Government accused over child pornography
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The Government is failing to resolve the issue of access to child abuse images on the internet, major children's charities said today.
More than 700,000 UK households still have easy access to illegal child abuse image sites, they said.
The Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, which includes the NSPCC, Barnardo's and The Children's Society, expressed "regret and serious concern" at the "seriously damaging" situation for children.
Zoe Hilton, policy adviser for the NSPCC, and speaking on behalf of the Coalition, said: "Over 700,000 households in the UK can still get uninterrupted and easy access to illegal child abuse image sites.
"Allowing this loophole helps to feed the appalling trade in images which feature real children being seriously sexually assaulted.
"We now need decisive action from the Government to ensure the Internet Service Providers that are still refusing to block this foul material are forced to fall into line.
"Self-regulation on this issue is obviously failing - and in a seriously damaging way for children."
In 2006, the Home Office confirmed it was Government policy to ensure all UK ISPs should deploy a blocking mechanism for child abuse images based on the list of known illegal websites maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation, and that this should be done by the end of 2007, Ms Hilton said.
She added: "Some people commented at the time that allowing ISPs 18 months to bring themselves into line on something like this was excessively generous but at least it was a definite, time-limited commitment."
However, in June 2008, the Home Office indicated that the proportion of UK households covered had reached 95%, and another official response recently said it was still 95%, with the Government "looking at ways to progress the final 5%".
Ms Hilton said: "In other words, in getting on for three years of effort, the percentage has moved from 90% to 95%, and we still have no idea when the Government will finally conclude that the industry will not get us to the 100% which has been the basis of policy since May 2006."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
If the governemnt really wanted this to stop this they would do it.
When the powers that be say that they need to control the Internet to stop child pornogrpahy, everyone will agree. That will also stop the free flow of information that they want to curtail.
Wait and see,
This government has been doing rather a lot against child porn, and in doing so is attacking our civil liberties. If you take the word of the police and the government without seeing any evidence presented for their case, you are a fool.
My suspicion is that much so-called porn is little more than pictures of naked children. The police have five levels of child porn, levels which are entirely arbitrary and subjective.
No doubt you are aware that even computer-generated pictures and text stories can be prosecuted too. How do those destroy children directly?
Let me get this right, Greenman.
"Some so-called porn is little more than pictures of naked children".
Are you saying that looking at internet pictures of OTHER PEOPLE'S NAKED CHILDREN is a viable form of entertainment for an adult on the internet?
I don't think so.
And what's with all the abusive 'give us an intelligent comment or say nothing at all' and 'you are a fool' type stuff?
Isn't it funny how someone who is outraged at the curbs on his 'civil liberties' is the first to start trying to censor others who are simply voicing their opinions?
Or is there something you'd like to tell us, greenman9876?
These charities do not readily display their sources of income, but the NSPCC web site shows that 85% of its funds come from donations. I suspect that means that at least 15% comes from the government, perhaps indirectly via a quango or somesuch body. Chanting this chorus of suppression is the price they are obliged to pay for the money. It is a tidy sum and will support quite a few well paid sinecures.
Having supported a number of these charities for many years, I have now decided to stop. Too many of the bigger charities have become no more that extended propaganda units for government. The people at the sharp end, who do something useful, have little in common with their senior managements and lobbyists.
If they can't do a simple thing like that what are these dudes good for (sorry, for what are they any good)?
1. Publish the names of the ISPs who are not blocking access to known sites
2. Let it be known that the police will focus police investigations on the subscribers of these web sites
As other posters state, the aim of our government is to control our access to the Internet, as currently it is too free for their taste. Child porn is just a convenient bogeyman to scare people into compliance. It is so easy. The police never tell us any detail about the porn they supposedly seize from people's computers as to do so would be to allow the rest of us to judge for ourselves. Who knows, the police might - just - be wrong about something. It has occasionally happened before...
Earlier, you stated that "The police have five levels of child porn, levels which are entirely arbitrary and subjective."
This seems to indicate that you know exactly what these levels are, and this is confirmed by the fact that you have decided that they are 'entirely arbitrary and subjective', an opinion which would be impossible to hold otherwise.
And now you'd like to see the evidence so that 'the rest of us can judge for ourselves'?
Brad Purcell
Atlanta, GA
brad.purcell@skyitgroup.com
Sky IT Group