Tuesday 29 August 2017

WHY A COVER UP?

UPDATE - 30.08.17

With just over a month to go until Operation Grange comes to an end, or requests further funds to carry on, Gerry and Kate via their always obliging friend Tracey Kandhola, have announced they will dip into Madeleine's Fund to hire more private detectives.  (What happened to Dave Edgar?).

It would be fair to assume the parents of Madeleine know more than the rest of us, and from their statement it would appear Scotland Yard can't find Madeleine, or they believe she is dead.  In any event, the eventual conclusions of Operation Grange, are at odds with the beliefs of the parents.   

According to Tracey, the McCanns have a healthy £700k+ in the Madeleine Fund, and the search will go on, they will never give up.  Now, there has been no mention of 'The Fund' for quite some time, and many, myself included, thought any cash the McCanns have remaining would have to go towards the massive legal bills they owe in Portugal.  But they had good lawyers, a clause probably exists to protect the 'Search'. 

As the countdown begins, sources are leaking everywhere.  Last week, a source told us Operation Grange will request more funds.  This week, a source tells us, 'nope, no requests for more funds', and another source tells us they [the police]are 'finishers'.  Kate once described herself and Gerry as finishers too, so we may be seeing the beginnings of an epic battle. 

____________________________________



In response to an interesting reply on 'Not Believing doesn't equal hate' and to make more room - the discussion continues here.  I wish I could have c/p it, and would be grateful if someone could :)

Whether you believe the parents were involved in Madeleine's disappearance or not, the biggest question is, 'why a cover up'?  Those directly involved in whatever happened to Madeleine, obviously had plenty of good reasons, so strictly speaking, the question should be 'why the cover up of the cover up'?

Which brings me to that interesting post at 22:43 on the previous blog.  It's a new angle - well for me at least. I never considered that Professor Gerry could have been working on something 'sensitive'.  And you may well be right, in that he had leverage in some way.  However, I think murder or death of a child trumps 'sensitive' information and in 10+ years there have been no groundbreaking discoveries involving Gerry that I am aware of.  I also think a research team could not operate with the sword of Damocles hanging over them.  But as always, I wouldn't rule anything out!

I am still very much of the opinion that whoever picked the phone up that night in Downing Street or Whitehall, made the wrong call. The full weight and backing of the incumbent government was thrown behind Gerry and Kate, before anyone had looked into what actually happened.  Neither Blair nor Brown had the balls to admit they got it wrong, instead they chose to carry on with the 'lie' and this is where all the schemers and manipulaters had them over a barrel.

At the time of Madeleine's disappearance, New Labour were getting a bit too big for their boots.  They were blocking ALL forms of protest by introducing 'terrorism laws' to arrest elderly gentlemen wearing subversive t-shirts outside their Labour party conferences or protesting outside parliament.  They were shamelessly exploiting the public's fear of terrorism, interspersed with fear of paedophiles, to find ways in which to control the internet.  They wanted access to all our internet activity, ID cards, everyone's DNA, and a few more rules to rough people up at borders. Who remembers tanks rolling into Heathrow Airport? That was quite a stunt.   

How many were involved in the cover up of the cover up?  Given the number of arseholes in New Labour who were happy to embark on an illegal war, covering up a colleague's mistake was a small ask.  When it became a big ask however, I think pressure was brought to bear.  Politicians are always susceptible to bribery and corruption, ask those with motorways where their parks used to be. Or, perhaps Tony (I wouldn't be seen dead in a Skoda) Blair.  It is one of the vulnerabilities or should we say, perks, of office.  To believe otherwise would be to go back to that pre Madeleine McCann age, when we believed the newspapers were supposed to tell the truth and our elected representatives were honourable. 

I suspect 'the hold' in this case is dark and murky, but not in the way the more deranged 'antis' would have us believe.  People on a quest to gather information about individuals, more often than not, have a malevolent agenda, they are looking for something they will, when necessary, use against their subject.  Years ago when homosexuality was illegal and 'gays' were demonised, homosexual MPs were especially vulnerable.  Now, any whiff of paedophilia, real or simply alleged, can destroy lives.  When Tony Blair left office, the God Complex had well and truly set in, I would imagine he had a portfolio on everyone useful, the entire population's he didn't quite achieve, but he was working on it. 

What began with a massive f**ku* for the incumbent government, soon became a popular cause, and it had all the ingredients to reinforce their 'Paedo on every corner' campaign.  Men rounded up by Operation Ore were still being publically executed.  The fabulous actor Chris Langham was imprisoned on charges that wouldn't have been out of place in medieval court, presided over by a row of a Cardinals.  My heart goes out to him, and to all those men whose lives were wrecked by that particularly nasty witch hunt.  And I can say that loud and proud, not just as a survivor of a catholic children's home, but as someone who can see straight through the hysteria and insanity and the Witchfinder General mentality. The charges against Chris Langham were akin to charging everyone who likes their horror graphic and violent for watching banned films, or arresting drug users, rather than their suppliers.  The dear man has never, and probably would never, hurt a child, the cruellest allegation anyone could have made against him, and it is obscene that he, and so many others, had to go through such an ordeal. 

But Chris Langham was among many, since then we have seen dozens of celebrities and politicians dragged into the public square, accused of decades old sex crimes.  This isn't law and order, it's showmanship, it's playing to the gallery.  There are no dawn raids Cliff Richard style, on Fred the plumber, who was known to have groped every bridesmaid at every wedding.  He can chuckle at the memory, safe in the knowledge his face will never appear on the front page of The Sun. 

Madeleine wasn't a bedraggled urchin that no-one cared about, she was the well loved, photogenic child, of pious and responsible doctors who were in no way to blame for her disappearance.   The subliminal messages sent out from the sweet, innocent, face of little Madeleine in those posters was loud and clear - it could be your child next. 

A double glazing salesman once told me, the answer to EVERY question is money.  Even after all these years I have yet to prove him wrong.  The financial exploitation of this poor child, is one of the distasteful sides of this case.  From all those who flew out to PDL, to the missing charities who made her their poster child, presumably while leaving pictures of the genuinely missing gathering dust.   

Going back to the political questions you raise, I think all of our eyes have been opened wide in recent years.  For me it all began with the Madeleine case.  I feel a bit embarrassed about that, because at the time I was teaching Media at A-level.  If I were in the same position today, the first assignment I would give my media and politics students, is watch Armando Iainnucci's 'The Thick of It'.  

Everything in this case, from the start to where we are now, is more accident than design - hence the spectacular mistakes.  Most of it, I think, has been 'off the cuff', at the beginning especially, when Jane Tanner's sighting had to be squeezed in between two checks on the kids written by the tapas group on Madeleine's colouring book.  Of course Jane's sighting should have topped that list, and they should all have been running in the direction she says he went, but for some reason, getting their alibis straight, had precedence. 

The initial cover up is pretty much set in stone.  The parents and their friends gave their statements, and they are sticking to them.  For Operation Grange, I suspect Cover Up II, is the biggest challenge.  All these delays and further extensions, suggest they have been stonewalled throughout.  They don't appear to have let that put them off, it would appear for Operation Grange, only the truth will do. 




Ps.  If anyone out there knows Chris Langham, could they please let him know that a genuine survivor of a regime run by real paedophiles, has spoken out on his behalf and give him my very kindest wishes.

183 comments:

  1. On 2 August 2007, Langham was found guilty on charges of possessing child pornography and made to sign the sexual offenders register. On 14 September 2007, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison. The judge said before sentencing that "some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent... The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK, with some serious sexual offences against her." Well, what a charmer you're infatuated with Ros. *leans over to vomit*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know how easy it is to use stirring, emotive language 17:46, but no matter how shocking you are attempting to be, you are only revealing one side of the evidence. I can't comment on the examples you cite, because I haven't seen it, nor have I heard or read Chris Langham's full defence.

      My concern would be the rescuing of the child (was she rescued?) and the criminal prosecution of the makers of the video - was anyone prosecuted?

      Fromm a sexual perspective, we all have our foibles, should a guy who likes his wife to dress up as a schoolgirl also be on the Sex Offenders List? Just in case?

      99.9% of people confine their foibles to consenting adults, the bedroom and their PC, they don't act on them in the real world. Millions of people watch 'video nasties' and play violent video games, this is a cyber age, but they don't bring the pornography and violence to the office. If one lunatic goes on the rampage after watching Dark Night Rises, is it sane to ban all Batman movies and put all those who watched it on a danger list?

      This link between watching child pornography online (and none of us know exactly what that is) and the idea that it would incite viewers to steal a child is manmade, and it's not coming from the academics.

      I've said it a zillion times, but I will say it again. The danger to children comes from within their own home and from people who know them. And quite often that includes people who have access to vulnerable children. Young offenders and those in care for example.

      I'm not infatuated with Chris Langham KJ, I'm not 16, but I am one of the few people who can speak out about paedophilia, because quite clearly, I have no agenda to protect those who prey on kids. Or those in authority, who use parents' natural fears and anxieties to create a create a bogeyman and follow them up with victims to chuck on the bonfire. Well known ones, being the most popular.

      Delete
    2. ''nor have I heard or read Chris Langham's full defence''

      Yet you asked anyone who knows him to pass him your 'very best wishes'.

      ''I did something terribly wrong. I offended my community and I was punished, quite correctly
      ''

      “I have been proved to be an untrustworthy member of society. If I am never trusted again, I shall understand that''

      Television star Chris Langham says he should never be trusted again following his conviction for child porn - etc

      So he isn't defending himself. He tried the 'Pete Townshend' defence at first( I was researching'). Then he was having ' an affair' with a 14 year old star struck fan of the musical he was in at the time. Who knows what he was researching then.


      ''This link between watching child pornography online (and none of us know exactly what that is) and the idea that it would incite viewers to steal a child is manmade, and it's not coming from the academics.''

      Then maybe they should research the triggers and attraction to child porn instead. Just because paedophiles don't steal children it doesn't diminish the crime.

      ''''I've said it a zillion times, but I will say it again. The danger to children comes from within their own home and from people who know them.''

      A zillion is a lot. How about providing the paper with the figures and stats just once.

      ''Fromm a sexual perspective, we all have our foibles, should a guy who likes his wife to dress up as a schoolgirl also be on the Sex Offenders List? Just in case? ''

      Only if his wife is a child.

      You make claims about serious matters without knowing anything like enough about them. Trying to play devils advocate for convicted paedophiles is bad enough, but what you cite to do it makes your blog look crazier by the week.







      Delete
  2. Even before I got into the second paragraph I was thinking pass the sick bucket having just watched Blair on Panoramas 'Diana, 7days' and the way (new) labour jumped on any passing bandwagon. As for Cameron, that was so publicly played out, even though 'excused' by Leveson inquiry, but I'm sure all of us would agree Cameron & Brooks have a lot to answer for.

    Time I think for May and her Home Secretary to grow pair .... well as much as females can!

    The McCanns were in the right place at the right time for the support they got, but personally I'm of the opinion that Mark Warner's team also did a lot to downplay the children being left etc.

    But were are all the movers and shakers now?

    All we get and have for many years of all these McCann is soundbites and old photos.

    Time to end this farce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is odd that Theresa May is allowing this to carry on for so long. She of course was the Home Secretary who kicked it all off, and PM when it ends. It will very much become part of her legacy, history could well judge her on the part she played in the Madeleine revelation or cover up. Clinton will be remembered for his shenanigans in the Oval Office, anything good or bad TM may be remembered for could spin on the fate of one small girl.

      Mark Warner's I think, went above and beyond in their response to their guests' plight. They may have been facing a massive lawsuit, but equally they have resorts all over the world, it was a media crisis for them too. All those booked up to go to Warners were watching how they treated the parents.

      I spent a number of years working on the insurance side of legal claims, I was only a secretary I hasten to add, but I can't honestly see any way in which Warners could have been held libel. And I'm sure a lot of high powered lawyers have looked into it in great depth.

      The chances are Warners already had insurance in place for Crisis Control, they were providing the McCanns with accommodation, and travel, and I think, flights for the huge entourage who travelled out there to assist them. As well of course, as providing them with a media advisor and spokesman. Alex Wolfall, I believe. I think if Gerry and Kate could have sued Warners, they would have done so by now.

      Now I think the whole Madeleine McCann story is stuck in a timewarp. It hasn't moved on, because there is nowhere else it can go. It remains unfinished, which is one of the reasons why I have never penned a book on the subject myself.

      Delete
  3. Chris Langham:

    "He was charged with 15 counts of downloading indecent images, including clips that showed the rape of a teenager and the sexual abuse of an eight-year-old. “I did something terribly wrong. I offended my community and I was punished, quite correctly, for being as stupid and arrogant as the judge described me to be,.......” says Langham now. “I’m not expecting to be relieved of my guilt by doing this. I am guilty and I will always be guilty. What I did was wrong and it always will be wrong.""

    ReplyDelete
  4. source of my previous post
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/chris-langham-interview-disgraced-actor-opens-up-about-his-child-sex-abuse-images-conviction-and-why-10457354.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 17:58 and 17:59, I read the article with a great deal of sadness. Unrepentant offenders are not released, it is a usually a condition. That is unless you accept your guilt, and show remorse for your 'crimes', you cannot return to your life.

      I'm not saying for one moment that CL's apology is in any way insincere, but I expect there have been many times over the years where he has wondered if he was going mad.

      He was tried and convicted on a 'Minority Report', PRE-crime basis. That is for a crime that he MIGHT commit. In any other area of crime this is an injustice that would go all the way to ECHR, but the 'P' word is so incendiary, there is little, if any support.

      Protecting children is all about education. Educate the parents, who will educate the kids. Stranger abduction, thankfully, remains very rare and the internet is not the threat some would have us believe.

      Delete
    2. '' and the internet is not the threat some would have us believe. ''

      The internet is where Langham paid his money to access what he wanted to access. So shall we forgive him because he didn't go on to steal or touch children ? Or are you pushing for the loosening of the underage images law by using Harriet Harman's deranged reasoning. Incidentally, addicts behaviour is escalatory. One drink leads to a permanent stupor until it's tackled . Langham knows that from his AA days. What came first, his 'affair' with a schoolgirl or the visits to certain sites ? One of them could be considered 'pre-crime' basis, but not both, no matter how hard you try.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 August 2017 at 21:27
      "He was tried and convicted on a 'Minority Report', PRE-crime basis. That is for a crime that he MIGHT commit."
      -------------------------------

      You really are showing your complete ignorance now Ros - he committed an actual crime - not some crime in the future.

      Quote:

      " One of the victims was about eight years old and others were aged between 11 and 13, according to Judge Philip Statman.
      He told Langham: "Some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent, others are fully developed, some of the children are clearly of Filipino extract.
      "All have had inflicted upon them horrifying sexual abuse and, I want to make this absolutely clear to you, I must first think of those children. They are too young to consent."
      He added: "Your activity took place in the comfort of your own home, no doubt at the time feeling safe in the knowledge that you would never be caught."

      Quote:
      The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK"
      Det Ch Insp Paul Fotheringham

      Delete
    4. Wow, your ability to diagnose addictive behaviour is remarkable, did you get your doctorate from the same online course workshop as Peter Hyatt?

      I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Harriet Harman's deranged reasoning. If you are referring to PIE (Paedophile Information Exhange?) - then I am with you, the idea is absolutely abhorrent and cannot understand the mentality of anyone 'for it'.

      As for your two examples of Chris Langham's crimes, a lot of men have sexual fantasies about schoolgirls, and girls in gym slips. When I worked in Lincoln's Inn Fields, there were huge crowds for the women's netball. Mostly men.

      Some go on to live out that fantasy, teenage girls have fantasies of their own, and that often includes older men. I'm not condoning these May/ September, relationships, I'm just acknowledging that they happen, and have done throughout history. At 16, I myself was enticed into the bedchamber of an aging 60's comedian while staying at Butlins, I was enticed by the bright lights and liquor. Did it devastate my life? Well a bit, he enticed my mate the following night with the same cheesy lines.

      Visiting 'certain sites' does not an axe murderer make. Sex, violence and rock and roll is only a click away - for everyone. If you prosecute for people for what they watch online, where does it end?

      The reason this subject gets my heckles up, is because it is another form of censorship under the guise of 'think of the children'. Again I ask. Was the child rescued? Were the makers of the video prosecuted?

      How do you judge what is child porn? I don't know what the definition is, I'd be too scared to look. Is it a schoolgirl sending topless pics to a schoolboy? Is it a naked baby in a bath?

      This mythological link between looking at images and raping and murdering children is as ridiculous as saying, all men who look at porn, regular or kinky, will abduct real women to enact what they have seen.

      All those evil men who have been charged and convicted of child abduction and murder, weren't sitting in front of their PC screens. They were out looking for opportunities to abduct a real child, or they wormed their way into situations where vulnerable children were available.

      Delete
    5. ''Wow, your ability to diagnose addictive behaviour is remarkable, did you get your doctorate from the same online course workshop as Peter Hyatt?''

      Is that the best you can do ? Common sense is sufficient. Morons like Hyatt have nothing to offer anyone with a modicum of intelligence. And it doesn't take a Psychiatrist to understand that addictive behaviour escalates whatever the addiction.

      Harriet Harman, apart from her endorsing PIE and other dubious underground pits, went on record stating that the downloading of images of children should not be subjected to such stringent penalties as long as the child in the picture doesn't appear to be suffering. She was also part of a small group of like minded idiots who thought lowering the age of consent would be a good idea around about the same time so many children's homes had had children hired or taken away by establishment figures.

      ''a lot of men have sexual fantasies about schoolgirls ''

      Having a fantasy isn't illegal or harmful to anyone else. Acting on it is .

      ''When I worked in Lincoln's Inn Fields, there were huge crowds for the women's netball. Mostly men.''

      Women aren't children. What would it look like if all those men were watching the under-15s ?

      ''If you prosecute for people for what they watch online, where does it end?''

      Prison if it's child porn. Don't you understand supply and demand ? It's one thing to have your odd world that has no laws to sue for slander and libel but quite another if we're to consider that banning the downloading and enjoyment of sexually exploited children as 'censorship'. As long as there's a demand, children will be 'found'.

      ''The reason this subject gets my heckles up, is because it is another form of censorship under the guise of 'think of the children'. Again I ask. Was the child rescued? Were the makers of the video prosecuted? ''

      Who knows. You defend Langham and you criticise those wanting to 'think of the children' ? Lovely.


      ''How do you judge what is child porn?''

      If it's porn and there's a child involved. Easy if you think about it.

      The rest of your post is your misguided opinion about sexual psychology. You need to understand basics before you try commenting on the intricate areas.

      Delete
    6. I have no argument with your views on Hyatt.

      Harriet Harman - hmm, it sounds as distasteful now as it did back then, thanks for jogging the memory. No, no, no, absolutely not to her creepy PIE objectives. We are civilised enough to understand the implications of sexualising children, heaven forbid. And the idea of an 'exchange' sends shivers through me. I can't make head nor tail of her thinking behind this one.

      So too, I would add did the Ray Wyre technique of curing paedophiles with a saturation of child pornography. Thinking on paedophilia is, I hope, far more advanced now, and the idea of rewarding these creeps with their heart's desire, is seen as the abhorrence it is.

      As for the schoolgirl fantasy, I agree, it shouldn't be acted on. As for the grown women playing netball, knowingly, or unknowingly, they were acting out many a schoolboy's daydreams. As were the saucy waitresses who dished up their spotted dick and custard at the rowdy School Dinners Club, that was always packed. With men.

      In no alternate whatsoever do I condone the abuse of children 23:37, my concern for the child in the video far outweighs your's. Your response to was the child rescued, were the makers prosecuted, was 'who knows'.

      Well those details matter 23:37. Men were sent to prison for looking at those images. Shouldn't the rescue of the children come before the prosecution of the viewers?

      How do you define 'porn'? Who is the Judge? Or is there a panel of judges? Who are they made up of? Members of the public, a moral majority led by a latterday Mary Whitehouse? How do they reach agreement on what is pornographic and what isn't?

      Ouch at your final paragraph. Actually, I have studied psychology since the age of 14, all part of my question to discover what it is that makes people evil. Not there yet, in case your bothered.

      I am way beyond the basics 23:37, I moved onto specialist areas, long ago ;)

      Delete
    7. ''I am way beyond the basics 23:37, I moved onto specialist areas, long ago ;) ''

      Not in these matters though ;-)

      You're missing the point about what defines porn. It doesn't matter what particular sexual preferences are acted out, it's adults only. That's the law in the civilised world. Sex is for those above the legal age of consent. Therefore, any act of a sexual nature, be it soft or hard(unfortunate phrase)that has a child involved is child porn. It's simple.

      As for what makes people evil.It won't happen. Nearest you'll get is a combination of a flawed gene and low self control. The rest is just arguing.

      Delete
    8. Yeh, you see it's 'any act of a sexual nature that has a child involved' that perplexes me. How do you define 'of a sexual nature'? Pictures, like words, are open to many interpretations. Naked cherubs on a gothic building for example are considered by some to be works of art. Others would prefer to draw trunks over the groin area.

      You see it is not so simple after all 01:18.

      Delete
    9. Pictures of naked cherubs on gothic buildings won't sell online. When do you see naked cherubs portrayed as sexual or engaged in anything sexual anyway ? I think porn is pretty unambiguous . So is a sexual act. If someone has the lines blurred he or she has problems. Blurred lines equal blurred boundaries.

      Delete
    10. @ Ros 02:33
      "Yeh, you see it's 'any act of a sexual nature that has a child involved' that perplexes me. How do you define 'of a sexual nature'? Pictures, like words, are open to many interpretations. Naked cherubs on a gothic building for example are considered by some to be works of art. Others would prefer to draw trunks over the groin area.

      You see it is not so simple after all 01:18.
      ---------------------------------------------

      Quote:
      The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK"
      Det Ch Insp Paul Fotheringham

      Why are you denying the facts of Langham's case Ros?

      It is documented from the Judgment and from those involved.

      Delete
  5. The biggest questions are why the cover up and why the cover up of the cover up ? How about who coverd what up first ? Then why ?

    If it was the outgoing and incumbent labour Governments it would be fruitful to look at who else resigned from good positions on or around that time in summer 2007. If Brown and / or Blair were involved they wouldn't agree with your claim that they made a mistake. If their object was to cover it up they did a good job.

    All those intrusions into people protesting and scrutinising online activity had been underway long before the McCanns touched down in Portugal and before Madeleine was even born. There were more 'aresholes' in the Tory party when New Labour were in power and they carried on the work of Labour where this case is concerned once they were in power.

    ''I suspect 'the hold' in this case is dark and murky''

    Why didn't you suspect that on previous blogs that you started when it was put out there that the Government and others in positions of power wanted it hidden away ? You were too hasty to try to shut down those suggestions as conspiracy loons because you were blinded by your own ideas of the parents.

    ''People on a quest to gather information about individuals, more often than not, have a malevolent agenda''

    On your many blogs that can be seen all over the place. Times and lengths of calls made by the parents and tapas gang. Who were they to and why ? If we don't know, we'll assume and go from there. The scrutinising of time stamps on photographs. The examinations of statements that might contradict statements of others. The examination of signatures. The studying of body language. The so-called CATS registration of GM. The list never finds an end. There's 'studying the case' and, as you put it, ' a malevolent agenda'

    The 'paedo on every corner' campaign you allege was about corners of the Uk not abroad. your 'witchfinder general' mentality isn't just out there on the streets. It's online. They're called 'antis' ( a name they chose for themselves, where others can think of more accurate ones).

    The rest of your post about 'pious parents' and 'photogenic' child adding up to a good money making scam and sending out subliminal messages to scare our cash from us is spiteful and says it all where your own personal demons are concerned.

    “I did something terribly wrong. I offended my community and I was punished, quite correctly, for being as stupid and arrogant as the judge described me to be,”

    Chris Langham caused his own problems and paid. Sick animals have enough self righteous apologists already. Yet you can attack and accuse the parents of a missing child so easily when no evidence supports you.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/chris-langham-interview-disgraced-actor-opens-up-about-his-child-sex-abuse-images-conviction-and-why-10457354.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You misunderstood my references to photogenic child and pious parents. My arrows were directed at those large corporations, lawyers, agencies, VIPs etc, who used Madeleine for their own agendas. Police agencies needed more funding, Charities needed more publicity. If you read the chapter above, you would have seen that I readily agree, Madeleine's story was hijacked by many.

      As for Chris Langham, I would like to hear his side of the story, one he will probably never be allowed to tell. I don't see men charged with this type of crime as 'sick animals' and it made me quite sick to see one human being refer to others in that way.

      Unfortunately, this subject is so taboo, it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion. People believe that the more they hate paedophiles, the more evidence that they are not one. Not me man, I'm part of the lynch mob. It is quite frightening. I once read about a man with learning difficulties being attacked by an angry crowd, I wept. It was reminiscent of the time when Rebekah Brooks was using the front page of the NOTW to stir up mobs to attack paedophiles and paediatricians.

      The prosecution of Chris Langham was symptomatic of that time. The divine Rebekah and Rupert Murdoch were pally with Tony Blair, and if he wanted the press to scare the bejesus out of the public, it was a done deal. Poor Chris, I fear, was part of the human collateral damage.

      Delete
    2. There have been links posted on here that have Langham telling his side and quotes from him also.

      ''People believe that the more they hate paedophiles, the more evidence that they are not one''

      Are you trying to invent 'paedophobia' ? Incredible.

      '' Poor Chris, I fear, was part of the human collateral damage. ''

      'poor Chris' had a wife and kids and a good career. Nobody put a gun to his head and made him pay money to access images of child porn or to take a schoolgirl to bed later on.

      Delete
    3. How do compare what Chris Langham did (viewing, not touching)with say, the yacht parties of billionaire Brian Epstein, where underage girls were as freely available to his VIP guests, as the cocaine? Any strong feelings on that?

      Delete
    4. My feelings are that he should have been sent to jail for 20 years. But his sentence was minimal. But when you have the likes of the Clintons, Prince Andrew and the like on speed dial you're only going to get that treatment. A nominal sentence to keep the masses in check. It's who you know and Langham didn't know who Epstein knew. And by the way, Brian Epstein was a timid , gay man of the 1960s draconian Britain. I think you mean Jeffrey Epstein. At least I hope you do.

      Delete
    5. Many thanks for correcting me there 00:46, I do of course mean Jeffrey Epstein.

      It is 'viewing' that I have a problem with. Arresting the viewers of these despicable images is a bizarre way to stamp out a problem. It like arresting users of drugs, rather than the dealers.

      Very few people are inspired to go out axe murdering after watching a slasher movie. Images just don't affect us that way. As cruel and degenerate as those images may have been, there is nothing to say, Mr. Langham could have been triggered to attack a child. That is pure baloney. He was in his 40s/50s, with no record of hurting kids, do you think an image can have such a dramatic, personality changing effect on an adult, educated man?

      You don't think the wrecking of Chris Langham's life and career was enough? I hope they don't have you at Heaven's Gate when and if you get there.

      But, yes indeed, all sorts goes on, on billionaires yachts. My obsession with Kate and Gerry has now switched to Donald Trump and his appalling family - so much material there! So many, now grown up, former hookers, telling exactly the same stories.

      Delete
    6. Clamping down harder on drug users thins out the market for dealers. Doing the same for paedophile porn does the same.Take away the market, take away the pushers.Some of the biggest dealers in the UK are in jail and have been for years but the business goes on because users get slapped wrists.

      Your second paragraph makes no sense. Demons can hide buried for decades before they come out.All it takes is the right circumstances or stimulus.

      If they won't have me at Heaven's gate because i condemn paedophilia I don't want to go there.

      Enjoy Trump. Enjoy his predecessors too if you do the research.

      Delete
  6. You have hit an all time low with this blog Ros and you wonder why publishers won't touch you with a barge pole!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have already had the joy of being published by a major publisher 20:25, that joy of being 'discovered'. It ticks the life of my 14 year old self.

      Now, I am enjoying the freedom of writing freestyle', no editors or legal readers to restrain me. And of course, I can 'publish' a book myself, whenever I want.

      Delete
    2. all you need now is to learn how to restrain yourself

      Delete
  7. Ros says at 20:53

    "This link between watching child pornography online (and none of us know exactly what that is)..."
    ----------------------------------------------
    "He was charged with 15 counts of downloading indecent images, including clips that showed the rape of a teenager and the sexual abuse of an eight-year-old."

    So we know exactly what he was doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, actually we don't, and I doubt he will ever be able tell us without an avalanche of condemnation. Unfortunately, this is a subject that is always shut down by outrage and hysteria. We learn nothing, because those accused of such crimes are unable to speak truthfully.

      I'm not such a harsh judge as yourself 20:59, I really don't want to know what most people's turn ons are, I much prefer the mystique of wondering if the fella in pinstripes or the Judge in robes, is wearing fishnets and suspenders under the garb.

      Happily most people keep their foibles to themselves, and leave the rest of us guessing. But mostly, we don't know, and we don't want to know. It matters not if our accountant spends his weekends at leather wear conventions, as long as he is doing a good job.

      Do you not see that the viewers of these monstrous images are not the heinous criminals. The police target should be the makers of these videos and the distributors. Again, I ask, was the girl rescued? Were the makers of the video arrested?

      Delete
    2. Which part of this thread is confusing you, Ros ? You have several quotes from the actor himself, news reports, quotes from judges and police officers. And you still won't see it.

      ''No, actually we don't, and I doubt he will ever be able tell us without an avalanche of condemnation''

      the actor hasn't defended what he did, he admitted it and he didn't condemn the sentence.
      It's only you doing that. If people are jailed for these things and the public get outraged, you have to understand that the public are all weirdoes , and 'poor Chris' and others with his interests will always run the risk of receiving anger from normal adults who value the innocence of kids.

      Why do you keep asking if the girl was rescued ? Are you readying a'she knew the score' defence for 'poor Chris' next ?

      Delete
    3. If he had defended what he did, he would still be in prison 00:54.

      I don't believe all the public are weirdos, but I do think there is an enormous amount of ignorance around the whole subject of paedophilia. I'm not blaming the public for that, it is a yucky subject, and not something we really want to go into.

      Unfortunately, it is this ignorance that perpetuates the myth that those viewing illegal images will go on to commit the crimes portrayed. As one less informed poster on this very blog pointed out, it's an addiction, one drink leads to another. Couples constantly try new ways in which to spice up their sex lives, but they rarely, if ever, become so addicted to their new tricks, that it spills over into the communal living areas of the family home or into the workplace. Sex doesn't work like that, most of the time it's 'nah, tried it once, didn't like it'.

      Your insinuation that I don't value the innocence of kids is downright offensive. As a young teen in a convent orphanage, I physically placed myself between the abusers and the 'little ones' to take the battering. I could take it, they couldn't.

      I am actually proud to have in my mailbox, correspondence from some of those 'little ones', who remember the 'kind older girl', who gave them hugs, made them giggle, and taught them how to make daisy chains. How dare you accuse me of not valuing the innocence of kids!

      No I am not readying a 'she knew the score', what an appalling suggestion, the child was 8! I'm a not defending the picture or it's content in any way, shape or form. I sincerely hope the makers of videos such as these get the harshest sentences available.

      Chris Langham, from what I gather, played no part in the making of this video, yet he, as a viewer, appears to be the only one who has been prosecuted for it. That's odd.

      I am actually very concerned for the girl. I hope that she was rescued and is now out of reach of those monsters. How does a child ever get over such a terrible ordeal, I hope that she is receiving the love and care she needs.

      Delete
    4. Like it or not, and refuse to accept it as much as you want, but tens of thousands of children are trafficked for the purposes of porn or private personal abuse.The films could be made in America or Holland or anywhere, but the kids can be from God knows where.They 'disappear off the radar' (apparently).Next time you're looking at your american politicians look at 'lolita express' and Trump and the Clintons to get a taster of trafficking. Foster and adoption agencies are crying out for new homes yet 100s of thousands of kids 'go missing', so it's clear they're not all being sent to childless couples.

      Chris Langham has a wife if he likes sex. If he's a bored husband he should have found a mistress if sex was all he wanted. He was the only one who made the news because he's the only one a huge audience would recognise through his TV work. That doesn't mean he was the only one arrested, he was the only one newsworthy. Langham, in his trial, pointed out that the kids were clearly underage and victims. He was part of a large customer base who recognise the same but still feed it.

      missing children statistics - globlmissingkids.org

      http://globalmissingkids.org/awareness/missing-children-statistics/

      Delete
    5. It's not a case of liking it or not, if thousands of children are going missing and being trafficked, I am appalled - why isn't every child getting the same publicity as Madeleine McCann?

      So the films could be made anywhere, the kids can be from God knows where, they disappear off the radar. OK. So how do you know about them? You don't know who they are, where they are taken to and what happens to them. Sounds very much to me like a claim made by Jim Gamble that hundreds of kids were being trafficked into the UK to work in cannabis factories. Again, he didn't know who they were or where they came from, but he knew there were a lot. That was several years ago, and since then I have never heard of one marijuana factory being raided for the purpose of rescuing children stolen from abroad. Is it still going on?

      Tracking the makers and distributors of a video isn't difficult and with all the resources the police have available, rescuing the victims shouldn't be difficult, and it should of course be the priority.

      Thank you for supplying the links. Could you also supply details of all those child trafficking gangs who have been arrested and charged and the number of children rescued from them.

      Delete
    6. https://euobserver.com/justice/133482

      https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/situational_report_trafficking_in_human_beings-_europol.pdf

      https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-nearly-2000-human-traffickers-2016-identifies-over-400-victims-across-us

      http://www.11alive.com/news/local/human-trafficking-arrests-hit-record-high-in-2016-/392507923

      Delete
  8. I see you have advertised this blog on your twitter feed - good - let people see what you are really like.

    Why don't you tweet your attempt to contact the criminal:

    Ps. If anyone out there knows Chris Langham, could they please let him know that a genuine survivor of a regime run by real paedophiles, has spoken out on his behalf and give him my very kindest wishes.

    You will reach out to a far larger audience on twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I doubt that very much 22:36, not only are the accused demonised, but so too are those who speak up on their behalf. As you say, it is the kiss of death for a writer, but I've never been afraid controversy, and it incenses me that the very limited resources available for child protection, are focussed on the one in a zillion chance a child will be abducted via the internet. Meanwhile, those actively protecting children, that is, those on the front line are collapsing under the pressure of their workloads. All those children are at far more risk of abuse, and that abuse is mostly of a violent or psychological nature. Sexual abuse is very rare, but it is always the headliner. Physical abuse however ends in fatalities. Quite often. Why no outrage about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''not only are the accused demonised''

      The accused was convicted.

      '' so too are those who speak up on their behalf. ''

      Apologists know the risks so they shouldn't complain.

      '' one in a zillion chance a child will be abducted via the internet.''

      Is there a source for that figure? I bet there isn't. It's one of you many made up statistics again.

      ''Physical abuse however ends in fatalities. Quite often. Why no outrage about that? ''

      There's plenty of outrage. Baby P the most well known in recent years. You think those 'pressure and workloads' equals 'sexual abuse is very rare ' ? It's far from rare unfortunately. Do some research.

      Delete
  10. 15 August 2015

    Chris Langham interview: Disgraced actor opens up about his child sex abuse images conviction and why he's making a film in an orphanage

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/chris-langham-interview-disgraced-actor-opens-up-about-his-child-sex-abuse-images-conviction-and-why-10457354.html

    "Paul Whitehouse, his co-star in Help!, told the court that he did not know Langham had taken the research so far. Langham says he had delusions about winning an award for tackling a taboo.

    “That was foolish. And ultimately selfish. Arrogant. I thought, ‘I will do this difficult thing.’ But it had no respect for the children whose tragedies I was prepared to witness. It was just driven by ego. Because then you would like me, for taking this difficult subject and helping us all to see it differently [through comedy]. Bollocks.”

    Many of his former colleagues and associates shunned him after the trial. Was that fair? “Yeah. Oh yeah. It’s what happened. It’s reality. People reacted honestly in the way they felt sincerely about and I completely respect that. I don’t think I was treated unfairly by anybody.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Ros,

    The war on paedophilia is like the war on drugs, never ending. You shut one down up pops another. My view on CL is that he's not a victim but one of many who creates a demand for such images and rightly so was caught and punished. In my mind he ceased being the victim as soon as he clicked download. However with reference to Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall & Rolf Harris, that was a cover up lasting decades and I believe only the tip of the iceberg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said John100.
      Ros seems to share Jim Gamble's view that "just" looking should go unpunished. She fails to see the bigger picture, people like Chris Langham create the marketplace for children to be abused for perverts like him. Then accusing me of emotive language for stating what the eight year old girl was subjected to?

      Delete
    2. I'm pretty sure I don't share ANY views with Jim Gamble, lol. Jim Gamble believes cartoon images should be included too. I'll leave it there.

      I feel as strongly as yourself KJ about the ordeal the child was subjected to, which is why I keep asking if she rescued.

      But there is a difference with 'just' looking. Thousands of people worldwide look at sick images and sick videos - are you not familiar with the slasher genre?

      In my opinion, violent images are just as pornographic as sexual images, yet there is a demand for videos that show 'live' executions, people dying and blood curdling autopsies. How does the supply and demand argument fit in there?

      The argument that an image, a book, a song or a painting, can spark crimes of a heinous nature or civil unrest, has formed the basis for censorship and banning since the beginning of time. It is quite possible that Wilma Flintstone's cave drawing of a woman slaying a T-rex was removed by order of the Water Buffalo Lodge afraid that it might give little girls the wrong idea about how the whole hierarchy system works.

      I don't blame you for your emotive language KJ, but I wish you would direct that anger towards those who are failing the thousands of children who are slipping through the net. Those kids going hungry, those kids being tormented daily by those who are supposed to love and care them. The social services are collapsing, social workers and carers have had their time spent with clients slashed to the bare minimum. The kind of circumstances that led to that poor child's ordeal, exist in homes all over the country. There, KJ, is where your anger should be directed.

      I don't know why Chris Langham wanted to look at the images you describe, just as I don't know why people look at and share horrific images and videos on social media. Perhaps it is a need to be shocked or shock others - who knows.

      But that link between looking at an image, no matter how vile and grotesque that image may be, and real abuse of real children, simply isn't there.

      A psychopath is a psychopath before they look at an image or read a book. There is no way of knowing or preventing whatever it is that triggers a killing spree. Evil killers don't go on the rampage because they watched a Batman movie, the trigger could just as easily have been 'it's your turn to take the rubbish out'.

      Delete
    3. ''The argument that an image, a book, a song or a painting, can spark crimes of a heinous nature or civil unrest, has formed the basis for censorship and banning since the beginning of time.''

      Your obsession with how evil and oppresive censorship is doesn't fit this. Images, actions, whatever don't matter.If it's children it's exploitation-or shouldn't we censor exploitation ? Exploitation shouldn't be allowed just because it doesn't trigger rapes, assaults or attacks or even murder.It's still exploitation and if it's kids, it's the equivalent of raping their innocence.

      ''I don't blame you for your emotive language KJ, but I wish you would direct that anger towards those who are failing the thousands of children who are slipping through the net.''

      The numbers are huge.I mean really huge. It would take thousands of protection officers and detectives to control it.Trafficking is covert and well organised and often the right hands are passed big money to look away.The public are angry about that but nothing can be done to stop it.The last thing we need is people coming out to defend those who provide the market.

      ''I don't know why Chris Langham wanted to look at the images you describe-Perhaps it is a need to be shocked or shock others - who knows. ''

      Or perhaps it was to get his thrill.If you don't know why defend or look to excuse it. He admitted himself it was wrong and why.

      ''But that link between looking at an image, no matter how vile and grotesque that image may be, and real abuse of real children, simply isn't there. ''

      You don't know that. There is no record to support your guess.Some go on to act out, some don't.Even if nobody went to act out it's still wrong.By the way, it's illegal too.

      Psychopaths are psychopaths. Paedophiles are paedophiles. A minority are both.

      Delete
    4. John100 30 August 2017 at 13:47

      “…he downloaded images which are illegal hence his conviction.”

      Precisely!

      T

      Delete
  12. Hi Ros,

    Your comment at 30/08/17 02:33.
    If CL was downloading renaissance paintings then you have an argument. But he wasn't, he downloaded images which are illegal hence his conviction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John10030 August 2017 at 13:47

      They were not just "images" - there were videos as well:

      Quote:
      The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK"
      Det Ch Insp Paul Fotheringham

      Delete
    2. and he went on to do more than 'just look' at a 14 year old kid.

      Delete
    3. '' we may be seeing the beginnings of an epic battle''

      I sincerely hope so. My money's on the McCanns winning it .

      If GM ( or KM, or both) free themselves of PR control and start asking real questions and making real demands I reckon some pretty nervous politicians will be in a state of panic.

      Maybe we'll find out what the ransom was and who it was made to behind the backs of the parents. What kind of leverage did the holding of the child offer and who was compromised ? I've suspected for a long time that one was made ( politician to politician) with a proviso being that closing the case or announcing the child as dead would result in another 'source' disclosing some proof that she was elsewhere and alive not long after May 03 even if not for long. It would explain ten years of dead ends and blind alleys.

      Delete
    4. As for the girl being 14, I don't know the circumstances, so I can't comment.

      I was once however, a 14 year old girl who was passionately in love with the 55 year old Anthony Quinn (Zorba the Greek) and would have run away with him in a shot.

      She was 31, I was 17, resonates with young teens the world over, and quite often with a jiggling of the ages. Pricilla was 14 when she met the 24 year old Elvis.

      The idea that adult men should take advantage of those raging teen hormones is of course disgusting, but it happens, and in some cultures, it is acceptable. In medieval times you had toddlers attending their own wedding ceremonies, some were married and divorced several times before they were 5.

      It is naïve to pretend this part of human nature doesn't exist. On both sides. Most men, including Elvis, have the decency and morality to wait. OK, most might be pushing it, some might be tempted and spend a lifetime regretting it, but some sleazebags, including the US President, will spend a lifetime perving over the young and nubile. Where is your outrage at those 14 year old girls on the billionaires yachts?

      Delete
    5. I'm intrigued by your reply 14:39 and I've read it twice.

      You have certainly thrown a curve ball in there. Where did 'ransom' come from? In fact, where did the idea that Madeleine was being held somewhere? If Gerry and Kate truly believe this, why aren't they shouting it from the rooftops - I certainly would.

      If proof exists that Madeleine was elsewhere and alive after May 3rd, why is this 'source' hanging onto it until after Operation Grange give up? It's a bombshell, it's the 'break' we have all been hanging on for over 10 years?

      Have the wars begun

      Delete
    6. Sy /Og etc have said more than once that they won't, nor should have to, give a running commentary. That's not being snide, it's being careful. A lot of things are on a need to know basis thankfully. My gut tells me that the parents would have been told why it's is being done. But what of the parents ? I know it's popular to think they started a media circus from the off to hide their dirty deeds.But even the antis have to accept that while they went along with that circus, there were PR men organising it as they were experts( you don't get to be PR controller for the government for nothing).The McCanns unfortunate phrase was 'marketing'. This was ceased upon as a literal definition of money making when it was more likely that they meant that the same mechanics of marketing would work in their favour in as much as it would 'promote' the image and plight of their child and greatly enhance the likelihood of being spotted.

      'Ransom' comes from 'abduction'. Abductions of children can be for childless parents( rare as there are enough institutions available to adopt a child), perverts( for obvious reasons) or a ransom( if the parents are wealthy).

      I rule number 1 out( explained), i think number 2 is a higher likelihood given what we keep reading about trafficking and hidden abuse.I rule number 3 out as we would have heard about it and with all the money that's been spent, the ransom would have been paid.

      Number 4 is because we are also learning that politicians have been compromised for years through sexual blackmail . That's where the leverage comes in. It's now all over the alt media( only some is disinfo, a lot isn't) how many policies are passed or favours done to avoid exposure of something. Number 4 sounds outlandish on the face of it.If the PJ and then SY were the only people interested in this case and not so many politicians and intelligence officers I wouldn't think it.But the truth is, they were and are.Any cover up of evidence or protection of anyone wouldn't serve any police force.Why would they do it ?

      The McCanns aren't stupid. If they're innocent I'm sure these things would have crossed their mind. If they're guilty they wouldn't be trying to extend the investigation or dip the funds to do it.They'd want it over and done with and closed.

      Delete
    7. Ransom suggests kidnap for money 16:31, and it hasn't been mentioned in 10 years. Ransoms are demanded within hours, and the cases are wrapped up quickly, tragically or successfully.

      Politicians have always been compromised by sexual blackmail, homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 1967. The laws didn't apply to women because it was said Queen Victoria didn't believe women did that sort of thing. But that may be a myth.....

      I don't think there is any real paedophilia going on in Westminster or among the higher echelons, the supply of from children's homes has dried up, and any family with a stolen or abused child would be shouting it from the rooftops. When a paedophile gang are active, everyone knows about it. See Marc Dutroux,

      continues....

      Delete
    8. Thank you for presenting your argument so articulately 16:31, but the idea that Madeleine is being held hostage is so off the wall, it wouldn't even make the plot of a Liam Neeson, movie.

      If the McCanns are not in agreement with the way the investigation is going, why don't they say so 16:31? Their acceptance of OG's closure without finding Madeleine is odd. The opposite of what you would expect from parents who will never give up, and plan to restart their own search. They have come full circle. They have been given everything they wanted - a full Scotland Yard investigation, yet they are starting back at the beginning? Exactly where they were before the 6 year police investigation.

      Delete
    9. ''Ransom suggests kidnap for money 16:31, and it hasn't been mentioned in 10 years.''

      Yes, i said that. But i was talking about ransoms demanded of the parents. If a politician was over a barrel it wouldn't be public would it. Nor would the parents be told about the situation, they'd just receive over the top protection.

      ''Ransoms are demanded within hours, and the cases are wrapped up quickly, tragically or successfully.''

      Yes, of parents, not politicians. They can be compromised for years. Sonia Poulton's woke up to that one if you watch her recent video.

      ''I don't think there is any real paedophilia going on in Westminster or among the higher echelons, the supply of from children's homes has dried up''

      You don't think it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Cyril Smith was the loveable northern lad of the people. Clement Freud was the likeable chef and television personality. We know different now don't we. Ted Heath was a prime minister. And look how many times they managed to delay the Leon Brittan investigation. The whole McCalpine thing was the turning point in them stifling it. Especially online. See Ben Fellows. The Dutroux affair took years to break through the barriers the establishment put up. Thankfully a die hard prosecutor had a 'history' with institutional paedophilia. Even now there's investigations going on and all manner of efforts to kill the evidence and statements.


      Delete
  13. Ros - re your update.

    I think you of all people should know not to believe everything that The Sun says.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 August 2017 at 15:53

    As for the girl being 14, I don't know the circumstances, so I can't comment. "
    -------------------------------------

    It seems from your many comments on here that you had no idea about the circumstances of Langham's case and why he was quite rightly sent to prison. Your numerous attempts to divert with your references to art, gothic architecture, paintings, other cultures and other people etc are nonsense.

    Perhaps you will state quite clearly whether you believe that a person who views a video that was 15 minutes long and showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK, should be sent to prison or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My references to art, gothic architecture etc, are not nonsense to the enlightened. Art is in the eye of the beholder, it is whatever you perceive it to be. That's why artists are so adorable, they ask far more questions than writers.

      As part of my degree course, we had to study aesthetics, and we were forced (sorry Mike) to watch the absolutely disgusting The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover. It was the opposite of a visual delight, involving cannibalism, human butcher and gross bodily functions. Whilst I admire Peter Greenaway's ideology, we must face up to reality, as a complete wuss it totally unsettled me. (lecturer Mike later confessed he couldn't watch it himself, doh!). Peter Greenaway was arguing there shouldn't be less violence on our screens, there should be more. If people actually saw the real consequences of real violence, it would become more repulsive and unacceptable. Hollywood glosses it over, we have become desensitized to real horror.

      It's an ongoing debate, obviously, as someone who faints at the sight of blood, I would take the opposing side, but I can see his point.

      What is good and bad taste, again, that is a matter of debate. In day's gone by a good hanging or a good flogging in the town square was a night at the movies. Public burnings attracted huge crowds - supply and demand?

      Nothing unites a mob more than having a common enemy, it brings people together. We all hate those who would harm children, quite rightly, but it is the question of who is doing the actual harming that has become blurred.

      Lynching the disabled man with learning difficulties who looks at illegal images on his computer, may satisfy a baying mob, but it does not to remove the risk of abuse to their children. Those doing the abusing are usually installed in their own homes.

      Again you graphically describe the horror of that child's ordeal, as several of you keep doing over and over. I get it. It repulses me just as much as it repulses me, the idea that there is a little 'Lesley Ann Downey' out there chills me to the bone. Why can't anyone confirm that she was rescued?

      I don't think anyone should be sent to prison for watching a video. I think the makers of the video should be sent to prison, along with the distributors of that video.

      Google searches can lead anywhere, as those of us sighing at the beauty of Faberge eggs at 4 in the morning will tell you. Many people I am sure, go to places they really shouldn't, maybe their judgement blinded by alcohol or drugs. In the old days, I could have seriously done with a breathalyser locking device on my phone, and I thank all the Gods there may be, snap chat and Instagram weren't around.

      The idea of punishing the viewer for the horror they are watching, baffles me. It's like punishing the onlookers of a crime, whilst ignoring the crime.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 18:12

      What you have posted is ridiculous irrelevance and waffle.

      However you eventually did answer the question - you do not believe that someone should be sent to prison for viewing a video that was 15 minutes long and showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK.

      Delete
    3. Yes, lol, I did go into a bit of a lecture there - I do that on occasion - it takes me back to the fun side of teaching - that great expectation that your students will experience a lightbulb moment.

      Again with the graphic descriptions, do you enjoy repeating it? Do you think I don't understand you?

      The content of the video is moot, no matter how many times you use graphic language to extract outrage, viewing is not the same as physically abusing.

      The world is filled with vile images 18:55, most of the time we can't avoid them. Many times I have been traumatised by images I see on twitter and facebook (I usually unfriend), but I can't escape them.

      You can't distinguish this especially disgusting imagery from other disgusting imagery. You can't isolate it, and claim it is not a slippery slope. Whatever way you look at it, it is a gateway to other forms of censorship. You think 'terrorism laws' are restricted to terrorists?

      Irrational hatred of strangers never ends well, even if they are society's lowest scum. Ignorance breeds fear, that's why people become so emotional and when this topic is debated. I expect there are already calls for it to be shut down here and myself ostracised, because I am pointing out that danger comes not from loners looking at sick shit in their basements, but from the control freaks who move in on single parents.

      Delete
    4. ''Irrational hatred of strangers never ends well''

      The irony. Irrational hatred of anything never ends well.

      '' Ignorance breeds fear''

      No it doesn't. It can breed more ignorance and possible mob hysteria though .

      '' that's why people become so emotional and when this topic is debated''

      No it isn't. It's because the innocence of childhood being taken away by self indulgent perverts makes people angry.

      ''I am pointing out that danger comes not from loners looking at sick shit in their basements, but from the control freaks who move in on single parents.''

      What does that even mean ?


      Delete
  15. At may well be in the eye of the beholder and subjective. Porn isn't. If you watch porn and see something other than porn, you're either being pretentious or you're mad.

    ''The idea of punishing the viewer for the horror they are watching, baffles me. It's like punishing the onlookers of a crime, whilst ignoring the crime. ''

    If it's illegal to download the images or films, then they're being punished for breaking the law. And, actually, they are being punished for watching a crime. It's a crime an adult should report( a child being exploited for the sexual gratification of people who enjoy that sort of thing). By not reporting it, they're part of the crime. If you knew it was going on in a warehouse somewhere near where you live would you report it or be liberal with your actions ? Live and let live. Porn is in the eye of the beholder etc. I can't understand why you seem baffled by all of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would I report it if I thought a child was being abused? Yes, and I have. Not a pleasant situation, but one that wouldn't allow me to sleep at night if I hadn't.

      You are not a philosopher are you 18:39, 'porn' is subjective, in olden days a glimpse of stocking was thought of as something shocking. The definition of porn changes with time. Meanwhile the Judges of what is or isn't acceptable, are tossing those that don't pass their stringent rules onto a bonfire. Lady Chatterly's Lover, Unacceptable, Lolita? Questionable, but a supply and demand market for men who fantasise about flings with underage girls. Should viewers of that movie be arrested?

      Defining 'porn' really isn't that simple. How do you quantify erotic? sensual? titillating? Aren't we all titillated by different things? I, like 99.9% of the population don't see children as sexual in any way. Not in their bathing suits on a beach or running around in the altogether when you are trying to get their jammies on. The same applies to little girls with make up and pageant costumes. My sympathy lies with them not playing mud pies with their brothers.

      Who defines what titillates paedophiles? How do they know? I don't really want to know how child pornography is categorized, but it is a discussion that should be had, because so many people are vulnerable to charges simply for sharing photos of the family on the beach. I believe one girl was charge with sending an underage topless picture of herself, to herself. The laws are so fuzzy everyone is at risk.

      Delete
    2. ''Defining 'porn' really isn't that simple. How do you quantify erotic? sensual? titillating? Aren't we all titillated by different things?''

      OK, for the sake of your disturbing defence of this area, let's pretend that porn, sensuality and sex are all one and the same. Engaging in either with a minor is illegal. You get that, I know. The law also states that minors cant watch it or view it.It states that they can't take part in it.It states that it's illegal to persuade, groom or threaten minors into taking part in it . It states that it is illegal to watch it or view it as they are illegal acts of child abuse.

      '' I don't really want to know how child pornography is categorized,''

      That's it.Its classified as 'child pornography'.

      'You are not a philosopher are you 18:39, 'porn' is subjective'''

      No, porn isn't subjective, only taste and preference is. Porn images or films are subject to strict guidelines.They exist for those in the business of pornography, film making or photography. They're laws. They exist to protect the makers as much as the participants.Guidelines tell them where the step too far is.

      You don't understand paedophilia if you talk about 'titilation'.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 20:00

      Once again with you stupid examples.

      You know exactly what Langham did and was sent to prison for.

      Delete
  16. Ros, you say you are a published author already. What are the titles of the books you have written ( not self published )? I would dearly love to read them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cry and You Cry Alone, published by Random House - the link is in the right hand margin. It's probably available for about 1p now :(

      I have an historic drama that was produced and broadcast on the radio (and nominated for a Sony award), that I am trying to arrange to upload, free on here. The text is already published (by me) but the broadcast version is completely professional :)

      It is an hour long and entitled Constance, and it's a great story - loved, but rejected by People's Friend who found it too political, lol, but said it deserved a wide audience. I still live in hope, lol.

      Delete
  17. Ros says: "Again with the graphic descriptions, do you enjoy repeating it? Do you think I don't understand you?"
    -------------------------------
    It is obvious that you just do not understand.
    It is a graphic description of child abuse and exploitation that Langham was jailed for downloading, storing on his computer and viewing. That is what he did - not any of your numerous examples of other things that you have repeated.

    You can't get away with telling people not to repeat it - it is what he did and it should be published - not swept under the carpet with a pretence that it is not that bad.

    It is you that does not want to discuss the difficult area of the sexual child abuse and exploitation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The fabulous actor Chris Langham was imprisoned on charges that wouldn't have been out of place in medieval court, presided over by a row of a Cardinals. My heart goes out to him, and to all those men whose lives were wrecked by that particularly nasty witch hunt. And I can say that loud and proud"

    Do you stand by that comment Ros now that you know exactly what he did?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Ros, long time reader but don't comment. A reader earlier mentioned Sonia Poulton's recent video's. I have looked them up and you will find them on the channel called Victurus Libertas VL on You Tube, very interesting indeed. Thank you for your reasoned blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. reasoned lol

      Delete
    2. Many thanks Julie, apologies for letting your post slip through, I'm looking forward to seeing them :)

      Delete
  20. Chris Langham paid so that children could be raped. I'm sickened to read of your support for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised Jane, that as an English teacher you would support the argument that there is a link between violent crime and watching violent images.

      I know you are using the supply and demand argument (quite emotively), but as often happens, it evolves into the chicken and the egg. What came first?

      What I am seeing Jane is a terrible abuse of power. I'm looking at the bigger picture. I urge you to take a look at what happened to thousands of men during Operation Ore. Men who were wrongly accused (their credit cards had been forged) of downloading child pornography from an American Site.

      Most of the men were innocent, but it was too late, their lives had been wrecked, the families broken up, their children seized and taken into care. 39 of them committed suicide.

      These fuzzy laws about what is or isn't porn, leaves thousands of people vulnerable to the kind of dawn raids carried out by Operation Ore. If a snap happy teen inadvertently shares a topless picture of herself on Facebook, all the recipients go on the Sex Register.

      I know Chris Langham pleaded guilty to all charges, but I fear with cases such as these, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

      I am actually a survivor of a Catholic Children's Home, and I supported the actions of those pursuing historical cases of child abuse. I have however, done a complete about turn, all I can see is a Witch hunt, people in power using ancient sex crimes to throw populist victims to the lions. There are no children being protected here, the 'children' like me, have turned 60!

      I think if anyone truly believes in protecting children, their anger should be directed at the atrocities that are happening now. All those kids falling through the net of social services and education because their resources have been slashed.

      I once worked as a volunteer for Women's Aid Jane, and I saw first hand those sad little faces. Real kids and their mums, fleeing real abuse. These kids weren't being abused by sad old men hiding away and looking at picture, they were being abused by real men moving in on their mums and their homes, for that sole purpose. Almost every abused child, is abused within their own home (or by the authorities that rescue them), shouldn't that be where we are focussed?

      Prisons are full of careleavers and kids from dysfunctional homes Jane, and the majority of prisoners are illiterate. They are, if you like, the end product, of child abuse.

      The answer is of course, education. Sure Start was a great scheme, many young parents are clueless, for their toddlers they set in practice misguided ideas that can often set their children on the wrong path. Young women are taught not to value themselves enough to find someone who will value them too. They rush into relationships, often blind to the malevolent and dangerous aspects of those who infatuate them.

      Prosecuting men like Chris Langham doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg where child abuse is concerned Jane, I fear it is a distraction.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton31 August 2017 at 18:41

      ''I'm surprised Jane, that as an English teacher you would support the argument that there is a link between violent crime and watching violent images.''

      Eh ? Am i missing something there. Why would an English teacher's opinion matter ? I mean no disrespect to Jane or that job, but i fail to see why an English teacher, or any teacher, would be likely to support the alleged connection or non-connection. I also fail to see what Jane supported.I only read her voicing what she was sickened by. Aren't English teachers supposed to be sickened by it ?

      Delete
    3. ''I know Chris Langham pleaded guilty to all charges, but I fear with cases such as these, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. ''

      He was damned for admitting he was guilty of what he had been arrested for.He still admits it.I think you're his only defender.

      ''I think if anyone truly believes in protecting children, their anger should be directed at the atrocities that are happening now. All those kids falling through the net of social services and education because their resources have been slashed. ''

      That's a bureaucratic crime.It can't be punished.Child porn is a real crime and can.

      ''Prisons are full of careleavers and kids from dysfunctional homes Jane, and the majority of prisoners are illiterate. They are, if you like, the end product, of child abuse. ''

      It would be quicker to just use the cliche 'the abused becomes the abuser'-which is equally weak and fails to take into account the careleavers and those kids from bad homes that overcame rose above their circumstances to live normal productive lives or the other illiterate criminals who came from normal homes.

      ''Prosecuting men like Chris Langham doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg where child abuse is concerned Jane, I fear it is a distraction.''

      Or an exercise in raising the public awareness of what goes on at all levels of society.Not just careleavers or those from dysfunctional homes, but those from good homes who are articulate, intelligent and talented.

      Delete
    4. Oh, its a bureaucratic crime, silly me, once that is pointed out to those with broken bodies and minds, I'm sure they will understand.

      I didn't say they were in prison for abuse 19:33, most of them aren't, they have psychological and drug problems, angry and possibly violent, feelings towards those in authority, those who let the down.

      Sadly, some do replicate the codes and conventions of the dysfunctional homes they grew up in, but this is usually nearer the higher end of the social scale, and involves strict discipline etc. Those from homes where they are neglected and abused, are mostly angry.

      But, as you rightly point out, there are many invulnerable, that is kids who develop a heightened sense of survival. They are street smart, and always ahead of the game, they get knocked down, they get back up again, and I count myself among them.

      Your final paragraph: What a cruel way in which to raise awareness! You are wrecking the lives of real people to make a point, that could easily be made in hundreds of less vindictive ways. Human sacrifice, even for the greater good, is barbaric.

      Delete
    5. ''You are wrecking the lives of real people to make a point, that could easily be made in hundreds of less vindictive ways. Human sacrifice, even for the greater good, is barbaric.''

      A household name committed a horrible crime and it was reported via newspapers and TV. What's cruel about that ? How is it a 'human sacrifice'. What about the way the 8 yr old girl in one of the videos was used ? Why doesn't that touch as profoundly as the lunatic who was paying money to enjoy viewing it ?

      Delete
    6. Err, all these posts, yet I am the only one expressing concern for what happened to that 8 year old girl!

      I don't feel hatred towards Chris Langham, he hasn't spent his life hurting children, he looked at images. That isn't the same. I've never looked, nor will I, but I suspect there might be dog fight videos on the internet. I do know however, that police and the RSPCA are constantly on the lookout to shut them down and prosecute them. Shouldn't there be the same vigilance with child porn? Are those who watch the dog fights paying to see dogs savaged and killed? Do they bear the same responsibility as those who organise and broadcast those dog fights?

      Delete
    7. '' there might be dog fight videos on the internet. I do know however, that police and the RSPCA are constantly on the lookout to shut them down and prosecute them. Shouldn't there be the same vigilance with child porn?''

      Yes, there should, and there is.But then you get the trippy hippy types with their :

      ''''I think Chris Langham is a victim of a campaign for the authorities to have more access to our internet activity'' nonsense. Then follows the ''but who's to say what porn is'' right behind it.

      Delete
    8. Completely agree with Jane, you can say "was the child rescued" and the makers and distributors of these videos/images should be the ones who are punished are all well and good and anybody would completely agree with that and hope that the poor children were rescued. As It stands it's not known if these things happened but the fact that you think that somebody who watches these disgusting videos/images and feeds the demand should go unpunished is abhorrent! It may not lead to the viewers to abuse or steal a child, but that's not the point! And yes people who watch dog fights, and graphic real violence should also be punished too. In a situation where a person or animal is subjected to violence, physical or sexual, anybody who chooses to view that content should be punished. I find it sickening to read that you don't think that, without the viewers the videos wouldn't be there, the abuse may be and that of course still needs tackling.

      Delete
  21. I'm saddened that the tragedy that is the genius CL should be resurrected and dragged into the McCann cesspit. I'm bemused as to why you re-opened this up, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my own little, non libellous way, I am broadening the McCann discussion 23:08.

      As we know, this case is so much more than the disappearance of a child. For a while there, it became a rapidly expanding and very profitable industry.

      There were many with fingers in the pie. Politicians and VIPs, charities and crisis control groups. For politicians, the appealing Madeleine was the perfect vehicle on which to hitch their proposals for surveillance of the internet, ID cards, the harvesting of DNA and a crackdown on borders.

      There are lots of things that need to be taken into consideration when trying to figure out the title of this blog.

      Delete
    2. There's lots of things to be taken into consideration about the title and with all the different games that were playing in the background of the crime. But only 2 culprits i suppose. If you're right about your idea that the parents done it then the rest of it is you basically accusing all those mentioned as accomplices in a child's disappearance before illegally taking tax payers money to fake an investigation.

      Delete
    3. Apologies if my 'English Teacher' remark offended, it wasn't intentional. It is just that in my experience, English Teachers are usually fiercely opposed to censorship.

      I know, the CL issue, goes slightly off track, but it's the same basic argument that is used in censorship. That is, a book, a song, a painting, can incite violence, civil disobedience and crime.

      Delete
    4. So if Paedophiles just confine their personal sickness to the internet and not go out and attack it shouldn't be censored ? There's a bit of a difference between lady chatterly and child porn

      Delete
    5. I haven't said that anywhere 00:09. Child pornography is quite rightly illegal, and my wish is that the police would crack down on those making it.

      I object to the link between watching violent pornography and then enacting it in real life. Millions saw Dark Knight Rising, but only one, went on a killing spree. People of any sexual persuasion rarely, if ever, bring their sexual fantasies into the real world.

      Child pornography is evil, but the same arguments apply as they did to regular pornography. The oral majority claimed pornography would turn men into rapists. That argument is now relegated to history.

      Just to be absolutely clear, before I get accused of all sorts, I am vehemently opposed to legalising child porn and vehemently opposed to Harriet Harman's PIE - yuck, yuck, yuck. I find it just as disgusting and barbaric as everyone else, that's why I would like to see more resources on the front line, where they are desperately needed.

      Delete
  22. "During the trial, jurors were shown some truly disturbing images which Bridger had downloaded from the internet.

    These included photographs of an apparently dead naked girl being hanged, cartoon images of child rape, a photograph of a Thai girl apparently raped and murdered and an image of a pregnant eight-year-old from the Philippines.

    Members of the jury were visibly distressed when they were asked to view the images, and they even requested that Bridger not be allowed to view the selection of images gathered from his laptop when they had to be viewed for a second time in the trial."

    bridger who went on to abduct and murder poor April Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  23. " Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, gave evidence to MPs, looking back on his conviction of “pervert” Jamie Reynolds, who murdered Georgia Williams, 17. The 23-year-old had been watching extreme pornography immediately before Georgia arrived at his home, where he proceeded to hang her in May 2013.

    Lord Thomas said the case “left me in no doubt at all that the peddling of pornography on the internet had a dramatic effect on the individual.

    “What is available to download and to see is simply horrific and it played a real part in the way in which this particular murder was carried out.” "

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ anons 23:50 & 23:53

    ahhh but :

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 August 2017 at 15:12 :

    ''But that link between looking at an image, no matter how vile and grotesque that image may be, and real abuse of real children, simply isn't there. ''

    Who do we believe I wonder.

    Ros has showed yet again that skimming areas of interest isn't 'expertise' no matter how often she pretends to be.But still she'll argue . The credibility factor is sinking like a stone. Selecting little pieces of this and that isn't worth a jot if you want to convince people that you are to be taken seriously.That's across the board.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, people are taking me seriously, look at the number of comments.

      Delete
    2. No, I have shown yet again, that it is possible to condense all that research and information into a few paragraphs that ordinary people can understand.

      Delete
    3. Crowds gather around road accidents. it doesn't mean they're enjoying or learning from them.

      Delete
    4. ( you're talking to yourself)

      Delete
  25. Fair due's to Ros - she has at least allowed a lot of comments (a number of them are mine) opposing her views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 31 August 2017 at 15:26

      “Fair due's to Ros - she has at least allowed a lot of comments (a number of them are mine) opposing her views.”

      Fair comment.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  26. There have been many cases over the years when murderers, serial killers are found to have 'looked at images', 'read books' or watched movies. Moors murderer Ian Brady was fascinated by Neitzsche, did the works of Neitzsche trigger his killing spree? Should Neitzsche be banned?

    The Learned Judge is learned in Law, not psychology, how often have we seen examples of Judges being absolutely clueless when they go outside their areas?

    The point is, millions have read Neitzsche and not gone on to become child murders. Millions have watched Batman but have not gone on a killing spree. These psychopaths are psychopaths before they pick up the book or watch the movie.

    When a murderer is arrested, the police and all those investigating, will examine all their possessions looking for 'why', presumably because if they can find out why, they can prevent it happening again.

    The pornography collected by the creatures mentioned in the above posts, is the probably the most newsworthy aspects of their characters. Just a little bit of digging I'm sure, would uncover much, much more.

    Sadly, child rape and child murder went on long before the internet, and long before cinema even. What triggered Thomas Hamilton to gun down infants in Dunblane? In 1996, there was no internet. How about the Moors Murders in 1963? And Marc Dutroux in 1995, wasn't sitting looking at pictures, he was out stealing kids off the streets.

    Jamie Reynolds didn't suddenly change from a nice, happy going lad into a sadistic killer because he watched extreme porn. He's probably been pulling wings off insects and torturing puppies since he was toddler. Blaming the films he watched is a simple explanation and it gives a nod to the moral majority who still believe censorship will save them from themselves.

    Now, just to be perfectly clear here, I think anyone who uses kids for their sick fantasies should go straight to jail, and I wouldn't be too bothered if they chucked away the key.

    I'm not impressed with 'no-one knows who the kids are or where the films are made'. Why not? The police have got more sophisticated technology and resources than ever before. If they can pick out a face in a packed arena, they can find and rescue those poor kids who are being abused. Look at the amount of money and resources thrown at the Madeleine case, yet they cannot find that 8 year old girl who was brutilized on camera, in the UK!

    As for insulting my education and knowledge 00:43, I'll let my readers be the judge of that, lol. I don't keep a record of what I read, it would be impossible, but I've had my head 'stuck in a book' since the age of 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The Learned Judge is learned in Law, not psychology, how often have we seen examples of Judges being absolutely clueless when they go outside their areas? ''

      When you are put on trial for a crime it's not a matter for psychology, it's a matter for the law to deal with.The law isn't 'outside the area' of a judge.

      ''The point is, millions have read Neitzsche and not gone on to become child murders.''

      You are still avoiding the point. It doesn't matter.Some do, some don't.Just because some don't doesn't mean child porn, images or films, should use it as an argument to relax the laws or the censorship.

      ''When a murderer is arrested, the police and all those investigating, will examine all their possessions looking for 'why', presumably because if they can find out why, they can prevent it happening again. ''

      At that point he is only a suspect.He isn't a murderer until found guilty before a jury.The way they prevent him from doing it again if he's found guilty is putting him in prison.

      Nobody blames the internet for perverts committing crimes.They choose to do it.It merely gives them a much bigger playground and one in which they can't be seen as easily as being in the public arena.That's why it happened years ago on a smaller scale- opportunity.

      ''Now, just to be perfectly clear here, I think anyone who uses kids for their sick fantasies should go straight to jail, and I wouldn't be too bothered if they chucked away the key. ''

      As long as you could post messages online to anyone who should know Langham and give him your 'very best wishes' ?

      ''I'm not impressed with 'no-one knows who the kids are or where the films are made'. Why not? The police have got more sophisticated technology and resources than ever before''

      If foreign children are filmed or photographed why would their records be in a data base in that country. Why do you think they're trafficked ?

      ''Look at the amount of money and resources thrown at the Madeleine case, yet they cannot find that 8 year old girl who was brutilized on camera, in the UK! ''

      Madeleine was identifiable.

      ''As for insulting my education and knowledge 00:43, I'll let my readers be the judge of that, lol.''

      Have you seen the responses on here ?

      Delete
    2. The learned judge opined that the crime was as a result of the pornography watched by the murderer, unless that opinion is based on years of academic study in psychology, it is not his area.

      I think Chris Langham is a victim of a campaign for the authorities to have more access to our internet activity - all in the name of 'think of the children'. Famous enough to grab the public's attention, looking at images that would incense every adult. His prosecution is worth a hundred regular guys, and highlights the dangers of an unpoliced internet.

      I wasn't expecting the makers of these atrocities to keep records 17:10, let alone file them with the authorities in the countries where they are made.

      I'm a bit of a technophobe, but even I know, that the technology already exists to track exactly where a mobile phone has been and where a message has been sent from. When my son recently lost his mobile phone, he tracked it down to the shop counter in Wickes and picked it up the next morning. Tracking down the makers of sick films, shouldn't be a problem.

      By saying Madeleine was identifiable, are you saying the children in these films aren't? To put it crudely, are their faces hidden?

      Why aren't the parents reporting their children as missing? Even the poorest and most deprived societies unite to protect their children, how can children disappear without anyone knowing?

      It disturbs me that no-one knows who these victims are, or how many, and no-one knows where these atrocities are filmed. Don't countries come together to tackle crimes of these nature?

      When I was at Uni, I studied Hollywood the Dream Factory - and yes, it was as great as it sounds! Hollywood was founded close to the Mexican border by movie makers and film producers, because they were always being arrested by police enforcing the Patent Laws. They would make their films and 'break for the border' if the police were closing in.

      In those days, without the sophisticated resources of today's police, those film makers were always tracked down. They weren't killing or brutalising anyone by the way, they were making family friendly movies.

      Why then, in the 21st century, are hundreds (no-one has yet given a number) of children being trafficked and brutalised in what you imply is a very large industry? In film makers in the 1920's couldn't get away with mini's, how do they get away with it in 2017?

      Delete
    3. ''I think Chris Langham is a victim of a campaign for the authorities to have more access to our internet activity''

      I think you're paranoid.He was arrested for enjoying the sight of children being abused.The inexperienced judge who didn't understand psychology jailed him for that.His knowledge of psychology is irrelevant.He could have said nothing at all, the sentence would have still been passed for the crime.

      ''It disturbs me that no-one knows who these victims are,''

      And yet you're not disturbed by one criminal( Langham) but are by a judge because he was 'out of his area' when he made CL a 'victim' of an online surveillance team. You asked why traffickers are never caught or children never found. You've had the explanations- they run and they hide and they bribe and move on. So the police track them online and you still find a reason to complain.

      Delete
    4. ''By saying Madeleine was identifiable, are you saying the children in these films aren't? To put it crudely, are their faces hidden? ''

      I'm saying she had parents and family, as in not a stranger in a foreign country. She had a name and we all knew it when it was put out there.The kids who are trafficked don't have that.There's instances in Brazil where poverty is so frightening, parents pput the children on the streets or sell them and walk away. I have never seen images of what we're talking about.If they appear in any blogs or alt news outlets the faces have black bars across so i assume the faces are seen. The whole horror power play of adult and child buzz would be in that face. That's what makes the already sick and twisted act the more sick and twisted.

      By the way, your 'Hollywood Dream Factory' is the sanitised user friendly Hollywood presentation.

      Here's what was probably on the cutting room floor :

      http://listverse.com/2017/02/26/10-disturbing-stories-about-hollywoods-pedophile-problem/

      http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2316-brad-pitt-elite-hollywood-pedophiles-control-america-

      http://www.conspiracytruths.co.uk/paedophiliainhollywood.html

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roW238dfUUk

      Delete
  27. You seem to be missing the point Ros. This has nothing to do with being influenced by the ideas of Neitzsche or others. It is the fact that persons watching child porn on the internet are actually supporting an industry that promotes and relies upon the abuse of children. This support is financial as all downloads, access's etc. will be subject to payment. A large proportion of children used in child porn are the victims of Human Trafficking, which has grown to huge levels over the last few years. These children are therefore viewed as a commodity. The majority of makers and distributors of child porn are not paedophiles themselves but just looking to make money. Cut out the money element (provided by the Chris Langhams of this world) and you will reduce the market for vulnerable children to become the victims of child porn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A large proportion of children used in child porn are the victims of human trafficking. OK. What does large proportion mean, dozens, hundreds, thousands?

      Who are these children and where do they come from? Are their names on the missing people site? Why are we not hearing about human trafficking gangs being arrested? Why aren't these children being rescued? Why aren't the watchers of these sick images having their supply cut off?

      So let me get this straight, those MAKING these movies are not paedophiles themselves, they are just in it for the money? They are abducting and brutalising and possibly murdering children and for profit, so that's OK then? Phew, at least they are not paedophiles!

      Delete
    2. 1- Large proportion means large proportion.Does the exact number matter ? Google it.

      2- If Human trafficking is about smuggling from country to country they haven't been caught. Isn't that obvious.Don't you know what 'underground' means ?

      3- The same reason drug users don't have their supply cut off.Put one supplier in jail and a vacancy arises for another.

      4- Making the movies is Paedophilia. Grooming, persuading or forcing kids to take part is abuse.

      I think you should give this crazy talk up now . It's beginning to look disturbing.

      Delete
    3. No Ros at 19:28 you have not got it right and you are making a fool of yourself now.

      I have supplied statistics for you in separate posts.

      Delete
    4. Those statistics don't tell me anything I still don't know who they [the children] are or where they came from, and you don't seem to either.

      Why should fear of making a fool of myself stop me from voicing my opinion 20:28, it doesn't stop you.

      Delete
    5. What exactly is disturbing you, I am expressing my opinions openly and honestly and I am publishing opinions that disagree with me.

      Chris Langham was punished for thought crime. Not something he had done, but for something he might do. If there were any other area of crime, other than the 'P' word, there would be a public outcry if people were arrested for what they MIGHT do.

      There is no direct line between what you view and what you do, if there where we would see some very odd outfits in the office.

      It is easy to find some sort of art or music to blame for society's ills, but it just isn't that simple. The abuse of children should always be illegal and punished in the harshest way, it should never in any way, be acceptable.

      Blurring the lines between actual crime and thought crime does nothing to protect children. Those abusing children are out there doing it, not watching videos, and that's where resources should be focused.

      Delete
    6. ''Why should fear of making a fool of myself stop me from voicing my opinion ''

      It never has before

      Delete
    7. ''What exactly is disturbing you, I am expressing my opinions openly and honestly and I am publishing opinions that disagree with me. ''

      I'm only guessing but your opinions might be disturbing everyone that reads them.

      ''Chris Langham was punished for thought crime. Not something he had done, ''

      There's no such thing as thought crime. He was punished for something he done.

      ''Blurring the lines between actual crime and thought crime does nothing to protect children''

      The line doesn't exist because 'thought crime' doesn't exist.The line is between crime and no crime.You don't need a law degree to understand that.Abusing children physically, mentally or sexually is a crime. Exploiting them for it is a crime. Paying to enjoy the service provided by those who break those laws is illegal.

      Delete
  28. "As for insulting my education and knowledge 00:43, I'll let my readers be the judge of that, lol."

    "In 1996, there was no internet."

    Wrong!

    You might expand your knowledge a little by reading here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Anonymous at 18:00

    Thank you for the link.

    An interesting quote from Tim Berners-Lee:

    "A lot of people ask me whether I am disappointed that the Web has taken on such a lot of commercial material, rather than being a pure academic space. In fact, I know it could not be universal if it did not allow any form of communication. It must be able to represent any thought, any datum, any idea, that one might have. So in this way the Web and the UU concept of faith are similar in that both serve as a place for thought, and the importance of the quest for truth, but without labelling any one true solution. The quest for the truth is always accompanied by skepticism of anyone claiming to have found it."

    https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/UU.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. The numbers;

    Update: In 2012 the (UNODC) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports the percentage of child victims had risen in a 3 year span from 20 per cent to 27 per cent. Of every three child victims, two are girls and one is a boy.

    Gender and age profile of victims detected globally: 59% Women - 14% Men - 17% Girls and 10% were Boys.

    600,000 to 800,000 women, children and men bought and sold across international borders every year and exploited for forced labor or commercial sex (U.S. Government)
    When internal trafficking victims are added to the estimates, the number of victims annually is in the range of 2 to 4 million
    50% of those victims are estimated to be children
    It is estimated that 76 percent of transactions for sex with underage girls start on the Internet
    2 million children are subjected to prostitution in the global commercial sex trade (UNICEF)
    There are 20.9 Million victims of Trafficking World wide as of 2012
    1.5 Million victims in the United States

    ReplyDelete
  31. The impact;

    Human trafficking has surpassed the illegal sale of armsthumb
    Trafficking will surpass the illegal sale of drugs in the next few years
    Drugs are used once and they are gone. Victims of child trafficking can be used and abused over and over
    A $32 billion-a-year industry, human trafficking is on the rise and is in all 50 states (U.S. Government)
    4.5 Million of trafficked persons are sexually exploited
    Up to 300,000 Americans under 18 are lured into the commercial sex trade every year
    From 14,500 - 17,500 of those victims are trafficked into the United States each year

    ReplyDelete
  32. "So let me get this straight, those MAKING these movies are not paedophiles themselves, they are just in it for the money? They are abducting and brutalising and possibly murdering children and for profit, so that's OK then? Phew, at least they are not paedophiles!"
    Who said it was OK? I was making the point that it is a business, a disgusting business,but it only exists because people like Chris Langham are prepared to pay money to watch it.
    As for human trafficking statistics, Ark of Hope for Children, an american charitable organisation, recently stated that human trafficking "is a $32 billion-a-year industry, ..... and an estimated 4.5 Million of trafficked persons are sexually exploited. ......Up to 300,000 Americans under 18 are lured into the commercial sex trade every year." A little bit of research goes a long way, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1. Almost 21 million people worldwide are victims of forced labour – 11.4 million women and girls and 9.5 million men and boys.

    2. Of those exploited by individuals or enterprises, 4.5 million are victims of forced sexual exploitation.

    3. Forced labour in the private economy generates US $150 billion in illegal profits per year.

    4. In the UK in 2016, 3,805 people were identified as potential victims of trafficking. This is a 17% increase on 2015 figures.

    5. Of the 3,805 potential victims of trafficking identified in 2016, 1278 of these were children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference between making blind statements and guesses and actually doing some research. Good post.

      Delete
  34. Ros at 20:38 " Tracking down the makers of sick films, shouldn't be a problem."

    You really have no idea Ros - try going on to the dark web, darknet and deep net. The part of the internet that is 4-500 times larger than the "visible" web. The part of the web where every type of illegal activity is carried out in complete secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.wired.com/2015/06/dark-web-know-myth/

      "And yes, child porn is accessible on the normal web. In fact, it is rampant when compared with what's available from hidden sites. Last year, the Internet Watch Foundation, a charity that collates child sexual abuse websites and works with law enforcement and hosting providers to have the content removed, found 31,266 URLs that contained child porn images. Of those URLs, only 51 of them, or 0.2 percent, were hosted on the dark web."

      ...

      "Looking beyond the scaremongering, however, the dark web actually has promise. In essence, it's the World Wide Web as it was originally envisioned: a space beyond the control of individual states, where ideas can be exchanged freely without fear of being censored. As countries continue to crack down on the web, its dark counterpart is only going to become more relevant as a place to discuss and connect with each other. We shouldn't let the myth of the dark web ruin that potential."

      Delete
    2. Thank you for that 22:23, I don't know anything about the dark web, other than it is a scary place.

      I have a horrible feeling that the freedom on the net we enjoy now, will be shortlived, wannabe despots and tyrants are working to find ways and means in which to 'protect' us. If news and information is censored, people probably will turn to the dark web.

      Delete
  35. Good heavens 21:29, I have no intention of going on the dark web - I prefer to look at the beauty in this world, not it's ugliness.

    What I find strange is the fact that all this murder and mayhem is going on in the 'deep net', yet nobody in the mainstream ever reports on it. How do thousands of kids go missing without people knowing? Where are they going missing from? Regular towns and villages? Schools? Hospitals? nurseries? Does anyone even know what country? When a child goes missing, it is global news, and when 276 schoolgirls were kidnapped in Africa, everyone knew about it.

    I sometimes wonder if the dark web is an urban legend like snuff movies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Ros at 22:32 - put your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la.

      Do some research and come back - the figures have been provided to you and you ignore the.

      Delete
    2. They are meaningless to me 23:00, there are no names, faces, real stories, not where they come from, where they go to, and who they are.

      Even in a throwaway society like the backstreets of Brazil, hundreds of children don't just disappear without people knowing. Parents don't just lose a child and say, there goes another one. Most children are loved and valued, even in the poorest of societies.

      I agree with you that many young teens runaway, and some are never seen again. But there is a big distinction between young teens and 4 year olds. Running away from home as a young teen, is practically folklore, as is pretending to be much older than you are. I'm quite sure many young girls, seduced by films like Pretty Woman, make a beeline for 'model agencies' and billionaires yachts.

      Whilst most of us would argue those young girls are still children, younger children don't fall in the same category and it is disingenuous to claim they do.

      Tell me one story of rescue. You don't even have to name names, a generic case study will do. Presumably every country doesn't write these crimes off as unsolvable, so there must be many examples.

      Delete
    3. ''They are meaningless to me 23:00, there are no names, faces, real stories, not where they come from, where they go to, and who they are. ''

      Can that be quoted back to you next time you quote statistics about whatever you feel fits one of your wacky ideas you can never back up ?

      Delete
  36. ''I sometimes wonder if the dark web is an urban legend like snuff movies.''

    Snuff movies are an urban legend now. You really do need to either read before you come up with these statements or think before you put them online.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This blog serves no purpose lately. It reads like yet another meltdown . All you've done lately is rant and bitch about people . How much more anger have you got. It never seems to end.it's like finding the diary of someone who has a million demons to get out.You always have a target or ten to aim at.

    You've started three new threads recently. A pointless one about feminism and your hatred( again) of women in good jobs or married to good jobs and looking like trophy wives. It's all rant and anger. Another one talks about how 'not believing' doesn't 'equal hate'.More hate.People know that.You're stating the obvious.Hate equals hate and not believing equals not believing.Unfortunately, haters will hate whatever they believe or don't believe. Hate is more about nature than thinking. It just tends to carry over into how you think and then how you express yourself and what your general attitude towards others and to things is .It doesn't make for entertaining or engaging reading.It looks spiteful and irrational. It's like the journal of someone whose mean - spiritedness and general bitterness has taken charge of her pen.It's unpleasant.

    And we come to yet another thread here about another 'cover up'.It's become a debate about the rights and wrongs of child porn and those who enjoy it. For once you have an understandable subject to express anger about. And what do you do instead ? You decide to single out someone who has served a sentence for indulging in something vile and you choose to defend him as a 'victim of oppression' and antagonize anyone who points out that he got what he deserved. You question peoples view on porn and hint that it's in the eye of the beholder. You suggest that the industry ( with reference to the child porn branch of it) and what it generates should get less criticism if those enjoying it don't go and rape. You've added stubbornness to your list of endearing qualities. It's as though you're now trolling your own blog.I thought you were being 'controversial' to generate interest at first.But you're determination to ignore the logic of opposing views isn't stopping so it can't be that.

    VT


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why on earth do you put yourself through it VT? Reading here clearly causes you a great deal of distress.

      You appear to have put a great deal of thought into everything you hate about my writing and the fact that I muse, even though my blog states musing quite clearly on the box.

      As for this latest discussion, I am trying to remove the hysteria and fear, it is ridiculous that this subject can't be debated rationally, especially given the threat it poses to our Freedoms.

      I have not anywhere suggested that the child porn industry should get less criticism, I would happily go in and raid the bastards myself. I'd like to see every child rescued and every creep locked away. You can't just make up something disgusting then claim that's what I believe in.

      I know exactly what a paedophile is VT and how they operate. And they know that I know, we careleavers have a sixth sense with these things. I have seen it first hand and I have taken the blows (quite literally) in trying to prevent it. I am just as much a ferocious mummy tiger now as I was with my own kids, when it comes to those who would harm children. Suggesting I want to protect abusers is sick, and I wonder if you would have the guts to say that to my face.

      Quite frankly VT, it amazes me that people get so worked up about something they know so little about. Whilst my peers were being sexually brutalised and we girls were being battered and treated like slaves, we didn't care about creeps looking at picture and reading dirty books. For me, it just would have been nice to go to school without a black eye. Sadly, the kids of today continue to suffer while the authorities chase unknown and unseen predators, in the 21st century, they are being neglected just as badly as we were.

      So I've added stubbornness to my list of endearing qualities, lol. Do you know me at all? If stubbornness means sticking by my beliefs and not joining in with majority opinion, then I wear the label with pride.

      Anyway, before I sign off, I note you say this blog now serves no purpose, does that mean it did before? You lot are always telling me where I am going wrong, but you fail to realise that your forums with your draconian rules and regulations, appeal to no-one.

      I have always been controversial Verdi, it's almost a trademark. I think it comes from the stubbornness, lol. Many, if not most, of my readers do not agree with me on so many subjects, but they enjoy reading my musings nevertheless.

      It is my hope that I challenge their perception of the world as they know it. I think once a lecturer, always a lecturer, nothing compares to the joy of seeing students awakening and looking outside the box. I remember as a mature student, having awaking moments on a daily basis, six months in, I knew my life would never be the same again.

      I love to throw in snippets of information I have gathered over the years Verdi, especially if I think they may be useful to others - ditto books, movies, films, poems, these are my life's passions, and I get a kick out of the fact that others recognise the quotes and references I throw in.

      My intentions are not malevolent Verdi, and they are certainly not filled with hate. As much as I jest, I am an academic, I try to detach myself emotionally from the subjects I study. For clarity you need a clear and open mind, and I've never seen any sign of that in yourself.

      Delete
    2. Not the Queen of Sheba1 September 2017 at 12:13

      Verdi as in the ubiquitous one from CMoMM?

      Delete
    3. ''As for this latest discussion, I am trying to remove the hysteria and fear, it is ridiculous that this subject can't be debated rationally, especially given the threat it poses to our Freedoms. ''

      You're the only contributor being irrational.And if you think putting people in prison because they have been found guilty of a crime is a threat to freedoms, it's clear that you don't really understand what 'rational' actually means .

      Delete
    4. ''For clarity you need a clear and open mind, and I've never seen any sign of that in yourself. ''

      Very impressive. Why are you calling me Verdi? Is that your clear and open mind or your imagination and paranoia again ? I'm not Verdi .

      Delete
  38. "While complex, trafficking in children is a solvable problem. Strategies to end child trafficking are most effective when implemented as part of a comprehensive, multi-sectoral plan. This plan needs to include evidence based strategies:

    1. Implementing and enforcing laws against trafficking crimes.

    2. Improving access to good-quality health, social welfare and criminal justice support services for children survivors of trafficking.

    3. Working with other governments, and with businesses, to prevent, intercept and address trafficking and prosecute criminal networks which transcend national borders.

    But these strategies can’t stand alone. They need to intersect with broader efforts to prevent trafficking, in particular raising awareness and empowering children with knowledge and skills to recognize and protect themselves. Good quality health care and education services, and a functioning child protection system that detects and supports children at risk are also essential in both prevention and response."

    http://www.wvi.org/blogpost/how-end-child-trafficking-once-and-all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goodness me 07:19, you sound as though you are in the business, the above reads like a handout or a strategy plan for a board meeting.

      Do those broader efforts involve an internet surveillance team?

      Delete
    2. I imagine they would personally.I hope so. The Government insist that we all need babysitting since Obama invented terrorist threats years ago.I'm sure the same measures or techniques could be implemented to combat freaks like Langham. We could always ask Hilary Clinton and her partner in crime John Podesta . They got caught out by 'broader measures' :-)

      Delete
    3. Ah yes, Clinton and Podesta, a fictional sex scandal around a fictional child sex ring. Doesn't surprise me in the least that someone like you 17:25, would believe something like that.

      Delete
    4. Fancy someone having having outrageous beliefs.Fancy someone having them without consulting Ros about them first. The world's gone mad.

      Delete
    5. children for sale

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnOrRf0Wug

      Epstein and Clintons

      http://www.rightsidenews.com/life-and-science/culture-wars/will-fbi-email-investigation-shed-new-light-lolita-express-clinton-sex-scandals/

      Clintons secret serviceman

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=WZSD2cUjGOE

      and if you mess with them

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLFctRmE0_c

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccD4R6nbWQs

      Things haven't changed- Bertha Champagne

      https://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-strange-deaths-of-bertha-champagne-and-now-nancy-hamilton

      Delete
  39. 5 myths about trafficking in human beings

    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/docs/thb-fact-sheets/factsheet_thb_en.pdf

    "Myth 3: Traffickers are shady underground characters.

    Fact: Actually, traffickers are often persons the victims trust. A study on the trafficking of women from Romania to Germany found that in many cases the first contact person between the victim and the recruiter was an individual from the victim’s close circle of family and friends. (UNODC, Global Patterns Report, 2006: 61). The recruiters are not always violent in the beginning; they are often smooth operators luring victims into wonderful jobs and promises. And nowadays, the terrible story very often starts online."

    ReplyDelete
  40. 31 Aug 2017

    'NEW MADDIE KIDNAP' FEAR AS GIRL VANISHES

    https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-star/20170831/281814284002046

    -------------------------

    May 3, 2008

    "Madeleine McCann has become an icon for missing children, her parents said Friday on the eve of the anniversary of the British toddler's disappearance from a Portuguese holiday resort."

    (...)

    "We are interested in making a world safer for children," Gerry McCann said. "This is something that could be implemented and it will save lives."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/index.html

    You couldn't make it up...oh wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''You couldn't make it up...oh wait.''

      Couldn't make what up ? All I see is a link quoting a tabloid and a report from CNN . The kidnap in France looks real enough.I think in true tabloud style they've twisted it a bit so they can use Madeleine McCann's name as a headline to make more sales.That's to be expected from rags. Or are you saying GM is making it up when he talks about wanting to make the world a safer place for children ? If so, it's just another cheap shot isn't it. In their heart of hearts the parents must fear the worst. If their little one's fate can be used to prevent the same happening again in some way that's a normal reaction and a positive regarding the child's memory.

      Delete
    2. Children’s safety begins at home Ziggy.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 1 September 2017 at 21:05

      “Or are you saying GM is making it up when he talks about wanting to make the world a safer place for children ?

      “ If so, it's just another cheap shot isn't it.”

      No, it is not a “cheap shot”:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

      “Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code.”

      T (NOT Anonymous 1 September 2017 at 21:05)

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 1 September 2017 at 22:13

      “Children’s safety begins at home…”

      Absolutely!!!

      My 1 September 2017 at 22:19 post should’ve been signed T (NOT Anonymous1 September 2017 at 07:57).

      T

      Delete
    5. I believe the question was 'couldn't make what up?'

      Delete
    6. If Gerry McCann wanted to make the world a safer place for children, he should have stated loud and clear, children should never be left on their own! And when he was asked if any lessons should be learned, he should acknowledge, THAT was the lesson.

      Madeleine would not have disappeared if her parents had been in the apartment. There is no getting round that, whether you believe the parents or not.

      The danger of toddlers being left home alone is, was, and always will be, ACCIDENT. The chances of stranger abduction are almost as remote as the chances of alien abduction.

      Gerry and Kate didn't think about abduction, but they didn't think about accident either. There has never been any mention of the fears most parents would have for kids home alone. Falling off furniture, eating/drinking poisons, little fingers in electric sockets, toddlers are accidents waiting to happen. The only danger to Madeleine and the twins in their minds, was abduction. That is ludicrous.

      Ignoring the REAL dangers of leaving babies and toddlers on their own, is a crime in itself. It is not OK to go out for a drink or a meal leaving children unattended. All those glossing over that fact should be ashamed of themselves, and I include those Sofa Queens, who said 'we've all done it'. Err, no we haven't and most of most of us would condemn it as the endangerment it is.

      Protecting children does begin in the home, and it begins with not going out leaving them on their own.

      Delete
    7. Nobody argues that leaving their children at home was right, even the pros. It left all three children vulnerable to abduction.We know that now, as one was obviously watching and struck.That's why the abduction scenario isn't ludicrous. The idea of the parents guilt is though.The statement of stranger abduction being similar to alien abduction sums the blog up.Aliens don't exist.But abductions are common unfortunately.The falling off furniture is silly.You don't cocncoct some elaborate movie style hide and seek with a body abroad scenario and make it an international incident. You call an ambulance.

      Delete
    8. The kids were vulnerable to hundreds more dangers before you get to abduction 14:17 - abduction was the LEAST likely,

      Abductions are not common 14:17, the chances of your child being abducted are as remote as your chances of winning the lottery, twice. Do take a look at the Wiki list of kidnappings, and you will see just how rare stranger abduction is.

      Falling off furniture isn't silly, have you ever spent any time in the company of a toddler? They climb, all the time, and they explore and they taste and drink whatever they find. Most parents toddlerproof their home - that is they put guards on sharp corners, covers over plug sockets, locks on cupboards and anything harmful out of the way.

      All these safeguards don't exist in a holiday apartment, and the kids were in unfamiliar surroundings, and in the dark. Falling off furniture is therefore very likely.

      I agree, you call an ambulance, but calling an ambulance means you will have to answer a lot of questions. The biggest of course being, why were the children left on their own.

      Delete
  41. Thank you for that 07:9, much more interesting than a string of numbers.

    I can see how young men and young women can be lured by traffickers 07:39, but not younger children. They would have to be 'taken', so why are they not reported? Even the most desperate parents wouldn't hand their toddlers over to traffickers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I can see how young men and young women can be lured by traffickers 07:39, but not younger children. They would have to be 'taken', so why are they not reported? Even the most desperate parents wouldn't hand their toddlers over to traffickers."
    You are so naïve, Ros! The reason the abduction of children is not reported in so many countries is that the children who are targets for traffickers are usually those living on the streets without the support of family or a home to live in! Having spent eleven years living in Asia and Central Africa, I can assure you that there are many, many children living in the world today who have to deal with this precarious lifestyle on a daily basis. Nobody notices when a child in this position is abducted and trafficked except perhaps other children or siblings who may have shared the child's life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''You are so naïve, Ros! ''

      Calling her naive is flattery. She has found a weak argument that she thinks makes her a shrewd 'out of the box' thinker. She won't be interested in little things like logic or evidence but will read anything she can that supports her view and ignore everything else.Sound familiar ? The 'they're not reported' thing is her last straw on this one.Dont give her links or suggestions that might destroy her silly argument.

      Delete
    2. She, she, she, your talking about me behind my back and right in front of my face lol.

      I have been passionately anti censorship since I became enlightened as a mature student 17:19, one of the reasons I so often challenge the McCanns. My knowledge is an accumulation of many years of reading and evaluating ALL sides of the debate.

      You sneer at thinking outside of the box 17:19, but perhaps you should try it sometime, it may make you less uptight.

      Delete
    3. Chatting on facebook earlier and two different people said they'd posted responses on here and they haven't been published.That's not passionately anti censorship, is it ?

      Delete
    4. Facebook eh? Which group would that be?

      I'm not publishing adverts for the cesspit or the Hall videos, because they are filled with misinformation. libel and the harassment of innocent witnesses. I'm looking for the truth and so are my readers.

      As for the abusive stuff, if they make me feel sick to the pit of my stomach, I hate to imagine the effect they would have on my readers. You will have to keep your abuse of me to your own forums, I'm not giving you a platform.

      Delete
  43. Perhaps not quite OT

    Björn

    An interesting observation:

    “I always say, ‘sex and drugs and rock and roll’ translates, in Russian, to ‘Pushkin, Gogol and Dostoevsky,’” says Tomi Huttunen, a Finnish professor of Russian literature who wrote a book about Russian rock.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Anything by Gaito Gazdanov might be of interest’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaito_Gazdanov
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Victor Pelevin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omon_Ra
    https://libcom.org/files/[Victor_Pelevin]_Omon_Ra(Bookos.org).pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapayev_and_Void
    http://www.pelevin.nov.ru/romans/pe-pust/ (in Russian)
    Can also be downloaded or read online in English translation (free registration would be required as far as I can tell).
    http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1504262442224~35

    Have just had a longish chat (about Life and Death of course) with a lifelong friend. Among other things, Nabokov’s name came up and consequently Gazdanov’s and Pelevin’s. Thought of you, Dostoevsky etc. and that’s why all of the above - in case you might be interested.

    Good wishes.

    Ra

    Ô Mort, vieux capitaine, il est temps! levons l'ancre!
    Ce pays nous ennuie, ô Mort! Appareillons!
    Si le ciel et la mer sont noirs comme de l'encre,
    Nos coeurs que tu connais sont remplis de rayons!

    Verse-nous ton poison pour qu'il nous réconforte!
    Nous voulons, tant ce feu nous brûle le cerveau,
    Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
    Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau!


    Смерть! Старый капитан! В дорогу! Ставь ветрило!
    Нам скучен этот край! О, Смерть, скорее в путь!
    Пусть небо и вода — куда черней чернила,
    Знай, тысячами солнц сияет наша грудь!

    Обманутым пловцам раскрой свои глубины!
    Мы жаждем, обозрев под солнцем всё, что есть,
    На дно твоё нырнуть — Ад или Рай — едино! —
    В неведомого глубь — чтоб новое обресть!


    O Death, my captain, it is time! Let us raise the anchor!
    This country wearies us, O Death! Let us make ready!
    If sea and sky are both as black as ink,
    You know our hearts are full of sunshine.

    Pour on us your poison to refresh us!
    Oh, this fire so burns our brains, we would
    Dive to the depths of the gulf, Heaven or Hell, what matter?
    If only to find in the depths of the Unknown the New!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post 13:17, and I wish I had a dedicated page for poetry. My blog has the facilities for separate topics, but I don't have the technical skills!

      I'm not quite sure of your post's relevance to the Madeleine case or this topic, but it may resonate with someone! Nevertheless, my kind wishes.

      Delete
  44. I work with people with, let's call them "problems".

    Pervy Pete is a guy living in a council estate.

    He live is squalor - his stinking flat is full of empty beer cans and Buckfast bottles.

    When I visit him he is in a string vest and dirty white underpants. He spends his day watching porn. His favourite is watching child abuse and rape porn. he slavers and masturbates as he watches.

    He was caught by Operation Grange and has served his time and is now out.

    I have passed on your message Ros - "could they please let him know that a genuine survivor of a regime run by real paedophiles, has spoken out on his behalf and give him my very kindest wishes."



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My heart goes out to those 'problems' you work with 21:54, your attitude stinks.

      As for your patient/client, Pervy Pete, he does indeed sound quite repulsive and thank you for the graphic detail, but he doesn't sound like a predator. He keeps his yucky personal habits within his home.

      But how about Pretty Boy Pete or Professional Pete? The attractive man who hones in on the mother of little girls, always shower fresh, booted and suited, and in full control of every home with vulnerable kids he takes over?

      He's not looking at dirty pictures on the net, he's raping real kids, and threatening them with all sorts if they ever tell.

      Pervy Pete, yes, he's disgusting, but the real danger comes from the other Petes.

      Delete
    2. Truly a *face palm* moment.Unbelievable.

      Delete
  45. "by Tony Bennett Today at 18:25
    I have resolved to post no more about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann"

    In other words - I have been told to shut the fuck up otherwise I will go t jail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cristobell, do you know anything about the incident with Sonia that Tony has dredged up for no known reason?

      "I have resolved to post no more about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but have decided to bring this message from Sonia Poulton to the notice of forum members and guests.

      Reproduced below is he text from a screenshot of an email or direct message sent in late 2014 or in 2015 by Sonia Poulton to one ‘Robert James Lee’.

      I have no idea to what she is referring, but it seems to be some article or post connected with a Dutch resident, Janette Scharenborg. I believe Poulton pretended to befriend Scharenborg on the basis of claiming to be investigating child sexual abuse, then blurted out all Scharenborgs’s personal and family secrets in an article for a British led. I understand it has led to an ongoing feud between Poulton and Scharenborg.

      The references she makes to me as ‘a bigger filth’ and to CMOMM as a ‘hate forum’ are of considerable interest. For a long time, I posted only on CMOMM, who only an occasional post elsewhere. So Poulton identifies CMOMM as a ‘hate forum’.

      So, back in 2014/5, we have Poulton calling me ‘a bigger filth’, and CMOMM a ‘hate forum’, and more lately ‘a cesspit’. This might give members and guests here a still clearer idea of what Poulton’s agenda might be with her long-pomised Madeleine documentary.

      The screenshot unfortunately has some words missing at the end of two lines, but here is what the message says:


      “She’s filth but I image it was written by a bigger filth who is Tony Bennett. A man whose Wikipedia entry reveals a long time obsession with _______________. Which is funny because he spends all of his time on the internet writing on hate forums. He hates me because I know a lot about him and one _______________ time. I am strictly focused on Scharenborg when it comes to Dorset Police”.



      Finally, a message to Poulton:

      I don’t hate you. I merely distrust your claims that you have anything useful to add to what we already know about Madeleine’s disappearance.


      You know a lot about me? Then go right ahead and tell everyone.




      Delete
    2. No I don't know anything about it Bridget. I think as an investigative journalist, Sonia has often been a target of malicious rumour, I don't read the rubbish to be honest, just as I don't read the rubbish written about myself.

      I agree with Sonia on the Bennett front, he is filth, and I urge people to read his Wiki page, He has spent a lifetime stalking and harassing people. His tactics are exactly the same as the 'pros', he sets out to smear his opponents.

      If he has decided to stop writing about the Madeleine case, it's not because of a Court order or giving his word, it's because he has lost his audience. People can see through the false narrative he has created, that's why with Bennett's diatribes and Hall's boring videos, there is no satisfactory end. He labelled this a paedophile case 10+ years ago, and has spent every moment since trying to prove it. The credibility is gone.

      Delete
    3. Anon 1 Sept 22.53

      "by Tony Bennett Today at 18:25
      I have resolved to post no more about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann"

      In other words - I have been told to shut the fuck up otherwise I will go t jail.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      I wouldn't be surprised if Bennett has received a letter from the Smith's lawyers telling him that he's treading on dangerous ground trying to implicate the Smiths in Madeleine's disappearance and that the whole family is lying in their statements.

      It's really shocking that Bennett has been doing it for so long and may also be perverting the course of justice with any court case that may take place in the future.

      Why he took it upon himself to denigrate the Smiths and to abuse them for so long is anyone's guess but he was certainly on a mission to do just that.

      Delete
    4. One's tried to use the missing child's plight to get money and fame with a book and a web presence, the other's trying the same. Tacky. Two haters bitch fighting.

      Delete
    5. Sonia Poulton using expressions like 'filth' and 'bigger filth' is a bit of a shocker. You'd expect better from a professional journalist.It's irresponsible and unprofessional. It's OK to think it but to stoop to forum mentality is careless.She should show some restraint before she gets sucked in.

      Delete
  46. Ros you need to broaden your horizons and look into the Dark Web, It's the worst of the worst but needs doing. I am horrified by it and so you will be, needs must by this thread. Then you will know where people are coming from. A friend :0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is so much that is good and so much that is enlightening on the web Julie, I wouldn't have the time or inclination. Plus I' a wuss.

      I have dabbled with the idea of writing tales of horror and the supernatural (and have actually written an entire ghostly screenplay), so I should study the even darker side of human nature, but it's a struggle.

      Even at this grand old age, my heart still breaks at man's inhumanity to man. I'm as shockable as I ever was. Since my convent days, I have been on quest to discover whatever it is that makes people evil - I still don't have a definitive answer, but greed is right up there with psychopathy.

      Anyway, this is in response to everyone, not just you Julie, lol, but wouldn't my going on the dark web contribute to whatever shit it is they put on there?

      Delete
  47. Hall's videos 'boring', Ros?

    His 5 Madeleine docs have had literally several millions views on YouTube and thousands more look at them every day.

    As for Bennett, your blog is notorious for obsessively painting him in the blackest of terms. His achievements for the likes of Stuart Lubbock, Lee Balkwell and Madeleine McCann are all on record, why do you detest him so much?

    I rather doubt he has quit his interest in the case. Far more likely, he is sick of the abuse dished out by the likes of Poulton, Blacksmith, Thompson...and yourself.

    People flock to Hall's vids because they are fact-packed. Despite all the attention they've received, no-one has exposed a significant factual error in any of them, so far as I am aware.

    Stop knocking those who seek to expose the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous2 September 2017 at 10:29

      Perhaps you can provide a comprehensive list of bennett's achievements in the Mccann case?

      Delete
    2. He's helped to keep it an online obsession if that can be called one. That's about it really.

      Delete
    3. Richard Hall's videos have barely caused a stir 10:29, which, I suspect is the real reason Bennett has given up.

      I paint Bennett with the blackest of terms, because he has the blackest of hearts. He is a cruel and vindictive man, who has never shown any concern for the people he hounds or their families.

      With his 'investigation' of the Madeleine case, he has taken on the roles of detective, prosecutor, Judge and Jury. Note, there is no Defence, because all these people he is accusing of heinous crimes, have no means of reply. Like most vigilantes, he is a rabble rouser, he want's mob justice with himself at the helm.

      As for nobody exposing any factual errors in the videos, I doubt anyone can be arsed, I certainly can't.

      Bennett, Hall, HideHo, etc are seeking to expose their truth, the false narrative they have created by re-arranging the facts. They don't have the patience to wait for the real 10:29, that's why they are trying to pre-empt it, because when the real truth comes out, all their 'research' will be worthless

      Delete
  48. Ros 2 Sept 20.31

    "Richard Hall's videos have barely caused a stir 10:29, which, I suspect is the real reason Bennett has given up."

    - - - - - - - - - - - -

    I doubt very much that poor viewing of RH's videos have anything to do with TB giving up, that wouldn't stop him but a Court order is more likely to stop him in his tracks if he's being pushing the boundaries of implicating the Smiths, which he's been relentless about for two years or more.

    I haven't watched RH's videos and have no intention to, I can't see how he can come up with anything different that hasn't been said on all the forums for the past 10 years. No doubt he's got all he needs to know from the same forums and is passing it off as his own "work".

    With regard to your last paragraph Ros, it's been known for a long time that Bennett has been trying to usurp the police in beating them over the finishing line as to what actually happened to Madeleine. Why he wants to be the person who thinks he can do that without all the actual details in front of him is quite scary. No wonder he's been "put on the naughty step" (if he has), he's a danger to himself let alone anyone who is genuinely trying to find out what happened to Madeleine without all the FOIs and other things being thrown at the police who may be trying to sort the wheat from the chaff with regards to the disappearance of Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2 September 2017 at 21:10

      '' No wonder he's been "put on the naughty step" (if he has), he's a danger to himself''

      That's the thing when you run into the fight without thinking.When you finally stop and look around you might realise you're in a shit storm you had no idea about and you can't find the exit. If Bennett has found / heard anything and hasn't (or won't) go public with it, it's because he's cottoned on that he's been a a puppet too.He's sat himself on the 'naughty step' . It's the middle ground between the exit and the fight and he can now keep his hands clean as a 'passive observer'.

      Vincent

      Delete
    2. @ Vincent Anonymous3 September 2017 at 06:19

      bennett will not be a passive observer - other people, in particular havern will post his rubbish under other names - just as petermac does.

      Delete
  49. Hall's videos are quoted all over the net.Like many 'commentators' he's become a bit obsessed. They contain some good points but they also contain incorrect information and he's guilty of believing a lot of nutters.As for cruel and vindictive and wanting mob justice and no concern for the family, you may well be right where Bennett is concerned.But glass houses etc.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous2 September 2017 at 10:29


    ''Stop knocking those who seek to expose the truth.''

    Expose ? Do you know that, for 10 long years, two countries and their police forces and a few private detectives have been investigating this case ? That's actually real truth. Hopefully one day they'll find the truth of what happened to Madeleine.Your 'truth' is just the same old same old.The observers of it all online don't lack imagination.They lack originality though.Nobody has the guts to think for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The observers of it all online don't lack imagination.They lack originality though.Nobody has the guts to think for themselves."

      Preposterous.

      Delete
    2. Yes.Positively outlandish.The very idea.

      Delete
    3. Indeed. Arrogantly self-opinionated, the author has the makings of a politician, although to judge from their aberrant punctuation they appear to have more in common with Ziggy Sawdust.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous at 20:34

      In a nutshell!

      Delete
  51. Anonymous 2 September 2017 at 22:22

    Unmentionable…, comrade!

    You and I agree that the distraction of building 7 (free fall etc.) appears to have been irrefutably a case of demolition. Has it been ‘solved’ after 16 years and considerably more than £12 million?

    Let's not forget that Newton had “his theories or hypotheses or” whatever “you want to call them” while investigating the case of free fall.He proposed/conjectured the existence of a force which he called Gravity. This force (as well as other conjectured forces and, arguably, all (else)) is imperceptible by itself in the sense that there is no entity pointing at which it can be said ‘this is Gravity’. The existence of Gravity has been and will remain a conjecture.

    Newton’s conjecture has been dominant for over 300 years. This goes to show that in the world of opinions/conjectures/hypotheses or whatever you want to call them, some opinions etc. appear to be more valuable than others.

    You are or pretend to be confused by a multitude of opinions. You pretend to be or are unaware of the fact that some opinions are more valuable than others by virtue of their having grater explanatory power.

    Our good Jane has the good fortune of being wed to a philosopher. I guess you may be less fortunate in that regard. But there is Hope and, also, you have me by your side!:)

    Drop your guitar (who needs you when there are the likes of Prince), take your pills, put your helmet on and come back, guitarless, with no more nonsense, comrade.

    Yours affectionately

    Comrade T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 September 2017 at 10:28

      “…grater explanatory power.”

      “…greater…”

      I am illiterate.

      T:)

      Delete
  52. @bridget and tony Bennett. I found your comments her quite by chance googling my late partners name Robert James Lee who Jeanette Scharenborg and her identified gang of super trolls leading to mwt and a known masonic friend of his a PCC Are responsible for the death of. Poulton and jones have a foot in scharenborg's camp via their collaboration with my main abuser arrested in Kent by Dorset police on 18th September this year. Why have you dragged my innocent partner into this charade? I want you to know that by doing so that you have badly triggered me!

    ReplyDelete
  53. For your information. My partner died in my arms nov 2016 after receiving confidential info from Dorset police inspector who has been investigating her and her super trolls gang and their crimes against us since may 2015. That info Was their intention to arrest her should she enter the UK. she is currently @__Gran2F__

    ReplyDelete