Wannabe Prime Minister Andrea Leadsom Thinks Websites Should Be Rated Like Films (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes a report fro The Register: The UK's possible future prime minister thinks all websites should be classified with minimum age ratings, just like films. Andrea Leadsom is one of two candidates left in the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party; the winner of which will become the country's Prime Minister. Although many are concerned with the authoritarian stance taken by her rival, Theresa May, Leadsom's views on many topics -- including the internet -- have come under scrutiny following her unexpected success in the leadership election. Key among those is Leadsom's apparent belief that the best solution to troublesome content on the internet is to have film-rating organization the British Board of Film Classification rate all websites, and have any unrated websites blocked by ISPs. [Writing in the New Statesman back in 2012, she focused, initially, on the need to protect children. "There are two sound ways to ensure that children are not exposed to dangerous or disturbing content," she argued. "At the level of Internet Service Provider, individual sites can be blocked 'at source' by ISPs [...] The other way is with a move away from the standard '.co.uk' and '.com' top level domains (TLDs) for more explicit content, to separate entirely inappropriate sections of the web."] She argues: "Outside of cyberspace, we have bodies such as Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification that continually work to ensure our children are not exposed to the wrong things. This could be implemented in some way online, whereby a website would have to have its content 'rated' before being accessible online. While it sounds like a massive leap, the majority of new websites already go through testing when they are hosted to make sure that a site is intact and that files and content are free of viruses. This would simply be adding another check to the list, and in reality it is a burden already carried by film-makers."

Comments

Awful

[AmiMoJo]

For those not familiar with what is happening in the UK at the moment, we are about to get a totally unelected leader.

Our Prime Minister resigned after the Brexit vote. Most of the Brexit supporters went to ground too, there was some backstabbing worthy of Shakespeare, and now it's down to two candidates to replace him.

Only members of the ruling party get a vote on who it is. The general electorate has no say, and this new ruler can stay in power for at least another four years unless something unpredicted happens.

The choice is between Theresa May, an authoritarian bigot who is openly racist and wants repeal our human rights, and this woman who is a religious fruitcake and, for good measure, also bigot. She lied during the Brexit campaign and lied her CV.

At least with Trump and Clinton you get to vote.

Re:Awful

[Harlequin80]

You never voted for David Cameron in the first instance. You voted for your local member. The party that held the majority chose one of its own to be the prime minister. It is totally possible for the party in power to change the prime minister at any time.

So you have NEVER EVER voted for the leader of the UK. And neither has any other Westminster system of government such as Canada, Australia, or NZ.

Re:Awful

[HuskyDog]

Firstly, the Prime Minister can be a member of the House of Lords, although that hasn't happened in modern times. Lord Salisbury was the last Lords PM (1886 to 1892). He had previously been an elected Member of Parliament but had been elevated to the Lords (1868) before becoming PM. Cabinet Ministers can be from the Lords, although the only current full such cabinet member from is Baroness Stowell of Beeston who is the leader of the Lords. There are however several current 'deputy' ministers from the Lords including Baroness Joanna Shields who is the Minister for Internet Safety and Security (I think that means internet censorship).

Also, the Prime Minister doesn't have to be the leader of the largest party, but in practice they always are since Parliament can throw out any Prime Minister they don't like and clearly the biggest party will like their leader best.

Re:I'm not a company

[AmiMoJo]

She is a Christian and feels she has to force her dubious morality and beliefs on everyone else. She opposed same sex marriage on the grounds that Christians "own" it and everyone else can have a civil partnership.

Naturally, she feels shame over internet porn and wants to make sure other people feel it too.