Aimee

you write

'My dear Runner. With all due respect, the filter will do nothing to restrict the movement of child exploitation material. This is what people well versed in all things Internet have been telling Conroy since the filters inception. The blo*dy thing simply doesn't and won't work!'

I can only comment on the concept of stopping child porn. Labour has a very poor record in installing pink bats and building school buildings so you might have a point. However the opponents to the filter are obviously going to scream that the filter does not work. Many scumbags make millions from the pervert industry and no doubt these are among the loudest opponents. Whether it works or not I doubt whether you or me are able to discern. There is no doubt that the reduction of porn albeit slight will be a reduction in children being molested.

Runner, I ask how perverts would "make millions (assumably money)" out of internet child porn, when material online not only tends to be free, but would even more likely be free with pedophiles because to pay for it would require GIVING YOUR DETAILS AND BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION.
No really, do you seriously never think?

Explain how a pervert will make a transaction ONLINE without providing information (or otherwise we would have the answer right there- just read the receipts and you can bag every pedophile around the world).

I'm now convinced that the few average people who endorse nanny-state measures are thick as bricks, and need the government to do this because they seriously are too stupid to figure out simple things by themselves.