Cameron Wants To Censor Your Access To This Forum

[Frazzel]

PM David (dictator) cameron wishes to set up filters on you ISP to stop you accessing websites such as this 911 forum, and other so called "extremist" websites. So that should include the tory party website then! They are using the excuse its to protect children from pornography but it has been widened to also mean web forums and socalled extremist websites. Please write to your MP, complain to your ISP and sign tis petition
This is a sinister attempt to clamp down on our freedoms, remiscient of G.Orwells 1984, and must be resisted.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-prime-minister-david-cameron- stop-the-unnecessary-censorship-of-esoteric-websites-and-web-forums?ut m_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_mess age_notice

[TonyGosling]

PART OF THE DIGITAL CAGE
The Great Firewall of Cameron: Why The UK's Filtering By Fiat Won't Work, and Won't Help
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/great-wall-of-cameron

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, could have buried almost any bad news on the same day as a royal birth. Instead, the main grievous news he had to offer — his plan for pervasive censorship of the British Internet — was entirely his own making. His speech has been critiqued for its grandstanding and for ignorance of how the Internet works, but the lasting damage of his new initiative will serve to extend the precedent that the UK government and private actors can interfere with Internet communications without regulation or legislative oversight, and to undermine the safety of the children it seeks to protect.

Britain already has, since 1996, a voluntary system of Internet censorship through a web address blacklist determined by the Internet Watch Foundation, a private charity. The secret blacklist is used by a number of ISPs and mobile phone providers to filter their users. Sites entering the blacklist take months to actually be taken down, as opposed to the days for other (unblocked) unlawful sites, such as banking fraud sites. The list has included false positives, including a reported image on Wikipedia, which lead to all scanned UK traffic for Wikipedia passing through the filtering servers, causing Wikipedia to be briefly inaccessible to most of the UK.

Cameron's announcement (and leaked confrontations with ISPs) has used recent events to ramp up this voluntary system of control. Search engines in Britain will now be asked to comply with blocking a blacklist of terms, as well as hold a "hackathon for child safety."

These steps will do nothing to help the fight against abuse. Child abuse images are illegal to possess or distribute by anyone in the UK — including, as the Open Rights Group has pointed out, anyone who accidentally accessed such images as part of that child safety hackathon. As a consequence, search engines and ISPs alike already take extraordinary steps to identify and eliminate such content. As with any system of Internet blocking, this means that almost all such distribution evades these routes, and occurs instead out of the sight of search engines or censorship.

More damagingly, Cameron has demanded and apparently gained grudging consent from the primary UK ISPs to implement a "default on" filtering system, to be rolled out to the majority of public wifi and broadband users. British Internet users will be presented "with an unavoidable decision about whether or not to install family friendly content filters," he announced. This will be to prevent children seeing, he says, "adult content."

Such a system is, in theory, conducted with the end-users' consent. At EFF, however, we often talk of the "tyranny of defaults". A checkbox that is set on by default will determine reality for most users. That makes whoever runs these blacklists of "adult content" will have considerable influence on what the British public normally can and can't see.

Who will construct such lists? Will they be commercial companies, who frequently both under and overblock content (including one service which censored ORG's own discussion of the Cameron announcement)? If they block by keyword, those filters will have to intercept and inspect, in real-time, all the content of a user's communications. If so, how will they "protect" users from adult content, when the default encryption of services that relay "adult" content like Facebook, Google, and Youtube, and millions of other sites? And how will they separate the subtle difference between a site that is pruriently discussing, say, sex issues in adolescence, and a site that is sharing medical or psychological advice on that experience?

A secret blacklist can have no transparency; an unregulated filtering system will have no oversight; and the long and sad history of attempts of Internet censorship show it will be a specious distraction from the real problems. When the British Prime Minister announces that default-on censorship will be easy as "One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe," he is not only grandstanding, he is being dangerously misleading.

If you wish to defend your child from adult content, an Internet filter is insufficient as a solution, especially when it is operated from afar by your ISP and your government, and not you. And if you wish to defend your nation's children from abuse, when such abuse is frequently from within the family then locking children away from external but "adult" advice and giving the key to those who control the rest of their lives, is the worst possible strategy. That's why youth advice charities and abuse survivors have come out against these filters. Meanwhile, the precedent is set: private service providers have been positively encouraged to interfere with their users' Internet traffic at the hands of the government.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/great-wall-of-cameron

[TonyGosling]

Couple of campaign/petition links on this
plenty of useful easy to assimilate info
do please email around - tweet
and even - shock horror write to your MP

Change.org petition
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-prime-minister-david-cameron- stop-the-unnecessary-censorship-of-esoteric-websites-and-web-forums

David Cameron: Stop Sleepwalking the UK into Censorship
David Cameron wants to push you into switching on adult web filters. These proposals are incredibly dangerous. Cameron should drop them immediately.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleepwalking

Infographic: UK Filter to Block ‘Esoteric Content’ – Worldwide Implications
http://www.reachinglight.com/infographic-uk-filter-block-esoteric-cont ent-worldwide-implications/
Can you imagine a world where access to spiritual information was blocked by the government? What if you stopped by an internet cafe, only to find your favorite website was banned by a public web filter, or your friend’s natural health website was blocked because it mentioned ‘spiritual healing’ techniques? A disturbing movement to censor perfectly legal spiritual information is growing (right now in the UK, but other countries are poised to jump on the bandwagon), and will continue unchecked unless people become aware of the problem and protest it. Find out more about the UK filter, and how it will affect you, below.

[silent one]

They don't just want to censor this site, they want to criminalise free speech and give rights and protection to pedophiles.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_ revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

Section 1. Definitions For the purposes of this Statute:
(a)"Group" means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

Now I don't know about you but that last bit "or any other characteristics of a similar nature" Is deliberately Vague, I do not know of many other'sexual orientations' that could not have been defined in that paragraph, namely Heterosexaul,Homosexual,Lesbian, Paedophilia and Bestiality (maybe I have led too much of a sheltered life).
I will say here and now, that ldefinition WILL be used to PROTECT and give RIGHTS to Paedophiles.

Look at
"Section 7 , Penal Sanctions, Clause (a) "The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes:""

They are crimalising intolerance, or if you like introducing 'Thought Crime' .
"Section 7 clause b, Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance. "

And be used as an excuse to take your kids.

Section 7 Clause d,

is there but is BLANK, what do they intend to put there or what have they decided not to let you know about.
"Section 7 clause(e)Victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a) will have a legal standing to bring a case against the perpetrators, as well as aright to redress."

and with that one they will be able to strip you of your hard earned cash.

"Section 9 clause (c) The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission."

And this means blogs etc, maybe even our emails.

And be aware of this
Explanatory notes must be viewed as an authentic interpretation of the text of the Framework Statute. Where appropriate, they should also serve as a basis for either primary or secondary legislation.

[silent one]

You tube of the EU parliament
An attempt to impose "tolerance/diversity" indoctrination and thought crime attacks on democracy comes unstuck as the true nature of double speak is clinically exposed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1rQPzl85-4

at 13 mins and 5 seconds, the speaker says " gender identity and sexual orientation, we also think it should be an open definition, other elements may be added in time"
Of a group consisting of two genders Males and Females there only four possible orientations, Heterosexual, Homosexual, lesbian and Bisexual. So it would be very easy to define that in Section1 clause a).
I will restate my assertion that Pedophilia is to be added to that group. There is no other reason for the definition to be SO vague.
The speaker at 26 mins onward is Andrew Brons,who is a very well educated knowledgeable University lecturer,he doesnt beat about the bush,he views current affairs with eyes wide open and knows exactly what he is talking about,he speaks common sence and could run rings around those creeps in EU who are Zionist agents
Nick griffin starts at 30 mins and 43 seconds, one of his comments is "using tax money to suppress tax payers opinions" and makes further reasonable comment.
In looking at the video you will notice the EU Parliament was almost empty and on such an important matter.

[TonyGosling]

As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results
Jim Gamble from the
Google and Microsoft agree steps to block abuse images
BBC - 18 November 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765

But Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), told BBC Breakfast he did not think the measures would make any difference with regard to protecting children from paedophiles.
"They don't go on to Google to search for images. They go on to the dark corners of the internet on peer-to-peer websites," he said.
He said search engines had already been blocking inappropriate content and the latest move was just an enhancement of what was already happening.
A better solution would be to spend £1.5m on hiring 12 child protection experts and 12 co-ordinators in each of the police regions to hunt down online predators, he added.