Should access to pornography be restricted?

In carrying out research for this blog, I was forced to type the words “David Cameron porn” into Google. That’s something I hoped I would never have to do! Fortunately, the results it drudged up related to the latest government ruling on pornography that will force internet users to opt in if they wish to view X-rated material.

The law, which will take effect in 18 months’ time has met with some controversy, with many criticising the ‘nanny state’ mentality at play. Others feel that the lawmakers are naïve and that the ruling won’t prevent those who want to access adult-only sites from doing so. I guess my feeling is that any step towards restricting access to porn is a good one, but that more can certainly be done.

Google search figures show that more people in the UK visit adult-only sites than Facebook and Twitter put together. The data shows that 8.5% of searches were for online pornography, while just 7.3% sought access to social networking websites. Perhaps most worryingly, the study did not include hits from mobile phones or searches for child pornography, which tend to occur on secret networks that are often referred to as the ‘dark internet’.

Meanwhile, another campaign is underway to criminalise porn that appears to simulate rape. While some argue that consumers of pornography are discerning enough to recognise the difference between entertainment and real-life crime, others (like me) feel that rape does not make for suitable entertainment content in any shape or form.

Fiona Elvines, operations co-ordinator at Rape Crisis South London, says: “We see the harm of rape pornography in the ways the material assists in normalising offending for perpetrators, helping them legitimise and strategise their crimes, as well as overcome internal resistance. 

“Evidence shows rapists use rape pornography as part of their deliberate pre-offence preparation. The amended law will make this in itself a crime; a significant step towards primary rape prevention through giving legal grounds for intervening before a sexual offence is committed.”

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone who watches this kind of material is about to go out and re-enact what they have seen, but why watch it at all? I think it’s sad that this legislation is necessary, but it certainly is necessary.

On a lighter note, some good news came in this week on the lads’ mag front with The Co-operative forcing publishers to cover up indecent images using modesty covers. Introduced in response to customer feedback, it hopes the screens will prevent children from being confronted by pictures of scantily clad women during the weekly shop. We hope other stores will follow suit.

Child Eyes, a project that aims to restrict children’s exposure to sexual and violent images, welcomes this decision. However, it recognises that “there is still a lot of work to be done”. A statement from the organisation says: “We need to keep the pressure up to rid the streets of sexual imagery. There is no automatic filter in shops and supermarkets! We are still working hard to make Britain more family-friendly and we need you.”

You can click here to sign a petition making it illegal to display pornography around children, and follow @ChildEyesUK on Twitter for regular updates.

Finally, you can support Sorted magazine. Designed to reach out to men without using sexual imagery, we are thrilled that anti-pornography measures are hitting the headlines and that the general public is eager for protective measures to be introduced.

We know that pornography isn’t going to go away, but we believe that children should be shielded from it. We also believe women should be respected and cherished rather than gawked at and objectified. Finally, we believe men should be offered a better alternative; a magazine that is entertaining but that deals with the real issues of life in an engaging and practical way, for example.

We printed a whopping 40,000 copies of our July-August issue and were able to give away a large proportion of these to many who might not have picked it up otherwise. It would be great if you could support us by buying a one-off copy for a friend, subscribing to the magazine yourself, advertising your business within its pages or by making a donation.

Our September-October edition is about to go to print and are excited about the impact it is going to have! Thanks for all your support.

What do Christians, Conservatives and fat cats have in common?

Photo credit: Harry Metcalfe/Wikipedia

Tomorrow I’ll be interviewing Michael Farmer for Sorted magazine. Michael is an extremely successfully businessman, a Christian, a family man and a big supporter of the Conservative Party (although not necessarily in that order).

As the founder of RK Capital Management, Michael has become one of London’s best-paid fund managers. The company’s main fund, Red Kite, is one of the largest industrial metals hedge funds in the world.

Having left school at 18 and started out earning just £8 a week, the entrepreneur now ships around 15-20% of China's total copper supplies. And that’s a lot of copper. It’s no surprise he’s been nicknamed ‘Mr Copper’ by his peers.

But rather than becoming increasingly greedy after his success with his first company, MG Metals (and after helping to pick up the pieces of it once it was torn apart by Enron), Michael decided to take himself off to Bible School in Cornhill, London. I bet not many of his fellow fund managers have done that.

"The idea of a City financier who's a Christian is sometimes considered a contradiction in terms," Michael told The DailyTelegraph. With the animosity aimed at London’s financial community in recent years, I imagine he’s used to taking a bit of flak. But being a member of the “God Squad” (his words, not mine) is likely to have brought him double trouble.

And these aren’t the only controversies Michael is courting: he’s also responsible for donating £2.3 million to the Tory Party. He’s not one to make a song and dance about this, but he recently decided to defend his actions after hearing Lord Ashcroft criticise London financiers who he claimed were supporting political parties because they stood to gain from it.

"You can call me a City fat cat if you want, but I'm not giving away my hard-earned money for fun. I'm giving it away because I want to fund something I genuine believe: that Cameron and the Tories will be a far better government for the country than Labour," he says.

Having met with David Cameron to discuss the importance of family values, Michael feels the Prime Minister shares his concerns and is sincere about his intentions to preserve family life.

Conversely, Michael believes Labour is responsible for breaking down families; of describing the family unit as a Victorian concept. “Labour's idea of a family is three people who share a fridge," he says. However, as a Christian, husband and father of three, he truly understands the value of family life.

“I know that if things go wrong for me financially, I've got my family to fall back on. If I lost my job or savings, I'd talk to Jenny and we'd discuss belt-tightening, cutting debts, selling the house, whatever it would take to come out the other side. It'd be tough, but far easier together," he concludes.

Do you share Michael’s faith in Mr Cameron? Should the government be involved in family life? Is it right for Church and State should be linked at all? Feel free to leave comments and any question suggestions below. Be quick though – the interview starts at 10am GMT.

You can read the full story – with exclusive comment from Michael Farmer – in the next issue of Sorted magazine.