In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 12 year olds who can now easily access say Youporn or Pornhub would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
It one click app install for most VPNs just like every other app on IOS and Android, and desktop not much harder.
So you really think a 7 year old could download a VPN? That is your excuse for not allowing tighter restrictions on protecting young children from accessing pornography?
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
'Ofcom published research showing that 8% of children aged eight to 14 in the UK had visited an online pornography site or app over a month-long period.' https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/26/uk-ofcom-study-children-viewing-online-pornography-age-checks This was not to stop 16 or 17 year olds watching adult porn in their rooms, it was to stop young children being sexualised by pornographic images far too young and making them more vulnerable to paedophiles too.
Clearly you are not bothered by that, which is concerning
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 12 year olds who can now easily access say Youporn or Pornhub would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
It one click app install for most VPNs just like every other app on IOS and Android, and desktop not much harder.
So you really think a 7 year old could download a VPN? That is your excuse for not allowing tighter restrictions on protecting young children from accessing pornography?
I don't think 7 year olds view porn.
But if they wanted to? Yes, 7 year olds can install apps.
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download a vpn or use a free proxy site.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of young children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme. Most pornography sites did not require age checks or credit cards checks before this Act
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme
No, i am being a realist. This law doesn't add any extra protection, but comes with worrying powers that go way beyond seeing boobies on the Internet.
If you don't want your kids seeing prom, use the tools already available and lock down their devices. If you haven't done that, it's trivial to bypass the law.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme
No, i am being a realist. This law doesn't add any extra protection, but comes with worrying powers that go way beyond seeing boobies on the Internet.
No, the only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles.
You can have concerns about the checks GCHQ etc do on search history without rejecting mandatory age and credit card checks for pornography sites
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme
No, i am being a realist. This law doesn't add any extra protection, but comes with worrying powers that go way beyond seeing boobies on the Internet.
No, the only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles.
You can have concerns about the checks GCHQ etc do on search history without rejecting mandatory age and credit card checks for pornography sites
You are really clueless on this. 2 minutes ago you were telling us you needed a credit card to see tits....
If you don't lock down your internet content restriction filters and the ability to install apps, horny 14 year boys will have absolutely no problem downloading a VPN....and all their mates / tiktok will tell them exactly how to do it. So in that respect the Online Safety Bill adds nothing positive.
The downsides in terms of general censorship, plenty of people on the left and right are very worried about this.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme
No, i am being a realist. This law doesn't add any extra protection, but comes with worrying powers that go way beyond seeing boobies on the Internet.
No, the only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles.
You can have concerns about the checks GCHQ etc do on search history without rejecting mandatory age and credit card checks for pornography sites
You are really clueless on this.
If you don't lock down your internet content restriction filters and the ability to install apps, horny 14 year boys will have absolutely no problem downloading a VPN....and all their mates / tiktok will tell them exactly how to do it.
You reject mandatory age and credit card checks for 7 to 10 year olds to stop them accessing pornography sites, forget 14 year olds.
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
So 92% aged upto 14 don't and you're banging on about 7 year olds?
Freak.
So potentially hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of under 14s are and you want to ignore that? Extremely concerning
"Up to" 14 was the measure, which includes teenagers aged 13-14.
8% of 8-14 year olds won't be evenly distributed amongst those age groups, it likely includes next-to-no 8 year olds and a significant proportion of teenagers.
Do some teenagers access porn? Yes.
Will a single teenager who wants to get stopped by this? No.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme
No, i am being a realist. This law doesn't add any extra protection, but comes with worrying powers that go way beyond seeing boobies on the Internet.
No, the only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles.
You can have concerns about the checks GCHQ etc do on search history without rejecting mandatory age and credit card checks for pornography sites
You are really clueless on this.
If you don't lock down your internet content restriction filters and the ability to install apps, horny 14 year boys will have absolutely no problem downloading a VPN....and all their mates / tiktok will tell them exactly how to do it.
You reject mandatory age and credit card checks for 7 to 10 year olds to access pornography sites, forget 14 year olds.
That is very concerning
FFS....how many times do we have to tell you, access to pornography on the internet doesn't require a credit card. The company that basically owns the whole of the western adult industry runs on a business model of freemium tube sites, where they give away loads of content.
This did cheer me up, though. Sarah Pochin is now talking about taking legal action against her constituents who don't agree that Greenway Road, Runcorn, is a hellhole, as she .. er .. documented in her video.
That seems to be the ones who live there. Priceless.
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of young children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme. Most pornography sites did not require age checks or credit cards checks before this Act
In news that will surprise no one VPNs have seen a huge increase in demand over the weekend . And of course it’s of no interest to sites to try and combat this . The Online Safety Bill detached from reality and a piece of legislation that clueless politicians enacted to show they were doing something .
VPN or no VPN you still need to enter your age and verify via credit card for pornography sites etc now, which makes it more difficult for under 18s to view them
🤦♂️
No, you don't, if you use a VPN. That's the entire point.
Any under 18 that wants to view porn can extremely easily download a VPN, far more easily than putting in card details.
Yes you do, you cannot even enter most of those sites now without entering your age and a credit card to confirm it.
All a VPN does is mean your IP address can't be tracked easily, though GCHQ can still likely eventually do so if they really want to find it out if you are a serious criminal. If you try and use a VPN to suggest you are not from the UK, parents can also see you have used a VPN and ask questions
It is extremely easy to use a VPN to say you're not from the UK, then you don't need a card. So no, you don't need a card, just a VPN.
And if you use a VPN it doesn't notify your parents that you have, any more than they'd get notifications of what website you've browsed.
And how many say 7 to 13 year olds who could easily access say Youporn or Pornhub online before these extra checks of age and credit card would know how to download a VPN?
Parents can also see Tor for example downloaded on the desktop of an older teenage child
Pretty much all of them. Though I don't think the target market of porn sites is 7 year olds anyway.
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
So 92% aged upto 14 don't and you're banging on about 7 year olds?
Freak.
So potentially hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of under 14s are and you want to ignore that? Extremely concerning
"Up to" 14 was the measure, which includes teenagers aged 13-14.
8% of 8-14 year olds won't be evenly distributed amongst those age groups, it likely includes next-to-no 8 year olds and a significant proportion of teenagers.
Do some teenagers access porn? Yes.
Will a single teenager who wants to get stopped by this? No.
So should we do something about it? Also no.
It includes in that category ages from 7 to 14 years old, you want to reject tighter checks on pornography sites to stop them doing so.
The only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles
If kids work out how to bypass the free tools that already exist and come with most Internet service to restrict adult content, they will work out how to download.a vpn or use a free proxy site.
This is what we have come to now, people posting on here to excuse rejecting measures to prevent the sexualisation of young children online.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme. Most pornography sites did not require age checks or credit cards checks before this Act
They don't require them now either.
Most now do as of this week, from Pornhub to Youporn
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
The only real way to deal with the dangers of the internet with regards to kids is a) to take personal responsibility and lock down everything when they are very young and b) during that time, education, you can't pretend boobies on the internet doesn't exist and that there are also dodgy people will who try to contact you on social media.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
Ain't going to happen. And ok so you make it illegal for parents to setup them up for them, a) good luck policing that and b) are things like WhatsApp social media? Are you seriously going to say that we ban that for kids, so they can't message people. Parents will do their nut.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
You really don't need any "knowledge" to use VPNs now. You click install app and hit the massive connect button. Do you not use a VPN yourself at the moment? All the major providers have made it so even my very elderly technophobe parents can operate it.
If a kid can play any sort of ipad game, which they all can do, they can manage to hit two buttons on their ipad or phone.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
Our daughter has social media, with our blessing, which she has under rules we have set.
1: She is only allowed to communicate with friends she knows from real life. 2: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with her door open. 3: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with a tidy bedroom.
Any communications with people she doesn't know IRL would result in a confiscated phone.
She had her last day of Primary School earlier this week, her friends she's known for the past 7 years are now splitting off going to different High Schools. Social media is a good way for them to keep in touch, over the summer and beyond. With our blessing, on the final day at school, after her leavers assembly the kids were all exchanging phone numbers and social media details between those they didn't already have, though she already had her closest friends details and has been chatting with her best friend on Roblox for years.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
Our daughter has social media, with our blessing, which she has under rules we have set.
1: She is only allowed to communicate with friends she knows from real life. 2: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with her door open. 3: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with a tidy bedroom.
Any communications with people she doesn't know IRL would result in a confiscated phone.
She had her last day of Primary School earlier this week, her friends she's known for the past 7 years are now splitting off going to different High Schools. Social media is a good way for them to keep in touch, over the summer and beyond. With our blessing, on the final day at school, after her leavers assembly the kids were all exchanging phone numbers and social media details between those they didn't already have, though she already had her closest friends details and has been chatting with her best friend on Roblox for years.
Kids can do amazing things building in Minecraft and Roblox, pick up the game play mechanics of all sorts of crazy video games where they absolutely hose adults, but no, definitely couldn't hit two buttons to use a VPN....
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
Wrong, they do not.
The average 8 year old does absolutely know how to download an app or conduct a Google search and can read and follow instructions. You clearly aren't the parent of an 8 year old.
You don't need any knowledge to do so beyond how to install apps (which all kids can do) or conduct a Google search (which all kids can do). Any kid old enough to want porn is old enough to know how to search Google to download a VPN.
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
Downing Street has no plans for a bank holiday to mark the Lionesses' Euro 2025 win, the BBC understands.
There is always a tweet....
It’s almost 60 years since England won the World Cup. I’m never complacent about anything…but there should be a celebratory bank holiday if the Lionesses bring it home. https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1691866129629671619
Oh FFS. The country can't afford a fucking bank holiday.
The bond markets smell blood in the water and every misstep will make them sniff harder.
Maybe Starmer should say we would have had a bank holiday to celebrate but we spent hundreds of billions on covid lockdowns so we are skint and need to work?
He’s said “no”. The tweet was from 2023 when he wasn’t responsible for GDP and hence said “yes”
So again proving the point, Gore was not only brighter than Bush Jr but Bill Clinton too yet it was Bill Clinton who won twice and Gore and Kerry who lost as Bill Clinton had more charisma despite their higher SATs.
Hillary was brighter than her husband as you suggest, yet Bill had more charisma than her and won twice while she lost
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. He was pretty bright.
I doubt the US would support Taiwan with troops but would send them arms and funds etc as NATO have done with Ukraine.
Only if Japan or S Korea or the Philippinnes were invaded would the US actually go to war with China
If China blockades Taiwan even sending them arms would require breaking the blockade. China would not allow the US to simply start shipping weapons into Taiwan.
The most likely intervention - and the US has wargamed this multiple times - is long range air strikes against a Chinese blockade or invasion fleet.
Plus air drops of arms and supplies
I don't think you're fully grasping what 'blockade' means. The PLAN would have ships ringing Taiwan and most of those would have anti-air capability. The only aircraft getting near Taiwan would be Chinese - even US B-2s or B-21s would not be able to overfly the island, and the kind of transport aircraft you'd need to drop meaningful quantities of supplies would be shot down a couple of hundred miles out.
I’m not sure the Chinese would want to shoot down a US plane overflying.
But practically speaking it la not going to be viable to get the quantities of supplies in given the distances
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
You really don't need any "knowledge" to use VPNs now. You click install app and hit the massive connect button. Do you not use a VPN yourself at the moment? All the major providers have made it so even my very elderly technophobe parents can operate it.
If a kid can play any sort of ipad game, which they all can do, they can manage to hit two buttons on their ipad or phone.
Indeed: and if there's one group is incredibly adept at using technology to access picutures of naked women, it's teenage boys.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
School kids have been trading software since the first micros entered their bedrooms in the early 80s. It was one of the core reasons to get the same machine as your peers.
So again proving the point, Gore was not only brighter than Bush Jr but Bill Clinton too yet it was Bill Clinton who won twice and Gore and Kerry who lost as Bill Clinton had more charisma despite their higher SATs.
Hillary was brighter than her husband as you suggest, yet Bill had more charisma than her and won twice while she lost
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. He was pretty bright.
I have difficulty believing he would have got into Georgetown with a 1032 SAT. Even in the mid 1960s.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
It was a significant birthday for Mrs J this weekend, so I got childcare in for our son, and took her down to London (*) . Three decades ago, I would travel from St Pancras to Derby on the train. At that time St Pancras was faded grandeur; the glass of Barlow's trainshed greyed out with ancient smoke; the hotel's exterior refurbished in the 1980s, but the interior decayed, abandoned and inaccessible. The stench of diesel filled the air within the vast trainshed, as if a vast mechanical lung was exhaling within. I used to climb up the steps from King's Cross and stand, awe-struck at Scott's fantastical exterior.
Roll on to this weekend, and I decided to book us in for the night at the refurbished hotel. It was expensive, and I booked a room in the modern Barlow extension, but it was still the St Pancras hotel. We arrived, and we had been upgraded from a room to a suite in the original hotel.
A suite. It was massive. And our windows looked down over the coach ramp and the Euston Road. we danced around the rooms. We failed to find any convenient plugs. We glided up *that* staircase. We dared not sing 'Wannabe'.
We had our meals in the Booking Office; somewhere I used to go to buy tickets back home to my parents'. Now restored, but also perhaps having lost a certain something: purpose and decreptiude?
By nature, I am tight. I don't particularly like spending money. But this weekend was brilliant. We got taxis everywhere, to Fortnum's for afternoon tea (a very rare treat), and then the theatre. Normally, we would either walk or get the tube. But this weekend, I spent.
Even today's chaos on the ECML did not stop us: instead of waiting amongst the thousands at Kings Cross for a train back to Sr Neots, we took a train to Bedford, and got a taxi the rest of the way.
London was also at its best: electric cars were far more common than they are up here, and the air felt remarkably clean. We walked through NW1, seeing terraces of the non-identical Nash buildings that @Leon witters on about. Runners reigned in Regent's Park. The only negative were the homeless; far more prevalent on the Euston Road than litter.
We rarely do this sort of thing, but it's scarcity made it even more special. And staying at the St Pancras Hotel was a dream fulfilled: in Mrs J's case, a dream she did not know she had...
I've promised Mrs J we'll so it again for her next fiftieth birthday...
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
You really don't need any "knowledge" to use VPNs now. You click install app and hit the massive connect button. Do you not use a VPN yourself at the moment? All the major providers have made it so even my very elderly technophobe parents can operate it.
If a kid can play any sort of ipad game, which they all can do, they can manage to hit two buttons on their ipad or phone.
Indeed: and if there's one group is incredibly adept at using technology to access picutures of naked women, it's teenage boys.
This government is trying to be Mary Whitehouse.
Instead, they're being the Mary Whitehouse Experience.
"Shi Yongxin, the abbot of the world-renowned Shaolin Temple, is being investigated by multiple agencies for embezzlement, "improper relationships with multiple women" and "fathering illegitimate children", the temple said on Sunday."
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
Our daughter has social media, with our blessing, which she has under rules we have set.
1: She is only allowed to communicate with friends she knows from real life. 2: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with her door open. 3: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with a tidy bedroom.
Any communications with people she doesn't know IRL would result in a confiscated phone.
She had her last day of Primary School earlier this week, her friends she's known for the past 7 years are now splitting off going to different High Schools. Social media is a good way for them to keep in touch, over the summer and beyond. With our blessing, on the final day at school, after her leavers assembly the kids were all exchanging phone numbers and social media details between those they didn't already have, though she already had her closest friends details and has been chatting with her best friend on Roblox for years.
Surprised you allow Roblox (we limited who she could talk to on there) because of some of the dodgy history
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
As always you deny the existence of externalities. What the individual may want to do is not necessarily in society’s best interest.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
100% agreed. That is the real problem.
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
Wrong, all the main adult websites now demand age checks and cards.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
You really don't need any "knowledge" to use VPNs now. You click install app and hit the massive connect button. Do you not use a VPN yourself at the moment? All the major providers have made it so even my very elderly technophobe parents can operate it.
If a kid can play any sort of ipad game, which they all can do, they can manage to hit two buttons on their ipad or phone.
Indeed: and if there's one group is incredibly adept at using technology to access picutures of naked women, it's teenage boys.
This government is trying to be Mary Whitehouse.
Instead, they're being the Mary Whitehouse Experience.
Passed in 2023, though the current government presumably had the options of reform or repeal.
I feel like trying to debate with HYUFD is like Konstantin Kisin debating with Jimmy The Giant.
Yes be oh so superior if you like, I am sure paedophiles will be delighted with the stance of the two of you
Your obsession with paedos....A much more realistic and bigger danger is that most kids have some sort of social media. Technically you aren't allowed it until 16, but every parent I know has set it up for their kids and its dead easy to bypass those checks anyway. I would be much more worried about who slides into their DMs.
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
And the government to its rare credit may ban social media for under 16s too as UK police chiefs have also backed
Yet more pointless, unenforceable and counter-productive rules. to make the government look as if it's dong something.
The stereotype of the nanny state.
I've not bothered doing it yet, but since the 'protect the KIDS' change I can't send DMs in BlueSky without jumping through some pointless digital hoops.
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
Secondary school.
Is the Royal High School in Edinburgh a High school or a Secondary school?
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
Secondary school.
There are a smattering of state High Schools around the uk.
Social media and smartphones ought to be banned completely for the under 16s in my opinion.
Why?
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
Secondary school.
Is the Royal High School in Edinburgh a High school or a Secondary school?
Morning Blanche. Hope you are getting well looked after.
It was a significant birthday for Mrs J this weekend, so I got childcare in for our son, and took her down to London (*) . Three decades ago, I would travel from St Pancras to Derby on the train. At that time St Pancras was faded grandeur; the glass of Barlow's trainshed greyed out with ancient smoke; the hotel's exterior refurbished in the 1980s, but the interior decayed, abandoned and inaccessible. The stench of diesel filled the air within the vast trainshed, as if a vast mechanical lung was exhaling within. I used to climb up the steps from King's Cross and stand, awe-struck at Scott's fantastical exterior.
Roll on to this weekend, and I decided to book us in for the night at the refurbished hotel. It was expensive, and I booked a room in the modern Barlow extension, but it was still the St Pancras hotel. We arrived, and we had been upgraded from a room to a suite in the original hotel.
A suite. It was massive. And our windows looked down over the coach ramp and the Euston Road. we danced around the rooms. We failed to find any convenient plugs. We glided up *that* staircase. We dared not sing 'Wannabe'.
We had our meals in the Booking Office; somewhere I used to go to buy tickets back home to my parents'. Now restored, but also perhaps having lost a certain something: purpose and decreptiude?
By nature, I am tight. I don't particularly like spending money. But this weekend was brilliant. We got taxis everywhere, to Fortnum's for afternoon tea (a very rare treat), and then the theatre. Normally, we would either walk or get the tube. But this weekend, I spent.
Even today's chaos on the ECML did not stop us: instead of waiting amongst the thousands at Kings Cross for a train back to Sr Neots, we took a train to Bedford, and got a taxi the rest of the way.
London was also at its best: electric cars were far more common than they are up here, and the air felt remarkably clean. We walked through NW1, seeing terraces of the non-identical Nash buildings that @Leon witters on about. Runners reigned in Regent's Park. The only negative were the homeless; far more prevalent on the Euston Road than litter.
We rarely do this sort of thing, but it's scarcity made it even more special. And staying at the St Pancras Hotel was a dream fulfilled: in Mrs J's case, a dream she did not know she had...
I've promised Mrs J we'll so it again for her next fiftieth birthday...
Comments
Any who could be of interest to view porn could download a VPN if they choose to do so. Its not remotely difficult and all kids and teens are tech savvy enough to do what's needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/26/uk-ofcom-study-children-viewing-online-pornography-age-checks
This was not to stop 16 or 17 year olds watching adult porn in their rooms, it was to stop young children being sexualised by pornographic images far too young and making them more vulnerable to paedophiles too.
Clearly you are not bothered by that, which is concerning
But if they wanted to? Yes, 7 year olds can install apps.
Freak.
Libertarianism to the uber extreme. Most pornography sites did not require age checks or credit cards checks before this Act
If you don't want your kids seeing prom, use the tools already available and lock down their devices. If you haven't done that, it's trivial to bypass the law.
You can have concerns about the checks GCHQ etc do on search history without rejecting mandatory age and credit card checks for pornography sites
If you don't lock down your internet content restriction filters and the ability to install apps, horny 14 year boys will have absolutely no problem downloading a VPN....and all their mates / tiktok will tell them exactly how to do it. So in that respect the Online Safety Bill adds nothing positive.
The downsides in terms of general censorship, plenty of people on the left and right are very worried about this.
That is very concerning
8% of 8-14 year olds won't be evenly distributed amongst those age groups, it likely includes next-to-no 8 year olds and a significant proportion of teenagers.
Do some teenagers access porn? Yes.
Will a single teenager who wants to get stopped by this? No.
So should we do something about it? Also no.
This did cheer me up, though. Sarah Pochin is now talking about taking legal action against her constituents who don't agree that Greenway Road, Runcorn, is a hellhole, as she .. er .. documented in her video.
That seems to be the ones who live there. Priceless.
https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1948272013132304485
The only people who will benefit from your stance are paedophiles
Online Safety Bill does nothing to address that.
The only real way to deal with the dangers of the internet with regards to kids is a) to take personal responsibility and lock down everything when they are very young and b) during that time, education, you can't pretend boobies on the internet doesn't exist and that there are also dodgy people will who try to contact you on social media.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9gpdrx829o
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/apr/12/uk-police-chiefs-call-for-ban-on-social-media-for-under-16s
I don't know why HYUFD keeps insisting websites are demanding cards and checks, when they're not. They're demanding VPNs, which can be done in one click following a simple Google search. Any idiot who can download an app can do it.
All kids online know how to download apps. They can all install a VPN if they desire to do so.
You have to have the knowledge to get a VPN to pretend you are accessing a website from outside the UK and the average 8 year old is not going to know how to download a VPN
You sound like you want to go full metal China.
If a kid can play any sort of ipad game, which they all can do, they can manage to hit two buttons on their ipad or phone.
Our daughter has social media, with our blessing, which she has under rules we have set.
1: She is only allowed to communicate with friends she knows from real life.
2: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with her door open.
3: She is only allowed to video call her friends if she does so with a tidy bedroom.
Any communications with people she doesn't know IRL would result in a confiscated phone.
She had her last day of Primary School earlier this week, her friends she's known for the past 7 years are now splitting off going to different High Schools. Social media is a good way for them to keep in touch, over the summer and beyond. With our blessing, on the final day at school, after her leavers assembly the kids were all exchanging phone numbers and social media details between those they didn't already have, though she already had her closest friends details and has been chatting with her best friend on Roblox for years.
The average 8 year old does absolutely know how to download an app or conduct a Google search and can read and follow instructions. You clearly aren't the parent of an 8 year old.
You don't need any knowledge to do so beyond how to install apps (which all kids can do) or conduct a Google search (which all kids can do). Any kid old enough to want porn is old enough to know how to search Google to download a VPN.
We have made the deliberate choice to buy our daughter a phone, which she will carry with her as a safety thing when she makes her own way home from High School. She is one of the last in her year to get a phone, as most of her classmates got one when they started walking to school, but she never walked to school as I drove her and picked her up from after school club, but at High School she can get a school bus home instead and walk only to and from the bus stop.
We gave hers to her on her final birthday before starting High School.
That's our choice we've made as her parents. Who are you to determine a ban on something we want her to have?
But practically speaking it la not going to be viable to get the quantities of supplies in given the distances
F1: that's the second time this season I've had a bet fail by less than a second. Oh well.
The stereotype of the nanny state.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/spain/abandoned-train-station-hotel-spain-canfranc-b2284275.html
Instead, they're being the Mary Whitehouse Experience.
"Shi Yongxin, the abbot of the world-renowned Shaolin Temple, is being investigated by multiple agencies for embezzlement, "improper relationships with multiple women" and "fathering illegitimate children", the temple said on Sunday."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkzdek8gkeo
No downloads needed.
"A song cost me my family, my job, & everything I built." – he said.
And I don't think it was Coldplay who told the outside world, wasn't that already pinned down to the other person from Astronomy at the concert...
NEW THREAD