Stalking #BenedictCumberbatch

Yesterday I had another visit from a Benedict Cumberbatch fan. I thought little of it to begin with; there is after all a steady stream of visitors for that particular set of stories. Yet there was something that did not sit well with me about this particular reader: the manner in which they had formulated their search. So here is what I have to say to my accidental visitor.

 

To whom it may concern:

While I appreciate your custom, let me make one thing clear: this is not an information hub for Benedict Cumberbatch’s whereabouts. In truth I am astounded that in searching for his address you should have ended up here. How many pages of Google results did you have to read through to reach my post? Don’t answer that. I was sufficiently intrigued to retype your search terms and give the engine a try, but in all honesty tired of scrolling through for a glimpse of my blog’s signature after the first five pages came up empty. That must have been one epic search.

For the length of a moment I thought that perhaps you were looking for a way to send Benedict some fan mail. However, since you bypassed the information on offer on Cumberbatchweb, I had to drop that particular line of reasoning and conclude that it was his personal address you were after. Ahem.

If my powers of deduction have failed me, feel free to circumvent what follows. If not…

There is a very good reason why people – and celebrities more so – keep their personal contact details under wraps. Beyond a simple desire to be able to step out of one’s front door without having to wrestle a crowd of nosy strangers, there is also the matter of risk to one’s bodily security to take into account. Yep. I do refer to stalkers.

The term may be often attributed to fans in a jokey manner, but the reality of being stalked is no laughing matter. Take it from someone who has been unfortunate enough to have experienced it, and that without the label of a celebrity in toe: it is downright terrifying.

As a writer, I may occasionally indulge in borrowing London settings for a meeting with a fictionalised Cumberbatch. I may even go one step further and share knowledge of his actual preference of a place if, and only if, that information is already public knowledge. You will not find on this blog his (or anyone else’s) home address, phone number or personal email address.

So… If you are in the mood for a laugh or a little Benedict-day-dreaming, feel free to stop by whenever you have the time or inclination. Otherwise, I’m afraid I can’t help you. Nor would I be willing to if I could.

If you remain undeterred beware, according to Tim Walker, Mr. Cumberbatch has been known to request the services of our be-helmeted police service to ensure that his privacy would be respected. Better not let it come to that.

Cheerio.

Child Pornography. Disturbing Search Engine Terms

 

Let’s Talk Opinion Revisited

Last month I published a Let’s Talk Opinion post on the subject of Child Pornography and The Sexualisation of Children in popular media. Amongst other things, the article touched on the on-going debate in the British media regarding David Cameron’s support for pornography filters to be implemented by four major internet sites in order to reduce access to child pornography online.

Photograph by Samir Hussein|Getty Images

What instigated David Cameron’s response were the revelations that late Jimmy Savile, host of the much-loved TV show Top of the Pops for 20 years, used his celebrity status to sexually abuse hundreds of children on BBC property, in hospitals, and elsewhere. In response to an enraged public, British PM David Cameron made restricting access to pornography and eliminating images of children on-line, a signature issue.

The six biggest providers of public Wi-Fi networks complied with the PM’s request to filter explicit content in public settings. Subsequently companies offering home Internet service were asked to install filters that automatically block pornography so that  subscribers would need to “opt in” to view such material.

On Monday, the 18th of November 2013, Google and Microsoft announced that 100,000 search terms have been disabled so that it would be impossible to use them to find illegal material. By early 2014, these filters will be on virtually all Internet accounts in Britain.

In order to get the material for this article, I have typed into my browser “british news child pornography filters” and at the top of the page the following add appeared:

Warning – Child abuse imagery is illegal‎

http://www.google.co.uk/protectchildren‎

Report it or find help here.

*

What instigated this piece however was not this. It was the search engine term reported by WordPress in my stats: “young girl child pornography website.”

I have to admit that I was somewhat disconcerted by this. I’ve been mulling it over in my head. What was the searcher looking for? Was it an official search aimed at un-covering child pornography sites that have escaped though the filter-net? Or… more worryingly, have I been visited by a paedophile.

Scary thought.

Do you check the search engine terms used to find articles on your blog? If so…

What are the most disturbing search engine terms you have come across?

*

Let’sTalk Opinion posts engage with issues that are important to other bloggers, connecting with others on matters close to their heart. If you like a topic and would like to contribute, please feel free to add to the comment box, reblog, share, email or message me on Twitter @shardsofsilence.

Or if you happen to be a fellow Hogwartsian send me a letter by owl.