New job
Wherever he goes to in a new job once he gets offers, best for all is if he'll be far away from the internet and the media, preferably in a secluded room with no outside access
CEOP chief accuses UK.gov of putting kids at risk
Britain's most senior anti-paedophile policeman, who resigned last week in a row with the Home Secretary over the future of his organisation, has told MPs he quit because a proposed new structure will put children at risk. Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), today appeared …
-
-
Sunday 17th October 2010 23:03 GMT Abolition
What did CEOP really do?
Most of his critics were hostile to child protection, and that enabled Mr. Gamble to escape practical scrutiny, I don't think any of his agencies, VGT, NCS, NCIS, CEOP ever developed a single case without another agency placing the matter before them. In the case of the NCIS, they were frequently disiinterested, Haut de la Garenne was referred to the NCIS where it was buried, @ that time the British didn't do careworkers, teachers etc. they had a blanket immunity from strategic policing. It could be argued, the primary role for CEOP was to avoid similar, for example, the DfES, the school system, was sitting on a list of names causing havoc around the world, and CEOP ignored the problems, despite the fact it was perhaps the line of intel it should have been pursuing without waiting for the FBI etc. In a sense, the Americans, RCMP had to do the policing of the school system for the British. Criminal after criminal detected by the FBI was a known commodity at the DfES.
-
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 14:11 GMT The Other Steve
Microsoft to love kiddy fiddlers ? I hardly think so.
Erm, I hardly think that MS is going to turn around and say "Actually, you know, we won't support your efforts to catch kiddy fiddlers and stem kiddy pr0n"
Because that would go down like a cup of cold sick. Imagine the acres of bile that would spew forth from all and sundry in the press.
And also, how is bagging offenders _not_ protecting the cheeldren ?
If the guy is stupid enough to believe this guff then good riddance to him.
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 14:24 GMT Harry
So, in what way ..
"we're continually focused on what's best for children and not fighting for airtime amongst drugs, counter-terrorism, organised crime, guns and gangs,"
He doesn't explain In what way drugs, terrorism, guns and gangs (or indeed, any other form of crime) are *GOOD* for children.
If you devote massive amounts of effort to one small subset of crime, and especially when you start taking actions against problems that aren't yet proven to exist using methodology that isn't actually proportionate to the scale of the problem, then resources are taken away from a lot of other much bigger and much more important problems which aren't being addressed simply because they're not being so much hyped about at the moment.
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 14:26 GMT The BigYin
What does he expect?
The ConDems are happy to see children live in poverty and to deny those who are have the ability, but not the liquidity, a university education.
Maybe if we dropped the ridiculous target of 50% getting degrees, dropped some of the absurd degrees and removed the stigma of "only" being a tradesman (plus gave "engineer" protected status like "doctor") we'd get somewhere.
Oh yeah, and maybe if we (when I say "we", I mean the various political pirates, er, parties) stopped letting multi-billion pound multi-national corporations avoid paying their fair share of tax, we would not be in the state we are in.
Coupled to that, actually regulating the financial sharks that destroyed the economy in the first place. Quite why bankers are getting bonuses again beats me.
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 15:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
It was the bankers wot dun it
Please stop trotting out Labour's line about the bankers being responsible for our situation. Other countries banks faltered and they're out of the recession now. The only reason the UK is still struggling is because we had 13 years of Labour blowing our cash on illegal wars, quangos, 5-a-day council officers, benefits, etc.
Plus Brown raided a huge amount of pension money and flogged off all our gold. He left nothing in the bank, it was all spent as soon as the taxman took it. So unlike other prudent countries like Germany or France we had no cash to fall back. That's the truth of this mess, and if the coalition is so determined to force children into poverty, why is the first cut they've announced only going to affect those on large salaries? Hardly the act of a right wing policy to leave the poor in the gutter is it? Or do you just vote for whatever is wearing the red rosette on election day?
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 15:46 GMT Tony S
@The BigYin
"ConDems are happy to see children live in poverty"
I have been to places in the world where children really do live in poverty. Having a pair of £70 trainers that are more than 3 months old is not poverty level. Having a 5 year old child get up at 6 in the morning to sweep a factory floor for 12-14 hours to earn enough money to buy a handful of rice is poverty level.
" ridiculous target of 50% getting degrees"
Who set the target? (BTW, I would agree with you over the status of trademan and use of titles such as engineer)
"stopped letting multi-billion pound multi-national corporations avoid paying their fair share of tax"
Who defines fair share? Most businesses do pay large amounts of tax, certainly more than individuals, but then the politicians spend it (and are STILL spending more than they receive). And don't forget, if these businesses pay more tax, they have to then pass that costs on to the purchaser - i.e in the end you will pay more.
"actually regulating the financial sharks that destroyed the economy in the first place"
It's really easy to make out a single group to blame for the world's problems - even if it is not the right one. Dare I point out that there are people in the past that used this tactic to great effect?
The financial industry are certainly not entirely innocent in causing the economic problems we are in - but they are not wholly to blame. The massive national debt that we face (and will have to pay off eventually) has been building over the last decade. It will have to be paid off at some stage - but probably it will take at least a couple of generations. Some legacy to leave your grandchildren.
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 16:04 GMT Velv
Multi-national
"stopped letting multi-billion pound multi-national corporations avoid paying their fair share of tax"
Multi-national - the clue is in the title. Most multi-nationals now reside under a flag of convenience. They balance their business transactions in each country (and therefore tax liabilities) against the benefits from being associated with that country. If the government pushes the tax too hard, the rich people and companies will leave, and we'll get nothing from them. Just look at how easy it is nowadays to run a business from (almost) anywhere in the world. Our call centres and IT support are in India FFS!
HSBC has previously hinted it would move to another base - remember it only came here when it bought Midland.
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 22:28 GMT Anton Ivanov
In order to tax you need something to tax in the first place
Banks could never be taxed. Ditto for corporations. They find their way and have always found their way ever since Philip The Fair tried to do to the Lombardians the same thing he did to the Knights Templar.
Thinking that you can tax them in todays world is unrealistic, they will simply move elsewhere.
This leaves manufacturing and R&D as the sole means of income either through direct taxation (on the products) or through indirect (on the salaries of the employed). Everything else has non-productive base. It is "moving things from the left pocket into the right pocket".
As far as these two are concerned the result of 12 years of labour is that there is nothing to tax left. Granted, as far as manufacturing they just finished off what Thatcher started. However as far as R&D they should carry the responsibility for the fact that there is next to none remaining.
UK used to have R&D. IBM had R&D here. Intel had R&D here. Sun had R&D here. Cisco had R&D here. Ericsson, Marconi, Nortel, MCI, you name it. Same for Biotech, same for Chemistry, same for other areas. All high tech stuff with dependencies which could all be taxed and drive the economy directly or indirectly.
Very few of that is here any more and there is little or nothing forthcoming to replace it. I have seen with my own eyes how all of these in my area closed down and moved to places which are _WAY_ more expensive than UK like Switherland or California and Quangos moved into their empty offices.
-
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 15:05 GMT adnim
Perhaps
a sane, stable and IT literate, human nature aware individual, if there is such a person, (abuse does skew ones perception) victim of child abuse should be leading such an organisation.
Most child abuse happens at home, parents "uncles" etc. and it is not always physical. Adults were abusing children before the Internet. We don't need to shield children from this. We need to educate them that not all adults put the welfare and interests of children first.
Some adults genuinely love children, some just want to fuck them. We need to educate children to recognise the difference. Yes I know it is difficult, it is very difficult. When are children mature enough to assimilate such information, generically there isn't an age, it is up to parents to be aware of when the time is right and to educate. Shielding them from human sexuality, pornography and trees shaped like dicks doesn't work and breeds ignorance.
It seems to me that protecting children from abuse is akin to protecting them from reality.
There is no cover all solution here.
-
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 23:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Don't go yet
Mr. Gamble can’t go quite yet. There is one more enquiry to face after the Operation ore group action appeal is heard next month. Men died and others were ruined as a result of this awful discredited witch-hunt where victims of identity theft were branded paedophiles. Someone may venture to ask Mr. Gamble how ruining men or making their children fatherless has helped the cause of child protection?
-
Tuesday 12th October 2010 23:34 GMT Graham Marsden
"I resigned...
"... because I could see the writing was on the wall and I was going to get the push anyway. So now I can sit here and say "Won't Someone Think of Me... erm... I mean The Children!" and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being "pro-paedo" because what they are doing is not what *I* say is "best for children" and after Operation Ore etc I should know!"
Go, go now and try not to let the door hit your arse on the way out!
-
Wednesday 13th October 2010 09:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
If he thinks his job is so important.
Then why did he apply for chief constable for Northern Ireland last year?
He's just throwing a tantrum because the government doesn't think he's as important as he thinks he is and jumped at the chance to get rid.
Gather up your toys and go, there's a good boy.
-
Wednesday 13th October 2010 13:29 GMT The Fuzzy Wotnot
GRUMBLEDOOK!
Whenever I see an article about CEOP's wondeful head, I always think of the Blackadder episode, The Witchsmeller Pursuivant, with the fantastic Frank Finlay.
"The accused will have his head placed on a block and an axe brought down on his neck, if the blade bounces off his neck, then he is Satan's bedfellow and we burn him. If however he is innocent, then the axe will simply slice his head off."
-
Wednesday 13th October 2010 16:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Let's not be too hasty...
...Having watched Mr Gamble's performance before the Home Affairs Select Committee I am starting to think perhaps Mr Gamble is already planning his return to the CEO-ship of CEOP well before his four month period of notice is served. His tone and demeanour, as well as more than few subtle hints all suggest that here is a man not about to go anywhere any time soon.
Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Committee, is a long-term Gamble fan; something worth bearing in mind while watching the proceedings - the two of them have history (Vaz was a champion of the fledgling CEOP under 'the good old days' of NuLabour's carefree largess - as far as a the paedogeddon goes, Vaz, like Gamble, is a paid up season ticket holder).
My money is on Gamble staying in post. I'd almost be prepared to wager on it. Almost.
See the proceedings here if you missed them (you'll have to jump about three quarters ahead to get to Mr Gamble's stony-faced appearance).
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6669
-
Thursday 14th October 2010 22:45 GMT John Smith 19
Remeber fat cats never go without cream for long.
I'd say the world will hear from him again, but it's *still* hearing from him now.
He'll find a nice little earner *somewhere*.
The people who kick started this with claims of CP being a *billion* dollar business deserve let's say a good talking too.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
