Children on internet forums

Blank_Canvas said:
You think people should be able to send a PM to a minor, conversely a minor can PM an adult ?

Why do you think that is a good idea and how do you ensure that abuse or grooming doesn't take place ?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think they should be able to coverse with other members via pm.

I don't ensure that "grooming" doesn't takes place. I know this will be extremely unpopular but I have no duty of care to anyone's children. That falls to their parents (leaving out time spent in the care of others).

I'm amazed by how many people I know whose kids (under 13...considerably in some cases) have their own facebook profiles, t***ter accounts, or who spend hours in front of online RPG games.
It's a parent's job to police what their children are doing online, not mine.
Check their computers, check their phones, and if they can't be trusted then restrict access to the computer and get them a non-smartphone mobile.
 
I disagree also about banning the private messages, Banning it on here and being able to do it on anything like FB which is a haven for p***'s, and other forums and social networking sites is just plain ridiculous if you ask me.
 
viv1969 said:
I have no duty of care to anyone's children.
Click to expand...

and therein lies a problem of today ... no actually not just of 'today', has been for some considerable time.
 
Sorry I don't subscribe to the Nuremberg defence. "Well, everyone else is doing it so it must be ok "

I will not dwell at length an explain what happens when things go wrong.

Anyway, that decision rests on the shoulders of the legal owners of TP.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
and therein lies a problem of today ... no actually not just of 'today', has been for some considerable time.
Click to expand...

Explain to me why I should have a duty of care to another's child?
 
viv1969 said:
Explain to me why I should have a duty of care to another's child?
Click to expand...

We should all have a duty of care toward children, notwithstanding the primary duty of care of the parents, because they are children and we are adults ... if you don't realise that fact, there is nothing more that I can say to you on the matter.
 
gramps said:
We should all have a duty of care toward children, notwithstanding the primary duty of care of the parents, because they are children and we are adults ... if you don't realise that fact, there is nothing more that I can say to you on the matter.
Click to expand...

Promise?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Absolutely, every adult has a moral
duty to protect children !
Click to expand...

But not in every facet of their lives!
Are parents responsible for nothing?
 
gramps said:
We should all have a duty of care toward children, notwithstanding the primary duty of care of the parents, because they
Click to expand...
gramps said:
are children and we are adults ... if you don't realise that fact, there is nothing more that I can say to you on the matter.
Click to expand...

There's only so much care that a forum membership can be expected to exercise. If a parent permits their child unrestricted access to the internet then that is their choice. They cannot delegate their entire parental responsibilities.

Forums should be aware of the risk and should decide how they will respond to a report of a potential problem. But when a parent decides that they believe their child is mature enough to use a public forum, who are you to decide that their choice is invalid and that their child must have an incomplete access to the forum functionality?

It's not as if the birthdate entered is ever validated anyway..


Stranger danger.. didn't someone famous once say that?
 
But if a child was alone, in trouble out of reach of their patent(s) would you intervene or walk away ?

I.E on a forum, perhaps even without knowledge of said parent. Or any potentially dangerous scenario come to that.

How many feckless parents know or even care what their offspring is up to?

It's very easy to say "it's not my problem"
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
They cannot delegate their entire parental responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Any more than we as adults cannot delegate our moral responsibility to do our part in caring for the moral welfare of children, to the extent possible.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
But if a child was alone, in trouble out of reach of their patent(s) would you intervene or walk away ?
Click to expand...

The problem is Nick that the endless media driven, scare-mongering paranoia about nonces everywhere, especially if they have a big camera, would have me wondering about what to do.

20 years ago, the thought wouldn't have crossed my mind and I would, of course, helped the kid.

The world is not going mad - it achieved that state some time ago.
 
simon ess said:
The problem is Nick that the endless media driven, scare-mongering paranoia about nonces everywhere, especially if they have a big camera, would have me wondering about what to do.

20 years ago, the thought wouldn't have crossed my mind and I would, of course, helped the kid.

The world is not going mad - it achieved that state some time ago.
Click to expand...

My 20 years in the forensic arena tell me it's justified. Media reports based on criminal trials and cases I have been involved in. It's real and you had better believe it ! Do not be naive.
 
By the way it's always been there. It's just more prevalent and widespread thanks to the Internet.
 
If everyone just stopped reading the Mirror/Mail/Sun we might all get some common sense back. Because if anyone seriously thinks that removing PM privilleges is the forum priority for child safety whilst leaviing the tits/ass/bondage/porn section running with unverified age access - then they're a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

Nick, if you're in the business you'll know that the greatest threat to any child's safety comes from within the family. Stranger abuse is far rarer than that initiated by someone already known to the child.
 
Alastair said:
If everyone just stopped reading the Mirror/Mail/Sun we might all get some common sense back. Because if anyone seriously thinks that removing PM privilleges is the forum priority for child safety whilst leaviing the tits/ass/bondage/porn section running with unverified age access - then they're a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

Nick, if you're in the business you'll know that the greatest threat to any child's safety comes from within the family. Stranger abuse is far rarer than that initiated by someone already known to the child.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, the Nudes & Glamour section is not available to junior members.
 
Err - you said you didn't ask a question.

I simply quoted the question that you, in fact, did ask. No point.

I like surrealism, but this is getting weird. I'm out.
 
Nor is it fair to refer to it as the porn section. It's nothing of the kind, except possibly to those very narrow of mind.
 
fabs said:
Just for clarification, the Nudes & Glamour section is not available to junior members.
Click to expand...
The age of members with acces is not verified. So it's accesible to anyone with a fake birthdate on their profile.

viv1969 said:
Nor is it fair to refer to it as the porn section. It's nothing of the kind, except possibly to those very narrow of mind.
Click to expand...
At least you don't disagree that the previous guidelines on bondage and impled sexual violence have been relaxed. The last time I took a look in that section the top ten threads were dominated by images presenting women as victims (including an abduction/implied rape scenario with a bound woman in the boot of a car, another of a whip held from out of shot with a woman bound to a cross) that went beyond soft porn themes and far beyond the "family values" often trumpeted about the forum. It's one of the reasons I can't help thinking all this "child protection" concern is taking the p***. The hypocrisy stinks of s***.
 
Alastair said:
The age of members with acces is not verified. So it's accesible to anyone with a fake birthdate on their profile.


At least you don't disagree that the previous guidelines on bondage and impled sexual violence have been relaxed. The last time I took a look in that section the top ten threads were dominated by images presenting women as victims (including an abduction/implied rape scenario with a bound woman in the boot of a car, another of a whip held from out of shot with a woman bound to a cross) that went beyond soft porn themes and far beyond the "family values" often trumpeted about the forum. It's one of the reasons I can't help thinking all this "child protection" concern is taking the p***. The hypocrisy stinks of s***.
Click to expand...

Kiss your kids with that mouth?
 
Alastair said:
If everyone just stopped reading the Mirror/Mail/Sun we might all get some common sense back. Because if anyone seriously thinks that removing PM privilleges is the forum priority for child safety whilst leaviing the tits/ass/bondage/porn section running with unverified age access - then they're a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

Nick, if you're in the business you'll know that the greatest threat to any child's safety comes from within the family. Stranger abuse is far rarer than that initiated by someone already known to the child.
Click to expand...

The thread is about a Children's Section on Talk Photography. If minors can access the nude section on here then that needs to be addressed. Anywhere else outside TP is beyond our control.

Historically yes, However, there is a shifting trend, towards relationships being formed on websites. More adult relationships have been formed on websites in recent years. It is no surprise then that Grooming is becoming more frequent because of the cheapness of technology, accessibility and anonymity.

It's not the Sun and Mail readers you need to worry about it's the Guardian readers....

I've made my point. Just because other forums, FB etc do it It doesn't make it right. I've highlighted it. That's my opinion but I'm not going to labour the point.

As I said earlier that's for the ( legal) owners of TP to determine.
 
simon ess said:
Err - you said you didn't ask a question.

I simply quoted the question that you, in fact, did ask. No point.

I like surrealism, but this is getting weird. I'm out.
Click to expand...

I forgot I did ask a question ( which nobody answered ! )

You then said I answered my own question which you quoted - only I didn't and you couldn't show me where I answered !

You then say you like surrealism, congratulations for introducing it and then disappeared - thanks for your input ;)
 
Oh go on then, one more try.

Blank_Canvas said:
But if a child was alone, in trouble out of reach of their patent(s) would you intervene or walk away ?
Click to expand...

simon ess said:
The problem is Nick that the endless media driven, scare-mongering paranoia about nonces everywhere, especially if they have a big camera, would have me wondering about what to do.

20 years ago, the thought wouldn't have crossed my mind and I would, of course, helped the kid.

The world is not going mad - it achieved that state some time ago.
Click to expand...


Blank_Canvas said:
My 20 years in the forensic arena tell me it's justified. Media reports based on criminal trials and cases I have been involved in. It's real and you had better believe it ! Do not be naive.
Click to expand...

Nick, if you can't see the dichotomy there, I can't help you. So I wish you well and will leave it at that.
 
viv1969 said:
Explain to me why I should have a duty of care to another's child?
Click to expand...
Because every single sane adult, should care about children Viv, without them we are nothing.

Please don`t patronise me with a silly "Pookeyhead" type comment. That is a simple fact that all adults should adhere to or move back three centuries.

No children are born bad, they are brought up badly.

Anyway, enough sombre shat, i`m on hols tomorrow..................:)
 
fracster said:
Because every single sane adult, should care about children Viv, without them we are nothing.

Please don`t patronise me with a silly "Pookeyhead" type comment. That is a simple fact that all adults should adhere to or move back three centuries.

No children are born bad, they are brought up badly.

Anyway, enough sombre shat, i`m on hols tomorrow..................:)
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what I'm saying.
It's not my job to raise them.

I'll help any child in trouble if I know that's the case, but it's their parents' responsibility to do everything they can to ensure that they stay out of harms way.

It's such a shame that many squeeze out a few kids then do that job so poorly.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
If minors can access the nude section on here then that needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Post #62 . . .

fabs said:
Just for clarification, the Nudes & Glamour section is not available to junior members.
Click to expand...

:)


As someone else pointed out it doesn't prevent anyone joining up with a fake DoB, but I don't think there's anything that the forum could realistically do to stop that from happening.
Incidentally, there's also a minimum joining age for the forum. I think it's 13, but stand to be corrected on that.
 
Cg_Girl said:
I thought that was TP anyway?:p
Click to expand...

fracster said:
Have you no chimneys to be sweeping young man?...............:D
Click to expand...



And on a serious note,

fabs said:
Just for clarification, the Nudes & Glamour section is not available to junior members.
Click to expand...

As Sarah's pointed out, there's no reason someone can't lie about their DoB when joining, just like they presumably do when joining FB or Twitter when they're under the required age.
 
Nod said:
And on a serious note,



As Sarah's pointed out, there's no reason someone can't lie about their DoB when joining, just like they presumably do when joining FB or Twitter when they're under the required age.
Click to expand...

Nope, there isn't but there isn't anything we can do about that. That's where parental responsibility comes in with regards to how a child accesses the internet..
 
Blank_Canvas said:
In addition, It is also my opinion that they should not be able to send or receive 'Private Messages' and this function should be disabled. It's well documented that pedophiles groom children. It would be very easy for someone just to drop a PM to a junior member and say we could meet up and I'll show you how to photograph etc etc......
Click to expand...

That's rather a radical and a somewhat paranoid view IMO
I wonder what the statistics say, on the percentage of how many people per thousand or tens of thousands,
are actually paedophiles?
out of circa 60,000 members there may or may not be one or two among our numbers.
Who knows for sure.
But I should hardly think that a photography forum, would be high on thier "watch list"

Social media, as has been mentioned before is surely a much better market?
Lets campaign to shut that down instead.

As already mentioned, I too am pretty sure that the min. age for joining is 13 years old.
Many of which have been introduced to TP by a parent, sibling or other relation / good friend.
One would assume, and as has been proven twice already recently, that the "mentor" is keeping a watching brief anyway.


fabs said:
That's where parental responsibility comes in with regards to how a child accesses the internet..
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
fabs said:
Nope, there isn't but there isn't anything we can do about that. That's where parental responsibility comes in with regards to how a child accesses the internet..
Click to expand...

For example, I is only 7 yers old... (Actually, I celebrate my 2nd rebirth day in about 3 weeks...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top