This is an old story about an old investigation. It is old news dredged up to try to win sympathy for DHS/ICE. It is propaganda resurrected to make DHS look useful.

They cherry-picked a story that they knew would win public sympathy since no one wants a child molester to run free. Lets show a time when an agent solved a case for an excellent outcome.

Pick a DHS/ICE story from this year and see what kind of dystopic shitshow you report on.

This is propaganda. Gullible people fall for this shit every day. Put some thought into the context before you swallow the turd.

▲

rootusrootus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Propaganda made by the BBC to make DHS look good? You are awfully cynical.

▲

itishappy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd argue the DHS is incidental and the real story is "law enforcement deserves open access to social media feeds." In this light, the BBC's angle becomes much clearer.

▲

doodlebugging 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>You are awfully cynical.

A cynic is simply a realist who has seen too much shit. I am a firm realist. I see the world as it is and hope that others will come along to help make it better but I don't naively hold my breath.

DHS needs a win in the public's eyes. BBC has the air of a trusted platform. It is no big stretch to make the connection that dredging up an old story about tracking down and capturing a pedo using an elite DHS unit would be a useful tool to win back some public support. You notice that there are no dates given in the article so the reader has no way to know that this went down years ago. It looks new and fresh.

Propaganda. I don't have to be gullible so I choose not to be.

▲

theonething 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the reader has no way to know that this went down years ago

Not so.

> Last summer Greg met Lucy, now in her 20s, for the first time. > Lucy (left), now an adult...

	▲	doodlebugging 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are correct. Thank you.

▲

rootusrootus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s a story taken from a documentary airing tonight. Unless it’s entirely AI slop, it probably predates the current DHS mess.

Edit: seven years in the making, so entirely coincidental

▲

amatecha 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What better way to bolster your reputation than to get your buddies to prop you up with fluff pieces? Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

	▲	rootusrootus 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Are the Europeans suddenly willing to kiss the ring? They don’t otherwise seem to be buddies right now.
	▲	4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

pavon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The BBC spent 5 years making a documentary and just finished. They had no idea that the US would in its current state when they started. That doesn't free them from criticism of the content, but the timing is a coincidence.

I haven't watched the video (linked from the article) and I certainly hope the current events caused them to reflect on whether pushing for DHS to have more power is wise, but the last line in the article doesn't give me much optimism.

▲

DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And also to drege up "think of the children" rage that makes some people demand expansion of surveillance and free exchange of serveillance data with governments. Manufacturing consent.

	▲	TurdF3rguson 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly right. Meanwhile these are the kinds of things that DHS is being pulled off of so they can spend more time harassing latinos.

▲

refulgentis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Submitter is Canadian and re: America, posted "I read recently that Patrimonialism is a good way of describing the current regime" about 10 months ago.

Doesn't sound like paid DHS/ICE psyopper.

Any reason to think it is?

EDIT: Got the "you're posting too fast", so in reply to OP below:

> Submitter's nationality has nothing to do with it nor does his post history. WTF

Well, yes it does, its exculpatory evidence for a stranger you publicly accused of dredging up the news to try and win sympathy for DHS/ICE. (twice now)

Original post, by you: "It is old news dredged up to try to win sympathy for DHS/ICE." This post, by you: "why do they need to dredge it up today?"

▲

doodlebugging 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Submitter's nationality has nothing to do with it nor does his post history. WTF

I suggest you read the article as it appears from your initial (pre-edit) reply that you didn't. Put this in context with contemporary events involving DHS/ICE and assimilate the knowledge that the story related happened more than 10 years ago. Then ask yourself, since this same story was already reported more than a decade ago, why do they need to dredge it up today?

Do some critical thinking so that you don't come across as a gullible shill.

	▲	pgalvin 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are wrong, this same story was not reported more than ten years ago. The article is not a report of a man being arrested, tried, and sentenced (doubtless the extent of reporting in local news when it happened). This article is about the wider background of one story, of many, from a behind-the-scenes documentary that has been filmed over the last five years and just released. Did Britain's public broadcaster decide, half a decade ago, to begin making this documentary so that they could secretly and nefariously support a US government agency long before it was embroiled in its current controversies?

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

morkalork 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

From the fine article itself:

>Within hours, local Homeland Security agents had arrested the offender, who had been raping Lucy for six years.

	▲	pgalvin 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Are you suggesting that the BBC, the world service arm of a British public broadcaster (that is editorially independent from the state and even the wider BBC), began spending five years filming a documentary across the US, Portugal, Brazil, and Russia, just so that they could secretly support a US government agency half a decade before it became embroiled in controversy?
	▲	refulgentis 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The claim is that an article was submitted intentionally to manipulate public perception of DHS. We can't relax the claim to "well, it says DHS found a pedo, so it's propaganda ipso facto, because DHS did something good": they specifically argue the submission was the propaganda, specifically because it'd be absurd to claim it was published as DHS propaganda. (it's an article by the BBC)