Watching p.rn at work

[Bird on a Fire]

That is a seriously piss poor excuse. There's a huge difference between accidentally alighting on something and sitting there viewing it for a period of time. What's the betting he's not the only one...?

How do you 'accidentally' look at p.rn? What words was he searching that brought up something that looked relevant to whatever was being discussed at the time?

MPs shouldn't even be looking at pics of kittens when they're supposed to be working

Nowadays, it's probably quite difficult. In the early 2000s, one of my colleagues had a PhD student who had taken up buying a few stocks and shares online. So he asked him the website address. When he went to visit, he used .com instead of .co.uk and he was very surprised by what came up just as the Head of Department popped into his office... I think now companies are more careful about buying up similar domains.

Yeah, in the early 2000s (when I was in my early 10s) I did get (unwanted) p.rn results in non-p.rn searches, and p.rn spam emails. But I can't think of it happening for ages - I expect the web's got better and I've got better at using it (e.g. the title of a webpage is a good clue as to its contents, as is the url. I don't think many p.rn sites are trying to be subtle in the hopes of attracting mis-clicks).

[Bird on a Fire]

It's a worthless excuse. If you're repeatedly opening links to p.rn by mistake while at work or in any other space with folk who haven't consented to watching p.rn with you, you get some web-savviness training pronto so you don't keep f.cking up like that and risking serious offence, and stop opening links in the meantime.

So even if he's telling the truth (which he isn't) he should still f.ck right off.

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

[Stranger Mouse]

It's a worthless excuse. If you're repeatedly opening links to p.rn by mistake while at work or in any other space with folk who haven't consented to watching p.rn with you, you get some web-savviness training pronto so you don't keep f.cking up like that and risking serious offence, and stop opening links in the meantime.

So even if he's telling the truth (which he isn't) he should still f.ck right off.

Yeah his excuse is shiti if the reporting is anywhere near accurate (although some of it wasn’t - for instance he’s not a front bencher).

I suppose it makes some difference whether he was “watching p.rn” or “opening a message with an NSFW image with a joke attached” but only by a matter of degree. The former would be automatic dismissal in most employers I’ve known and the latter would probably be the same, or at least a stern warning, depending on whether he could reasonable have known what the email contained.

[Stranger Mouse]

It's a worthless excuse. If you're repeatedly opening links to p.rn by mistake while at work or in any other space with folk who haven't consented to watching p.rn with you, you get some web-savviness training pronto so you don't keep f.cking up like that and risking serious offence, and stop opening links in the meantime.

So even if he's telling the truth (which he isn't) he should still f.ck right off.

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

Do we know if he was using WiFi or mobile data? That might give a clue as to whether he was actively trying to circumvent precautions.

[dyqik]

It's a worthless excuse. If you're repeatedly opening links to p.rn by mistake while at work or in any other space with folk who haven't consented to watching p.rn with you, you get some web-savviness training pronto so you don't keep f.cking up like that and risking serious offence, and stop opening links in the meantime.

So even if he's telling the truth (which he isn't) he should still f.ck right off.

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

No, I wouldn't. MPs have legitimate reasons for looking for information on a variety of subjects that would trigger a typical net nanny, and blocking that in the House could very well interfere with debate and legislating.

I don't think there's a net nanny in existence that could do that job well enough to successfully block all (or even the majority of) p.rn while allowing unrestricted access to e.g. reports on sexual offences, descriptions of rape culture, etc.

There's ways it could be done, but it would require all MPs to be significantly more tech savvy than many of them are. Blocking all video at the device level unless you specifically allow it, would be one example. But that's back to installing the filter at the device level. And would likely cause many MPs to not be able to do some bits of their job easily.

[Bird on a Fire]

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

Do we know if he was using WiFi or mobile data? That might give a clue as to whether he was actively trying to circumvent precautions.

For now I'm trusting that the people reporting him for watching p.rn aren't doing so spuriously (I don't think you're suggesting otherwise, but as fun as it is to explore around the issue it's maybe worth being clear that the allegations are serious and unpleasant).

Like I've received the odd NSFW joke gif on whatsapp but I wouldn't be reading those groups in public, and nobody would actually confuse it for watching p.rn.

[Grumble]

How do you 'accidentally' look at p.rn? What words was he searching that brought up something that looked relevant to whatever was being discussed at the time?

MPs shouldn't even be looking at pics of kittens when they're supposed to be working

Nowadays, it's probably quite difficult. In the early 2000s, one of my colleagues had a PhD student who had taken up buying a few stocks and shares online. So he asked him the website address. When he went to visit, he used .com instead of .co.uk and he was very surprised by what came up just as the Head of Department popped into his office... I think now companies are more careful about buying up similar domains.

Yeah, in the early 2000s (when I was in my early 10s) I did get (unwanted) p.rn results in non-p.rn searches, and p.rn spam emails. But I can't think of it happening for ages - I expect the web's got better and I've got better at using it (e.g. the title of a webpage is a good clue as to its contents, as is the url. I don't think many p.rn sites are trying to be subtle in the hopes of attracting mis-clicks).

In the late 90’s, before Google was a thing and search was sh.t, I tried to search for a metallurgy book in my uni library (materials science degree) and got a very surprising (academic I presume) book from the women’s studies section about lesbian nuns.

Not had anything like that happen for more than 20 years though.

[Bird on a Fire]

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

No, I wouldn't. MPs have legitimate reasons for looking for information on a variety of subjects that would trigger a typical net nanny, and blocking that in the House could very well interfere with debate and legislating.

I don't think there's a net nanny in existence that could do that job well enough to successfully block all (or even the majority of) p.rn while allowing unrestricted access to e.g. reports on sexual offences, descriptions of rape culture, etc.

There's ways it could be done, but it would require all MPs to be significantly more tech savvy than many of them are. Blocking all video at the device level unless you specifically allow it, would be one example. But that's back to installing the filter at the device level. And would likely cause many MPs to not be able to do some bits of their job easily.

Hmm yeah I see what you mean. I was thinking more of blocking obvious p.rn domains in debate chambers, but I guess that wouldn't cover all possible "accidents".

[jimbob]

He says he watched it once by mistake (yeah right) and once "deliberately"


Well one of those is correct.

meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/statu ... ENst_uJU6g

Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
Normal
0%
A lot has been said about sexism & the culture in Westminster but there’s just one thing I would like to add.
The bad behaviour I’ve experienced is when men didn’t realise I was a journalist.
I think it’s important when we talk about harassment to also talk about power
8:17 PM · Apr 29, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

[EACLucifer]

That is a seriously piss poor excuse. There's a huge difference between accidentally alighting on something and sitting there viewing it for a period of time. What's the betting he's not the only one...?

If one were accidentally to click on the wrong link, or - more likely - have something in one's social media feed which someone else had posted without warning - the only correct thing to do would be to immediately close it, and, if anyone else is present, apologise and explain.

In the latter case, the risk can be radically reduced by leaving adult content filters in place so that that sort of thing doesn't autoplay if correctly labelled.

In short, I don't buy the excuse, and even it it were true as to how he opened it, his behaviour subsequently was still wrong.

[bob sterman]

So he said the first time was accidental after looking at a "tractor website", but the second time was deliberate?

Erotic attachments to tractors are not unprecedented. There's a case with a sad outcome in this paper...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8454997/

[Stranger Mouse]

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

Do we know if he was using WiFi or mobile data? That might give a clue as to whether he was actively trying to circumvent precautions.

For now I'm trusting that the people reporting him for watching p.rn aren't doing so spuriously (I don't think you're suggesting otherwise, but as fun as it is to explore around the issue it's maybe worth being clear that the allegations are serious and unpleasant).

Like I've received the odd NSFW joke gif on whatsapp but I wouldn't be reading those groups in public, and nobody would actually confuse it for watching p.rn.

No I’m not suggesting otherwise but I was once at a household name company where a load of people were disciplined for their internet use (not me for avoidance of doubt) and it was reported in the local press that staff had been watching p.rn when it was actually NSFW images with jokes in all the cases I was aware of (again for the avoidance of doubt I’m not saying that is ok either).

For that reason I would have to disagree with you about “nobody would actually confuse it for watching p.rn” because 1) some people will genuinely make that mistake 2) some people will knowingly exaggerate 3) stuff can be misreported and not necessarily limited to whether or not the MP is front bench.

In all this discussion of details about what may or may not have happened, though, I can’t think of any explanation that is likely to provide a reason that he shouldn’t lose his job unless the reporting has been largely fabricated in the details given (and I have no reason to think it has). He should be held to a higher standard than someone in a normal 9 - 5 job not lower (considering the £80 thousand plus salary and responsibility as a lawmaker)

[Martin Y]

So he said the first time was accidental after looking at a "tractor website", but the second time was deliberate?

Erotic attachments to tractors are not unprecedented. There's a case with a sad outcome in this paper...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8454997/

Harrowing.

(Sorry.)

[Martin Y]

... and he's gone. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61284686

[bolo]

Or you install a net nanny filter on your devices.

You'd expect House of Commons public area WiFi to have a reasonable net nanny anyway, surely?

No, I wouldn't. MPs have legitimate reasons for looking for information on a variety of subjects that would trigger a typical net nanny, and blocking that in the House could very well interfere with debate and legislating.

Fwiw, at my work we have a firewall that blocks inappropriate sites. There's a (simple) process for getting wrongly blocked sites whitelisted and a (less simple) process for bypassing the blockage individually for rightly blocked sites if you have a legitimate reason to need them. It's not the same network that Members will typically use, but we're part of the legislative branch and would have the same concerns you raise about potential interference with debate and legislating.

It usually works fairly seamlessly, although I was once blocked for an hour or so from visiting the website of the White House Office of Management and Budget. No idea whether that was a screwup, or someone's idea of a joke, or maybe they'd been hacked and were blocked temporarily for serving malware.

[Tessa K]

... and he's gone. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61284686

Farming was never like that when I was a kiddie. That is pretty niche p.rn.

He's finished as a politician but no doubt has sufficient other 'business interests' to keep food on the table. Is he married? Is his wife nobly standing by him?

I bet Boris is enjoying the spotlight being off him for a bit.

[Stranger Mouse]

... and he's gone. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61284686

He is an ex tractor fan

HT Richard Osman

[Martin Y]

Maybe he was just searching for hoes.

[bob sterman]

So he said the first time was accidental after looking at a "tractor website", but the second time was deliberate?

Erotic attachments to tractors are not unprecedented. There's a case with a sad outcome in this paper...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8454997/

Harrowing.

(Sorry.)

Maybe he was just searching for hoes.

If people are going to plough this furrow of humour I'm going to bale from this thread.

[El Pollo Diablo]

No. Stop. Now.

[Gfamily]

Is he married? Is his wife nobly standing by him?

Rumour is that there's a John Deere letter at home for him.

[Tessa K]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread for jokes or are we done with taking this seriously?

His wife's half-arsed defence is interesting. Assuming it was hetero p.rn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... m-reporter

[Martin Y]

Somewhere in all this I saw a claim the material in question was Japanese animation, so no actors involved for whatever that matters.

[bjn]

Perhaps we should have a separate thread for jokes or are we done with taking this seriously?

His wife's half-arsed defence is interesting. Assuming it was hetero p.rn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... m-reporter

It's uncannily like that Little Britain skit where the MP is at the gates to his posh house making laughable excuses to the press for some horrendous indiscretion while his long suffering wife stands uncomfortably by his side.

ETA: and there is even a meme floating around for it which I saw within a few minutes of posting this.

[Nickynockynoonoo]

His excuse of searching for tractors was amusing however, it may be true. On the news there was a shot of a tractor with DOMINATOR on the side.