Warming the Bed
well thats it, this forum can be monitored 24/7 it is of no concern to me
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
1984
Orgasminator
So let me get this straight and I want to stress that this is not a dig at anyone.
What many of you are saying is that you are not prepared to supervise your children whilst they are doing something potentially very dangerous? Yet you are prepared to delegate that responsibility to someone who doesn't have an emotional attachment to your children (i.e. it just a job to them), therefore may possibly miss warning signs that you, their parent, would pick up?
If that is the case then I think we in the UK have come to rely too much on the State and not enough upon ourselves.
An analogy
Would you allow your children to roam the streets of Soho late in the evening? The Police patrol Soho, there are CCTV cameras everywhere, but would you allow them to go by themselves?
OK you may say its not the same thing and I would agree with you. The Internet is very much more dangerous than Soho. How do I know, I have to go and sort out the mess adults, not children, adults get themselves into when they go "exploring" on the Internet. One computer last week had 916 viruses and trojans on it. My fee made his eyes water but the bill from BT (hidden premium rate dialer loaded) put pay the the family's holiday this year and probably next as well.
What I'm saying is surely its the parents' responsibility to look after their children not the State's. Surely the State should only take over that responsibility when the parents are no longer capable?
Please note that these are just comments and thoughts to get people thinking about the subject and to provoke debate, they are not a dig at anyone.
What many of you are saying is that you are not prepared to supervise your children whilst they are doing something potentially very dangerous? Yet you are prepared to delegate that responsibility to someone who doesn't have an emotional attachment to your children (i.e. it just a job to them), therefore may possibly miss warning signs that you, their parent, would pick up?
If that is the case then I think we in the UK have come to rely too much on the State and not enough upon ourselves.
An analogy
Would you allow your children to roam the streets of Soho late in the evening? The Police patrol Soho, there are CCTV cameras everywhere, but would you allow them to go by themselves?
OK you may say its not the same thing and I would agree with you. The Internet is very much more dangerous than Soho. How do I know, I have to go and sort out the mess adults, not children, adults get themselves into when they go "exploring" on the Internet. One computer last week had 916 viruses and trojans on it. My fee made his eyes water but the bill from BT (hidden premium rate dialer loaded) put pay the the family's holiday this year and probably next as well.
What I'm saying is surely its the parents' responsibility to look after their children not the State's. Surely the State should only take over that responsibility when the parents are no longer capable?
Please note that these are just comments and thoughts to get people thinking about the subject and to provoke debate, they are not a dig at anyone.
Orgasminator
I am always loathed to post on these issues, because they are very emotive for people, myself included....
The internet is no more and no less dangerous than the off line world (a wonderfull new buzz phrase I heard reciently, lol)
What is needed is not 24/7 survelence by parents or the authorities, but parents explaining to children the potential dangers in the same way my parents told me not to talk to strangers.
True, on the on line world there is a problem... everyone is a stranger (bar contacts already known to you/your children) but the inherent danger is probably less than the kindly old person who sits in the park with his dog and bag of sweets... a well educated child will not arrainge a meet, the children most at risk in the on line world tend to be those children who's parents are detatched from them, children living in a household with parents that always argue, children whos parents are always out, whos parents are to pushy of thier children, or to lax in their care.... Bar the pushy parent types, these are also the kind of parents whos children roam the streets late at night, or whos children are always in trouble due to living in an abusive environment household, which includes overly pushy or dominering parents.
The way of a parent is not an easy one, its all by trial and error and by the lessons we learned through our own upbringing... although sometimes we try not to be our parents, or want better for our children than we felt we had, or want them to attain a higher status than we ourselves reached, but I digress.
All things being equal, a child is reasonably safe given the information and advise they need to protect themselves. The state watching isnt going to protect anyone, it never has and never will.
One problem is the more the state nannys, the more people decide to advocate their responsibility... "oh well the state will look over them" or "we cant even tell our kids off any more, so why should we bother to control them... the state said they would do it for us."
We have a government that is very quickly moving towards totaly removing a parents right to physically chastise (note I dont use the emotive words, smack or hit) our children. But I know from bitter personal experience, the repercussions of which are still affecting my son, that mentaly abusive chastisement can be far more damaging to a child... it is not usually the fact that a child is hit that causes the damage but the words that accompany the physical punishment... its not *SMACK, you nearly got killed running into the road" but *Screaming into a childs face* "you stupid little kid, what the hell did you do that for you idiot...." So where has the nannying got us in this case... no where...
The state wants the power and control, so we give it to them, then stand back and wonder why its all going wrong because the state isnt there as much as we are, because we dont warn our children because we expect the state to have done it, we dont teach our children to read from the point of birth by reading to them, because the state will do it when they get to school, we dont even give our children warnings about chat rooms, because the state has told us they will monitor them.
The if it saves one argument just doesnt hold water (sorry this is not a personal reference, but I've heard it used so many times) at what cost that one life... do we ban tampons due to the one life that may be saved by the banning of them, do we ban the contraceptive pill because of the one life... Do we ban driving because of the one life. We have already pulled down the kids play areas, the climbing frames to protect the children whos parents dont watch them and warn them that perhaps they are not big enough to climb to the top, we expect the state to make everything so safe that when a child is hurt on a kids play area we sue the state... we stop our kids going out to play because we see the world full of pedophiles, we sue Mc-donalds for over feeding our kids and making them fat, yet dont allow our kids to play out and dont tell our kids they cant have every day... because the state should do that for us, there should be warnings on the food saying that eating to many of these will make you fat. Coffee cups that have warnings saying "contence may be hot" Poisons saying "do no eat" Heating tongs saying "warning hot surface, also do not place in water due to risk of electric shock" Cookers with warnings on the door saying "hot" at what point to we take responsibility, if I trip up in the street on a loose paving slab, do I sue or curse myself for not looking where I was going; do we just decide "the state will take care of everything"
To be honest, I quite believe that the people that post on a regular basis to these forums are more likely to be the type of people that are inteligent enough not to fall in the above category, we are able to converse ideas even if we dont agree with each other, we know the risks we may take with swinging, but are able to weigh them up and take an educated risk.
No one can really take care of us, or our children, even we cannot take care of our children 24/7 all we can do is hope we give them the information they need to protect themselves, and hope to god they dont have to many hurts in their lifes and out live us in the long run.
The internet is no more and no less dangerous than the off line world (a wonderfull new buzz phrase I heard reciently, lol)
What is needed is not 24/7 survelence by parents or the authorities, but parents explaining to children the potential dangers in the same way my parents told me not to talk to strangers.
True, on the on line world there is a problem... everyone is a stranger (bar contacts already known to you/your children) but the inherent danger is probably less than the kindly old person who sits in the park with his dog and bag of sweets... a well educated child will not arrainge a meet, the children most at risk in the on line world tend to be those children who's parents are detatched from them, children living in a household with parents that always argue, children whos parents are always out, whos parents are to pushy of thier children, or to lax in their care.... Bar the pushy parent types, these are also the kind of parents whos children roam the streets late at night, or whos children are always in trouble due to living in an abusive environment household, which includes overly pushy or dominering parents.
The way of a parent is not an easy one, its all by trial and error and by the lessons we learned through our own upbringing... although sometimes we try not to be our parents, or want better for our children than we felt we had, or want them to attain a higher status than we ourselves reached, but I digress.
All things being equal, a child is reasonably safe given the information and advise they need to protect themselves. The state watching isnt going to protect anyone, it never has and never will.
One problem is the more the state nannys, the more people decide to advocate their responsibility... "oh well the state will look over them" or "we cant even tell our kids off any more, so why should we bother to control them... the state said they would do it for us."
We have a government that is very quickly moving towards totaly removing a parents right to physically chastise (note I dont use the emotive words, smack or hit) our children. But I know from bitter personal experience, the repercussions of which are still affecting my son, that mentaly abusive chastisement can be far more damaging to a child... it is not usually the fact that a child is hit that causes the damage but the words that accompany the physical punishment... its not *SMACK, you nearly got killed running into the road" but *Screaming into a childs face* "you stupid little kid, what the hell did you do that for you idiot...." So where has the nannying got us in this case... no where...
The state wants the power and control, so we give it to them, then stand back and wonder why its all going wrong because the state isnt there as much as we are, because we dont warn our children because we expect the state to have done it, we dont teach our children to read from the point of birth by reading to them, because the state will do it when they get to school, we dont even give our children warnings about chat rooms, because the state has told us they will monitor them.
The if it saves one argument just doesnt hold water (sorry this is not a personal reference, but I've heard it used so many times) at what cost that one life... do we ban tampons due to the one life that may be saved by the banning of them, do we ban the contraceptive pill because of the one life... Do we ban driving because of the one life. We have already pulled down the kids play areas, the climbing frames to protect the children whos parents dont watch them and warn them that perhaps they are not big enough to climb to the top, we expect the state to make everything so safe that when a child is hurt on a kids play area we sue the state... we stop our kids going out to play because we see the world full of pedophiles, we sue Mc-donalds for over feeding our kids and making them fat, yet dont allow our kids to play out and dont tell our kids they cant have every day... because the state should do that for us, there should be warnings on the food saying that eating to many of these will make you fat. Coffee cups that have warnings saying "contence may be hot" Poisons saying "do no eat" Heating tongs saying "warning hot surface, also do not place in water due to risk of electric shock" Cookers with warnings on the door saying "hot" at what point to we take responsibility, if I trip up in the street on a loose paving slab, do I sue or curse myself for not looking where I was going; do we just decide "the state will take care of everything"
To be honest, I quite believe that the people that post on a regular basis to these forums are more likely to be the type of people that are inteligent enough not to fall in the above category, we are able to converse ideas even if we dont agree with each other, we know the risks we may take with swinging, but are able to weigh them up and take an educated risk.
No one can really take care of us, or our children, even we cannot take care of our children 24/7 all we can do is hope we give them the information they need to protect themselves, and hope to god they dont have to many hurts in their lifes and out live us in the long run.
Its all very well infering that we should all loose some privacy because some parents (my inferance) cant be bothered to keep tracks on what their kids are doing, but this is the start of what could be a very steep downward slope for what remains of democracy in our country.
I am sure that once mointoring of chatrooms is established it wont be long before the thought police are tapping into all pm's and messenger they will be calling round each day to see that little Johnny has eaten his five portions of fruit and veg!!
I see no one has answered my original pointr, would you rather our limited number of police officers were monitoring chat rooms and catching maybe a handful of peadophiles per year or would you rathjer have them out on the streets catching the guy who was about to break inot your car or house?
I am sure that once mointoring of chatrooms is established it wont be long before the thought police are tapping into all pm's and messenger they will be calling round each day to see that little Johnny has eaten his five portions of fruit and veg!!
I see no one has answered my original pointr, would you rather our limited number of police officers were monitoring chat rooms and catching maybe a handful of peadophiles per year or would you rathjer have them out on the streets catching the guy who was about to break inot your car or house?
Quote by foxylady 123
I I see no one has answered my original pointr, would you rather our limited number of police officers were monitoring chat rooms and catching maybe a handful of peadophiles per year or would you rathjer have them out on the streets catching the guy who was about to break inot your car or house?
Is it a simple choice?? Can they not do both? Do we have to chose between the police catching murderers or catching road tax dodgers? I think road tax dodgers are potential murderers cos they probably don't have insurance either and probably drive too fast for the conditions of the road... so.. no simple answers there.
All areas of society should be policed for the greater good (c John Stuart Mill) and if that means that indivuals lose a tiny piece of 'freedom' then so what! Try living in China where access to the Internet is monitored and restricted - what about Middle East countries where access to Internet is limited AND monitored??
Think yourself lucky you live in this 'free' society or make more than loud noises to change things. Stand up somewhere relevant and be counted - campaign to change things - don't just moan!
Ooops - end of rant!
Quote by Jags
All areas of society should be policed for the great good (c John Stuart Mill) and if that means that indivuals lose a tiny piece of 'freedom' then so what! Try living in China where access to the Internet is monitored and restricted - what about Middle East countries where access to Internet is limited AND monitored??
Those losses in freedom have to be very well justified though. We are not living in the same society Mill did. We've moved from the battle of society to tame chaotic patterns of behaviour to the battle of the individual to assert their rights within or without society (Pirsig).
I don't feel that the benifit to society of having the police monitor communications in this case is.
Think yourself lucky you live in this 'free' society or make more than loud noises to change things. Stand up somewhere relevant and be counted - campaign to change things - don't just moan!
How do you know we don't? I'm certainly politically active, a member of a political party here in Scotland. I help voluntary groups, I'm helping to set up a social entrepeneurship system and co-operative in England. Talking about it and discussing these issues on a fairly un-related web-board is valuable in bringing these issues up with people who might not connect with regular political or philisophical activism.
/my rant
Recently, a Somerset musician had a Special Branch officer turn up to interview him at his place of work, after he accidently texted the lyrics of the Clash song Tommy Gun to a wrong number. (the text read "How about this for Tommy Gun? OK - SO LET'S AGREE ABOUT THE PRICE AND MAKE IT ONE JET AIRLINER FOR TEN PRISONERS").
If the police (a Special Branch officer no less, a pretty expensive and you would hope highly trained resource) can show such a lack of judgement - a simple Google search would have answered his question - shouldn't you be a little concerned about them having access to a wealth of collated, indexed and cross-referenced information about your sexual proclivities?
Add to this the current government's love of information sharing "for your convenience" (cf. current government proposals to make your medical records automatically available to social services without you asking for it, which the GMC are quite rightly fighting tooth and claw against), which means that more likely than not, a handy summary of your month's activities will pop up on the desktop of your local social worker in the not too distant future...
CM
If the police (a Special Branch officer no less, a pretty expensive and you would hope highly trained resource) can show such a lack of judgement - a simple Google search would have answered his question - shouldn't you be a little concerned about them having access to a wealth of collated, indexed and cross-referenced information about your sexual proclivities?
Add to this the current government's love of information sharing "for your convenience" (cf. current government proposals to make your medical records automatically available to social services without you asking for it, which the GMC are quite rightly fighting tooth and claw against), which means that more likely than not, a handy summary of your month's activities will pop up on the desktop of your local social worker in the not too distant future...
CM
Those losses in freedom have to be very well justified though. We are not living in the same society Mill did. We've moved from the battle of society to tame chaotic patterns of behaviour to the battle of the individual to assert their rights within or without society (Pirsig).
Yes, we don't live in the times which had need of Utilitarianism but the mores just shift along a bit - we have other mores to conform to and to battle against but still we need to consider the 'greater good' - it's an important principal Just cos I hate fish (and I do!!) doesn't mean that I should ban fishing, fish 'n' chip shops, wet fish shops etc. I live with the fact that others 'like' and I don't 'like'.
Think yourself lucky you live in this 'free' society or make more than loud noises to change things. Stand up somewhere relevant and be counted - campaign to change things - don't just moan!
How do you know we don't?I
I was being 'general' there cos I'm damned certain that you are in the minority. (see previous ranting from me about those who don't vote, irrespective of political alleigance) so sorry if you thought I meant you.
I'm certainly politically active, a member of a political party here in Scotland. I help voluntary groups, I'm helping to set up a social entrepeneurship system and co-operative in England. Talking about it and discussing these issues on a fairly un-related web-board is valuable in bringing these issues up with people who might not connect with regular political or philisophical activism.
Do you recall the days of 7:84? Red Clydeside? et al - I'm up there with you. Many others take the easy road and don't do anything to make a difference - don't vote just moan.
All rants welcome here - various shades allowed apart from those with legal restrictions attached.
Quote by foxylady 123
I see no one has answered my original pointr, would you rather our limited number of police officers were monitoring chat rooms and catching maybe a handful of peadophiles per year or would you rathjer have them out on the streets catching the guy who was about to break inot your car or house?
Well in my books - no contest - a handful of padophiles! People (children) are far more important than inanimate possessions! A car, TV etc can be insured and replaced - you cannot replace the loss of childhood ever!
I'll stress this is just my opinion.
Quote by foxylady 123
Given our current goverments reluctance to be unpopular and increase taxes then yes I do think we have a simple choice as to how our resouces are spent
I do really hope you voted this week - cos I did. We have a postal vote pilot here and the piece of paper I received was long enough to bandage a 6' long femur!!!
:D Quote by Jags
Do you recall the days of 7:84? Red Clydeside? et al - I'm up there with you. Many others take the easy road and don't do anything to make a difference - don't vote just moan.
I'm supposed to be at 7:84theatres amnesty thing at the tron on Sunday - not sure I'm going to make it. Might go the euro count thought to see what happens.....
Quote by Jags
I do really hope you voted this week - cos I did. We have a postal vote pilot here and the piece of paper I received was long enough to bandage a 6' long femur!!!
Ahh Jags - you had postal voting too?
Dear God - what a pallvar. Whoever came up with that idea. I can imagine there was a lot of incorrectly assembled ballot papers returned! I consider myself reasonably intelligent and I found it confusing. I feel sorry for the elderly voters and those with reading difficulties - they must have found it a nightmare.
Like you - I'm a firm believer in voting. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about those in power.
Alex x
Well in my books - no contest - a handful of padophiles! People (children) are far more important than inanimate possessions! A car, TV etc can be insured and replaced - you cannot replace the loss of childhood ever!
Of course children are important that is why it is the parents job to protect them!! The state has enough to do withouth babysitting.
I also voted and we also suffered from Presscotts postal voting fiasco.I felt deprived of my "right" to a proper election. Still this is another thread I think!!
Quote by billybofh
Do you recall the days of 7:84? Red Clydeside? et al - I'm up there with you. Many others take the easy road and don't do anything to make a difference - don't vote just moan.
I'm supposed to be at 7:84theatres amnesty thing at the tron on Sunday - not sure I'm going to make it. Might go the euro count thought to see what happens.....
Ooh.. now the very mention of the Tron brings back so many happy memories for me... I am that Weegie isolated in Englandshire!!
Think being political could be a Bonnyland thing cos I haven't met anyone as rabid down here.
Quote by foxylady 123
Well in my books - no contest - a handful of padophiles! People (children) are far more important than inanimate possessions! A car, TV etc can be insured and replaced - you cannot replace the loss of childhood ever!
Of course children are important that is why it is the parents job to protect them!! The state has enough to do withouth babysitting.
I also voted and we also suffered from Presscotts postal voting fiasco.I felt deprived of my "right" to a proper election. Still this is another thread I think!!
Foxy - I am not suggesting that the state babysits. But I do think it is totally unfair to always blame the parents. As I have said previously, I consider myself fortunate to have daughters who (to this point) are very level headed and sensible.
But during the formative teenage years it can be a very emotional time for girls in particular and they can become very susceptible to the attention of people who sound understanding and sympathetic. These girls often have worries and doubts about themselves which they do not wish to discuss with their parents. It does not mean that these girls have bad or uncaring parents or that they come from a deprived background, if they fall for the lines that these paedophiles spin them. I am certain that the vast majority of the incidents we have heard of on the TV over recent years relate to normal girls with normal loving families.
OK I've said enough - I didn't intend to get into any type of argument - I just feel that we are all getting a little paranoid over a so called lack of privacy when chat rooms are far from private anyway. If we want privacy - use PM or creat a private room.
Keeping shtumm now!
Hugs if I have offended anyone
Quote by Jags
I'm supposed to be at 7:84theatres amnesty thing at the tron on Sunday - not sure I'm going to make it. Might go the euro count thought to see what happens.....
Ooh.. now the very mention of the Tron brings back so many happy memories for me... I am that Weegie isolated in Englandshire!!
Think being political could be a Bonnyland thing cos I haven't met anyone as rabid down here.
No indeed - I think the clydeside water gets into the blood :)
Are you ever back up here? We could rant over a drink in Mono or the Scotia :)
Quote by billybofh
I'm supposed to be at 7:84theatres amnesty thing at the tron on Sunday - not sure I'm going to make it. Might go the euro count thought to see what happens.....
Ooh.. now the very mention of the Tron brings back so many happy memories for me... I am that Weegie isolated in Englandshire!!
Think being political could be a Bonnyland thing cos I haven't met anyone as rabid down here.
No indeed - I think the clydeside water gets into the blood :)
Are you ever back up here? We could rant over a drink in Mono or the Scotia :)
I'm often up there - told you... I wander around the West End loads. Next time I'm there I'll PM you and we can share a rant or two!
