LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Patrick Rock was one of the UK Prime Minister's key 'porn wall' advisers.
Read more.Patrick Rock was one of the UK Prime Minister's key 'porn wall' advisers.
You cant make this up!
Last edited by peterb; 04-03-2014 at 03:03 PM. Reason: *** removal
Salazaar : <Touching wood as I write this...>
Jonj1611 (04-03-2014)
No doubt his defense will be that it was either "research" or that he left his computer open to hackers that are against the Porn Filter, who set him up.
Personally I don't care. He's a political figure so getting caught for one crime, real or not, just makes up for all the other "legal" crimes he gets away with.
What sort of mong would look at anything dodgy at work, let alone illegal stuff, and even more so when you work for the Government?
My guess is it was a set up, I can't believe anyone is THAT retarded!
You can't believe a POLITICIAN is that retarded...? I can...Originally Posted by KrisWragg
Except he wasn't a politician, he was a government aide.
The fact that he's been arrested shows there's a case, or at least, sufficient evidence to justify a fairly significant step. It does NOT prove the case is either correct, or adequate. Only a trial will do that.
And this guy is an advisor, not a politician.
Had he been in a "normal" job, this arrest might have justified a paragraph on page 15 of his local paper. But as soon as you add "Downing Street" it gives anyone with an agenda an opportunity to use it for a front-page campaign.
It's entirely plausible that he "hasn't gone public" because he's fully aware that ANY use by him of publicity will merely encourage a press feeding frenzy. Perhaps he believes in trial by court and jury, not trial by media. And franklh, IMHO, only a complere moron would seek to actually encourage press coverags on this by seeking it out.
Besides, by bet is that his lawyers will have advised him, VERY firmly, to say nothing more than "no comment" to journalists. If they ask what the time is, the correct response is "no comment". Anything he does say could end up having unforeseen consequences in any trial, should it go to that.
And, especially on an emotive subject like this, the best advice, press-wise, is .... don't feed the beast. Stay quiet, stay out of sight, and issue statements, if any, through your lawyers.
To be honest, anyone that thinks they'll get a fair, balanced coverage in the press on thus sort of thing is a naive fool, so unless he is, he won't try to win a media battle. Remember, newspapers aren't there to inform or educate, with a balanced presentation or representation of fact. They're there to sell papers, period. And there's a reason the contents are referred to as "stories".
A technicality. Government employee irrespective of his position. Point still stands.
The fact that he got caught shows the level of knowledge about computers and the internet that the people who devised the porn filter have.
It wouldn't surprise me if they found the images in the recycle bin or his browser history.
I'm not convinced there will be a conviction and I wouldn't be surprised if this story soon disappears from the public domain.
So all government employees are politicians?
That's a fairly wide net you're casting there.
If he got caught a year from now when ISP's are supposed to roll out the porn filter to existing customers they could have just added the story to the filter and made it disappear.
What I don't get is that, it was his JOB to look up this stuff... For him to do his job properly, he needs to be aware of what's out there on the internet, and how easy/hard it is to find it.
To me it seems as ridiculous as hiring a security consultant to test your security, and then arrest them for being in possession of tools that are used to break security.
Last edited by Andaho; 04-03-2014 at 03:05 PM.
The irony is too damn high!
XBOX Live - Sheep Sardine | Origin - MrRockliffe | Steam - MrRockliffe |
Add me
AFAIK it wasn't his JOB, and even if it was it is still illegal.
In the same way that the people working for CEOP and IWF could be arrested for viewing indecent material, the only reason they are not is because they have an arrangement with law enforcement that allows them to carry out their work. If he wanted to know how easy/hard it is to find that type of material he could have held a meeting with either of those organisations, that is if they had any staff available after last years 10 percent budget cut they had.
What point? That he hasn't "gone public"? Because that's what my post referred to, as indicated by what I quoted.
Politicians seek media attention. They have to to get a 'profile', to try to get re-elected. They make a conscious decision to be a public figure, as a requirement of the job. Advisors don't. They don't (with some exceptions) seek attention, or have any training in dealing with the media.
And, as the target of an active criminal investigation, he'd be an idiot to seek publicity, for at least rwo major reasons. First, risk of unintended legal consequences. Second, he'd open the media bottle and let a very nasty genie out.
There's no upside to him, guilty or innocent, to seeking out media and only a fool would, in his situation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
