An old law may stop women in England and Wales, who were groomed for sex as teenage girls before 2004, from bringing charges against the people who took advantage of them. The issue was highlighted when two women were told they could not press charges because they did not report the abuse to the police within 12 months of it happening.
An old law may stop women in England and Wales, who were groomed for sex as teenage girls before 2004, from bringing charges against the people who took advantage of them. The issue was highlighted when two women were told they could not press charges because they did not report the abuse to the police within 12 months of it happening.
There's a Twitterstorm brewing about a Daily Mail article. I won't link to the article itself.
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
Well I know that some people do not believe him. However this is what Pete Townshend was doing. He WAS looking for evidence that the banks were complicit in letting money go to these people who run the websites. Whilst it was a completly crazy thing to do. I think he was trying to be a white knight.
There's a Twitterstorm brewing about a Daily Mail article. I won't link to the article itself.
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
Whatever her motives, I think it was very irresponsible to give out the precise words to type into google.
anyone would think the mail WANTED to encourage paedophilia. :mad:
Whatever her motives, I think it was very irresponsible to give out the precise words to type into google.
anyone would think the mail WANTED to encourage paedophilia. :mad:
Indeed. They must've consulted their lawyers before going ahead with this, surely?
There's a Twitterstorm brewing about a Daily Mail article. I won't link to the article itself.
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
Interesting. I post this line quite a bit, but if you believe an offence has been committed, tell the police. I'm guessing they would have to investigate in a case like this.
Interesting. I post this line quite a bit, but if you believe an offence has been committed, tell the police. I'm guessing they would have to investigate in a case like this.
Mark Williams Thomas has tweeted that he has reported the whole thing to the Police and CEOP. They are looking into it.
First decent thing MWT has done. It is totally out of order for journalists to think this is ok. Anyone else who did this would be described as a vile pedophile using "research" as an excuse.
Having said that, I doubt the stuff she describes was actually child porn or that it is that easy to find. Most of what she describes sounds like the usual "teen" porn featuring young looking women.
First decent thing MWT has done. It is totally out of order for journalists to think this is ok. Anyone else who did this would be described as a vile pedophile using "research" as an excuse.
Indeed. Child porn offences don't have a "public interest" defence.
Having said that, I doubt the stuff she describes was actually child porn or that it is that easy to find. Most of what she describes sounds like the usual "teen" porn featuring young looking women.
I'm guessing that's the case, however, even that sort of porn could potentially be illegal, if you could convince a jury that a reasonable person would think someone in it was under 18.
YMMV on whether this Mail journalist is a "reasonable person"...
There's a Twitterstorm brewing about a Daily Mail article. I won't link to the article itself.
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
The Daily Mail's war on child porn is bizarre and, in their typical fashion, misleading as hell.
I have been on the internet for over fifteen years and you do NOT stumble upon child porn by accident as the Mail regularly claim can happen. In all my years online I have never come across child porn, because you HAVE to go looking for it manually. Have I come across adult porn? Sure, more than I wish. There is a genuine problem when it comes to adult porn being thrust in the face of those who wouldn't have gone looking for it - usually via pop-ups and advertising links - and that does need to be cracked down upon.
Child porn is a heinous crime that needs stamping out but the way the Mail are reporting on it should get them in trouble for lies and misinformation. Rather than go on an honest quest to try and do something about child porn, they'd rather scare the heck out of everyone and act like it's lurking around every corner ready to jump out at you when the truth is you'd not find it unless you wanted to - as they've just admitted via this Amanda Platell person. They want to push their own censorship agenda and are going about it in their usual vile, trollish way by using one of the most emotive topics to get people on board.
How do the Mail get away with their reporting style? They need banning.
Amanda Platell is another attention-seeking sensationalist. If she had any integrity as a journalist, she should have reported her findings to the appropriate sources and then written about it following the outcomes of any investigation (if necessary, asking for 'first dibs' on the story, if she wanted something for her 'career' out of it). Stuff like this is cheapening and diluting the importance of good research and evidence.
Having said that, I doubt the stuff she describes was actually child porn or that it is that easy to find. Most of what she describes sounds like the usual "teen" porn featuring young looking women.
I'll bet my left arm she was looking at regular porn sites..ie legal
I'm guessing that's the case, however, even that sort of porn could potentially be illegal, if you could convince a jury that a reasonable person would think someone in it was under 18.
If she's been looking at the sites I think she has, then it will be plainly obvious these are not child porn sites...Personally I think she's either being very nieve after finding a few role play porn movies...or she's knowingly exaggerating what she's actually seen...ie journalistic licence.
Seen the Platell article. Paedophiles will print it out so they can read it over and over.
As dorydaryl says she should have done her research, with lots of screen caps etc, and given it to the authorities, She could ask to tag along with the police raiding a house for example and write it up as proper journalism.
If she's been looking at the sites I think she has, then it will be plainly obvious these are not child porn sites...Personally I think she's either being very nieve after finding a few role play porn movies...or she's knowingly exaggerating what she's actually seen...ie journalistic licence.
Fair enough. If MWT has reported her though I'm sure we'll find out sooner rather than later if the police decide to pursue it.
Seen the Platell article. Paedophiles will print it out so they can read it over and over.
As dorydaryl says she should have done her research, with lots of screen caps etc, and given it to the authorities, She could ask to tag along with the police raiding a house for example and write it up as proper journalism.
But that would involve actual time and effort on her part. People would rather make a quick buck - even out of something like this - than do the right thing.
I can't decide if this woman is one of the most naive and clueless people on the planet, or is trolling on behalf of the Fail. I actually think it's the former.
Comments
What a depressing and outright scary world we live in.
Well, that will put even MORE people off reporting attacks. :rolleyes:
What next a credit check, prepayment and a loyalty card ?
Probably. :mad:
Its the idiots that messed up the olympics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10070425/Timeline-how-G4Ss-bungled-Olympics-security-contract-unfolded.html
I cant imagine who could possibly think it is a good idea or how they got anybody to agree to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22640368#
Why is their case different to the many of successful historic prosecutions?
Basically, Amanda Platell looked for "child porn" websites, watched a video of the same nature, and then wrote an article about it for the Daily Mail.
Not sure if the DM commissioned her to do it (i.e. asked her to do this specifically)or not, but isn't that illegal?
Well I know that some people do not believe him. However this is what Pete Townshend was doing. He WAS looking for evidence that the banks were complicit in letting money go to these people who run the websites. Whilst it was a completly crazy thing to do. I think he was trying to be a white knight.
Whatever her motives, I think it was very irresponsible to give out the precise words to type into google.
anyone would think the mail WANTED to encourage paedophilia. :mad:
Indeed. They must've consulted their lawyers before going ahead with this, surely?
Interesting. I post this line quite a bit, but if you believe an offence has been committed, tell the police. I'm guessing they would have to investigate in a case like this.
Mark Williams Thomas has tweeted that he has reported the whole thing to the Police and CEOP. They are looking into it.
Here are some of his tweets:
Having said that, I doubt the stuff she describes was actually child porn or that it is that easy to find. Most of what she describes sounds like the usual "teen" porn featuring young looking women.
Indeed. Child porn offences don't have a "public interest" defence.
I'm guessing that's the case, however, even that sort of porn could potentially be illegal, if you could convince a jury that a reasonable person would think someone in it was under 18.
YMMV on whether this Mail journalist is a "reasonable person"...
Think the rules don't apply to them
That person is in trouble. Only herself to blame
The Daily Mail's war on child porn is bizarre and, in their typical fashion, misleading as hell.
I have been on the internet for over fifteen years and you do NOT stumble upon child porn by accident as the Mail regularly claim can happen. In all my years online I have never come across child porn, because you HAVE to go looking for it manually. Have I come across adult porn? Sure, more than I wish. There is a genuine problem when it comes to adult porn being thrust in the face of those who wouldn't have gone looking for it - usually via pop-ups and advertising links - and that does need to be cracked down upon.
Child porn is a heinous crime that needs stamping out but the way the Mail are reporting on it should get them in trouble for lies and misinformation. Rather than go on an honest quest to try and do something about child porn, they'd rather scare the heck out of everyone and act like it's lurking around every corner ready to jump out at you when the truth is you'd not find it unless you wanted to - as they've just admitted via this Amanda Platell person. They want to push their own censorship agenda and are going about it in their usual vile, trollish way by using one of the most emotive topics to get people on board.
How do the Mail get away with their reporting style? They need banning.
I'll bet my left arm she was looking at regular porn sites..ie legal
If she's been looking at the sites I think she has, then it will be plainly obvious these are not child porn sites...Personally I think she's either being very nieve after finding a few role play porn movies...or she's knowingly exaggerating what she's actually seen...ie journalistic licence.
As dorydaryl says she should have done her research, with lots of screen caps etc, and given it to the authorities, She could ask to tag along with the police raiding a house for example and write it up as proper journalism.
Fair enough. If MWT has reported her though I'm sure we'll find out sooner rather than later if the police decide to pursue it.
http://stirthebeans.com/2013/05/25/poor-journalism/
But that would involve actual time and effort on her part. People would rather make a quick buck - even out of something like this - than do the right thing.
I can't decide if this woman is one of the most naive and clueless people on the planet, or is trolling on behalf of the Fail. I actually think it's the former.