[url=http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/platell-in-trouble.htmlIt seems that Dally's favourite newspaper[/url has been caught out confessing, quite openly, to looking for pictures and videos of the abuse of children (child 'porn' as it is sometimes called) in the name of a shabby online article.

Apparently it didn't cross minds at the [iMail[/i that you cannot simply decide to 'research' illegal images and, because you're doing it for publication in this manner, it suddenly becomes legal.

Perhaps best, it later added a note to readers at the bottom of, warning them not to look up such images – because they're illegal.

Do Dacre and his merry band consider themselves above the law?

The police have been informed. The excuses should be fun.

I saw that article yesterday and thought it was disgraceful.

PS It seems to me that their online offering does not have normal journalistic controls. They regulary write nonsense and make basic errors which usually get corrected when people make sarcastic comments. I guess tis may be a serious example? Let's hope heads roll.

There's a certain irony in that the Mail online also publishes pictures of underage girls, with inappropriate copy that, in effect, sexualises them.

One of the interesting questions will be just who commissioned/authorised this piece and the 'research' that went with it.

Someone somewhere else has already pointed out that, given that a search of the Mail itself for 'Pete Townsend' produces over 80 results, in connection with his case of 'research', including a recent one, you'd think that the [iMail[/i understood the law on this.

Don't now if you saw the article. I only flicked through it but it gave examples of search terms that apparently yield awful results. Now you would have thought that a responsible journalist might have thought that people may check it out. If even one of those became a child molester as a result then they could be considered partly responsible. To me it was shocking. If they wanted to campaign they could easily lobby government with their contacts, contact the police if they thought there was good reason to, etc, etc. But no, they chose the gutter. I seriously hope the authorities take this further.

They HAVE to sell newspapers, or advertising, advertisers only pay to advertise in high circulation newspapers or web sites with big hits and re-visits.

Its all that matters, to them, anything else is irrelevant and the politicians go along with it for the sake of a gentle ride.

Maybe alot of advertisers will not wish to be associated with such stuff?

They've been happy to be associated to date to a web site that promotes the sexualisation of female children to other females, or promotes unhealthy and often unobtainable body obsessions to females, if it wasn't a national daily newspaper it would have been condemned by other news media a long time ago.

You would have thought a decent journalist could at least get the thread title correct?

'Until' or 'unto'?

You do know Minty has a partner don't you Peg?
You may have to restrict your amorous feelings for more eligible females on here.

Amorous, moi? When was that?

Mail online at it again. It had a piece about Jennifer Lopez on Britain's Got Talent this morning, basically fawning over her flashing herself. As comments were mainly against such a thing on a "family" show they are now enraged but still showing the pictures including a video of her "crotch".

So they're entirely comfortable publishing photographs of the pre-pubescent daughters of celebrities in swimwear but get an attack of the vapours when a grown woman flashes her drawers?

Ever thought about desisting from visiting that odious site?
No-one links to it in this forum more than you.
A less generous person than I might suggest you can't resist a bit of of grubby smut dressed up as outrage.