Council warns staff to steer clear of the cannibalism website – Birmingham Post

But they can look a sites that ?contain images of swimsuits or intimate apparel or other types of suggestive clothing? – in their lunch hour. link

6 comments for “Council warns staff to steer clear of the cannibalism website – Birmingham Post

  1. 17 July 2008 at 10:14 am

    How did “atheistic views” slip in next to Satanism and the like? So it seems that the website of a cigarette-smoking atheist would be equivalent to Satanistic amputee cannibal-sex, in the eyes of the Council’s diktat?

  2. 17 July 2008 at 10:59 am

    It’s a mad list if what Paul Dale says is correct — I guess that it’s a case of trying to clarify what’s SFW, so they can actually deal with any necrophiliac sado-masochists that try to surf bestiality websites (yes that’s right, they’d be flogging a dead horse).

    The addition of “atheism” thoroughly odd and almost looks like a mistake of someone doing it without thinking, lumping it in with the occult.

    As people will say (and I think the council are glad that it’s only been taken up by the Post in a joky way and not the Daily Mail) … imagine the storm if religious websites were banned. It’s the sort of thing the NSS( get quite het up about. it’s PC GONE MAD ;)

    A FOI request (not mine, but it’s freely available info now) lists actively banned, technologically blocked, catergories of site as:

    Gambling (except &
    Online Storage
    Proxy Avoidance
    Spyware (Privacy Concerns)
    Spyware (Malware sources)

    Seems fair. There’s also a list of 50 or so specific URLs – mostly openid sites – have no idea what the problem is with those.

  3. dp
    17 July 2008 at 2:50 pm

    This was one of the stories that made me go look at the Post forums – only to find nothing at all.

    I too noted the bit about ‘atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism’, as though atheism is a form of mysticism. I believe the editors at Scientific American would be wondering how they might be construed as such, and whether council employees are expected to get their science from Lysenko.

  4. dp
    29 July 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Update: has anyone noted this story?

    It says “Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was “discriminatory” and they would consider legal action”.

    I guess that means it’s not a typo after all, and I certainly hope there is a suit of some sort. Enough of pre-emptive mind control…

  5. dp
    29 July 2008 at 7:03 pm

    PS: I’m going to make my meta-tags and/or blog description include ‘about atheism and/or witchcraft’. A combined effort might get some innocent officer in trouble, and force a rethink.

Comments are closed.