Online Safety Bill

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Parents can then be informed about it causing any interruption to learning and a discussion can be had as to whether the child actually needs the smartphone, whether it should be returned to them or of a basic non smartphone would be more appropriate.

It would be a very short discussion here - they would be told in no uncertain terms its none of their business whether MY child has a smartphone.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They feel that the best way to stop young people from using social media is for staff & pupils to collaborate ...

Why should "young people" be stopped from using social media ?
Just because a small number cant cope, doesnt mean the rest should stop.
Some children cant behave properly in a resaurant, it doesnt mean all children should be banned from them.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

It would be a very short discussion here - they would be told in no uncertain terms its none of their business whether MY child has a smartphone.



Why should "young people" be stopped from using social media ?
Just because a small number cant cope, doesnt mean the rest should stop.
Some children cant behave properly in a resaurant, it doesnt mean all children should be banned from them.

The head said that she would explain the growing evidence that smartphones and social media are harmful to children. Parents would be free to ignore this advice outside of school.

[Dude111]

They should not ignore it,its very real and scary!!

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Dude111

They should not ignore it,its very real and scary!!

Would you care to explain why, from your own point of view?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The head said that she would explain the growing evidence that smartphones and social media are harmful to children. Parents would be free to ignore this advice outside of school.

If such evidence genuinely does exist I’d certainly like to see it. My son had had my old iPhone 7 for a while and he’s pretty well adjusted.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Russ

If such evidence genuinely does exist I’d certainly like to see it. My son had had my old iPhone 7 for a while and he’s pretty well adjusted.

There is a lot of 'evidence' out there. Mainly from El Gov etc based on the impact and evidence of a minority that are affected. So basically the nut and a sledgehammer approach for everyone else due to the few. Which is why it's stupid and most are against it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

If such evidence genuinely does exist I’d certainly like to see it. My son had had my old iPhone 7 for a while and he’s pretty well adjusted.

There's plenty of archive resources for you to peruse in this thread or you can search online.

Incidents range from mental health problems to children being bullied/harrassed/trolled to the point of suicide.

I'm surprised that you need evidence given your involvement with catching paedophiles/hebephiles who operate primarily from online contact to the child's smartphone.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

There is a lot of 'evidence' out there. Mainly from El Gov etc based on the impact and evidence of a minority that are affected. So basically the nut and a sledgehammer approach for everyone else due to the few. Which is why it's stupid and most are against it.

It's correct to say that most on here appear to be against more controls over the use of smartphones by children, but this is not my experience in the wider world or that of the regulator.

Evidence has been provided from allsorts of adults & children. I'm not aware of any Government involvement apart from the introduction of the Online Safety Act, the establishment of Ofcom as the regulator and statements from individual or groups of MP's.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There's plenty of archive resources for you to peruse in this thread or you can search online.

Incidents range from mental health problems to children being bullied/harrassed/trolled to the point of suicide.

I'm surprised that you need evidence given your involvement with catching paedophiles/hebephiles who operate primarily from online contact to the child's smartphone.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------



It's correct to say that most on here appear to be against more controls over the use of smartphones by children, but this is not my experience in the wider world or that of the regulator.

Evidence has been provided from allsorts of adults & children. I'm not aware of any Government involvement apart from the introduction of the Online Safety Act, the establishment of Ofcom as the regulator and statements from individual or groups of MP's.

All of these things predate smartphones, and the internet. Kids are bad, maybe we should do away with them?

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by peanut

There is a lot of 'evidence' out there. Mainly from El Gov etc based on the impact and evidence of a minority that are affected.

Yes and alot get dissiness more now than they did because of all this crap in the air!

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Yes and alot get dissiness more now than they did because of all this crap in the air!

Do you not have Bacofoil (aluminium) foil in America ?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There's plenty of archive resources for you to peruse in this thread or you can search online.

I’ve had a look and seen plenty of opinions, but nothing that constitutes ‘evidence’

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm surprised that you need evidence given your involvement with catching paedophiles/hebephiles who operate primarily from online contact to the child's smartphone.

You’re only surprised because you’re not aware of the methods used.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

I’ve had a look and seen plenty of opinions, but nothing that constitutes ‘evidence’


You’re only surprised because you’re not aware of the methods used.

The paedophile hunting groups that I've seen/spoken to tend to use decoys who pretend to be under age or involve real children. They then wait for innapropriate contact from adults and take it from there..

Does your group do things differently?

[Russ]

That’s about 20% of what hunting teams do

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

That’s about 20% of what hunting teams do

AIUI there are four main roles involved. Decoys who pretend to be under age, researchers who find out all about the life of the perpetrators, the hunters who go to visit the perpetrators to challenge them about their behaviour and security in case things turn nasty.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

AIUI there are four main roles involved. Decoys who pretend to be under age, researchers who find out all about the life of the perpetrators, the hunters who go to visit the perpetrators to challenge them about their behaviour and security in case things turn nasty.

Kruger-Dunning effect again. There’s a hell of a lot more involved than you know. Watching a couple of videos of teams does not give you any legitimate insight.

Way off topic too.