So, let me get this right.
The government uses our money to pay the NSPCC to employ a "relationship manager" to email us to implore us to petition the government to "make the net safer" for the children. Might there be another agenda here?
Why bother with the charade any longer? Why doesn't the government just help itself and get on with appropriating and controlling the last bastion of freedom? The one that poses the biggest threat by far, because it is, for the moment at least, so deliciously free?
Let's just quickly whizz through the missive, containing the recommendations to be presented to government, almost certainly influenced somewhere along the way by, er, government.
"Dear Mr Smith,
"The internet is changing fast - and not always for the better - because for children the dangers it presents are just as real as the opportunities to learn and make friendships."
The dangers might be just as real, but as with the real world, they are not as prevalent as the wonderful opportunities it presents which should not be sacrificed because of hysterical, disproportionate fear.
"And unless we take the chance we have now to make the internet safer, we will fall even further behind the criminals who are taking advantage of the industry's slowness to act."
Dastardly dangers! Bad industry! Must act immediately! Moral imperative for heroic government to step in and save the day.
"As you read this there are millions of illegal images of child abuse in circulation online. Children are visiting social networking sites that have no effective control over their content. And with more and more public WiFi zones plus web-enabled mobile phones, access to dangerous content has never been easier."
What?
The "millions of illegal images of child abuse in circulation on line" have to do with paedophiles and their repugnant, illegal activities. These people should be located, stopped and suitably punished. Wait - that happens already - problem solved.
Providing there is no illegal activity taking place (which anyone is capable of reporting in any case), the operation of social networking sites is a completely separate issue. Most sites have their own security policies precisely to attract and retain the people who visit them. You know, their customers - the people no-one wants to piss off.
People should remain free to decide which sites do and don't offend them. No-one else is better placed to determine this; certainly not the government or the NSPCC. Contrary to popular belief, penises do not spring up at every opportunity the moment one goes online. And even if they did, the sight of someone's genitals would not render anyone incapable of shutting down the offending window.
And incidentally, with "more and more public WiFi zones plus web-enabled mobile phones", access to ALL content has never been easier. This is a GOOD THING. Now make sure you and your children have a relationship built on mutual trust and openness of communication. Ensure you ALL know how to keep yourselves safe. Do not trust the government to do it for you.
"But together we can make the net safer - please sign our Safety.Net petition now."
No.
"The new UK Council for Child Internet Safety is deciding how to make the internet and mobile phones safer for children – and we have the chance to influence it by petitioning the Prime Minister directly on six key issues."
Might this council have to do with Becta? Oh yes, of course it does.
"1. Stop the use of software for private sharing of child abuse images"
Oh, well, that's got to be the "child-porn-sharing-specific-software" we hear so much about. Or could it possibly mean any private file sharing software that doesn't accommodate immediate and full government access without question?
"2. Block children's mobile phone access to adult content"
Or, no doubt, block all mobile access to all adult content and require people to seek specific approval (no doubt registering their details somewhere "secure" in the process) before being allowed to access something that is perfectly legal.
"3. Ensure social networking sites protect young users by proactively reviewing and removing offensive/illegal content"
Hmmm, "offensive" content. Well if this government is involved in defining and policing this, I suppose it will include any content related to other political parties, then.
"4. Pre-install child safety software on all computer and mobile web devices"
I don't want anything pre-installed on my computer, thank you very much.
"5. Make therapeutic services available for children who have been abused and had pictures and films of the abuse appear on the internet"
Fine - but I would hope these already exist. And if more therapy is required, do you have any particular service provider in mind, NSPCC?
"6. Provide specialist training for professionals who deal with online offenders"
See previous comment.
"The NSPCC has influenced policy in the past with your help and we can, and must, do so again today."
I hope you CANNOT and you WILL NOT influence any more policy - unless you stop taking money directly from the government.
"Please sign the Safety.Net petition now and make the net a safer place for children."
No. I will not do anything to make the internet safer for the politicians, quangos and fake charities who are threatened by its existence.
I'll tell you what I will do. I shall keep myself technology and computer literate until I die. As they grow, I am going help my children understand the reality of the internet by participating alongside them and ensuring they develop the vital skills necessary to stay safe and happy online.
They will see that the internet is no more and no less dangerous than what lies outside their own front door, and that they can be trusted, with my help, support and guidance where necessary, to protect themselves whichever world they are engaging in - whether they are crossing the road, or developing creatures in Spore.
Only then will I be reassured of their safety and wellbeing. Leaving it to Brown, Badman and Balls is not an option. It's not what they're really interested in.
