PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN
Posted by David Burrowes, MP for Enfield, Southgate, at 13:39, Wed 9 May 2012:
As of this month three of my six children are teenagers. I have also helped publish a report of a cross-party Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection. These two facts are not unconnected as I grapple as a parent with the increasing sources of online information being accessed by my children. As an MP I wish to support both parental and Internet Service Providers' responsibility in relation to accessing extreme sexual and violent content.
Our report highlights very serious concerns about what our children are accessing on the internet. During the inquiry we found that many children were easily accessing websites that featured pornographic and extremely violent material. I strongly believe it is time for Britain’s Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to start helping parents to protect their children from viewing inappropriate, and often harmful, material online. ISPs need to start taking more responsibility when it comes to keeping children safe and the Government needs to make it clear that this is what we all expect. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now agreed to consult on establishing an "Opt-In" filter to access adult material on the internet.
This is not just an issue about what is accessed on a home network and our inquiry recommended that public wi-fi networks should have a default adult-content bar. At the least ISPs should provide more support and signposting for internet safety education - for parents and children.
Parents also have a vital role and we must avoid the temptation to put our 'heads in the sand' when it comes to new technology. Sickening images are just a couple of clicks away for our children unless we all, parents, ISPs and Government take more responsibilty.
On the subject of 'heads in sands' I am very disappointed that the Council has not provided sufficient primary school places in Southgate. The Council has been warned by me and others of the unmet demand for local school places. However, the application for a new primary school at the Old Southgate Town Hall in Palmers Green was dismissed in favour of a housing development.
We now need to look urgently at how we can expand some of our excellent primary schools. I have had meetings with the Education Secretary Michael Gove and Council's Director of Education to make the case for more school places and flexibility with class sizes.
Please let me know your views about these important issues affecting our children.
David Burrowes MP, Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Mrs Marion Murray, 14:06, Wed 9 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
I note that you do not mention the issue that will soon be affecting the allocation of secondary school places. It is unbelievable that the local authority continues to grant planning permission for housing developments despite closing Chase farm A&E and the lack of primary school places. Are these not taken into consideration when the planning application is reviewed. The minute a pub, bank, library etc becomes vacant there seems to be a developer "waiting in the wings"!! As a parent at a school where expansion was forced it is not the ideal sitiuation to be in. Building work is done during school time and no matter how many promises are made it is disruptive. The noise, dust and impromptu fire alarm roll calls - due to a cable being drilled through, is not condusive to a healthy education. With the capping of benefits for rents no doubt there will be more demand on LBE services as people move from central London.
Posted by David Burrowes, 15:27, Wed 9 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Mrs Murray is right in so far as the government's benefit reforms will push more people from inner London to Enfield because of lower rents. This will put an added pressure on our schools. It would be good to know what Mr Burrowes intends to do to stop this migration from outer London to Enfield.
Posted by David Burrowes, 15:31, Wed 9 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Mrs Murray is right in so far as the government's benefit reforms will push more people from inner London to Enfield because of lower rents. This will put an added pressure on our schools. It would be good to know what Mr Burrowes intends to do to stop this migration from outer London to Enfield.
Posted by Tom Young, 16:06, Wed 9 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Hello Mr Burrowes,
I write as a concerned citizen who cares deeply for the young people in our society, but I am constantly dismayed and frustrated by ill conceived attempts to affect change.
I understand that you believe, in good faith, that an opt-in scheme will prevent young children and impressionable young adults from accessing material that isn't appropriate for them. Not only do I personally disagree, I believe such measures actually have the potential to cause more damage than potentially envisioned - that by introducing measures that are designed to prevent children and young adults accessing these types of material, that it might simply serve to draw their attention towards them.
Simply "blocking" access to information has been shown in the past to be highly ineffective - due to the nature of it's inception, the internet has been said, much like life, to "find a way" - indeed, due to the very nature of both the underlying technology upon which the modern internet is built, and the "surface level" - i.e webpages that we browse, the internet as a system is designed to facilitate the distribution of information, even if parts are broken - which measures such as those being proposed would do - they would, in affect, "break the internet" for users.
For an example of how blocking access to content has been shown to backfire, allow me to draw your attention to the recent High Court ruling, that required all UK based Internet Service Providers to block access to a well known file sharing website, on the basis that said site was facilitating the distribution of copyrighted materials. Starting this week, ISPs have started complying with this court order and "blocking" access to the site.
Which, if you follow the logic as put forward in the High Court judgement, should mean that the website is no longer accessible to users, and that the copyright infringement levelled at it, has ceased. It has been reported this week that since the High Court judgement was handed down, the site has seen an additional twelve million users access it - in other words, by raising the profile of the site, it has only encouraged more people to use it.
The same thing will happen, if this proposed "Opt In" scheme were to be introduced, with regards to adult content [in this instance, pornography]. Children are naturally inquisitive, and are prone to testing the boundries of what they can and can't "get away" with - if they find out that a certain website is "out of bounds" - a website they might not have known about previously - what's to say they might not try to circumvent the "block".
Which as any I.T. professional - or your average Pirate Bay user will tell you, will be ridiculously easy. In order to realistically introduce a blanket "ban" on anything - sites that infringe copyright laws, extremist websites that espouse hateful vitriolic notions, or - in this case - access to pornography, it would necessitate the introduction of a national "Firewall" that would rival the system in place in communist states such as the Peoples Republic of China, and North Korea.
I'm sure you'd agree, that's not a list the United Kingdom should be joining anytime soon - countries that devote countless resources to block, on a national level, the content its citizens can access.
Not least of all, because parents / guardians who're concerned that their child[ren] might seek out such content can block this access themselves. It doesn't require intervention from the Government for a parent to block access to certain "types" of website - they can do it themselves. Typically using the bundled software that came with their internet service.
The problem, it seems, is that some parents aren't technically "up to speed" to do this.
If that's the case, surely the solution lies in education, rather than attempting to block something, and hope it goes away? What better barometer is there, when it comes to judging what a child is ready for, than their own parents? It strikes me that this already happens across a variety of other areas:
For instance, we have a legal age at which people can buy - and consume, alcohol. And yet if a parent decides their child can have a small sip of wine with their Sunday dinner, that's seen as OK.
The same applies with films - 12A films can be seen by children under the age of 12, provided their parent deems them mature enough - and emotionally capable of understanding what they're watching, and the context.
Surely the same view should be taken when it comes to pornography. Educate parents how to filter the sites their child[ren] can access - and when they decide certain types of site are appropriate, allow that access.
Otherwise - were an "opt in" or "blanket ban" type system introduced - what would be to stop a child going to a friends house, whose parents have decided to opt in?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours Faithfully,
Tom Young