Inquisition 21
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Articles
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
|
|
You don't have to,
but if you log in,
you can add comments.
|
| Page Referral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
British MP's litany of untruths
Brian Rothery criticizes British MP Margaret Moran for a ‘litany of untruths’.
Margaret Moran, Labour Member of Parliament spoke in the House of Commons on the 26th October 2005 in a motion for a Bill called ‘Control of Internet Access (Child Pornography)’. Using Parliamentary privilege she uttered a litany of untruths that could only help to foment hatred and further deepen the moral panic about child pornography.
She spoke thus: “Let us not be under any illusion. The situation surrounding internet child pornography is appalling. Just two years ago, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) estimated that 20,000 new images of child pornography go online every week. That is 20,000 new cases of child abuse and rape every single week. There are now hundreds of pay-per-view child pornography sites and thousands of free sites filled with images that would make most people physically sick.”
Can I reply to you, Honourable Member for Luton? The situation surrounding Internet child pornography is indeed appalling. Inciters to hatred and rabble rousers are lying every day about it. The NSPCC whom you quote is under attack not just for making similar false claims but for trying to turn children against their parents. Leading British academic and book author, Frank Furedi, has castigated them for it.
Far from 20,000 new images appearing every week online, it is accepted worldwide that child pornography has been virtually eliminated from the Internet, except for the police owned and managed sites using what they have already gathered and captured to entrap people in stings, and on the very day that you, Margaret Moran, spoke we published news that the police were emailing explicit child porn images to intimidate and attempt to destroy some of their critics. Instead of the ‘thousands of free sites filled with images that would make most people physically sick’ there are some in high places committing acts of such deceit and dishonour, by lying about child pornography, that they could indeed make decent people physically sick.
Your litany of untruths continued.
“Operation Ore, the massive police investigation into child internet pornography, identified over 7,000 people in the UK, including judges, doctors and teachers, who used their credit cards to download images of children being abused or even killed for their gratification. Police believe that that is the tip of the iceberg. Those who download such images say that they have committed no crime, but every single vile picture that includes babies and children being raped and tortured has destroyed an innocent life. Through the internet, criminal gangs are making money out of this misery. That has gone unchallenged for too long and the time has come to right this wrong.”
Margaret Moran, you could hardly be more wrong. Operation Ore is collapsing as the police in both the US and the UK are being exposed as having used fraud to promote it. More innocent men may have committed suicide in the UK because of false accusations under Operation Ore than were rightfully convicted for real child pornography, of which it has now been shown there was precious little of in Operation Ore. The concept of babies being raped and tortured for perverted sexual pleasure has long ago been exposed as an urban myth, some writers now believing that such perverse fears are engendered in the tortured imaginations of the accusers and vigilantes. Your words about ‘children being abused or even killed’ are astounding as they seem to refer to the so-called ‘snuff movies’, which long ago were exposed as mere imaginings, as there is no evidence that they ever existed.
It is not known that any criminal gangs are making money out of such misery brought upon children and should it be discovered that one or more are doing so, then surely we should be allowed to download such criminal activities and bring them to the police as evidence? But that would ruin the propaganda used by you and others.
So, Margaret Moran, concerning the people in the UK that I write about, including possibly some of your constituents, can they send you the evidence of the lies being published about child pornography and in particular the frauds committed under Operation Ore? Would you like to ask a question in the House about certain British police sending explicit child porn images to individuals who dare to challenge them? Or am I and they right in assuming from your published stance that this would be a waste of time, as you would not want to listen?
It would be a real help if we could get one honest MP to air our evidence under privilege, as neither the police nor the IPCC want to look at it. I can be contacted through the menu on the left should you want to reply to this.
But she is not alone
Here is MP Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Labour) also speaking in the House: “I would like to discuss further the role of credit card companies, which has already been raised several times. I also have been working with John Carr of the children's charities coalition on internet safety and have tabled some questions relating to child pornography and the credit card companies.
In opening the debate, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said that concerted action had been taken on child pornography, which involves some of the most violent images available. However, we are only just beginning to address the issue. I shall outline the history, and give some figures to demonstrate the scale of the problem. Arguably, 1995 was the last year before the internet became a massive consumer medium in the UK. In that year, the obscene publications squad of Greater Manchester police seized a grand total of 12 child pornographic images, all of them on paper or videotape. Just four years later, in 1999, the same squad, covering exactly the same area, seized 41,000 child abuse images, all but three of which came from the internet. Today the police do not bother to count—it is common for an individual to be arrested with tens of thousands of images on his machine. Andrew Tatam from Lincolnshire was jailed for five years for amassing and obsessively filing and categorising the largest known collection of child pornography. He had 500,000 images.
My key point is that in the early days of the internet, the exchange of child abuse images was largely restricted to exchanges between paedophiles—money rarely changed hands. It was a matter of devotees swapping and completing their collections. People do not realise that the exchange of child pornography and violent images has become big business. We have to make it clear that it has become the province of organised crime, which is making huge amounts of money out of it. The Landslide website, which gave rise to Operation Ore, took $1.6 million in its last month of trading before United States police closed it down. Other pay-to-view websites still operate on a similar scale; I do not think that the full extent of the problem has been acknowledged.
Such appalling websites exist only because credit cards provide a payment mechanism for the gangsters who own them. Because of credit cards, men who are not paedophiles systematically arrange for children to be recruited and raped in front of cameras in order to provide new merchandise. The same applies to the violent images that are the main topic of this debate. We must deal with the problem. None of the criminals who set up the websites has been traced to the UK, but the people who buy their products have been, and we can take action on them, as Operation Ore has shown. In one day, the UK police were given the names of 7,200 purchasers of child pornography; 7,200 people who used credit cards to buy illegal images.”
A UK Response
So when these old pictures show up on the Net, who’s putting them there? Attorney Lawrence Stanley, who published in the Benjamin A. Cardozo Law Review what is widely considered the most thorough research of child pornography in the 1980s concluded that the pornographers were almost exclusively cops. In 1990 at a southern California police seminar, the LAPD’s R. P. ‘Toby’ Tyler proudly announced as much. The government had shellacked the competition, he said; now law enforcement agencies were the sole reproducers and distributors of child pornography. Virtually all advertising, distribution, and sales to people considered potential lawbreakers were done by the federal government, in sting operations against people who have demonstrated what agents regard as ‘a predisposition to commit a crime’. These solicitations were usually numerous and did not cease until the recipient took the bait. "In other words, there was no crime until the government seduced people into committing one," Stanley wrote.
(http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=361&page=1)
We have actually been here before. The entire vice squad was steeped in corruption, though, originally they were taking money from the criminal underworld, and people were fitted up in order to protect the enterprise. As Operation Ore was sold on a myth, no outside criminal underworld existed. Money was taken from taxpayers, private companies, and property taken from Orees had a strange way of disappearing.
One of the questions some of the public have asked was how material got onto people's computers at all, not realising, what is on the Internet does end up on people's computers, that is how it works or doesn't depending on your point of view. One of the sales lines of Operation Ore was protecting children against accidental exposure to such material, on the one hand admitting that accidental exposure existed, at the same time the ACPO spokesman denying it completely. The principle of the big lie, borrowed from J Edgar Hoover himself.
As the commercial market for much of the material was also a myth, a more serious question is, how did so much material get onto the net in the first place? This is where SOCA were lagging behind the trail blazed by the FBI, who are the main reproducers and distributors of child pornography. That was part of a process dating back to the eighties, a process which continues to this day and many of the people involved in challenging Operation Ore are getting spammed out with child pornography and chat solicitations.
I read with great interest in the Inquisition21 web site that complaints about this police corruption are now trying to make their way into the CPS and the IPCC, but it seems to me that in the journey so far they have served to expose more corruption than they have contested, along the way taking out the credibility of several police forces up to the IPCC, with some incriminated literally from the bottom to the top.
Unfortunately for British citizens these forces have access to near limitless resources of legal advice and can of course also investigate themselves.
The IPCC is often called the box, a containment device to prevent serious challenge.
As for MP Margaret Moran - what an appropriate name!
Another response.
Naming and shaming ISPs?
If measures such as BT’s Cleanfeed are taken up by UK ISPs, it will block access to such sites if they exist, which is doubtful. If people cannot reach the sites, they cannot buy the images, and if this happens, any real ‘criminals’ will stop producing them for sale. Thus, fewer children will be ‘raped in order to make them in the first place’.
BT and Cleanfeed have a commercial stake in the police child porn empire. Personally I consider MP Margaret Moran’s statements to be incitement to civil unrest.
The government want to impose censorship and force companies to pay for it? If the sites are really illegal, isn't it appropriate to remove them?
Margaret Moran previously worked in social services and education. The IWF is the money laundry for the system. The IWF was launched in September 1996 to combat the problem of illegal material on the Internet, with particular reference to child pornography. It is an independent organisation set up to implement proposals jointly agreed by the Government, the police and industry.
Independent? What a joke!
If BT are filtering access to a site containing child pornography, doesn't that mean they have knowing possession? And for the IWF, it has been engaged in developing extensive partnerships with the many stakeholders that have an interest in IWF affairs. Now I thought the IWF were supposed to be independent. They offer access to government for money, they work for their stakeholders.
A few witches here for sure!
Malicious and false statements made by MPs in the UK
This matter falls within the remit of the government standards committee. There are penalties for making false and malicious allegations which can be seen HERE.
If you want to make a report do it by EMAIL HERE.
United Kingdom
Lynch mob strikes near Manchester
Operation Ore collapses
The crime of Operation Ore – we present the evidence
Inside the British police state
The dirty tricks continue
British MP's litany of untruths
Adding to the climate of fear
 |
|
|
