Coffee House

David Cameron’s crackdown on child porn is not over yet

18 November 2013

8:37 AM

18 November 2013

8:37 AM

Parliament returns from a three day break today, but the headlines this morning are dominated by the international crackdown on online images of child abuse on the ‘dark internet’. Technology companies have made significant progress since July, when David Cameron urged them to do more to eradicate these ‘depraved and disgusting’ images. For example, 200 employees of Google have been targeting 100,000 search terms in order to locate pictures of child pornography. YouTube engineers have found a way to identify videos created by and for paedophiles, and Google and Microsoft have been collaborating to identify pictures of child pornography. This announcement has come before a meeting in Downing Street about joint Anglo-American law enforcement on child pornography, which will ally the expertise of the FBI and other UK agencies with the private sector.

This is good press for David Cameron, who had made this a personal issue. He gets a decent write-up in all of the papers. Cameron has told the Mail, ‘Google and Microsoft have come a long way. A recent deterrence campaign from Google led to a 20% drop off in people trying to find illegal content, so we know this sort of action will make a difference.’ The PM admits, though, that the battle is far from won and he will maintain pressure on the internet giants. The prospect of legislation has not faded.

Cameron’s comments to the Mail are a sign of how prominent the paper has been in this process. Meanwhile, Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, has penned an article in the Mail, the basic of which is to say: ‘We’ve listened’. It’s hard to disagree with the Mail’s admittedly self-serving view that its campaign has been a ‘stunning’ success.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Daniel Crowley

    Brilliant. Let’s arrest a bunch of teenagers for watching japanese cartoons. That will make it look like the law is effective 😀

  • Colonel Mustard

    Let’s be clear. Cameron’s “crackdown” is on the internet. This is just one of the scare mechanisms being used to deter opposition to that.

  • Fergus Pickering

    I gather this is all balls. Nearly all the rude stuff is not directly available. This will clamp down of ten-year-olds in shorts.

  • David Lindsay

    You are the ones in favour of a “free” market, which, like any other economic arrangement, it is always a conscious political choice to have.

    Here it is: your beloved “free” market.

    • Hello

      You seem to be confusing free markets and the absence of law.

      • David Lindsay

        There is no confusion, except in the mind of anyone who believes that those two things can coexist.

        • Hello

          Please, elaborate.

          • David Lindsay

            What’s to elaborate? If the market is “free” from State control, a moral decision of the State, then the market is “free” from State control, a moral decision of the State.

            • Hello

              There is no economist that ever suggested that the free market should be free from legislation.

              • David Lindsay

                Just wait until someone on here (possibly me) suggests any.

  • Swiss Bob

    All very laudable but how does the prohibition of certain types of images of those under 18 marry with an age of consent of 16 and the desire by some elements of the House of Perverts to reduce the age of consent to less than that, are 16 year old rent boys not enough for them? Is it that the House of Perverts don’t want their activities filmed?

    • David Lindsay

      Peter Tatchell now campaigns to lower the age of consent to 14, or even below. Michael Foot once refused to endorse Tatchell as a candidate for the House of Commons. David Cameron offered Tatchell a seat in the House of Lords.

      Gillick competence, which already effectively lowers the age of consent to 13, ought to be called Thatcher competence. Victoria Gillick, who in my only ever conversation with her despised the Conservatives after having “spent 18 years campaigning against them”, tried to stop this thing. It was Margaret Thatcher who defeated her in the courts and imposed it.

      But then, Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary was the man whom she ensured became Sir Peter Morrison, just as she ensured the dubbing of her dear friends Sir Cyril Smith, Sir Jimmy Savile and Sir Laurens van der Post. Had they been alive, then Morrison and Savile would certainly have attended her funeral.

      The upper classes become sexually active far earlier than anyone else. If the age of consent ever were formally to be lowered in line with Thatcher competence, then this is the Government that would do it. Yet another very good reason to sweep it away in 2015.

      • Hello

        “The upper classes become sexually active far earlier than anyone else”

        That seems like a rather sweeping statement backed up by basically no evidence.

        • David Lindsay

          It is well-known to anyone who has ever been around them. They themselves seem to think that they are normal in this regard. But they are not.

          • Hello

            I’m afraid you are just talking rubbish, David. I suspect that you don’t hang around with either the upper classes or the lower classes, or even the middle classes, nearly enough. You seem to have a rather quaint view of the way your people live.

            • David Lindsay

              I’ll cheerfully accept that abject concession of defeat.

          • James Strong

            How do you know this?

            • David Lindsay

              Many years in and around a posh university, mostly. Not only that. But that more than anything, with all the acquaintances that it has given me.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Goodness what an admission of subjectivity. A load of anecdotal stuff from being around students larded with copious amounts of hearsay.

                Yes, I remember very well when I was in Cairo in ’56 . . . blah, blah, blah. Not an expert on Egyptology though.

                • David Lindsay

                  This is hardly Egyptology.

                • Neotelemachus

                  he fantasies of a failed Labtard non-entity my dear Colonel. Idiot #2 has obviously been at the little blue pill today judging by his onanistic outpourings (hideous thought). Have you ever heard so much tosh before? He makes Idiot #1 seem quite intelligent, but how odd that they rarely appear together.

          • Neotelemachus

            Good to see you are striving to elevate your status from Idiot #2 to the number one slot held by telemachus Citizen Lindsay. You have posted some drivel before but your schoolboy class-warrior rantings on this thread take your previous stupidity to another level entirely. I don’t know which of the upper classes you have been around to observe their multiple teenage abortions but take a stroll down any suburban street, or spend some time in Gosport, Hastings or some of our more deprived areas to see hordes of teenage lower-class girls with their welfare-supported babies. It wasn’t inappropriate images that created this lifestyle choice but the lousy education under labtard LEA and lefty union controls and the welfare dependency fostered by Brown to build his obscene client state. This one is down to you and your lot Idiot #2 and, as usual, it is left to the caring Conservatives to try and fix the Britain the left broke. You and your kind disgust me, and anyone with brains and integrity, more than it is possible to say.

            • David Lindsay

              Just ask anyone in the pro-life and pro-family movements about the Conservative Party, by no means only in recent years, but ever, although most especially in the 1980s. Go on. Ask them.

              Mass benefit dependency is also, of course, a creation of the Thatcher years. It never existed before her. It has existed continuously ever since, although significantly less when Gordon Brown was first Chancellor and then Prime Minister than before and after that period.

              No wonder that your party’s rating is now 28 per cent, which is lower than that to which Brown led Labour at the last General Election.

              • Neotelemachus

                I must one day visit this parallel universe you inhabit where all the evils of the world were created by the Tories, and labtard could do nothing to right the ‘wrongs’. In your fantasy world, where Gordon Brown reduced welfare dependency, while more than doubling the welfare bill, I am sure it is a veritable paradise. It is truly unfortunate that, in their very brief 13 years in power, labtard were unable to reverse a single law passed by Margaret Thatcher before she stepped down in 1990 (33 years ago). However, in this current, real world, we must live with, and attempt to mitigate, all the errors that labtard made in their 13 years of corrupt misrule. Truly you are Idiot #2, soon to be Idiot #1.

                • David Lindsay

                  Oh, the realisation that this is your party’s last, whimpering hurrah in office stings you very, very painfully, doesn’t it? They taught you at school that you were born to rule. How could they have lied?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I doubt that very much. Labour might win elections but they are crap at governing the country and it has always ended in tears during my whole lifetime. The single party state you aspire to will just mean that the level of their arrogant incompetence and public dissatisfaction will be intensified the longer they rule. Labour have been clever at dodging responsibility and blame by making sure other parties inherit their messes but eventually they will get their well-deserved and long overdue comeuppance. The tedious fantasy of caring, egalitarian socialists and wicked, rich Tories will no longer wash.

                  Besides it is really poor form to boast about victory before actually achieving it.

                • David Lindsay

                  You do not understand how the electorate has changed. The tribal Labour vote is now almost large enough to win on its own, whereas there is practically no tribal Tory vote as such.

                  The Tory-minded vote can go anywhere, if it turns out at all. But the core Labour vote is larger anyway, is far larger in the areas that matter electorally, turns out without fail, and always, always, always votes Labour.

                  Get ready for permanent Opposition.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Which goes to show you and the comrades aspirations for a single party state. But even the East European communist regimes failed in the end.

            • David Lindsay

              The only class warriors in British politics are the Tories and the Lib Dems.

              • HookesLaw

                You are a thick ignorant gobshite

                • David Lindsay

                  Point proved.

          • Harold Angryperson

            Margaret Thatcher’s views on abortion:

            ‘The abortion law is only related to the early months and I voted for abortion under controlled conditions.

            I’m perfectly prepared to have the Act amended along the lines of the Select Committee recommendations because I think that it’s operating in a slightly more lax way than was intended, but I’m not prepared to abolish it completely.

            Abortion only applies to the very, very early days, but the idea that it should be used as a method of birth control I find totally abhorrent.’

            She did not legalise abortion up to birth – under her premiership the limit was actually reduced to 24 weeks from 28 weeks.

            And you, David Lindsay, are a liar.

            • David Lindsay

              No, it went up to birth. Ask anyone in the pro-life movement about her. They abominate the very mention of her name.

              • Harold Angryperson

                Rubbish David. Evidence?

                • David Lindsay

                  Of what? It’s just a fact, known to anyone who knows anything about the subject.

                  Look up the legislation if you like, but the fact that you need to, and that do not already know, proves that you do not know what you are talking about.

                  Whereas I have been active in pro-life since the early 1990s. I know all about the legislative legacy of Margaret Thatcher. If you had ever been anywhere near the pro-life movement, then so would you.

                • Harold Angryperson

                  Perhaps you need to look up the legislation David? Here is a hard fact, known to all who really know about the subject – the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which gained Royal Assent on 1 November 1990, three weeks before Margaret Thatcher left office:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Fertilisation_and_Embryology_Act_1990

                  The abortion limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks. That is most emphatically NOT “Legalising abortion up to birth”.

                  Careful lad, you’re crossing over into Ickedom…

                • David Lindsay

                  No, it legalised it up to birth for disability, which was not and is not defined, and which did not and does not have to be specified on the forms.

                  It did so at Thatcher’s personal insistence, as was reported openly at the time.

                  I have been doing this for well over half my lifetime. You ought to give up now.

                • Harold Angryperson

                  You ought to give up, David. Abortion up to birth for normal pregnancies are not legal, indeed the provisions in the Act are for very extraordinary circumstances indeed. Your dissembling initial posts tried to make it look as if this applied to ALL pregnancies. Are you a politician, by any chance?

                  And you still haven’t provided evidence of Thatcher’s personal involvement in these provisions.

                • David Lindsay

                  the provisions in the Act are for very extraordinary circumstances indeed

                  No, they are not. They are for anything you like, really. That is the effect, because that was the intention.

                  The intention of Margaret Thatcher. It was a Government Bill, she was the Prime Minister, and she took an exceptionally keen interest even for her.

                  Ask anyone in pro-life. They’ll tell you.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Good heavens. Why would we need evidence for a well-known fact? We all know that Tony Blair is a paedo. Well-known fact. Brown too.

                • David Lindsay

                  Except that they are not. Whereas this is.

          • Fergus Pickering

            You been dipping your wick in posh territory, Lindsay. Tell all.

      • Swiss Bob

        I always thought that the girl who dropped her knickers in a bid to have a “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” at my local London junior school was a bit posh.

  • Troika21

    I, for one, am glad to see the Prime Minister taking a brave stand on this controversial and divisive issue.

    • Russell

      Brave would be to introduce a Bill for an in/out EU referendum before the end of this parliament and put Labour and the LibDems under the cosh if they voted against the electorate having the right to decide their future in the EU….that would be brave. Restrictions on access to sites which could be used by pedophiles and child abusers is common sense.

      • David Lindsay

        Since your picture suggests that you are old enough, if you did not vote No in 1975 and Labour in 1983 – it has to be both – then you are in no position to comment.

        Labour is now more Eurosceptical than the Tories, anyway. At heart, it always was. Every single one of its MPs voted for a real terms cut in the British contribution to the EU Budget, joined by fewer Tories than there are Lib Dem MPs, and Labour is preparing to vote against the EU-US “Free Trade” Agreement on the grounds that have been advanced against the entire project ever since Herbert Morrison and Ernest Bevin.

        • Russell

          I have always been and will always be against both the Labour doctrine and the UK’s membership of the EU/EEC/Common Market and have and will vote accordingly.
          Labour MEP’s just recently voted for an increase in contributions from member states (including the UK) to make up the shortfall caused by overspending of the last EU budget!
          Care to comment on the coke sniffing ex head of the Co-op Flowers, who authorised £100,000 payment to Ed Balls parliamentary office? or the fact the Ed Miliband appointed Flowers as head of labour committee on financial matters?

          • David Lindsay

            No. Your original comment was off-topic, and this one is wildly so.

            If it’s coke-siffers that you want to look into…

            I have always been and will always be against both the Labour doctrine and the UK’s membership of the EU/EEC/Common Market

            You cannot possibly have been. You have voted for the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act (you probably think that the Prime Minister who signed that ought to have airports named after her, or something) and the Maastricht Treaty.

            Especially if you failed to vote Labour in 1983, then you are simply not entitled to complain about the EU.

            • James Strong

              1983 was 30 years ago.
              Have your own ideas not developed over that time?
              Or are they fossilised?

              • David Lindsay

                Russell says that he has always been anti-EU, and he has not denied that he was old enough to vote in 1983. He has no excuse for having voted any way but Labour in that year, and he is in no position to complain now if he didn’t.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Anyone can complain about anything at any time. We are allowed to change our minds based on changing circumstances and developments in the EU.

                • David Lindsay

                  But Russell says that he never has changed his mind. (On what? The nature of the project has been made perfectly clear at all times in its history.) Yet he did not vote in accordance with that position when he had the opportunity to do so. He has only himself to blame.

            • Colonel Mustard

              We have discussed this before and again you ignore Harold Wilson’s propaganda which influenced the vote – and misrepresented the consequences of “Yes”.

              “Another anxiety expressed about Britain’s membership of the Common Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to obey laws passed by unelected ‘faceless bureaucrats’ sitting in their headquarters in Brussels.”

              Etc. :-

              http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

              • David Lindsay

                Plenty of people, including Russell, managed to vote No. The reality was made fully explicit by the No Campaign. If you did not listen, then that is your fault.

              • HookesLaw

                Wilson was entitled to spout his vioews as were opponents. The vote went the way it went.

                • David Lindsay

                  Quite.

                • HookesLaw

                  Go away

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Well done at backing the enemy again.

                • Neotelemachus

                  I was one who voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975 and it can be said I been fooled by the political consensus at the time. In my stupid youth I was a leftist – views gained in part from my Marxist father – but as I matured and examined history and the world around me, I grew up and became a Conservative.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Good for you, sir. That Miliband pere did get around a bit, didn’t he?

                • Neotelemachus

                  Miliband pere didn’t get around to my neck of the woods Fergus – we grew up in real poverty with no champagne socialism or a privileged upbringing for my brothers, sisters and I. Just hand-me-down clothes and a belief in education, honesty and hard work.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Good on yer for choosing the right path. I sipped champagne from my christening mug but there you go. The filthy rich can also be decent folk.

                • David Lindsay

                  I was a leftist

                  Then you would have voted No in 1975.

                  Nice try.

                • Neotelemachus

                  I was 23 in 1975, no longer a youth and well past my leftism by them. Very poor try Idiot #2.

                • David Lindsay

                  As I recall, that well know Conservative, Anthony Wedgwood-Benn was implacably opposed to the Common Market in 1975.

                  Exactly. It was a left-wing cause. It still is. The Tories are still exactly where they were then. They always will be.

                • Neotelemachus

                  There is something very seriously wrong with you Lindsay and this constant need for attention is indicative of some very serious mental defects. The only person, judging by your lack of upticks, and plethora of downticks, who thinks you are a serious commentator, is you. I have now promoted you and must sadly inform your troll friend telemachus of his demotion. Congratulations on your new status, Idiot #1.

                • David Lindsay

                  I would not normally bother, but try the following:

                  “David Lindsay has generated a brilliant reconciliation of the
                  conflicting strains of the Labour Tradition and is worthy of the closest attention.” Dr Maurice Glasman, Lord Glasman of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill; Senior Lecturer in Political Theory and Director of the Faith and Citizenship Programme, London Metropolitan University; founder of Blue Labour.

                  “Current orthodoxy – both in economic policy and right across the board – has so manifestly failed us that we desperately need some fresh thinking and a different way of looking at our problems. That is precisely what David Lindsay provides.” Professor Bryan Gould, Labour MP for Southampton Test, 1974-1979; Labour MP for Dagenham, 1983-1994; Shadow Cabinet Member, 1986-1994; Leadership Candidate, 1992.

                  “Before Red Tory and Blue Labour there was David Lindsay. He was arguably the first to announce a postliberal politics of paradox, and to delve into the deep, unwritten British past in order to craft, theoretically, an alternative British and international future. It is high time that the singular and yet wholly pertinent writings of this County Durham Catholic Labour prophet receive a wider circulation.” Professor John Milbank, Professor in Religion, Politics and Ethics, University of Nottingham.

                  There are others.

                  Who are yours?

                • Neotelemachus

                  As I said, there is something seriously wrong with you. Your constant attention seeking and now this worthless collection of references from Labtard numpty non-entities cuts no ice with me. You are a has-been failure and I will waste no more of my genius on you. I am demoting you back as even telemachus has more sense than you. Idiot #2.

        • James Strong

          Your first paragraph is nonsense.
          I was born in 1956; I voted No in 1975 and Labour in 1983 but I cannot see that as a reason that my comments on the EU are more valid than Russell’s. (And I am in pretty close agreement with him anyway).
          Nobody who voted Yes in 1975 was told they were voting for what we’ve got now.
          And, ‘when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do?’

          • David Lindsay

            Nobody who voted Yes in 1975 was told they were voting for what we’ve got now.

            Yes, they were. Or else why did you vote No?

            Peter Shore, Douglas Jay, Barbara Castle, Judith Hart, Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Enoch Powell and others all made it perfectly clear.

            And it is perfectly clear that you listened. Anyone who did not listen has only himself to blame.

            • Colonel Mustard

              No they weren’t. Read Harold Wilson’s pamphlet in the context of everything that has happened since:-

              http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

              • David Lindsay

                Plenty of people, including Russell, voted No. The reality was made fully explicit by the No Campaign. If you did not listen, then that is your fault.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  One could say that “the reality was made fully explicit by the Yes campaign” and by the government of the day’s pamphlet endorsed by Harold Wilson. Even were we to accept your preposterous absolutism there is no way to determine now whether what has happened since was absolutely encapsulated in the presentations of 1975. Brown did not offer that as an argument for compliance when he slunk off to Lisbon to sign away more of our sovereignty in 2007, 32 years later.

                • David Lindsay

                  Even were we to accept your preposterous absolutism there is no way to determine now whether what has happened since was absolutely encapsulated in the presentations of 1975.

                  Yes, we can. Look it up. It was all there. It was your own fault if you didn’t listen. It still is.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  No you are wrong. You are commenting with hindsight. It was even called the European Economic Community then.

                • David Lindsay

                  And it was made abundantly clear what that meant. If you had bothered to listen. Plenty of people did.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Apart from the sainted Enoch, there is no-one on your lstI would have trusted to tell me the time and Foot and Benn were clearly mad. I voted the wrong way because I trusted Henry Cooper..

              • David Lindsay

                Foot and Benn were clearly mad.

                Clearly, they weren’t.

        • Colonel Mustard

          So, (to use a favoured gambit of the socialist comment monitors), a distant decision to vote a certain way precludes a current decision in diametric opposition to that? Have you told the Labour party about this requirement for a rigid and never-changing position?

          • David Lindsay

            It is Russell who claims that his position has never changed. I believe him. But in 1983, he had the opportunity to vote for a major party which was committed to it as a manifesto pledge. He did not do so. He has only himself to blame.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Really that is dissembling. The 1983 Labour manifesto’s weasel words, on all things, must be taken as a holistic whole. The aspirations to create a “socialist state” could not be cherry picked by voters. The aspiration to leave the EEC if voted for and won would have obliged living under a socialist government devised by Foot with all the other manifesto undertakings.

              It is just not realistic to conflate that single pledge with the whole manifesto and then blame non-Labour voters for not voting for it. That is akin to arguments about Mussolini’s trains running on time.

              • HookesLaw

                That logic applies now.
                Allowing UKIP to split the right vote will merely let in an EU friendly Labour Party. Notions of them being Europhile is just idiot unbelievable propaganda.

                And of course even if out we would have to obey single market rules. There is *more* likelihood of us having to join Schengen if we leave the EU and join the EEA or EFTA.

                • David Lindsay

                  an EU friendly Labour Party

                  Where’s that, then?

                  Even if such a thing existed, then it could not possibly be more pro-EU than the Tories. Now or ever.

      • HookesLaw

        Oh do shut up.
        Does everything have to go back to the EU?
        We are getting a referendum in 2017.
        Grow up.

        • David Lindsay

          We are getting a Government led by Ed Miliband and with people like Ed Balls, John Healey and Jon Cruddas in or around it in 2015. That is what the European Commission increasingly openly fears. There has been a referendum before. You might even remember it. So much for that. Although remember which party held it.

        • Russell

          I was responding to a poster who said Cameron was brave!
          You on the other hand are not worth responding to, and I will ensure in future that I do not.

          • HookesLaw

            So what – it still does not require invoking the EU.

            If ever you talk sense I will agree with you.
            Rabbiting on about the EU on a Child P*rn thread is daft – just as daft as other propagandist hijacking it over abortion. The likes of Lindsay and Tele contribute nothing except disinformation.

            BTW
            Why are you not happy with a referendum in 2017.

  • Smithersjones2013

    Of course that’s if the likes of Google are going to continue ad infinitum throwing the same or more levels of resource at the problem. All those wishing to make such a bet form an ordily queue outside Downing Street and hold your breath.

    Perhaps before declaring this a stunning success we might check back in say three years to see exactly how many people Google and others have still pursuing this? After all using bulk renaming utilities how long will it take the vile peddlers of this filth to reconstitute and rename it somewhere else?

    When I read stuff like this it always sounds to me as if its a case of the media and politicians cutting and running from a war they can only ever win battles in. They can never win the war………

    • Fergus Pickering

      You can never tell with vile peddlers of filth. They are everywhere.

  • Alexsandr

    so search engines wont find the bad stuff. but it wont stop proxy servers and remote desktop access. The politicians have over simplified this for sound bytes.

    and anyway who decides what is inapropriate? how do you tell a childs age from an image?

    • Fergus Pickering

      I take it statues of the boy David are right off limits. And what about cherubs and the baby Jesus?

    • Neotelemachus

      It is strange, on a site for supposedly intelligent adults (apart from Idiots 1-5 that is) that we cannot use the word P*rn, a word that is in the title, without being moderated. P*rno and P*rnography, A*se and various other words also send one to instant moderation.. Someone on the Speccie needs to spend a few minutes adjusting the Disqus filters.

      • Colonel Mustard

        If you think that is ridiculous imagine what potentially filtering 100,000 words is going to do. I find it hard to believe that with so many words each one could only have a single restricted and illegal meaning. The words sledgehammer and nut come to mind but I haven’t tried googling those.

        It is indeed a reflection of these barmy censoring times that journalists are able to use words in their articles that we, the public, are not permitted to use in comments about those articles. All words are equal but some words are more equal than others.

      • Harold Angryperson

        And tw@t, I’ve had posts containing that moderated as well.

        Not my fault that there are so many of them on here…

      • Fergus Pickering

        s*x is also forbidden but not shagging for some reason.

        • Neotelemachus

          Just discovered that V*agra is also proscribed. Nuts.

Close