Its interesting that all those commentators who have been so anti 'snooping' and critical of Govt surveillance policy have been so quiet following the news of 600+ UK arrests of suspected peadophiles who have been using the net to access indecent images of kids.

Its almost impossible for the security services to publicise all of their success without revealing their secret methods. This secrecy sadly but inevitably, feeds a noisy minority of conspiracy theorists who clog up the internet with pro Snowden/anti surveillance based rhetoric.

The Nation Crime Agency and CEOP however, rightly seek publicity when they have successful operations catching these pests, perhaps hoping it will deter others.

Its worth bearing in mind that its exactly the same legal framework that allows the NCA and CEOP (and others such as HMRC) to track down these unsavoury criminals, as it does to allow MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to weed out would be terrorists.

I expect there will be talk that the timing of the publicity of these arrests is no accident, coming as it does after the emergency surveillance law was rushed through Parliament - and I would have to totally agree this is another example of news manipulation from HM Govt.

But it does not get away from the fact that electronic surveillance does catch a range of 'bad' people and is not all about a Orwellian policy of harvesting all communications from the population to stitch up & control Mr and Mrs Joe Average

I'm just reminded of Benjamin Franklin's quote:

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

I think there's manipulation going on here. We're told 600+ arrests, over 6 months. Many of the police forces have refused to give any further details. We don't know how many charges have or will result. We could have zero crime with total surveillance. Do we want total surveillance? In a pre internet age lots of dodgy people could have been caught if the authorities opened everyone's mail before it was delivered. Would we have wanted that? And yes, you can't help but be suspicious at the timing of this announcement and the lack of details.

Blanket surveillance is not the answer. Even when there is sufficient evidence for a full police investigation, there is no guarantee of a prosecution. The unanswered question in too many cases is: why do the police fail to fully investigate? I suggest that the answer is closer to the police; for some reason, the police are not doing their job properly. I even go as far as to suggest that certain crimes are deliberately encouraged so as to 'justify' blanket surveillance.


Here is a very small number of examples where the police and the justice system failed to do their job properly. Again, the big unanswered question is: Why Not?

Police failed to pursue Savile:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 30241.html



Savile again:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/wa ... 30409.html



Barbara Castle’s dossier on VIP paedophiles snatched by Special Branch:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-mob.html

Leon Brittan and that missing dossier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28125537



Today we learn that a bent magistrate was protecting Smithh:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ICERS.html



It is all very suspicious when the LibLabCon is pushing through an 'emergency bill' to 'legalise' blanket electronic surveillance that it is announced that electronic surveillance unveils 66o 'offenders'. It is too convenient.

It's interesting how the "600+ arrests" story has wiped the stories of peadophile politicians off the front pages.

and hopefully with the power of the net it will never rest until some justice is served

_________________
Lets be careful out there !