It is possible to view these sites, but police monitor software will bring the knock on the door if you download.
I am not sure if it is actually illegal simply to surf and look - and I am equally unsure why anyone would want to - even if it is so she can be shocked and horrified for money.
Years I was part of a team of researchers who were given secret software access to access a number of suspected paedophile sites. The sites 'hide in plain sight' - the have an innocent front page, and the disturbing stuff is inside.
Thanks to our codes, we were able to access the sites and view without the site owner knowing we had been there - if they suspect infiltration, they simply shut down and move to another site.
The images I found stayed on my screen long enough for me to hit the 'back' button, and then fill in my report form and send it in. They have stayed in my mind a lot longer.
Why anyone would want to view this material simply to sensationally write about how horrific it is simply beyond me - and I speak as a freelance writer.
I know that Jihadists decapitate hostages. That's as much information as I need - why would I need to see a video showing it done?
I am sure that Ms Platell will have ensured access is sanctioned in advance - but such prurient 'heavens above' journalism does exactly nothing towards addressing the issues raised by pornography on the internet, and its pointlessness is matched only by its deeply unpleasant 'I viewed this so you don't have to ...' sanctimonious attitude.
I did what I did knowing that t site owners would be located and prosecuted, and for no other reason. I have never discussed it with my family or friends - only ever with the annonymity of the AB have I referred to it, and only then on pertinent threads like this one.
The Mail loves to take the moral high ground, even if it swims in the sewer to do it.