First up this story from The New Labour Broadcasting Corp.
Children's charities have expressed "serious concerns" many UK households still have access to images showing child sex abuse via their computers.The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007.But firms providing 5% of broadband connections have still failed to act. One of them, Zen Internet, said in a statement: "We have not yet implemented the IWF's recommended system because we have concerns over its effectiveness."
Now note the wording of this, apparently we are suspects and have nothing better to do than view kiddie porn. Therefore according to the argument:
We need censorship of the net, we must all be firewalled and monitored just in case by the IWF quango.
Should you argue against it, they will play the "fact" that censorship saves the babies line.
But seriously the IWF is a fake charity, funded by the EU. In short a state operated quango, staffed with state funded employees that decide what is to be blocked and who answer to no one. We have no input, no debate and no right of complaint of what is blocked by this group.
From http://fakecharities.org, we have the Internet Watch Foundation—state regulation of the internet starts here, courtesy of the EU.
Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.
I wonder how long it will be before the bloated fat as a foie gras goose PM decideds to include other aspects of free speech. After all its all about protecting the kiddies.
New Labour must be masterbating like monkeys at the thought of removing yet more of our freedoms through the good old excuse of bashing pedophiles.
Expect a report by The Sun, sorry MP David "I love ID cards" Blunkett oh why this is a great idea in The Sun tabloid.
Lets hope that a case of painfull and fatal case of testicle cancer kills off the BBC/IWF and David Blunkett. Bastards the lot of them.
.
2 people have spoken:
And of course, because they are morons, the NSPCC et al seem to believe that somehow the IWF block list is some kind of magical protective amulet against 100% of images that they would define as "child abuse", despite the fact that it only includes images which have a) been reported to them, and b) fall within the criteria which they use to define images (based on CPS sentencing guidelines).
So in fact, even with such a block in place, it is the case that 100% of UK households will still "have access" (I'm using their apparent definition of 'access' here, which seems to be completely unrelated to any reasonable definition) to such images of child abuse as exist but which haven't yet been identified by whatever diseased sub species of humanity it is that spends their time hunting out such images "so that they can report them".
Its all about control by the state over aspects of our lives.
Post a Comment