FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Swingers Chat

Forthcoming 'porn legis' affect swinging sites (?)

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Does anyone know if the new 'include me in/out for porn' reg's that are coming in will affect access to swinging sites or not .

It wouldn't affect us too much to opt out, but if by doing so we'd lose access to swingers' contact sites, such as this one, we'd be hesitant to do so.

Anyone know as the info available a bit 'hazy' to say the least!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I suspect that this legislation will never see the light of day. And will go the same way as the planned price restrictions for alcohol for which the government vocally played the populist card before quietly admitting the legislation will never happen.

Oh and I'm not trying to derail this in to a political argument, I purposely said government not Tories, all governments have done the same.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People need to make up their minds if we want a nanny state or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"I suspect that this legislation will never see the light of day. And will go the same way as the planned price restrictions for alcohol for which the government vocally played the populist card before quietly admitting the legislation will never happen.

Oh and I'm not trying to derail this in to a political argument, I purposely said government not Tories, all governments have done the same."

That's not entirely true. I don't recall ANY other administrations trying to raise the price of alcohol (Tories and SNP) or clamping down on porn or sex-working (Tories and SNP).

I'm beginning to detect a theme here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"People need to make up their minds if we want a nanny state or not."

I agree, I also feel uncomfortable with excessive censorship.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I'm sure most, if not all, Fabsters agree about censorship.

Getting them to agree what's 'excessive' is another matter.

There's some obvious stuff around the age of the participants, the ability to give informed consent and so on but beyond that.........?

Who decides?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show about this possible law and one caller came up with a valid point.

They are saying that all connections will be banned by default on all devices so that means you will have to apply to have the ban lifted on you're account by applying to you're ISP directly or some other controlling body.

But then of course there will be a record of the fact that you have opted in to accessing porn and adult material including all adult sites such as this one.

that means there will be lists of names addresses and all of the other details to do with YOU that someone is bound to get hold of OR the Government will b able to use i presume most people would have watched the movie 1984?

Now I am in full agreement with child protection but this just will not work as people are inventive and devious and as it has been said pedo's dont access their material by logging onto web sites they fins each other and swap stuff by file sharing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imjohnCouple
over a year ago

Clacton on sea, Essex

It will also include swinging/escort sites etc because of the hardcore pics that is on them, if it does come into power it is easy to opt in anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

This is almost exactly what happened during Operation Ore. Google will explain better but essentially folks were signing up (with credit card details) and getting membership of a porn site.

The pornbrokers were using 'join one -get free access to all our other sites' as a marketing ploy.

Some of the 'other sites' weren't quite as legal in the UK as the one you'd signed up for. but you have no way of knowing which sites they were until plod arrived at your door.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"I'm sure most, if not all, Fabsters agree about censorship.

Getting them to agree what's 'excessive' is another matter.

There's some obvious stuff around the age of the participants, the ability to give informed consent and so on but beyond that.........?

Who decides?"

Tricky one isn't it. My friend found her nine year old looking at porn on a relatives phone, who is liable for protecting that child from access to that ? His Mum, the relative, the phone provider, the ISP or the state?

Deciding what is excessive would be impossible but basics like children and death would only be argued for by a few .....wouldn't they?

Thorny problems.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The government should have as little to do with our day to day lives as possible. It's job is to run the country. The internet has brought us much easier excess to all sorts, Whether it's parents or the government a certain amount of children will be savy enough to bypass any blocks put in place, and they will tell their mates.

I live in a shared house and am not the bill payer for the internet connection. I may have to approach that person to unblock a porn filter

There have been lots of isp blocks put on torrent sites, simply typing 'come in' to google will take you to a site that allows full excess to all of them.

If it's as easy as that to get around blocks put in by the isp's then it really isn't going to be a problem for anyone whatever their age.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"...........

If it's as easy as that to get around blocks put in by the isp's then it really isn't going to be a problem for anyone whatever their age.

"

Local libraries seem to have quite a high level of expertise when it comes to blocking sites THEY deem unsuitable.

Glasgow Libraries blocks everything related to alcohol, tobacco, sex/ porn.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"...........

If it's as easy as that to get around blocks put in by the isp's then it really isn't going to be a problem for anyone whatever their age.

Local libraries seem to have quite a high level of expertise when it comes to blocking sites THEY deem unsuitable.

Glasgow Libraries blocks everything related to alcohol, tobacco, sex/ porn. "

and as i found out with my phone network supplier anything "adult related" had the bar put on....

when i asked to have the bar taken off I just gave the reason I couldn't access paddy power... lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I was doing some genuine semi-academic research on the historic side of the licensed trade in Glasgow and found, to my astonishment, the Mitchell Library - Scotland's leading public access research library, had blocked access to a site called old glasgow pubs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I suspect that this legislation will never see the light of day. And will go the same way as the planned price restrictions for alcohol for which the government vocally played the populist card before quietly admitting the legislation will never happen.

Oh and I'm not trying to derail this in to a political argument, I purposely said government not Tories, all governments have done the same."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

with regards to 1984, the book by George orwell, later turned into a film.... databases are full of useful information, it only becomes dangerous when it is used by somebody dangerous who has dangerous intent.

IBM created the census used by Hitler to find the Jews, at the time of filling in the census, Jews had nothing to fear!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

I have the same issue with three.....it has a tendency to sometimes dislike adult sites and block them all even though I had said to let me access them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opping_candyWoman
over a year ago

West Yorkshire


"Does anyone know if the new 'include me in/out for porn' reg's that are coming in will affect access to swinging sites or not .

It wouldn't affect us too much to opt out, but if by doing so we'd lose access to swingers' contact sites, such as this one, we'd be hesitant to do so.

Anyone know as the info available a bit 'hazy' to say the least! "

I suspect it will, as when I've tried to access the site on free wifi in some cafes (always careful to make sure no prying eyes, particularly small ones, can see the screen) it often comes up as barred due to being classed as pornography. Though I've often used a proxy site to get around this.

Wetherspoons don't care that it's pornography

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Are they going to govern everything we do?? They already have all this CCTV still cant do shit it!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People need to make up their minds if we want a nanny state or not."

I quite like Nanny state clothing...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Are they going to govern everything we do?? They already have all this CCTV still cant do shit it!!

"

That's the plan.

That's why we're being told it's 'the answer to child pornography'. Who could possibly be against that?

The fact it won't work is neither here nor there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It'll never happen. It's just another attempt by the present government to try and drum up a few extra votes for the next election - I think they'll need to do just a little bit more than that if they expect to win.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imjohnCouple
over a year ago

Clacton on sea, Essex

We had a similar problem a couple of years back when we questioned the old farts at the BBFC about their censorship rules.

Jackass could sell films in W H Smith with actions such as stapling their balls to a wooden bench, shooting fireworks up their arse yet only getting a 15 or 18 cert.

We asked why our normal suck & fuck films which we pay more money to censor than other mainstream companies get R18 certs yet sick filth like this is available widely mainstream, they reckon Jackass was non sexual but failed to comment on balls stapled & anal fire works...which seemed very sexual to the industry.

The new internet rules will work the same, legit companies acting within the law will get penalised while other unsavoury ones slip through the net...and we all pay these politicians to run the country lol!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"........and we all pay these politicians to run the country lol! "

That's not actually true.

We pay these politicians - yes - but their 'job' is to do whatever they believe will get them re-elected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

so they are going to block every mobile phone which receives internet; the address changes, when you log back in from somewhere else..same goes for dongles they change the address when you log out and back in..so how are they going to do it... No chance in a million... it's summer nothing to talk about so "we dream up something mad and get people to talk about us brilliant politicians "...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

In the unlikely event I were asked to block porn online, I wouldn't do it at the receiver end - I'd do it at the transmitter end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I suspect that this legislation will never see the light of day. And will go the same way as the planned price restrictions for alcohol for which the government vocally played the populist card before quietly admitting the legislation will never happen.

Oh and I'm not trying to derail this in to a political argument, I purposely said government not Tories, all governments have done the same.

That's not entirely true. I don't recall ANY other administrations trying to raise the price of alcohol (Tories and SNP) or clamping down on porn or sex-working (Tories and SNP).

I'm beginning to detect a theme here."

No doubt you are well aware of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (or summat like that)passed by Nu-Labour at that time.

In fairness, it doesn't leave much for future governments to ban.

ps if porn was good enough for a Home Secretary to claim on HER ministerial expenses, its good enough for me too.

Expenses abuse, sure, she should have watched the free stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


".....................

ps if porn was good enough for a Home Secretary to claim on HER ministerial expenses, its good enough for me too.

Expenses abuse, sure, she should have watched the free stuff.

"

At the risk of allowing facts to get in the way of a rant - Jacqui Smith's husband admitted HE watched the films.

Yes, she should have scrutinised the bill more closely but she didn't and has since divorced the aforementioned husband.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

helluva co incidence that this newfound fear of porn comes shortly after snowden blew whistle on extent that us n allies incl uk are monitoring innocent peoples online usage....sounds like porn is being used as a trojan horse to erode more civil liberties...whilst peanut allergies cause more deaths than terrorists!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People need to make up their minds if we want a nanny state or not."

We decided that a very long time ago. We have a nanny State (arguably all States are "nanny States" after the Victorian era/Great Depression).

What we need to decide is how strict we want Nanny to be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its to block child porn and to OPT IN FROM YOUR ISP to view porn. this would be classed as a porn site

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Governments here in the UK and in the US and other places think they can get anyone to agree to anything, provided it's anti the following: a) terrorism, b) child porn, c) organised crime. The trouble is they're right. But this proposal will do nothing to sort out any of these three. People who are affected such as us don't get their opinions in the media often, so we're easy scapegoats for everything. But the Tories should be all for personal freedom for consenting adults who don't break the law - they're forever knocking the nanny state when it suits them. Cameron is also guilty of sending out mixed messages, talking about child porn, then talking about rape videos, then porn in general, forever moving the goalposts, but the media don't pick him up on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Remember. This all began as a way of keeping Lynton Crosby off the front pages. It turned out to be unnecessary 'cos a baby turned up.

Cameron's not sure what to do now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

[Removed by poster at 29/07/13 21:00:56]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

You're right Onny, it's just another smoke screen, that's meant to distract us from what's really important, incl government influences.

Blocking porn/adult site implmentation is something that will put up the price of everyone's internet service. If implemented of course, even though only some people need the service - so it's unfair.

It's also technically not achievable, to an accurately realistic level. So it's more public money wasted. When there's little enough money around as it is. One of the companies providing the technology to do it is Chinese, so it's not even money that would be spent to recirculate in our economy.

Any parents who want this should fund and implement it by technology or other controls. As it stands, it's totally an unwarranted state intrusion and control of our liberty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The government say its to stop child porn but it will be anything with an 18 rating will be blocked. That includes swinging sites. I have been thinking of getting a VPN for a while but after seeing that this new law might happen. So now this government doesn't know what I am doing. My Internet is now encrypted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One interesting thing I thought I heard "Call me Dave" say was that it was to be NEW computers being supplied and NEW broadband connections being opened that would have his all encompassing porn filters applied, not existing. Well this week anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

IF it happens, then it will block a lot more than this site, I run a forum for a motorcycle club, that is classified as an adult site, as there is adult language in it. Vodaphone by default blocks it, many public access WiFi's block it. No pictures or explicit material appears on it and apart from the occasion joke no direct sexual references either.

As stated on top gear, anything coloured orange is often blocked as well

Saving grace is the back of a fag packet politics we currently experience seldom actually happens after the media hype. And if it does then you can opt in to see non sexual adult sites and by default get Fab as well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

well said sir! we already have the highest number of cctv in the world watching us every day... why i ask? is it really for our protection? and as for terrorists... al quaeda... translates to "the database" this was the us of a's list of mujahadin fighters when russia occupied afghanistan, trained by cia/seals/delta force/black ops etc... problem/reaction/solution... they (governments) create the problem, we provide the reaction, then they have the solution.. ie banning/censoring/denying access etc.... erosion of our civil liberties etc.... what a crazy world we live in!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Microsoft already have child protection software in place, its whether the parents implement it.

This stupid legislation cannot happen mainly for technical reasons, to deploy filters of this measure is nigh on impossible and even IF they did manage to implement it ways to circumvent it would already of been written, coded or ready.

I really think people have nothing to fear it will take at least a year to write the coding and filters and by then we will have moved to way more intuitive browsing etc so their software/filters will be out of date anyway.

Surf on my friends there is nothing to fear

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My ISP has already done it and there is no legislation in place in Ireland either. It covers not only porn but all over 18 sites. It's only applied to new contracts at the moment though. It's as simple as making a very quick call to the ISP to remove the filters...and job done.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ollie_JCouple
over a year ago

London

A few years ago all porn was censored, it just so happened the Internet wasn't around some could circumvent it

If I had a crystal ball the easiest way they could do this is put code in at the router level.

(which then raises an intersting conspiracy theory, most routers are made in china, do we really know what all those chips do?)

Anyways...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 30/07/13 08:54:51]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Phone providers are already doing this as some have already commented.

ISP's are already filtering out a ton of "inappropriate" content, and when they don't they are told by the by the court to filter it.

So we are already in a nanny state, just look at the recent coverage with the CIA and Prism.

What the government is doing with this proposed legislation is appeasing the masses, while making the people affected find ways to circumvent the blocks, if they are not already doing it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A few years ago all porn was censored..."

Yes, and it made no difference whatsoever. There were hundreds of sex killers from Jack the Ripper before the internet. I believe adult internet porn is on balance a good thing: it's actually made a lot of people dispel their fears about sex by them realising they're not alone and helped them to understand themselves better. (PS: I'm NOT talking about child porn, or anything else that doesn't involve consenting adults.)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top