paper that the accusation was made.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[OneMadMuppet]

Not completely true. I emigrated from the UK, and they required a background check for my visa. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to apply for your own in the UK, only your employer can. Enhanced disclosure checks can't be released to you from your employer, and the data protection act has exemptions for anything you actually need to know.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[u38cg]

There are two types. I'm not sure about the English equivalent terminology, but in Scotland we have Disclosure and Enhanced Disclosure. They're essentially the same except with the latter, a police officer pulls out your police record and adds anything he thinks is germane. Anyone can get a Disclosure report for themselves and it can be a condition of employment, especially for sensitive positions, such as IT contracting in financial services. Enhanced Disclosures can only be applied for by approved bodies, such as schools or whatever. And of course, employers can and do run credit checks as well...

Re:Typical Labour policy

[VJ42]

Not completely true. I emigrated from the UK, and they required a background check for my visa. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to apply for your own in the UK, only your employer can. Enhanced disclosure checks can't be released to you from your employer, and the data protection act has exemptions for anything you actually need to know.

If you had an enhanced CRB, you should have got a copy, at least I did both times I had one.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[VJ42]

There are two types. I'm not sure about the English equivalent terminology, but in Scotland we have Disclosure and Enhanced Disclosure. They're essentially the same except with the latter, a police officer pulls out your police record and adds anything he thinks is germane. Anyone can get a Disclosure report for themselves and it can be a condition of employment, especially for sensitive positions, such as IT contracting in financial services. Enhanced Disclosures can only be applied for by approved bodies, such as schools or whatever. And of course, employers can and do run credit checks as well...

There are two types of CRB in England as well, I've only ever had the enhanced because I've had jobs working with young people. AFAIK No one I know has had a plain check, and I don't think that large numbers of employers require you to get them. OTOH I know someone who had to get official security clearance (up to "Secret") to work for the MCA. That went waaay beyond a regular CRB check, but isn't exactly usual procedure for getting a job.

Re:Typical Labour policy

[u38cg]

Actually, clearance to secret isn't particularly heavy - they check your records, your family's, and ask the spooks if they have a file on you, or at least that's all they used to do. If that doesn't turn up anything exciting, you are now secret-cleared (though in general, secret documents are pretty boring).

Re:Typical Labour policy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If your employer relies on you to produce the copy, what is to stop you from producing a fake copy?

johnvpetersen

[johnvpetersen]

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

Not surprising

[Manip]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

- 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

[bsDaemon]

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

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

[AlecC]

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.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[OrangeCatholic]

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.

Re:Not surprising

[bsDaemon]

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

[pandrijeczko]

I'm no fan of the monarchy but I'll bet you that the Civil List 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

[bsDaemon]

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

Re:Not surprising

[Gordonjcp]

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

[malkavian]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So let me get this straight...

You're advocating terrorist attacks on politicians plus whoever happens to be nearby at the time?

Your measure of 'civilised behaviour' is the ownership (and presumed use) of a device that has no other function than to cause death or serious injury? Why the fixation with the ability to kill?

Well (leaving aside that all the supposed bombings of undesirable politicians must be effectively hushed up since they never make the news in Europe) if that genuinely is the attitude of enlightened Americans I'm glad I live in the UK.

Somehow I think (I certainly hope) that this is not a representative view !

And this is what passes for a measured, thoughtful response

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's cuckoo that you have a "royal family." Honestly, the whole idea is just blatantly retarded.

Re:Not surprising

[spiffmastercow]

You think American conservatives love personal freedom? They're the ones who took most of our personal freedoms away. The only freedom they support is the freedom to own guns (I'm ambivilent on this issue). How easily GWB is forgotten, it seems..

Re:Not surprising

[Nidi62]

In the US you dont need a license to own ANY type of firearm. I can walk into a store and walk out with a rifle or shotgun 30 minutes later. No background check, only 1 piece of paper to fill out. Firearms do not even have to be registered in most states.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1 and Step 2 happened a long time ago. Nothing is done in the name of "Her Majesty" although traditions based around these words exist.

Regards step 3, most countries get very upset if you try to sell off their national treasurers.

I can't decide if you're a troll or an idiot. Your nick, bullshitDeamon, implies a troll; the fact that you've been mod'd insightful implies that you, like the moderators, are an idiot.

Re:Not surprising

[ChiRaven]

- 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).

Love, but increasingly do not HAVE.

Re:Not surprising

[mdwh2]

That _is_ liberal. I think you're running into problems that both liberal and conservative are illdefined misused concepts, and can sometimes mean the same thing.

When I oppose authoritarian laws, I'm liberal in the sense of supporting freedom - but I'm not liberal in the sense of wanting change, as the point is I don't want change.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives like personal freedom as in the freedom given to 'corporate persons'. However, they are very glad to stomp on your freedom to be gay or speak what language you want if it's not english.
Personal freedom as they define it is used to shaft people and not to actually free them.

Re:Not surprising

[sjames]

Just so you know, there are conservatives and conservatives. The ones who ACTUALLY value Personal Freedom and less interference are practically extinct. The ones who talk about personal freedom while trampling it at every turn are running rampant. They're the same ones who talk about fiscal responsibility while creating record deficits.

Re:Not surprising

[mike2R]

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.

That isn't exactly accurate. What you are talking about, I think, are the various and extensive powers (royal prerogatives) which technically belong to the monarch, and are now exercised by the Prime Minister without requiring the approval of Parliament.

However you could abolish the monarchy without changing this one whit (and I'd argue this is exactly what would happen). Similarly you could reform this without abolishing the monarchy. The link between the two issues is historical, and really isn't relevant to a modern debate about whether to abolish the monarchy.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

So after you've wasted your time removing the Queen, who is effectively a figurehead (apparently she DOES have power, tradition just prevents her from using it), are you actually going to get around to addressing the problems the poster brought up?

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of what you listed is "liberal"?

Re:Not surprising

[mrmeval]

You need a tax stamp for any machine gun with background check and six month wait. They are expensive as you cannot get a new one but only ones made prior to 1986.

In several states there is registration and until recently DC had an outright ban. You have to carry a special license in Illinois to buy and firearm or ammunition.

There are age restrictions at the federal level for firearms purchases and some states can be more stringing.

There is a Federally mandated background check now nationwide run by the FBI unless they're taking a piss and they deny you.

Criminals do not need a background check when they empty out police cars of guns even though Congress has repeatedly told them to comply.

Re:Not surprising

[makomk]

How do you think the royal family ended up with all those estates and property in the first place? I'll give you a hint - it has a lot to do with the fact that they used to rule the country. (Also, the royal family benefits from a lack of inheritance tax on said estates and other property...)

Dear Parents...

[pandrijeczko]

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...

[Marianne013]

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 :-)

Re:Dear Parents...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

He ha. Very nicely said.

Re:Dear Parents...

[HungryHobo]

And so because you're too inept to handle actually acting like a parent the government should legally require the rest of us to do your parenting for you.

Facebook here

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent super up insightful and funny!

Re:Facebook here

[dkleinsc]

And if for some reason the big X doesn't work, every PC and monitor is built with a large button on the front that makes anything offensive on the screen completely disappear.

Not sure about who is right

[SmallFurryCreature]

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

[Em Emalb]

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

[MoonBuggy]

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.

Re:Not sure about who is right

[HungryHobo]

And if china requires a "report dissent" button so that Chinese teenagers can report people for calling for a free tibet etc.
A few years later you're catching a connecting flight through a Chinese airport....

It's not that hard to teach your kids basic net safety.
It's just a pity that social networks fly in the face of it.

I grew up with the simple rules of :

Never give out your real name.
Never tell people where you live.

Now of course I worry about my younger cousin since those rules seem to have gone out of fashion to be replaced by it being the norm to post photographs of yourself, post up your full name, full address, date of birth and then post on friends pages about which paths you like to take home from school.

I'm in my early 20's, I'm part of the post endless September generation but pre social networking generation.
The I can't decide if the social media generation is retarded or just less paranoid.

It doesn't make any sense

[benjymous]

* 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

[mpe]

* 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.

Re:It doesn't make any sense

[gbjbaanb]

I think its more about the section you missed:

* Parent sees conversation child is having
* Parent presses button

I assume either that, or the grooming is so obvious and blatant that even the child reports the pervert. Obviously, those children that use the button were never going to see the stranger's puppies.

Child-Safety Button

[gencha]

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

Re:Child-Safety Button

[mpe]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Doug Stanhope says .....

[kevinbr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDt_TmEqqM&feature=related

"Arsebook", anyone?

[pandrijeczko]

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...

Double-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Double-speak

[shutdown -p now]

It's much simpler than that.

In American parlance, "liberal" really means "social liberal", and even then it mutated to only cover certain key issues - anti-racial/gender/... discrimination, homosexual rights, drug legalization (but not freedom to bear arms, for example). However, the majority of people who hold such positions also happen to be left-leaning on economic policies (libertarians are a tiny minority), and thus you have that peculiar American definition of "liberal" as "leftist".

In most of Europe, on the contrary, "liberal" has taken to mean exclusively "economic liberal", with little regard to social issues. A lot of European liberal parties are what US would recognize as "fiscal conservatives".

hmmmm

[zerointeger]

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.

Re:hmmmm

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Right, because we all know how careful the government is to make sure that people who have been accused of a crime and then exonerated have their records updated so that anyone who checks said records know that they have been exonerated. /s

Misuse is the problem with this sort of thing and it won't just be ex-girlfriends. It will be any kid who gets pissed off at someone and lures them into a chat and then clicks the button. Or a kid who is in a chat with someone and decides it would be funny to click this button on the person on the other end. And once this is on your record it will be there forever, because even though an investigation turned up no evidence that you were a sexual predator, maybe you just hid it well and "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our kids.

Re:hmmmm

[natehoy]

I find your post offensive and have clicked on the CEOP button Slashdot has installed. Prepare for a visit!

Seriously, what good would this button do in preventing anything? If the child is duped into meeting up with Chester Molester, then they aren't going to press the button. If the child is suspicious, they are going to either use the existing "report as offensive" button which already exists, or they are going to yell for Mom or Dad who will call CEOP on the telephone so they can respond in time to maybe send an armed response team to meet up with Chester and make sure he goes to jail where he'll get all the sexual attention he needs from the hardened inmates. Nothin' Bubba likes better than being the first to soften up a child molester.

Something like this just invites abuses of the system, and/or lacks the immediate response times needed to actually catch the actual dangerous pedophiles and make sure they go away for a long time. It's actually going to discourage useful reports (those that happen quickly enough to prevent issues) and encourage abuses of the reporting system. Like those two girls last year who reported they were stuck in a storm drain system over Facebook rather than calling the local police for help.

It doesn't hurt that this was all based on a made-up article that initially created false claims about a social network that was NOT Facebook, then some asshat editor changed the name of the social network to Facebook. I'd be far more worried about someone getting targeted on a more random site like Slashdot's private messaging system, where fewer people are looking and private messages are private.

Porn Director for Parliament

[alanw]

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

even better idea

[jlebrech]

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

Useless and Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[MikeRT]

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?

[natehoy]

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?

This is grossly unfair....

[Chrisq]

She would probably save the girl children given half a chance

I can see a great flaw in your plan

[Chrisq]

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

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

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

About those allegations...

[Sockatume]

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!

[t0p]

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!

[natehoy]

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!

The problem is we're not all equal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Tyranny

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[Tim C]

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

Re:Incorrect Summary

[zerointeger]

So mandating an option such as this for chat applications; whether in a social networking site, or 3rd party chat application, is our government stepping on our toes?

Or is it a method to eliminate the current system where due to lack of funds and man power our law enforcement hire cheap labor in the form of victims of said offenses?

This option might eliminate the bias introduced and could also be used to eliminate on line scamming, automated bots etc.

Besides, this is less invasive of an option and puts controls in the hands of any on line user

If they really wanted to be invasive they could utilize a spider to index photographs on any public and non-public site, utilize facial recognition to do comparisons with the existing database of missing and exploited children for possible matches.

This may only be invasive in regards to indexing non-public sites and it may actually backfire financially due to a fairly large portion of the world economy relying on the oldest profession on the planet.

Privacy is a big thing, invasive government monitoring is a problem, as is corruption within law enforcement and I think this option would help eliminate a portion of that bias.

British Children?!

[happy_place]

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

Re:British Children?!

[Faluzeer]

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.

Re:British Children?!

[mdwh2]

This isn't even about children - the widely publicised murder that was associated with this case, which is being used to force these new measures in, was of a 17 year old. In the UK, that's over the AOC. A big red button wouldn't have done anything.

Re:British Children?!

[u38cg]

Not to mention the bloody stupid idiot went happily to her death. Whatever age she was she wouldn't have pressed it.

Re:British Children?!

[makomk]

With the way the age at which someone stops being treated like a child is increasing here in the UK, who knows? You're not allowed to leave school and get a full-time job until 18 these days...

Harriot Harmon. Never get her drunk.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Harriot Harmon. Never get her drunk.

[Chrisq]

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.

Actually it is proven that there are a large number of false allegations.

This will cause so many false positives.

[dotKuro]

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.

Re:This will cause so many false positives.

[FeepingCreature]

gynosupremist

That is so my new favorite word.

Public relations exercise

[Faluzeer]

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!

[ICLKennyG]

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)

Speaking as a UK resident.

[GuyFawkes]

You basically only have to walk down the street with your ears open.

Back when I were a lad, it was routine to insult kids who were not of your group, fatty, lanky, ginger, smelly, stinky, etc.

Today the default insult is "paedo"

I've lost count of the number of times I have seen teenagers and younger, of both sexes, respond to an adult who tells them off for something, eg "stop fucking around with my car" with chants of "paedo!"

Teachers in UK schools essentially live in fear of one of the kids responding to being told off for setting fire to little johnny in 2A with an accusation of violence or sexual assault being made against the teacher.

You won't find a small kid who does not already;

a/ own a mobile phone
b/ know the childline and other abuse numbers by heart

We are sowing what we reaped.

I say in all sincerity, there are a LOT of adults today who have learned this lesson so well that they could witness either an adult women or a schoolgirl being gang raped, and simply walk on by, deliberately seeing nothing, as being the only safe option.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto for if you see a kid jump off the platform and run over the live rails to the other side - risking hours of disruption to the line if their fried corpse has to be cleared up. It would be foolish to try to stop them.

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[drinkypoo]

We are sowing what we reaped.

What?

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say in all sincerity, there are a LOT of males today who have learned this lesson so well that they could witness either an adult women or a schoolgirl being gang raped, and simply walk on by, deliberately seeing nothing, as being the only safe option.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[GuyFawkes]

as in, we have already reaped the "rewards" of sowing the seeds of this sort of dissension in the past, so, what do we do?

We sow more seeds of dissension.

We reaped diseased crops, and instead of discarding the seed we simply plant it back in the ground.

Hence "sowing what we reaped"

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parsons was a good Party man, but with that keen girl of his in the Spies, it was only a matter of time before she turned him in to the Thought Police.

Re:Speaking as a UK resident.

[Anonymous Coward]

I laughed when i saw this guys username.

How ever did we manage before?!

[Handbrewer]

How on earth did anyone manage to become adults before, without being constantly molested or our minds corrupted by such evils as pictures of nipples and reproductive organs. Thanks to all the silly "think of the children", "beware of terrorists" laws lately i feel SO MUCH SAFER. George Orwell would weep.

The Thing that Irks me is...

[coofercat]

The thing that Irks me about this is that it says that somehow the UK is due for special treatment. This sort of attitude comes out of the US all the time (on the back of "we're the biggest economy"), but we Brits don't deserve special treatment because we're the same as everyone else - thinking of ourselves modestly is a British thing to do. Perhaps HH needs to sit the "Britishness test" we're subjecting wannabe residents to these days? ;-)

The other thing that irks me is that if kids are getting pestered, they're perfectly at liberty to go sign up at another social network and get away from it. I realise they don't want to do that, but that's one of the harsh choices of life. Further more, there are already are plenty of routes to report abuse on Facebook, including the parent looking over your shoulder. Unfortunately, the "parent" in that sentence appears to be turning into "the government". I don't want much from Facebook, but I hope they prepare a nice pot of tea and then tell the UK government to "bloody well shut up" about this.

Let's be honest, very few UK governments last more than about 10 years before they get voted out in a hail of glory for the new guys. Even though I'm not in love with the alternative, they at least provide a bit of contrast (not as much as us Pirates, but hey, it's a start).

Re:The Thing that Irks me is...

[pandrijeczko]

To be honest, it's even simpler than you describe - you can just block the person who's pestering you on Facebook.

Unfortunately, every problem with the Internet can be traced back down to stupid people who don't feel there's any need to learn how a PC works, update regularly or read instructions or manuals. Anyone who takes the time to look at the configuration on Facebook will see that you can actually lock things down very tightly and restrict who can do or say anything to you.

It all comes down to laziness and not taking the time to learn something and to do things properly.

Re:The Thing that Irks me is...

[Alioth]

And the Britishness test is a joke - you can try it online - it's full of questions that are totally irrelevant. For instance, questions about speed limits, whose proper place is on the driving test, not a citizenship test.

Taking action

[DaveGod]

As TFA all-but underlines, child safety is not the issue here, it is that Harriet Harman is being seen to be taking action. "Doing something".

I'm not quite sure how "getting in touch with Facebook to urge the use of the CEOP button" (i.e. asking for a favour that FB seems happy and well-armed to openly criticise) is to be considered an achievement, but use of FB is in the press a lot so our government instinctively feels the need to exert control over it, however ineffectual and petty.

Sue the Daily Mail eh?

[Eggbloke]

though Facebook is still considering suing the paper

Facebook, please sue the Daily Mail. Sue them 'till they can't afford to print any more.

Daily Hate...

[advocate_one]

yup, currently the Daily Hate is a campaign against Facebook... there's been a leading news item every day now where they've deliberately blown something up that's had the slightest connection to Facebook... highly emotive language in the items as well and seriously anti-Facebook comment moderation going on in the online comments... anyone who dares to be pro-Facebook promptly gets howled down with a flood of red arrows... they're only green arrowed for a short time before some block voting happens

apparently no male is considered safe, we're all potential peados on Facebook...

Over-13 only

[jc79]

From Facebook's Terms of Use:

• You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
• You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.

So, given that there are no sex offenders or children on facebook, what's the big deal?

There's going to be a General Election in 6 weeks

[Anonymous Coward]

or thereabouts.

Is it any wonder that the discredited Labour Government that we've had hung around our necks for the past 4 years is generating so many "moral panic" issues? If you speak against them, you're a criminal, a pervert or both. Its really deperessing to be a UK citizen at the present time.

There is a really simple fix for this

[tool462]

No need to worry folks. In the event this gets passed, there is a really simple fix.

It's probably safe to assume that many MPs have their own FB pages, since it can be an effective method of campaigning to their younger voters.
So, all you need to do is create an account claiming to be a minor (or actually be a minor), friend the MPs, and click this pedo-panic button on all their accounts. That'll shut it down right quick!

The CEOP Button in all its glory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the CEOP site.

First time I've had a look at it, and I can see why Facebook don't want that Big Brother, all seeing eye button on any of their pages!

Its all "If you're not for us, you're against us" stuff. If anything smacks of fascism, this does.

but viewing nude children "for safety" is ok

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same government that declared that any picture of a nude child is a criminal offence, EXCEPT when they do it in the airport through the strip-scanner machines, for which they gave themselves a waiver to force everyone through the virtual peep show. Because it's for our safety.