Starmer's vision quest

[midlandsgrimpeur]

If you listen to Jess Philips on the subject (it was her originally pushing for it) then she says the evidence is that 90% of the pics come from the children themselves. Phones etc can be made to go black screen the moment an inappropriate photo is taken. The tech already exists.
Regarding disabling then I assume this can be made difficult and if parents find a workaround then they have no recourse.
My main point is that if it can be done effectively then why not do it? Seems like some are looking for excuses not to.

The bigger question IMO, which nobody seems to be asking, is why are kids doing this? Rather than trying to introduce technology to stop it, surely there must be something in the idea of education for children and younger people about this in the first place; the potential ramifications and consequences of sharing images like this, how it can impact their mental health and wellbeing, not to mention the potential legal implications.

I understand that for current generations, the technology has evolved and this has also caused huge changes in social interactions and perceptions, particularly for younger people. What I don't get the sense of, is a society that is doing its part to address the underlying reasons for the way younger people interact now, particularly with regards to intimate relationships and how these intersect with tech and social media.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Their State Pension dates were pushed back, not forward, giving them more chance t plan. Because they chose not do 'stay on top of things' related to their retirement, is their own fault.

The bolded bit isn't the case for all of them, as the Ombo found.

The original rationale for paying women earlier was apparently to allow both partners in a marriage, where women were usually the younger one, to retire together.

 

[Psamathe]

Re: Burnham
Must confess, whilst I think Starmer is a disaster and really should go, I'm increasingly thinking Burnham will be the same. He really doesn't have much of a clue, no real plan beyond wanting top job. When questioned about his economic plans he just ducks the question waffling "Country should not be so London centric" (which is no economic policy). If pushed he just starts talking about representing Makerfield.

But I suppose one thing he has done is highlight the democratic deficiency in the UK. Just as the electorate never elected Starmer to be PM, so Burnham taking over as PM would be again totally undemocratic. Particularly important given how much power have moved from democratically elected Parliament to not-democratically elected PM.

Only saving grace is Burnham has mad vague suggestions about supporting proportional representation - but I can't see him actually doing anything about it as Labour would probably lose and Reford/Greens gain.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Re: Burnham


Just as the electorate never elected Starmer to be PM, so Burnham taking over as PM would be again totally undemocratic. Particularly important given how much power have moved from democratically elected Parliament to not-democratically elected PM.

Can you explain the bolded bit?

At the time of the election he was the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats. What you saw was what you got.

That's the constitutional convention in the UK.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

“Keir literally won by not being this version of the Labour party. This is the Andy Burnham that lost two leadership elections. For a reason. And will lose a third,” the person said.

Not convinced by Burnham, but it's well documented that Starmer won the leadership by lying. Now his allies are worried, no surprise there.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The case went to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who found in their favour and said they should be compensated. HMG has ignored that.

From a sample size of 1, I can confirm that the changes were blatantly obvious to anyone not living under a stone.

Here's a bit of the Govt response
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ision-womens-state-pension-age-communications

Creating a scheme to assess individual impact, or based on self-certification would be a highly impractical and time-consuming process, particularly given the difficulties of establishing what individuals knew around 20 years ago. Both rules-based and flat-rate systems would also face significant challenges with the potential for paying huge amounts of money to women who did not experience injustice or were aware that State Pension age was increasing.

Introducing a financial compensation scheme is neither fair nor feasible and would not represent good value for taxpayers, and, as a consequence, one will not be set up.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Can you explain the bolded bit?

At the time of the election he was the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats. What you saw was what you got.

That's the constitutional convention in the UK.

Probably the nonsense that we only elect our local MP, when the reality is we tend to vote for the party we would like to be in Government (although last time there was plenty of voting against the party we didn't want to see in Government).
IT is then up to the winning party to choose which MP becomes PM.

 

[Psamathe]

Re: Burnham
... Just as the electorate never elected Starmer to be PM, ...

Can you explain the bolded bit?

At the time of the election he was the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats. What you saw was what you got.

That's the constitutional convention in the UK.

I never got a vote for Starmer as PM, not as anything. I only got a vote to elect my representative to Parliament and my representative to Parliament never got a vote as to who was PM. Most of the country never got the opportunity to vote for Starmer (in any role).

Just because it's "our constitution" noes not make it right and does not make it democratic.

In my view the democratic deficiency is a lot worse these days as so much power has moved from Parliament to the Government and thus to the PM. So many "Statutory Instruments" and MPs treated as lobby fodder, in effect forced to vote as their party leader required (rather than represent their constituency as per their role). And when they do vote doing their job (representing constituency) they get thrown out of the party. eg 2-child benefit cap - vote against PM's instructions and ejected from Party only for PM to change him mind a few months later and then require MPs to vote for it!

 

[briantrumpet]

From a sample size of 1, I can confirm that the changes were blatantly obvious to anyone not living under a stone.

Here's a bit of the Govt response
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ision-womens-state-pension-age-communications

Creating a scheme to assess individual impact, or based on self-certification would be a highly impractical and time-consuming process, particularly given the difficulties of establishing what individuals knew around 20 years ago. Both rules-based and flat-rate systems would also face significant challenges with the potential for paying huge amounts of money to women who did not experience injustice or were aware that State Pension age was increasing.

Introducing a financial compensation scheme is neither fair nor feasible and would not represent good value for taxpayers, and, as a consequence, one will not be set up.

And the bottom line is, from a political POV, it would be a deeply unpopular bit of extremely major expenditure with no visible outcome to the electorate, to be paid for by younger people who probably won't get a state pension till they are at least 70. I struggle to see why a supposedly astute politician would have hitched his wotsit to this wagon.

 

[BoldonLad]

The bigger question IMO, which nobody seems to be asking, is why are kids doing this? Rather than trying to introduce technology to stop it, surely there must be something in the idea of education for children and younger people about this in the first place; the potential ramifications and consequences of sharing images like this, how it can impact their mental health and wellbeing, not to mention the potential legal implications.

I understand that for current generations, the technology has evolved and this has also caused huge changes in social interactions and perceptions, particularly for younger people. What I don't get the sense of, is a society that is doing its part to address the underlying reasons for the way younger people interact now, particularly with regards to intimate relationships and how these intersect with tech and social media.

Were you never a teenager?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Were you never a teenager?

Yes, and the last thing I would ever have wanted to do was provide a naked picture of myself to other teenagers. Would you?

 

[PurplePenguin]

Yes, and the last thing I would ever have wanted to do was provide a naked picture of myself to other teenagers. Would you?

Presumably you noticed that quite a few teenagers tried smoking despite it not offering much reward? They also did things like skinny dipping.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Presumably you noticed that quite a few teenagers tried smoking despite it not offering much reward? They also did things like skinny dipping.

I think that is a bit of false equivalence. Kids generally smoked to look cool and as an act of rebellion, I don't imagine the motivation behind taking and sharing an explicit image of yourself is for similar reasons. I would argue that there must be an element of peer pressure to both, but I do think the image sharing suggests very different attitudes and perceptions amongst current generations. As mentioned, it may well be that tech has facilitated it, but there still must be deeper reasons as to why kids do it.

 

[Psamathe]

Were you never a teenager?

When I was a kid I got a bike. Not long until I wanted to ride to my play haunts which meant busier and main roads.

My Dad didn't have a clue about cycling, was never a cyclist but recognised he'd given me something that could be dangerous, I could get badly injured or even killed. So he set about learning himself, using every source he could find, then took me to a few increasingly busy roads, taught me what to do in traffic, how to turn right, etc.. Checked me out doing it and only then I was allowed to head out to such places.

Basically he recognised as a parent giving his child something that could cause serious harm and took parental responsibility, learnt, taught, etc.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, and the last thing I would ever have wanted to do was provide a naked picture of myself to other teenagers. Would you?

You may have been game to receive such a picture 🙂

No comment (in my teenage years, taking a photograph involved film, processing etc, not very instant).