Online Safety Bill

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have no idea what the SNP or Labour have done to police admin support levels since 1997. My point is, you jumping in to blame the Tories for sacking 23,500 police admin staff is irrelevant to a discussion about whether Police in Scotland can cope with the burden imposed on them by the new Scottish hate crime legislation, which was the issue Jfman was addressing (and which you quoted in your reply). The Tories have not had the power to hire or fire anyone in the police since devolution.

Seems like a cop out unless you're also saying Scotland was immune to Westminster budget cuts and iirc 3000 officer and admin staff jobs were under threat from redundancy at the end of last year something Unison said resulted in police officers filling the civilian roles 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Seems like a cop out unless you're also saying Scotland was immune to Westminster budget cuts and iirc 3000 officer and admin staff jobs were under threat from redundancy at the end of last year something Unison said resulted in police officers filling the civilian roles 10 years ago

And that sounds like you’re shifting the goalposts while hoping nobody notices that the total funding settlement from Westminster to Holyrood is not the same thing as ‘Tories have sacked 23,500 police admin staff’. Just admit you got the wrong end of the stick and move on.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

So admin at the police are deciding whether stuff is a police matter or not?

Sounds like this is being taken supeseriously. It still costs money.

Are people “abusing” the new law? They were told this is where to go to complain about objectionable content.

I suspect that the number of complaints about two individuals to be part of an organised campaign to make a point as opposed to true complaints made in good faith.

I expect that civilian staff are making decisions that would at one time have been made by police ifficers, yes. In an effort to deal with spending cuts or staff shortages, many organisations these days use lesser qualified staff to do the job that at one time was once done higher up the hierarchy.

It is happening at the NHS (Nurse Practitioners) and in frontline policing (Police Community Support Officers).

Even going to an Ombudsman these days is likely to be dealt with by admin staff and only goes to an actual Ombudsman if the complainant objects to the decision.

It doesnt matter who is dealing with them, someone is having to.
Thats clearly going to have an effect on whatever else they were supposed to be doing.

[RichardCoulter]

UK ministers considering banning sale of smartphones to under-16s

https://www.theguardian.com/technoog...s-to-under-16s

The Town that banned children using smartphones':

https://www.itv.com/thismorning/arti...ng-smartphones

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

https://www.theguardian.com/technoog...s-to-under-16s

The Town that banned children using smartphones':

https://www.itv.com/thismorning/arti...ng-smartphones

Be interesting to know how many parents have their kids on contracts in their name.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

And that sounds like you’re shifting the goalposts while hoping nobody notices that the total funding settlement from Westminster to Holyrood is not the same thing as ‘Tories have sacked 23,500 police admin staff’. Just admit you got the wrong end of the stick and move on.

On the contrary .....


Post edited.
Its very clearly been pointed out that the party you are referring to had no involvement, or even the power, to make changes to Scottish policing in the last 25+ years.
Therefore I can only conclude you are deliberately trolling now (since I dont believe you to be dumb and thus not comprehend) - either way, move on, its getting off topic.

Originally Posted by jfman

Be interesting to know how many parents have their kids on contracts in their name.

I dont think under 18's can have contracts in their own name.

[jfman]

Well yes, my suspicion is that rather than pay £800 for a new iPhone for a teenager parents would be more likely to take out a contract with a spend cap. This would have to be in the name of a parent making a ban on the sale of smartphones to teenagers pointless.

All 3 of my kids have* contract phones. They are secondary phones on an account in my name. Some phone providers actively encourage this by giving discounts for multiple phones on the same account. A ban on smartphones for under 18s is unworkable.

*I should say ‘had’, as 2 of them are now over 18 and one of them has now taken on paying for the phone himself. But they all started out on a single family account.

[jfman]

I’m no expert in the handset market for under 18s but I suspect the “hand me down” premium handset from when a parent gets a new phone is also a thing.

The number of kids saving up their pocket money and walking into Currys themselves - less than 10%? 20%?

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m no expert in the handset market for under 18s but I suspect the “hand me down” premium handset from when a parent gets a new phone is also a thing.

The number of kids saving up their pocket money and walking into Currys themselves - less than 10%? 20%?

Each of our kids got their first phone as a hand-me-down from their grandmother who used to get a mid-range one from her provider whenever it was offered to her as an incentive to re-contract.

Game (as in the computer game store) is where all our kids phones came from, second hand, once they were old enough not to want gran’s cast-off Samsungs. They have been iPhone-only ever since. The contract I have is SIM only from BT.

[RichardCoulter]

And in the midst of all this Meta thought it a good idea to lower the age for WhatsApp from 16 to 13:

https://news.sky.com/story/meta-crit...to-13-13113483

A discussion on Channel 5 earlier revealed that WhatsApp is currently the second most popular platform for children aged 3 to 17.

Some contributors said that it was down to parents to police this and not social media platforms or the Government, whilst others believed that children of irresponsible parents deserved protection.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And in the midst of all this Meta thought it a good idea to lower the age for WhatsApp from 16 to 13:

https://news.sky.com/story/meta-crit...to-13-13113483

A discussion on Channel 5 earlier revealed that WhatsApp is currently the second most popular platform for children aged 3 to 17.

Some contributors said that it was down to parents to police this and not social media platforms or the Government, whilst others believed that children of irresponsible parents deserved protection.

And why should responsible children with responsible parents be the victims of arbitrary regulation?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And in the midst of all this Meta thought it a good idea to lower the age for WhatsApp from 16 to 13

Why not, Facebook is 13, Tiktok is 13, Snapchat is 13, Instagram is 13 ... Seeing the pattern yet ?