The chief executive of the NSPCC has called for all child abuse images to be removed from the internet in five years to ensure the 'dark corners' of the internet do not slide into being acceptable.
Peter Wanless said while the task may be huge it was important to act now to avoid it being seen as a part of life to view child abuse images on the internet.
He said all of us as a society should feel guilty while images of children being abused still exist on the internet and said he would like to see them all wiped from the web.I'd like to see Tony Blair in the dock at the Hague. Doesn't mean it's possible, never mind likely!
He said he wanted police, councils and the government to work together to tackle the issue - months after the children's charity warned that forces were struggling to cope with the number of child sexual abuse images being discovered online.Since he's (probably) not got Altzheimer's, I suspect that what this really is, is a push for 'more resources', using 'the cheeeeldreen!' as an appeal that no normal person could deny.
He added: 'Any society that allows such an evil scenario to play out uninterrupted must surely be demeaned and every one of us should feel at least a little guilty while it persists.'I don't feel guilty when bankrobbers stick a gun in a bank clerk's face. Why should I feel guilty about this?
Still, the commenters will surely pour scorn on his idea, won't they?
*speechless*
As Leg-Iron points out:
"They have wrecked the pubs and clubs and shut down conversation almost everywhere, Except here, on the internet. That has to go next. It lets us converse across the planet and that simply will not do. It is not under their control and they cannot bear it."They have their useful idiots in place, cheering it on...
Children are a precious gift? I beg to differ.
ReplyDeleteI think the internet is a much better 'gift' than smelly, noisy brats.
"I'd like to see Tony Blair in the dock at the Hague."
ReplyDeleteI'm not so particular:- Southampton or Portsmouth dock would do, if it's a) high tide and b) the bastard's in chains.
'Any society that allows such an evil scenario to play out uninterrupted must surely be demeaned and every one of us should feel at least a little guilty while it persists.'
ReplyDeletePerhaps he could start with something slightly more within his gift to achieve ? Beginning in Rotherham, Derby, Oxford, Peterborough or Rochdale.
Simple truth - he doesn't understand digital photography or the internet.
ReplyDeleteOn a 16Gb SD card I can stash 2500+ jpg from my camera. I can upload them in seconds and they can be anywhere.
The thing is I love digital because I can take so many shots fiddling with depth of field, exposure and stuff. It is a nightmare to sort the wheat from the chaff but thaat is the price you pay.
My things are architecture and landscape mainly.
And no, I'm not even denying Kiddie Frankie Vaughn. It don't think I have to. I actually have a great deal of difficulty understanding peadophilia in general. Not just because it is wrong (which it is) but I just don't fancy kids.
Anyway, you are likely to be offended (well bored) by me trying to get the perfect shot and muttering about f/stops and similar.
According to the Internet, thge NSPCC pay Wanless £162,000pa
ReplyDeleteAnd for that money they have bought themselves a pillock. Round of applause for the NSPCC
"I think the internet is a much better 'gift' than smelly, noisy brats."
ReplyDeleteOh, amen!
"I'm not so particular:- Southampton or Portsmouth dock would do..."
ROFL! Good one... ;)
"Beginning in Rotherham, Derby, Oxford, Peterborough or Rochdale."
Indeed!
"Simple truth - he doesn't understand digital photography or the internet. "
They never do, do they..?
"I think the internet is a much better 'gift' than smelly, noisy brats."
ReplyDeleteOh, amen!
"I'm not so particular:- Southampton or Portsmouth dock would do..."
ROFL! Good one... ;)
"Beginning in Rotherham, Derby, Oxford, Peterborough or Rochdale."
Indeed!
"Simple truth - he doesn't understand digital photography or the internet. "
They never do, do they..?