Accessible Gaming - Gaming with a Disability

I recently did a video on Accessible Gaming, particularly focusing on easy modes and how they help new and less 'able' gamers to play, whilst different difficulty levels stop games becoming too easy as a whole for veteran and high-level players. WIN WIN, PEOPLE!

In it I mentioned my older sister, who has mild cerebral palsy, and I said how easy modes enable her to enjoy games she would otherwise be unable to play - because of easy modes she has been able to play games such as the recent Batman Arkham Asylum/City games, but games without easy modes have been very difficult for her to get into.

Whilst my sister is very shy & self conscious on camera (her disability gives her a slightly strained voice which means it can sometimes take more effort to get words out) (also she is ginger - LOL), she is an excellent writer & I asked if she could write something about playing games with a disability, rather than just have me speak on her behalf.

So, take it away, Emily! 

--------------

Gaming for special people. That's what I'm supposed to talk about, isn't it? I'm not really a hardcore gamer (unless you count getting to level 350 in Candy Crush Saga) but when you live in the same house as icklenellierose, it's hard not to get at least a little bit enthusiastic about these things.

I remember eagerly hijacking my first car in Grand Theft Auto....it was so much fun: pulling that poor defenseless man out of his car at gunpoint, jumping in the driver's seat and IMMEDIATELY crashing into the central reservation. I took a breath, backed up to try this "driving malarkey" again...and drove straight off the flyover. This was more or less my entire experience of every GTA game I've tried. My character got sent to that ER far too many times. Chase sequences were particularly infuriating. My joints don't cooperate well under pressure, so as the drug dealer/gang warlord/general bad guy drove further and further out of sight, so my body would become more and more tense from the stress. My fingers would cramp, slip off the controller and BAM - an old lady was dead. I simply cannot take that kind of pressure....I just wanted to play a game. Murdering innocent pedestrians (by accident) soon became more than I could bear.

I've had this frustrating experience with many games. Prince of Persia was a nightmare. I couldn't even make the person move properly so had to angrily shut down the console before I'd even properly started the game. Musical games like Rockband gave me cramp like I'd never experienced before. I was actually traumatised in Red Dead Redemption when I kept accidentally herding those cows into a ravine. In the end, the story mode of that game became so inaccessible that I had to end up trotting through the mountains, stopping here and there to pick wildflowers. I'm guessing Rockstar had put ridiculous amounts of time energy and money into this game and I was GARDENING.

I guess I've had to adapt and play to my strengths. By strengths, I mainly refer to LEGO. I rule at Lego games. I think it's the way they progress: I like that you finish story mode of the first book of LOTR/Harry Potter and you're still only something like 7% of the way through the entire game. There are so many opportunities to go back, unlock more parts of the game, get achievements and smash up more stuff. The smashing up stuff is particularly enjoyable. But, I need to stress, the Lego games are not necessarily easy. Just because they're bright and colourful and the characters make these cute little noises whenever they jump, it doesn't mean I can automatically sail through them without a care.

Ellen went away for a week in August. I had the Xbox all to myself. I had two new Lego games: it was going to be a good week. I reckoned I could near enough 100% the Lord of the Rings game, give or take a few missing minikits.

Until I got stuck.

The camera angle wasn't co-operating and I just couldn't figure out how to make Legolas jump up onto the Oliphaunt (I know NOTHING about LOTR, by the way, so all these words are confusing). There was no hope of that 100% now. All those achievements seemed to be slipping away in front of my eyes. I was frustrated. But I persevered; I had a tea break and then went and played that level until my fingers went numb. And finally the little guy made that jump - his long blonde hair flowing triumphantly as he flew through the air. And I felt like I had achieved something. I hadn't - I was just playing a computer game - but it was encouraging nonetheless and it meant that I could reach the end of the game. This is why "easier" modes are so valuable to me. I'm not an expert gamer and I never will be. But games that are accessible mean I can still enjoy them and, if they're designed well, can still be challenged by them. Challenge is good. Impossibility is not.

We're sisters, honest! (at London 2012 Dressage)

--------------

Follow Emily on Twitter!

And/or read her blog!

GTA, Rockstar & Misogyny

Right, so I've already said my piece on the whole "9/10" thing in a video, and please watch that below if you haven't done so already (only 4 mins!):

I got a bit angry & sweary...

Some people have said in response "a few people are more angry over the reason it was given a 9, not the score itself".

So, why did the reviewer give it a 9? She lists 2 reasons: because it was "politically muddled and profoundly misogynistic" and "character behavior is sometimes inconsistent."

Now, character behaviour being inconsistent is a big problem in a story-driven game, but, of course, most complainers overlooked that COMPLETELY and just chose to complain about the "misogynistic" comment because "NERRRR STUPID FEMINISTS ARE TRYING TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA ONTO US AND RUIN OUR GAMES!!!".

Firstly, feminists are not trying to ruin your/our games; they are trying to ENHANCE them by making them less bland and s***, something different from the games that come out of the same focus-group-tested bollocks that caused Elizabeth to be relegated to the back of the Bioshock: Infinite box, even though it was HER F**KING STORY.

Secondly, I have not had a chance to play GTA V yet, so I cannot comment on the apparent misogyny in the game, but to me it's a fair critique. Why? BECAUSE IT IS HER REVIEW OF THE GAME AND IF IT AFFECTED HER ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME THEN IT IS A FAIR CRITIQUE. 

GTA is famous for being satirical & taking the mic out of the stupider side of people (especially Americans, from a British perspective) and our society as a whole. Many people have screamed "BUT IT'S SATIRE!", but, as we all know from Alex Day's little mistake a few months ago, satire can be difficult to pull off if it looks too much like the real thing. You can also stumble into the problem, if you are as successful as Rockstar, of having large numbers of fans that don't understand the satire you're trying to convey and actually agree with the sentiments that Rockstar is perhaps trying to mock (just see Twitter the night before the game came out); that ends up not helping the cause and people end up seeing Rockstar as catering to misogynistic fans rather than trying to critique them.

Sadly, not all fans of GTA IV were happy with the hookers and wanted them to be more "attractive", so they made mods like this one to give them huge fake boobs, big bums and skinnier frames than the more realistic Rockstar models.

Basically: GTA is known for its satire, but for some reason - if the misogyny is satire - it has perhaps failed to pull it off, and that would be a big disappointment for any GTA fan. The series is known for being a critique of the world we live in, and Carolyn Petit felt that it came across more like it was in support of misogyny and it took away from her experience of a game she otherwise absolutely loved.

In response to my video, one person said, "Interesting to note that another woman from IGN rated GTA V a 10/10 and didn't let her personal and political views cloud her judgment of the game...".

I'm sorry, what?

Firstly: NOT ALL WOMEN ARE AUTOMATICALLY THE SAME. Perhaps she has different personal views or felt the gameplay made up for it? Also, why should a reviewer throw away/ignore all their own political and personal views when playing and reviewing a game??!! We are not machines that can just turn our feelings off when we play a video game, so why should reviewers do that? The way we view entertainment is always going to be affected by our own world views - it would be stupid to assume otherwise.

People also need to realise that game reviews - in fact any review of any form of entertainment - is always going to be SUBJECTIVE, NOT OBJECTIVE. People will like different things depending on their already-established tastes - you may not see a problem with the things Carolyn disliked, but now those that might feel uncomfortable with certain parts of the game know that they can expect to see and hear certain things, and they are now prepared for that if they want to play.

Also, a lot of people have said that the game has "always been misogynistic" and that it should be "expected" - but I'd like to say HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Ok, so the main playable character has never been female (I will talk a bit more about that later on), and the games are not perfect, but the main gameplay itself is not misogynistic, at least not the way I play the games...

Ok, you can go around punching 'hookers', or just women in general, but you don't have to - you can leave people alone or even punch both men and women, in swimwear or work clothes - woo equality! You can do all the 'pimp' escort missions, but you don't have to (I did it imagining I was overthrowing the evil current pimp to be a kinder boss to my lady employees, offering better guarantees of their safety and the opportunity to go to college or something if they want). You can hire a 'hooker' once just to see what all the fuss is about (not much to be honest, just a wonky car), then run her over to get your money back because you hardly have any at the moment (and no, I would obviously never do that in real life) - but you don't have to. If you hear some guy going on about how he's "looking forward to beating up some hookers in GTAV!" then he's either a) jokingly saying it because it's a bizarre part of gameplay extremely separate from reality b) only saying that because he's a noob and that's all he knows about the GTA series from the news or c) focusing on that one part of the gameplay because he has some serious social issues, especially with women.

There are, however, lots of missions and tasks where you go around killing lots of men. Like, tonnes. The criminal underworld is very 'traditional' and not the best at inclusivity, and the games reflect that. I fully expect the main characters and criminals in general to be a little misogynistic, because they seem like they would be in the extreme GTA world - manly men who go into crime to get money and, therefore, fast cars, women (because they see them as objects to be won with money), etc.

You shoot a lot of bad dudes - there haven't been many female police officers in previous games either. Some think it's lazy design for male gamers and some think it is reflecting & saying something about our society.

However, it would be bloody interesting to get the perspective of a female protagonist having to deal with all this crap. In truth, as much as I am looking forward to playing, I was a teensy bit disappointed that not one of the main protagonists was a woman. Just think of it: she's gone in for the money and the thrills, yet has to deal with a load of men telling her she's in the wrong job, not expecting much from her - then, even with all that, she rises to the top with the rest of the gang, one of whom always believed in her and the other who eventually came round to liking her, both of whom have also had to deal with hearing crap like "getting a woman to do your job then?". SO MUCH CHARACTER DYNAMICS & DEVELOPMENT!!! WOOO!!! It's not just because I'm a lady, but because I think it could just add so much to the story. 

But, if the writers have chosen 3 male characters to tell THEIR STORY, then fair enough, it's their story - as long as the characters are interesting enough for me to play as them, I have no problems whatsoever playing as a male character. At the same time, though, I do think it's fair for people to ask "why do all three characters have to be male?", especially since women can have 'masculine traits' too and other games have easily interchanged male and female characters without changing their personalities.

The annoying thing is, the Saints Row series has dealt with sex and gender so well (the male and female versions of the player are the same character, without it seeming at all weird, and you can even have a sex-change in-game) and, as a Rockstar fan, it's annoying to see the old GTA clone come out looking more progressive than the original. Sex and gender (and race too) is such a non-issue in the Saints Row world and I enjoyed playing as a lady in SR3rd. However, I understand why Rockstar doesn't have that option: the characters in this game seem to have been written very much as traditional aggressively-masculine male characters in a world with very definite gender lines, very much defined by the social gender roles of our world, just on a more extreme scale to try and point it out to the player - satirically or otherwise.

GTA Online will let you play as a female character & previous online games have done so before

However, I do think that Rockstar has the ability to write a strong female character who doesn't bitch and moan but just gets on with crap - I know so because they had Bonnie MacFarlane in Red Dead Redemption. For a lady stuck in the ol' Wild West, she just kept going and worked her arse off, and she wasn't scared to let John Marston know she fancied him (she also graciously backed off when she found out he was married). John does have to save her at one point, but she's not just another damsel in distress, as John has to save her, with helpers, from an entire gang - he also has to save his fair share of men throughout the game too and Bonnie is a very well developed character, so this is not some token 'save-the-girl' mission - it's about saving a friend. The treatment of her character in that mission by her captors is also used to show how badly many women were treated back then, no matter how strong, good and independent they were. In fact, the awful treatment of women by certain men of this period was showcased and pointed out as despicable behaviour throughout the whole game - you get actively rewarded for saving female sex-workers from arseholes trying to rape/kill them and the villains are pointed out as real sick villains with suggestions that they are rapists; this makes me think that Rockstar didn't mean for GTA V to come across as misogynistic, but to point out misogyny as they did in RDR. One of their main ladies, Bonnie, wasn't just some whinging, overly-emotional stereotype who complained about 'stupid men' all the time; she was awesome and the type of character I would love to play as. MORE PLEASE, ROCKSTAR! Thanks! ^-^

Such a badass

GTA games can easily have strong, interesting female characters - I seem to remember some pretty badass ladies in San Andreas and, with the right writer (you can do it Dan Houser! Just think outside the box!) GTA could have the next Fem Shep. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to GTA Online, where a player can have a male or female character (which is also possible in the GTA IV online multiplayer) and shoot the hell out of everyone and run over as many people of any age/sex/race/etc. as they want. The GTA universe is a pretty diverse one, and it's also pretty cool to see such a hugely successful franchise with 2 MASSIVE games that have African American men as main protagonists - ok, they're both criminals, but hey, at least they're multi-dimensional characters you actually play as rather than just more brown people you have to shoot at whilst playing yet another white American dude built like a bloody brick.

I'm also looking forward to meeting Michael's son Jimmy, and seeing just how much Rockstar is willing to take the piss out of the younger, more childish and entitled, members of its fanbase through this character... Tee hee!

Such a charming young man

Anyway, those are just some thoughts pre-game, and I shall share my thoughts once I have played it (which might take a while as I spend a lot of time just driving round listening to the awesome tunes on the radio).

I'm also very much looking forward to meeting Trevor. He looks mental. And awesome.

An example of what happens when you confront an arsehole

Hey everyone.

Now I'm guessing if you're here, you've already seen my video about trolls and arseholes (if you haven't, you should totally go watch it).

I gave some advice in there and I feel that I should show you that I have used my advice and it has worked. I went through some old comments and messages and found this rather unique example that happened a few months ago, wherein I exposed a flamer.

Someone left this comment on a video of mine:

I decided to use one of my tactics of mocking the poster by correcting their spelling.

His post was down-voted into oblivion, whilst mine got (and still has) lots of likes. 

I later got a private message from the person who left the comment, apologising if they offended me and explaining that they were just trying to wind people up (i.e. confessing to being a flamer).

I decided to explain what he really meant, explain how YouTube works and explain my feelings on the idea of just trying to start arguments online for no good reason.

He didn't seem to like this, and also came up with reasons (read: crappy excuses) as to why he was trying to piss off strangers online.

I decided to explain some things to him. Again.

He apologised (and tried to pop in something weird about good/bad things).

I didn't find any more sent messages to him, so I must've felt he'd learnt his lesson (or I just couldn't be arsed explaining any more stuff to him). However, I would just like to point out that yes we all do stupid things from time to time, but you don't need people to do bad things in order for people to do good things. That is a load of bollocks. Sorry.

Anyway, I have blocked out the name because I don't want anyone going off to find him to start a stupid fight or anything; I've already given him a piece of my mind and he admitted he "was acting like a prick". He also doesn't seem to have tried to start any wars on my recent videos and I'm happy with that (he's either learnt his lesson or he's scared of me...not sure...lol). But, if I do see him trying anything again, I will not hesitate to confront him.

I just wanted to show that if people stand up to arseholes, and others band together with them like my viewers banded behind my comment and downvoted the flamer's, they might just feel a bit embarrassed and feel they have to apologise (even if it is in private).

Seriously. Confronting. Liking/disliking. Explaining. It works.

Abuse ≠ Trolling (also that #twittersilence thing)

So there was a Twitter silence on Sunday. It was organised by Caitlin Moran in response to some of the threats people, especially women, were getting through tweets.

She created it as a "you can join in or do something else to make a stand" type thing, but some people were a little bit militant in wanting other people to join in & Caitlin got the blame. People also dragged up tweets of hers from four years ago to try and say "see! she's abusive too!!"

Grasping at straws, much? Also, she explained them all beautifully & made you look even more silly.

Anyway, although I didn't take part in it fully (I decided to join in the interesting discussions that were happening & share my video on the subject), it brought attention to the issue at hand. High-profile men & women making a stand online made the news. Also, whilst some said it was the goal of "trolls" (they're not trolls...but more on that in a sec) to silence the women that took part, they weren't being silent for the "trolls". It was to send a message to Twitter to say "I can live without you, I can easily use another site". Just look at all the sites that used to be huge & are forgotten now.

Also, it wasn't forever. They were not silenced, they just went quiet for a bit. They walked off for a day, and you know what? Sometimes you do just need to walk away for a bit and come back. Often it clears your head & gives you a fresh perspective when you return.

But some people decided to call it a "Trolliday".

Sorry, but no. I am fed up of this mistake. I used to make the same mistake, but then I realised I was wrong. The arseholes sending abuse to people are NOT "trolls". Trolls do not send death threats, rape threats or bomb threats - those people are ARSEHOLES. 

I have created this handy little poster to explain the differences between trolls and the less-fun people of the Internet (the last 2 fit under the wider category of "arsehole"):

You see, I believe we should call these people what they are. They are not "trolls". People are not called "trolls" because of the ugly fairytale character. People are called "trolls" after the verb to "troll", one of the meanings of which is to fish by drawing bait along in the water. They use bait to lure people into falling for their tricks/jokes. They do not send bomb threats "for a laugh".

If you want to see me rant more about this, here's is my video on the subject:

Anyway, please do spread the word. We mustn't let arseholes try and brush off everything they say as "trolling" & try to make out that they didn't actually mean it (when they usually do - even if their threats are often hollow, there is often real malice in them) & that they were just joking. And to those that try to "troll" by saying abusive/threatening things, we must teach them that they are actually just being really, really, stupid.

The people that abuse & threaten others online, without any hint of sarcasm, are arseholes, exactly the same name as we would call them in real life. To quote myself: 

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, and an arsehole is an arsehole whether they're saying something rude to someone's face or via Twitter.

Geeks are not Hipsters...!!!!!

Ok. So I am someone who understands, and is actually pretty happy, that geeks are now seen as "cool". As a teenager I was a closeted geek, hiding behind an emo-looking fringe. I enjoyed getting good marks at school and was a fantasy-geek (also with a bit of a love of sci-fi), spending my time counting down the days to the next Harry Potter book or film release, playing video games like Runescape and wanting to be in Lord of the Rings (although, to my shame, I have not read the books yet...). I'd spend my time online watching Weebl and Bob, or the latest Rathergood or Matazone animation.

Basically, I wasn't the sort of person who was in the popular group. I was fortunate enough not to be at a school where people got beaten up, but I often found that I was a little bit invisible.

Basically, when I was 16, I wouldn't have had the confidence to make YouTube videos like I do today. 

I came out of my shell whilst at uni & embraced my inner geek and looked for more geeky stuff I could enjoy. I also started to proudly show off the geeky things I enjoyed, both online and off.

I love the fact that people can literally wear a "geek" badge, on t-shirts, jackets, etc. I don't even mind that non-geeks are wearing them - it's kinda funny honestly, and an amazing sign that geeks can be proud to be themselves without being worried or scared (at least not to the extent that generations before them have been). Although, I personally feel that actual geeks don't usually wear t-shirts with just "geek" written on them, just geeky t-shirts in general...

[Edit: a Facebook user named Callum replied to the picture shown below & told me how a girl shouted "F**king geek!!!" at him whilst she was actually wearing a jumper with "GEEK" on it. Perhaps stupider people don't realise it's labelling the wearer and assume it's like wearing a jumper with "you're a tosser" on it?]

However, I saw this today and it made me want to punch something.

GEEKS. ARE. NOT. HIPSTERS.

Whoever owns this pillow is a hipster, a wannabe hipster or someone wishing to mock hipsters.

I can understand the specs - both geeks and hipsters wear thick-framed glasses. However, the geeks that wear them wear them so they can READ a statement, not so they can MAKE a statement.

But the MOUSTACHE?! That is NOT a symbol of geekdom. Some geeks may happen to have moustaches, but moustaches are not inherently linked to geeks or show how much of a geek someone is.

Moustaches DO often show how much of a hipster a guy is - usually on younger guys. The flouncier the moustache, the bigger the hipster.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the word "geek" is merely put in there ironically, as glasses and moustaches together symbolise hipsters, and hipsters effing LOVE irony.

Either that or the designers at Primark just stamped a load of shit onto a pillow because they thought people would be stupid enough to buy it, and they couldn't be bothered to work out the difference between a hipster and a geek because...money.

Yeah... My guess is on the second one.

Some of my favourite tweets from #asktommyrobinson

So, today on Twitter, there was an amazing trending tag. 

It was set up by Tommy Robinson - aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka leader of the English Defence League - for people to ask him serious questions regarding the EDL and their ideologies (for those that don't know who the EDL are, they are very anti-muslim and are basically massive ignorant racists who shout about being English, but don't even know how to write/speak it).

Some examples of EDL members...

This, however, did not happen. Instead it was hijacked by the Twitter community and thousands of tweets appeared, asking some pretty fantastic and hilarious questions.

I list some of my favourite tweets below for you to enjoy.

#AskTommyRobinson isn't it strange that EDL stands for 'English Defence League' yet so many of its members struggle to speak basic English?

— Jahed (@jahed_m) July 26, 2013

#asktommyrobinson Why don't you monitor your Wikipedia page better? pic.twitter.com/taQPr3jRaC

— Josh Weller (@joshweller) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson what's your problem against Narnia? pic.twitter.com/ziIQB3FXzz

— Connor (@Connor_Weston_) July 27, 2013

If you shave a member of the EDL do they grow back thicker? #askTommyRobinson

— Lisa (@BiscuitAhoy) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson do you feel that the Oreo cookies oppress the white cream pic.twitter.com/6igeb4M5VV

— دكتاتور (@Habibistan) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson do you sport are troops? pic.twitter.com/iPQpg1nY0q

— Princess Snaisy (@snaisy) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson When the moon is crescent shaped, what's the best kind of rock or stick to throw at the night sky in impotent rage?

— Scriblit (@Scriblit) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson Who's reading these to you?

— Frankie Boyle (@frankieboyle) July 27, 2013

Tommy, this morning my toaster didn't work as well as I'd have hoped. How did Islamic ideology corrupt my toaster? #AskTommyRobinson

— Peter Charles (@peter27afcb) July 26, 2013

#asktommyrobinson how do you feel about all these Muslim women covering their faces in publik? pic.twitter.com/tsp9U2fYAq

— ىاسمين (@yasmin_027) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson Will I be the lucky victim number 2? pic.twitter.com/WiKAxWes6Z

— someone actually (@scouse_hijabi) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson I thank you tommy, this trend is a melting pot of different nationalities and cultures all laughing at you. Together

— Daniel Turner (@Turn_burner) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson does my cat get deported or not? pic.twitter.com/4UkLManalo

— Jøsh. (@JoshRobinson94) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson Are you a fan of irony? pic.twitter.com/4V4jhRVTuo

— Kieran Psyl (@Kieran_Psyl) July 27, 2013

#asktommyrobinson how do you feel about this? pic.twitter.com/i11u37yLfB

— Adam Member (@AdamMember10) July 27, 2013

And finally, a cheeky couple of my own that got a few retweets:

#asktommyrobinson My partner is a handsome, kind Scot, but should I dump him for a real Englishman like one of these? pic.twitter.com/J3h8nct8B9

— Ellen Rose (@icklenellierose) July 27, 2013 

#asktommyrobinson do you realise you must keep plastic bags away from children? Oh, & your stupider EDL members... pic.twitter.com/Xhd3i7Dxiy

— Ellen Rose (@icklenellierose) July 27, 2013

Silly EDL...

David Cameron doesn't know how the Internet works...

Ok, so if you've seen some of my tweets lately, you'll have may be seen that I'm not really inspired to go and see the new film, "The Internship".

However, despite me finding that old-people-not-getting-the-Internet a crappy joke, especially as so many older people DO understand how it works, it seems that the film may have actually based its main characters off of David Cameron.

See, I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard that Dave was sending a warning to Google, saying that they had to do more to block child pornography or face dire consequences.

I'm all for preventing child porn being circulated, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HE HAS NO IDEA HOW THE INTERNET WORKS.

But I thought Google owned all the Internet..?

Does Davey-boy realise just how many pages of information are created each day? Just by writing this blog I am creating a brand new link that can be searched for on Google. Google also has tonnes of measures already in place to try and block unwanted pages; you think they haven't already thought about this problem?! You think that you have to bloody remind them?!

If you search "child pornography" on Google (wow, my search history is going to look weird now), it doesn't give you links to sites showing disgusting material; instead it links to news articles or sites that talk about tackling the problems or explaining the issues around it. At the moment it does link to disgusting material, as most of the links are talking about you (ooooooo buuurrrrnnnn!). It already has measures in place to filter out the more disturbing sites - also I'd imagine they pass on any information they find to the relevant police departments.

Also, in the radio segment I was listening to, an expert in tacking the problem of child pornography explained that most people use private servers, share peer-to-peer and use very different methods to search for this kind of stuff. They send private emails to each other, find other ways of preventing any online footprints. They share things offline to avoid an internet footprint entirely. They know that what they are doing is wrong and against the law, and one expert said that child abusers would "laugh at" Dave's crackdown.

Basically, these people do not create "this is my child porn collection" websites, showcasing their collections to get hits from Google searches. That is the quickest way for them to get caught. You moron. 

Even if people do make pages or search for stuff online, Google doesn't have complete control over the Internet. It is a very powerful company, but it does not have the ability to immediately block pages that break laws, just because there are millions of pages created each day and it is a massive job that they are constantly working on. They have algorithms in place, they try their best, but they are not all-powerful beings that can see every internet page made ever.

Dave, mate, your "demands" are just an obvious desperate grasp for public approval - you know that 99% of the public will agree with you that child porn is wrong. The thing is, if you genuinely cared about this issue, you would've done a little bit more research and realised just how difficult it is to keep on top of the ENTIRE INTERNET, which is constantly growing and changing, and seen just how much work is already going into trying to prevent illegal images from being shared online. 

In trying to make yourself look like the good guy, you have ended up looking like an ignorant tit who has no idea how the Internet works.

Also, as this is related to your recently-reported 'opt-in for porn' pledge, I just wanted to share this hilarious image from the Daily Mail website, which I found here:

YEAH! OPT-IN FOR PORN! WE WIN! (Mainly because lots more people will then have to rely on all our pictures of "all grown up" celebrities in bikinis, often taken without their permission)

As someone who has grown up using the Internet, I just want to ask Dave, "Are you THAT bloody stupid?"

Stop child pornography = good thing to announce. That stuff is horrible and abusive, anyone would support you on that.

Setting up an opt-in policy for porn = bad thing to announce. Forcing people to to basically publicly announce to their service provider that they want to watch other people having sex is going to piss off a lot of voters. I agree with trying to restrict/add laws against certain violent (not BDSM, actual abusive violence) or simulated-rape porn; even if laws are difficult to implement, some stuff online is horrific and just pointing out that it's wrong helps bring light to the issues around it. But block all porn entirely? Is that really going to automatically make the UK a safer, more 'wholesome' place?

My problem with it is the "think of the children!!" mentality behind it. It's the same stupid mentality behind the "video games are making children violent!" argument. The real problem that is easiest to solve? Parents not restricting what their kids have access to. There are already opt-in options for blocking porn to your home, there are countless parental blocking systems to stop kids accessing this kind of stuff; people just can't be arsed to set them up themselves, so they want it done by default at the expense of everyone else who may actually be old enough and responsible enough to access that material.

Also, it won't work. It's the Internet. People will find a way around these blocks. The whole thing is difficult-to-implement, easily worked-round by using different codewords to list and search for stuff, and there will probably be a hack for it within days/weeks. Hell, there is already so much material out there that is now saved onto people's hard drives or phones, and that will only increase after this announcements as people try and save up secret collections; people will just find other ways to share it offline, away from all the blocks & pushed down to the same level as paedophiles (the ones that Dave thinks use Google Image as their go-to site to find their law-breaking material).

Oh, and the easiest way to stop kids - especially teenagers - from getting the wrong idea of sex from porn? Explain to them that that is not what real sex looks like and that thepeople in it are actors, are faking things, porn filming is often actually very clinical, etc. Just bloody TALK to them, or show them programmes  rather than push all the responsibility onto Internet providers. You can't stop them from doing everything, but at least take some bloody responsibility.

Oh and Dave, in response to this quote from this article:

But challenged whether Page Three-style images of topless women should be banned from newspapers, he refused, saying: “It’s an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or not.”

It's also an issue of personal choice as to what people choose to look up on the Internet, and you're not refusing to get involved in that argument, are you? Hmm?

BAM! Crappy argument SLAMMED.

Urgh. I can't wait to vote against you again in the next election, you ignorant tit.



Some good articles & blogs that explain a few things to Dave:

• David Cameron can't protect us from child porn because he doesn't understand the internet
• The UK’s opt-in system for porn is a terrible idea, and here’s why
• "David Cameron's Porn" (with link to gov epetition)
• Online pornography: Cameron's 'war' muddles two separate issues

EDIT: I couldn't release all my anger/frustration just by writing, so I created a video too. Enjoy!

Fox news - and by that I mean weird news about a fox

Ok. I love foxes.

I think they are adorable, with their fluffy tails and little pointy noses and ears. In fact at one point it was a dream to own a fennec fox as a pet. I changed my mind to "maybe", but you can see why I had the initial desire:

DEM EARS

See, whilst I adore fennec foxes and think they are ridiculously cute, I am also aware that they are a wild animal that has only recently been domesticated. I should perhaps start on a more domesticated species as my first "big" pet step-up from hamsters and fish... 

I am also aware of how the urban foxes that live throughout London, whilst living near humans, are still wild animals.

I want to point you to this article, from This is Local London, a friend posted up on Facebook. It is a RIDICULOUS story of a fox walking in on a man on the loo, then biting his cat's face and him and his parter as they chase it around their home. It also comes complete with awful posed photos reenacting the scene. Seriously, go read it.

Anyway, there are just a few things I would like to say about this article:

• Everything, from the in-depth description of the "attack" to the weird reenactment pictures, screams "slow news day".

Wtf..?

• It is one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read, and I read the Twilight Saga...
• To reiterate my last point, it includes the quote "I didn't even have time to wipe myself." This is the level of journalism we're at, ladies and gents...
• The fox manages to "nose" its way into the loo - LEARN TO CLOSE THE DAMN DOOR, MAN. Even if you don't lock it, at least close it so no one / no animal can just push the door with their nose to open it!!
• The guy is quoted as saying, "It was so frightening. It was like a wild animal." Guess what, it IS a wild animal! And you chasing it with your hands outstretched like in the picture below is going to scare the crap out of it and make it follow its defensive instincts - i.e. IT IS GOING TO BITE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU AND ANYTHING NEAR YOU THAT MOVES.

"Just like that..."

• You say the cat's face was mauled. To be honest, it doesn't look too bothered in this picture. In fact, it looks more pissed off than scared - it has a lust for revenge in its eyes... I just feel sorry for it that its owner terrified a wild fox into a biting frenzy.

"I've been through worse with the cat down the road...just wait 'til he comes back..."

• He says the cat is too scared to go into the living room. Can I just ask, where the hell is the picture above taken, then?
• "At the time I wanted to kill the fox. But it must have been in real trouble, really hungry. It panicked - I don’t blame it for that." Let's just read that again "At the time I wanted to kill the fox". Not only is it bad grammar (the journalist should've put a comma after 'time', otherwise it's an incomplete sentence), but it makes me feel even less sorry for the man who was chasing after a fox with his bare hands stretched out, even if he did realise the poor thing was terrified afterwards.
• "We were concerned for our neighbour’s baby next door." Not every fox is planning its next baby attack, but hopefully your neighbours take care to not leave their baby unsupervised where a fox can easily access it.
• I could go on... Just read the article and see for yourself.

Some tips about foxes:

• THEY ARE WILD ANIMALS. DO NOT GO UP TO THEM WANTING TO KILL/STROKE THEM WITH YOUR HANDS.
• Don't chase a fox that has wandered into your house. If you run towards it, it will attack you. It is in strange territory and there are giant animals chasing it - it WILL bite you in defence. Instead, move very carefully around it. Try to close doors to prevent it running further into the house, and gently "shoo" it out with a tea-towel or something else that helps you keep your distance without being overbearing, for your safety and the fox's calmness.
• If you cant get it out your house, or it seems aggressive, trap it in a room (by shutting the door, that is) and call an animal service like the RSPCA who have experts that know how to deal with wild animals.
• Be aware that they are carnivores - I love foxes, but I am also aware that they eat bunny rabbits, another of my favourite animals. In fact, if it weren't for us humans killing off a lot of the rabbit population with myxomatosis to keep them off of crops, foxes wouldn't have wandered into urban areas looking for food.
• Be careful when you leave back doors and downstairs windows open. It is rare that a fox will come inside, but foxes are curious, just like cats, and might wander in - especially if they smell food. They are getting braver around people, so don't invite them into your unattended kitchen.
• If you don't want them near your home, do not feed them. Also, don't feed them inadvertently - keep your rubbish properly tidied away in dustbins.
• Foxes do sometimes attack cats, but we have lots of cats and foxes around where we live and they steer clear of each other. Also, cats are far more likely to be run over than be killed by a fox (1in4 pet cats are killed on the roads in the UK, whilst fox attacks are very rare).
• If you have a cat, don't leave its food outside as it will attract foxes. This will piss off the cat - just watch this video...
• JUST BE CAREFUL. Just because something is fluffy, doesn't mean it's automatically a nice animal. Wild animals are unpredictable.

Anyway, the whole thing is just bad, lazy journalism. Sarah Trotter & others at This is Local London made this man look like a bit of a tit whilst trying to get a cheap easy-scare story - "ooo people don't like urban foxes! Let's write about them attacking people and cats!" Well, it backfired as readers soon figured out that the man was the agressor and scared a wild animal into attack-mode. The comments section is hilarious - I recommend you read them and see how badly this story has gone down with readers.

So what have we learnt today? Foxes are WILD ANIMALS that EASILY SCARE and you should NEVER go up to them if you want a guaranteed bite-free day. Also, local papers are weird.

EDIT: It seems that Anthony Schofield (the man the article is about)  has gone on a reply-spree in the comments section of the article. It's an interesting read. Be aware that the comments are from a man who let someone photograph him on the toilet, for an article about his "frightening" ordeal with a wild fox, where there was "blood everywhere". He also said the sentence: "There are a lot of foxes around here - it was an utter surprise." I dunno about you, but I think it would only be a surprise of there weren't a lot of foxes around there.

Also, the more I read the article, the more I feel the over-exaggerations in the writing perhaps give away that there may be some over exaggerations in the story... Hmm...