56 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I guess the government won't do it, they'll pressure the VPN providers to find solutions.....passports, drivers licence?

The onus will be on the individual to prove they are over 18......live face scans compared to ID's photos.

Giving this personal ID verification data online to some backroom website will be a godsend to the hackers an fraudsters!

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Giving this personal ID verification data online to some backroom website will be a godsend to the hackers an fraudsters!

Lots of sites demand it now.....I must have gone through the ID verification four or five times in the last year.

17 hours ago, Stocky said:

You are a drama queen!

The proposal is to limit VPN access for kids, much like existing laws regulates access to alcohol, cigarettes, vehicles, etc etc, the proposed legislation is to protect kids online.

Yes, it's always about "saving the kids". 😄

so what happened to all the personal information that was reported to be seized by elon musk and his band of incompetent DOGE goons? Are all you maga folks still waiting to get that big doge check along with your tariff rebate checks?

Maybe if you dress up like the easter bunny and stand by your mailbox elon will show up and tell you that you also won the publishers clearing house sweepstakes and the check is in the mail.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yes, it's always about "saving the kids". 😄

Sorry, isn't that what you say when we call Yaxley-Lennon out for being a racist / fraud / scam artist? We must be pedophile protectors, "Tommy" is doing all the racist stuff "to save the kids". Right?

You are such a hypocrite Jonny, one of the biggest on here. And, as someone else mentioned, a drama queen. Chicken Little.

On 2/16/2026 at 8:08 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

It's possible on paper (via provider mandates/age checks), but technically impractical to stop determined minors (or adults helping them). It would create friction for compliant users while failing against tech-savvy ones.

Another crazy idea!

My son uses my vpn it's an account for multiple devices

6 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Sorry, isn't that what you say when we call Yaxley-Lennon out for being a racist / fraud / scam artist? We must be pedophile protectors, "Tommy" is doing all the racist stuff "to save the kids". Right?

You are such a hypocrite Jonny, one of the biggest on here. And, as someone else mentioned, a drama queen. Chicken Little.

I'm not aware of any racism from this Tommy guy that you seem to follow.

Got any examples?

On 2/16/2026 at 8:08 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

It's possible on paper (via provider mandates/age checks), but technically impractical to stop determined minors (or adults helping them). It would create friction for compliant users while failing against tech-savvy ones.

Another crazy idea!

I'm sure this will be one of the reasons put forward during phase 2 when they inevitably try to ban it for adults as well.

21 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What happened to Starmers promise of less government interference in people's lives?

Oh thats right another lie from the commie tyrant.

Get behind defending the distribution of harmful online content to children.

No surprise at all.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Get behind defending the distribution of harmful online content to children.

No surprise at all.

A ridiculous strawman even by your standards, Higgot. 😄

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A ridiculous strawman even by your standards, Higgot. 😄

You still haven’t got the definition of ‘strawman’ have you Jonny.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You still haven’t got the definition of ‘strawman’ have you Jonny.

Fabricating someone's argument, like saying that I am defending the distribution of harmful content to children.

Have you got the definition of gaslighting yet?

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Fabricating someone's argument, like saying that I am defending the distribution of harmful content to children.

Have you got the definition of gaslighting yet?

And yet here you are arguing against measures to protect children from harmful content.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet here you are arguing against measures to protect children from harmful content.

We both know that is not what this is about. 😄

It's about undermining privacy, human rights, free speech and security. Your lot just pretend it's about "protecting the kids" to make yourselves feel better about your increasing tyranny.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

We both know that is not what this is about. 😄

It's about undermining privacy, human rights, free speech and security. Your lot just pretend it's about "protecting the kids" to make yourselves feel better about your increasing tyranny.

Ah, you assume I subscribe to your conspiracy laden view of the matter.

In this thread you argue against these reasonable measures to prevent harmful online content being directed at children.

Elsewhere you defend a guy protecting pedophiles.

I agree Jonny, it’s definitely about the kids.

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

n this thread you argue against these reasonable measures to prevent harmful online content being directed at children.

Elsewhere you defend a guy protecting pedophiles.

I do neither.

The fact you always have to create false positions to argue against is striking.

The fact Labour want people to be able to vote at 16 but not use a VPN until 18 tells you everything you need to know. Keep them ill informed reading government propaganda like the BBC and then they might vote for Labour.

Getting harder to call out China for for being a communist dictatorship when you have UK (and Google) doing it's best to crush any sort of freedoms or liberties they can.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

I do neither.

The fact you always have to create false positions to argue against is striking.

The fact Labour want people to be able to vote at 16 but not use a VPN until 18 tells you everything you need to know. Keep them ill informed reading government propaganda like the BBC and then they might vote for Labour.

Another false equivalence.

1 minute ago, sikishrory said:

Getting harder to call out China for for being a communist dictatorship when you have UK (and Google) doing it's best to crush any sort of freedoms or liberties they can.

The freedom to distribute harmful material to children?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another false equivalence.

Another meaningless reply.

You really have no logical argument with which to debate me.

It's crystal clear why Labour want to ban X and now VPN's. They don't want people to see what is really happening.

"Our BBC shall be your only source of truth".

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Another meaningless reply.

You really have no logical argument with which to debate me.

It's crystal clear why Labour want to ban X and now VPN's. They don't want people to see what is really happening.

"Our BBC shall be your only source of truth".

Our BBC with the statue of the phedophile out the front that we refuse to remove.

On 2/16/2026 at 1:08 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

This is a UK topic.

If you are in the UK accessing and/or sharing illegal content be aware you have zero anonymity while doing so.

Well the purpose of all this is to remove all "illegal" content available online.

How much is a Sky TV subscription these days? 100 pound a month?

IPTV services, I know they are illegal, offer the same content and 10 times more for 10 pound. Who's not to like that?

The reason Sky TV cost 100 pound is not because that is the cost to broadcast the programs, but because footballers and other sports people are paid BILLIONS.

So just wait until they have eradicated all "illegal" online content, though I don't think they ever succeed in that, and see your Sky sub double or triple in price for even less content.

58 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

How much is a Sky TV subscription these days? 100 pound a month?

Don't know, but HBO MAX costs me 35bht/month.

And I'm OK paying that.

But without vpns, the Brits trolling this forum using multiple usernames will be stopped dead!

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But without vpns, the Brits trolling this forum using multiple usernames will be stopped dead!

What does that post mean WRT VPNs and usernames?

PS; would whatever you are posting about apply only to Brits?

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Well the purpose of all this is to remove all "illegal" content available online.

No that is not the purpose at all, even though they would want you to believe that it is.

On 2/16/2026 at 1:06 AM, koolkarl said:

Why not shut net off entirely instead of having a generation of airheads and addicted gamers?

Phone zombies are everywhere having their kit stolen by grabbers on high speed ebikes

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But without vpns, the Brits trolling this forum using multiple usernames will be stopped dead!

Or maybe it will stop those Brit pensioners living here, but pretending to live in the UK, from fooling the government. You know any like that?

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Get behind defending the distribution of harmful online content to children.

No surprise at all.

It's not the governments job to parent kids..except when they treat everyone like kids deciding the smallest minutiae of their 'citizens' life's for them..to keep them safe of course !!!! its not about keeping 'children' safe for the umpteenth time it's about control.

16 minutes ago, johng said:

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Well the purpose of all this is to remove all "illegal" content available online.

No that is not the purpose at all, even though they would want you to believe that it is.

Yes it is, or you already forgot what you posted before?

Having control over everyone, includes they see what they are using the internet for, and that is not just social media.

Today already, Cloudflare and VPN companies are legally required to block every IP address that connects to services that provide copyrighted content.

But since that doesn't really work out like they expected, they now go a step further.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

but pretending to live in the UK, from fooling the government.

If the government was paying pensioners there due pensions then there would be no need to 'pretend'.

They (government) pretended that the mandatory payment via taxation would provide in old age and now renege on the deal..very much not cricket old chap.