Friday, October 17, 2008


Paedo terrorist rapist jihadists are using teh internetz to spread filth and evil! OMG WTF!!11 !!
Or How the Internet Must be Controlled, by Jacqui Smith and Geoff Hoon.

After last week's humiliating failure of the government's latest 'anti-terror' strategy, which resulted in them dropping their plans to hold people for 42 days without charging them, and to hold secret inquests in State-implicated deaths, Jacqui Smith and Geoff Hoon came back with their giant database plan. They want access to absolutely everyone's mobile and web records, including social networking sites like Facebook. Why? Because ' terrorists use such communications'.

Not monitoring this traffic is 'giving terrorists a licence to kill people', Hoon actually had the brass neck to say. He confirmed that the government is prepared to go 'quite a long way' with removing civil liberties 'to stop terrorists killing people'.


Terrorists also wear clothes, Geoff, which might conceal bombs. They live in houses, which have blinds and curtains, which can be drawn to conceal their nefarious terrorist activities therein. Ban window coverings! Get your kit off! If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear!

Anyway, today, as if by magic, we get three full pages in the Times about 'Links between child porn and Muslim terrorists' and 'dangerous and depraved: Paedophiles unite with terrorists online.'

Paedophiles and child porn and terrorists and Muslims and the internet all in one story! I don't think I've ever seen quite so many memes working in concert before: it's like the Chinese State Circus act I saw once when a dozen people all managed to balance on one bicycle and whizz round and round at high-speed whilst we all gasped and applauded.

I decided to take a closer look at the Times story. I note that it has

10 mentions of 'Muslim'
6 mentions of 'Islam'
5 mentions of 'Islamic'
8 mentions of 'Mosque'
8 mentions of 'Jihad'
6 mentions of 'Jihadi'
29 mentions of 'Terrorist'
15 mentions of 'Terrorism'

So what evidence have we got for all this?

a) An East-end rapist, who got seven friends to lie for him and give a false alibi that he was giving a sermon on repentance at a mosque during Ramadan when the attack took place. He was caught after being investigated by police over suspected links to a 'jihadi gunrunner'. DNA taken after he was arrested proved he was wanted for the vicious rape a year earlier. His computer was seized and found to contain child pornography downloads. He has never been convicted of terrorism offences.

b) Another suspected terrorist - also calling himself a Muslim - who was also found to have hard-core child porn when raided in a different investigation.

c) Hard-drives found at a Milanese mosque allegedly used by Islamist militants, which contained images of children being sexually abused that were also encoded with messages as 'a clandestine method of communication'. An Italian 'anti-terror magistrate' (a what?) said that pornographic images were being used to camouflage 'messages of quite a different content', and remarked to the Times that the men did not have 'paedophile tendencies', but 'in many parts of the Arab world - wives are often very young girls of 11, 12 or 13 who because of family negotiations are given in marriage to men much older than them...' . He then added, 'But that is not paedophilia, it is a question of Arab culture'.

(That last statement is utter rubbish by the way. The average age for marriage in Arab countries in in the 20's and rising. You can read a full report into marriage in the Arab world here. Even in Yemen, which has the youngest wives, the percentage of married women aged 15-19 has declined from 27% in 1997 to 17% in 2003.)

The person who ran the mosque was sentenced to 8 years for terrorism offences, in absentia.

Any more evidence for the CHILD PORN INTERNET MUSLIM TERRORIST thing?

Well, there's this.

d) The Times found 'a case in Spain where an Islamic terror suspect is accused of downloading child porn'. It's still before the courts. The case concerns an alleged terror cell broken up in 2007. Spanish police say thousands of hardcore child porn images were found on home computers.

e) There's an Algerian awaiting trial who is accused of incitement to jihad via the internet and of sending money to prisoners belonging to a banned Islamic group accused of killing 45 people in Casablanca in 2003. He is also accused of downloading child porn.

f) And a case in Yorkshire where child protection officers 'stumbled upon a nail-bomb terror plotter'. He was white, and making bombs to attack Black, Asian and Jewish people. He was not a Muslim, in fact, he was an anti-semitic Islamophobic nazi loon. He had 39,000 child abuse images.

g)Also a Salford chemistry student nabbed for looking at explosives websites and downloading 7 child abuse images. He was 21 years old, also white and non-Muslim. He was jailed for explosives offences, not terrorism.

And er, that's it.

I can't see that these few cases - from all over the world - justify the number of mentions of Islam, Muslim, terrorist and all the rest of it in the copy.

I really can't.

Nor can I see how the fact that some men - some nasty pieces of work - are into extremely horrible sex and violence - online and offline - in any way justifies the government wanting to spy on everyone's emails and phone calls and web use.

If anyone would like to have a go at explaining it in the comments, please feel free.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Philip said...

Because they know best. And they want to. And they can. And it'll probably make money for somebody, whether it works or not.

Word Verification: ncgfsuum, the sound of a political opinion muffled by a therapeutic pillow or three.

October 17, 2008 7:29 pm  
Anonymous Richard said...

Fantastic... This whole thing is starting to sound more and more like a Christopher Morris skit gone horribly wrong... Talks about a formal merger between these two tabloid demons would be the logical next step - Al Paedo?

October 18, 2008 7:26 pm  
Blogger kris said...

You forgot all about the innocent Forest Gate Two who innocently said the cops had abused them, who innocently had £30K of saved rent under their mattresses and who where charged with having pornographic pictures of young children on their home computer. That charge collapsed because they ran the defence that they innocently bought the computer from with the photos. (I can see child pornographers selling their computers on because the £10.00 they might get for it would outweigh any risk of being busted by the subsequent owner).

Yep, I believe them - even though thousands wouldn't.

October 18, 2008 8:59 pm  
Blogger numeral said...

In the interests of a good night's sleep for all, I would like to point out that it is widely recognised that there has been a built-in backdoor in Windows since later editions of Win 95. The spooks can put anything they like on your hard drive anytime they like, as well as taking anything off it. They can do this to your mobile, Blackberry or anything else. You won't know a thing. Even if you find a dodgy file and delete it (or even use a paranoid erase command to overwrite it with random bits a dozen times) modern filesystems will happily preserve it.

If your system goes wrong do not take it in for repair. No, no, no. Remember ... Gary Glitter, was it? Open the case up, take out the hard drive and melt it with an oxy-acetylene torch. That is the only guaranteed way to get rid of the data. Start afresh with a brand new system. It is easy to keep a backup of your data on one of those USB sticks.

This has given me a great business idea which I will foolishly share with you all. Develop a piece of software which will flag up any legally hazardous files on a hard drive. I am going down to the garage to become a billionaire.

October 19, 2008 10:21 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I am going to say this again: it should not need to be be repeated but I will say it.

MUSLIM does not = TERRORIST, PAEDOPHILE, TAKER OF CHILD BRIDE or anything other than person who worships God in a particular way. Thrre is no more reason to conflat MUSLIM with TERRORIST than VEGETARIAN with PERSON WHO FIREBOMBS ANIMAL TESTING LABS.

Fringe extremists.
Vs. unrelated majority.

And the other thing I'm fed up about: who you and I email, call, text, the sites we look at, the books we read, the thoughts we have and beliefs we hold are our own god damn business,

until we take ACTION that HURTS others - we do not have 'thoughtcrime' and we do have free expression in this democratic country.

Free speech does not extend to hate speech, intimidation, menace or harassment, or to shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

We should not expect to spread hate, lies, or to defraud or defame our fellow humans.

But nor should we expect to be treated as guilty suspects, whatever our age, race or religion.

I will not stand by and watch this crap go on in the name of 'preventing terrorism': I did not choose to be so directly involved in this bloody debate but if by strange chance it somehow makes what I say more meaningful because I am a 'victim/survivor' then I will say it.

I said all this before: it is frankly bizarre that what I say now should be seen as more relevant because I was near a bomb 3 years ago and did not die.

People who think I am 'seeking a platform' for 'personal reasons' need to get a grip: it would be a damn sight easier generally, and I would be be able to pay my mortgage a damn site more easily if it was 2004 again, no bomb had exploded on the Piccadilly line and I was a ad strategy director earning three times as much as I am now.

Three years on. I'm almost broke. I'mm tired. I have been threateneed and harassed by fucking nutters. I'm fed up that the government seems to have gone stark staring authoritarian mad.

But I do not see what else I can do, in all good conscience,than what I am doing.

Numeral, you and your colleagues would be a lot more help if you stopped denying reality - that 4 extremists suicide-bombed the transport system 3 years ago- and got on with trying to stop what has been done by the UK govt since in the name of preventing terrorism.

To be taken seriously, you do have to engage with reality at some point.

October 19, 2008 11:23 pm  
Blogger Gridlock said...

Coming next - all pay and go phone users need to present OFFICIAL ID (wonder where that could lead...) when purchasing a phone.

My Grandmother was a magistrate for 35 years, was a major Labour supporter for over 50 years, knew Glenda Jackson and Michael Foot. My teacher mother, shop floor steward uncle, both Labour supporters.

I'd rather drink bleach than vote for this bunch of warmongering, Thatcher-worshipping semi-fascist busybody bastards and that is something they should all be ashamed of.

Maybe I don't want my internet usage, emails and phone usage monitored. The false positive rate would be astounding, and I'm very prone to use words or follow patterns that would set it off. So I head off onto CTunnel or start using TOR, and all of a sudden I'm definitely a target because I'm taking active steps to evade their gaze...

Cliche of the decade has to be, "Orwell was right about everything, except he was 30 years off in the title".

October 20, 2008 2:59 pm  
Blogger Gridlock said...

To answer your question - Rupert Murdoch honestly believes in fascism, insofar as the power of the state must triumph over the freedom of the individual.

I can find no other reason for his behaviour both here, in the States and China. That man has far, far too much power, manifested in the likes of Trevor Kavanagh/Rebekah Wade, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk.

October 20, 2008 3:07 pm  
Blogger John said...

Why is Kris repeating reactionary rubbish about two young men that were found guilty of precisely nothing except for having their house stormed by 250 armed police officers in the dead of night and being shot? If you believe the oh-so-convenient child porn allegations then more fool you.

There really are some painfully naive (and/or) disgustingly racist types out there who apparently haven't a clue about the fearmongering, scapegoating and the complete and utter trashing of our liberties that are all taking place right in front of their eyes.

Imagine taking at face value anything the media and state say after everything that has happened - and then coming on the internet and actually admitting such stupidity for everyone to read.

October 22, 2008 12:26 pm  
Blogger numeral said...

Rachel said:
"Numeral, you and your colleagues would be a lot more help if you stopped denying reality - that 4 extremists suicide-bombed the transport system 3 years ago- and got on with trying to stop what has been done by the UK govt since in the name of preventing terrorism.

To be taken seriously, you do have to engage with reality at some point."

Hi Rachel,

Sorry, I have only just seen your reply.

Reality. Well, I am into epistomology in a minor way. What is real, what is true, what can be known? These are not easy questions.

Take Barack Obama. I could not get myself elected to the parish council but this guy organises his election to POTUS. That is talent, no doubt about it. OK, there will be no change. OK, there is no hope. However, realities will intrude. It is even possible that, in catastrophe engulfing us, the people will act collectively, rather than be turned into hobos.

It is said that FDR, recognising that a revolution was imminent, placed himself at the head of the revolution, in order to defuse it.


Interesting times we live in.

November 24, 2008 1:16 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home