Cameron the cock-block

[Spacecadet]

**** **** ****

The broadband is in the wifes name

[SimonMac]

**** **** ****

The broadband is in the wifes name

[TheFaQQer]

Cameron, The Mail or the tattybojangles?

The first two.

[d000hg]

Meanwhile, we'll decry rogue states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea which censor their citizens and don't let them see what is on the internet.

They don't get a choice to opt in though.

[TheFaQQer]

They don't get a choice to opt in though.

Nor will we if everything that Cameron wants happens.

[darmstadt]

Google already has pretty much an 'opt-in' with: Safe Search for Kids. The Google safe search engine for kids with friendly search. and I would presume most other search engines do to. This is all absolute bollocks and should be 'opt-out' if anything and is going to cause more problems than it cures. ******* numpty nanny state, try educating the parents instead knobend wet behind the ears Tory

[BrilloPad]

Why don't they just legalize it and tax it?

[doodab]

Why don't they just legalize it and tax it?

Wanking tax? How will they enforce that?

[BrilloPad]

Wanking tax? How will they enforce that?

Eye tests. The further from 20/20 you are the more tax you pay.

[darmstadt]

Is it going to be anything like the 'V-chip' in septic televisions? If so, one of the arguments used to legislate that was over public concern with young people committing acts of violence such as school massacres. Looks like thats a great success, in fact something like only 15% of people actually activate it. However, if he does go ahead then hopefully the Daily Mail will be blocked, a website that on its front page bellows for laws to stop pornography yet on its sidebar shows pictures of under 16's in skimpy clothing with text to match. You do realise that the next step is they will use this as an argument to continue to intercept all internet communications legally in order to crack down on porn (if its only child porn, then yes, this is reasonably acceptable but it won't stop there.)