One of David Cameron’s closest aides has been arrested on suspicion of offences relating to child pornography.
Patrick Rock, who was one of the government’s advisors on policy for online pornography filters, was arrested last month after police examined computers in No 10 Downing Street.
Those interested in such things are highly likely to end up in the politics of such things. Because they’re interested in them, see? A form of regulatory capture…..
Astonishingly, the BBC were onto this story remarkably quickly.
Using some of the most monitored IT in the country for illegal purposes? Looks to me like a cry for help….
Using some of the most monitored IT in the country for illegal purposes?
Looks to me like a stitch-up.
Maybe Patrick Rock supported Andrew Mitchell during his recent troubles?
If he was the No 10 Policy Unit’s adviser on what to do about online pornography/abuse then isn’t it highly likely that he would have accessed various unsavoury websites “for research”.
Still this is clearly what happens when Cameron employs non-Etonians. All the pleb fuss with Old Rugbeian Mitchell and now Old Stonyhurstian Patrick Rock.
It’s an interesting question. How exactly *does* one design and test an illegal content filter without getting banged up ?
Shinsei1967, I think that excuse has been tried before…
Indeed. But surely Patrick Rock, a “sensible, grown up” and a scholar of Worcester College, Oxford, wouldn’t have been so incredibly stupid as to access such websites on the No 10 computer ?
It’s of course possible, but is it likely ?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the NCCL?
” But surely Patrick Rock, a “sensible, grown up” and a scholar of Worcester College, Oxford, wouldn’t have been so incredibly stupid”
Those are the very qualifications.
Give it six months and we’ll discover that Patrick Rock had actually notified Plod of his requirement to access unsavoury websites from his office machine in order to perform research for his role creating policy, and Plod had assured him they understood and “licensed” him in some way for said research, and the gullible Andrew Mitchell-supporting fool took them at their word.
And now they’ve nicked him in a massive blaze of glory, and will absolve him as slowly and as quietly as possible.
I wish I still lived in an England where what Ivor proposes is ludicrous.
But I don’t.
I know what you mean, Julia. Blair lite.
Julia: Exactly so.
Thinking a bit more–one of Bliar’s aides was done for the same thing. Co-incidence?–or maybe those wild rumours about paedos at the “top” of the tree are not so wild.
If we’re going the conspiracy route I reckon it’s the Dromii and Patsy Hewitt trying to deflect attention from their PIE-supporting ways. “See? Those Tories are kiddie-fiddlers too!”
On a more sensible note, I don’t think CP is a serious enough problem that it needs a Downing Street SpAd. I mean, it’s pretty serious for the children involved, and the perpetrators can die alone in a windowless dungeon for all I care, but I think the cops can handle the situation without political interference.
Unless it’s Ivor’s scenario (entirely possible) I’m presuming he used a device of his own on the Downing Street wifi, and that set off a red flag in IT.
At which point I start to wonder what he could have accessed that isn’t already blocked by the IWF and any blocks Downing Street IT has in place. Isn’t it all (whatever there is, which it is illegal to even know) on the darknet these days anyway?
After all, for all we know, it’s pictures of 17 year old Samantha Fox, or legal pictures that somebody else thinks look under-age. Or nudist pics. All we get is the blanket “child porn” that could mean anything. The nature of the material viewed is inherently not avaialble to the public for perusal.
Who has access to internet records from no 10? Surely that’s classified?
Or simply that interest in such material is so hugely widespread that it’s not statistically surprising that two spods in successive governments get caught with it.
There are actually very few real paedos, contra to the hysteria, ie those interested in little kids. The idea that there are vast legions of slavering freaks everywhere is exactly the kind of propaganda that the femmi-commisars have used to succeed in their drive to demonise men. And some of the paedos that do exist are women altho’ you won’t hear much about that on the MSM.
Yes, there’s obviously a difference between interest in CP and being a paedophile, and further being a child molester (whether as a paedophile or not). CP is illegal, molesting children is illegal, being a paedophile means you need psychiatric help.
So I wouldn’t categorise everyone who looks at CP as a paedo or molester any more than I’d categorise everyone who looks at lesbian porn as a lesbian.
It’s probably safe to say that the overwhelming majority of CP users never molest kids. The majority of child molesters are opportunists, generally family members, rather than people pursuing a specific sexual interest in children.
For the record this is obviously not a defence of CP or child molestation.