Jonathan Bishop « Prize-winning trolling and online community authority

Policy on Media Ratings and Vulnerable Person Protection

February 4th, 2012

I have expressed various concerns in the past on the nature of televisual material, such as music videos, with a lot of sexualised content. Being a man over the age of majority this is quite appealing to me, but as a supporter of the NSPCC I am concerned about the sexualisation of childhood. Also, as an egalitarian, believing in treating people as individuals and not based on arbitory criteria which may not apply to them, I have now pretty much finalised my policy on media ratings and the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

A standardised media rating system

Instead of age-based ratings there would be the following, regardless of media type (e.g. DVD/website/TV-channel):

Universal – All exempt media and those currently suitable for all ages
Parental Advisory – All media currently rated PG and 12-15. Parental in this context could refer to a legal guardian in the case of vulnerable adults.
Explicit – All media currently rated 18 or X-Rated.

A national media rating authority

The Video Recording Act is administered by the British Board of Film Classification. I would like their remit to be extended to all media, from advertising to music videos, from video games to websites (and other hypermedia systems).

In terms of video and advertising they should have to rate them in advance, and this would be the case for software and video games to that fall within the definition of the VRA as needed to be pre-authorised. In terms of websites and other more immediate consumer-generated media sources, the BBFC would only rate following a complaint. This could be referred to them by the Advertising Authority for instance. In other cases, standard anti-virus software could runs scripts that rate the content and block any content as appropriate based on the parental control settings.

Enforceability

Each media outlet would be responsible in the short term for setting its own policy to determine who they deem as appropriate to view the specific media. This could be based on age-discrimination in the short term. They would be legally responsible for any psychiatric injury.

In the future, media outlets would have to use pre-screening technology where they could “reasonably foresee” that a particular person would not be suitable for a particular rating. Such as a child for an Explicit movie. This person would then have to watch a short video clip and then depending on how much this distresses them, measured by emotion recognition technology, then that would determine which media rating they are suitable to.

In terms of home-based media, parents/guardians would be responsible for maintaining the parental controls. It would be their choice about whether they let their children or vulnerable dependent see explicit content or not, but the child protection authorities could intervene if they thought this was having an adverse affect on the welling being of the vulnerable person.

Any media outlet that did not put proper protection in place, including websites like chatrooms/messageboards, would be criminally liable. Such offences could including making sexualised or violent context available to vulnerable persons without their parent/guardians consent. This may include sexual jokes one would not want one’s children to see, but others do not show discretion in relaying.

| No Comments »

The Gynadom

February 1st, 2012

Should women wear gynadoms to prevent unwanted births? Is this the way to stop the prisoner dilemma of female opportunist DNA Thieves from not taking the contraceptive pill knowing their male partner won’t be wearing a condom?

Who is to blame if a woman doesn't wear a gynadom?

I invented this after saying to my mother that I thought a nominal charge on the CSA was fair as it would be a disincentive to opportunist DNA Thieves who get men blamed for not wearing condoms in order to extort money from them – well with this invention men may have no choice but to wear protection or instead no blame if the woman does not!

Tags: inventions
| No Comments »

More powers for Wales’ interests

January 28th, 2012

I must contest F S Wusteman’s claim that an independent Wales would not have an independent voice in the EU (Letters, January 26).

If one were to look at the current EU Treaty (TFEU) there are 62 areas in which every EU country has to agree unanimously before that law can be passed – one of these is Article 113 relating to indirect taxation like VAT so no member state has to give up its tax regime as they suggested.

The problem Wales has is we are not properly represented in the EU Council of Ministers in which only David Cameron and his UK Ministers have a right to vote on behalf of the UK. This body must agree to every piece of EU legislation before it is made law – and in many cases it can completely overrule the European Parliament if it disagrees with them.

Wales has no right to veto EU law that could, for instance, affect our manufacturing – we are at the mercy of the UK Government.

Readers will recall me calling for a British Isles Customs Union of the four British nations, which while all independent, would agree to common laws which could include a common position on EU law (Letters, October 22, 2011). If England voted to leave the EU but join the EEA it would have to implement EU law but have no say in making it. But with the BICU Council of Ministers they could do both.

In the meantime, while the argument for independence is being won in principle even if not in detail, as looks likely in Scotland, there is a way all British nations can get an equal voice in the EU decision making processes without any new primary legislation from Westminster.

Section 109 of The Government of Wales Act 2006 gives the Welsh Government the power to ask for new powers from Westminster, which could include the right to direct the UK Prime Minister to veto any EU directive that does not meet Wales’s interests. Scotland and Northern Ireland could be granted the same power.

These provisions could lead to a more united British Isles, where each nation can represent its own citizens’ interests while co-operating where this is in the interest of all citizens in the British Isles.

Source: The Western Mail

| No Comments »

Comparing schools

January 25th, 2012

I share the concern raised about the risks of cyber-bullying following the publication of school banding by the Welsh Government (“School banding raises fears over cyber-bullying”, January 23).

As an advocate of New Labour, before leaving the Labour Party when Ed Miliband said it was over, I am strongly in favour of parents being allowed to choose which school their child goes to. The rank and file of Old and Welsh Labour say this won’t work because every parent will want their child go to the best school – well that is the point!

A market in education, such as by removing the unfair catchment areas that partition this market and create geographical ghettos, would mean the best schools would stay open and expand, and the worst ones would close.

In such a market you would need a way for the parents to choose the best school. Government-sanctioned league tables or school banding does not help – parents need to be able to create their own league tables.

Even the “least able” people can go on to websites like GoCompare or MoneySupermarket and select what is important to them about their home or car insurance policy and what is not. If we as citizens can prioritise insurance why not other things? It is not grades that make a school a best school. It is factors such as whether they have special support for your child’s disability, whether they have after-school clubs or extended hours, and whether the school has strong pupil-satisfaction.

So if the Welsh Government is happy to have de facto league tables – why don’t they give parents the choice to have their children educated outside their area so they are not subject to the stigma that they can do little about without “upping sticks”?

| No Comments »

Bishop’s Letter to the Giboff

January 24th, 2012

The Giboff asked the following questions:

How do you define a religion as opposed a belief system?

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition. – Equality Act 2010

Is every decision discriminatory against someone, or potentially discriminatory?

There will always be discrimination of sorts some my be unlawful. For instance it is discrimination for a parent to allow 14-year-old child to go out of the house if they don’t a 13-year-old one, but it doesn’t mean it is illegal.

In order to make an alleged non-discriminatory decision discriminatory, what must the discriminated party prove?

For me it is prejudice. If a premise in a claim is based on prejudiced point of view then

Do you live with your parents?

Define “live”

Are they religious, or do they believe that you are akin to King Soloman?

My Father is an Atheist. My mother is a Spiritualist. We tolerate one another’s religious convictions.

Are your siblings part of your church?

No

Have you ever had sex with man or beast – I believe this is fundamental to understanding the emotional needs of others?

I recently demonstrated my solution to Solomon’s idolatory activities towards that drove him to Sin, by making her more important to him and thus God:

Jesus says that if one so as looks at another woman lustfully that you have already committed sin against her in your eyes so you should seek to gouge your eyes out.

On this basis, because I have a strong attraction torwards women then it would be impossible not to Sin, so the only solutions are:

1. Have a permanent commitment-based relationship with a man (I have in the past loved a man as much as a woman)

2. Have many close friendships with women as Solomon did

3. More important is to put myself and my education first, so neither are more important than me and thus none more important than God.

Have the people of Treforest seen your views on abortion?

I would hope so, but the definitely have my policies on allowing the sun tanning shop to provide ‘fake shags’ and well as ‘fake tans’!

Where do you drink? I drink in the Bush in Llantwit Fardre, surprised not to have heard of you before recently, I know most local polymaths, i’m one myself, the only one I thought, I have a club, its just me at the moment, you are welcome to join, fee of 50p, you get a badge.

It was a nice offer, but I’m sure you’ll understand the only clubs I want to be a member of is those who don’t want me as a member )

Any chance of showing us the equation for gender calculations, I think i’m 50/50, but would like to see (I like Elton John)

Yes. If you go to www.eqsq.com and take the test. You will see your EQ in relation to the average man and woman and your SQ in relation to the average man and woman.

You then need to make a value judgement. Mine was that as women are higher on that that will be my ‘FemQ’. And the same for men, their SQ score will be used for my MaleQ.

So I divided 100 by the average Male SQ and them multiplied it by my SQ to get ey MaleQ

I then divided 100 by the average Female EQ and then multiplied it by my EQ to get my FemQ

These then gave me ratio – FemQ:MaleQ

To get the percent, you add the FemQ and MaleQ together to get the MFQ. And then you divide the FemQ by this MFQ and multiply it by 100. That will say how female you are. Then you minus that from 100 to see how male you are.

Explain your conception of God, what are his boundaries, and then explain how Solomon could have been anything close to this conception.

God as I define as “all knowledge that is possible to know but is not yet known”. And on this basis:

In the beginning God create the Heavens and the Earth – In the beginning he did, because Stephen Hawking wasn’t around then.

God separated the light from the dark, he called the dark night and the light day – he did, unless/until we know who was the first human to actually observe that fact.

God knows all what we don’t know. But a philosophical question is, if we know more than what Adam and Eve knew when they committed ‘Original sin,’ then is God getting small the closer we get to him, or is her getting bigger, that is because of even all what we know there is more to know which even God didn’t once know?

| No Comments »

Can’t see positives in conviscating mobiles

January 21st, 2012

THE Manly Daily reports that children should be made to surrender their mobile phones at night in a bid to stop the devastating effects of bullying, according to a northern beaches expert called Rose Smith (‘Switch off the bullies’, January 18).

As an authority on ‘trolling law’ Ms Smith might wish to know that such a law was put in place in the UK under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 before the parts she seeks her law to do being repealed by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in part because of human rights issues.

How does Rose think confiscating a mobile is going to have any positive outcome?

When I was a child, taking one of my possessions would have serious consequences for whoever did and therefore myself.

This may be the case of many children from difficult backgrounds and the approach she says is appropriate is using martial arts.

This may work to discipline one and frustrate others.

Much of the guidance she gives relating to managing one child’s use of the internet is redundant with most of today’s anti-virus software, which makes life much easier for parents to control what their children see and restrict who they speak to.

Rose Smith can find out more about these and other facts at the Trolling Academy by visiting www.trollingacademy.org.

Source: The Manly Daily

| No Comments »

Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?

January 19th, 2012

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll. The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies. So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship. It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats. You are not with your partner or children. Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule? Be honest – it is all anonymous! Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my religion to put the woman and child before myself. My religion is Solomonite Scientist. In my religion I aim to be equal to King Solomon, who is equal to God. Therefore by putting a woman and child before myself I am committing Sin by saying I willing put put them above God, who I am equal to. God degrees that I shall have no God above him, so that means the woman and child would have to understand that to treat me equally on the grounds of my religious belief, would mean they could not come before me.

I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!

| 4 Comments »

Internet history

January 14th, 2012

I appreciate Walton MP Steve Rotheram writing into the Echo to critique my status as a trolling authority (Letters, January 11). As his colleagues at Westminster would tell him, I could not contact him direct, as he would not be allowed to respond to my letter, unless I wrote to him through my own MP, as this is parliamentary convention.

Mr Rotheram mistakenly says the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Communications Act 2003 existed before trolling. The former Act existed during the time that Usenet was popular, which was a primitive form of Facebook Groups and BBS as well, a primitive form of the Facebook wall. The second Act came about when the social networking technology I invented in 1999 – the circle of friends – was being popularised by Friendster and MySpace, before becoming an essential part of Facebook when it became mainstream from 2007.

So like the word “social media” that he uses is the new word for “social networking” beyond these text-based interfaces, so the word “trolling”, has gone from meaning simply “act of posting a message in a newsgroup that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic” as described in 1995 in the Internet dictionary NetLingo, to refer to a specific act of posting inflammatory or obnoxious content (which may not be text) for one’s own or others entertainment.

He would know this, as any other Echo reader, if he read the pithy response to me by D Frederick from Garston in November (Letters, Nov 26).

Source: Liverpool Daily Echo

| 3 Comments »

Georgia Varley-inspired trolling law is waste of time says internet campaigner

January 14th, 2012

AN INTERNET campaigner has claimed attempts to outlaw “trolling” after a Facebook group dedicated to Georgia Varley was sabotaged as a “waste of legislative time”.

But Liverpool Walton MP Steve Rotheram, who is trying to get new laws through parliament, today insisted stronger action was needed to stop those who post abusive messages on websites.

Last year there was a furious reaction to messages left on a tribute page to train tragedy victim Georgia Varley.

The 16-year-old Birkenhead sixth form student was killed on October 22 at James Street railway station when she slipped from a platform and fell beneath a Wirral line train.

Within days of her death a Facebook page set up by friends in her memory was attacked by trolls, posting offensive content from locations abroad and under pseudonyms.

As friends tried to keep control of the page, Walton MP Steve Rotherham, took action by bringing up the issue in Parliament.

But in a letter to the ECHO, self-proclaimed trolling expert Jonathan Bishop, from Swansea, the founder of the “Trolling Academy” claimed existing legislation already in place could be used to stop the abuse.

He wrote: “MPs wanted to ban my favourite game of the 1990s – Night Trap – because it had scantily dressed women in. It turned out that the Video Recording Act 1984 was all they needed to use.

“The same waste of legislative time is evident to cyberlaw experts like myself.”

On his blog Mr Bishop claims trolling can be a fun and entertaining practice, rather than offensive.

In response Mr Rotherham said: “Laws of the land need to be constantly updated to reflect social and technological advancements.

“My intention is to see a greater conviction rate for those guilty of this vile practice.”

Since Georgia’s tragic death the ECHO has named and shamed some of the people responsible for the abuse on her Facebook tribute page.

But Georgia’s family and friends want to see tougher action taken to protect the memory of the popular schoolgirl they knew as “Gee”.

Mum Paula, who lives in Bray, Ireland, said: “I feel like I’m in a bit of a world of my own and it’s hard being here when all the investigations are happening in England. I want to know what’s going on.

“We are hopeful that Steve Rotherham can push the legislation through. If something comes out of this then it could save another family the heartache we have had to go through.

“Some of the things that have been written about Georgia are things I would never have tolerated being said about my daughter when she was alive. It’s even worse now that she is dead.”

Source: Liverpool Echo

| 1 Comment »

Internet campaigner says Georgia Varley trolling law is waste of time

January 14th, 2012

ATTEMPTS to outlaw “trolling” after a Facebook group dedicated to Georgia Varley was sabotaged has been described as a “waste of legislative time” by an internet expert.