A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 22nd 13, 10:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,858
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
Ben came into the living room and his mum said, "Ah, there you are!"
He held out his arms in a theatrical gesture and announced, "Yes here I
am! I'm the man of the moment!"

Thanks to tree screening his parents needed a new aerial the other day.
Ben helped install it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...w%20aerial.jpg


Without meaning to be a spoilsport Bill, at what age would you consider it
reasonable to ask someone's consent before sharing a photograph with the
whole world? Showing friends your family album is one thing, but putting
someone else's child's photo on the internet is another thing altogether.


Why? Is he stealing Ben's soul with his magic box?

Is are you afraid that someone might find him 'cute'?

--
Max Demian


  #12  
Old September 23rd 13, 12:26 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

Tim+ wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...w%20aerial.jpg

Bill


Without meaning to be a spoilsport Bill, at what age would you consider it
reasonable to ask someone's consent before sharing a photograph with the
whole world? Showing friends your family album is one thing, but putting
someone else's child's photo on the internet is another thing altogether.

Tim

Leaving aside the basic question of whether there's anything wrong with
showing pics of children on the internet or other media, Ben is my
grandson, and his mother is highly amused when I forward her any
Ben-related posts from here. Ben, as an egomaniac, loves to see pictures
of himself.

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.

To get back to the 'basic question', the world seems to have got itself
into a muddle about this. On the one hand we have schools preventing
parents photographing their own children in nativity plays, yet just now
I watched John Sergeant's programme about Spike Milligan in which we
were shown a longish sequence of close-ups of junior school children.

Bill
  #13  
Old September 23rd 13, 11:12 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,172
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:45:28 +0200, Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.


You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.


I've got grandchildren too. Their full addresses are not the same as
my full address.

Rod.
  #14  
Old September 23rd 13, 11:31 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,968
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:45:28 +0200, Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.


You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.


I've got grandchildren too. Their full addresses are not the same as
my full address.

I detest the now-established culture of avoiding showing children's
face, and especially the pressure not to take any photographs of
children, or with children in them. I doubt is there's a scrap of
evidence that this contributes one jot to the tsunami of paedophilia
which is now (not) sweeping the country.
--
Ian
  #15  
Old September 23rd 13, 12:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

Martin wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Martin wrote:

Bill wrote:

I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.

You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.


I've got grandchildren too. Their full addresses are not the same as
my full address.


Nor are mine, but if somebody hangs around near Bill's address sooner
or later they will see Ben.


I think Bill's got the level of risk in reasonable proportion.

  #16  
Old September 23rd 13, 02:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.


You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.

My full address is on my website which any fule can google. But Ben's
address isn't.

Bill
  #17  
Old September 23rd 13, 02:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:03:51 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.
You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.

My full address is on my website which any fule can google. But Ben's
address isn't.


I bet the Daily Mail could find Ben using your address in half an
hour.

They might regret it...

Bill
  #18  
Old September 23rd 13, 04:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:18:19 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:03:51 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.
You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.

My full address is on my website which any fule can google. But Ben's
address isn't.
I bet the Daily Mail could find Ben using your address in half an
hour.

They might regret it...


The point is that if they can do it so can anybody else.

Do you think it would be best if we made the boy wear a burka when he
goes out? After all, paedophiles walk the streets as well as use the
internet.

Bill
  #19  
Old September 23rd 13, 06:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,172
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:31:30 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.

You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.


I've got grandchildren too. Their full addresses are not the same as
my full address.

I detest the now-established culture of avoiding showing children's
face, and especially the pressure not to take any photographs of
children, or with children in them. I doubt is there's a scrap of
evidence that this contributes one jot to the tsunami of paedophilia
which is now (not) sweeping the country.


I think you probably mean the tsunami of paranoia and celebrity
accusations. There's probably some real nastiness behind it all, but
exactly how much and whether it's really increasing is unclear.

I wasn't particularly surprised to learn of the extracurricular
activities of Mr Savile, but my faith in humanity will take a severe
beating if Rolf Harris actually turns out to be guilty. The more of
these cases I read about, the more I have to remind myself that it's
not like TV drama where you can play "guess the bad guy" just by
looking at them.

Rod.
  #20  
Old September 23rd 13, 10:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,500
Default The wit and wisdom of Ben, 4

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:25:20 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:18:19 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:03:51 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Martin wrote:

Assuming the worst, which I guess is that some nutter would, for some
reason, develop an obsessive interest in the child, I don't think just
looking at the photograph would help him find the boy. There may be
clues to his whereabouts if anyone bothered to look through hundreds of
posts, but I really think that is disappearingly unlikely either to be
done or to succeed.
You recently posted your full address. That is the clue.

My full address is on my website which any fule can google. But Ben's
address isn't.

I bet the Daily Mail could find Ben using your address in half an
hour.

They might regret it...


The point is that if they can do it so can anybody else.



FFS.
When I was that lads age my picture was in the paper. I loved it and
so did my folks.

It was only a local rag but it would have had more "views" than this
particular drop box image will get, and the caption contained my full
name. The only other male in the town that the paper served with my
surname was my dad.

Nothing bad happened.

It could have done, they're a risk in all human endeavour, Saddleworth
Moor was only 10 miles away.



--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.