Help son looking at websites he shouldnt be

Tropez

bitemebankers wrote: »

I think you'll find the legal basis for this is the employers reputation. On that basis, anything legal you do in private is your own business.

Oh, I am certainly aware of why I'm not allowed to do certain things outside of the work place. I remember during criminology, we had a huge assignment on the rights of the employers versus the rights of the employee vs the rights of the state.

In my case, it is the standard boiler plate about not painting the company in a bad light, not allowing others to know about the inner most workings of the company, not identifying myself as a company employee, not passing on information that competitors could use etc.

I actually find it funny, as did the boss who hired me, given that I spend my entire work day at home and staring at a computer screen - but there it goes, because I work from home I have to treat my home as an "office" and as such get bound by certain codes of practice, which do include not watching !!!!!! when I'm "on-shift" and they do have the right, which I gave them, to monitor my internet traffic during that time.

bitemebankers

Tropez wrote: »

Well, it is, because the ownership is transferred to them and they do not have to return it.

Even so, it has been provided with clear strings attached. It's certainly not the equivalent of buying a home computer from PC World or whatever.

But that's a difficult one. Someone can do something in private but somehow others become aware of it. It could be a slip of the tongue, it could be, as someone at my previous employer got disciplined for, being a complete dope and transferring the wrong file from a flash drive for what was supposed to be a humourous email... it was humourous I suppose, we never let that drop.

Sure...but then by definition it's no longer in private. It's a bit like Max Moseley's indiscretion with the S&M party. If you're involved in that sort of caper (and fair play to you if you are) and you also hold a public role or some kind, I think the onus is on you to keep it behind closed doors. This thread is testament to how prudish and backward some people can be, so it's in everyone's interests to be discrete.

It's like the gay !!!!!! version of "barely legal". The male performers are basically young and skinny, at least that is how I understand it.

Ahh, I see. I can imaging the religious lobby getting very hot and bothered by this...(especially the catholic clergy :rotfl:)

Tropez

bitemebankers wrote: »

Even so, it has been provided with clear strings attached. It's certainly not the equivalent of buying a home computer from PC World or whatever.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from there. I suppose my feelings are that it is for all intents and purposes a personal computer, as there is never any need to return it to the employer, but yes, it isn't quite the same as acquiring one from PC World.

Sure...but then by definition it's no longer in private. It's a bit like Max Moseley's indiscretion with the S&M party. If you're involved in that sort of caper (and fair play to you if you are) and you also hold a public role or some kind, I think the onus is on you to keep it behind closed doors. This thread is testament to how prudish and backward some people can be, so it's in everyone's interests to be discrete.

Oh yes, it is important to be discreet. I do understand though how "mistakes" do happen with this though, and really it does only take one small error for people to become aware as to what you're doing. Clearly, there are stupid people out there who buy !!!!!! on company credit cards and then wonder how they're fired (you can bet your bottom dollar that companies know who these third party organisations that bill you under "discreet" names are actually working on behalf of), but all it takes is one minor error.

Ahh, I see. I can imaging the religious lobby getting very hot and bothered by this...(especially the catholic clergy :rotfl:)

Yeah. I think some people would be deeply uncomfortable if they found out that the high school gym teacher was in to that sort of thing, but as you mentioned, I think that speaks more about narrow-mindedness and prejudice than it does any real "threat".

bitemebankers

Tropez wrote: »

I actually find it funny, as did the boss who hired me, given that I spend my entire work day at home and staring at a computer screen - but there it goes, because I work from home I have to treat my home as an "office" and as such get bound by certain codes of practice, which do include not watching !!!!!! when I'm "on-shift" and they do have the right, which I gave them, to monitor my internet traffic during that time.

That sounds fair enough to me. If you're on work time and being paid for it, even if you are at home, it's reasonable to expect you'll be working rather than surfing. As liberally-minded as I am, I don't allow my staff to watch !!!!!! on work time...!

Tropez

bitemebankers wrote: »

That sounds fair enough to me. If you're on work time and being paid for it, even if you are at home, it's reasonable to expect you'll be working rather than surfing. As liberally-minded as I am, I don't allow my staff to watch !!!!!! on work time...!

Yeah, it is fair enough although the number of things I am allowed to do that are not work related is phenomenal. Basically, my job entails doing very little but being able to respond immediately should I have to do something. As a result, I'm allowed to browse the internet, listen to music, do course work and even play video games (on a secondary system, I should add), providing that I'm able to respond straight away when I have to. But !!!!!! is the big no no... the childish side of me thinks that's simply because somebody who is too "close" won't respond quick enough! :rotfl:

bitemebankers

Tropez wrote: »

the childish side of me thinks that's simply because somebody who is too "close" won't respond quick enough! :rotfl:

Ha ha ha! Maybe.

Sounds like a great job though, even with that caveat.

Tropez

bitemebankers wrote: »

Ha ha ha! Maybe.

Sounds like a great job though, even with that caveat.

It is but the job itself is mind-numbingly boring, which is probably why they allow us to do other things. There's certain allowances I have to give the employer, such as random drug testing and random workplace testing (ie. every now and again they send someone round to make sure my "office" doesn't breach any of their rules) and there are of course severe penalties for not doing your job because you were too busy playing Call of Duty.

Anglea

Hi immortal princess

Teens often want to do something if it's forbidden and all their friends are doing it. The more you say no, the more they want to.

How does he normally watch - in his bedroom in the dark?

Why not try reverse psychology, say it's ok to watch if a parent is present, lights on in the room. Hopefully he would be mortified and it will stop him doing it again.

If by any chance he agrees, you could find out what exactly he looks at and ask him why.

In some cases teens watch it because they aren't sure of their sexuality or they have very low self esteem.

I saw a documentary about this a few years back.

rachbc

janninew wrote: »

You may think this, but wait until you are a Dad with a teenager daughter, you might not be quite as liberal then!!

I imagined I would be quite laid back, this all changed when my little girl came along!

Seriously? I really hope both my son and daughter have equal opportunities to express their sexuality...and I'm certainly bringing them up to realise they also both have respnsibilities in terms of preventing pregnancy/ sti's too

pigpen

DS1 just read the OP.. he said get him a GF, a few magazines (FHM is it???) and a guitar to keep his hands busy!!!

He said he will outgrow looking at it soon enough and want to do it.. then you might want to be concerned. If a boy of 13 isn't looking at or wanting too look at that stuff he is less normal than your DS apparently..

From him that was caught at about the same age.