Friday, April 04, 2008

Grooming kids (and I don't mean just brushing their hair)

Apparently the government are a bunch of technophobic arseholes who just cannot even begin to get to grips with not-even-so-very-modern technology.
The home secretary will today outline plans to increase protection for children surfing the web, including new jail terms for convicted paedophiles who use social networking websites.

The measures, which mirror systems operating in the US, include a requirement for convicted sex offenders to give their email address to the police. If they use that address to sign up to a website such as MySpace, Bebo or Facebook, they could be imprisoned for up to five years.

What the fuck? This is completely stupid and, by the way, utterly illiberal on a number of levels. Over to Timmy first.
Isn’t it, ermm, sort of necessary to show that they actually did something wrong? You know, like groomed a child or something? Logging on to leave "kthnxbai" on a friend’s wall gets you five years now?

Silly boy, Timmy; of course you don't actually have to have done anything wrong. If that were the case, would the state be proposing to lock people up for 42 days even though they have done nothing wrong?

Tut, tut.

Some people are just going to have to realise that there are some groups of criminals, or suspected criminals, who absolutely shouldn't have any rights at all. Do you see? It's because they're evil and therefore they should be utterly banned from being able to interact with anyone whatsoever so that they can do what the state lacks the courage (and the exemption from EU law) to do, and just end it all.

Next, as the Nameless One points out, there really is nothing very much to stop these evil paedo bastards just signing up for new email addresses.
Because—ignoring the five year prison sentence incentive/threat—it is really easy to get a new e-mail address. Seriously. In-between typing these very words, I’ve set up a new e-mail address.* And regardless of what e-mail addresses sex offenders might give the government, they would find it just as easy to set-up a new e-mail address.

There is a risk posed by social networking websites—and the interweb as a whole—and that threat is not just limited to kids. However, the internet is less of a scary place than the government would have you believe.

Finally, Bag makes the rather salient point that someone who wants to break the law in one way, probably isn't going to be too worried about doing so in others.
I can see it now. Scene a little townhouse in Westminster. Two registered sex offenders in front of a computer where they are looking at a login screen for Facebook.

Kiddie Fiddler 1—'I just don't know what to do. I was just about to log on and risk 15 years in prison getting beaten up and screwed by big fat guys and then having to face my family again as a pervert but I can't because it asks for an EMail address and I've given the pigs mine already'

Kiddie Fiddler 2—'Just sign up for a free one with GMail or something'

Kiddie Fiddler 1—'Don't be stupid. I can't do that it's illegal. New law just came out. You think I would do something like that against the law?'

Kiddie Fiddler 2—'Sorry man. My bad. I should have thought of that myself. I know you are a honest and decent guy.'

Kiddie Fiddler 1—'OK. Apology accepted.'

They look at each other and after a while they turn the computer off and one picks up the latest copy of 'Save the Planet monthly'.

Kiddie Fiddler 1—'Well If I can't screw kids directly I'll screw up their lives in another way. '

He looks over the latest proposals and laughs. 'This should do it.'

We are ruled by a bunch of knee-jerk, authoritarian morons. I do wish they'd just do the decent thing: fuck off and die.

UPDATE: Longrider pisses all over one of Jacqui Smith's stupider comments (and that's saying something).
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted children to be “free from fear”.

Quite apart from not appreciating the difficulties these proposals mean when they attempt to put them into practice—throw-away email addys anyone? That statement is, without doubt, one of the most stupid I’ve heard coming from the mouth of a politician for a while—and, it is not without some stiff competition.

Fear is good. Fear is what keeps us alive. Fear is nature’s survival mechanism. A little fear instilled into children will prepare them for the realities of life in the real world. The real world is a big bad place and there are people out there who want to do bad things to us—so a little healthy fear keeps us on our toes. A world where we have no fear is a world where we are wrapped in cotton wool and, cosseted by a loving, caring, controlling state, we suffocate to death.

Quite. When people said that this was to be a "government of all the talents", I didn't realise that they meant "a talent for being totally fucking shit".

Although, to be fair, I might have guessed...


Longrider said...

The woman redefines stupidity. I presume that she is a consequence of positive discrimination... She isn't in the job because of her overwhelming talent


This is typical eu proceedure,grab a little power here and some more there and before you know it, they have effectively censored the internet,it might begin with perves,but it is directed at us all,they control the press and the internet is the only place that relatively free speech still exists,they have wanted control of the internet for a long time ,this is just a step on the road.

Anonymous said...

they will assign u an email address at birth soon which will appear on your id card and bar coded on your wrist at birth sig fukin hiel gordon shithead brown may u rot in hell with spikes in your eyes.

Anonymous said...

... and a long sharp stick up the bum.

Thatcher's Child said...

the internet peado on every node was designed specifically to help monitor the internet by our legislators.

I can't find the link at the moment, but some researchers worked out that there were only a handful of proper bad kiddy fiddlers in the UK. They worked this out by checking the logs for Cleanfeed - the UK's great firewall.
I guess our current crop of MP's don't want to admit that there already is enough logging / filtering of our browsing habits to protect our kids - but that would mean that they would have to admit to mass censorship of the internet - and what stick could they use to wack the Chinese with then?

Anonymous said...

It was always on the cards that the, "authorities" would use this area as a shoe in to control the blogosphere, much as the MSM is now.

Anonymous said...

I've a really simple answer to this.


You wouldn't send them out to play on the motorway in the family car.

You wouldn't give them a rope & suggest they abseil down a tower block.

You wouldn't buy them a gun & let them play cowboys & indians with live bullets.

You wouldn't give them porn mags for their bedtime reading.

So why do you give them a computer & let them do anything they want with it?

The internet is for adults. It's an adult tool. Like a car, a boat or a plane. Even some adults can't handle it & gift their bank details to polite Nigerians.

So why do you expect your 10 year old to?

Anonymous said...

DK I know it is off subject but I just watched on the news that Cameron gto £21,000 a year in mortgage payments. I can understand that he needs a place to live in london (although I am sure that he already has one) however that would only be during the time that he was in office. But he will have the benefit of those mortgage payments when he is not a politician so he will profit after he is retired should he not rent, which might be cheaper and is only a benefit during his time in office or have to give back the house or the percentage of the house that he bought using expense monty at the end of his term. Surely this would be more excusable, why should he benefit longterm for this. All of the other expenses are only why the politicians are in office so why should he gain through out his life in this way.

R.C. Gitt esq said...

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she wanted children to be "free from fear".

A Labour politician talking about freedom from fear is ironic considering the way that this government uses fear as an instrument of policy: Fear of Saddam Hussein's ficticious weapons of mass destruction, fear of non-EU immigration, fear of our children being labelled failures if they don't get a squillion A-Levels and a masters degree.

This government is predicated on fear - Smith is a patronising idiot.

Dr Evil said...

When I heard this stupid guff from a government minister I couldn't believe it! All they have to do is get a free hotmail, Yahoo, GMail or other anonymous e-mail addy and off they go, especially if they get a variable ISP 'tail' to the e-mail addy anyway. And they can use anonymiser sites to log on from.

As you say, the government is full of ignoramuses when it comes to technology and the WWW/net..........actually when it comes to most things.

That nonsense about fear and children was just a platitude for the masses. Pols assume none of us think. Of course, by dumbing down the education system, having that utter bastard champagne socialist Ed Balls gunning for better performing church schools (church schools you moron, Balls, not faith schools)is trying to turn the youth of tomorrow into biddable sheeple who will do as the gov wants. Those of a feral disposition will eventually be treated as per a Clockwork orange when the gov grows the balls to actually get tough with criminals.

I'm sorry, I'm so angry about Balls et all I could break something!!!!!

John Trenchard said...

i dont think anyone has pointed out one salient question:

why are these kiddie fiddlers NOT in prison???

secondly, if they know who these padeos are then why the fuck are they even being allowed internet access in the first fucking place!!

Longrider said...

why are these kiddie fiddlers NOT in prison???

Because they have served their time?

Mark Wadsworth said...

"A government of all the thieves", actually.

Anonymous said...

Most comments here seem to have our political elites down as fuckwits.
They are not, they are very focused, determined, dedicated, well trained and loyal followers of the agenda of the Fabian Society.
To win any battle it is important to know your enemy.
Traitors they are but fuckwits they are not.
They have very slowly and carefully been taking over. Common Purpose, Chatham House, The LSE are just a few of their known outlets. I understand that the Labour Party was created by this organisation.ALL Labour Party Prime Ministers have and are members of this organisation and so have Tories and Liberals.
When Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scolar at Oxford he joined up. Rhodes himself was a big player.
I am sure some of you will know something about them and their traitorus intent.

defender said...

The Great Betrayal of the British People Part 3 - The Fabian War from within.
The information contained in this article has been researched by Elizabeth Beckitt, Shaun O'Connell and John Harris.

A question of the royal prerogative is the power we give the queen to govern us. She is in charge of the Judiciary, the armed forces (of which she is the commander in chief). She is in charge of the church, royal assent, chief executive, treaties and foreign relations. These powers are given to ministers to use when necessary, they cannot be used outside our constitutional laws.

In are constitution these prerogative powers are a part of the Monarch and cannot be taken from her even by an act of parliament, so in the 2005 constitutional reform act Mr Blair and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) took them over with the exception of:

Appointment of Prime Minister
Assent to legislation
Prorogation and dissolution of parliament (the Queen accepts ministerial advice on the use of these powers)
The prerogative power is part of her contract with the people to govern them well. In the recent case 23rd May 2007 of the people of the Chagos Archipelago island's before the appeal court, Margaret Beckett as the foreign secretary took the case to the court of appeal after two high court judges had found for the Chagosians and told her she would have to show good cause for a stay on their judgement. Lord justice Sedley said " making an order in council under the royal prerogative to stop the islanders returning was unlawful and an abuse of power..." The government claimed that under the royal prerogative powers that belong to the Queen, government ministers in her name were immune from judicial scrutiny. Indeed said lord justice Waller "...the decision had been taken by a minister acting without any restraint, indeed the crown maybe doing something but if she only knew the true position, she would prefer not to do and yet it is said that the government can hide behind the crown's prerogative..." more follows

Mark Wadsworth said...

r c gitt esq makes a good point. An authoritarian gummint needs to stoke up a climate of fear. My motto is based on FDR "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Anonymous said...

After first seeing that email thing, I thought perhaps there must be some brilliant techie way of telling who registers an email, even the government cannot be that stupid surely? After thinking about it a little while I realised I was wrong.

Trixy said...

Read the delightful Julia Hartley-Brewer today in the Sunday Express. She has this bang on.

Anonymous said...

In the bbc article, the following appears: "The man responsible for using his credit card details hid behind the online name "Miranda" - a webmaster who hosted and produced pornographic websites"

Isn't "Miranda" someone's nickname? You don't think...? It couldn't possibly be...could it?

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...