Social Media rules
Notifications OFF
So Esther Ghey says no one should be able to access social media apps under the age of 16 plus a restriction on the type of phone a child can use (one that can not download social media apps) - and how I totally agree with her....... whilst understanding this could be difficult to control but it's a start.
Facebook etc are very dangerous platforms these days and scary when the worm turns (which it can easily do). It easily stirs up hatred and anything that curb's influencing young vulnerable minds is a good step to take in my opinion.
Facebook etc are very dangerous platforms these days and scary when the worm turns (which it can easily do). It easily stirs up hatred and anything that curb's influencing young vulnerable minds is a good step to take in my opinion.
Smile I couldn't agree more with your words- my son was subjected to both verbal and physical harassment at school and he has said that if social media had been around at the time then he would not still be alive today .
The various social media platforms need to be held more accountable and I totally support what Esther Ghey is proposing
The various social media platforms need to be held more accountable and I totally support what Esther Ghey is proposing
I watched the interview his morning on bbc news. Wholeheartedly agree and the social media outlets need to be held accountable for what they allow!. Let alone what we are all going through here but she mentioned that her daughter was using pro anerexia sites and self harm sites. So dangerous to young minds. I also cried with her, they poor family and what they gone through
Louise I watched the interview too and was in tears for what the family must be going through.
Esther Ghey has shown so much empathy towards the family of the offenders as well I think she is an amazing person.
Esther Ghey has shown so much empathy towards the family of the offenders as well I think she is an amazing person.
In a way I thought she threw some light on our plight.
How she emphasised she held no malice against the parents and pointed out the innocence of the families and was sorry for their suffering....... (which we all understand).
A very brave lady.
How she emphasised she held no malice against the parents and pointed out the innocence of the families and was sorry for their suffering....... (which we all understand).
A very brave lady.
Post deleted by user
Is there such a thing as a no internet/camera phone? think on release my son will definitely have restrictions in that area but if not allowed a phone how can I keep in touch with him?
im sure I read somewhere you can get an extremely basic phone which many students use.
im sure I read somewhere you can get an extremely basic phone which many students use.
Hi smile,
videophone do an extreemly basic phone it costs £25, £10 pcm pay as you go contract, gives you unlimited text and minutes, doesn't have internet connection but does have a very basic camera, can't sent pics or receive pics unless you pay for them a bit like when camera phones first came out. Hope that helps
videophone do an extreemly basic phone it costs £25, £10 pcm pay as you go contract, gives you unlimited text and minutes, doesn't have internet connection but does have a very basic camera, can't sent pics or receive pics unless you pay for them a bit like when camera phones first came out. Hope that helps
That sounds perfect! Thanks for the info. X
There seems to be so much activity around the end point of this problem, about what platforms should be allowed and how old you have to be to access them.
Surely the whole issue of child abuse images and dodgy chat sites could be choked off at the Internet service provider level by deleting all illegal images that pass through the ISP, whether they are being uploaded or downloaded (many have been digitally fingerprinted anyway so they can be identified by the police forensics to save them actually having to look at them) and using AI to examine conversations that that are going on on chat sites and closing the chat down as soon as they turn dodgy. For example the chat could be deleted if it mentions any specific key words or if a chat site for over 18s contains a phrase saying "I'm 12" or something.
This stuff is all possible, it can be automated, and prevents the offending material reaching people or offending conversations or taking place. It's no different really to restricting sales of firearms. No, it won't stop it entirely but it will certainly choke it off significantly and will be a lot less expensive to the state than all these police investigations, court cases, prison time, monitoring of convicted offenders and ruined families. And also might lead to more of the people putting illegal stuff online or running dodgy chat sites and apps in the first place getting picked up and convicted.
Surely the whole issue of child abuse images and dodgy chat sites could be choked off at the Internet service provider level by deleting all illegal images that pass through the ISP, whether they are being uploaded or downloaded (many have been digitally fingerprinted anyway so they can be identified by the police forensics to save them actually having to look at them) and using AI to examine conversations that that are going on on chat sites and closing the chat down as soon as they turn dodgy. For example the chat could be deleted if it mentions any specific key words or if a chat site for over 18s contains a phrase saying "I'm 12" or something.
This stuff is all possible, it can be automated, and prevents the offending material reaching people or offending conversations or taking place. It's no different really to restricting sales of firearms. No, it won't stop it entirely but it will certainly choke it off significantly and will be a lot less expensive to the state than all these police investigations, court cases, prison time, monitoring of convicted offenders and ruined families. And also might lead to more of the people putting illegal stuff online or running dodgy chat sites and apps in the first place getting picked up and convicted.
Bitterbean - I 100% agree with everything you say. It fries my brain that those in a position to make this happen won't do it! Of course this won't stop all people (men) with true ill intent, but it would go a very long way towards stamping out the opportunity for online offending.
Is there a reason the authorities won't even TRY this approach. Surely it's worth testing.
Facebook already auto-blocks images of nudity/indecency and mention of certain words/terms so surely it's straightforward to extend...
I'm not excusing or trying to exonorate offenders, but surely cutting off supply will naturally reduce uptake and engagement. And crucially massively reduce the chances of our young people ever being exposed to such horrific material.
Is there a reason the authorities won't even TRY this approach. Surely it's worth testing.
Facebook already auto-blocks images of nudity/indecency and mention of certain words/terms so surely it's straightforward to extend...
I'm not excusing or trying to exonorate offenders, but surely cutting off supply will naturally reduce uptake and engagement. And crucially massively reduce the chances of our young people ever being exposed to such horrific material.
Absolutely agree Bitterbean. Surely it's a massive epidemic now and it needs tackling. I don't understand the reasoning that by catching all these men it's deterant to others. Well it's absolutely not it's just getting worse and worse and it must be a huge cost to investigate these crimes. Money that could be pumped into shutting down sites and deleting images at source before they get to the internet. My OH said it was very easy to come across iioc, links pop up all the time on regular porn sites. It makes me so angry that my life is ruined b cause of this. Yes my partner had done something very very wrong but I just don't see anything is being done to tackle this huge problem
bitterbean I missed the bit where you said about firearms, just read your comment again. After Dunblane the laws around firearms became so so strict and yes there are still guns but nowhere near as bad as America so why not take this approach with illegal porn?. I feel massively frustrated with it all. My partner was offending for a number of years before the knock ( I feel deeply ashamed saying that). He says it was always something he knew he shouldn't be looking at. If it wasn't there he wouldn't of looked, simple!
bitterbean I missed the bit where you said about firearms, just read your comment again. After Dunblane the laws around firearms became so so strict and yes there are still guns but nowhere near as bad as America so why not take this approach with illegal porn?. I feel massively frustrated with it all. My partner was offending for a number of years before the knock ( I feel deeply ashamed saying that). He says it was always something he knew he shouldn't be looking at. If it wasn't there he wouldn't of looked, simple!
Why not? Too many vested interests
ISPs don't want the bother, expense or any implication that they may be part of the problem
Ditto the websites and social media apps. They are rich and powerful and can lobby ministers and governments against giving them extra responsibilities.
The police are happy to do it because they are easy convictions, just have to find the stuff on laptop or phone and bang! Practically irrefutable. Makes their stats look good and they can brag about numbers of children safeguarded, even if it's the same images doing the rounds.
Much easier to perpetuate the narrative that it's the evil consumers of indecent images creating demand, that even inadvertently viewing them makes them sexually attracted to children, that viewing makes them more likely to contact offend, and - look, if we get someone to pretend to be a child on an adult chat site, and then tell the person they are chatting to that they are only 15 after they have said something sexually suggestive, it completely proves our point!
The media of course, loves to report on these cases and seem to have a very prurient interest in the as well as expressing very judgemental views and encouraging their readers to do the same
ISPs don't want the bother, expense or any implication that they may be part of the problem
Ditto the websites and social media apps. They are rich and powerful and can lobby ministers and governments against giving them extra responsibilities.
The police are happy to do it because they are easy convictions, just have to find the stuff on laptop or phone and bang! Practically irrefutable. Makes their stats look good and they can brag about numbers of children safeguarded, even if it's the same images doing the rounds.
Much easier to perpetuate the narrative that it's the evil consumers of indecent images creating demand, that even inadvertently viewing them makes them sexually attracted to children, that viewing makes them more likely to contact offend, and - look, if we get someone to pretend to be a child on an adult chat site, and then tell the person they are chatting to that they are only 15 after they have said something sexually suggestive, it completely proves our point!
The media of course, loves to report on these cases and seem to have a very prurient interest in the as well as expressing very judgemental views and encouraging their readers to do the same
Bravo, Bitterbean, bravo.
Oh I wish I was courageous enough to take on awareness raising around all this. I feel as if one day I might be...
Oh I wish I was courageous enough to take on awareness raising around all this. I feel as if one day I might be...
I feel the same Intatters. I would love to shout about this it's so frustrating isn't it. I'm a completely different person since the knock. Full of anxiety, not confident and my life is in a terrible limbo and it's been over 3 years now, ridiculous! Then if he went in the papers the headlines... well we all know what they would be! " he's a monster" " lock him up, throw away the key" yet he's been left to get on with life totally free for three years! If he's such a monster then sort him quicker! Sorry went off on a rant and a tangent then!
Louise49 and intatters
I get anxious too. At the moment I'm in "angry mode" though, and although I'm not sure whether this is any better for me mentally than anxiety mode, I certainly feel stronger, and up for the fight.
Fundamentally I would question what society is trying to achieve. If it's to protect children, which I think most of us would agree is the priority, then the problem is most definitely effectively tackled at source by removing this stuff from the Internet. I don't think it's achieved effectively by arresting people, not having a court case for months or years, and not providing rehabilitation courses immediately on conviction.
I think effective protection of children would be to do the utmost to remove images at source, and removing images and chat from the platforms and websites they appear on. Don't tell me it can't be done, there's a massive industry in taking down websites circulating copyright material eg Disney
I get anxious too. At the moment I'm in "angry mode" though, and although I'm not sure whether this is any better for me mentally than anxiety mode, I certainly feel stronger, and up for the fight.
Fundamentally I would question what society is trying to achieve. If it's to protect children, which I think most of us would agree is the priority, then the problem is most definitely effectively tackled at source by removing this stuff from the Internet. I don't think it's achieved effectively by arresting people, not having a court case for months or years, and not providing rehabilitation courses immediately on conviction.
I think effective protection of children would be to do the utmost to remove images at source, and removing images and chat from the platforms and websites they appear on. Don't tell me it can't be done, there's a massive industry in taking down websites circulating copyright material eg Disney
Agree, Bitterbean. To me it seems so blindingly obvious that 'prevention is better than cure' - for many, many, many reasons (I'm too exhausted to go into detail here - but everyone here will have their own list...)
If it's not there, noone can engage with it - either accidentally or intentionally.
If it's not there, noone can engage with it - either accidentally or intentionally.
Post deleted by user
Just want an end to it
Very brave, well done. It needs more of us jumping up and down and shouting as the way the givt/legal system/police have chosen to tackle this issue is ineffective, expensive, often counterproductive and extremely destructive to families. We can all see there is a better way and I can't see why there isn't a political will to tackle it.
Very brave, well done. It needs more of us jumping up and down and shouting as the way the givt/legal system/police have chosen to tackle this issue is ineffective, expensive, often counterproductive and extremely destructive to families. We can all see there is a better way and I can't see why there isn't a political will to tackle it.
Bitterbean,
The problem is really one of legal jurisidiction. Most of the places where iioc is hosted are outside the UK. Our ISPs can block them, if they are aware of them, but then they just jump to another domain, with a different name. The IWF reports thousands of websites to many different countries, but after that it's down to that countries police force to do something about it.
You might like to read the IWFs annual report, which explains why this problem is so difficult to control.
The problem is really one of legal jurisidiction. Most of the places where iioc is hosted are outside the UK. Our ISPs can block them, if they are aware of them, but then they just jump to another domain, with a different name. The IWF reports thousands of websites to many different countries, but after that it's down to that countries police force to do something about it.
You might like to read the IWFs annual report, which explains why this problem is so difficult to control.
What annoys me is the same image can be downloaded time after time. The images my OH downloaded are probably still out there!. There should be some sort of software they can put on phones etc that block images when you search for them. Or maybe some sort of warning flags up when certain search terms are inputted. Abit like the warnings on cigarette packaging. My OH said it was very very easy to come across iioc, it's not just on the dark web it's everywhere. He said pop ups appeared all the time on legal porn websites. I feel it's just an easy way for police forces to up their conviction rate rather than tackle it at source.
Post deleted by user
There are warning messages, both on Google and also on Pornhub, if people try to search for iioc. Iphones also warn the user, if they try to upload certain images.
But the internet is filled with smaller websites and as I said, if that website is hosted in a foreign country, then only the police in that country can take it down.
But the internet is filled with smaller websites and as I said, if that website is hosted in a foreign country, then only the police in that country can take it down.