TO SAY....There may be a move by Cameron to restrict sites like MUMSNET and twitter

[ScousyFogarty]

I THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA....to restrict message sites like MUMSNET and Twitter

It is an idea which springs from all the fuss over rich people having super injunctions to silence the media. (Often overpaid Premier footballers)

There are EXCESSES on some message sites. But even some of the VERY RUDE stuff is very funny. (I could quote entries on Mumsnet which had me falling about)

So we dont want to kill off RUDE or SATIRICAL humour because rich people dont approve. (They should go home and count their money)

That said posters need need to have a care as to what is ok and what is not. Direct lies about named people is not ok

But that does NOT mean we kill off GOSSIP. (You prpbably cannot anyway)
The papers are full of it. And the BBC has Hyslop from PRIVATE EYE doing
the funny BBC 2TV News quiz.

Please just keep an eye on what Calm Down David Cameron is doing during the next few months, It matters.

cameron to resist french plan for internet regulation only 3 days ago. I read nothing in that report to suggest what you say in your OP, although it does say that he is under pressure from "social conservatives to do more to control the effect of the web on children."

Is that what you mean when you say that there may be a move by david cameron to restrict sites like mumsnet?

Or is there a different report saying that?

Network naive If you wait while it alls gun blazing from government sources you will be too late. You seem a bit naive about politics.

Several major columnist have written about it since the injunction gigga bust up

Not all Tory types either. As one would expect. Guardian geezer today or was it yesterday.. (Not Toynby) Major article.

It would be leaked to Tory papers first. Possibly sundays. Then 5-live interviews would take place monday. Testing the water Familiar tactic

Dont you follow tory decision making????

Is the story to do with the french plan to regulate the internet or not?

well, networkguy....you seem to know more than most about the possibilities of restriction. so keep em peeled, in case the politicos float something. All govt floated ideas are not meant to be law. But some are.

Camerooney is more of a front page seeker than even Blair was. He operates through the largely Tory media.

But the Daily Torygraph and the Mail would like to ditch the coalition for just Tory leadership

What are you blathering on about? Where is it written where I can read it that Cameron is talking about closing down Mumsnet and Twitter et al?

Well nobody will accuse me of being a DC lover (and get away with it anyway) and thre IS talk of how the internet should ro should not be regulated (at the G-whatever-it-was-summit is France)

And MN excesses are horrrific; funny thoughs some may have found it on a few occasion I have been told that my disabled dcs should be left to starve or I should ahve been offered the option of having them killed later on (good old CK anyone?)

BUT

In a world where people canignite terrorism online, sell drugs and plan all sorts of atrocity

I somehow doubt parents bickering voer parking sapces on here is their target.

So whilst always a little at a Tory policy I don;t think GHaby has a point on this one. not yet anyway.

LIBEL on sites. Needs censoring.

If you read papers you will know that Gabby Logan had a very serious run in over a Twitter falsehood. She thought of suing but went to the press.

Now she describes it thus...Photographers chasing her to school with the kids. A journalist inside her hallway without permission (Thats serious)...and the sites could remove obvious libels from the screen

PEACHY? what you said needed saying. But do watch Camerooney "leaks" in the next few months.

At the moment he has taken the press side. (we know why.) But there are other powerful forces. Top Judges for one (They are wounded over Giggsy adultery)

There may be something in what you say Scousy although ATM I am expecting the NHS thing to ignite and consume his energies.

I'd like to see the colaition split in some ways (not all) becuase ATM they seem to be able to make decisions yet patsy the bad calls onto otehr people (who was it gave the press call on NHS climb downs yesterday? NC. Quelle Surprise).

If the tories are going to make calls that many of us who work with the vulnerable will have to clear up the mess from then they should damned well take the fallout too. Am sure they will happily take anything positive outcomes for themselves after all.

Accountability is, or should be, a must.

Well quite recently it was mumsnet advocating restricting the internet and lots of people thought it a brilliant idea. Of course MN didn't mean restricting you lot. Just those sites that people disapprove of - which is where it all falls down of course.

If DC were to announce that he was banning the internet to protect his rich friends he'd stand no chance. However his government could support those groups who want ISPs to control/censor the net "to protect the innocent" and people would be cheering him on.

Just bear it in mind next time someone asks you to sign a petition to stop internet porn or whatever.

erm, as far as i heard, DC was cautiously suggested that libel law be reviewed in the light of the Lyin Piggs controversy. Bu over a period of time and not as a knee-jerk reaction. That is all.
So: link it or sink it?

here you go, part way down

More Sarkozy than DC it would seem.

(and yes, muntains and molehills come to mind. Better things to concern ourselves with atm surely?)

Network...

Am not very technically minded, but I do know that it is possible for people to be effectively blocked from internet sites.

I'm sure there are ways around these things...

Peachy an iinteresting post at 130045......well some people are saying Nick Clugg has managed to block the NHS bill further. (I am not convinced that we are not being played games with on this.) Nicky could twist Camerooneys arm; but only if he was prepared to threaten to pull out. He may be doing that; but I doubt it..

Well, there is a bloody stupid piece of new legislation that website users must give sites permission to accept cookies. This means British websites will become too annoying to use! Presumably "They" want us to put little popups all over the place, saying "Does this site have permission to remember which page you last visited? Does this site have permission to remember that you have logged in? Does this site have permission to remember your preferences?" etc.

I'm not changing any of mine until after the ruling comes into force (12 months' time) in hopes that it will go the way of compulsory archery practice ...

What with supreme judges pronouncing that posting on Twitter is as bad as being a paedophile, and other brilliant insights into how the internet works, we could be in for a bumpy ride. So Gabby's not right but neither is she wrong

garlic... thanks garlic, I heard the cookies news item yesterday and did not understand it. Then a little symbol came up; and I thought it might be linked to the cookies news story. But nobody could explain it. ( I dont know Logans views on this)

PS wont the COOKIES thing confuse the yanks?

eeuw - the only thing I liked about the Tory party was their stance on freedom of speech...

Lol @ confusing the Yanks! Maybe our govt should make us call the British ones 'biscuits'

You're right in that the super-injunction farrago has sparked a lot of high-level paranoia about people using the Web to talk to one another Sam Cam's been a popular tweeter for ages, but perhaps her husband thought it was only available to posh people or something