Rocco: Not Safe for Home

Welcome to Britain in the year 2013. A land covered in persistent stains, soggy tissues and stiff socks. Each morning newsagents, supermarkets and petrol stations are clogged with millions upon millions of men furiously stroking themselves to fiery completion over Page 3 “hotties”. Libraries and internet cafes are packed to the rafters with pale men knocking one out to videos of lesbians vomiting into each others’ mouths. Walk down any street in any town, village or hamlet – nowhere are you safe from the threat of some random stranger spaffing on your suit or in your hair thanks to the grim ‘advances’ of modern day mobile phone technology.

Our economy is grinding itself to a halt as office workers spend more time tossing than typing: 60 billion man-hours have been lost to fapping since February. Women are guilty, too. The rise of so-called “mummy porn” has led to an 85,000% increase of frigging in public places: bookshops have become virtual no-go areas for those repulsed by the sight of scores of ladies shamelessly flicking their beans in unison. In September three femmes d’un certain age fingered themselves into comas after watching a Diet Coke advert.

And the shocking effect our addiction to this tidal wave of filth is having on our nation’s health is far from a small one. In Broken Britain broken wrists are up tenfold; broken cocks up by a quarter year on year. Accident and Emergency departments up and down the country are being overwhelmed by patients seeking treatment for other people’s red hot spunk getting in their eyes. Already this year there have been over 5 million OAP’s hospitalised for broken hips caused by slipping on jizz.

 

And tragically, an average of two thousand men a week – young and old –  literally wank themselves to death. Our country is on it’s knees. But who can we blame? Ourselves? No, it’s more complicated than that particular all-too-easy answer.  The real culprit is ‘Porn Culture’. Well, I say enough is enough, ‘Porn Culture’! We’re going to free ourselves from your vice-like grip! GB stands for Great Britain, not Guro Bukkake. Something must be done!

 

Thank fucking fuck for David Cameron, then! Him and his gang are gonna sort all this fucking bullshit out for us come next January. So concerned are him and his gang that us bunch of fucking twats are wanking too much, they’re gonna clean up the  internet. The entire fucking thing! Sounds like a right fucking ball-ache, if you ask me. But if anyone can do it, Cameron and his gang can, because the State is fucking brilliant, and anyone who doubts the State is a great big dirty sweaty fucking cunt!

Alright, that’s enough of that.

“You’re always only a few clicks away from something you shouldn’t see.”  So says David Cameron. This is a truly astonishing statement. But it’s not astonishing that a politician thinks there are things “ordinary, hardworking people” shouldn’t see, obviously. This is commonplace. No, the statement becomes astonishing when one considers that Cameron is including himself in the “you”: he will be ‘opting out’ of internet “filth” come next January. So, though we might be  initially tempted to label this “nanny statism”, we would be gravely mistaken. Cameron is not the nanny, here – he is the child. Our elected Prime Minister, the man who “runs the country” in the quaint phrase, trusts himself  when left alone with an internet connection to such a measly extent, that he has taken the extraordinary measure of passing legislation that forces his internet provider to force him to make a decision on whether he is allowed to watch pornography. And so timid is he in the face of his animalistic desires, that he has – in front of the entire nation – committed himself in advance to saying “no” to filth when the question is asked. He is so weak willed in other words, that only if the entire British Press, along with the entire British Public, keep an eye on him will he be able to control himself. He is like a recovering alcoholic who needs a support group around him constantly lest he give in to temptation. Only his support group is the entire country, and everyone must undergo the same torments as him. If Cameron can’t be trusted to browse the web “safely”, then neither can you. If Cameron must have a difficult conversation with his wife, then so must you have a difficult conversation with your wife or husband. Cameron can not bear to bear his burden alone.  Fortunately, since he is in charge, he doesn’t have to.

What about the ‘child porn block’ that Cameron and his gang have pressured Microsoft and Google to introduce? Of course, it’s not a complete block – child porn will still be out there – but it might be a bit harder to find. That is, paedophiles won’t be able to find child porn by, eg, googling “child porn”.  Although, you have to wonder how many paedophiles are so unabashed as to actually type “child porn”, or “kids being raped” into a regular search engine. If I had to guess, I’d bet the answer is close to zero. As it happens, child abuse experts think so, too: they tell us paedophiles use the “deep web” to view child porn, rather than going through Google or whatever. But anyway, thirteen thousand words “linked” to child abuse will produce no search results. Thirteen thousand. Now, does thirteen thousand strike you as being rather alot of words, readers? It does me: to get those opening paragraphs as fruity as they are, I had to actively search out synonyms for perfectly legal activities. For comparisons’ sake, the average length of the articles I write for Bogpaper is somewhere around 1,500 words. And while reading eight of my articles is unquestionably an un-alloyed joy for all involved, reading a similar amount, only composed of nothing but words  to do with child abuse might be a bit, shall we say, gruelling.

In fact, call me paranoid, but I’d go so far as to say that thirteen thousand is a suspiciously large number of words “linked” to child abuse. Are there even that many English words “linked” to consensual sexual activity between adults? But, if Cameron and his gang say there are thirteen thousand words that are “linked” to child abuse, and must henceforth be scrubbed out of existence, then that must be true. Why would they say there were if there weren’t? Incidentally, readers, I’m told some internet providers already have similar policies in place with regard to searches related to suicide, gambling, extremism, etc. An accidental consequence of this being that a good number of perfectly legal and harmless political sites are made unavailable: Vodaphone mobile broadband customers cannot access political blogs if they’re tagged as “pro-smoking”, for instance. But I’m sure nothing like this will happen when the ‘child porn block’ comes in. And I’m doubly sure that Cameron and his gang aren’t introducing a list of thirteen thousand words that will produce no search results on the basis that it will have precisely that effect.

But for the sake of argument, lets imagine that in the future a gang gets elected that aren’t as concerned with safeguarding freedom as Cameron and his gang are. Wouldn’t they find it incredibly handy to have systems in place whereby they could marginalise, or even eliminate altogether, certain websites, blogs – ideas, in other words –  that ran counter to their own way of thinking? Or, rather, their preferred way of ruling. You know, systems that would allow them to efficiently censor dangerous opinions and harmful ideas? Naturally which ideas were classed as unacceptable would be decided by the ruling gang. Which means ideas that were unacceptable to the ruling gang, and ‘dangerous’ or ‘harmful’ to the gang’s continued rule. And – to continue with our imaginary scenario – to de-fang opposition to such tyrannical behaviour, I’d imagine these decisions would probably be justified on the basis of protecting some vulnerable group. You know, on the basis of an issue no decent person would dream of publicly opposing. Something that screams: “This is the right thing to do”.

Something like tackling child abuse, perhaps.

10 comments on “Rocco: Not Safe for Home

  1. Talwin
    November 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

    13,000 words linked to child to child abuse!!?? Bugger me (that must be one), the quickest scan of t’internet gives figures for the average number of words used by an english speaking, college educated, person.

    One figure, for example, is 10,000; another is 17,000. I doubt anyone could give enough of a toss to argue with these, so if you take an average, handily about 13,000, that means every word in common use can be linked to child abuse.

    So that’s it, then; every word in use will block kiddie porn.

    Or not.

  2. Rocco
    November 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    CORRECTION

    The figure of 13,000 is not for blocked search terms, but for terms that may, or may not, lead to child porn. These terms will flash, warning users that they may bring up illegal images.

    The figure for terms “unambiguously” related to child porn, and which will be blocked, is 100,000 (one hundred thousand).

  3. Simon Roberts
    November 25, 2013 at 4:38 pm #

    I understand that there are approximately 15,000-20,000 words in the vocabulary of an average person.

    Labeling 13,000 of these as “suspect” gets my antenna twitching. You can bet your life that they are being logged in a database somewhere.

    Sounds like just another excuse to monitor and control what we read and look at.

  4. concretebunker
    November 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm #

    Rocco -spot on. This is just the start. A policeman I know well had been instructed to arrest a local for flying the union jack. Someone local was ‘offended by the sight’. What was the crime? Breach of the peace for which he received a caution!

    • Rocco
      November 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

      Thank you.

  5. shorelark
    November 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    Re your concluding remarks, a couple of years ago I found that my local library internet access had a “safe” filter that blocked climate sceptic websites.

    I fear your fears are being expressed a little too late.

    • Rocco
      November 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

      Cut me some slack, dude! I wasn’t writing for Bogpaper back then. 😉

  6. silverminer
    November 27, 2013 at 11:36 am #

    Thin end of the wedge for full internet censorship. If he was really after paedophiles (not sure if I’ve spelt this correctly but I daren’t Google it lest I’m arrested on suspicion of being one) he would start with his own benches in the House of Commons.

  7. duncanpt
    December 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    Rocco’s conclusion does sound likely. A good reason to opt out of the filter now while it only exposes you as liking a bit of porn. Then with a bit of luck you’ll still be opted out when they add “freedom”, “libertarian” and “sceptic” to the list.

    • Rocco
      December 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

      Thanks, man. (Although, I don’t claim any originality for my conclusion.)

      Did you see that less than a week after the child porn block was announced, the government said it was going to be getting internet providers to block “extremist” content on the same model? But I’m sure it’ll all be fine. Like the saying goes “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: