[Closed] Camerons top aide arrested for child porn-wheres the daily mail smear campaign?

DM front page scoop, exclusive - broken by DM and followed up other news outlets. Yeah, they're definitely sweeping that one under the carpet.

[img] ?w=638&h=852[/img]

thatll teach me not to read the DM then? 😳

my next question is why has it taken 2 weeks to come out- did they want to wait for the harman thing to run its course?

I'm astonished that a government adviser actually has some knowledge of the thing they advise about.

(OK, bad taste comment, sorry)

that'll teach me not to read the DM then?

Nah, entirely understandable. Hateful little rag. As it happens, I spotted that headline on the paper stand as I picked up my morning paper. Wasn't quite the same front page splash on the Telegraph, I have to say, but the Mail's page, as Stoner illustrates, went big on it.

kimbers - Member

should he be found guilty could have serious implications as he was involved in setting up the online porn filter

What implications?

The illegal stuff he was (allegedly) looking at was already blocked in the UK (by the IWF I think).
The new block implemented with his advice affects content which is not illegal i.e. adult content rather than child porn.

The question you ought to ask is why did the Harman thing blow up just then? She could have stopped it quickly though by coughing to it.

The difference is here the DM are after the peado in the other case its going after somone who had a very loose working relationship with one. In this case the DM do not question Camerons judgment. Its been flawed before with advisers too. Think about a current court case.

I have no idea of the workings of the old or new porn filter and obviously there were loopholes in the old, I assume the new one would be about shutting those down

he also looks like chris langham
[img] [/img]

which doesnt make him guilty , I wonder if the bbc picture editor chose this image because of that?

[img] [/img]

As it happens, I spotted that headline on the paper stand as I picked up my morning paper

Can you really call the Beano a paper?

hatll teach me not to read the DM then?

Read it or don't, but you would have not looked quite as daft as you do if you had.

My first thought was that he'd found out some very senior people were at it and was going to go public then his own machine mysteriously ended up with child porn on it?

Im always looking daft

but im still in the right about the toby young polemics though!!

The general 'idea' of this thread is correct - i.e. the Mail's opinion pieces are mostly a disgraceful collection of petty and bigoted views with a good dose of hypocrisy thrown in.

However in this case the OP (one of the 'usual suspects' on political-type threads) has fallen prey to his own prejudices. Amusing in its own right as it is amazing how often 'right-on' individuals are actually driven by petty motives themselves.

Let's not get too much into the potential for point-scoring, though, the actual substance of the 'story' is pretty disturbing - whoever chooses to report it.

Ill admit it- im a dailymailophobe!

the actual substance of the 'story' is pretty disturbing - whoever chooses to report it.

Herein lies one of the problems of both the Mail itself, and the self-proclaimed dailymailophobes (Like that a lot!) - The paper has become such a useless, and rightly demonised rag, that it is seemingly no longer able to report anything serious with anyone taking it seriously.

Me too (at least we'll always agree on that, then).

I am not only against it for its poisonous brand of 'the country is going to the dogs since they let immigrants in / banned the birch / gave women the vote - delete as appropriate'.

It is such a crushingly [u]obvious[/u] little rag with frankly astonishingly hypocritical columnists who really are a waste of oxygen. Anyone who is taken in by it really has to have a long look at themselves.

And at least you had the grace to accept that you might look a tad silly - a sadly under-appreciated quality.

we all look a tad silly and sad on here fromtime to time

IN CMD defence I doubt he would have used him had he known but this as well as appointing coulson to Press - apparently he did not even asked him about hacking- has shown his judgement to be a little questionable - the party he represents told me that though 😉

Not sure we can do much about this

DM is poor - it has not done a hatchet job on CMD here as it did with Ed and Harriet [ its almost like they have an agenda rather than principles] - not that I think he deserves it- is it true that he "resigned" once they found out about the investigation and was not sacked?

the difference between this and the harriet/dromey/patsy car crash is that they acted whilst with knowledge of who and what PIE were. You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

CMD stood behind coulson
Despite plenty of questions about his past

Of course there's nothing as politically toxic as child abuse
Still plenty of people in the BBC and press / media had heard rumors about saville ...

Of course I am not suggesting that they knew or were complicit and not just for legal reasons 😉

I noticed you picked her and not eds case though ...are you suggesting they could not have done a similar hatchet job with the same flimsy evidence?

He is not great at picking those nearest him though this was bad luck - coulson was an appalling lack of judgement [ as indeed was Harriets] .

The PIE criticism has some merit { i dont wish to defend her] to be fair and it was surprised to learn that even I though the left were loonies 😛

the difference between this and the harriet/dromey/patsy car crash is that they acted whilst with knowledge of who and what PIE were.

Well that's one difference I'll grant you but another is that they weren't in charge of the NCCL at the time.

Stoner - Member
You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

and yet...

He refused several times to confirm whether Rock was confronted about the allegations before the police were alerted, saying only that Downing Street had informed the National Crime Agency (NCA) immediately. However, he did say Rock resigned on 12 February and was not arrested until the early hours of 13 February.

The spokesman also refused to reveal whether the allegation of inappropriate behaviour had been dealt with by Ed Llewellyn, Cameron's chief of staff and an old friend of Rock.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/04/patrick-rock-arrest-david-cameron-defends-secrecy

Herein lies one of the problems of both the Mail itself, and the self-proclaimed dailymailophobes (Like that a lot!) - The paper has become such a useless, and rightly demonised rag, that it is seemingly no longer able to report anything serious with anyone taking it seriously.

Worryingly I keep meeting people who take the Express / Mail as gospel and go on about all the terrible issues ruining today's society, like public sector pensions and nurses being paid real money......

just wait till someone is able to link Patrick Rock to Jimmy Saville when he (Rock) was appointments secretary for Thatcher back in the day, itll be like the brass eye paedo special!

Just for a second there, I thought you'd implicated The Rock. I'm not sure I could take that.

But do you think he's guilty......or, was he researching and made a mistake? I know what I'd say if I was him!

Rockape63 - Member
But do you think he's guilty......or, was he researching and made a mistake? I know what I'd say if I was him!

Maybe, just maybe, there's not enough evidence in the public domain to say?

what's wrong with some totally uninformed wild speculation? isn't that the STW way?

However in this case the OP (one of the 'usual suspects' on political-type threads) has fallen prey to his own prejudices. Amusing in its own right as it is amazing how often 'right-on' individuals are actually driven by petty motives themselves.

I don't think he has. We've seen the issue reported - but as of yet no smear campaign in the vein of the one that engulfed Labour - ie a scattergun approach suggesting that the 'Labour Leadership' were apologists for child porn. That's a far far more insidious and wide ranging inference.

It was an attack on a party rather than simply the person.

I think the title is perfectly reasonable.

[i]I think the title is perfectly reasonable.[/i]

Bollocks! 8)

Stoner - Member
the difference between this and the harriet/dromey/patsy car crash is that they acted whilst with knowledge of who and what PIE were. You cant seriously think that anyone in No. 10 would have known about, and continued to work quietly with, Rock?

unless....

This actually happened in Queensland. There was an activist accusing all the high and mighty about a conspiracy to protect paedophiles.

Poor lady looked like a nutcase, but sure enough after a few years of pressure, the carefully constructed defences of the high and mighty crumbled.

One of those jailed was the leader of a major party, judges and high level policemen were jailed or committed suicide.

So don't assume it can't happen here. A ring of high level paedos can repel all attacks for a long time.

But do you think he's guilty......or, was he researching and made a mistake? I know what I'd say if I was him!

I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

my next question is why has it taken 2 weeks to come out- did they want to wait for the harman thing to run its course?

The answer would appear to be a Downing Street cover up. Just as well the Mail exposed it.

http://www.****/debate/article-2573442/Do-really-want-live-country-No-10-aides-arrested-secret.html

Rockape63

My statement - "I think the title is perfectly reasonable."

Your reply-

Bollocks!

So you reckon I don't think that? Or???

😉

Hate to show sympathy to a Tory, but how come him being arrested is a matter for public consumption - he's not even been charged yet has he? Even if he's found innocent his career is probably over and he will forever be treated with suspicion.

Has the Mail made wider accusations eg 'Cameron has questions to answer on this'. If not then it is very hypocritical (shock horror).

People assume that because the Daily Mail has a long history of smearing the Labour Party it automatically means that it fully supports the Conservative Party.

In 1924 the Daily Mail published the forgery that was the "Zinoviev Letter" to deliberately smear the Labour Party before a general election, but far from being reliable supporters of the Tory Party, which they considered to be too moderate, it the British Union of Fascists that the Daily Mail went on to enthusiastically support.

I await the Daily Mail front page which exposes the unsavoury nature of UKIP.

The UKIP/paedophile coverup that never made the Daily Mail's front page :

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/21/nigel-farage-ukip-leadership-row

Quite interesting that the person who it was alleged he made 'inappropriate advances' to was a woman!

Who would have thunk it?