76 Arrests led the big ‘invade’…
Seventy six a-rrests led the big ‘invade’,
With a hundred and ten new laws close at hand,
They were followed by rows and rows of the finest statutory instruments;
The dream of every Fabian hand.
Seventy six a-rrests caught the morning news…
How mesmerisingly convenient! What a perfect piece of spin.
A Scout leader, a retired teacher and members of the Armed Services were among 76 people arrested in raids as part of an operation targeting suspected internet paedophiles.
Officers from more than 40 police forces executed more than 141 search warrants in the 48-hour operation led by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).
Just as our supposedly ‘more Libertarian’ government produces its Draft Communication Bill, which will allow IT to know more about US than we know about our spouses and partners, CEOPS (The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) explodes onto our news wires with ‘absolute proof’ that the Internet is responsible for turning a nation of clean living people into utter perverts. One on every street corner. ‘Obviously‘ the Internet must be closely regulated.
The Internet didn’t invent perverts.
Just imagine for a moment, if you would, that you are in your local newsagent trying to buy a newspaper. ‘Name, address, please, the government has to know where you are storing this copy of the Daily Mail’.
Or you are in the Post Office trying to post a letter to your brother – ‘Just fill in this form please Sir, and attach a photocopy of the letter, the government needs to know what you are saying to him, it might be defamatory about someone and they have a right to know ‘.
Or your local book-shop – ‘Just fill in this form please Sir, the government needs to know that you are buying a copy of the Marquis de Sade’s latest tome…’
We have managed all those tasks since time immemorial without the government being aware of what we are doing – and quite right too. It is none of their business.
If incest, paedophilia and child abuse were a new invention, like crack cocaine perhaps, then there might be some justification for attaching it so clearly to the Internet, but it isn’t. The bible found it necessary to outlaw incest; the Victorians were painting naked children long before the camera found a quicker way to record the image; they locked the Marquis de Sade up for generations, he still managed to publish his books. To borrow that ghastly ‘social worker’ phrase – inappropriate sexual activity is an evil that has been with us for a long, long time.
Why are we suddenly being ‘groomed’ to accept that if the government is just allowed to control the Internet, it will go away. What is it about an e-mail that frightens the government more than a letter?
How did CEOPS come to find 76 child abusers on-line in just one night? They did find them in just one night, didn’t they? Rushed out to a judge in chambers and got a warrant allowing them to be lifted off the street instantly?
I mean an organisation dedicated to the protection of children wouldn’t have tracked those 76 individuals over a period of months, left those children in harms way with unforgivable things happening to them for months on end whilst they organised a news worthy mass arrest feast to coincide with experts releasing a report claiming child abuse in ‘every village’, and the government having a draft Communication Bill on the shelf just waiting for an opportunity like this? You’re not trying to tell me that they are that cynical are you?
Why has no one mentioned the parents in all of this? Control the Internet, we are told, and you will no longer have to hear of 11 year old girls being forced to ‘give sexual favours’ to a line up of adolescent males. It’s the Internet wot made ‘em do it.
We could control the 11 year old girls, protect them, look after them, nurture them, act like parents, and those adolescent boys would be forced to go back to group masturbation behind the bike sheds in time honoured fashion.
No, it seems that the solution is to find out who is downloading a mobile phone picture of that 11 year old girl being ‘forced’ to give sexual favours, and arrest him. And to do that we need to know everything about everything you are doing on-line…
2.5 Billion pounds it will cost, and Theresa May is seriously suggesting that it will ‘stop paedophile gangs’. Only those using the Internet, Theresa! I very much doubt that those 11 year girls were summoned to the back of the bike shed by Internet. Their parents didn’t turn a blind eye to where they were by Internet. If you want to criminalise anyone, if you really must, could you start with the parents of those girls? If you want to arrest those who are downloading pictures, and you should, you really should, could you please do it as soon as you find them, not hold onto them for a newsworthy scoop?
Coming shortly: Terrorist plot to blow up 400 new born babies in a London hospital foiled because police intercepted an e-mail disclosing all the details… Whoooo……exclusive Sky interview with weeping Mother who sold her Jimmy Choo’s to pay for IVF and is distraught that it was so nearly ‘all for nothing’, consulting her lawyers, suing the government. Jesus wept.
June 17, 2012 at 11:53
-
Ms Racoon, wonderful to have you purring on all 4 cylinders again, we
missed you babe !
Just a thought, but was I the only one stunned when T.
May tried to justify this nonsense , by refering to the Rochdale case , as an
example of why the law was needed ?
Surely the whole scandal of the
Rochdale case , was the blind refusal of plod and social services to act,
because the perps were effniks ? So, what is actually required is a law
scrapping all the Macpherson report baggage and the police to get off their
arses and do some high visibility, boots on the ground neighbourhood
patrolling.
-
June 17, 2012 at 06:36
-
It’s all just a cover isn’t it.
Paedos are not the main target……….they want to spy on pissed-off people
like me who might wish mutilate and murder Barroso, van Rompuy, Schultz,
Ashton, Verhofstadt etc. etc.
This goes for anyone else who wishes to foment insurrection in order to
throw off the shackles of an oppressive tyrannical EU government……..the one
that is forcing the Greeks to starve and to commit suicide.
They want to know when, where and how we might be planning to do it.
Moreover they probably also want to know what else we look at online, or,
and perhaps more likely seek to be able to plant something onto the hard-drive
of any computer that they may seize, in order that they could discredit and/or
imprison anybody at all who foments any anti-EU sentiment whatsoever.
Think this is far-fetched?
Just imagine that this post could easily have been flagged because the word
‘murder’ was linked to the shower of euro-shite that governs us……….cue a visit
from the police……..they seize your computer…………….they can then input obscene
photos into your files along with ‘indisputable’ records of visits to dodgy
web-sites and even e-mails from paedo-ring members. You might not be charged
with the ‘offence’ of plotting to have Barroso bumped off, but you might be
with possession of obscene photos and being a member of a paedo gang…………with
news of this splashed in the press.
Possible acquitted and spared gaol, your reputation is trashed, life ruined
and credibility as an anti-EU campaigner smashed to smithereens.
Think it can’t happen?
Who was the bloke who was arrested for the murder of a bloke who wasn’t
dead? This was an example of gross systemic incompetence and intransigence –
just wait until they get their shit together………which is what they’re now
trying to do.
Think that Cameron came up with this bill himself? Nope, a dictat from
Brussels – all part of the evil euro-facist plan to spread their tentacles
across the continent.
Scary times.
-
June 19, 2012 at 16:28
-
“Be careful ve have gotten your number”
- June 16,
2012 at 14:51
-
If you want to avoid Big Brother knowing what web sites you visit, use TOR
https://www.torproject.org/
If you want to avoid Big Brother reading your emails, use encrypted email
https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=encrypted+email+service&oq=encrypte+email&aq=1s&aqi=g-s10&aql=1&gs_l=serp.1.1.0i10l10.3201.6124.1.10186.14.13.0.0.0.0.670.2932.0j9j1j1j0j2.13.0.cish.1.0.0.kttDnmrjmoY&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=496b77a1cf117f7a&biw=1100&bih=947
- June 16, 2012 at 08:57
-
You have to wonder just how much effort/money is being diverted from
purposes that would track down and rescue those children who are truly in need
of rescue. Barely a week goes by without the revelation in some news story
about a child being discovered who’d been locked for years in a basement or
closet or somesuch and barely kept alive by abusive parents/caretakers. I
would rather see our resources being focused on cases like those than on
people who may simply be curious about pictures and sites they’ve read about
or even on people who actually do have some pedophilac elements in their
“fantasies” while never even dreaming of acting upon such thoughts in their
real lives. Think of all the people who went to see the movie or read the book
“Lolita.” How many of them would deserve to be locked up because they did so?
And yet, if the current thinking as exemplified by those arrests were
continued and expanded along logical lines, they all WOULD deserve to be
arrested and then monitored and tracked for the rest of their lives!
And meanwhile the resources that would aid truly abused and neglected
children would be sidetracked and the abuse and negligence would continue: I
think THAT would be a crime.
– MJM
-
June 16, 2012 at 09:22
-
That is what has always bothered me Michael – so long as the message
going out from the MSM is that all that is required is CRB checks, or ‘we
tell you who has already been convicted’, and Internet regulation, attention
is diverted from all the other children who suffer in silence. A generation
is growing up thinking that child care is something the government perform
for you by law making…I really fear for their children.
-
June 16, 2012 at 12:35
-
To extend that notion, a generation is growing up / has grown up with
the expectation that ‘government’ will protect them, full stop. Whatever
risk they take or situation they willingly or unwillingly enter, there
will be some form of government funtion or agency available either to
protect them or handle the consequences.
From Health & Safety, Food Standards Agency, Trading Standards,
Social Services, the NHS, Pensions & Benefits and so many more – all
indeed founded on good principles, but now extending their remit into
areas which had previously been the preserve of personal responsibility.
Hence we have generations now appearing with no concept of absolute
personal responsibility. As a consequence, the productive few are
supporting an ever-increasing overhead of public sector cover for the
imprudent many. Ultimately, those sums don’t add up and the day of
reckoning dawns.
-
June 16, 2012 at 21:20
-
Arguably, this started circa 1948, you are well into the third
generation. Due to the passage of time, and repetition of “theories”
ideas that were once considered fringe are now mainstream.
Your conclusion is correct, the present system is unsustainable, and
yet the bureaucracy daily dreams up further ways to protect us from
ourselves at exhorbitant cost. The bureaucracy’s function were once
carried out by sensible mothers, fathers and grandparents at no cost,
now it is a make-work organization for unemployable young females
(mostly but not exclusively) who have completed university in some
subject that renders them unemployable in productive work.
- June 18, 2012 at
10:55
-
Donning my tinfoil hat I say loudly: the issue is not child
protection. It is the nationalization of children and the removal of
children from parents, particularly the married sort. I can go no
further without a Godwin infraction.
-
June 15, 2012 at 19:50
-
I have only had one interaction with those who are supposed to be
protectors of our children and what I found was that there was an initial
untruth, with lies told to cover that initial untruth, and my complaint which
led to a whitewash of a report on the situation leading to the complaint, a
review of the complaint which began with the chairman asking me what I wanted
from the review and then telling me, when I had told him I expected him to
find that the complaint investigation was seriously flawed and incompetent
that he could not possibly arrive at such findings, and then off to the local
government ombudsman who did find the authority incompetent. I have been left
with absolutely no confidence who these imbeciles and I cannot see that CEOP
would be any better.
- June 15, 2012 at 16:17
-
Peter Davies, chief executive of Ceop, said in the foreword to a new
report: “We found some compelling evidence that anyone who possesses indecent
images of children must be considered a risk to children.
Doesn’t this mean that the first people to arrest are those at Ceop? I’d
certainly regard frothing hysteria such as his as a risk to children since it
was precisely this degree of lunacy which led to the Satanic Panics of the
late 1980s, which dragged on in to the middle of the 90s and is getting worse
now that family courts are unwittingly conspiring to silence any critics.
The law is a mess since it tried to outlaw not those photographs which
occur as a record of a crime, but drawings which it doesn’t like. It is very
difficult for people to understand but the prohibition on indecent images was
not for thought control (which simply cannot be done, not even in my woolly
bonce) but to make it less of a paying proposition for people to commit
crimes, photograph them, and then sell the photographs. So excuse me if I
don’t think they have made a sensible case here. If it is anything like
Operation Ore, at least half the people will be innocent but goodness knows
which half.
I’m also particularly annoyed at the shouting about a Scout leader without
the means to confirm if that is true. The Scouts are an exceptional and
honorable organization which, it is true, is the kind of place an offender
might target being as it is full of children. However, it is a very tightly
monitored organization which, precisely to avoid wrong’uns of this kind, is
always checking who it allows in.
Of course, the Scouts pledge allegiance to the Crown and God, so they are
automatically to be regarded as suspect in the eyes of some people.
- June 16,
2012 at 12:47
-
It also means that any news servers at the Sun still retaining some old
Sam Fox ‘glamour’ shots from Page Three count too. When will we see the
arrests?
- June 18, 2012 at 10:51
-
Don’t tempt Leveson – he’s only looking for the excuse.
-
June 19, 2012 at 11:52
-
It might be in everyones interest for them to send the Sam Fox ‘
glamour’ shots to me so I can study them to determine if they are porn. It
might spare our male contributors a lot of upset if they porn
- June 16, 2012 at 21:33
-
One wonders what the compelling evidence might be and when it will be
presented.
I have photographs of my sons in the bath in our photo album (somewhere),
I also frequent a website of ornamental masonry on buildings that frequently
features cherubs, and naked statuary. I obviously do not belong in camoron’s
BS (big society with small minds) thank the Lord
-
June 19, 2012 at 11:49
-
I was in the Scouts in the 60s early 70s and our leaders were great men,
and nothing untoward ever took place. Most were ex military and brought
great skills and discipline in a gentle way to you people.
I very much
enjoyed my time in the Scouts and still use some of the skills today for
example knot tying whilst boating
Its a tragedy that get tarred this
way
- June 15, 2012 at 15:19
-
Of course those parents could actually do something about it themselves by
installing filter software on their kiddies computers. There’s plenty of such
software around. If they can spend hundreds of pounds on a computer for dear
little *Enter name of choice*, then surely they could buy £15 worth of
protection.
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/
No. They expect the state to doe everything.
Pah
-
June 19, 2012 at 11:44
-
I think your right , installing a filter is the least parents can
do.
But perverts will allways exist and find ways round things— in some
ways they have the upper hand on the internet— there are so many data
transfers, texts message, emails that the police cant hope to check but a
small proportion.
Technology tends to keep one step ahead as well, so
those really up to no good will by encryption etc, and of course if they buy
software from a foreign company it would be difficult for the police to to
get that company to ” de code ” the data.
I think the white middle class
thing is probably no more than they are easy targets and fairly compliant
once nicked. Others will do every thing possible to avoid conviction and of
course if the data is in a foreign lang. you need a translator etc.
As
others have pointed out ” the Rochdale” thing did go on
- June 15, 2012 at 14:45
-
Some of the well-meant but poorly thought-out attempts at protecting
children have unforseen consequences. My daughter teaches ballet/dance and has
become very wary of the Righteous amongst the (mostly girls’) parents –
correcting posture necessarily requires physical contact with the child. She
now has to explain this in advance to the brainwashed sheeple to preempt
complaints. Classes are held in a well-lit studio, with many children (&
usually parents too) present, so why would anyone rational imagine or suspect
a problem? It’s our society that’s sick, not the individuals.
PS: Fab new site Anna!
- June 16, 2012 at 21:56
-
Yep, Master SAoT’s swim teacher is no longer allowed to be in the pool
with him during a swiming lesson (sic)
Imagine the utter redundancy of someone explaining how to swim from the
poolside.
Oh, and I’m in the pool with him so really, what could happen?
-
June 17, 2012 at 07:28
-
Have they returned to the time honoured method of teaching you how to
swim then? – Chuck you in the deep end and stand on the side watching your
progress!
- June 17, 2012 at
23:05
-
Nope, the council, instead of going for the cheap-as-chips shallow
end/deep end solution have a hydraulic floor to the pool.
That was obviously inexpensive, never, ever breaks down thus
rendering the pool unusable apparently, doesn’t have an ongoing
maintenance liability and doesn’t make a god awful racket when the level
is raised or lowered. Inspired decision making again from a local
authority.
(Some or all of the above maybe untrue).
- June 15, 2012 at 14:40
-
All this hoo-ha wouldn’t have anything to do with the boss and founder of
cyclops or whatever they’re called trying to justify the existence of his
organisation would it? Perish the thought!
McCartheyism lives on
- June 15, 2012 at 14:32
-
“The Internet didn’t invent perverts.”
It just enabled to hoi-polloi to gain access to what had hitherto been an
exclusively rich- upper-class gateway.
Perhaps some of the accused were just on-line searching for a Spanish wife.
Legal at 14. (Used to be 12)
-
June 15, 2012 at 14:36
-
You may have hit on something there, Joe, perhaps they didn’t like the
hoi poloi sharing their porn….
Didn’t Little Richard marry a 13 year old,
seem to remember some scandal from years ago.
- June 15, 2012 at 16:32
-
Americkee is a very strange place to survey marriage law. Essentially,
they still seem to believe that if you cain’t git marrid, you cain’t do
it. But if a young’un’s gonna do it, theys should git marrid. The upshot
is that in a couple of states the marriage age is so young that the state
next door has had to make exceptions for marriage otherwise they’d be
arresting visiting teenagers from the next state.
The rocker you are thinking of is Jerry Lee Lewis.
-
June 15, 2012 at 13:48
-
Hmmm!
Good article. I don’t think the internet has bred a generation of
paedophiles. I do think that the way paedophilia is practised has changed, as
a consequence of (proper and welcome) tightening up of legislation that
requires police checks to be run before people can take up positions that
grant them access to children. I would think everyone (including libertarians)
would support that.
But what’s happened, of course, is that those with unhealthy
predispositions towards children have found other outlets for their
‘pleasure’. And the law has caught up with the change, by amending an old law
that always prohibited the making and taking of indecent images of children by
photograph to include the internet, and to include, also, the distribution of
indecent images via the internet.
But I think I am full square with the libertarians in believing that
allowing government to see emails is a step too far in unwarranted intrusion
that will outweigh any good from stamping down on on-line abuse of
children.
Good article!
-
June 15, 2012 at 13:54
-
I agree with you that police checks are a good thing – but they are
portrayed as a ‘solution’ and they are anything but. They only prevent
second offenders.
More and more we are being groomed to let the state
protect our children and there is very little mention of personal
responsibility. By the time these children grow up they will be parents with
no idea that there is such a thing as parental responsibility. It will be
the fault of regulation or the state if they let their four year old go out
to a nightclub with five adolescents…”the bouncers should have refused them
entry”, or ‘the law needs tightening up”.
I followed the coverage of
those arrests very carefully, looking for any word that an 11 year old with
time to spend on a line-up of adolescent boys should have been missed from
home – there was none. Not mentioned.
-
June 15, 2012 at 17:00
-
Being reluctantly pedantic, the CRB Checks don’t actually ‘only prevent
second offenders’. They only protect against someone who has previously
been convicted, which is quite different from merely being an offender.
Many offend, few are caught, even fewer are successfully prosecuted and
convicted.
In all branches of criminality, the authorities make claims about
‘reducing re-offending’ when, in fact, they have no idea about the true
rate of re-offending, because it is not measurable. They can only ever
know about the rate of re-conviction – which, strangely, is never reported
as such.
- June 15, 2012 at 17:13
-
You are quite right, your pederasty, no that’s not the right word,
I’ve got the wrong ped in me mouth, your pedanticism, is forgiven!
- June
15, 2012 at 17:30
-
You cheeky Raccoon, you !
- June 15, 2012 at 13:33
-
It seems an incredible amount of money to come up with when large areas of
the country can’t still get a decent internet connection.
The total funding
for BDUK (Broadband Delivery UK) which was set up to deliver at least 2Mb
broadband speeds to the “not-spots” stands at £530M.
Maybe the reductions
in the police force will cover the cost?
- June 15, 2012 at 13:17
-
When will the electorate become the objectorate? We are losing our freedoms
and rights salami fashion, slice by slice and it seems that very few of the
Great Unwashed even notices. Whatever issue causes the new laws and
restrictions to be applied you can be assured that there will be a number of
earnest do-gooders eager to be on TV and in the dead tree press expressing
satisfaction and claiming that ‘it is long overdue’ . There will also be no
airtime or column inches available for those who might speak against the
proposed legislation. The Roman leaders were right. All that is needed to
ensure a compliant people is to give them bread and circuses.
- June 16,
2012 at 12:45
-
With this morning’s news that a Welsh town’s police have decided to go full-out Stazi, it can’t be long before there’s a revolt.
Can it?
Mind you, it did make me laugh to see another story in the ES with the headline ‘Wales ready to
put trust in youngsters’. Really? It seems not…
- June 15, 2012 at 13:13
-
I’m also a bit worried about how you would know of those ‘behind the
bike-sheds’ moments of adolescent group-bonding. Were you watching ? I thought
it was just a private boy-thing – has some bloke grassed us all up ?
-
June 15, 2012 at 13:16
-
June 15, 2012 at 13:10
-
“buying a copy of the Marquis de Sade’s latest tome…”
Dug him up have they? : )
I shall wait with baited breath to see how many are actually convicted of
something.
- June 15, 2012 at 12:37
-
The accumulating hysteria was also exacerbated by the shock-horror story on
Channel 4 News (for 2 nights) about Habbo Hotel, a very popular teen social
networkng site, which apparently attracts the less-savoury types too – what a
surprise ! So do playgrounds, scout troops, sports clubs and church choirs –
always have, always will.
It’s amost as if there’s a cunningly coordinated softening-up exercise
going on (BBC, Channel 4, Daily Mail) so that we don’t complain too much about
our freedoms being taken away – it’s for the cheeeldren, you see. Not that our
government would ever stoop so low as to engage in such orchestrated
propaganda to support its other covert aims…..
As you say, where are the parents when their primary-age brood are on-line
? I know where mine would have been.
-
June 15, 2012 at 12:42
-
Interesting too, that CEOPS say ‘abusers are almost exclusively ‘white
middle class males’- that ‘almost’ allows for the recent outrage in
Rochdale, and more to come, I suppose.
-
June 15, 2012 at 13:03
-
Maybe those caught online are mostly white middle class males – the
ones in Rochdale didn’t use the internet.
-
June 16, 2012 at 21:40
-
Maybe-but highly unlikely. The koran permits (some would say
encourages) under-age “marriages”. That is under-aged as defined in
UK.
I think you find as time progresses that CEOP will NOT extend into
the muslim community-just a hunch.
-
June 17, 2012 at 11:19
-
I don’t think they will have a choice. Everyone is equal before the
law… that is what equality laws are all about.
Isn’t it?
- June
17, 2012 at 19:03
-
One would hope, lets just say I am unconvinced that equality
before the law exists now especially as it applies to favoured
minorities.
I tend towards pragmatism rather than idealism.
- June
21, 2012 at 19:40
-
“I tend towards pragmatism rather than idealism”
Me too since all my pigs flew away!
- June
16, 2012 at 12:41
-
It’ll clearly be ‘the exception that proves the rule’ even as they keep
turning up at court in dribs and drabs..
{ 45 comments }