• Replies 36 replies
  • Subscribers 90 subscribers
  • Views 1235 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

New Forum - Spikey Thoughts

SpikeyMark

I've taken the dog for her last walk, and am typing this before I take her back to her family Sob 

I'm not going to repeat what others have said, but

  • It's not NAS or NAS mod's fault. I put the blame firmly with whatever IT company has been hired. I hope that they do the moral thing and either charge less, or give a few years free support.
  • Blocked members. At least everyone who has been disgruntled here was able to get on in some way. My thoughts are with the people who got an abuse email, couldn't log on and have just run away. There are lots of regulars missing. F*m*ky, P*X*fx spring to mind, but there are others too.
  • Age rule. It should be 18, but I feel particularly bad for the regular member(s) who has had the rug severely pulled from beneath their feet. I hope that their life moves on and they have no need to come back next year, but if they do I will be happy to see them. 
Parents
  • SpikeyMark said:
    Age rule. It should be 18, but I feel particularly bad for the regular member(s) who has had the rug severely pulled from beneath their feet.

    They haven't changed it in the T&C's:

  • in reply to Debbie

    They probably just forgot. I think it's a legal requirement.

  • in reply to SpikeyMark

    It's not. But it is an easy way of compling with new legal red tape the goverment introduced. If anyone ever asks them to justify how they keep under 18s safe on their website they can just say they don't allow under 18th.

    This is basicly what everyone said about the online harm bill. That it would just end up causing website owners to do the lazy thing of shuting down anything that might look remotely controversial. Of course we have the advantage that being autistic if our autism is involved they have to justify their aproch to implimenting the online harm bill as proportionate. Unfortunatly being under 18 is not a protected charicteristic for the purposes of services online or otherwise. (equality act 2010 section 28(1)(a))

Reply
  • in reply to SpikeyMark

    It's not. But it is an easy way of compling with new legal red tape the goverment introduced. If anyone ever asks them to justify how they keep under 18s safe on their website they can just say they don't allow under 18th.

    This is basicly what everyone said about the online harm bill. That it would just end up causing website owners to do the lazy thing of shuting down anything that might look remotely controversial. Of course we have the advantage that being autistic if our autism is involved they have to justify their aproch to implimenting the online harm bill as proportionate. Unfortunatly being under 18 is not a protected charicteristic for the purposes of services online or otherwise. (equality act 2010 section 28(1)(a))

Children
No Data