manderlyh Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 One of the most empowering things you can teach people is how to effectively evade a predator who corners you when you are alone. I'm sure it is. I've thought several times about taking a self-defense class. I'm a woman, and women need as much of that as they can get--whether they live with a big-ass man and three huge dogs or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncing~ship Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 The common judgment is all that is needed... you can only help yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHD Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 This appeared on the BBC News website this morning. Sex offenders face net use curbs Sex offenders' e-mail addresses are to be passed to social networking sites like Facebook and Bebo to prevent them contacting children. Offenders who do not give police their address - or give a false one - already face up to five years in jail. Websites would be expected to monitor the e-mail address usage or block them accessing the sites. Other measures in new government guidelines include a "kitemark" for filtering software. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted children to be "free from fear". However, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said ministers admitted that details of the system are still to be worked out, including how would it work with websites based abroad over which the UK has no jurisdiction. 'Working together' The new government guidance comes after the telecoms regulator Ofcom talked to 5,000 adults and 3,000 children and found 49% of those aged between eight and 17 had a profile on social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo. It found 41% of the children it questioned had their profile set so anyone, rather than just friends, could view it. We feel it will add protection for children using the internet Shaun Kelly NCH The recent Byron review also found 31% of those aged between nine and 19 who used the net weekly had received sexual comments via e-mail, instant message, chat or text message. Announcing the new guidelines, the home secretary said: "I want to see every child living their lives free from fear, whether they are meeting friends in a youth club or in a chat room. "We are working together with police, industry and charities to create a hostile environment for sex offenders on the internet and are determined to make it as hard for predators to strike online as in the real world." Shaun Kelly, from the children's charity NCH, told the BBC that he welcomed the new measures. "We feel it will add protection for children using the internet. "It will mean that those who have previously offended against children will be stopped from accessing certain websites and certain social networking sites that children and young people are known to use. "I think that will increase children's online safety." The Social Networking Guidance contains recommendations for service providers and safety advice for first-time users. They also include: Arrangements for the industry and law enforcement agencies to share reports of potentially illegal activity and suspicious behaviour Making it more difficult for people registered over the age of 18 to search for users under the age of 18 Encouraging children not to provide excessive information about themselves Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation Online Protection Agency Jim Gamble said the guidance had the "real potential to accelerate online child protection". "It will provide parents with those crucial indicators as to which sites and providers they should be using, allowing children the chance to get on and enjoy the full benefits of the internet with vital reassurance," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllisonAdler Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 There are only two sorts of persons who could possibly have an objection to Bonnie's useful and informative thread: 1) the very people it is meant to protect against (and their 'friends') 2) deliberate trouble-causers Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 There are only two sorts of persons who could possibly have an objection to Bonnie's useful and informative thread: 1) the very people it is meant to protect against (and their 'friends') 2) deliberate trouble-causers Go figure. Not necessarily; I think someone may have been trying to make a point similar to the one that Elvis Presley did when he recorded the song (We Can't Go On Together With) Suspicious Minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 We do have amoung us at least one 10yr old girl who has introduced herself and is here because she is a big Led Zeppelin fan. Now how would any of us feel if someone posted a hurtful comment that crushed her young feelings, not to mention something much worse Yes her father has a responsibility to check what she's reading. he does. Nonetheless, she will at some point defy him and be here on her own. Do I feel a responsibility ? Your damn right I do. There are enough adults on this site with or without children of they're own, that it would be outrageous not to be aware of the dangers that kids can confront on the web. This site has an official status attatched to it. We may not be able to clean up the whole internet, but we are capable of protecting the standards here. Great post Bonnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 We do have amoung us at least one 10yr old girl who has introduced herself and is here because she is a big Led Zeppelin fan. Now how would any of us feel if someone posted a hurtful comment that crushed her young feelings, not to mention something much worse Yes her father has a responsibility to check what she's reading. he does. Nonetheless, she will at some point defy him and be here on her own. Do I feel a responsibility ? Your damn right I do. There are enough adults on this site with or without children of they're own, that it would be outrageous not to be aware of the dangers that kids can confront on the web. This site has an official status attatched to it. We may not be able to clean up the whole internet, but we are capable of protecting the standards here. Great post Bonnie I foresee a problem if that means that Elvis has got to stop shaking his hips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitcoolinbaby Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Not necessarily; I think someone may have been trying to make a point similar to the one that Elvis Presley did when he recorded the song (We Can't Go On Together With) Suspicious Minds. I think the point may have been hurling senseless accusations at the entire list because of one culprit defeats the entire purpose of trying to find a middle ground. The answer is communication. Not back stabbing and misinformation. I could be wrong though you know. If your going to use some type of security measures? Well welcome to letting the world in on what they are... Security is secretive for a good reason. Not to hurt people by not telling them. It's for your own good. There are measures which could be installed. However last I looked you probably couldnt afford me. And too, it would compromise the freedom and integrity of the list. You would be stamping a number on everyone who registered. <sp edit> Go E! Thank's E.L... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunChild Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm sure it is. I've thought several times about taking a self-defense class. I'm a woman, and women need as much of that as they can get--whether they live with a big-ass man and three huge dogs or not. Couldn't agree more, although I like to travel with my German Shepherd. She's a giant marshmallow of course but people don't know that just to look at her, and I'm certain if the chips were down someone would be very sorry they riled her up. I also want to thank Bonnie for this important thread and information. In my very strong opinion, it's both realistic and loving to arm your children against predators. It frees them from fear instead of making them prey to it. I've wondered for a long time why schools don't teach children self-defense. The internet makes predation easier, but that's not to say people aren't hanging out down by the school yard, too. Either way, a physical meeting has to take place for direct harm to be done, no matter where the first contact is made. The truth is, it's not that hard to take someone down, especially if they aren't expecting it. It takes knowledge and confidence, not physical strength. I took a fantastic course once called Model Mugging. They teach people (although it's aimed at women) how to defend themselves, with very straight forward and effective techniques. The best thing is, the guys are padded and protected so you can beat the hell out of them! They don't stop coming at you until they feel you're hitting them with enough force to stop a real attacker. So you get the genuine feel of it, it's not theoretical. (God bless those guys, they leave those classes bruised up for sure, but they care enough to give women something priceless.) Once you've had some towering Martian looking dude do his best to jump you until you truly stop him, you have no idea how great it feels to let that energy flow, and to know for sure you are not helpless. Sadly I think children are often taught exactly the opposite. So, kudos to you Bonnie. Manders, perhaps your university can arrange a group class? It was my workplace that set up the class I took, to help combat a creep who was hanging around the parking lot. http://www.modelmugging.org/ "The Paradox of self-defense demonstrates the more prepared you are to defend yourself, the less likely you will ever have to." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Apparently Elvis has a lot to do with this thread? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Apparently Elvis has a lot to do with this thread? Interesting. He had some pretty nifty self-defense moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I foresee a problem if that means that Elvis has got to stop shaking his hips. I find it a bit inappropriate to be making these sort of posts in a thread that is on a very serious topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I find it a bit inappropriate to be making these sort of posts in a thread that is on a very serious topic Refer to the part of history in rock and roll where Ed Sullivan presided; it is possible to go to an extreme when censorship becomes the rule. Elvis had established himself as an entertainer who could attract a large television audience and boost ratings, so it's not surprising that after many rejections, the Colonel finally arranged for Elvis to appear on The Ed Sullivan Show, a highly rated, prime-time variety program. Sullivan, who was a powerful figure in the industry, had stated publicly that he would not allow Elvis to appear on his show because it was a family program. But ratings speak louder than scruples, and Sullivan backed down from this stance after The Steve Allen Show was so successful. Elvis was paid an unprecedented fee of $50,000 for three appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show. This was a lot more than the $5,000 per show Colonel Parker had asked for only a few weeks earlier when Sullivan turned him down. Elvis' performance on The Ed Sullivan Show is cemented in the annals of rock music history because of the censors' decision to shoot the volatile young singer only from the waist up. However, contrary to popular belief, this decision was not made until his third appearance. Elvis Presley on The Ed Sullivan Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I find it a bit inappropriate to be making these sort of posts in a thread that is on a very serious topic That's her M.O., don't you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think safety on the internet is essential, but people have already tried censorship in rock and roll, and it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 So what does that have to do with internet safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 So what does that have to do with internet safety? Internet safety can have repercussions that were not originally intended, namely unreasonable censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirchzep27 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Beware of people fishing for personal information on email i would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Beware of people fishing for personal information on email i would say. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGG Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I foresee a problem if that means that Elvis has got to stop shaking his hips. It doesn't alright?? Stop spamming yet another thread with youtube links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It doesn't alright?? It's happened before in history; you start off trying to protect the public, and the next thing that comes is censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Protecting yourself on the internet has nothing to do censoring music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Protecting yourself on the internet has nothing to do censoring music. It should not, but it can happen. History has shown that censorship appears when people are trying to protect the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 No one has said anything about censorship or suggested censorship on any level. This has to do with keeping your eyes open for creeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 No one has said anything about censorship or suggested censorship on any level. This has to do with keeping your eyes open for creeps. Actually, plenty of discussion on the issue of internet safety and censorship has taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.