5 posts • joined 10 Dec 2008
maybe the guys guilty, not sure.
but it looks like his defense is that he subscribed to, perhaps an adult site using the same payment processor, - and a webmaster took his details. (which would include passwords and IP addys) and copied it to other sites, including a child pron site.. certainly plausible, the webmaster wouldn't necessarily want to charge it multiple times as charge-backs can kill a payment processor (it would have been done 1 time on hundreds of cards to generate revenue with the fewest charge-backs, kind of like doubling your business income). most people won't bother phoning their cc company for a £10 or so unexplained charge fewer if it looks embarrassing , not sure if its likely but that means it will happen sometimes... which to me would make the conviction unsafe.
don't know about anyone else but I'm not at ease with people getting convicted on child porn charges when they didn't actually find any child porn.. i mean maybe he's particularly sneaky about it but it just seems wrong to me...
putting aside for a moment that this guy is being charged with a crime that requires no victim, or even proof of endangerment for conviction. And putting aside also the moral distinctions between oral pleasure (eating) and other less harmful but nonetheless illegal activity's.
How exactly is this guy supposed to prepare a defense when 90% of human knowledge has now been denied to him... I mean the fact that we apparently punish people before any conviction is bad enough, but this directly interferes with his ability to put up a viable defense. Its equivalent to being banned from reading books fifty years ago.
As i see it...
There have always been child abusers, we have never been very good at tracking them down, due to lack of evidence mostly.. some are charged when their victim is old enough to speak out, some are not.
then came the internet, a great mirror to all society's strengths and flaws, with it a wealth of evidence and an army, billions strong, of decent folk, more than willing to report abuse, and demand something be done.
but in most cases the demand was for action in abroad, which required political pressure, no more could our government decide who to trade and treaty with, purely for reasons of money and power, now they were pushed to favor those who protect children and enforced child protection laws..
so was born the IWF and clean feed. who promptly silenced the abused children, grayed the waters and plunged us back into a new-age version of the 50s, where a child molester could abuse his children without self incriminating, without legal interference, without causing an annoyance to our government who like to think they know best.
The few pedophiles that the IWF are trying so hard to protect will rush to the approved ISPs knowing they will be suspected less and within 3 minutes will be surfing through a proxy based abroad viewing whatever they want and considerably more difficult to track. and the free people of this country that want to change this world for the better, will proceed to the unapproved ISPs where they will be suspected of being pervs for wanting to see the world as it really is.
we are all bloggers...
I love the internet age, everyone in the country is a potential blogger.
so, want to hide a story?.. well, they have to send the story to everyone in the country and tell them not to blogg about it... lmao.
censorship is always immoral,
its clear that the IWF is censoring things that are not illegal -but that it disagrees with, and since it works for the government this amounts to at least potentially a massive propaganda machine aimed at the British public.
but even if it was 'fixed' to only target child porn it would still be responsible for the children abused under its cloak of secrecy... is it enough that we don't see the abuse? the IWF are not protecting us, they are protecting the child molesters FROM us.
I don't know the extent of child abuse on websites outside the UK (or inside for that matter). But I am convinced that many of those site will now owe their continued existence to the IWF. We are not a weak country and a public outcry about any site in particular can wield very strong political momentum in the direction of other countries, even to change laws... the UK has been taken out of the world by the IWF and any children suffering abroad have the IWF to thank for one less country that is willing to get involved politically to make their lives better.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Driverless car SQUADRONS to hit Britain in 2015