New danger from technology, old case of It’s a Royal Knockout
The Daily Express ‘reveals’ today that – “shockingly” – a large proportion of parents think pupils as young as five or six should be given lessons on the subject of pornography. They need this, 90% of parents think, to help them cope with what they’re likely to see online. These parents also think the lessons should be at school, and all porno sites should face an automatic block for kids.
It’s an odd little item is this one. The research was wrong to ask about something as broad as ‘pornography’ – a meaningless word at the best of times. The Express is shocked that kids might need to know about such unmentionable things, but not at all shocked by the continuing cover-up of child molestation and porno films of guilty ex Cabinet Ministers buggering care system kids. The parents in turn don’t seem to make any link between lessons about porn in schools, and how the tiny but aggressive minority of paedophiles employed in that profession might use the situation to put, shall we say, their own spin on things. But worst of all, I think, is the news that 9 out of 10 parents want someone else to do the dirty work: somebody else to tell their kids about it, and somebody else to have the near-impossible task of blocking out kids without their assistance.
While that makes quite a statement about contemporary ideas of what constitutes responsibility, we see here again how paedophiles manage, usually, to evade detection and capture with relative ease: not only is Plod demonstrably unwilling to take an active role in the process of tackling such a heinous (and often well-connected) form of crime, the parents don’t want to hear things their kids might say, because such things aren’t naice.
Well, here’s something all parents need to think about. Since the mid 1990s – and up until about two years ago – an obscure field of maths called Markov random field modelling has gradually been proving its use as an application in real-time detection of children’s skin on social networking sites. The last reference I have for this idea is late 2012, when there were papers knocking about talking confidently about ‘probability regions to be segmented and estimated’ using the Markov random field to model the size, age, and so forth of the person using a keyboard remote from the site. The possibilities for protection of children by site-owners are obvious. But I have three questions:
1. Why is there no record of it being adopted to help screen kids out from where they shouldn’t be?
2. As Markov fields can also accurately measure the presence of adult bodies in child spaces, surely this is a major breakthrough in detection of a common means by which paedophiles start grooming kids: has it been applied yet…and if not, why not?
3. Would it be possible for tech-savvy paedophiles to use the technology for their own ends?
I would be willing to bet that Plod is nowhere in this field; but let’s see if any Sloggers know one way or the other. In the meantime, I think more than kids needing to learn about porn at five years old, parents need a rude awakening plus a lecture about what it means to be a parent in this sick culture of ours. We may have passed idiot legislation about smacking kids, but I don’t see anything on the Statute about that form of wake-up call being applied to squeamish mums and dads. They do not need to become obsessed with scaring our children: but there is surely a proper space somewhere between that and the denial we have at the moment.
On now to the Highest Family in the Land, and time for me to remove any slim chance I had left of getting a knighthood. They cost so much these days anyway, one simply can’t afford it….but after this next bit, I severely doubt whether the offer would ever be forthcoming. There follows a direct quote from a Telegraph article of two days ago:
‘Prince Charles takes a close interest in the work of the Secret Services. He presented what will become annual awards for espionage excellence, officially known as the Prince of Wales’s Intelligence Community Awards.’
So if you’ve ever speculated that the heir to the Throne knows something we don’t, you have a degree of confirmation there that Chuck knows one helluva lot more than probably most politicians. You may also wonder if, in a Parliamentary democracy where the Head of State enjoys a largely dignitary role, the future Charles III should be dishing out gongs to spooks right left and centre. For every pro quo, as they say, there may well by at least a quid in it for someone.
“Twas ever thus,” I hear you mutter. But in this instance, you would be quite wrong: last year, Charles Windsor became the royal patron of all three main intelligence agencies. And that is the first time in history it’s happened.
Travel with me now a short distance from Buckingham Palace to Richmond and Barnes, places beloved of previous princes when it came to a bit of droit de seigneur. In those once glittering boroughs, yet another police investigation into systemic child buggery and trafficking is moving along at the sort of lick to put any half-fit snail way out in front. Last week, there was yet another flurry of “a former Minister’s collar will be felt”, but as usual it came to nought. This time, however, vibes I picked up suggested – not for the first time – that trails leading down the Mall were involved. And that, in the light of this, the Secret Service had moved in swiftly with a road-block.
I’ve posted about odd Royal connections to this sort of thing before – notably in relation to the close relationship that existed at one time between Charles’s brother Prince Andrew, and the convicted American paedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein. I can also confirm that via his marketing trips to the Middle East, keen munitions student Andrew has also in turn cemented long-lasting relationships with British spooks. And that one-time Randy Andy dislikes hacks who “poke about in things that are none of their business”.
Without being melodramatic, what we have here is the two senior sons of Queen Elizabeth II very well in thank you with the country’s intelligence agencies. Perhaps that’s why keen Royalist David Cameron told the hapless Philip Schofield last year that “if people know anything, they should go to the police”. Then they could be sure it’d go straight to the Palace, and action would be taken.
For many older or more traditional Brits, this developing slot in today’s Paedofile will go down as “disgusting republican rumour and innuendo”. That would be unfair because first, I am not a republican; and second, the Royal Family is far from free of rumour when it comes to secrecy both past and present. I am a supporter of the Monarchy, but not of a monarchy above the law: we tried that up until 1660, but it didn’t work. Further, the third Charles to follow those last two control freaks has shown himself in several ways to have an interest in pushing the boundaries of Royal involvement in affairs of State. It is therefore perfectly proper for commentators to question the wisdom of his actions.
Lest we forget, the alleged ‘list’ at Elm House contained the names of two members of Royal staff, and eclectic forms of buggery within the walls of the Royal Palace have been alleged on several occasions. The short-lived reign of Edward VIII (whose interfering was on a par with that of the current heir) gave Churchill terrible problems during 1940, when it became perfectly obvious that the Simpson-shagger was feeding secrets to the Nazis. The lid has been kept ruthlessly on the details of that caper these 70 years or more, after which the relevant Cabinet papers are still withheld. To paraphrase Disraeli, when it comes to secrecy and the Royal family, they lay it on with a trowel.
Of course, I accept that there is no inbuilt correlation between rank and paedophilia. The Left would like to suggest there is, because that suits their hopelessly archaic agenda. The link I continue to hypothesise is that of the psychographic congruence between bullying control freaks and child molesters: but at present, that’s all it is. To be frank, the link between having been abused in childhood – and then abusing kids in adulthood – is far more empirically sound.
But there is a blindingly obvious link between rank and prosecution for paedophiliac behaviour. It seems that to the list of MPs, Peers, cops, senior officials, judges, and politically affiliated local government pols immune from Plod’s interest, we must now add Windsors. In 21st century Britain, you have to be dead, stupid, over 75, a former BBC groper, or somebody in PR the security services don’t like to be charged with sex offences. As of last year, Catholic clergy have been grudgingly allowed membership to this ridiculously eccentric, unrepresentative, and frequently innocent club. Serious authority figures remain, as ever, in the dark corners of which our children are blissfully (but dangerously) innocent.
This entire pavanne of depraved corruption has been and still is a shameful stain on our standing as the motherland of modern Parliamentary democracy. But apart from machinating political tribalists, there exist none in positions of power who will stand up and take the heat from those busily cooking the facts and immolating the evidence. The only option is for people far braver than I, at the sharp end, to keep on searching, sleuthing and stabbing this cultural hobgoblin in the heart.