Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
What would the blocked webpage thing look like? David Cameron, dressed like Helen Lovejoy, holding a baby in hand, with the caption "Think of the Children!"?
Hmn, I didn't realize we could have our civil liberties (yes, internet censorship is protected under human rights) could be taken away so pettily by our of a Prime Minister. Having the system as opt in would just leave to profiling by the government. What use would any kind of ban do anyway? This is just the Tories trying to gain a little support from the conservatively (Think of the Children!) minded. Presumably its not going to gain them any favors from the opposition, or anyone who knows that it'll do nothing to stop people gaining access to it if they really want to.
That Page 3's still going to exist (and presumably the Daily Star's other content too) is a tad ridiculous. So softcore pictures that are widely available in every corner shop are fine, but the same online are not? BBC news is certainly not reporting on this right now. I suppose that this thing will go under the radar to the general public until the whole thing washes over in a few weeks (at which point the government will ask, "why didn't you comment at the time if you're so opposed?").
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 12:39:16
I just call it as I see it, Steve. Just as you have your opinion, so I have mine.
Yes, you do. Looking down on people for choices they have made with no objective reason as to why those choices are wrong is not an opinion, its being judgmental. I like a good single malt whiskey. I don't like cheap blends. I do not look down on people who do. Same with music. Some people who like Jazz or Classical music and look down on anyone who do not as uneducated. People have every right to like or dislike what they want. That is an opinion. Seeing people as debased or debauched because of there legal choices that do not effect there lives is when opinions become judgments, and being judgmental is wrong.
Have your opinion that you don't like porn. You have every right to do that, and I respect that right. Don't start slinging insults around.
The address I typed was directly from the book, but it had apparently been pre empted by company that offered porn. This happened with Napster (one of the early sites that offered free music)when a porn company acquired it. People that had not heard about the takeover went to the site expecting music, but got something else entirely.
Ok... Says all I need to know. Like I said, sounds like a re-direct. A less than legitimate company acquired the URL after it went dormant, or some form of hack on the site or DNS spoof attack. Never trust a URL just because it is in a book. By the time it is published the domain can be wrong. Welcome to the Internet. That has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with someone either committing click fraud, or worse.
Napster was not offering "free music". They were a P2P file sharing site offering that was closed as they were a major conduit for copyright infringement. They were the pirate bay of the day. I'm not going in to the rights and wrongs of that, but to say "free music" is wrong.
At no point was Napster owned by a porn company. It seems your making things up to support your argument that "porn companies are EVIL!!!". Private Media Group did bid for them but failed and it was purchased by Roxio, who re-opend as Napster 2.0, a pay service. There was allot of porn on Napster, but that had nothing to do with legitimate companies, anymore than smuggled booze do with liqueur stores. It was posted by users. That is the fault of the user, not the porn.
ban porn in your house, but don't complain when you can't follow some basic computer safety.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 12:44:28
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Also, how come people are allowed to have sex at 16, but can't watch videos of other people having sex until they're 18. Wuh?
Legal quirk. Up until 2003 women aged 16-17 in the UK could appear on page or in a dirty magazine as long as they had parental consent. So in other words the age of sexual consent, marriage and ability to pose where all synchronized, which would seem sensible. Quite a few famous page 3 girls like Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker and Linsey Dawn Mackenzie started their careers in the UK at 16.
Anyway in 2003 the Labor government changed the law so now women had to be 18 to pose topless/nude. The other laws remain unchanged resulting in the odd situation that we have now where a man can marry a 17 year old woman and have sex with her, but woe betide if he has a nudie snap of her. I admit I’ve no idea if this means that old copies of the Sun or Sport had to be destroyed. In fact I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble for possessing an old copy. Nor do I think anyone should be.
Due to the international nature of the internet it does make sense to try and unify the age women can pose as much as possible otherwise we end up with pictures being avalible that are perfectly legal in one country but illegal in others being easily available on-line. Trying to police that would be a nightmare.
If you think that’s odd it’s worse in other countries. We actually have one of the highest sexual consent ages in Europe. I think it’s as low as 14 in Spain. And I think it’s 15 in France and Germany though I could be wrong. I think Women still have to be 18 to pose in those countries as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 15:32:32
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
If for example you moved into a flat and the landlady said 'no dogs allowed' and you promptly bought a dog would you be standing up for your rights, or being a dick.
I guess you missed the part where there are other adults living there with an equal claim to being their house?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Wyrmalla wrote: BBC news is certainly not reporting on this right now. I suppose that this thing will go under the radar to the general public until the whole thing washes over in a few weeks (at which point the government will ask, "why didn't you comment at the time if you're so opposed?")
Also worth noting - they reported on it back in October 2011 as well, which while a little worrying is I suppose at least a sign that this isn't a snap judgement of Cameron's. So it's premeditated stupid, rather than kneejerk stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15255485
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch
I just call it as I see it, Steve. Just as you have your opinion, so I have mine.
Yes, you do. Looking down on people for choices they have made with no objective reason as to why those choices are wrong is not an opinion, its being judgmental. I like a good single malt whiskey. I don't like cheap blends. I do not look down on people who do. Same with music. Some people who like Jazz or Classical music and look down on anyone who do not as uneducated. People have every right to like or dislike what they want. That is an opinion. Seeing people as debased or debauched because of there legal choices that do not effect there lives is when opinions become judgments, and being judgmental is wrong.
Have your opinion that you don't like porn. You have every right to do that, and I respect that right. Don't start slinging insults around.
The address I typed was directly from the book, but it had apparently been pre empted by company that offered porn. This happened with Napster (one of the early sites that offered free music)when a porn company acquired it. People that had not heard about the takeover went to the site expecting music, but got something else entirely.
Ok... Says all I need to know. Like I said, sounds like a re-direct. A less than legitimate company acquired the URL after it went dormant, or some form of hack on the site or DNS spoof attack. Never trust a URL just because it is in a book. By the time it is published the domain can be wrong. Welcome to the Internet. That has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with someone either committing click fraud, or worse.
Napster was not offering "free music". They were a P2P file sharing site offering that was closed as they were a major conduit for copyright infringement. They were the pirate bay of the day. I'm not going in to the rights and wrongs of that, but to say "free music" is wrong.
At no point was Napster owned by a porn company. It seems your making things up to support your argument that "porn companies are EVIL!!!". Private Media Group did bid for them but failed and it was purchased by Roxio, who re-opend as Napster 2.0, a pay service. There was allot of porn on Napster, but that had nothing to do with legitimate companies, anymore than smuggled booze do with liqueur stores. It was posted by users. That is the fault of the user, not the porn.
ban porn in your house, but don't complain when you can't follow some basic computer safety.
Steve no need to get over sensitive on this. I see you missed the parts of my post where I talked about teaching my kids to respect other people as well as themselves. You seem immediatly jump to the conclusion that I teach them to look down on other people and stand in judgement on them.
You seem to be splitting a lot of hairs in your post and standing in judgement yourself when I say I typed a URL from a Rand Mcnally map book a few years ago and it took me to a porn site that was fairly disgusting and I was angry about it because my at the time 10 year old daughter saw it.
I'll assume something about you now in that you don't have kids yet. When you do, I believe you will see things a bit differently.
There were reports at the time of people accidently running into porn on the defunct Napster (which people got free music from) site because they hadn't realized porn was featured.
Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but I think we are overlooking a massive thing regarding this subject.
For those of us that live away from home, the first time you go back to your parents and think 'I'll have a cheeky look at youporn' and find out the content lock is disabled, you'll know that your dad did it. That's an image that won't scrub easy
Wyrmalla wrote: BBC news is certainly not reporting on this right now. I suppose that this thing will go under the radar to the general public until the whole thing washes over in a few weeks (at which point the government will ask, "why didn't you comment at the time if you're so opposed?")
Also worth noting - they reported on it back in October 2011 as well, which while a little worrying is I suppose at least a sign that this isn't a snap judgement of Cameron's. So it's premeditated stupid, rather than kneejerk stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15255485
When I say that they're not reporting it, I mean that they're not publicizing it. Being that I tend to have BBC News 24 on for most of the day, I can say that this is the type of thing that have an article until the wee hours of the morning. Sure you can find out this information from their website, but to the general public who presumably don't view that and just tune in for the evening broadcast, would be oblivious to it. If you don't have any exterior forms of information, watching BBC news would give you an incredibly biased view on current events. For instance today's been entirely dedicated to the royal baby. There was all of five minutes detailing a prison break in Iraq (which was the only foreign story), and perhaps a half hour on other news stories all day... The BBC acts as a propaganda piece for the government, at least in its guise as a tv program, thus if the government wants to avoid stirring up the population about an issue, the BBC will try and not report on it as much as possible.
Anyhow. Are there some statistics out there for just how many households in the UK actually have children? I would imagine the number that don't far outweigh this. It seems a little moot to put a block on something that only a percentage of the population has a chance of viewing. Additionally is this the government saying that parent's are not capable of monitoring their own computer's internet security and thus the government has been forced to take over? Again I'll note that access to the internet, without censorship, is a human right, and that though they may not be outright censoring it, they are going a ways towards it. To not provide someone access to a website unless they explicitly ask for permission from the government comes across as censorship though, and I would imagine that the UN would have a few things to ask the Tories should that argument be put to them.
The Division Of Joy wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but I think we are overlooking a massive thing regarding this subject.
For those of us that live away from home, the first time you go back to your parents and think 'I'll have a cheeky look at youporn' and find out the content lock is disabled, you'll know that your dad did it. That's an image that won't scrub easy
The Division Of Joy wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but I think we are overlooking a massive thing regarding this subject.
For those of us that live away from home, the first time you go back to your parents and think 'I'll have a cheeky look at youporn' and find out the content lock is disabled, you'll know that your dad did it. That's an image that won't scrub easy
To be fair, your presence on this Earth means that your dad did dirty deeds with your mum.
Go ahead, try and scrub that image.
EDIT: Even better, your grandparents had to dance the dirty dance in order to make your parents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 16:12:42
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
Cheesecat wrote: Google has made it harder to stumble onto porn now, you have to be more specific in your searches like adding "nude", "porn", "naked", etc into the search otherwise you probably won't find anything that pornographic.
I have no problem finding anything without using those words.
On the subject of does porn help or harm a relationship, it depends entirely on the relationship. However, that point is irrelevant. It's not the gumments job to put it's nose into people's affairs like that. A house divided by sports teams may be bad for the relationship. Going to ban soccer? An over-zealous in-law might be bad for a relationship. Going to ban in-laws. Actually, I like this one.
It's also not it's job to filter porn because it may or may not be addictive. Going to ban alcohol next? Collecting all 152 pokimons? Tastey-Cakes? Internet Forums? World of Warcraft? All of these things may or may not be addictive, depending on the individual.
What would this accomplish that commercially available software wouldn't?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
There were some posters back on page 2 or 3 that have NetNanny or equivalent that still sees naked people doing things with other naked people in google searches.
Not that I agree that the gumment should be doing it.
Relapse wrote:You seem to be splitting a lot of hairs in your post and standing in judgement yourself when I say I typed a URL from a Rand Mcnally map book a few years ago and it took me to a porn site that was fairly disgusting and I was angry about it because my at the time 10 year old daughter saw it.
I'll assume something about you now in that you don't have kids yet. When you do, I believe you will see things a bit differently.
There were reports at the time of people accidently running into porn on the defunct Napster (which people got free music from) site because they hadn't realized porn was featured.
But that's not Napster's fault, and quite frankly, you are just as much to blame as anything else for the incident you describe above. I understand that you're upset about it, and perhaps reasonably so. However, as a parent it is your job to watch out for your kids, not mine or Steve Steveson or David Cameron's. You know what the Internet is, and I think you should've gone to the site yourself first before sending your daughter to it. And I'm hoping you're learned that lessen in the time between then & now.
If you are concerned about what content your daughter views, and there's every reason for you to be, then it is up to you, as the parent, to filter her content. It is both lazy and irresponsible to tacitly attempt to shirk that responsibility with broad, sweeping legislation in hopes of alleviating the burden from you personally and placing it on the whole of us at the cost of our rights against censorship.
It essentially allows parents to live up even less to that title. Soon they'll just be "those people who live with the government's kid".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 16:54:22
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
Relapse wrote: You seem to be splitting a lot of hairs in your post and standing in judgement yourself when I say I typed a URL from a Rand Mcnally map book a few years ago and it took me to a porn site that was fairly disgusting and I was angry about it because my at the time 10 year old daughter saw it.
Did you computer have any sort of filter program on it? Were there any available at the time of this incident?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
azazel the cat wrote: You know what the Internet is, and I think you should've gone to the site yourself first before sending your daughter to it.
To be fair, there's a difference between porn that is openly presented as porn and porn that is designed to take advantage of typos in going to a non-porn website. The site in question was set up as a deliberate attempt to get people to see porn even when they aren't trying to, and it's entirely fair to object to that kind of dishonest and aggressive presentation.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
azazel the cat wrote: You know what the Internet is, and I think you should've gone to the site yourself first before sending your daughter to it.
To be fair, there's a difference between porn that is openly presented as porn and porn that is designed to take advantage of typos in going to a non-porn website. The site in question was set up as a deliberate attempt to get people to see porn even when they aren't trying to, and it's entirely fair to object to that kind of dishonest and aggressive presentation.
You don't know that, because you don't know what site it was, and thus cannot make this claim.
All the information on the matter you have (that I'm aware of) is that Relapse typed in a URL found in a map book. Either A, he made a typo, or B, the domain has been purchased by a porn provider, or C, he had some redirect malware on his computer at the time.
If A, then you may have a point, however the similar domain name may have legitimate cause. Just as a hypothetical example: what if there were a pornstar named "Randy McNally"? Would it be unethical for said pornstar to use that domain name due to its similarity to Rand McNally?
If B, this is only duplicitous if the domain name is completely unrelated to porn to begin with. Again, hypothetically, if McDonald's forgot to re-regist its domain and was bought up by a porn distributor in hopes of people accidentally walking into their online porn shop. However, if "McDonald's Porn Distribution" (a coincidence in the name as it is quite a commonplace surname) bought up the site, would you still consider that unethical? I would not.
If C, well, this one is obvious that while unethical, it's not porn's fault.
Relapse wrote:You seem to be splitting a lot of hairs in your post and standing in judgement yourself when I say I typed a URL from a Rand Mcnally map book a few years ago and it took me to a porn site that was fairly disgusting and I was angry about it because my at the time 10 year old daughter saw it.
I'll assume something about you now in that you don't have kids yet. When you do, I believe you will see things a bit differently.
There were reports at the time of people accidently running into porn on the defunct Napster (which people got free music from) site because they hadn't realized porn was featured.
But that's not Napster's fault, and quite frankly, you are just as much to blame as anything else for the incident you describe above. I understand that you're upset about it, and perhaps reasonably so. However, as a parent it is your job to watch out for your kids, not mine or Steve Steveson or David Cameron's. You know what the Internet is, and I think you should've gone to the site yourself first before sending your daughter to it. And I'm hoping you're learned that lessen in the time between then & now.
If you are concerned about what content your daughter views, and there's every reason for you to be, then it is up to you, as the parent, to filter her content. It is both lazy and irresponsible to tacitly attempt to shirk that responsibility with broad, sweeping legislation in hopes of alleviating the burden from you personally and placing it on the whole of us at the cost of our rights against censorship.
To be fair, I didn't "send" my daughter. I was the one iin front of the screen typing what I assumed was a legitimate adress since it was printed in a well known map maker's book. This was a few years ago and it was a lesson on computers I didn't forget.
Also in my posts, I state that this is a bad idea for the state to go into the censorship business of the internet. I think it's a bad idea on several levels, one of which is the fact that it will give some parents a false sense of security and encourage them to be lazy about being aware of what their kids are looking at.
azazel the cat wrote: You know what the Internet is, and I think you should've gone to the site yourself first before sending your daughter to it.
To be fair, there's a difference between porn that is openly presented as porn and porn that is designed to take advantage of typos in going to a non-porn website. The site in question was set up as a deliberate attempt to get people to see porn even when they aren't trying to, and it's entirely fair to object to that kind of dishonest and aggressive presentation.
This right here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/23 17:17:06
Some people are addicted to hardcore pornography, some to crack, some to molesting fish. Then there are those who collect thousands upon thousands of miniature orcs. And they need help, too.
For the uninitiated, Warhammer is a table-top battle game played with miniature figurines that comes in two forms: Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer sci-fi (it’s all the same crap, but the latter has guns). Armies of different creatures that bear more than a passing resemblance to those featured in Tolkien (orcs, goblins, knights, dwarves) fight to the death on the roll of a dice. Some people collect for the sake of winning battles, others (like muggins ‘ere) just for the sake of painting the models. The whole experience is pitched at teenage boys, but some of them never quite grow up and you’ll find men with dank pony tails still collecting well into their thirties. Emphasis upon “boys” and “men” – this underworld is no place for a lady.
Some people are addicted to hardcore pornography, some to crack, some to molesting fish. Then there are those who collect thousands upon thousands of miniature orcs. And they need help, too.
For the uninitiated, Warhammer is a table-top battle game played with miniature figurines that comes in two forms: Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer sci-fi (it’s all the same crap, but the latter has guns). Armies of different creatures that bear more than a passing resemblance to those featured in Tolkien (orcs, goblins, knights, dwarves) fight to the death on the roll of a dice. Some people collect for the sake of winning battles, others (like muggins ‘ere) just for the sake of painting the models. The whole experience is pitched at teenage boys, but some of them never quite grow up and you’ll find men with dank pony tails still collecting well into their thirties. Emphasis upon “boys” and “men” – this underworld is no place for a lady.
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Some people are addicted to hardcore pornography, some to crack, some to molesting fish. Then there are those who collect thousands upon thousands of miniature orcs. And they need help, too.
For the uninitiated, Warhammer is a table-top battle game played with miniature figurines that comes in two forms: Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer sci-fi (it’s all the same crap, but the latter has guns). Armies of different creatures that bear more than a passing resemblance to those featured in Tolkien (orcs, goblins, knights, dwarves) fight to the death on the roll of a dice. Some people collect for the sake of winning battles, others (like muggins ‘ere) just for the sake of painting the models. The whole experience is pitched at teenage boys, but some of them never quite grow up and you’ll find men with dank pony tails still collecting well into their thirties. Emphasis upon “boys” and “men” – this underworld is no place for a lady.
This kind of makes me laugh because a lot of the advancements on the internet have been because of the online porn industry...Online payments for goods, thank you Porn!
So good luck with that UK, let me know how it goes.
The Division Of Joy wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but I think we are overlooking a massive thing regarding this subject.
For those of us that live away from home, the first time you go back to your parents and think 'I'll have a cheeky look at youporn' and find out the content lock is disabled, you'll know that your dad did it. That's an image that won't scrub easy
To be fair, your presence on this Earth means that your dad did dirty deeds with your mum.
Go ahead, try and scrub that image.
EDIT: Even better, your grandparents had to dance the dirty dance in order to make your parents.
I have it on good authority that sexual relations were not involved in my conception. My parents simply met, signed the appropriate papers, and 9 months later, I materialized into existence. Probably underneath a rock of some sort.
The Division Of Joy wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread but I think we are overlooking a massive thing regarding this subject.
For those of us that live away from home, the first time you go back to your parents and think 'I'll have a cheeky look at youporn' and find out the content lock is disabled, you'll know that your dad did it. That's an image that won't scrub easy
To be fair, your presence on this Earth means that your dad did dirty deeds with your mum.
Go ahead, try and scrub that image.
EDIT: Even better, your grandparents had to dance the dirty dance in order to make your parents.
I have it on good authority that sexual relations were not involved in my conception. My parents simply met, signed the appropriate papers, and 9 months later, I materialized into existence. Probably underneath a rock of some sort.
Do you happen to be short, bearded, and possess a fondness for mountains?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch 
of a Prime Minister. Having the system as opt in would just leave to profiling by the government. What use would any kind of ban do anyway? This is just the Tories trying to gain a little support from the conservatively (Think of the Children!) minded. Presumably its not going to gain them any favors from the opposition, or anyone who knows that it'll do nothing to stop people gaining access to it if they really want to.
