back to article ISPs end PM's web smut block dream

The big four ISPs – BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media – have scoffed at suggestions that Brit web surfers could be forced to 'opt in' to view online grumble flicks. The proposed censorship, backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, was understood to be part of a government-supported effort to shelter children from pornography, …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Robert E A Harvey
    Thumb Down

    Bone idle bastards

    I can recall campaigning in the 1990s for them to develop spam-proof email, but 'nothing to do with us, chief'. Still the same. Giving customers a hollow choice over what they do on their own machines will cost them nothing.

    It is this sort of 'give us money, we do nothing to earn it' attitude that will lead to government legislation, and that will be a shambles

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      We should all have our internet censored (that won't lead to function creep) because the Christian wing of mumsnet said so.

      1. Elmer Phud

        Christian wing?

        Check out the chairman - not a 'wing' at all.

      2. Anonymous Coward


        And it's nothing to do with offering mothers the chance to block their husband's free access to all the porn on the planet...

        Now that'd be a fun conversation to listen into. Must be at least a half hour of material there for John Bishop, anyway.

        1. Paul Crawford Silver badge


          Poor John Bishop, in for a bashing I suspect.

    2. Anonymous Coward

      I remember campaigning last month for them to come round and help me apply some sunscreen because I was too lazy to protect myself. Bone idle bastards only told me about the existence of sunscreen. I had a good whinge about it and the government came in and blocked out the sun for me.

    3. auburnman
      Thumb Down

      You might as well have campaigned for a spam-proof letterbox while you were at it, and then we could use the time saved countrywide by not opening junk mail to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and end the budget crisis.

      Exactly what is so hollow about giving customers a choice? The ISP's are no saints, but good on them for fighting against becoming the de facto internet police and resisting the automatic opt-in mentality (for once.)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      bone idle?

      not while the smut hose is still in operation

    5. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      I would imagine that you also campaign for cars that run on water and trees that can grow a cure for cancer, whiclst giving you minty-fresh breath?

      You can campaign all you like for something like 'spam-proof email', it won't change the fact that such a thing, due to the very nature of email, is technically impossible, and that anyone you direct your 'campaigning' at will dismiss you as the idiot you are.

      As mentioned in the comments on the related article yesterday, and in many other places on the internet, the 'hollow choice' being given to parents is to parent their children, not to expect the state to do it for them. Perhaps you would like a censored version of the internet where you cannot get access to such comments and therefore can allow the government / big businesses to guide your enlightenment in such matters?

      1. Arnie

        tress that cure cancer

        that'll be cannabis

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          @Trees that cure cancer

          Although it's a nice idea, and THC can be effective for pain relief and treating the nausea caused by chemotherapy, cannabis smoke is unfortunately just as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke. Some studies have actually shown that smoking a combination of cannabis and tobacco produces smoke which is actually more carcinogenic than cigarette smkoe, or cannabis smoke alone.

          Just so you know.

    6. Robert E A Harvey

      In response to all the down-voters

      it would not be hard, as in many hotels, for the ISP to have a filter maintained by them at their end, which you could ask to be be removed on a subscription-by-subscription basis. Then, at least, the big boys would be doing some of the work, not blaming the victims.

      My Virgin Mobile account worked exactly like that. I telephoned them and confirmed I wanted access controls removed, and they did it. What is wrong with that?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Because...'s just far easier to lobby government to restrict personal freedom of choice than it is to exercise any parental responsibility.

  3. Pete 2 Silver badge

    ISPs to parents ...

    ... looking after your children is your responsibility, not ours.

    1. The Fuzzy Wotnot


      At first I was thinking that there are some out there who may not understand all this new-fangled internet technology thingy and get worried but then I suddenly realised Symantec/Norton have huge divisions devoted to selling and informing those who need hand in installing smut-filters, so bollocks!

      You don't buy a car and drive it without learning to drive and get your license, don't expect something as serious a computer to be a simple toy that will look after itself!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I do not geddit...

    "written by Reg Bailey, CEO at Christian charity Mothers' Union "

    I do not geddit...

    What exactly makes him a "Christian mother"? He does not quite look like someone who possesses the right anatomical details for that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm sure he's a Christian, and I'm certain he's a mother

      He has a special interest in wholesome family movies, that goes back to his days as CEO of MILF (Mothers In Love with Film).

      Yes, I know this is playground humour but how seriously can you take a group of Christian mothers who think they have the right to determine what other people's kids can watch? Let them block porn and they'll want to block sex education, pregnancy advice, etc, etc.

      And how seriously can you take a Government that commissions a report from this group? They should at least have the guts to claim these idiotic convictions as their own.

      I'm getting angrier as I type this. So, in conclusion - MILF! (Mothers, I'd Like you to Fuck off!)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      LMAO, etc

      Oh how my sides are splitting. I have certainly not heard that hilarious observation before you just made it. He's a functionary, not one of the people the charity claims to represent. Or perhaps you're advocating that they descriminate against their own employees, illegally?

      Presumably you'd expect everyone in, say, a cervical cancer support charity to have the requisite body parts and suffer from the appropriate disease too?

      Y'know, I once bought a little plastic poppy from someone who clearly didn't die in the Somme. What ever is the world coming to.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge


        I'd say it was eminently reasonable to expect such a group to be fronted by someone whose opinions it claims to represent.

        Your example of a cervical cancer support group is both irrelevant and distasteful. Would you expect such a group to be fronted by a cancer sufferer?

        The cynical amongst us would suggest that this group, whilst having the word 'Mother' in its name is entitled thus only in order to make it appear more 'homely', and that the opinions being represented are those of a group of people who are not entirely and exclusively mothers, and their opinions are not rooted in their gender or parental status, but rather in their fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-fundamentalist-I-don't-believe-in-facts-but-I think-my-faith-should-be-inflicted-on-everyone-else-Christian beliefs.

        1. lotus49


          You clearly know nothing about the Mothers' Union. It is indeed an organisation consisting almost entirely of women and it is represented in a large proportion of churches in the UK by actual mothers.

          Furthermore, they are not trying to foist their ideas on anyone else. The issue of early sexualisation of children is widely discussed by people who have no religious agenda and a quick trip to a children's clothes shop where sexy underwear for 9 year olds is on display may result in anyone reasonably wondering whether this is appropriate, Christian or not.

          The Mothers' Union would like to make it easier for concerned parents who do not have the technical ability or understanding of the way the internet works to be able to block porn if they wish. They are not trying to make it compulsory so why the diatribe?

          One only has to mention the word "Christian" on the Register to have a series of ill-informed rants most of which display exactly the same lack of open-mindedness and intolerance that the Christians always seem to be accused of.

          1. David Neil

            Try this

            OK, let's substitute Muslim for Christian, the final paragraph now reads:

            The measures address proposals spelled out in the Bailey Report – written by Reg Bailey, CEO at Muslim charity Mothers' Union and released in the summer – in which Bailey asks firms to make it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material on the internet.

            Now that would drive the Daily Mail mob into a wee frenzy, so lets try something else, say dropping reference to religion at all.

            The measures address proposals spelled out in the Bailey Report – written by Reg Bailey, CEO at charity Mothers' Union and released in the summer – in which Bailey asks firms to make it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material on the internet.

            Suddenly it becomes more "palatable" which begs the question, why invoke religion into something which is a moral crusade?

          2. Graham Marsden


            I suggest you consider these two sentences from your post again:

            1) "they are not trying to foist their ideas on anyone else."

            2) "a quick trip to a children's clothes shop where sexy underwear for 9 year olds is on display may result in anyone reasonably wondering whether this is appropriate, Christian or not."

            The point is they are not simply "reasonably wondering" if this is appropriate and then, if they decide for themselves that it is not, they won't buy such things for their children, they have already decided that it *is* appropriate and now consider that it is their duty to lobby the Government to impose that decision on everyone else, just as they have done with their desire for "opt in" porn.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Or to put it another way

            The Mothers' Union would like to make it more difficult for concerned parents, who do not have the technical ability or understanding of the way the internet works, to be able to unblock websites the CMU don't like.

            "One only has to mention the word "Christian" on the Register to have a series of ill-informed rants most of which display exactly the same lack of open-mindedness and intolerance that the Christians always seem to be accused of."

            Maybe so - what you won't see is The Reg community lobbying the Government to block religious websites.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        While I'm certain that the CMU employs non-mummies -

        - I'm willing to bet that being a practicing Satanist doesn't go down well at the job interview.

        Dear AC - you seem to assume that, for some reason, we have to be fair to these people and give them the benefit of the doubt. A favour they seem unwilling to grant anyone outside their own heaven-centric moralityverse.

        Tell me AC - are you also an older gentleman who enjoys hanging around with Christian mothers?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They need a male lead.

      As you no doubt know, groups that identify themselves as christian charities tend to take the nuttier parts of the bible literally, so presumably the prohibition on women either holding positions of authority or speaking in public both hold for this group, leading them to require a man to lead the mothers.

      1. The First Dave

        Fair enough, but why does a small charity need a CEO ?

        1. Killraven

          One title vs Another

          Do you have a hierarchy of preferred titles based on organization size?

          How many members does a group need before you feel that it's okay to be called a CEO? Is that better, or not, than President?

  5. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Just a bone

    Thrown to anti-porn perverts...

    They can't say now that the Government is not thinking of childrenz. Which is why it was done in the first place.

  6. andreas koch

    How would you do it anyway?

    Can someone enlighten me on how the ISPs were supposed to do the filtering? The only way that I can think of would really work is a cached, vetted whitelist. I can't imagine that any company would like to do that (manpower,speed, volume), and it wouldn't be the web/ internet anymore anyway.

    So, how was it supposed to work?

    1. Annihilator

      Proxy is the key - and the workaround

      The current IWF filter is already doing this on most ISPs. It's normally done by blacklist. There are plenty of companies out there capable of doing it - Websense manages our work anti-smut list I believe.

      OpenDNS even provides a semi-decent attempt (but blocks at the DNS level, not IP level)

      The IWF proxy usually manages to break legitimate files on the same sites as suspected naughtiness though, due to triggering defences by the host website (all traffic via the IWF proxies have the same source IP, so looks like a flood attack, though some ISPs have kludged this with multiple IP addresses).

      As per the title, proxies are the simplest way to get around nearly every solution though.

    2. KitD

      Honestly ....

      > So, how was it supposed to work?

      Details, details, dear boy. You can't expect our esteemed leaders to have to worry themselves over mere technicalities ...

    3. PatientOne

      "So, how was it supposed to work?"

      1) block all .XXX web sites.

      2) (optional) block sites with key words in the name with (if you're lucky) exceptions for sites that can demonstrate they're not smut peddlers.

      3) (optional) also block sites you're advised about that are reported to peddle smut (and forget to tell them or explain how they can (not) challenge the block to get it removed...)

      4) claim success.


      Positively identify which sites provide smut and add them to the block list, a task that will be never ending as new sites pop up or use proxies to help them move to avoid filters, and will cost the ISP's a fortune to maintain while only being able to report they're working on blocking sites.

      Asking for a white list to be maintained is even more work for the ISP's, at greater cost and all that will happen is permitted sites will be hacked and used, or sites will be registered while 'clean' with links to the smut to bypass filters resulting in the ISP's having to admit failure.

      Guess which method the ISP's would take.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "active choice"

    People are talking about "active choice" as an alternative to "opt-in" and "opt-out", but how would that work in practice for existing customers? What do they do if the customer fails to respond to repeated requests for an answer one way or the other? They could disable the account, but would they really do that?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    it seems to me

    that the government seems to have forgotten about the fact that grumble flicks are legal in the uk now under an r18 certificate.

    Also the ISPs have the cop out of "Not hosted on our servers guv". My view is, educate kids about how to use the web safely, use already available web filters, and if your little dears stumble on some online filth, they were obviously looking harder for it than you thought.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: r18

      Yes, r18 is available, has been for quite a while now and what is allowed to be shown in an r18 film is really rather graphic. Here is the thing, though:

      An r18 film is only allowed to be sold by a licensed sex shop. This is a building which is prohibited from allowing under 18s to enter. Very much an opt in.

      As an aside - the opt in was not opt in to be allowed to see porn, it was opt in to the filter, so opt out of being able to see porn.

      1. Graham Marsden

        @re: r18

        "An r18 film is only allowed to be sold by a licensed sex shop."

        True, for bricks and mortar shops, but it's also perfectly legal for you to buy such a film via the web from anywhere in Europe *except* the UK unless the UK seller has paid for a licence for their business to be classed as a sex shop even if it has no physical high-street presence!

        Consequently you have UK suppliers who can legally make films which are not for sale in this country...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the ball

    "CEO at Christian charity Mothers' Union and released in the summer – in which Bailey asks firms to make it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material on the internet"

    These filters have been available for YEARS! Where has Reg Bailey been?

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Where has Reg Bailey been?

      Er, watching pr0n? For research purposes, surely...

    2. Elmer Phud


      there's a lot of it in the bible - at it like rabbits.

      1. Ru
        Paris Hilton

        "there's a lot of it in the bible"

        I fully expect the Song of Solomon to be blocked everywhere, marked as containing explicit material and require opt-in and proof of age before access is granted.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Is Reg Bailey related to the Andy Bailey who registered the domain as a 'non trading individual', before it was hurriedly transferred into Ofcom's ownership?

  11. DrXym

    Should not have to choose to disable filters

    The filters should be off by default, and they should only be set if the customer asks for them or answers in the affirmative during signup that they would like them on.

    Censorship is a slippery slope for ISPs and I hope they realise it. If they suddenly proclaim they're arbiters or what users can or cannot see, lawsuits will be jumping out of the woodwork at them demanding they censor particular pages, or suing them for NOT censoring others.

    1. Paul_Murphy

      Well I, for one..

      Did not want to see that comment - can I opt of of it, and any other comments like it.

      Kids will grow up - and with a developing humans interest in adult activities I would prefer that they have ready access to information that will help them grow up without a load of (religious/ ill-informed) baggage.

      I would like my children to be able to find and similar sites with no hindrance - I would be proud if they came to me with their questions so we could find out the facts together.

      In my view hiding knowledge or information cannot be condoned, with the exception of incorrect information, and the answer to that is to encourage a questioning attitude so that doubts can be expressed freely.


  12. Richard 116


    ...the big four aren't adopting opt in/opt out for all customers?

    Sorry, I was a bit out of the loop yesterday but the news I did hear in the morning reported this as gospel (Mr Bailey).

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    education education education

    Parents! activate parental controls on computers;


    deny all except allowed.

    allow list;

    cbeebies, nickjr, etc.

    everytime the little ones ask you if they can see another url, you look at it first, and then add to allow list if satisfied.

    this will cover 2-12yr olds easily, then you have to decide about mobile phones and computers in bedrooms - your choice, your lookout.

    jfdi and stop looking for others to wipe your bottom.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge


      "allow list;

      cbeebies, nickjr, etc."

      Apparently reasonable choice.

      But wait...

      Isn't nickjr sometimes referred to as "pedo's playtime" in some circles, due to the high number of shows featuring young girls in somewhat inappropriate outfits? The sort of channel you might expect from Senior Belusconni, rather than the wholesome, corporate friendly MTV?

      No I do not have a subscription and have never seen it.

    2. Isendel Steel

      and add some additional software as well - really upsets the kids when it blocks them and they think they were able to go somewhere that they need approval for...

      (see Bluecoats' free offering)

    3. MrXavia

      "deny all except allowed.

      allow list;"

      might work until 8 and they choose to bypass it..

      Not sure what the solution is

  14. rurwin

    Poison Pill

    Any ISP that represents that they can and will provide a porn-free service is either deluding themselves or providing access to only a tiny fraction of the Internet. It is just not possible to filter out porn sites without using the white-list approach. Even then you run the risk of some site on your white-list subsequently accepting porn advertisements.

    So any ISP who follows this guideline is going to be reading about themselves in the tabloid press before too long, even if their small-print keeps them out of court.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    An OpenDNS-like service (or indeed, OpenDNS itself)

    should be offered at sign-up, and should be opt-in. Maybe some sort of mass mailout to existing customers to inform them of its existence.

  16. Dazed and Confused


    I'm sure my mobile broadband connection started off with a whole load of filters.

    The problem with these systems is they can't ever work properly. I never tried to find examples of smut sites I could still access (tunnelled proxy access in the norm here) , but I doubt it would have taken very long. I did find examples of sites they blocked which did not have any adult content, jag-lovers for starters. I bet that if their was a website devoted to "mothers In Love with Film" that it would be blocked by default.

    There are also unexpected consequences to filters. One of my sons tried to follow a link a little why ago, which was promptly blocked by the filters on their PC. There was nothing wrong with the site, but we then had questions on why the SW had blocked it, based on part of the name of the site. Would you choose to explain the normal interpretation of MILF to child? I can't remember what this one was, but you get the picture.

    Reminded me of when one of the "pre home Internet" service providers put some smut filters in place that stopped anyone living in Scunthorpe registering.

    1. Tony Green

      It was hard work in Scunthorpe...

      ...but even worse in Cockermouth.

    2. Bill B


      Well, I must admit i had no idea what MILF was but ... google is your friend and ...


      Oh well. you learn something new every day.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now we just need some sort of standard to protect our children from interfering, over protective Christian mothers.

  18. James 100

    This is a big improvement on the previous plan, at least ... I hope those using the filters will pay a bit extra, to cover the cost of installing these filters for their use, but as long as I'm not affected by them in any way I'll be a lot happier.

    I was furious when my mobile provider imposed filters on everyone - which redirected anyone trying to access the censored content to an opt-out page, which in turn forwarded to a 404 since they'd cocked it up completely. Someone really should have been fired for that, as a reminder that it's the customers not some censor-happy politician or the Moaners' Union who pays their salaries! Three cheers for Three, at least, who apparently stood up to the last round of pressure from the Toddler Taliban unlike O2 and the rest of that shower.

    Beer - because it's sold on high streets, so presumably that'll be banned next so negligent parents can let their feral brats roam the streets without worrying about that either.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Exactly why we're moving all our phones from O2 to Three as their contracts expire.

      O2 need to you use a credit card to prove you're 18, debit cards won't do. If you only have debit cards you have to go to an O2 shop with your passport.

      Since it meant a trip to the shops anyway, I thought it would be better spent going to the Three shop and dumping useless bastards. The better coverage and better data plan was a bonus too.

  19. Old n Cynical

    Dear Reg Bailey

    You want to protect our children? Really, first let's take a quick peek to see how you religious lot do this then shall we...

    An extract form the 2nd link: "The proportion of all prisoners declaring any faith compared with those with none is about 2:1 but among those convicted of sex crime it rises to 3:1. The trend is marked across many faiths, including Buddhism, Anglicanism, Free Church Christianity and Judaism. "

    Mr Bailey, maybe the best way you can help would be to STFU and censor your own zealotry and twaddle first.

    Mr Bailey sir, prey tell how it feels to wear that penis atop your neck.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Link is paywalled

      Did it say whether being of a religious persuasion causes you to be more likely to be a sex criminal, or whether being put in jail for such a disgusting crime causes you to be more likely to say 'I repent for my past sins, honest guv'?

      1. Old n Cynical

        Yesterday both links were publically accessible (for me). Today the 1st is offline and the 2nd paywalled.

        The figures quoted were from Home Office data released after an FOI request. For the most part, and from further reading, it *appears* that the declarations of faith were there before the crimes were committed. In some cases however, it is obviously a case of 'Oh shit, too late. Better find God.'

        I did find it interesting to note how crime types were 'distributed across faiths' however, especially considering that Christians were apparently 50% more likely to commit a sex crime than say, athiests. I struggle to understand that personally, but thems the figures I saw.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Why aren't all these 'Christians' giving up all their worldly goods and letting "God provide"?

  21. Vitani

    "Think of the children!" -- the parents should be, that is, not the government.

  22. JimmyPage Silver badge

    Bill Hicks ... sorely missed

    Dunno why, but I can just hear the great man ranting over this.

    Anyway ... implement smut filters, and Scunthorpe disappears. ("You say that like it's a bad thing")

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    opt in...

    and you're in. Our. Database-s. Of child molesters, terrorists, leftists-anarchists. Ah, and software pirates. Because they all work hand in hand. I know, the guv and the movie industry tells me so. Shame it didn't work this time, but little by little, we shall separate the while sheep from the... rest. And we will bomb the rest. For their good.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Except that it was opt in to the filter, not opt in to view porn.

  24. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    sounds like an echo of Ms Perry, the former Tory backbencher.

    Remember her?

    She wanted an age restriction on *every* internet site.

  25. Joe Burmeister

    Good, it wouldn't have worked.

    All this would have done is "normalise" proxies.

    Few couples are going to agree they want porn, even if both (but it's normally just the man) secretly want it.

    If you want your kids not to see porn, don't give them a laptop. Have a desktop (or two (multiseat?)) in the living room where you can see what they are doing. If you give them a machine they can use in private, they will see porn. To be honest, I use to be involved with copying floppy disks of porn like most nerds when I was a kid. Didn't do me any harm but I'm sure what I saw would have horrified my parents. Of far more a concern to me is social networks without parent supervision, but they will probably all grow up fine too. Let's just fight to make sure they can delete or make private at least, their teen history as an adult. Or maybe they will all just have to be much more open about what they did as kids.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      "Few couples are going to agree they want porn, even if both (but it's normally just the man) secretly want it."

      I disagree with that statement. My partner has quite a large porn collection on her PC. Yes, this is anecdotal, but I doubt she's unusual in that respect. Of course, she's a secular humanist atheist, not a Christian, but again, I don't think that is unusual either.

      It's interesting to see what people think the views of others are about such things, and how they correspond to what they actually are.

  26. Purlieu

    Ok then

    what's the difference between "active choice" and "opt in/out"

    .... waiting ...., tap... tap ......

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Won't somebody think of the share value

    If ISPs started blocking filth by default, and enough people decided their other half wouldn't approve of opting in, the number of people realising they didnt need to pay extra for unlimited access would be huge - after that its a short jump to teathering the mobile for the odd email / facebook and bye bye broadband!

  28. Burch
    Big Brother

    I for one am shocked

    It's not like Call Me Dave to be economical with the truth.

  29. mark l 2 Silver badge

    After working in schools ICT for over 5 years i have yet to find a filtering system the kids couldn't work out how to get around to see at least some porn even on the most restrictive filtering settings.

    Heck even some more entrepreneuring kids would just upload some from home to a photo or video hosting website.

    Blacklists will catch a lot of the big sites along with keyword filtering but there are SO many sites that aren't blacklisted and buy the time they are added to the list thousands more unlisted ones are created that its never going to be a real solution to actual parental supervision of your kids

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      My experience with school filters is that the children see breaking the filter as a demonstration of their skills.

  30. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    The big over-looked fail is they keep taking about blocking *sites*, not blocking *pages* (urls). That's the entire BBC blocked, then, as it has sex health and education *pages* on its *site*.

    Even if they tried to block *pages*, blocking smutserver//bigboobies.htm would work, but they'll probably forget to block imageserver/xf6fg52376.jpg as well.

    Obvious, a job opening for legions of smutcensors to continuously spider the entire internet (not just the web) categorising every single possible URI in existance, as they appear and disappear, continuously.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      I see a job for Christian Fundamentalists after all

      A sisyphean task which would keep them occupied and otherwise unable to inflict their poisonous beliefs on others? Result.

  31. despairing citizen

    The Nanny State

    So as the PM has never heard of Net Nanny (which can be easily purchased by those who choose to have children), he wants to implement the nanny state.

    So 2 years is a very long time, and a 180 degree turn from his speech in OCT 2009, saying we should not have a nanny state, and we should not treat adults like children.

    The next PM then gets to decide what gets blocked (mission creep in government is a given), and sudenly you have to opt-in to reading political statements from those the government does not approve of. (e.g. wikileaks, MP expenses reports, etc.)

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      How many people *choose* to have children? Around where I live, the largest Council Estate in Europe, children "just happen", there's certainly no choosing involved.

      1. despairing citizen
        Big Brother

        Use of PM time

        So the logical conclusion is the PM's time would be better spent sorting out sex education and the use of contraceptives in family planning, rather than dreaming up censorship systems for those to lazy to supervise their off spring.

        Under the proposed scheme, would you need to opt-in to access the various materials on the internet about family planning?

        1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

          I agree with Germain Greer that there should be an opt-in system to having kids ;)

      2. John G Imrie


        I used to live in Bransholme as well, before they knocked down the 'misery maisonettes'. You have my sympathies.

  32. Oliver 7

    There is no business model for filtered Internet

    Remember AOL? They used to filter your Internet for you. Turns out people didn't want that!

    If you do want that, there are plenty of services/software available to help you do that. This approach seems fine to me!

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We could use this to kill off the Daily Mail

    The aim of the scheme is to prevent children seeing sexualised content. It is backed by the Nation's Nanny, the Daily Mail.

    If you ever visit the Mail's site (preferably manipulating your mouse using a barge pole), you'll see that they have a standard page layout of scandal on the left, slappers on the right. Most of the sleb stories feature people in bikinis or underwear. Which has to count as a sexualised image.

    So we should all complain to our ISPs and demand they block access to the Mail.

    (In the process ensuring a generation can grow up without knowing the horror of Melanie Phillips)

    1. Darren Barratt

      "Melanie Phillips" In a bikini or underwear?

    2. Anonymous Coward 15

      More hotties in the Daily Mail please

      Right-wing nutjobs need to get their rocks off too, you know.

  34. Darren Barratt
    Thumb Down

    Bad people

    Never trust anyone who immediatly start "thinking of the children" when they see porn!

  35. Rab Sssss

    Used to have to support ISP supplied filtering software...what fucking nightmare that was. Kids broke it (then machine would not boot).

    Not to mention morons installing it for no need.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like