David Cameron's aide on child internet policy has been arrested for child pornography (dailymail.co.uk)

{worldnews}

29642 ups - 25334 downs = 4308 votes

1939 comments submitted at 00:17:22 on Mar 4, 2014 by clocksstrike13

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 564 Points
  • 02:02:15, 4 March

Child porn is just an issue trotted out to scare the masses into accepting monitoring and policing of internet usage that exceeds what, in the US, would be protected under search and seizure. None of those polices are used to stop pedophiles, who could be caught using conventional means. This guy was a face-man for big brother, and no less likely to be a pedophile than anyone else.

Edit: SRS. I am not trying to justify pedophilia here. I understand that it is a real issue. That said, people can take real issues and use them as a means to accomplish unsavory political ends. If you would like to challenge me on this particular issue, then I challenge you to tell me of a single law that Patrick Rock helped to put into place that helped prevent a child from being molested. You also need to justify why a pedophile is the guy in charge of pedophilia-related laws. Unless you can give me that, you're just slandering my name with no reason.

Edit 2: The SRSters have informed me that the world just completely changes what I said, and that what I was saying is that there is no such thing as pedophilia.

Edit 3: Seriously. I'm a feminist and I, like any decent human being, am against child pornography. That said, SRS has been rude and unfair in addressing my concerns with their libelous treatment of me. They should be banned from reddit altogether. They aren't trying to keep speech free. They are trying to shame anybody that they can, in search of promoting their point of view. Additionally, they don't care how their actions affect their targets, and they don't feel responsible for their actions. I addressed their moderator and their posts about me and was met with a ban. Their behavior is irresponsible, reckless, and harmful to the reddit community. They represent everything that is wrong with the Internet, and they shouldn't be allowed on reddit.

  • [-]
  • filthypoker
  • 42 Points
  • 05:47:36, 4 March

I bet SRS will understand and give fair consideration to your clarification.

  • [-]
  • HogwartsNeedsWifi
  • 16 Points
  • 06:11:59, 4 March

Lol

  • [-]
  • Saggy-testicle
  • 18 Points
  • 07:59:37, 4 March

http://i.imgur.com/p35tZKM.jpg

  • [-]
  • MidgardDragon
  • 31 Points
  • 07:06:56, 4 March

Never respond to SRS. They purposefully act like dumbasses over this shit because they lack common sense and like to confuse feminism with being complete fucking morons.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 8 Points
  • 07:10:45, 4 March

Well said.

  • [-]
  • heavyhebrew
  • 4 Points
  • 07:59:36, 4 March

There you go with your white male privilege, your heteronormative shitlordness.^/s

Gods, do they ever get tired?

  • [-]
  • MrFurious0
  • 228 Points
  • 03:06:53, 4 March

This.

My favorite story about this sort of thing is from my own home, Canada, where Vic Toews said "You're with us, or you're with the child molesters" in regard to an intrusive warrantless spying bill. This is the same moral crusader who divorced his first wife after getting caught fucking the 17 year old baby sitter after knocking her up.

The legislation he was promoting died immediately. The entire country was outraged.

  • [-]
  • shmegegy
  • 48 Points
  • 03:40:10, 4 March

and he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling kid!

  • [-]
  • Qualdo
  • 8 Points
  • 04:27:19, 4 March

> if it weren't for that kid meddling

  • [-]
  • misplaced_my_pants
  • 2 Points
  • 04:53:00, 4 March

>if it weren't for that kid ~~meddling~~ diddling

  • [-]
  • scottbrio
  • 1 Points
  • 08:49:47, 4 March

There it is.

  • [-]
  • blackergot
  • 3 Points
  • 04:33:48, 4 March

Kid meddling would be more appropriate.

  • [-]
  • ignorethisasshole
  • 81 Points
  • 03:39:25, 4 March

> "You're with us, or you're with the child molesters"

But both sides have child molestors?

  • [-]
  • Lawtonfogle
  • 10 Points
  • 04:59:53, 4 March

I guess I'll take the child molesters who aren't trying to use the government to get into my homes. Add in a bit of common sense and good parenting and my children will be much safer than if I hand them over to the government sanctioned child molesters.

  • [-]
  • courtoftheair
  • 2 Points
  • 07:44:33, 4 March

But we're the good child molesters.

  • [-]
  • phinnaeus7308
  • 1 Points
  • 04:33:30, 4 March

He didn't specify the exclusive OR operator.

  • [-]
  • That_Guy_JR
  • 0 Points
  • 04:30:04, 4 March

Exactly. Chomos win by default.

  • [-]
  • Hawkell
  • 4 Points
  • 06:23:01, 4 March

Don't worry, when that one didn't get through they repackaged it as anti-Cyberbullying (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-cyberbullying-law-has-larger-agenda-expands-police-powers-1.2434797)

  • [-]
  • systemid2000
  • 3 Points
  • 05:05:34, 4 March

At least your country actually calls out and then does something about blatant hypocrisy. If only America got that part of democracy.

  • [-]
  • DropAdigit
  • 3 Points
  • 05:20:27, 4 March

Toews is such a carton of excrement; whenever someone tries to point out how great canada is I point to the Harper government- we're the USA without sidearms.

  • [-]
  • DefinitelyRelephant
  • 0 Points
  • 04:26:44, 4 March

> 17 year old baby sitter

Not exactly the same thing as pedophilia. Pedophiles are attracted to human beings far below the age of reproductive viability.

  • [-]
  • pr0grammerGuy
  • 1 Points
  • 08:25:01, 4 March

You got downvoted for truth. In half of Europe what he did wouldn't have been a crime.

  • [-]
  • Sherman1865
  • 1 Points
  • 08:50:17, 4 March

In most American states it wouldn't be a crime either;unless he filmed it.

  • [-]
  • YouCantBeSeirous
  • -1 Points
  • 04:31:50, 4 March

Also- what's the age of consent for Canada...?

...and 3/4 of the US...?

...and 99% of the world...?

  • [-]
  • Sherman1865
  • 1 Points
  • 08:51:34, 4 March

It's 14 in Utah.

  • [-]
  • artora
  • 1 Points
  • 04:54:58, 4 March

Pretty sure the average is 16?

  • [-]
  • brisbeebee
  • 64 Points
  • 02:39:15, 4 March

"Think of the children"

  • [-]
  • humulis
  • 147 Points
  • 02:55:39, 4 March

He did. Too much.

  • [-]
  • MisterPrime
  • 1 Points
  • 02:56:06, 4 March

Won't somebody?!

  • [-]
  • Zomg_A_Chicken
  • 1 Points
  • 04:07:50, 4 March

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

  • [-]
  • ballsdeepdeepdickin
  • 17 Points
  • 06:30:39, 4 March

lol just stop trying to reason with them. In their eyes, you may as well be president of nambla

  • [-]
  • Dr_Mantis-Toboggan
  • 51 Points
  • 05:47:34, 4 March

SRS can fuck right off. Don't worry, those of us who maintain our sanity knew what you were talking about.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 23 Points
  • 05:49:22, 4 March

Well, they're having a field day trashing on me. I reddit-mailed the OP and the moderator who banned me for posting in their thread. They like to "hold others responsible" for what they've said, but they don't care much for being held responsible.

  • [-]
  • Dr_Mantis-Toboggan
  • 31 Points
  • 05:53:17, 4 March

They're a terrible subreddit full of soulless and hateful people who go much too far to prove a point. Don't let it get to you. They subscribe to the "any press is good press" logic system.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 23 Points
  • 05:56:14, 4 March

I take issue with the fact that they don't care who they hurt in this process. I'm a good person, and not somebody who would support something as awful as child pornography or pedophilia. They would rather find a target to aim anger at, regardless of whether or not that person is innocent, than engage in thoughtful, rational discussion. They really are awful people who are a discredit to their cause. I support all of the things that you would think they're out to support. I believe in equality for all and in helping those who need help. They are a group of trolls who lack intelligence. They really should be removed from reddit.

  • [-]
  • Dr_Mantis-Toboggan
  • 8 Points
  • 06:00:10, 4 March

I completely agree with you.

  • [-]
  • techn0scho0lbus
  • 1 Points
  • 08:56:30, 4 March

Don't worry about them. They hate vegans with a passion, which says a lot about how progressive they really are.

  • [-]
  • joper90
  • 4 Points
  • 07:32:45, 4 March

Don't worry, it almost like this article is could be a perfect analogy of some of SRS..

  • [-]
  • shmegegy
  • 25 Points
  • 02:39:21, 4 March

Have millions of British webcam users had sex pictures harvested by GCHQ?

  • [-]
  • Crispyshores
  • 4 Points
  • 04:42:23, 4 March

Pretty sure it wasn't just British users, I'm certain I read somewhere else that it was users from all over the world.

  • [-]
  • shmegegy
  • 5 Points
  • 04:52:49, 4 March

They also have been caught monitoring our porn browsing habits. er I mean those of you that do that sort of disgusting thing.

  • [-]
  • grabnock
  • 22 Points
  • 06:46:57, 4 March

Lol, you tried to have a serious conversation with srs.

Dont bother, they're in bed with the admins.. if we could kick them out we would.

  • [-]
  • TheRealTJ
  • 7 Points
  • 07:48:19, 4 March

Y'know, the whole SRS thing proves your point brilliantly. No one can actually question these laws because it instantly opens up the ad hominem flood gates. Rationality goes out the window soon as you point and say "pedophile."

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 2 Points
  • 08:10:03, 4 March

Yes, I suppose that there's a silver lining there.

  • [-]
  • lawofgrace
  • 4 Points
  • 05:57:27, 4 March

The fun part about saying you are against the monitoring is that everyone twists your words so that you seem to be a pedophile...

  • [-]
  • boganvogue
  • 4 Points
  • 07:42:11, 4 March

Saw this on SRS-got outraged....read your comment in its entirety, no longer outraged and actually agree with you.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 5 Points
  • 08:06:47, 4 March

That would be because the SRS post editorialized what I said and was accompanied by a bunch of clueless idiots calling me a "shitlord." My recommendation to you is to tell those idiots in SRS what you think of what they've done to me, and then unsubscribe. You can be a good feminist and a good person without stooping to keeping the company of the sorts who frequent that sub.

  • [-]
  • Pauller00
  • 3 Points
  • 07:42:30, 4 March

Don't bother talking with SRS, Just take pride in pissing them off.

That being said, I fully agree with your original post.

  • [-]
  • totes_meta_bot
  • 7 Points
  • 03:45:25, 4 March

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Comments? ^Complaints? ^Send ^them ^to ^my ^inbox!

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 24 Points
  • 04:59:14, 4 March

Seriously? SRS thinks that I'm a pedo now? What a bunch of idiots.

  • [-]
  • achwas
  • 29 Points
  • 05:23:19, 4 March

Reading comprehension has never been their strongest point. Consider it an honor.

  • [-]
  • PraiseCaine
  • 8 Points
  • 06:16:50, 4 March

I don't get that sub in the slightest. It's such an awful toss-up between purposeful misrepresentation of context or make believe. Off putting at best.

  • [-]
  • pr0grammerGuy
  • 1 Points
  • 09:03:57, 4 March

Keep in mind that SRS itself is supposed to be exaggerated. They're trying to be the counter-balance to what they see in the rest of reddit. I don't believe most of them believe everything they say in SRS.

  • [-]
  • jerboa256
  • 8 Points
  • 05:56:34, 4 March

I find your suggesting of kicking people off reddit because they are against free speech somewhat ironic. But I do generally agree...

  • [-]
  • untitledthegreat
  • 4 Points
  • 06:05:06, 4 March

I thought he was kidding about that at first but he seems serious/

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 5 Points
  • 06:53:38, 4 March

It's one thing to speak your mind. It's another to shout someone down publicly and then ban them from responding.

  • [-]
  • critfist
  • 3 Points
  • 06:14:12, 4 March

You belong in the open community of /r/SRSSucks

  • [-]
  • alegendcontinued
  • 2 Points
  • 07:38:32, 4 March

I'm just looking at these edits and cracking up because I know exactly what these word-shoving-in-mouth comments would look like.

  • [-]
  • gnovos
  • 2 Points
  • 07:52:00, 4 March

Don't free the trolls.

  • [-]
  • martini29
  • 5 Points
  • 05:36:47, 4 March

SRS is fucking retarded, don't even bother m8.

They're the liberal version of /pol/ for christsakes

  • [-]
  • hjschrader09
  • 0 Points
  • 03:21:30, 4 March

We need at least 6 more polices to catch them.

  • [-]
  • noreligionplease
  • 0 Points
  • 08:18:54, 4 March

/r/srssucks will welcome you with open arms

  • [-]
  • simplyebin
  • 1 Points
  • 09:14:15, 4 March

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

  • [-]
  • maxikov
  • 1 Points
  • 05:06:31, 4 March

There is a really good argument that completely legalizing child porn would actually help catching child molesters, in the same way that snuff videos can be used as the evidence in murder trials.

  • [-]
  • coobatis
  • -3 Points
  • 05:29:24, 4 March

I don't have time to fully read that as I'm about to go to bed, but just from a quick skim, I can tell it's one of them most erroneous articles I've ever seen in my life.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 6 Points
  • 05:52:23, 4 March

I don't think that anybody can rationally support legalizing child pornography. However, based on your libelous post regarding me in SRS.

1) You're just baiting people.

2) You have zero reading comprehension and couldn't have interpreted it well if it were written for children by a Rhodes scholar and made an actual rational argument.

  • [-]
  • atomicthumbs
  • -4 Points
  • 06:16:35, 4 March

> libelous

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • [-]
  • coobatis
  • -6 Points
  • 05:58:35, 4 March

Zzzzzzzzz...

  • [-]
  • MiaVee
  • -1 Points
  • 03:30:15, 4 March

[citation needed]

Seriously though, governments can come up with all kinds of bullshit excuses to try and get away with reading your emails at some point should the need or desire take them. But when it comes to policy and legislation put in place to protect children from sexual use and to punish those who sexually abuse children, it's pretty clear cut. I like a good, snarky, anti-establishment internet conspiracy as much as the next guy, but when it comes to paedophiles, lawmakers and enforcers are pretty keen on bringing them to justice.

Legislation to protect children from sexual exploitation has little if anything to do with your default-on porn filters and/or David Cameron seeing exactly how long you spend peeping the holiday photos of your childhood crush on Facebook. We can thank the media for much of the confusion on this topic, in spite of the actual policies making a very clear distinction between legal pornography and images of child sexual abuse, you'll get a lot more readers if your headline is "THIS SICK KIDDY PORN BAN SAVES US ALL" than "sexually abusing children still illegal, study shows. Also you might have to spend two minutes longer faffing about with your router at setup, but don't worry, you will be back to browsing MILFBook.com in a jiffy".

TL;DR, plenty of legit reasons to be wary of developments in internet policy, but policymakers are actually not too fond of paedophiles. Laws to protect children are sometimes, simply, laws to protect children. I know this is probably not something the hivemind will be happy to hear.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 8 Points
  • 05:02:25, 4 March

Then why is the guy who is in charge of such policies being investigated for matters relating to child pornography?

  • [-]
  • Lister42069
  • -4 Points
  • 04:21:13, 4 March

>A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

>Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100196502/guardian-paedophiles-are-ordinary-members-of-society-who-need-moral-support/

  • [-]
  • fartbox2000
  • 4 Points
  • 04:29:23, 4 March

I imagine this post is straight from some nambla offsite invasion playbook.

Edit: looked at your post history. Get bent you fucking pedophile

  • [-]
  • Arlieth
  • 1 Points
  • 07:19:37, 4 March

When people post intentionally controversial shit, it would do well to quote them so that they can't pull a bait-and-switch and make you look like a complete shitlord.

  • [-]
  • Lister42069fuckskids
  • 2 Points
  • 06:19:48, 4 March

Be warned, this is an alt of banned pedophile /u/Svarog123. He believes he can have consensual sex with children.

  • [-]
  • Arlieth
  • 1 Points
  • 07:20:34, 4 March

Goddamn, the seedy underbelly of the internet never ceases to amaze me.

  • [-]
  • MiaVee
  • 1 Points
  • 04:34:08, 4 March

k

  • [-]
  • YouCantBeSeirous
  • 1 Points
  • 04:34:01, 4 March

Welcome to reddit- someone asks for citation, you provide citation, and they downvote you anyway.

Remember when downvotes were for derailing or useless comments? Me neither.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 3 Points
  • 04:56:13, 4 March

Uhmm.. his citation didn't say anything about stopping pedophiles. It said that some child abuse victims enjoyed it.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 02:31:42, 4 March

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • Chem1st
  • 6 Points
  • 02:35:51, 4 March

He's saying that we shouldn't be shocked that this guy is a pedophile, because, despite what they want you to believe, the policies being implemented aren't actually focused on the bleeding-heart excuse of child porn. The guy isn't champion for child protection.

  • [-]
  • Drink_Your_Roundtine
  • 3 Points
  • 02:41:57, 4 March

Oh, I see. Yeah, I misinterpreted that.

  • [-]
  • ApathyPyramid
  • 0 Points
  • 03:24:24, 4 March

> into accepting monitoring and policing of internet usage that exceeds what, in the US, would be protected under search and seizure

Worth noting that it's not actually protected.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 1 Points
  • 06:55:16, 4 March

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

If someone were a suspected pedophile, then there is already a mechanism for obtaining a warrant and investigating them. What other powers are required in order for the government to investigate legitimate threats?

  • [-]
  • ApathyPyramid
  • 1 Points
  • 07:26:14, 4 March

Like your constitution means a fucking thing.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 1 Points
  • 07:28:54, 4 March

My original point was that they generally trot out the idea of capturing pedophiles as an excuse for exceeding the limitation of powers established by the Bill of Rights.

  • [-]
  • ApathyPyramid
  • 2 Points
  • 07:43:03, 4 March

Not really. They use pedophiles as an excuse for pushing the envelope. When they want to just outright ignore the constitution, they don't say anything at all. They just do it and then nobody has the power to stop them when it comes to light.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 1 Points
  • 08:04:52, 4 March

Fair, but I think that there is something in getting the public to accept and comply with limiting laws rather than simply enacting them secretly. The more the public accepts, the more there is that can be gotten away with.

  • [-]
  • Fl3et
  • -3 Points
  • 06:24:18, 4 March

Hi, I am someone who likes and hangs around SRS subs. I agree that a lot of policies introduced under the pretense of being to protect the children are none of the sort, I would guess that the problem here is how you say it is just about monitoring and policing internet usage and not a real problem people should be concerned about.

>They should be banned from reddit altogether. They aren't trying to keep speech free.

As for this you can go fuck yourself.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 6 Points
  • 06:26:12, 4 March

I never said that pedophilia isn't a real problem that people should be concerned about.

  • [-]
  • Fl3et
  • -2 Points
  • 06:29:15, 4 March

I think that's what your first sentence implies.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 4 Points
  • 06:30:33, 4 March

If you remove all context, then sure. If you take it in the context that I was responding to a post saying, "Is this real life? Politicians never cease to amaze me," in response to a top level post about a pedophile who was in charge of writing the UK's policy on how to deal with pedophiles, then what I've said makes much more sense.

  • [-]
  • Fl3et
  • -2 Points
  • 06:33:57, 4 March

It makes more sense why you are arguing that being a pedophile is incidental but the child porn is not a real thing implication is still there.

  • [-]
  • NitsujTPU
  • 4 Points
  • 06:35:10, 4 March

It's not still there. You just want to see an enemy to your cause and so have propped me up to be that enemy. Go find someone who is a real threat to you and your ideals, and leave me out of your crosshairs.