Discussion:
OT: The blame game
Add Reply
Jenny M Benson
2017-07-22 16:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to lift
up their shirts, etc.

AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school staff
that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
--
Jenny M Benson
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-22 17:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to
lift up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school
staff that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")

So, once they've got these app.s, the next hurdle is how to stop them
using them unsupervised (bedroom or anywhere else). I don't know enough
about such things technically, but I doubt there's any technical means
to do so. Which leaves only telling them not to - which I can't see
working.

The schools matter is different: there, I agree with you totally - the
school should have absolute right to require fobile moans to be turned
off, at least during lessons. (And I mean fully off, not in
sleep/vibrate/whatever mode.) On penalty of confiscation at least.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)
Vicky
2017-07-22 20:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:12:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to
lift up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school
staff that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
So, once they've got these app.s, the next hurdle is how to stop them
using them unsupervised (bedroom or anywhere else). I don't know enough
about such things technically, but I doubt there's any technical means
to do so. Which leaves only telling them not to - which I can't see
working.
The schools matter is different: there, I agree with you totally - the
school should have absolute right to require fobile moans to be turned
off, at least during lessons. (And I mean fully off, not in
sleep/vibrate/whatever mode.) On penalty of confiscation at least.
I got a free sim with free data and x number of calls from talk talk
and we had an old phone, no internet ability, so I gave it to
grandson. He began walking home alone some days this year and I had to
collect his baby sister elsewhere at the same time and meet him there.
I liked that he had the phone.

When i checked about what happens in school, as several kids have
phones, I was told they all have to be switched off and handed in and
are kept in the office and given back at the end of the school day.

After a month or two I got an email from talktalk saying the allowance
of free calls had been execeeded and there was to be a charge of £17+
so they'd put a block on the sim until it was paid. I told them not to
unblock it as there had been a large allowance of called and checked
my account online. The call was a 20 second one to something called
trafficreport. I umbrella. There was no number showed up on my
account, just the name, but when I got the phone it showed 2222 had
been dialled.

I asked grandson if it was a game and he denied calling it so we
googled and it was a con talktalk had known about since 2013 and
should have blocked. I complained and they halved the bill. I
complained several times more and said close the a/c and they did and
removed the charge. I'm going to give grandson the phone back and
suggest his dad gets him a sim and a/c.

Grandson is addicted to online games and is allowed to use dad'd
computer and mum's laptop or tablet to play. I look at what he's
playing now and then when minding him and his sister after school. He
often goes to his room to get away from the 2 year old who wants his
attention. I do wonder whether I'd know if he were chatting
unsuitably. He does chat online.

He's going to a video games design course all next week. He's very
keen on that sort of thing and dad is a software engineer. In the
final year class booklet where all the children in the year had names,
photos and information about them, including what they hoped to do
after leaving school, he had put he wanted to be a senior computer
engineer. I loved that he put senior :).
--
Vicky
Chris McMillan
2017-07-23 13:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to
lift up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school
staff that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
Sorry, but I dispute this 'parents don't know about computing'. Today's
parents have been using computing at work at the very least, the 1980s
child learnt computing at school: they are today's millenials, all trendy
and glued to their phobiles and tablets. Today's grandparents aged 65 and
under are also mostly computer literate being of the BBC, Acorn and early
home computing generation.

But I do blame the current way of life that anyone at secondary school
travels with a mobile unsupervised on public transport so can get up to
mischief well before their bedrooms.

Sincerely Chris
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
So, once they've got these app.s, the next hurdle is how to stop them
using them unsupervised (bedroom or anywhere else). I don't know enough
about such things technically, but I doubt there's any technical means
to do so. Which leaves only telling them not to - which I can't see
working.
The schools matter is different: there, I agree with you totally - the
school should have absolute right to require fobile moans to be turned
off, at least during lessons. (And I mean fully off, not in
sleep/vibrate/whatever mode.) On penalty of confiscation at least.
Vicky
2017-07-23 17:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:21:40 GMT, Chris McMillan
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
Sorry, but I dispute this 'parents don't know about computing'. Today's
parents have been using computing at work at the very least, the 1980s
child learnt computing at school: they are today's millenials, all trendy
and glued to their phobiles and tablets. Today's grandparents aged 65 and
under are also mostly computer literate being of the BBC, Acorn and early
home computing generation.
Sincerely Chris
I think the members of the BBC/Acorn generation who used computers
were a minority. Many friends my age, school friends who went on to
have professional jobs, are not into computers. They used word
processors and spreadsheets as necessary but even if on fb don't
really follow it. They are certainly less able than the average 10
year-old.

I actually was interested on online stuff, games etc, but the 11
year-old and every the 2 year-old can access stuff on the nuggering
tablet or iphone more easily than I can.
--
Vicky
Vicky
2017-07-23 17:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:21:40 GMT, Chris McMillan
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
Sorry, but I dispute this 'parents don't know about computing'. Today's
parents have been using computing at work at the very least, the 1980s
child learnt computing at school: they are today's millenials, all trendy
and glued to their phobiles and tablets. Today's grandparents aged 65 and
under are also mostly computer literate being of the BBC, Acorn and early
home computing generation.
Sincerely Chris
I think the members of the BBC/Acorn generation who used computers
were a minority. Many friends my age, school friends who went on to
have professional jobs, are not into computers. They used word
processors and spreadsheets as necessary but even if on fb don't
really follow it. They are certainly less able than the average 10
year-old.
I actually was interested on online stuff, games etc, but the 11
year-old and every the 2 year-old can access stuff on the nuggering
tablet or iphone more easily than I can.
Ooops that was even the two year-old. I don't know about every one.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-23 20:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Vicky
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:21:40 GMT, Chris McMillan
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
Sorry, but I dispute this 'parents don't know about computing'. Today's
parents have been using computing at work at the very least, the 1980s
I am well reprimanded; I was just lazily echoing what the press like to
say, and forgetting that my generation and the one after are today's
parents and grandparents. However ...
Post by Vicky
Post by Vicky
Post by Chris McMillan
child learnt computing at school: they are today's millenials, all trendy
and glued to their phobiles and tablets. Today's grandparents aged 65 and
under are also mostly computer literate being of the BBC, Acorn and early
home computing generation.
Sincerely Chris
I think the members of the BBC/Acorn generation who used computers
were a minority. Many friends my age, school friends who went on to
... yes, the term "nerd" and whatever preceded it has always been with
us, especially the attitude that goes with its use.

Just because they _use_ their fobiles, tablets, Facebook, and so on,
doesn't really mean they know how to do anything with them other than
the basic.
Post by Vicky
Post by Vicky
have professional jobs, are not into computers. They used word
processors and spreadsheets as necessary but even if on fb don't
really follow it. They are certainly less able than the average 10
year-old.
Yes; it's not 'parents don't know about computing', but they aren't as
familiar with it, especially things like social media - even
facebook/twitter are probably old hat; the current networks (?) are
things that are out of date by the time I have absorbed what they're
called (I've heard of Snapchat [though don't really know what it
is/does], which probably means that's been superseded). Given this state
of affairs, I think children - especially when they spend a lot more
time talking (well, communicating) with their friends on them than their
parents have time to spend controlling them - usually know (and tell
each other) about how to get round whatever controls exist or are
invented.

Note that I'm not saying the battle is lost - just that it's not simple.
Post by Vicky
Post by Vicky
I actually was interested on online stuff, games etc, but the 11
And I was interested in the underlying hardware and software.
Post by Vicky
Post by Vicky
year-old and every the 2 year-old can access stuff on the nuggering
tablet or iphone more easily than I can.
Ooops that was even the two year-old. I don't know about every one.
Yes, they do have a disconcerting familiarity with the kit, don't they!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She's showing her age a little bit. I always say she doesn't have teething
troubles, she has denture troubles! - Timothy West (on their narrowboat!), RT
2014-March
Chris J Dixon
2017-07-24 07:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Just because they _use_ their fobiles, tablets, Facebook, and so on,
doesn't really mean they know how to do anything with them other than
the basic.
I hope I'm not repeating a faux pas - I'm pretty sure I really
did see this elsewhere.

Children with a rotary phone:



Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Chris McMillan
2017-07-24 08:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Just because they _use_ their fobiles, tablets, Facebook, and so on,
doesn't really mean they know how to do anything with them other than
the basic.
I hope I'm not repeating a faux pas - I'm pretty sure I really
did see this elsewhere.
http://youtu.be/XkuirEweZvM
Chris
You have, I didn't investigate.

Sincerely Chris
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-24 19:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Just because they _use_ their fobiles, tablets, Facebook, and so on,
doesn't really mean they know how to do anything with them other than
the basic.
I hope I'm not repeating a faux pas - I'm pretty sure I really
did see this elsewhere.
http://youtu.be/XkuirEweZvM
Chris
You have, I didn't investigate.
Sincerely Chris
I - within the last year, I think - have seen something similar on
British TV. As with the American kids, the first thing they didn't do
was lift the receiver. (Now there's a quaint word.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.
Flop
2017-07-24 21:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Just because they _use_ their fobiles, tablets, Facebook, and so on,
doesn't really mean they know how to do anything with them other than
the basic.
I hope I'm not repeating a faux pas - I'm pretty sure I really
did see this elsewhere.
http://youtu.be/XkuirEweZvM
Chris
You have, I didn't investigate.
Sincerely Chris
I - within the last year, I think - have seen something similar on
British TV. As with the American kids, the first thing they didn't do
was lift the receiver. (Now there's a quaint word.)
There was a nice video of children given a paper catalogue to look at.

They invariably tried to change page by swiping the page they were
looking at.
--
Flop
General Norman Schwarzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for
forgiveness toward terrorists.
The General said, "I believe that forgiving them is God's function...
OUR job is to arrange the meeting."
Penny
2017-07-24 23:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:17:21 +0100, Flop <***@flop.knot.me.uk> scrawled in
the dust...
Post by Flop
There was a nice video of children given a paper catalogue to look at.
They invariably tried to change page by swiping the page they were
looking at.
A friend's 3 year old grandson declared an ordinary photo frame 'broken'
when he couldn't change the picture by swiping.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky
2017-07-25 08:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
the dust...
Post by Flop
There was a nice video of children given a paper catalogue to look at.
They invariably tried to change page by swiping the page they were
looking at.
A friend's 3 year old grandson declared an ordinary photo frame 'broken'
when he couldn't change the picture by swiping.
2 year old granddaughter is a great little swiper and watching our
wide screen tv yesterday she was torn between annoyance when she went
up to it and frustration at trying to get in to Peppa Pig or join the
children in the animal rescue centre.
--
Vicky
Chris McMillan
2017-07-24 08:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:21:40 GMT, Chris McMillan
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Difficult one. While on the whole I agree with you: unless you don't
allow them to have smartphones at all (I think that's the distinction
between ones that can run "app"s - right?), they're going to get these
app.s. (Any limitation parents try to impose will be got round - it's
well known that kids are usually ahead of their parents; came to the
fore first, I think, with video recorders. To quote Tom Lehrer, although
he was talking about something else: "It's so simple - so very simple -
that only a child can do it!")
Sorry, but I dispute this 'parents don't know about computing'. Today's
parents have been using computing at work at the very least, the 1980s
child learnt computing at school: they are today's millenials, all trendy
and glued to their phobiles and tablets. Today's grandparents aged 65 and
under are also mostly computer literate being of the BBC, Acorn and early
home computing generation.
Sincerely Chris
I think the members of the BBC/Acorn generation who used computers
were a minority. Many friends my age, school friends who went on to
have professional jobs, are not into computers. They used word
processors and spreadsheets as necessary but even if on fb don't
really follow it. They are certainly less able than the average 10
year-old.
I actually was interested on online stuff, games etc, but the 11
year-old and every the 2 year-old can access stuff on the nuggering
tablet or iphone more easily than I can.
Who are now grandparents, more like. Anyway, if I can be a fluent self
taught non working computer person, so can others. Almost all my younger
friends are now users, and our 1980s born children have grown up with a
working knowledge which is more my point. I see a number of people using
smart phones in their 70s and more out and about too.

Sincerely Chris
Fenny
2017-07-22 17:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:41:25 +0100, Jenny M Benson
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to lift
up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school staff
that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
It was children under 10 who were mentioned in the items I heard. One
child said she was 9, but looked 7.

Yes, it's bad parenting. I don't care about peer pressure, if a child
has a smart phone with a data/wifi connection, the parents need to
monitor the sites and apps they are using and who they are friends
with. If they allow the children to sign up to sites that have age
limits, they must know that there are going to be people out there
that their kids are going to be in touch with. It's not something
anyone can ignore any more and parents need to understand this.

And yes, any use of mobile phones while in the classroom - especially
in primary school - should be a confiscation offence. It's bad enough
stamping on it when the kids are post 16, but enforcement is the only
way.

There's a website somewhere (I don't have the link on this PC) that
gives parents and their kids some good advice about staying safe
online. There's a video which has a litttle girl open the front door
of her home and sticking a board outside with photos of herself on.
She then goes back into her room and a guy just wanders in and starts
looking at all her belongings and photos. He sees pictures of her in
her uniform, so knows what school she goes to and starts to talk to
her as though he's her age and goes to a nearby school. The girls'
friends see the pics she's put up and copy them to others and laugh
about her.

Schools do have lessons about being safe online - and advice about not
using their real name, which is totally against FB's t&c. But the
kids still think they know better and the parents don't do or know
enough to prevent them from over sharing information.

If I were Twitter/FB and got complaints from the parents, I'd be
pointing out the t&c and basic parenting skills!
--
Fenny
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-22 17:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Fenny
<***@removethis.onetel.net> writes:
[]
Post by Fenny
It was children under 10 who were mentioned in the items I heard. One
child said she was 9, but looked 7.
(Yes; I found that particularly odd: I don't remember being that age
_that_ well, but I think one tended to pretend to be _older_, if
anything. For a girl to have _learnt_ that looking younger may have
"advantages", I'd say she must already have been talking to some people
who'd worry her parents.)
Post by Fenny
Yes, it's bad parenting. I don't care about peer pressure, if a child
has a smart phone with a data/wifi connection, the parents need to
monitor the sites and apps they are using and who they are friends
I agree.

But how? Only supervised use? Not only would that make the parents seem
draconian (tough; but ...), but it requires _time_ by the parents. Who
surely want some time to themselves in the evening. (And are they going
to disable the 'phone when the kids are out of their sight [e. g. at
school]? Negates one of the putative appeals of fobiles for kids, that
they can always use them in emergency, and also the GPS bit allows
parents to know where they are ... or are they going to disable just the
data part [can you even do that], or give them a dumb 'phone?)
Post by Fenny
with. If they allow the children to sign up to sites that have age
limits, they must know that there are going to be people out there
that their kids are going to be in touch with. It's not something
anyone can ignore any more and parents need to understand this.
It's just an extension of the kids having a computer in their room.
(Worse of course in that it's so portable, so can be used at school
too.)
Post by Fenny
And yes, any use of mobile phones while in the classroom - especially
in primary school - should be a confiscation offence. It's bad enough
stamping on it when the kids are post 16, but enforcement is the only
way.
+n
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)
Fenny
2017-07-22 19:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:47:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But how? Only supervised use? Not only would that make the parents seem
draconian (tough; but ...), but it requires _time_ by the parents. Who
surely want some time to themselves in the evening. (And are they going
to disable the 'phone when the kids are out of their sight [e. g. at
school]? Negates one of the putative appeals of fobiles for kids, that
they can always use them in emergency, and also the GPS bit allows
parents to know where they are ... or are they going to disable just the
data part [can you even do that], or give them a dumb 'phone?)
Parents should have any time access to their kids' phones and online
accounts and if the kid refuses to let the parent view them, it should
be removed. This is not draconian, it's how you keep your kids safe.

How many of these parents won't actually let their kids out of the
house and drive them everywhere because of the alleged threat of
abduction or "scary people".
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Fenny
with. If they allow the children to sign up to sites that have age
limits, they must know that there are going to be people out there
that their kids are going to be in touch with. It's not something
anyone can ignore any more and parents need to understand this.
It's just an extension of the kids having a computer in their room.
(Worse of course in that it's so portable, so can be used at school
too.)
a) Kids of that age shouldn't have computers in their bedrooms and b)
there is plenty of parental supervision software for monitoring what
goes through the home router.

We did courses for foster parents to understand how to keep their
charges safe online. This is something that ALL parents need to know.
The ones who don't bother might as well just let their kids hang out
in the park all evening unsupervised.

My boss' son is 13. Boss has eased the parental controls on the home
router, but can still monitor what his son does on his phone and all
home devices. They discuss these things and the lad is now allowed
more freedom, within limits.
--
Fenny
Vicky
2017-07-22 21:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 20:29:49 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:47:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
But
a) Kids of that age shouldn't have computers in their bedrooms and b)
there is plenty of parental supervision software for monitoring what
goes through the home router.
We did courses for foster parents to understand how to keep their
charges safe online. This is something that ALL parents need to know.
The ones who don't bother might as well just let their kids hang out
in the park all evening unsupervised.
My boss' son is 13. Boss has eased the parental controls on the home
router, but can still monitor what his son does on his phone and all
home devices. They discuss these things and the lad is now allowed
more freedom, within limits.
Well, I am reassured by the fact grandson doesn't try to hide what he
is playing or the fact he can chat online. And very kindly set up my
tablet to get some games to enable me to play too. I think the games
boring so was a disappointment to him.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-22 23:03:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:47:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But how? Only supervised use? Not only would that make the parents seem
draconian (tough; but ...), but it requires _time_ by the parents. Who
surely want some time to themselves in the evening. (And are they going
to disable the 'phone when the kids are out of their sight [e. g. at
school]? Negates one of the putative appeals of fobiles for kids, that
they can always use them in emergency, and also the GPS bit allows
parents to know where they are ... or are they going to disable just the
data part [can you even do that], or give them a dumb 'phone?)
Parents should have any time access to their kids' phones and online
accounts and if the kid refuses to let the parent view them, it should
be removed. This is not draconian, it's how you keep your kids safe.
Good in theory: retrospective rather than constant monitoring. But (a)
the damage [or imagined damage] may have been done by the time it is
detected and the removal happens, (b) there might be an awful lot to
wade through to monitor properly, (c) I suspect a fair proportion of
kids will know how to conceal things from such things.
[]
Post by Fenny
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Fenny
with. If they allow the children to sign up to sites that have age
limits, they must know that there are going to be people out there
that their kids are going to be in touch with. It's not something
anyone can ignore any more and parents need to understand this.
It's just an extension of the kids having a computer in their room.
(Worse of course in that it's so portable, so can be used at school
too.)
a) Kids of that age shouldn't have computers in their bedrooms and b)
there is plenty of parental supervision software for monitoring what
goes through the home router.
What age are we talking about? And I think there might be people who
would say denying access to the world is depriving the poor dears of
access to the world (even of their "rights"). Some schools almost
certainly set homework that involves online research.
Post by Fenny
We did courses for foster parents to understand how to keep their
charges safe online. This is something that ALL parents need to know.
The ones who don't bother might as well just let their kids hang out
in the park all evening unsupervised.
My boss' son is 13. Boss has eased the parental controls on the home
router, but can still monitor what his son does on his phone and all
home devices. They discuss these things and the lad is now allowed
more freedom, within limits.
You mean he's turned off (or down) the _blocks_, but can still _monitor_
everything. Sounds good, but does rely on _extensive_ monitoring, and
regular such discussions. I'm glad it's working for him/them.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
law." - Winston Churchill.
Flop
2017-07-22 20:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to lift
up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school staff
that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
Children under 10years do not understand and those over 10 cannot give a
damn. Adults do not understand the practice of social media even if they
think they know the theory.
If adults cannot resist peer pressure why does anyone think that
teenagers should?

There is one very simple answer....

apps should require a credit card number before allowing the
installation of an [potentially inappropriate] app.[1]

This is nowhere near perfect but it does have the advantage of giving
parents some control over what apps a child has access to and how they
use their computers.

[1] similarly, by using a CC with username and password, there are the
options for a parent to monitor usage and to unsubscribe the app from
the child's computer.
--
Flop
General Norman Schwarzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for
forgiveness toward terrorists.
The General said, "I believe that forgiving them is God's function...
OUR job is to arrange the meeting."
Peter Percival
2017-07-22 22:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the
Twitter people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in
their own bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra
size and to lift up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at
all (or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in
allowing children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the
privacy of their bedrooms? And a serious lack of good
something-or-other by school staff that children are even allowed to
have mobile phones in school?
AIA in thinking how odd it is that someone asking about bra size is
deemed to be a pervert?

The story that Mlle/Mme Benson refers to is typical moral panic and can
safely be dismissed as such.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Sam Plusnet
2017-07-23 22:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
There was an item on the news yesterday (I think, or else it was
Thursday) about children using some app on their mobiles and being
"groomed" by perverts. Apparently, it was all the fault of the Twitter
people who "own" this app that children as young as 13, in their own
bedrooms and classrooms, being asked what was their bra size and to lift
up their shirts, etc.
AIAOU in thinking that it's not the fault of the Twitter people at all
(or hardly at all) but a serious lack of good parenting in allowing
children to be using such an app, unsupervised, in the privacy of their
bedrooms? And a serious lack of good something-or-other by school staff
that children are even allowed to have mobile phones in school?
The demand that "something must be done" seems to suggest that the
Internet should be as closely supervised as the kiddies paddling pool at
a Nursery School.

It tries to place responsibility in quite the wrong place.
--
Sam
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-23 22:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <m89dB.477795$***@fx43.am4>, Sam Plusnet
<***@home.com> writes:
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
The demand that "something must be done" seems to suggest that the
Internet should be as closely supervised as the kiddies paddling pool
at a Nursery School.
It tries to place responsibility in quite the wrong place.
It isn't new - from my quotes file:

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to
their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of
suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face
(The Times, 1999-2-10): p12

OK, not _quite_ the same thing, but close.

Having said that, I think there _is_ more moral, at least, requirement
for the companies that run some of these things to be a bit less
hands-off than they are - their claims that it's not their problem, or
words to that effect, don't really wash. Yes, there's definitely a place
for parental and school supervision and control, and arguably that
should be most of where the responsibility lies: but the providing
companies' abrogation of responsibility wherever they can does them no
favours.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"OLTION'S COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE
Bang! ...crumple." - Jery Oltion
Sid Nuncius
2017-07-24 18:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
The demand that "something must be done" seems to suggest that the
Internet should be as closely supervised as the kiddies paddling pool
at a Nursery School.
It tries to place responsibility in quite the wrong place.
"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to
their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of
suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face
(The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
OK, not _quite_ the same thing, but close.
Having said that, I think there _is_ more moral, at least, requirement
for the companies that run some of these things to be a bit less
hands-off than they are - their claims that it's not their problem, or
words to that effect, don't really wash. Yes, there's definitely a place
for parental and school supervision and control, and arguably that
should be most of where the responsibility lies: but the providing
companies' abrogation of responsibility wherever they can does them no
favours.
I'm inclined to agree, John. AIUI, this was an app (or site, or
whatever) specifically designed for young people. If a physical product
were marketed to young ones, turned out to be unsafe and children were
harmed as a result, I don't think it would be adequate for manufacturers
to say, "That's nothing to do with us. Parents should know about the
hazards of <product name> and it is their responsibility to take steps
to prevent their children getting electrocuted/cut/poisoned/etc by our
product."

I recognise that the parallel is not exact, but grooming is real,
children are harmed and ISTM that those running internet sites aimed at
children have a responsibility to minimise the risk to them.

The argument for parental responsibility carries much more weight in
other areas, and adult freedoms should not be unduly restricted
(whatever we deem "unduly restricted" to mean) just because children
might come across unsuitable stuff if poorly supervised. Nonetheless,
IMO it should be the responsibility of those running sites to mitigate
risk as far as is reasonable. (Again, the value of "reasonable" would
have to be argued and, hopefully, agreed.)
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-24 19:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet]
to their children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level
of suitability for a five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in
Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12
OK, not _quite_ the same thing, but close.
Having said that, I think there _is_ more moral, at least,
requirement for the companies that run some of these things to be a
bit less hands-off than they are - their claims that it's not their
problem, or words to that effect, don't really wash. Yes, there's
definitely a place for parental and school supervision and control,
but the providing companies' abrogation of responsibility wherever
they can does them no favours.
I'm inclined to agree, John. AIUI, this was an app (or site, or
whatever) specifically designed for young people. If a physical
product were marketed to young ones, turned out to be unsafe and
children were harmed as a result, I don't think it would be adequate
for manufacturers to say, "That's nothing to do with us. Parents
should know about the hazards of <product name> and it is their
responsibility to take steps to prevent their children getting
electrocuted/cut/poisoned/etc by our product."
I recognise that the parallel is not exact, but grooming is real,
children are harmed and ISTM that those running internet sites aimed at
children have a responsibility to minimise the risk to them.
Of course, we are in agreement. But I am not encouraged by the
advertising on (commercial) children's TV: whatever restrictions have
been put in place, the advertisers certainly don't enter into the
_spirit_ of what they're supposed to do. (I saw a bit over the weekend -
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
Post by Sid Nuncius
The argument for parental responsibility carries much more weight in
other areas, and adult freedoms should not be unduly restricted
(whatever we deem "unduly restricted" to mean) just because children
might come across unsuitable stuff if poorly supervised. Nonetheless,
IMO it should be the responsibility of those running sites to mitigate
risk as far as is reasonable. (Again, the value of "reasonable" would
have to be argued and, hopefully, agreed.)
The recent suggestion that sites purveying unsuitable material - by
whatever the definition - should require a credit card, seems a poor
solution to me. Not only would I be very reluctant to give my card
number to such a site anyway (I wouldn't be _buying_ anything there),
but also, many of such sites are I understand outside the country [I
think I've heard that the ones carrying the least acceptable stuff are
in .ru). What is the government (or whoever) expecting ISPs to do -
block all foreign access without credit card? Keep blacklists (good luck
with that)? I'm sure the intention is good, and that this did seem a
good solution to those who thought of it, but I can't see it working.

(OK, this is a bit OT from apps that kids use from their bedrooms.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.
Jenny M Benson
2017-07-24 22:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
--
Jenny M Benson
Mike
2017-07-25 10:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
--
Toodle Pip
Chris J Dixon
2017-07-25 11:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Indeed so. I see so little advertising that I completely miss out
on any satirical references to them.

Even the commercial-free channels can have annoying amounts of
trailers, prefiguring and recaps. I generally FF to the title and
almost automatically hit the "skip" button when I hear "Coming
up...", "Later..." or "Next we..." .

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Penny
2017-07-25 11:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:03:51 +0100, Chris J Dixon <***@cdixon.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Indeed so. I see so little advertising that I completely miss out
on any satirical references to them.
Even the commercial-free channels can have annoying amounts of
trailers, prefiguring and recaps. I generally FF to the title and
almost automatically hit the "skip" button when I hear "Coming
up...", "Later..." or "Next we..." .
I usually miss those too having had to pause and back track to catch some
mumbled speech or freeze a text message* so I can get closer to the screen
and read it. By the end of the programme I can usually leap forward 2
minutes and get to the beginning of the next.

*YOYOY? - some programmes deal nicely with such things, either showing the
message large on the screen over the shot of the person reading it. Others
will have a voice-over for the important message in a letter. When will the
rest catch up and get rid of this annoyance?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2017-07-25 11:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Indeed so. I see so little advertising that I completely miss out
on any satirical references to them.
Even the commercial-free channels can have annoying amounts of
trailers, prefiguring and recaps. I generally FF to the title and
almost automatically hit the "skip" button when I hear "Coming
up...", "Later..." or "Next we..." .
Chris
We found that any series 'wastes' two minutes in the 2nd. and any
subsequent programmes by running a tedious intro already seen, even then
there may be another minute of 'in today's programme' before any real
'meat' starts. I blame this on the modular 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 90
minutes time slot employed for everything whether needed or not. Filler
music is another .... cont'd on P94.
--
Toodle Pip
BrritSki
2017-07-25 13:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Indeed so. I see so little advertising that I completely miss out
on any satirical references to them.
Even the commercial-free channels can have annoying amounts of
trailers, prefiguring and recaps. I generally FF to the title and
almost automatically hit the "skip" button when I hear "Coming
up...", "Later..." or "Next we..." .
Chris
We found that any series 'wastes' two minutes in the 2nd. and any
subsequent programmes by running a tedious intro already seen, even then
there may be another minute of 'in today's programme' before any real
'meat' starts. I blame this on the modular 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 90
minutes time slot employed for everything whether needed or not. Filler
music is another .... cont'd on P94.
I blame that potter's wheel....

PS we NEED that "previously" section to remind ourselves of the ins and
outs of the particular series we're watching. We're really enjoying "I
know who you are" but it needs a 30 minute reminder before the prog.
starts :)
Sally Thompson
2017-07-25 16:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BrritSki
PS we NEED that "previously" section to remind ourselves of the ins and
outs of the particular series we're watching. We're really enjoying "I
know who you are" but it needs a 30 minute reminder before the prog.
starts :)
Oh yes! Isn't it good! I've only watched the first three and am really
looking forward to the rest.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Peter Percival
2017-07-25 15:15:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
We found that any series 'wastes' two minutes in the 2nd. and any
subsequent programmes by running a tedious intro already seen, even
then there may be another minute of 'in today's programme' before any
real 'meat' starts. I blame this on the modular 30 minutes, 60
minutes, 90 minutes time slot employed for everything whether needed
or not. Filler music is another .... cont'd on P94.
So far as BBC programmes are concerned, it may be that the problem is
this: the slot to be filled is, let's say 30 minutes long, but foreign
buyers want 28 minutes of programme so that they may add two minutes of
advertisements. Thus the 30 minutes as seen here must include two
minutes of filler.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-25 18:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05
Mike
2017-07-25 21:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
--
Toodle Pip
Sam Plusnet
2017-07-25 23:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
Which had me 'singing'
"I can gather all the news that I need on the Weather Report"
--
Sam
vk
2017-07-26 10:06:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26/07/2017 00:28, Sam Plusnet wrote:

<snippage>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
We get our news from Radio Four.
Which had me 'singing'
"I can gather all the news that I need on the Weather Report"
You are The Only Living Boy in New York AICM$5
Sid Nuncius
2017-07-26 18:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by vk
<snippage>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
We get our news from Radio Four.
Which had me 'singing'
"I can gather all the news that I need on the Weather Report"
You are The Only Living Boy in New York AICM$5
Hey - I've got nothing to do today but smile...

(Far too long since I played that song...)
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Peter Percival
2017-07-26 19:50:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by vk
<snippage>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
We get our news from Radio Four.
Which had me 'singing'
"I can gather all the news that I need on the Weather Report"
You are The Only Living Boy in New York AICM$5
There must be a Catch.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-26 06:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
Oh, me too, mostly - I certainly rarely watch news of an evening these
days; however, I usually turn on BBC1 when I'm getting dressed etc.. -
there's also the local traffic information. (Yes, the local radio
station carries that too, but not at such fixed times.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of nine!
<SYSTEM HALTED: parroty error!>
Mike
2017-07-26 08:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
Oh, me too, mostly - I certainly rarely watch news of an evening these
days; however, I usually turn on BBC1 when I'm getting dressed etc.. -
there's also the local traffic information. (Yes, the local radio
station carries that too, but not at such fixed times.)
The joys of retirement, not traveling to work, (I walked anyway so traffic
conditions made little difference to me) the weather is more important and
.... is the bus running to time or rather how late will I arrive in Woodley
to do my shopping and will I have to wait another hour if we have a coffee
in our local cafe?
--
Toodle Pip
Btms
2017-07-26 08:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
Oh, me too, mostly - I certainly rarely watch news of an evening these
days; however, I usually turn on BBC1 when I'm getting dressed etc.. -
there's also the local traffic information. (Yes, the local radio
station carries that too, but not at such fixed times.)
The joys of retirement, not traveling to work, (I walked anyway so traffic
conditions made little difference to me) the weather is more important and
.... is the bus running to time or rather how late will I arrive in Woodley
to do my shopping and will I have to wait another hour if we have a coffee
in our local cafe?
And though I live on the Berks/Wilts border, I watch BBC Spotlight (covers
Cornwall) because the "local" TV here covers too wide a region for my
liking.
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2017-07-26 08:44:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I woke up earlier than usual, so thought I'd put some news on, but BBC
news was either covering sport or stuck on one of the obsessions it's
prone to, so I pressed 3, forgetting that they don't do news at the
weekend, and happened to hit a commercial break.)
You say that as though it was something of a coincidence. In my
experience it is UNCANNY how the commercial channels always know when I
have just switched on or switched over. No matter what time of the day
or night, I ALWAYS hit an ad break.
We record everything we are interested enough to possibly see, watch later
and skip all adds. Time shifting and saving all in one!
Not a solution for dipping into news, I'm afraid! (OK, these days it is,
given how little of a news prog. is actually current, but you get the
point.)
We get our news from Radio Four.
Which is often superior imho
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Peter Percival
2017-07-25 10:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent suggestion that sites purveying unsuitable material - by
whatever the definition - should require a credit card, seems a poor
solution to me. Not only would I be very reluctant to give my card
This has puzzled me. The proposal that sites featuring pornographic
material should not be accessible by children seems to assume that
pornography harms children. Has it ever been proved that it does?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
number to such a site anyway (I wouldn't be _buying_ anything
there), but also, many of such sites are I understand outside the
country [I think I've heard that the ones carrying the least
acceptable stuff are in .ru). What is the government (or whoever)
expecting ISPs to do - block all foreign access without credit card?
Keep blacklists (good luck with that)? I'm sure the intention is
good,
Why?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
and that this did seem a good solution to those who thought of it,
but I can't see it working.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-25 19:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The recent suggestion that sites purveying unsuitable material - by
whatever the definition - should require a credit card, seems a poor
solution to me. Not only would I be very reluctant to give my card
This has puzzled me. The proposal that sites featuring pornographic
material should not be accessible by children seems to assume that
pornography harms children. Has it ever been proved that it does?
The argument (or at least one of them) is that it promotes certain
attitudes to women (most porn _is_ that way round) - that argument then
being considered, in relation to children, even more iniquitous as they
haven't learnt to assess/judge things as well as adults can.

That's the argument, or one of them. I'm not saying I agree with it. On
the whole, my attitude to pornography is that *as long as it doesn't
involve any force (physical or mental) or coercion, i. e. everything
everyone in it does is consensual (which can't involve children as they
can't give informed consent), then it does no harm, and brings a lot of
people some pleasure.
Post by Peter Percival
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
number to such a site anyway (I wouldn't be _buying_ anything
there), but also, many of such sites are I understand outside the
country [I think I've heard that the ones carrying the least
acceptable stuff are in .ru). What is the government (or whoever)
expecting ISPs to do - block all foreign access without credit card?
Keep blacklists (good luck with that)? I'm sure the intention is
good,
Why?
I think they genuinely think there's something wrong they need to try to
find fixes for (and in the case of these app.s that encourage - or, at
the very least, do nothing to stop - kids filming from their bedrooms,
they're probably right, though the general anti-porners, religions, and
all sorts of other groups tend to jump on the bandwagon).
Post by Peter Percival
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
and that this did seem a good solution to those who thought of it,
but I can't see it working.
Of course, when it comes to porn, this man says it better than I, and
with great humour too:


As he says in another version: "I do have a cause, though. Obscenity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm for it."

(Actually, I like that version better:

I just gave the above one first as it has genuine video.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05
Fenny
2017-07-25 21:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:15:01 +0100, Sid Nuncius
Post by Sid Nuncius
I'm inclined to agree, John. AIUI, this was an app (or site, or
whatever) specifically designed for young people. If a physical product
were marketed to young ones, turned out to be unsafe and children were
harmed as a result, I don't think it would be adequate for manufacturers
to say, "That's nothing to do with us. Parents should know about the
hazards of <product name> and it is their responsibility to take steps
to prevent their children getting electrocuted/cut/poisoned/etc by our
product."
I think the biggest difference between the internet and television or
similar is the two way nature of the communication. Television, porn,
dirty mags, unsuitable books are by definition one way communication.
A child may see / read it, but will only interact with it at the level
they understand.

Social media platforms are 2 way communications. If the platform - eg
FB - was originally designed for college age people and has opened up
to allow anyone over 13 to have an account, there is some degree of
assumption that the things that happen there are for people of that
age group.

There are social media apps for younger age groups. Kids interact
with other people that they assume are their own age. So when someone
says "Hey, what's your name, how old are you, where do you go to
school?" you really don't expect them to be over 18 and prowling for
young people to groom. And the kids don't expect that either and give
out sufficient information that they can be groomed or followed.

The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight. So why think it's OK for them to do that online? Most parents
want to know who their kids' mates are and wouldn't let them go round
to tea somewhere without ringing the mother first to check it out and
pick them up afterwards. The way you do that online is to see what
the kids are doing and for them to know that you always have access to
what's going on - the equivalent of ringing up or collecting them and
chatting with the other parents.
--
Fenny
BrritSki
2017-07-26 06:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
... The way you do that online is to see what
the kids are doing and for them to know that you always have access to
what's going on - the equivalent of ringing up or collecting them and
chatting with the other parents.
Where's that LIKE button...
Robin Stevens
2017-07-28 04:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
Fenny
2017-07-28 19:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
--
Fenny
Btms
2017-07-28 20:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.

* based upon an episode of Yes PM
--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Fenny
2017-07-28 21:54:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Robin Stevens
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.
* based upon an episode of Yes PM
There would definitely be some level of security detail, but my
intimate knowledge of such things is limited to an item about Harold
Wilson on holiday in the Scilly Isles and 7 seasons of The West Wing.

However, don't parents take a headcount in these circumstances? It
was bad enough when my Bro's Action Man accidentally got left behind
at a holiday centre because he'd been on manouvres under the chest of
drawers whilst packing happened. Bro didn't notice the absence until
we stopped at a campsite that evening. But there's a slight
difference between an empty seat in the car and not remembering
shoving your Action Man into your Leeds Utd* bag.

* In those days, Bro was a Leeds fan and I was a Chelsea supporter -
as was my Action Man.
--
Fenny
Vicky
2017-07-28 22:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 22:54:54 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Robin Stevens
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.
* based upon an episode of Yes PM
There would definitely be some level of security detail, but my
intimate knowledge of such things is limited to an item about Harold
Wilson on holiday in the Scilly Isles and 7 seasons of The West Wing.
However, don't parents take a headcount in these circumstances? It
was bad enough when my Bro's Action Man accidentally got left behind
at a holiday centre because he'd been on manouvres under the chest of
drawers whilst packing happened. Bro didn't notice the absence until
we stopped at a campsite that evening. But there's a slight
difference between an empty seat in the car and not remembering
shoving your Action Man into your Leeds Utd* bag.
* In those days, Bro was a Leeds fan and I was a Chelsea supporter -
as was my Action Man.
#2 daughter left Cindy (a popular doll in the 70s, M'lord) in Lisbon
Airport on our way home. I don't recall how but there were tears
before bedtime. The doll had her own travelling case. I think it was a
caravan.
--
Vicky
BrritSki
2017-07-29 05:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by Fenny
Post by Robin Stevens
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
However, don't parents take a headcount in these circumstances?
You'd think wouldn't you ? But I almost drove off from Taunton Deane
services before nortydorter had got int the car :/
Serena Blanchflower
2017-07-29 07:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.
* based upon an episode of Yes PM
I always assumed that the fact there were multiple cars made it much
easier for this to happen. Everyone would have assumed the child was in
the other car.
--
Best wishes, Serena
If you don't like something, change it. If you can
Jenny M Benson
2017-07-29 09:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serena Blanchflower
I always assumed that the fact there were multiple cars made it much
easier for this to happen. Everyone would have assumed the child was in
the other car.
My dim recollection of the reporting of the event is that it was claimed
that this is more or less what happened. Each parent thought the child
was with the other.
--
Jenny M Benson
Chris McMillan
2017-07-29 13:10:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.
* based upon an episode of Yes PM
I always assumed that the fact there were multiple cars made it much
easier for this to happen. Everyone would have assumed the child was in
the other car.
It happens to the best of us. Luke 2, 39 - 52.

Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.
[42] When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to
the custom. [43] After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning
home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of
it. [44] Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then
they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. [45] When
they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. [46]
After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the
teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

Sincerely Chris
Sam Plusnet
2017-07-30 19:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:16:45 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Fenny
The internet is a public place. You don't let your 8 year old go down
the pub in the evening and sit around talking to adults and playing
the fruit machines. Even if you take them to the pub for lunch on a
Sunday, you keep an eye on them and don't let them wander off out of
sight.
Unless you're the (now former) MP for Witney, in which case you leave them
there.
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
I have always thought there would have been more than one car plus security
men* and doubt the veracity of the story. But then, I doubt most press
stories as the content is often skewed, diluted or just garbled.
* based upon an episode of Yes PM
I always assumed that the fact there were multiple cars made it much
easier for this to happen. Everyone would have assumed the child was in
the other car.
It happens to the best of us. Luke 2, 39 - 52.
Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.
[42] When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to
the custom. [43] After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning
home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of
it. [44] Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then
they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. [45] When
they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. [46]
After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the
teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
"Why?"
<repeat ad nauseam>
--
Sam
kosmo
2017-07-29 12:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:48:25 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
I don't think she wandered off, they just left her there because they
"forgot" they had another sprog!
Both parents thought she was with the other one as they were with
numerous security type people and she was lost in the crowd.
--
kosmo
Loading...