A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 11:34 am  

It seems that Dally's favourite newspaper has been caught out confessing, quite openly, to looking for pictures and videos of the abuse of children (child 'porn' as it is sometimes called) in the name of a shabby online article. Apparently it didn't cross minds at the Mail that you cannot simply decide to 'research' illegal images and, because you're doing it for publication in this manner, it suddenly becomes legal. Perhaps best, it later added a note to readers at the bottom of, warning them not to look up such images – because they're illegal. Do Dacre and his merry band consider themselves above the law? The police have been informed. The excuses should be fun.

It seems that Dally's favourite newspaper has been caught out confessing, quite openly, to looking for pictures and videos of the abuse of children (child 'porn' as it is sometimes called) in the name of a shabby online article. Apparently it didn't cross minds at the Mail that you cannot simply decide to 'research' illegal images and, because you're doing it for publication in this manner, it suddenly becomes legal. Perhaps best, it later added a note to readers at the bottom of, warning them not to look up such images – because they're illegal. Do Dacre and his merry band consider themselves above the law? The police have been informed. The excuses should be fun.

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 1:08 pm  

Mintball wrote: It seems that Dally's favourite newspaper has been caught out confessing, quite openly, to looking for pictures and videos of the abuse of children (child 'porn' as it is sometimes called) in the name of a shabby online article. Apparently it didn't cross minds at the Mail that you cannot simply decide to 'research' illegal images and, because you're doing it for publication in this manner, it suddenly becomes legal. Perhaps best, it later added a note to readers at the bottom of, warning them not to look up such images – because they're illegal. Do Dacre and his merry band consider themselves above the law? The police have been informed. The excuses should be fun. I saw that article yesterday and thought it was disgraceful. PS It seems to me that their online offering does not have normal journalistic controls. They regulary write nonsense and make basic errors which usually get corrected when people make sarcastic comments. I guess tis may be a serious example? Let's hope heads roll.

Mintball wrote: It seems that Dally's favourite newspaper has been caught out confessing, quite openly, to looking for pictures and videos of the abuse of children (child 'porn' as it is sometimes called) in the name of a shabby online article. Apparently it didn't cross minds at the Mail that you cannot simply decide to 'research' illegal images and, because you're doing it for publication in this manner, it suddenly becomes legal. Perhaps best, it later added a note to readers at the bottom of, warning them not to look up such images – because they're illegal. Do Dacre and his merry band consider themselves above the law? The police have been informed. The excuses should be fun. I saw that article yesterday and thought it was disgraceful. PS It seems to me that their online offering does not have normal journalistic controls. They regulary write nonsense and make basic errors which usually get corrected when people make sarcastic comments. I guess tis may be a serious example? Let's hope heads roll.

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 2:00 pm  

There's a certain irony in that the Mail online also publishes pictures of underage girls, with inappropriate copy that, in effect, sexualises them.

One of the interesting questions will be just who commissioned/authorised this piece and the 'research' that went with it.

Someone somewhere else has already pointed out that, given that a search of the Mail itself for 'Pete Townsend' produces over 80 results, in connection with his case of 'research', including a recent one, you'd think that the Mail understood the law on this.

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 4:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

There's a certain irony in that the Mail online also publishes pictures of underage girls, with inappropriate copy that, in effect, sexualises them.

One of the interesting questions will be just who commissioned/authorised this piece and the 'research' that went with it.

Someone somewhere else has already pointed out that, given that a search of the Mail itself for 'Pete Townsend' produces over 80 results, in connection with his case of 'research', including a recent one, you'd think that the Mail understood the law on this.

Don't now if you saw the article. I only flicked through it but it gave examples of search terms that apparently yield awful results. Now you would have thought that a responsible journalist might have thought that people may check it out. If even one of those became a child molester as a result then they could be considered partly responsible. To me it was shocking. If they wanted to campaign they could easily lobby government with their contacts, contact the police if they thought there was good reason to, etc, etc. But no, they chose the gutter. I seriously hope the authorities take this further.

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 6:18 pm  

They HAVE to sell newspapers, or advertising, advertisers only pay to advertise in high circulation newspapers or web sites with big hits and re-visits.

Its all that matters, to them, anything else is irrelevant and the politicians go along with it for the sake of a gentle ride.

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 6:39 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

They HAVE to sell newspapers, or advertising, advertisers only pay to advertise in high circulation newspapers or web sites with big hits and re-visits.

Its all that matters, to them, anything else is irrelevant and the politicians go along with it for the sake of a gentle ride.

Maybe alot of advertisers will not wish to be associated with such stuff?

Re: A law until itself? : Sun May 26, 2013 8:15 pm  

Dally wrote:

Maybe alot of advertisers will not wish to be associated with such stuff?

They've been happy to be associated to date to a web site that promotes the sexualisation of female children to other females, or promotes unhealthy and often unobtainable body obsessions to females, if it wasn't a national daily newspaper it would have been condemned by other news media a long time ago.

Re: A law until itself? : Mon May 27, 2013 9:38 am  

Dally wrote:

Now you would have thought that a responsible journalist might have thought that people may check it out.

You would have thought a decent journalist could at least get the thread title correct?

Re: A law until itself? : Mon May 27, 2013 9:40 am  

'Until' or 'unto'?

Re: A law until itself? : Mon May 27, 2013 9:47 am  

peggy wrote:

You would have thought a decent journalist could at least get the thread title correct?

You do know Minty has a partner don't you Peg?
You may have to restrict your amorous feelings for more eligible females on here.