Direct Democracy proposal for Education
Pornography, erotica and rape to be defined within the sex education curriculum
Should the People's Administration install direct democracy, we propose to have the definitions of pornography, erotica and rape clearly defined and taught within the child sex education curriculum and, we intend to remove parental consent regarding children learning about these topics [as it has been regarding drugs education].
• Why don't children recognise when they are being abused?
• How is it that most rapists believe that all men rape?
• How is it that women believe that they can ask to be raped?
We believe that ultimately, the answer to these questions is because parents elect people who don't care to reform sex education to any meaningful degree. Doing so would entail fighting religious-oriented laws and with the UK being a theocracy [and NOT a representative democracy of any form], this would mean fighting Parliament, the House of Lords, and the Church of England [simultaneously] which only the PA is willing and able to do.
We believe that if children were made aware of the difference between the terms pornography and erotica and also, made aware about the true definition of rape [which is about the issue of sexual consent ONLY], that there would be an overall decline in female sexual abuse combined with a maturing of male sexual attitudes towards women and we say this because we believe that whilst children become more and more conditioned into perceiving pornography as 'normal' and mainstream, both young boys and girls become further desensitised to the effects of sexual abuse.
We strongly disagree with any scientific research that concludes that pornography isn't addictive or harmful because even if not addictive, we believe that regular exposure to pornographic material is extremely harmful but, more so for women than for the men who view it [women who view explicit material tend to view erotica where men generally tend to view pornography]. We do not believe that exposure to erotica has the same effects or implications as exposure to pornography and until scientists and the government get educated as to the difference between the two terms, we suggest that you take absolutely no notice of anything that either party has to say on this issue and instead, go with your instincts because in our opinion, any scientific reports that conclude that pornography isn't harmful will be written by men - thinking only of men.
Simply using server-based filters to block 'porn' will not change sexual attitudes or the reasons for how children become vulnerable and instead, will continue to leave them open to the conditioning that we believe leads to abuse because, children will find ways around filters [both legal and illegal porn sites will still be available on-line and accessible through alternative connections and media] and also because they will be blocked from access to sexual education resources, advice sites, or any site that mentions sexual terms in its text but that does not host sexually explicit content.
Is the government now also going to filter television programming in-line with its Internet policy or will this still be the responsibility of parents? Until the government itself learns of the difference between the two terms and adopts more complex and meaningful measures, anything served-up will be purely gestures.
More than half of women surveyed [independently] now believe that it is possible for a woman to be 'asking' to be raped and in our opinion, it is twisted, sexist, rapist-supporting law court judges [such as prominent colleague of David Cameron MP Eric Pickles] who have contributed the most towards this attitude-shift within women by allowing for 'mitigating circumstances' in rape cases. During one case, Eric Pickles actually told a woman and her 12-year old daughter who had both been raped by the same attacker, that they had asked for it because they were both wearing skirts. This man is a freely-elected so-called 'representative' of the Tory brand, a 'pillar' of the community and a man who supposedly stands for family values [unless you wear a skirt of course or do anything to assert your sexuality as a woman]. He is one of those many men who believes that a man is not responsible for his actions if he is influenced or provoked by someone else [even if by a 12-year old girl, which is very alarming when you consider that paedophiles also do not distinguish between an adult's and a child's expressions, often claiming that sexual interactions with children are okay if children ask for it]. Provocations, influences and actions expressed by others do not remove the ability of men to make independent choices [men blaming women for how they themselves freely choose to react and behave is not just an issue within Islam]. In our opinion, Eric Pickles is [at least in-principal] a rapist.
While demonstrating that rape is an issue of consent [a yes or no, black or white issue so, no blurred lines], the BBC's Is This Rape programme [2nd Nov. 2015] also showed that 24% of the programme's voters didn't agree that its dramatisation of rape, was actually rape. Therefore, the male portion of this vote were [at least in principal] rapists, while the female portion of this vote could be blameless but uneducated victims - students from the programme's study group actually commented about how "we need some kind of cultural shift."
In an open demonstration of support for paedophiles and child murderers, David Cameron uses UK tax payer's money to fund, train and equip the FSA in Syria [now part of ISIS] while they commit fatwa-enabled child rape against both Christian and Muslim Syrian children [a war crime]. The £5 M of public money that William Hague wasted on hosting his anti-rape in war summit in 2015 while in the knowledge that the FSA use this fatwa is the ultimate hypocrisy and in our opinion, co-host Angelina Jolie should have done her research before allowing herself to be duped and exploited by those who directly fund rape as a weapon of war in other people's countries.
Chrissie Hynde's pro-rape statement [30th Aug. 2015] confirms that many victims don't understand that rape is ONLY about consent and therefore, that our policy to educate young girls and boys about rape is an obvious no-brainer that should have become law decades ago.
If items of female clothing could ever force a man to rape a woman, the clothing would be on trial - not the man. If a woman being drunk could ever force a man to rape her, alcohol would be on trial - not the man. Regardless of any influence, men rape because they choose to and so it is their will to rape that must be addressed [NOT any influence] and what's more, rape is an issue of illness and NOT of religious-oriented ‘evil'.
While the onus is on young girls and women to defend themselves from the UK's culturally-inherent corrupt social and psycho-sexual attitudes, they will continue to be directly blamed for both paedophilia and for rape and, the perpetrators will be ever-more defended. As such, undiagnosed paedophiles [such as Katie Hopkins] will unwittingly expose themselves for all to see.
The word pornography is Greek and is defined specifically as being; 'The degradation of a woman through a sexual act'. Sexually explicit material that does not feature the degradation of a woman through a sexual act is not pornography and is erotica [another Greek term] - as is men performing sexual acts with other men [homoerotica] because, material featuring homosexual acts is not pornography unless it also features the degradation of a woman through a sexual act. Although pornography is of a degrading nature, this does not mean that it is not consented to by those involved but, degrading material that features consenting actors can actually be traumatic and violent [abuse and violence can be consented to].
If a young schoolboy's curiosities in sex and women are researched on-line, he will be learning from a false impression of women's sexuality because he will most likely be accessing pornographic sites [and possibly portals too], not erotica or sex education sites. We therefore believe he would be more likely to re-enact what he sees in such ways when with girls and, he may not even realise that he is being abusive if his exposure to on-line sex acts makes up the bulk of his sex 'education'.
If the re-enactment starts early and is therefore done with young girls, this then presents a second form of conditioning [along-side that of the pornographic sites themselves] that can potentially programme young girls to believe that abuse within a sexual context is acceptable and therefore, is not abuse - just as many women now think that rape is not abuse because it can be 'asked for'. If in the same circumstances, the same boy was instead exposed only to erotica, we believe that he would be less likely to be abusive towards women when older.
We are not advocating that exposure to erotica should be included in a child's sexual education but, we use this analogy to make the point that information about porn, erotica, and sexual attitudes should be included in every child's education - if the protection and the well-being of the child is ever to be paramount in reality. Even through the mainstream media, children are being encouraged more and more to become sexualised by Hip Pop puppets such as Jay-Z, Kanye West, Beyoncé Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, Robin Thicke. Incidentally, it is no 'coincidence' that ALL of these so-called 'artists' are openly sponsored and backed by the Rothschild and Rockefeller bank, gold and oil families who have plundered this planet's resources for their own gain and, with no regard for the consequences.
To make our point; the same images, videos and PR material that is aimed at children by these same Pop puppets is now appearing on adult porn sites and, not in niche celebrity sex sites. Robin Thicke's explicit video version to his pro-rape track Blurred Lines has been available in the public domain and accessible by children ever since its release and the mainstream-led sexualisation of children goes unnoticed by both children and parents and, child abuse is possible because children are miseducated [enhancing their vulnerability] and then exploited.
As well as publishing degrading sexual visual and audio content, legal pornographic sites also use language associated with such attitudes and so you will find such sites littered with terms such as 'slag, whore, bitch, ho, slapper' etc, where erotica sites will use no such terms. How many schoolgirls now regularly use these terms with each other - without it being a gesture of disrespect? We absolutely believe that the root cause for why such sexually degrading terms have become normalised is due to a lack of distinction between the definitions of pornography and erotica.
In May 2012, the mainstream media reported that in some UK cities, schoolgirls as young as eleven years 'expect' to have to 'go down' on rows of boys. We believe that this has happened because some legal pornographic sites contain content of this nature but, featuring consenting adults who are acting. However, adolescent schoolboys are not going to be able to re-enact what they see in such videos with assertive female porn stars. We believe that these young girls expect to have to partake in such acts because they have become conditioned to do so by adolescent boys who have been exposed to pornography [instead of erotica] and, by young girls accessing pornographic sites also - therefore exposing themselves to the same conditioning from the same legal pornographic sites that young boys are exposing themselves to. How else is any of this becoming normalised?
• Chief constable; "A real increase in abuse taking place, much of it facilitated by the internet."
• Children under 10 committing sex crimes
• School children in England are now among the world's unhappiest
• Girls wearing shorts underneath school skirts to prevent sexual harassment
• Commuters ignore plight of schoolgirl sexually harassed by man in front of her mother!
Two years after our policy proposal to teach children about pornography, erotica and rape was blocked by freely-elected 'problem solvers' in Parliament, it was disclosed that pupil-on-pupil sex attacks in UK schools had shot through the roof and, that on-line porn is the overriding influence.
These differences in content between the two types of sites also means that it is potentially very easy to develop filtration software that can filter-out pornographic sites while allowing erotica and other sexually-oriented sites [such as advice sites] but, whilst the mainstream media continue to blur the line between the terms porn and erotica [as they do with the terms justify and reason] to suit their own political agendas, we will not see this happen and so young women and children will continue to suffer in this way until the people take responsibility and vote for direct democracy.
Put simply, whether it's through corrupt religious-influenced family laws, inadequate advice given to parents and children by the state about sexually explicit material, a sex education system that doesn't go far enough in educating about sexual acts and attitudes and their legal, psychological and social implications or, through our freely-elected 'leaders' secretly giving away our children's private communications data to 3rd parties in other countries, the state refuses to protect our children.
• PA direct democracy comment: No regard for child welfare - Cameron's policies proliferate child abuse
• PA direct democracy comment: Cameron now Parliament's fixer - openly protects child abusing MPs
• PA direct democracy proposal: Protection of children against exposure to violent and/or sexual media
With all of the above taken into account, the only social justice and protection that UK children will ever get will be the justice that parents install themselves. If you want to protect your children, take full responsibility, do it yourself and do not trust the state because the state has other priorities and as for the police, it's a postcode lottery. South Yorkshire Police refused to prioritise child protection above social cohesion and through its inverted racism, over 1400 young girls [often multiple gang rape victims] who submitted hard evidence were intentionally ignored and left abandoned over a sixteen year period. Their boss [Shaun Wright] refused to resign immediately and as he was an elected commissioner, he couldn't be shifted by anyone [David Cameron blocked Zac Goldsmith's vote for Recall in Feb. 2014]. As of August 2014 and until he did resign a few weeks later, the UK was the first country in the world to be known for having an acknowledged proliferator of child abuse running a police force and with regards to cultural aspects, we feel that it is important to note that there was no public protest against him from any of his officers.
Since 2001, we have believed that the grooming and sexual abuse of underage non-Muslim girls committed by Muslim gangs in the UK is a form of religious-oriented extremism and, we believe that David Cameron choose to appease Islam instead of protecting young girls because he doesn't have the courage and mental capacity that is required to deal with this issue. Instead, he and other politicians continue to perceive and to sell this issue to voters as an issue of race [genetics], when it is clearly an issue of religion [philosophy] and so through this alone, politicians demonstrate that they are so out of their depth.
For many reasons, we believe that MI5 [specifically] would have informed David Cameron about this particular form of Islamic terrorism as soon as he took office in 2010 and, we believe that they were ignored about this.
The following information is the result of an intermittent and informal study of the same portals over a long period of time so as to observe the orientations, patterns, culture and proliferation of on-line pornography and its associated social effects. Alex Romane [PA founder] first came into direct contact with the sex industry in 1996 when working for an adult magazine and, all who have since contributed to this study firmly believe that those involved in pornography [from actors and abusers through to consumers] suffer from a depression-related illness to some degree.
Out of the two genres, it is mostly only pornographic sites and portals [often lawful] that are networked [however directly or indirectly] to sites and portals that host illegal and abusive sexual content. Even if lawful and with consenting adult actors, the nature of the degrading material hosted on lawful pornographic sites is often closely aligned with the nature of the material hosted on illegal sites [it often mimics it], and so this linkage is no coincidence.
In our belief, it is now highly likely that MOST teenage boys who explore pornographic portals [as opposed to erotica websites] have exposed themselves to content that features real rape attacks against women that were filmed specifically for publishing. We believe that through this, they are becoming desensitised to the effects and implications of rape and, all of this is brushed under the carpet by 'qualified' MP's - leaving parents and children unaware and ill-equipped.
We know that open rape threats were never made by boys towards girls pre-web and we believe that the ever-frequent open use of this threat has come-about as a result of boys regularly exposing and desensitising themselves to real rape and abuse videos published on the web. As a parent, if your child has ever been known to openly threaten such an act, it will likely be because he has been able to source real rape material [it is often shared for a 'laugh'].
Recent studies demonstrate that many boys and men are losing their empathic capacity and, that this loss is a specific result of over-exposure to violent films and games. They simply can't read the physically-visible signs of distress in others and so can not care for others appropriately and, most of them don't even realise this because the government has left parents and teachers ill-equipped. We believe that exposure to sexually abusive content is massively enhancing this empathic deficit within boys and men and, we believe that the desensitisation to rape and to its associated trauma will have terrible consequences for all of society but, especially for young girls and women.
It is porn portals that also link to bestiality, incest and child pornography and as such, we believe that children who have exposed themselves to both real and simulated rape material have also exposed themselves to bestiality, incest and child pornography. Simulated rape films where actresses compete to enact the most realistic rape trauma are so traumatic that it is only evident in interviews recorded at the end with the people involved, that it is actually simulated. Across all deviant categories [real or simulated], some videos feature lawful content for most of the duration but then further-in switch to unlawful material and this mimics how producers of Snuff films [pre-web films featuring real murder] attempted to hide their films by editing them into the end of a video that featured lawful content. Material of this nature is easy to access with portals [particularly] becoming saturated with abusive and unlawful content.
Regarding child pornography and paedophilia, we believe that mainstream psychology and Parliament is out of touch with the latest research from other countries that demonstrates how people who download sexualised imagery of children are not necessarily paedophiles and, that the roots of their behaviour may actually be oriented in depression and/or other psychological disorders [as mentioned above]. If material of this nature is viewed by children, we suspect that the motivation will be mostly oriented in curiosity, and not motivated by illness or by paedophilic-related issues.
By its clinical definition, paedophilia is about believing that it is acceptable to engage sexually with children and as all humans express their true beliefs through their actions, a person who may expose themselves to sexualised images of children may not necessarily be a person who engages or seeks to engage in sexual activity with children. They may or may not be a threat to children but in our opinion, they will need assessment and appropriate treatment for any related psychological conditions because even if not paedophilic, just wanting to view such material denotes illness of some kind.
We are aware that our view about this runs contrary to current media-influenced public opinion but, we are also aware that denying a dark and complex reality in favour of adopting simplistic, comfortable and populist measures will achieve nothing other than the further proliferation of child sexual abuse.
We understand that humans naturally turn away from such issues but, we also understand how neglect of such issues simply leaves children vulnerable. If we are to create a responsible and caring culture, then the darker aspects of human nature and illness must be explored so that they can be understood and addressed for what they truly are.
In alignment with this philosophy, we believe that Parliament needs to amend related laws so as to address suspects and their actions more accurately. For example; when someone downloads an image, they are not 'making' an image and are instead reproducing an image. The word 'making' suggests that the downloader is the creator and originator of the image but this is not technically accurate and through this, Parliament therefore demonstrates inappropriate and inaccurate thinking [a misalignment with the reality].
We also believe that Parliament's assumption that a person who downloads/reproduces sexualised imagery of children is by default a paedophile is inaccurate [and therefore inappropriate]. We believe that Parliament's failure to acknowledge this actually leaves children vulnerable to abuse because while it continues to punish people who may be suffering from depression [for example] as paedophiles, other people who may themselves recognise that they have an illness and who have no desire to engage sexually with children will remain silent, unable to seek help, and isolated. In our belief, this would leave them vulnerable to becoming more ill and then in-turn to potentially becoming dangerous at some future point. To summarise, we are inadvertently creating paedophiles out of people who are not.
It is too easy and too popular to simply condemn such people as 'evil' and to "lock them up and throw away the key!". It enables us to deny the issue and therefore to avoid the darkness and as humans it is our nature to react like this but, it is NOT helping to protect children [it is mass social neglect].
There is also the issue of context. Many people who have downloaded sexualised images of children and who have been convicted of paedophilia for doing so have downloaded images and/or videos that are comparable to the imagery in hundreds of thousands of YouTube videos. By Parliament refusing to acknowledge this, the situation has now arisen where the sexualisation of children is acceptable in a certain context [for example; on YouTube] but not if from another source. What is Parliament's argument for allowing the publishing of images on YouTube that are no different to those that they convict paedophiles by?
By continually rejecting true democracy and by empowering theocracy, the UK people and their elected politicians have now allowed for Islamic Sharia Law to be ran along-side Judaic Law. This means that within UK Law, Islam and its prophet are now revered but, there are multiple conflicts - one being that according to various derivatives of the Qur'an, forty two year-old Mohammed chose his wife [Aisha] when she was just six years-old.
Hypothetically; if Mohammed had done this now and in the UK, then in accordance with current UK Law and despite Mohammed never expressing any sexual desires or sentiments towards Aisha until she was an adult, Mohammed could have been arrested for paedophilia. If we were Mohammed's lawyers, we would have argued that while Mohammed had demonstrated an illness of some kind that did need to be addressed, that he had NOT actually practiced paedophilia [child abuse]. However and in accordance with the current 'principals' of UK Law in this area, we would lose our case and Mohammed would go to jail as a paedophile.
Imagine if Mohammed had known himself that he was ill and, imagine if he had wanted help. Do you really think that he would have asked for it if he knew that he'd be judged, locked-up, and persecuted as an actual child abuser? If parents really believe that their children are safer when men like this are abandoned by society OR locked-up as paedophiles, then they are deluded. Parents are unwilling to put their children's welfare above their own out-dated, religious-oriented judgements of others and of 'evil' [and of course - regularly emphasised by their freely-elected pandering politicians] and so, expect rates of child abuse to increase over-time, not decrease.
To summarise; viewing imagery that features the sexualisation of children is not in itself a sexual act, and so should not be judged lawfully in the context of being a sexual act. In viewing such imagery, while the viewer has demonstrated a degree of illness, the viewer has not demonstrated the belief that it is acceptable to engage sexually with children, and has not done so through such an act. The overriding point we make is that MPs don't understand the nature of what they're dealing with but that at the same time, they choose to remain in denial [it is of a dark and complex nature]. However, they are this country's elected guardians and if the are consciously refusing to do their job [for whatever reason], then they need to be removed and replaced with true democracy and rule of the people as soon as possible. With MPs in denial, their laws and sentences remain inappropriate and so they are consciously failing to protect children from abuse and we believe that the fact that the UK still has a CRB system that clears abusers while alienating the best child care workers is further proof of our point. We believe that to make appropriate decisions, MPs and parents need to at least be aware of all of the information on this page - as a minimum.
While we acknowledge that victims are being re-abused indirectly through the publishing, sharing and downloading of abusive material that details their abuse, we do not accept that the downloader has committed sexual abuse directly. As such, we simply suggest that if people who do this are going to be criminalised for such behaviour, then they should be sentenced and rehabilitated in accordance with what they have actually done. To put it bluntly; Such people have downloaded abusive and unlawful material, but have not actually raped a child or committed any directly abusive act that actually involves a child.
"Throughout my life, I have seen and questioned the nature of humanities darkest aspects because I have seen how basic human nature generally neglects these aspects and, that this is natural. However, I have also seen how the result of such accumulative neglect enables for a continuation of our worst and most negative behaviours and I therefore believe that at some point, humans must choose to face these aspects so as to better understand them [the religious notion of 'evil' has helped human evolution to no degree whatsoever]. If we don't learn to understand paedophilia for what it truly is and if we continue to label it as 'evil' and to just move on, then it will always be a misunderstood feature of human nature and as such, children will continue to suffer."
- Alex Romane
We believe that abusive content is spreading to legal portals and to other categories outside of those created specifically for abusive content [simulated or real] and, we believe that this is only happening on porn sites/portals and not on erotica sites/portals and, we believe that prostitution films [that feature real prostitutes] also feature forced sex acts with prostitutes.
Abusive content is spreading from portal to portal and is appearing in non-abusive categories and although it is difficult to see the overall picture, we do not believe that the spread of abusive content is in reaction to demand but, that it is driven by file sharers and, we believe that such people wanting to increase the exposure of such material to audiences that do not wish to see them is reflective of just how ill [not 'evil'] these people actually are.
Another aspect that increases the proliferation of abusive material occurs through the manual cross-referencing by uploaders of videos across multiple categories within a portal. For example; a video featuring an Asian woman in lingerie and high heels whipping a man and then having sex with him while he is strapped to an office table, could appear in categories that specialise in Asian women, couples, lingerie, high heels, BDSM and office environments. This means that if someone was searching only for content that was oriented in showing a woman having sex in high heels, they will also be exposed to BDSM [for example]. Many portals host Report buttons and while this may indicate an attempt by its owners to keep a website lawful, its success depends upon visitors informing them of unlawful content [just as with other types of social networks].
To summarise; porn portals that were once lawful are becoming unlawful [regardless of the intentions of the owners], while erotica sites remain largely unaffected and, repeat visits using a browser with a cleared cache [or with cookies blocked] confirms that IP addresses [instead of cookies] are being used by porn portals so as to try to match content to specific visitor's 'interests'. Lawful pornographic sites are now sometimes also linked [however directly or indirectly] to sites and portals that feature illegal content. Lawful pornographic portals [automated public upload databases that mimic the architecture of social network sites such as YouTube etc] are being taken over by both organised criminal gangs and individuals who publish abusive material into categories within lawful portals and although these people may not themselves be directly involved with producing sexually abusive material, they are re-exploiting victims of sexual abuse again for their own financial gain and so, this is still sexual abuse.
We believe that the patterns and behaviours [the culture] of porn portals described above are set to continue and that without Inet Protect, abusive material will continue to proliferate. Your freely-elected governments [of either brand] are completely out of their depth and for political reasons only, they remain unwilling to interact with successful strategy architects with a proven track record such as ourselves - even if endorsed by agencies such as the FBI. However, being that David Cameron blocked Inet Protect and that the PA operates under a mainstream media blackout and, that we are boycotting the investigation into establishment-led child abuse cover-ups by publishing our evidence into the public domain instead of submitting it to the investigation, we would welcome the opportunity to explain in any legal forum, why we believe that Inet Protect would prevent absolutely everything that we've written about and, about why no Western government wants to prevent on-line sex and terror abuse.
We reiterate; content featuring simulated abuse on legal porn portals can be so strong, that exposure to it would be just as traumatic and as disturbing as exposure to genuine abuse. More and more, it is these legal porn portals that host consensual but traumatic simulated content as well as unlawful content and, we believe that exposure to such content promotes decensitisation [and an associated loss of empathic skills] to abuse, and/or incitement and encouragement to abuse and, neither are positive. The negative social impact these portals affect, has been so neglected by global authorities and their agencies that they have actually been able to develop their own culture - the Asian/Japanese categories on many legal porn portals may as well be labelled as Gang Rape [simulated or not]. In our belief, most of this material is Japanese-oriented because the Japanese are still grappling with letting-go of their culturally-inherent sexualisation of schoolgirls [their freely-elected parliament openly refused to criminalise the downloading of child porn until 2015] and, much of this content features Asian/Japanese schoolgirls [even if still of the legal sexual age of consent].
Being that 'Rape Porn' and gang rape graphology has been propagated mostly by the Japanese and, being that family honour and shame were central components of this culture even before the web was invented [with most young rape victims committing suicide so as to protect their family's reputation], we believe that many [if not most] victims of these films may have committed suicide [especially if they were aware that they were being filmed while being attacked] and, this aspect is not acknowledged by anyone. Put simply; those who watch such videos are literally watching murder and, we can not emphasise strongly enough how the longer children are left vulnerable via a lack of appropriate education, the more likely they are to become exposed to abusive material that is constantly getting easier and faster to access. For decades, Japan maintained the highest ratio of female teenage suicides and with the addition of rape victims now being filmed specifically for the web, the rate can only increase further.
In a recent sample [mid-2016], videos featuring what we believe to be real and not simulated gang rape were accessible within three sites of navigating away from a legal porn portal and, most videos were uncensored and were filmed and published in high definition and this is contrary to the traditional low-resolution, high-grain censored material of this nature. Meta data within video files themselves sometimes reveals more information than is visible and generally, we have observed that marketing components are respected and adhered to by pornographic and real abuse publishers to the same extent that they are respected by businesses in other industries. On-line abuse is now a well-established, well-practiced sector within the porn industry and, all involved perceive that they have a competitive product that is to be exposed not just to what could be considered to be their 'market', but to anyone. We believe that in alignment with this, that HD has now become the new standard for abusive material and due to faster consumer bandwidths, that older videos are now also being republished in their original [uncompressed] high quality formats.
Another new aspect is that some abusers are no longer censoring themselves [they are identifiable] and this demonstrates the presence of a new psychological aspect and although we do not understand why they are doing this, logic would suggest that it could be an attempt to try to feign that all parties involved have consented. Although complex, we believe that this may be the motive because when caught, gang rapists traditionally state that their victims have consented to group sex and the victims then have to work to establish that this was not the case. If the abusers have not censored themselves, they could then potentially argue that this was because they had no motive to censor themselves - making the case much more difficult for the victim to establish. In some of what we have observed, we simply do not believe that the women involved had consented.
We encourage you to view some of the many video accounts published on-line by victims of rape because although rape is primarily about power, it has many complex and far-reaching implications. Whilst many of these implications will be obvious to most, we believe that men [particularly] would benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of the pain and the damage that this form of violence causes and as mentioned above, we believe that many victims become pushed into suicide [which is therefore murder].
"It should be of concern to voters that a music producer who dabbles in security technology has a pattern of being years ahead of Western intelligence agencies; the submission of the FBI's Operation Ore in 2001, notice of mobile device bombs on planes that need only be powerful enough to blast out a window in 2003, creation of Inet Protect in 2013 and, promoting the security benefits of closed circuit technology in 2016. In a true democracy, the public vote would have decided upon implementing my strategies but like sheep expecting the wolves to protect them, voters prefer that unqualified MPs with hidden agendas decide for them instead. As such, voters themselves are compromising their own children's security and future prosperity because at its heart, this is actually an issue of mass parental neglect."
- Alex Romane [PA founder]
Criminal gangs involved in the sex trade originated mostly from Russia, Japan and China [originally just Triad mafia-types in the mid 1990's] but over recent years, they have also been joined by gangs from Eastern Europe but, the Eastern European gangs have since integrated their human trafficking and sex trade 'businesses' with their internet strategies and as the global competition between them intensifies, their strategies become more expansive and more abusive so, if you end up losing a copy of your hard drive and then being blackmailed for it by one of these gangs, it will be entirely of your own asking - even if you started by surfing on a legal pornographic site/portal.
Now that you are armed with all of this information, you can use it to protect yourself and your family. If the state had a genuine interest in doing this, you would already have been made aware of all of the information on this page and, the definition of the terms pornography, erotica and rape would already have been part of the education system [this web page wouldn't exist] and, when Jim Gamble was running CEOP and requesting additional personnel so as to pursue downloaders and file sharers of unlawful material, he would have been given them [CEOP has since been absorbed into the NCA and in our opinion, it has since been severely crippled].
PA direct democracy video: CEOP's Jim Gamble states truth of Cameron's web filter child abuse PR stunt
PA direct democracy video: CEOP's Jim Gamble gives wake-up call to Cameron over on-line child abuse
PA direct democracy video: Cameron's web filter 'technology' stopped working in 1995
It is estimated that 75% of UK children under 13 and 75% of US children under 8 now have social network accounts.
When so many parents endanger themselves and their entire family by publishing their real name and location on their social network sites [making their address easily traceable through on-line directories], it is obvious that many parents remain clueless about on-line security - why else do so many children also publish their real name and location and sometimes, even nude images of themselves? Why have so many parents missed this and why do the police, intelligence agencies and governments [globally] refuse to inform them about it?
GCHQ's attempt at on-line child protection is distributed in the form of an app and as well as not being produced and released until over a year after David Cameron blocked Inet Protect, it's purpose is to teach children how to encrypt their personal data - which is absolutely bizarre when you consider the immediate and far more dangerous threats [as Inet Protect does]. There is no safety advice and it fails to prevent bullying, abuse and blackmail and while David Cameron forces intelligence operatives to break the law and while he leases GCHQ to the NSA, we could never recommend downloading anything from any government website [if Angry Birds didn't wake you up, nothing will].
• Tech Insider omits info re; 100% intrusion block [closed circuit] protocol
• Google's token 'safety' advice is just as void as GCHQ's app
• Google's 'solution' is an admission of complete failure - ISIS can't be forced off Open Web
"Google can't even cross-check an IP address so as to verify whether a user has already signed its search engine Terms and Conditions or not and, this is why users have to continually agree to them."
- Alex Romane [PA founder]
• General Navigation
For example; a link labelled "Hot Food" [or an image featuring hot food] could actually take you to a page about cold food, cats, dogs, frogs or to any other subject that the programmer chooses and, even though you can usually see the link path preview by hovering over the link before you click [depending upon your browser settings], this is no guarantee of what actual content you will be exposed to after clicking. In truth, it is only when users land at the target page that they know for sure what they will be exposed to. Many links within legal sites are also hidden as part of the page background so, we fail to understand why the police still reiterate this statement.
In 2015 and in response to the hack against TalkTalk [its 3rd attack in less than a year due to its refusal to use basic encryption protocols], former Metropolitan Police cyber crime 'expert' Adrian Culley said that TalkTalk was "critical to UK communications." and that this was why the attack was considered a "threat to national security." but, this statement again demonstrates a continuation of the police's incompetence because, it is actually only Virgin and BT that are critical to UK telecomms. This is because TalkTalk and ALL other independent UK telecomms companies [except Virgin] use BT's backbone, exchanges and cables because it is BT that own the exchanges and cables and that was forced to open-up its technology to independent telecomms companies when the telecomms industry was deregulated in 1996. Independents can NOT lay cables and It is amazing that in 2015, the former top cyber crime man at the Met had NO knowledge or understanding of the UK's basic telecomms infrastructure.
We acknowledge that children are accessing pornography regardless of their parent's wishes and of David Cameron's useless web filter gimmicks so, please consider using the simple steps listed below to protect yourself and your children from being at risk of inadvertently breaking the law by clicking misleading links and, from being at risk of exposure to material that could cause you and your children serious [and maybe irreversible] emotional and mental distress:
1. If looking for sexually explicit material on-line, stay away even from legal pornographic sites [especially portals] and instead visit only legal erotica sites because, avoiding even legal pornographic sites will seriously reduce any potential for stumbling into illegal and harmful networks [of any nature]. Even if you reach an illegal site by accident and click away from it immediately, your initial visit will have benefited the people behind it in some way [even if just by giving them the ability to add your visit to their statistics] so, why take any risk?
2. Check a link's target by hovering over it before you click and you will usually be shown [depending upon your browser settings] the full URL path for the target site. From this, you will know if you are about to visit another [internal] page from the same site or, if you're going to be taken to a separate [external] site. If external, you will see a different domain name in the URL path preview and, as well as being able to determine whether it is an internal or external link, you may also get an idea about the nature of an external site before you click by seeing what the site's domain name and sub-domains are called.
3. Do not assume that anything you find through using a search engine is automatically legally sanctioned - it isn't.
• Social Network sites
1. Do NOT publish your real name and area on your social network sites - you are endangering your entire family. If you completed the census on behalf of your family, your full names, ages, address and land line phone numbers are publicly available to the whole world on many directories [not just 192] and even worse, David Cameron out-sourced the collection of your family's census data in 2011 to US arms manufacturer Lockheed which by law then automatically makes all of your family's info directly available to the US government itself [while the UK government gets no data regarding families in the US. Even if you split your real name and area information across separate social network sites, this information can easily be aggregated and reassembled by anyone.
2. In some cases, only TWO bits of real information [name, area, age, workplace, school etc] from the total of all of your social network sites are needed for anyone anywhere in the world to track your address [even just by using Google, Yahoo etc].
3. Do NOT use location detectors when you blog - this enables non-followers on various social networks to learn of your routine journeys and locations.
4. When publishing information about 3rd parties [individuals or organisations], publish only what you know to be true [and can therefore prove to be true] or, you can publish information that you can't prove to be true ONLY if you believe it to be true and believe that publishing this information is in the public interest [in this scenario, you must be able to show how and why you believe any information to be true and to be of public interest]. As an unbroken rule and regardless of what anyone at the PA actually knows about any topic we publish, we only publish information that is potentially detrimental to 3rd parties if we can prove it to be true. Anything else is published as a question or an opinion.
5. If you are under 18 years of age and you publish nude images of yourself, you automatically make yourself substantially more vulnerable by inadvertently revealing that no one is looking-out for you because as well as the dangers of being overtly sexually expressive as a minor, producing and publishing such material is also illegal.
If just the basic concept of uploading data from your hard drive in your house to a web server outside of it doesn't scare you, wake up! By default, most commercial clouds [if not all] have hook-ups with 3rd parties that let them browse cloud data so as to exploit your information in ways that benefit them. For example; the architecture of BT's cloud back-up service automatically enables direct back bone access to QCHQ, the NSA [and other foreign-based intelligence agencies], as well as a whole host of advertising agencies.
On your local drives, you are responsible for your security and if you are willing to hand this responsibility over to any external commercial party [especially if BT, Virgin, AoL, Yahoo, Facebook, MSN, Google or Apple], you'll be literally asking for any trouble you may get. We put particular emphasis on AoL clouds though [due to their unsanctioned collection and publishing of customer data in 2006 and, their prior unlawful infringements of AoL users' systems via the secret installation of SpyWare and MalWare]. In addition to this, clouds are much easier to hack than terminals and most of the companies running them do NOT specialise in security so, save yourself from any nightmares simply by storing data on USB memory sticks or on other drives that you own and control and, do NOT connect them to ANY network [internal or external].
• PA direct democracy proposal: MENSA IQ testing to be modified
• PA direct democracy proposal: Environmental Studies to be redefined
• PA direct democracy proposal: Foreign languages to be taught from the age of four
• PA direct democracy proposal: Learning systems and memory-recall techniques to be taught
• PA direct democracy proposal: Abolition of all faith schools
• PA direct democracy proposal: Revamp of anti-drug use/abuse campaigns
• PA direct democracy proposal: Tesla concepts to be made public
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
This is not a protest campaign.
In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK is signed-up to], the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog is a UN-sanctioned and legally recognised voting format for UK reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.
Vote legitimately for a peaceful and structured UK reform to direct democracy now simply by following the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog and when numbers reach a point of critical mass, we'll do the rest.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols for implementing direct democracy have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration DOES NOT have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now by following @self_rule