Daily Mail 'journalist' Amanda Platell

Avatar Image
daffy654 | 13:44 Sat 25th May 2013 | News
22 Answers
I thought viewing child pornography for 'research purposes' was still illegal, how come this woman has done it and then written in the gutter press about it without being prosecuted?


1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
I hate that kind of 'journalism'. Google warped this man into a killer and if ypu type 'schoolgirl porn' into Google, you too can be a paedophile. Why the need for a step by step guide. Why the keywords. Why research anyway? Nothing is gained by this at all. Just titilation and sleazy lurid copy. I'm sure the Daily Mailers are lapping it up and typing naughty words...
15:32 Sat 25th May 2013
no doubt she sought some sort of permission first, not sure how but there must be a way of doing research.
Question Author
I just noticed they have added this to the end of the article:

///The Daily Mail, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, is reporting these websites to the police. Readers must not access these websites as it is against the law.///

I still think it was/is very irresponsible of them to publish the article and tell people how easy it is to find child pornography on the internet, and even how to search for it.

I just don't understand why this stuff is even available on the net, it couldn't be that difficult to constantly remove it. I can't see why ever, password or checks irrelevant, that child pornography would be an OK thing to look at.
Any similarity between the word Journalist and anyone who works for the Daily mail is purely coincidental... ;0)
Confusion here between " I did it for research", the paedophile's optimistic defence, and "I did it for research" the genuine researcher's or journalist's defence.
"it couldn't be that difficult to constantly remove it."

oh dear...

Access to sites like Pirate Bay and Kickass (torrents) are banned by most UK ISP's thanks to court orders, do you know how easy it is to bypass those bans.

it would be the same for these porn sites, take them down, ban them, whatever, theyll be back in minutes, it would make no difference.

The biggest inconvenience would be to the ISP's and Hosting companies that have to monitor and do the taking down
Daffy, are you a regular reader of the 'gutter press'?
baz 'oh dear' - no need to be so dismissive thank you. I don't know of the sites you list (why should i) and am sure it would be a mammoth task however if China, for example, can stop a whole nation finding specific information on the internet than a damn sight more effort could be put into keeping this depravity off the net. The fact is not enough resource or interest is put into it.
I hate that kind of 'journalism'.

Google warped this man into a killer and if ypu type 'schoolgirl porn' into Google, you too can be a paedophile.

Why the need for a step by step guide. Why the keywords. Why research anyway? Nothing is gained by this at all. Just titilation and sleazy lurid copy.

I'm sure the Daily Mailers are lapping it up and typing naughty words into Google at this very moment.
Where the hell did the Daily Mail find this writer?

Oh yes, I remember, she was the Conservative Pary Spin Doctor who helped Labour to power in 2001.
Amanda Platell is a vile hypocrite.

She's quite happy to assert that the internet is undermining society and turning otherwise healthy people into child rapists, but on a recent episode of QT completely dismissed any responsibility on the part of the Mail in the MMR scare.

So, basically, media influences people only when it suits Amanda Platell's political views.
This style of tabloid journalism is not confined to the Mail. It's parodied in Private Eye: "Shock horror of disgusting scenes: more pictures on pages 2,3, 4 , 5, 12, 13, 14...." Hypocrisy is the stock-in-trade.
Question Author
Svejk, what difference does it make if i'm a 'regular reader' of the gutter press?

I was alerted to the article in question via Facebook if you're wondering how I found the article.
Wasn't Pete Townsend questioned by police for doing exactly the same thing a few years ago?

If I recall correctly, he explained the research was for a book he was writing (although, it never actually appeared).
Yes, SP, he gave some lame excuse.
It is possible to view these sites, but police monitor software will bring the knock on the door if you download.

I am not sure if it is actually illegal simply to surf and look - and I am equally unsure why anyone would want to - even if it is so she can be shocked and horrified for money.

Years I was part of a team of researchers who were given secret software access to access a number of suspected paedophile sites. The sites 'hide in plain sight' - the have an innocent front page, and the disturbing stuff is inside.

Thanks to our codes, we were able to access the sites and view without the site owner knowing we had been there - if they suspect infiltration, they simply shut down and move to another site.

The images I found stayed on my screen long enough for me to hit the 'back' button, and then fill in my report form and send it in. They have stayed in my mind a lot longer.

Why anyone would want to view this material simply to sensationally write about how horrific it is simply beyond me - and I speak as a freelance writer.

I know that Jihadists decapitate hostages. That's as much information as I need - why would I need to see a video showing it done?

I am sure that Ms Platell will have ensured access is sanctioned in advance - but such prurient 'heavens above' journalism does exactly nothing towards addressing the issues raised by pornography on the internet, and its pointlessness is matched only by its deeply unpleasant 'I viewed this so you don't have to ...' sanctimonious attitude.

I did what I did knowing that t site owners would be located and prosecuted, and for no other reason. I have never discussed it with my family or friends - only ever with the annonymity of the AB have I referred to it, and only then on pertinent threads like this one.

The Mail loves to take the moral high ground, even if it swims in the sewer to do it.
Agreed, Andy.

This article has been written exclusively so that Amanda Platell can feel morally superior to everyone else.
So - no change there!
This is what seems odd about the article. It can be summarised as "Good Lord, if you search for child porn using a search engine, you will be directed to child porn sites".

In the same way that if you searched for 'tractor engine parts', you will be presented with a list of sites that sell farm equipment.

This is how search engines work.

1 to 20 of 22rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Daily Mail 'journalist' Amanda Platell

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.