on line porn

vq CEOP is now under the umbrella of SOCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, so there is access to heavy resourcing when needed. This facilitates international investigations more readily than before. I agree with you that it doesn't fit for there to be this renewed effort to curb online porn whilst reducing the budget by 10%, but this happens all the time with priority polce work being ring-fenced whilst it develops, then being aborbed into other departments when systems are functioning well. I guess the anti-terrorism budget is priority at present, and even that has not been increased.

@Vampirequeen. Do you seriously mean to tell me that the actors in porn films are interviewed and the public are shown that they have not been harmed by taking part? Doesn't that mean there is a belief that they could be? I am a firm believer that what is not shown is far more sexually arousing than what is explicitly shown. The brain is the best sex toy going.i once watched a sex show in Amsterdam, fairly down market and felt baffled that anyone would do that for a living. Scrubbing floors would have more satisfaction.

I think people have read your posts vampirequeen judging by the thoughtful responses. Opting in is not censorship - it is giving people a choice. After all, you make an analogy with horror films, but don't they come with age appropriate certificates, similarly to protect the young?

Yes.

Several years ago my then 10 year old grandson and his friend googled 'Sexy Ladies Dancing' on the friends' computer. This led them very quickly to serious adult porn sites.
THAT is why even 'normal' porn should only be accessible by responsible adults opting in to receive it.

Has anyone read my posts. I have never said that child abuse should be allowed. It is illegal and the internet providers set up the IWF to hunt it down. IWF can close access but these sites will simply reopen under another name so they send their info to CEOP as only the police can undertake the investigations required to get to the users. This way they are getting to the abusers.

The gov have reduced the funding to CEOP so don't be fooled into thinking that this attack on porn is anything more than politicking.

This opt in idea has gradually been introduced throughout the day. The first reports talked about blocking sites and banning certain types of consenting adult porn.

What worries me is that we accept the censoring of porn by this opt in procedure then they introduce something else we have to opt in to. I still think this is the thin edge of the wedge.

I think having to 'opt in' is a very sensible idea and one that many parents will welcome. ISPs need to work together for this to happen and it seems that they are on board with it. As long as the same ISP is used for all devices in a home, the 'opt in' will cover the lot, so that parents don't have to worry about protecting PCs, tablets and smart phones separately. It won't be a perfect solution but is a step in the right direction to protect the young and vulnerable.

We have a violent, sexualised culture that accepts materials that are hostile to the protection of children. We give mixed messages to children when women are objectified and degraded, and on the same pages of newspapers they are held up to scrutiny for cellulite and wrinkles, criticised for dressing like tarts, air-brushed so they look unnatural, and ridiculed because they agreed to be filmed giving their boyfriends a blow-job on a video that ends up on YouTube. Why on earth are we pondering about censorship whilst this is happening? Something drastic needs doing - not total censorship - reasonable obstacles to access to the kind of materials that are harmful for children to see when they would be confused and misinformed about what loving adult humans do with each other in private.

But surely the main reason child porn is banned is to protect children, both those being abused and those who by seeing both child porn and, more importantly, adult porn are having their own views and attitudes to sex distorted before they have even reached physical maturity.

There is plenty of evidence that boys and young men are modelling their sexual behaviour on coercive porn that portrays women as passive acceptors of male domination and demands that are demeaning and humiliating. An increasing number of young girls are being assaulted by their boyfriends and accepting that this is how things should be. Young men are seeing sex as a means of control and not of a mutual loving relationship.

This is Cameron playing to the camera and nothing to do with truly protecting our children. If the gov really cared they wouldn't have cut the funding to CEOP.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22942164

No one is saying that images and videos showing child abuse should be allowed.

My point is that banning porn or making it more difficult to access won't stop child abuse or sexual crime.

Rape is a crime but non-consensual situations are part of bdsm...part of a game/role play. It's not the same thing. Just because some people don't like porn doesn't mean it should be banned anymore than horror films should be banned because other people don't like them.

Nobody is suggesting that pornography shouldn't be available to those that want access to it. It is just suggested that people should have to "opt in" to obtain that access. That is not censorship.

I'm far more concerned about the effect on young minds of seeing the type of porn that has been described - often depicting violence against and degradation of women - than I am about people being embarrassed about having to "opt in".

Those that work with young people are worried that their exposure to this sort of material is distorting their view of sexual relationships and encouraging boys to think of girls as mere commodities.

I thought the idea was to make porn unavailable by default. Anyone wishing to view it would still be able to do so but would have to opt in. Illegal porn is another matter. Most isn't accessed via Search Engines but by peer to peer contact and trading of material. I'm totally in favour of the Government's moves to try and control illegal porn - it's not much but it's a start.

There was a discussion on GN a few weeks back about lads' mags in newagents - they are a different level and I don't have a problem with those but the vile, corrupting images and videos of real children being abused which are available are a different matter. Anything that can be done to make them less accessible is a good thing and nothing to do with censorship.

The porn that is being made illegal is that which is a crime already. Child porn in any form and adult rape. All other porn will be available by opting in.

It is all very well to say that it is up to parents to make sure computers have porn filters switched on, and most conscientious and good parents will but some parents will not have the capacity or knowledge to know how to do it and not all parents are good and conscientious. There are those who are lazy, indifferent or down right uncaring and they will not bother to exercise any control over their children or their online viewing.

Just because I don't like gratuitous violence in movies doesn't mean I think these movies should be banned. I just choose not to watch them.

How does it damage the people being filmed? How does it damage me when I watch it? If you read my last post you will see that sex crimes and abuse were committed long before the internet porn sites.

If it's banned completely then parental controls won't be needed. Good thing too if, as you say, parents don't know how to work them.

Porn most likely damages the people being filmed, even though they are making money from it. And it damages the watcher and the innocent people against whom offences are comitted as a result of said porn. (sorry for clumsy sentence)

The opting in appears to be by adjusting the parental controls according to the lunch time news. Earlier was a bit vaguer. How many adults know how to/bother to use the parental controls? How many children know the systems better than their parents and can simply alter them?

Child abuse and images of child abuse are already illegal. The government is talking about banning images and videos created by and for consenting adults.

JO8 ...who does porn damage? The men and especially the women who work in the industry are well paid. Adults who watch choose to watch. Children should not access it but surely that is a parental issue as neither should they be able to access scenes of violence and horror.

Those who groom children are active on facebook and other sites that are attractive to children and teenagers. Should we ban those sites? Oh but hang on my abuser didn't have access to the internet in the early sixties but it didn't stop him so even if those sites didn't exist the paedophiles would still find ways of accessing children. Adult rape took place before internet porn or indeed any porn became available as it's not a crime related to sex as much as a crime related to power....'I will do this to you because I can' rather than 'I will do this to you because I've seen images/videos of it and it's given me ideas and a need for relief'.

If you ban porn to prevent children of irresponsible parents from accessing it then you will have to ban lots of other sites in order to protect children from seeing images and videos of age inappropriate material. So ban the newspapers, the magazines, the film sites, the game sites...the list is endless.

I want a free uncensored internet not one that allows us to see what the government want us to see. If we let them control one aspect then we open the door to any ban they wish to make.

Totally agree when and Iam.

I understand your concerns about censorship and government control vampirequeen. However, my initial response to the proposal that adults have to opt in to porn sites, rather than opt out, is why not? It could offer a level of protection to children and adolescents that doesn't exist currently. I agree with you that generally the positives of the internet hugely outweigh the negatives. I feel strongly that Edward Snowden is being unfairly treated etc. However, what's the problem in asking adults to opt in, if this provides some protection for the vulnerable. 30 plus years of working in the area of child abuse has done nothing to endear pornography to me.

It certainly needs to start with any abusive images that are evidence of a sexual crime against children being committed.

Who is to define what is or isn't 'pornography'? We have seen this kind of nonsense before - remember Scunthorpe, Arsenal and Clitheroe - all suffered at the behest of computer censorship!

Cameron has really lost the plot this time. Let parents take the reponsibility of imposing limits on their children - we do not want or need another Firewall of China...

It's not censorship if you can opt in to view it. The issue of anonymity is separate.

And I think Wikileaks is damaging too. Damaging to national and international security.

I thought it was only child pornography they are looking to completely wipe out. Although I would be more than happy to see all online porn go. I think it's damaging.