Anonymous

[Kaz]

are vowing to expose child sex abusers!! Well good, I hope they do - and I am sure there will be some shocks when they do!

Here

[Workingman]

And immediately the establishment excusniks are there with their dier warnings...

Former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP), Jim Gamble, told Sky News: "It's fraught with so many difficulties.

Such as disclosing the complete lack of action by some people when dealing with allegations against other people (nod, nod) or of them attempting to turn victims into wrong-doers and vice-versa. Yes, life will be difficult for some in high places: GOOD!

A National Crime Agency spokesman said: "We understand anyone wanting to help protect children, but would always urge against any action which might jeopardise existing law enforcement investigations or other public inquiries.

Well, if the crime agencies had been doing their jobs there would not be enforcement investigations or public inquiries, would there?

The way the world is run we need groups such as Anonymous more than ever.

[Suff]

They have penetrated so many systems, perhaps it's about time they used it for some good. Especially when proving that the authorities simply did not bother to deal with known abusers. Unless, of course, they were of an acceptable type...

[debih]

I just hope they have hard evidence to back up their claims.

Exposing an innocent person would be catastrophic.

[cromwell]

I just hope they have hard evidence to back up their claims.

Exposing an innocent person would be catastrophic.

This is my worry.

[Kaz]

They'd have the evidence Debih x

[debih]

I think it's really important that they do and are prepared to show that evidence to back up their claims. And that that evidence is more than here say.

As long as they've got all that then good for them.

[TheOstrich]

I share Debih's and Cromwell's worries. I'm not sure I want an anarchic group like Anonymous effectively policing us. I would be concerned it would be the thin end of the wedge.

I feel the same way about these camera-wielding cyclists. They can - and do - get away with anything on the roads because they are unidentifiable. Are Anonymous "identifiable", Suff?

[Workingman]

There was a time when the media, notably the press, was the public's Sherlock Holmes and gatekeeper in one. Investigative journalist would dig and delve and rummage around the garbage to expose things we should have known about. That hardly happens nowadays.

Over the past two decades the media has ben neutered using laws specific to its operations as well as laws designed to stop us plebs from being threatening, abusive or insulting or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or a breach of the peace. None of these things is tightly defined, in law, and as such can be used to prevent just about anything.

Step forward Anonymous, who simply by being anonymous are not constrained in the way the rest of us and our media are. If they act responsibly, as they say the authorities should, then they have my support.

[victor]

i agree with WM ,the law seems unable to do the job properly