Tuesday, July 23, 2013

British government encourages sex attacks on women

Populists and knowalls generally treat it as revealed truth that pornography encourages sex crime.  Academics have long argued that porn could in fact REPLACE sex crimes.  The evidence  has now been in for some time now.  It does (See also the article following the article below).  So Britain's porn restrictions will have the opposite effect to that intended.  What a plague on society are people who "just know" the truth

Every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked unless they ask to receive it.

In a victory for the Daily Mail, David Cameron will announce the move today among a series of measures cracking down on against the tide of web sleaze.

The Prime Minister will warn that internet pornography – much of it easily accessible to youngsters – is ‘corroding childhood’.

By the end of next year, all 19million UK homes currently connected to the net will be contacted by service providers and told they must say whether family-friendly filters that block all porn sites should be switched on or off.

From the end of this year, all new customers setting up a broadband account or switching provider will have the filters automatically switched on unless they opt to disable them to allow sites with ‘adult content’.

‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said.

‘We are taking action to help clean up the internet and protect a generation of children from often extreme online pornography.’

Other measures being announced by Mr Cameron today include adult content filters on all new mobile phones, a bar on accessing adult content through public wi-fi and calling in Ofcom to regulate industry progress. Internet giants such as Google will be told they have a ‘moral duty’ to do more to stop child abuse images being accessed.

Pornography involving simulated rape will be banned both online and offline, and online videos will be subject to the same rules as those sold in sex shops.

There will be stronger powers for watchdogs to investigate the ‘hidden internet’ – heavily encrypted forums and pages that allow abusers to cover their tracks

There has been growing alarm at evidence that a third of children have accessed online pornography by the time they reach ten. Six in ten parents now say they are worried or very worried about their sons and daughters seeing violent and sexual material on the web.

In his landmark speech at the NSPCC, Mr Cameron will say action is more urgent than ever because web access has ‘changed profoundly’ in recent years.

‘Not long ago, access to the internet was mainly restricted to the PC in the corner of the living room, with a beeping dial-up modem, downstairs in the house where parents could keep an eye on things,’ he will say.

Today, there is material freely available that is a ‘direct danger to our children’.

The Prime Minister will add: ‘I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.’

Mr Cameron will announce that in future deciding about family-friendly filters will be a required part of the set-up process for installing an internet connection.

When existing web users are contacted, family-friendly filters will be pre-selected. Only an adult will be able to change the filter settings and the account holder will receive a confirmation email. Some ISPs are offering text alerts, in case children hack into the account.

Any adult ignoring the alerts will have filters installed automatically.

‘By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected. If you just click “next” or “enter”, then the filters are automatically on,’ Mr Cameron will say.

‘And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account.

‘No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.

‘Once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing. So we have agreed with industry that those filters can only be changed by the account holder, who has to be an adult. So an adult has to be engaged in the decisions.

‘But of course, all this just deals with the flow of new customers – those switching service providers or buying an internet connection for the first time. It does not deal with the huge stock of existing customers – almost 19million households. So this is now where we need to set our sights.

‘Following the work we’ve already done with the service providers, they have now agreed to take a big step.

‘By the end of next year, they will have contacted all of their existing customers and presented them with an unavoidable decision about whether or not to install family friendly content filters. TalkTalk, who have shown great leadership on this, have already started.

‘We are not prescribing how the ISPs should contact their customers – it’s up to them to find their own technological solutions. But however they do it, there will be no escaping this decision.

‘And they will ensure it is an adult making the choice.’

‘I’m asking Ofcom, the industry regulator, to oversee this work. If they find that we are not protecting children effectively, I will not hesitate to take further action.’

Mr Cameron will announce further measures to tackle extreme pornography, which depicts violence against women, including simulated rape.

‘These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them.

“The legal situation is that although it’s been a crime to publish pornographic portrayals of rape for decades, existing legislation does not cover possession of this material – at least in England and Wales.

‘Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole – making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape.

‘And we are doing something else to make sure that the same rules apply online as they do offline. There are some examples of extreme pornography that are so bad that you can’t even buy this material in a licensed sex shop. And today I can announce we will be legislating so that videos streamed online in the UK are subject to the same rules as those sold in shops.  ‘Put simply – what you can’t get in a shop, you will no longer be able to get online.'

Holly Dustin, of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said:

'We are delighted that David Cameron has responded to the call by experts and women’s groups to ban pornographic images of rape that promote and eroticise violence against women.

'The Coalition Government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this.

'The next step is working with experts to ensure careful drafting of the law and proper resourcing to ensure the law is enforced fully.'


More Porn, Less Rape

Over the past two decades, as pornography has become much more easily accessible over the Internet, the rate of rape and sexual assault has declined by about 60 percent, according to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

The BJS conducts an annual National Crime Victimization survey of more than 100,000 households, asking if anyone has been the victim of various crimes in the past year. In 1995, the rape/sexual assault rate was reported as 5 per 1,000 American women over age 12. In 2011, the rate had fallen to 1.8 rapes/sexual assaults per 1,000.

Meanwhile access to pornography has dramatically increased. “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a person in possession of a fast Internet connection must be in want of some porn,” the journalist Sebastian Anthony joked last year on the website Extremetech. Dozens of porn platforms are among the top 500 sites in terms of traffic, according to Google’s Doubleclick Ad Planner. The largest, Xvideos, draws 4.4 billion page views per month—three times more than CNN or ESPN, and twice as many as Reddit.

A comprehensive 2009 review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior by the Texas A&M International University psychologist Christopher Ferguson and the University of Texas at San Antonio criminologist Richard Hartley concluded that easy access to porn does not cause rape. “Considered together, the available data about pornography consumption and rape rates in the United States seem to rule out a causal relationship,” Ferguson and Hartley wrote in their summary of the academic literature. “One could even argue that the available research and self-reported and official statistics might provide evidence for the reverse effect; the increasing availability of pornography appears to be associated with a decline in rape.”

The Clemson economist Todd Kendall, in a 2006 study supported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, concluded that “Internet access appears to be a substitute for rape; in particular, the results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in internet access is associated with a decline in reported rape victimization of around 7.3 percent.” Kendall found that “there is no statistically significant relationship between internet access and any individual FBI index crime (other than rape), including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny, and auto theft.” Crime rates are plummeting all over, but it’s only rape that appears to be pegged to online connectivity.


Britain's animal Gestapo again

No sense of proportion whatsoever

A retired vet woke to find a police torch being shone into his face when officers raided his home after the RSPCA received a tip-off that his two pet dogs were being maltreated.

A total of 13 officials – police, firemen and RSPCA officers – turned up unannounced in six vehicles at 70-year-old John Spicer’s home and broke down the door to get in while he was asleep.

His sheepdogs Puppy and Little Boy were taken away and Puppy was destroyed immediately.

Mr Spicer was arrested on suspicion of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

He had his fingerprints, DNA and mugshot taken and was held in a police cell for 24 hours before being released.

Yesterday he criticised the RSPCA for being heavy-handed and said he has still not been told what has happened to Little Boy.

‘The whole episode was a total over-reaction,’ Mr Spicer said. ‘I was asleep inside and the first thing I knew was a torch being shone six inches from my face by a police officer.

‘I was put barefoot in the back of a police van and told I was being arrested. I was in a cell at a police station for 24 hours.

‘This was the first time ever I’ve been taken to a police station in my life, I have been left shaken by it. It was completely over the top.’

Mr Spicer, who lives in the village of Gobowen near Oswestry, Shropshire, was released after being questioned by officers from the animal welfare charity.

Yesterday an RSPCA spokesman refused to say whether Mr Spicer would face prosecution as the investigation is ongoing.

His ordeal began at around 5pm on July 8 when two RSPCA officers in separate vans, two constables, a sergeant and two PCSOs from West Mercia Police in two cars and a van, plus a fire engine with six firemen on board, turned up at his whitewashed terraced home.

After using a fire engine ladder to peer inside an upstairs window, they broke down the door and let themselves in.

They took away 12-year-old Puppy, which had been suffering ill health due to a spinal injury and had partly lost the use of its legs, as well as ten-year-old Little Boy, Puppy’s brother, claiming they were not being looked after properly.

But Mr Spicer, who was a vet for 30 years, said he had been treating Puppy’s illness, which he described as ‘complicated,’ himself and the dog had been improving.

He said: ‘The police decided there was no case to prosecute. I’ve heard nothing since from the RSPCA.’

Mr Spicer, a bachelor, added that he doesn’t know how he will live without his dogs. ‘I’ve not lived in my house without a dog for 30 years,’ he said. ‘At some stage it is going to hit me that the house is empty.’

Neighbour Mark Breeze, 47, said: ‘I’ve never seen John mistreat an animal in my life, he always looks after his dogs very well. He’s very cut up about it.’

A spokesman for the RSPCA said they had attempted to contact Mr Spicer on numerous occasions after receiving several calls about the welfare of his dogs. It is understood he was reported to the charity several times by a concerned local.

‘We will always attempt to work with owners to safeguard the welfare of their animals,’ the spokesman said.

‘The dog was put to sleep by an independent vet – on their advice as nothing more could be done to help it.

‘A second dog still belongs to the man, it has not been taken permanently, but it will remain in RSPCA care while the investigation continues.

‘The conditions the dog had been living in were not suitable and it is now being treated for a skin condition.’

Anne Kasica, who runs the Self-Help Group, an organisation for animal owners ‘experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA’, said: ‘It’s appalling that an elderly man can be treated this way, but unfortunately we’ve seen it all before.

‘All the RSPCA seem to care about is prosecutions because they bring in donations through publicity.’

Tory councillor David Lloyd, who represents Gobowen, said: ‘Many villagers were angry at the heavy-handed way in which the reclusive Mr Spicer appears to have been treated.’

Tory MP Simon Hart, a former head of the Countryside Alliance, claims the RSPCA is pursuing an ‘aggressive political agenda’ against pet owners which is ‘at odds with animal welfare’.


Police won't name big firms and lawyers who hack phones - to protect their human rights

Lord Justice Leveson's report into hone hacking did not mention blue-chip companies

Police are refusing to publish  the names of law firms, blue-chip companies and celebrities accused of hiring private investigators to break the law – to protect their ‘human rights’.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency has a list of those accused of paying private eyes to dig for information, including using illegal means such as phone hacking.

But yesterday it emerged that the agency, dubbed Britain’s FBI, is suppressing the names, claiming that to publish them might breach the Human Rights Act. It cited Article 8, the right to a private and family life.

The agency also claimed that publishing the list could damage the firms’ commercial interests by tainting them with guilt.

Last night one Tory MP called for the heads of Soca to be sacked if they continue to block the release of the list.

And senior MPs who are investigating the scandal criticised the agency for its lack of transparency.

Labour’s Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, wrote to Soca to ask for ‘all the information Soca holds on private investigators and their links with the police and private sector’.

He said: ‘Soca has indicated that it is prepared to give the client list to us in confidence. This has still not been received. It is a disappointment that this is yet another document the committee has had to receive in secret from Soca.’

He added: ‘In view of the public interest, openness and transparency may be the only way that the public can be reassured that no one is above the law and [that] Soca have done all they can to address this issue.’

Mr Vaz said he will write to the leading 100 legal firms and every firm in the FTSE 100 to ask them if they have ever commissioned private investigators and for what.

On June 24 he wrote to Sir Ian Andrews, the chairman of Soca, to ask him to ‘provide the committee with a list of clients who hired private investigators to break the law that Soca is aware of’, setting a deadline of June 28.

In a letter dated July 12, published on the committee’s website on Wednesday, Sir Ian – a former Ministry of Defence mandarin – said publishing the information could ‘substantially undermine the financial viability of major organisations by tainting them with public association with criminality’. 

The evidence has now been ‘formally classified’, he added.

Detailing his reasons, he said there was a ‘lack of certainty’ over whether the investigators’ clients had ‘guilty knowledge’ and were aware of what was going on. And he said naming them could undermine their right to a private  and family life under the Human Rights Act.

He also cited the ‘possible prejudice which any publication might have on ongoing criminal investigations and future regulatory action’.

He wrote: ‘This reflects the fact that the information it contains, if published, might prejudice individual security or liberty, impede the investigation (or facilitate the commission) of serious crime or substantially undermine the financial viability of major organisations by tainting them with public association with criminality.’

The list of clients stems from a Metropolitan Police investigation codenamed Operation Millipede which led to the jailing of four  private detectives in January last year.

The court heard personal information was ‘blagged’ by private investigators who impersonated targets while phoning banks, building societies and telephone companies.

But no details of the men’s alleged clients came out in court.

Last month it emerged that a Soca report into private investigators that was submitted to the Leveson Inquiry – but not mentioned in Lord Justice Leveson’s report or published on the inquiry website – alleged widespread misbehaviour by businesses other than the media.

The confidential document, codenamed Project Riverside, contained intelligence material on the wider use of private investigators outside the media.

It alleged that law firms, insurance companies, wealthy individuals and even councils were paying for information.

One hacker reportedly said that 80 per cent of his client list was blue-chip companies and high-profile individuals, with the rest relating to the media.

Questions have been asked on why little apparent action has been taken either to disrupt this trade in information or to target those paying for it.

They are reported to include a corporate giant, a celebrity broadcaster, a media personality and a wealthy businessman.

Both Sir Ian and Trevor Pearce, the agency’s director general, were summoned to return before the MPs after details of what the agency knew, which date back six years or more, came to light.

The agency has agreed to allow Mr Vaz and members of the committee to see a copy of the list of names, on the condition it is not made public.

Backbench Tory MP Rob Wilson called for both Sir Ian and Mr Pearce to be sacked if they continue to block the release of the list of names.

The MP for Reading East said in a letter to Home Secretary Theresa May last night: ‘It is entirely unacceptable for Soca to put its own reputation and commercial interests before its duties to the public in tackling serious criminality.

‘Many people will rightly see Soca’s actions as an abuse of the Official Secrets Act and the Human Rights Act. It appears that Soca is in danger of losing its way in taking the decisions it has.

‘Tackling serious and organised crime is an incredibly important function in a civilised country. It will be difficult for the public to have confidence in Soca while it appears there is one law for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest.’

Scotland Yard’s continuing investigations into newspapers are expected to cost nearly £40million by the time they conclude in  April 2015



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: