"unimaginable sexual depravity"

Well, Dacre P has clearly either gone through life with his eyelids welded shut and his ears stopped with wax¹ or is a screaming hypocrite for not being able to imagine a little bit of what 'charmingly' used to be called 'le vice anglaise' and that 'multi-millionaire' doesn't mean 'able to pay for it'. Guess which option, although I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive.

Update: Sorry, I was busy this morning and didn't quite finish the first thought - where does a little consensual S&M (even if some of the participants are being paid) fit in, either "unimaginable" or "depraved" amongst the stories of paedophilia, sexual slavery, torture and other activities that the Daily Hate thinks is appropriately prurient entertainment for the common masses?

Okay, I do appreciate that I am taking a BBC News report on trust but I've done the same for the Daily Mail in the past so ... Update: And the full text is available here, in Word format - haven't these people heard of pdf? And the BBC report seems to be a reasonable extract (rather than any attempt at a summary - there is lots of self-congratulatory hubristic tripe about the excellence of the career of Dacre P not covered in the report) and, to be fair to the Beeb, they did also extract his moaning about their state-sponsored power and influence. But they missed this phrase, refering to Mosely: "the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard". I refer you to the paragraph above!

Whether Mosely's activities are seen as "perverted and depraved" is completely irrelevant when you consider "the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the rich and the corrupt² sheltering behind a law of privacy". Mosely, assuming that none of what actually happened (as distinct from what was reported - even with the video evidence, the two not being as linked as journalists would like us to believe) was illegal has not committed a crime. Now, if I had evidence of a crime, being fairly old-fashioned about these things, I would expect to report it to the police³ rather than to the media - as the police can gather evidence rather than speculation and have people arraigned for trial in court rather than on the front pages.

But then I'm not a turd at the Annual Conference of Enormous Faecal Deposits trying to justify why I pong quite so much.

Update 2: If anybody from the "Society of Editors" does chance to read this, you are (technically, 'seem to be') way, way out with your Apache server updates - 1.3.33 is 6 versions out of date, 5 of which have had security functionality fixes⁴. If you can't upgrade to 2.2(currently).10 then you need to get your arses onto 1.3.41 sharpish.

1. I may be on to something here, though. You know, like blind people developing better hearing? Well, if you force yourself to be deaf and blind, maybe your voice develops a particularly penetrating screech? To 'toynbeeise' yourself, to coin a new and unpleasant word?

2. My joining. Which is probably not justified given the multiple use of 'the'. The 'rich and corrupt' are clearly a legitimate target for investigation (as would the 'rich who place themselves in the public eye' but why should the merely rich not have the protection of privacy? If you just happen to design a better widget, why is your door-step any more of prurient interest than anyone else's?

3. Unless, of course, the 'appropriate' police force is the Military Police (RMP or otherwise). In which case you tell either the miscreant's CO or, if a serious enough civil offence, the civilian police. It's just polite.

4. In case you are questioning the arithmetic, especially in the light of the post above, 1.3.38 never existed and 1.3.40, although it exists and does have two security fixes, was not released therefore I am choosing not to count it.