Monday, 29 January 2018

NO TO PAEDOPHILE HUNTERS!




UPDATE  31/01/18

Older readers will remember that horrible time in the 1980's when the evil Sidney Cooke led a gang of paedophiles in the rape and murder of 7 year old Mark Tildesley, 14 year old Jason Swift and other boys who had disappeared.  The arrest of Cooke led to the uncovering the evil gang known as 'The Dirty Dozen', whose modus operandi was to lure rent boys and runaways back to their flat, where they would be drugged, raped and murdered. 

Most of their victims were missing teenagers, boys who had run away from home who were picked up at the London terminals with offers of friendship and a bed for the night.  It will probably never be known how many were killed by this gang.  I imagine this is an ongoing heart ache for families of missing loved ones.  

Their game was up when they snatched 7 year old Mark Tildesley at a funfair, his young age, setting off a massive police investigation that resulted in the trial and conviction of these evil men.  And of course, it highlighted the dangers faced by rent boys and runaways, not just in London, but worldwide.  I have no doubt those dangers still exist, and it is heart  breaking, but hopefully now there is much more awareness, and of course CCTV and phones in our pockets that can pinpoint exactly where we are. 

Cooke's gang were targeting 'lost' kids, that is kids who could disappear without trace, and without a public outcry.  They had a target demographic, and sadly, they were easy pickings.  Easily identifiable getting off the trains with their backpacks and luggage.  Today's equivalent I suppose would honing in on troubled kids via social media, a game of numbers, how many 'fuck off you perv's' do they get before  they find a victim?  I'm guessing a lot, which is probably why most paedophile hunters are trying to entrap each other. 

Cooke and his evil gang, showed us a dark murky side of life that was unknown to most of us.  We knew exactly who the evil ones were and sadly, we discovered how easy it was for this gang to prey on vulnerable teenagers.  Valuable lessons were learned and if they weren't, I advise every parent with a stroppy teenager to tell them the story of 'Hissing Sid' as the vile creature was known.  That scary time between little Mark's disappearance and the arrest of the evil gang will I am sure be ingrained in those of us who remember it, the whole of the UK knew a paedophile gang were snatching children. 

Apparently Jim Gamble, former head of CEOP has said there are 700,000 paedophiles operating in the UK.  I don't know what that means, but it sounds truly alarming.  Are they paedophiles in the Sidney Cooke mould? Does operating mean active?  As in trying to groom children online?  The figure is staggering, but more troubling in my opinion, is who are their victims?  The childrens homes and institutions no longer exist, and it is very hard now for anyone to go off radar.  As I don't know what this 700k demographic is made up of, I presume he means on social media, thus presenting the internet as the biggest danger to our kids and the need for a specially trained police force. 

An army of online paedophile hunters would effectively be a branch of law and order devoted to pre-crime activities.  A less sophisticated Minority Report system that arrests people before they go on to commit a crime.  The majority of that 750,000, actually, scrap that, 749,999 will probably Not molest a child.  Viewing even the vilest of pornography does not lead to violent crime, anymore than a video nasty or a song by Marilyn Manson sends millions of teens on a killing spree.  It just doesn't happen.  Evil isn't triggered by movies, books, music, the arts or even pornography.  It was there before the internet, see Sidney Cooke.

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone child pornography in any way but I do not accept that looking at images makes these 750k men dangerous criminals.  I have never seen the kind of 'sickening stuff' that is said to be available on the net, nor do I want to.  But if this kind of thing is happening, why aren't the makers and distributors of these images being rounded up?  I don't buy the argument that the audience are responsible, it's like trying to stop the drug trade by targeting the users. I would much rather hear that the children who are the subjects of these vile images are being rescued and that the bastards assaulting them are being locked up.  If the police in the 1980's were able to swoop in on Sidney Cooke and his gang, there should be no excuse now.  We live in an age of constant communication and constant surveillance, how are these 750,000 paedophiles able to operate? 

Ps.  I have just read the Times Article on Jim Gamble.  The predators apparently can be teachers, police officers....... from all parts of society etc....'.  Wow pretty much anyone can be arrested and charged for a pre-crime.   

Unfortunately, I do not have a Times subscription so cannot reply, so, Dear Bishop Blake, I am a careleaver and survivor of a Catholic childrens home and I'm happy to assure you, paedophilia is not rife.  In my 60 years on this earth, the only place I encountered it was in the Convent.  I also encountered sadism and brutality, sexual abuses's less salacious sidekicks .

I don't know what kind of crazy world you live in Bishop, but with my opposite of a sheltered life, I suspect I'm a lot closer to reality than you are, and I have never met anyone the slightest bit interested in having sex with kids.  And it's the kind of thing you would remember.  Young adults and thirtysomethings are much more interested in each other, than they are in kids.  Heck, chuck in the 50s and 60s too and few sprightly 70 year olds too. 

I sometimes wonder if these paedophile hunters have ever spent any time with actual children?  Because 99% of the time, they are a gigantic pain in the arse. The one who stays in with the kids has drawn the short straw.  They talk incessantly, and when not talking they are singing or doing somersaults on your white sofa with sticky mitts and chocolate goo coming out of their mouths.  Then there are the demands.  Every time you sit down, they think up a new one.  Your only hope of survival is to play something repetitive until one or both of you falls asleep. 

As nobody wants to go below the surface of the 'P' word, the logistics and the reality are completely overlooked.  Saying there are 750,000 paedophiles in the UK disguised as teachers, police officers, etc, (not doctors?) is truly bizarre.  How are they able to operate?  Are they taking advantage of their professions?  Are kids being molested at school and by the police?  The key word, as used by the Bishop is 'potential', 750k potential paedophiles.  That is anyone who has looked at something they shouldn't could potentially have their lives and careers destroyed because it is assumed they will abduct and kill a child.  That is an almighty leap, but it bumps up the fear factor. 

I tend not to think there are paedophile gangs in the suburbs made up of teachers, police officers etc.  Not just because the idea is disgusting, but because it is completely unheard of.  People tend not to sexually abuse their children and pass them around to the neighbours, the idea is so sick, it wouldn't even make the plot of a seriously disturbed 'B' movie.  I fear the Bishop has very little faith in human nature if he thinks it does.  Yet we must accept it as true because it comes from an online child abuse expert and a Bishop.   



_____________________________________

I rarely visit the cesspit (CMoMM), because I simply don’t have their stomach for their deplorable fascist views.  They quite literally leave me feeling nauseous.  Today especially as they have an entire thread devoted to paedophiles and what they would like to do with them.  
 
I’m not quite sure what the consensus is, as they are both berating Jim Gamble, who’s name heads the title of the thread, whilst at the same time supporting his idea of an army of vigilantes trained to track down paedophiles online.  The idea of a specialist police force to track down paedophiles online is horrendous, I’m not sure it would even stand up in a communist or fascist state?  What powers would these non police be given?  The power to access the online activity of anyone they choose? The power to kick in doors at the crack of dawn and the power to seize children and computers as Operation Ore did in 2002?  Happily, I’ve never seen anyone, other than Jim Gamble promoting the idea.
 
The subject of paedophilia however is so emotive and yucky, that most people act with their primal instincts. Quite rightly, we are genetically programmed to protect our young. I’m not a violent person in any way, but when I see the evil faces of convicted child murderers I want to batter them to a pulp. I get the anger and the rage.  Unfortunately, rage blinds us to logic and reason, that's why discussion of this subject is almost impossible. 

So let's start with the basics.  The generic image of a paedophile is a dirty old man alone in his bedroom trying to groom young girls and boys online. Someone socially inept, isolated but somehow also hooked up to others just like him, extremely unlikely btw, because paedophiles have difficulty relating to their peers, on any level.  This group, happily is minute, and the perpetrators more likely to be sad, than bad, they are afraid to go out. 

The next group are the opportunists, the psychopaths like Ian Huntley and Mark Bridger.  These are almost impossible to legislate against, they are a freak of nature and every society has them.  Their crimes don't stem from the internet, the evil was always within them.  On the plus side, they are very, very rare.

The largest group by far, are those active paedophiles who ingratiate themselves into vulnerable families by grooming the Mother.  Or they are friends, relatives or even professionals.  Almost every abused child, was abused by someone who knew them.  And it is not just sexual abuse, it is physical and psychological cruelty.  Physical abuse, which is far more prevalent and can be fatal, rarely if ever gets a mention.  The best protection is education, so much is spent on educating children on internet safety, how about educating them on safety in their immediate world.  Especially those young naïve mothers who go from abusive relationship to abusive relationship.  We should be empowering children and young parents, not taking over their personal responsibility. 

We are all being taught to fear the internet in the same way our predecessors were taught to fear books.  And those planting the seeds and spreading the terror are not doing it for philanthropic reasons.  They have blown the problem of internet trolls,  completely out of proportion, most are halfwits posting infantile threats, who are, in reality, afraid of their own shadows.  I don't know how anyone takes them seriously.  As for paedophiles online, the danger does not outweigh the benefits.  That some bad people use the internet, should not be an excuse to police it for everyone.  .
 
But let's get back to the central theme.  The policing of the internet by untrained police who are not bound to the same high standards as the professionals is abhorrent.  It reminds me of that moment when Napoleon introduces his attack dogs to Animal Farm,  I can't think of anything scarier, than if King Jong Ung were to take the helm. 
 
Where does it end? Their agenda may be to track down paedophiles, but what if they stumble on other crimes along the way?  The keeping of a database of an internet's user's activity online is wide open to abuse, including corruption and blackmail.  If it is one of their own, a paedophile hunter, do they keep it quiet?  How do they select their victims, targets? Isn't a bit weird for grown men to pretend to be scantily clad teenage girls? Just curious.  Effectively, we have a situation where paedophile hunters are talking to each other while pretending to be nubile teens.
 
I have seen Jim Gamble pitch his 'people's army' or whatever it is he wants to call his specialist vigilantes, but I've never seen anyone take up the cause.  It is not in step with the spirit of times.  The real Masters of the Universe reside in Silicone Valley, and their aim is to get information to everyone on the planet, they are genetically opposed to the kind of restrictions Jim Gamble wants to  put in place.  JG now finds himself out of step in the real world having to compete on a level playing field, he doesn't have the police advantages he once had.  And he is competing with young internet geniuses who had laptops when he had a teddy bear.  He is a duck out of water where new apps are concerned, it's a young person's industry.  Though I fear had he put his ideas forward in the Blair era he would have got what he wanted and that's where the  Animal Farm reference came in, in case anyone is wondering :)
 
The whole idea of vigilantes and paedophile hunters has less to do with protecting children, than it does with wanting to be part of an angry mob taking out their rage on a deserving victim.  It's ugly.  It's uncivilised.  There is something savage and Lord of the Flies about it.   A couple of years ago, I read with horror, how a drunken British mob chased a Spanish waiter who had the audacity to chat to British kids in the swimming pool.  You small, small people, your fear is not only deranged and illogical, it could have resulted in a tragedy.  And let me take this opportunity to thank every foreign waiter I have ever met, who has kindly taken the time to chat to and amuse my kids  holiday.  They are among the happy memories we always came away with. 

Since when did kids become sexualised?  Answer: Never, because 99.9% of us don't see kids that way and never will.  It would never have entered our minds that our kids were sex symbols lusted after by at least three quarters of the adult population.  Maybe someone should come up with a new line in baby hijabs.  Cover the little blighters from head to toe! 

Yes, we have now reached the ridiculous stage.  Ancient lost tribes are laughing at us, they know the photographer isn't actually stealing their souls.  Let's look at worse case scenario.  Imagine a pervert does get hold of your child's picture.  What is he going to do with it?  Ok, apart from the yucky obvious, but so what?  There are billions of pictures of children on the internet, including children of the royal, the rich and famous.  Unless you and family go around with bags over your heads, your image can be captured by anyone, anywhere. 

But I have entwined two topics, which I am afraid was beyond my control.  I should explain.  As the subject of paedophilia is yucky and most of us know little about it, this army of paedophile hunters could accuse anyone of anything.  The key to their success is entrapment.  Something frowned upon in the official police, and open to all sorts of abuse, particularly if the target is anyone they choose.

In theory an internet army of paedophile hunters doesn't sound such a bad idea, if they are guilty they deserve to be caught and they deserve to face an angry mob in a car park.  No-one will speak for them, and no-one can speak for them, without being accused of being a paedophile, or a paedophile supporter.  Ergo, this mob justice is allowed to flourish unchallenged and if Jim Gamble has his way, it will have a government stamp of approval.

But the reality is, real lives are being affected, some destroyed, I understand there have been suicides.  They may 'catch' some guilty men, but what of the effect on the wives, children and families of these men? The deceptive nature of the job makes me question the morality of those who would apply, it is a job for professional liars and those who get a kick out of leading angry mobs.  It isn't a fight back against paedophiles - real child abuse in real time is flourishing in these hard times.  It is the targeting of a tiny pathetic minority, while ignoring ALL of the bigger issues.  If these people care so much about children, why don't they get together a lorry load of provisions for the kids in the refugee camps?  Or better still, start up an after school dinner club for all those kids who are going hungry?

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

224 comments:

  1. I notice that only certain replies to your favourite fan, Bjorn, are being published on your previous thread.Anyone would think you were being protective of his nutty ideas as they line up too well with your own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should read
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-truth-about-paedophilia.html

      A very brave and much more informative write up.

      Delete
    2. Hmmmmm........... It is worrying if bloggers only publish one side of the story.
      I hope that this is not the case.


      "Dear Bishop Blake, I [Christabel] am a careleaver and survivor of a Catholic childrens home and I'm happy to assure you, paedophilia is not rife. In my 60 years on this earth, the only place I encountered it was in the Convent. I also encountered sadism and brutality, sexual abuses's less salacious sidekicks .

      I don't know what kind of crazy world you live in Bishop, but with my opposite of a sheltered life, I suspect I'm a lot closer to reality than you are, and I have never met anyone the slightest bit interested in having sex with kids. And it's the kind of thing you would remember......"


      Christabel, no doubt it was worse in the convent but surely you DO remember.

      If not, perhaps you should call it a day on this subject and instead do a few blogs on Alzheimers?

      Delete
    3. "I have never written about my own sexual experiences as a child because 1) I have kids myself and they didn't need to know about it, 2) I too find the subject yucky and 3) I wasn't traumatised! However, my kids are older and wiser now and able to see things in perspective, as indeed am I. And I feel sure as I relate my encounters, there will be a few nodding heads, and OMG's, that happened to me.
      I was 10/11 when I first became aware that quite a few 'ordinary' adult men did not see me as a child. I do not know if this is something experienced by every 10/11 year old girl, the subject is far too taboo, so I can only speak for myself and I can only relate a few of my experiences and the way in which I reacted to them.
      My Mum, God bless her, was a party gal, beautiful and feisty - and when the song about the sock it to 'em mom who gave the Harper Valley PTA what for, came out, I thought it was all about her and me! She had several boyfriends and I would often tag along when they took her out. Great for me, probably not so great for them. One of her boyfriends was a rich old fella with an open top car and a holiday flat in Brighton.
      To a 10 year old girl, 'would you like to go for a ride in my sports car' is on par with 'I've got puppies in the back of my van'. He took me to a quiet car park, showed me his thing, and said if I sat on his knee and let him touch me I could drive his car and he would buy me a new dress. It was all pretty yucky and repulsive, but for me, the dominant memory was driving the sports car and the new dress. I didn't tell my mother, who would have killed him, and the dress was soooo pretty. Does that make me a mini prostitute? I await the howls of condemnation.
      My next realisation that grown men were interested in me (children) sexually was at a house party while I was safely tucked up in bed. I had wondered out earlier in my nightie to use the loo, seen all the adults getting drunk, had a few 'hello gorgeous' remarks thrown at me, and returned to bed. I woke up to find a half naked man cuddling me, followed by a huge uproar as a furious Irish man pulled him away and a major punch as I cowered in the bed.
      The next memorable occasion was a wedding reception I went to with a friend. At the time, the number one hit was Gary Puckett's Young Girl and aged 11, I was very flattered when a grown man asked me to dance. He sang all the words to me personally as we danced, then lifted me up, squeezed me tight, and whispered in my ear, that he could get arrested for what he was thinking. I didn't know what he was thinking, so I didn't really care - apart from the fact that he had beer breath and his stubbly face had scratched my chin, he told me I was beautiful and that was the bit I heard and remembered.
      My next encounter, possibly of the third kind, was during a school outing to the cinema to see Swan Lake. Mini skirts ruled, and the moment we stepped out of the school gates, we rolled and pulled our calf length skirts up as high as they would go. At the cinema I drew the short straw and had to sit at the end next a gentleman on his own. During the course of the movie he kept putting his hand on my knee and tried to creep it further up my leg. I have no idea how a normal 13 year old would react to that, I had by that time had 2 years of harsh religious indoctrination, so I kept my trap shut and mouthed 'help me' signs to my equally daft friends who also did nothing. I wasn't especially traumatised, though I did go off Tchaikovsky for a while.
      Fortunately, or unfortunately, my budding career as a mini Lolita, was swiftly brought to an end by my being incarcerated in a convent. The sadistic monster in charge liked boys and loathed females ......"

      Source:
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-truth-about-paedophilia.html

      Delete
    4. To jog your memory, you HAVE met a good number of people with a keen interest in having sex with kids
      RE
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-truth-about-paedophilia.html

      Grown men with an apatite for 10-13 year old girls may be common but I don't think it is acceptable to view it as acceptable, normal or indeed harmless.

      The sexualisation of kids and young teenagers further blurs the boundaries.

      What seems nice at first can quickly morph into something else when these characters want more and then more again and won't take no for an answer. And then there is the power they may need to exert in order to assure your silence.

      It is likely that an apatite/fascination for Hebephilia etc is as "normal" *anthropologically* as an apatite/fascination for rape. They are both evolutionary adaptations of the human race and we should accept that humans carry this baggage. Civilised man however is taught to control these and many other urges and not to act on them.

      Most criminality is normal *anthropologically. So lock them up if they act on their urges and try to find ways to rehabilitate them.

      Delete
    5. This is a blog is open to comments that I publish, even those that disagree with me. Ergo, it is not one sided.

      No, 11:36, no-one I have ever worked with, and no-one in any of my circles of friends over the years have had the slightest interest in sex with kids.

      The idea that a film, an image, or a book, can lead to a killing spree is absurd. Since time began, religious zealots, and wannabe guardians of our morals have cited the Arts, in one form or another as a threat to society. Their arguments are pathetic but they succeed because they appeal to our fears and they claim to offer protection to children.

      It's nonsense of course, because the threat is POTENTIAL crimes, crimes that haven't happened, but might in the future. Meanwhile REAL crime, real abuse of real children, is hopelessly underfunded and under resourced.

      Delete
    6. @14:28 Do you think your readers are stupid Ros?

      Delete
    7. Thanks for publishing Ros.

      Respect
      :-)

      Delete
    8. Just to clarify, although I thought I had made it clear, as an ADULT I have never met anyone interested in sex with kids. No friend or work colleague has ever spoken to me about their err, penchant for children, and I have never had any reason to suspect it.

      I know paedophiles do exist, and I've got a good idea how they operate. All the incidents I mentioned in the post you have c/p are representative of the largest group, those who are KNOWN to the child. Not strangers, not predators hiding behind bushes, not creeps who pick kids up at railway stations and not weirdos who target kids on the internet. My experiences support exactly what I am saying. That is most children are abused in the home or by someone who knows them.

      Delete
    9. I know my readers aren't stupid 15:10, but you sure are.

      Delete
    10. Ros @16:33 "I know my readers aren't stupid 15:10, but you sure are."

      Do you think it appropriate or helpful to insult your readers?


      Like I said:
      Thanks for publishing Ros.
      Respect
      :-)

      ........

      Delete
  2. Hi Ros,your latest post,"Paedophile hunters" and a few of your quotes?
    You quote 99.9% don't feel that kids have been "Sexualised"or do not see children in that way?
    Now I am No prude but when you clearly have labels adorned to specific parts of young girls with"Sexy"added,this isn't sexualisation or Jon Benet type shows,singing and Dance classes,with the parents present for good measure,"Bullying"of the children by the parents?
    Then we have the serialised programmes X factor targeting an ever younger class of individuals,Younger x factor?
    children should be allowed to be children first and foremost,before being indoctrinised by the state of passing of Examinations,that if you fail the exams,"Your not good enough" picking out the wheat from the chaff?
    One specific point you fail to mention was the"Children"having access to the Internet via Phones,Tablets etc,where the children will be targeted by the Predators!
    If accessibility to the internet is not allowed,then the children should not be able to be contacted by the un-desireables.
    Yes big Jim Gamble may be a character not liked by people,but when you have people from a certain"Irish Police Force,Kincora boys Home",the abuses these children faced and are still trying to have their cases heard in an "Open Environment"to this present day,you wonder why there is a breakdown of trust after fifty years of evasion!
    Yet a former CEOP Leader went under Cover to the Philipines to"Expose the Paedophiles"asking the madam of a brothol for even Younger girls that were already on the premises,this same leader failed to receive UK Government clearance for this expedition?
    Operation Ore was responsible for the suicides of Men,whose "Identities"had been stolen and used to obtain"Indecent images of children",then suddenly the Leader of CEOP states years later,"Viewing Images is Okay",so no laws have been broken in obtaining these images then eh,big Jim?
    Now the former CEOp Leader wishes to employ 16,000 PSCO's into these positions,to scrutinise the"entrapped Paedophile"to be exposed by legal representatives,but using the same methodology to expose them.
    Which begs a question,just what were CEOP doing trying to catch these Paedophiles,they had a 90% target of an Arquido exposed in Madeleine McCann's case in 2007 who received £650,000 from UK MSM as compensation about stories wrote about him?
    So what happened to the 90 percent proof of this person being the Guilty party in Madeleine#s abduction?
    I have wrote on your blog site about the "Child abuse"being carried out by"Nefarious elements to Society",these include the wonderful MP's from the 1970's who were promoting the PIE group to have the age of sex with a child to Ten Years of age,some of these people were representatives of the House of Lords,who were also providing assistance to child Killers!
    Perhaps if these"Ma Learned friends,Westminster Elites"hadn't promoted these unscrupulous adults to persist in these Evil practices,they may not have grown to the proportions being found in today's society,cannot put the Genie back in the bottle!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. 'they may not have grown to the proportions being found today........'. What proportions? What evidence is there that this evil practice is more prevalent now than it was in the 1970's. The unknown is how much it has increased in the home. That I would imagine has gone down, as more parents become more enlightened and less likely to risk leaving their children with people they don't know.

      I was in care in the 70's, I know the abuse that went on. And I know why. The local authorities who have responsibility for orphans and kids from broken homes, were placing those vulnerable children into the care of some very dubious institutions. It almost certainly involved financial fraud.

      Let me give an example. If the owner of a private prison were friendly with the town planners and the justice department, with very little effort, they could ensure full occupancy of those private prisons.

      Childrens' homes in the 70's were filled to capacity, and those providing the care were richly rewarded. Even in those days, the costs for a child in care for just one week, for example would be the equivalent of 7 days in a 5* hotel. Imagine the costs therefore, of the 'long stayers', those in care for years?

      Naturally, the 5* price tag didn't trickle down to the children, the good Sisters of Mercy managed to cadge enough free stuff from local traders to ensure the luxury items never reached us. I remember one evening when the broken biscuits ran out - my brother offered to rough up a few, because we were not allowed to eat whole ones.

      The answer to every question is money 18:17, and financial abuse goes hand in hand with every other abuse, scratch the surface, and it's always there.

      The local authorities were literally handing vulnerable children over to fanatical religious institutions with few if any checks on their wellbeing thereafter. The psychopaths who had care of us, could literally do whatever they wanted.

      And sadly, the care industry is an attraction to sadists and psychopaths. And it is not just kids who are vulnerable, they also target the elderly, the disabled and those with learning difficulties.

      Paedophilia was far more prevalent in the 1970's because vulnerable kids were in the care of institutions who could and did exploit them. The circumstances that existed then, happily do not exist now, at least I pray they don't. But the fact is, all those vulnerable kids who were available in the 70s are not available now. Children go into families and the checks are far more thorough and regulated..

      If children were being abducted from the streets, we would have a Dutroux situation. That is the entire country would be on high alert. Children cannot ‘just’ go missing and then be forgotten. In the sixties and seventies, thousands of children were placed in institutions and then forgotten. I was among the lucky few who had parents who visited regularly, but my heart broke for those who didn’t.

      To those who say paedophilia is more prevalent now, I would ask where are they getting the children from? It is unthinkable that parents or even foster parents would supply their offspring to gangs of paedophiles, and if kids were being snatched off the streets, it would be global news within seconds.

      Delete
    2. ''I was in care in the 70's, I know the abuse that went on''

      That's where you were.It doesn't mean everyone everywhere else suffered the same.Some would have, some wouldn't.This is why you need reliable studies to refer to rather than guesses based on a limited area . Even your sweeping statements about the 70s-over 40 years ago- are generalisations and guesswork.Add to this your lack of research into the present /recent figures regarding child trafficking and institutional abuse that still occurs and the whole thing reads pretty awkwardly.Paedophilia is more prevalent now than ever before. The online connection exists because it offers cover for them to work behind.The internet doesn't create paedophiles, it attracts them due to the cover it offers. If 20 paedophiles were lingering around parks and schools in your area, they'd draw attention and arouse suspicion. If there was nobody around and they did their lingering online, the problem would still exist but they'd be 'invisible' outside.So, the internet lends itself well to their disease.So does that mean they shouldn't be sought out by the authorities because they're not outside bothering people ? Or because it would infringe upon their civil liberties and right to privacy ? They don't consider the civil liberties and right to privacy of their targets do they.

      Delete
    3. Hi Ros,my post 18.17. With respect for your site, I think you may have opened up a"Pandora's box".
      No to Paedophile Hunters?
      Or is it just the disguising element,(PSCO Trained(same technique),that the paedophile hunters appearing on their channels with Police assistance,that is wrong?
      I do not wish to have point scoring on a serious subject,but former CEOP Leader has stated to IICSA of at least in his estimation,at least 700,000 Paedophiles operating in the UK?
      Mr Gamble was sanctioned of information he was allowed to produce at the Child Abuse Inquiry by Alexis Jay,it was thought that Mr Gamble was to challenge statistics from the National Crime agency,compared to when he was in charge of CEOP and the budgets for funding child care protection services?
      There is a World wide problem with the abuse of children dating possibly back to Post second World War(Repatriation of the colonies)including various continents and Religious Denominations.
      It isn't as simple as stated,perhaps Mr Gamble doesn't wish to become embroiled in a situation,where One of the upper echelons maybe inadvertently caught live on TV by one of these nefarious Paedophile hunters,standing back handing the possible abuser to the Police force,maybe that is what is"Troublesome" for them,that previously certain One eyed gazes were turned at certain points and evidence duely missed in that split second?

      Delete
    4. It is terrifying to think that 700,000 paedophiles are operating in the UK - why isn't this front page news?

      Does Gamble give a breakdown of this demographic? Who are they? Where are they? Who are the victims? Are there 700,000 grooming kids online? With all the information kids are bombarded with about safety only, are these predators actually getting anywhere? It seems to me these online paedophile hunters are actually just speaking to each other, The cool kids have moved onto much quicker apps, snapchat for example allows no room for grooming, as their ugly mugs would be revealed straight away.

      But anyway, I'm curious now, 700,000 is a terrifying figure, are there facts to back it up?

      Delete
    5. Hi Ros,you would need to contact big Jim to ascertain the figures quoted to Alexis Jay.
      Perhaps the biggest time bomb hasn't arrived yet(IICSA),as some News Paper proprietors wish to close down the Inquiry before it relates to a former MP,Lord of the House of Common's?
      This person had a Leicestershire Police Force re-direct accusations from them selves onto a specific Social Care Worker,who knew full well what this MP had encouraged a Minor into asexual encounter(s)in his own Home and at the House Of Commons!
      This person's family are persistent at the very least that the Alleged allegations should never be heard or only contested by the Legal Team,even alison Saunders had to admit,that this individual aught to have been prosecuted,eventually,dragged out of her Department,CPS?
      Ti's all fine to talk about the"Cool Kids" protecting themselves,it is about every child having protection isn't it?

      Delete
    6. Stop being a paedophile apologist and their champion.It's disgusting.

      Delete
  3. '' an army of vigilantes trained to track down paedophiles online. The idea of a specialist police force to track down paedophiles online is horrendous''

    By definition, a vigilante group is a reaction to what they perceive is lacking in the law and policing of certain areas.As such, a branch of the police force can't be called, even by you, vigilantes.

    Shall we begin with your helpful description of a generic paedophile in his bedroom using the internet to groom children. You like documentaries don't you. Surely you would have seen To Catch A Predator. It showed how widespread it was and how the demographic is basically non existent in terms of isolating an age or background of a perpetrator. The sting of the episode trapped an endless line of theses creeps. There was a Gulf War 'vet', a dwarf with his dog, a rabbi, a couple of high school 20 somethings. Your stereotype died years ago.

    ''The largest group by far, are those active paedophiles who ingratiate themselves into vulnerable families by grooming the Mother.''

    That sounds very subjective. Unless, of course, you have the studies and statistics that say otherwise.Somehow, I doubt that you do.

    ''We are all being taught to fear the internet in the same way our predecessors were taught to fear books.''

    Are we ? I taught my son to fear lunatics but understand the internet.Like i taught him to fear lunatics outside but understand life by observing it closely and never have preconceived notions of people be they good or bad.To let things reveal themselves rather than guess and running with it.

    You say 'untrained police' . Would that be the untrained police who are to be trained first ?I think, should it happen, the training would be by psychologists, not other police.

    The database nightmare scenario you describe has existed as long as Google has. What do you think Google is and why do you think they're impervious to prosecution ( billions in taxes in UK for starters).It's a key logger, as is their browser, Chrome. gates' Microsoft joined in later( windows 10 ).

    The vigilante idea won't take.It doesn't matter which Governments are in power.Too many of them contain sick bastards and they can't risk the embarrassment.Their drip-drip agenda is too sexualise children and call it modern 21st century attitudes changing.That's why the propaganda machine's promoting so many sick 'gender choices for five year olds' via our TVs. The hope seems to be that a compromise will be reached( age of consent falling). Is it merely coincidence that, in recent years, so many politicians have been 'outed', as has the cover ups that were in place to protect them ? You need to research this area more than you have ( if you have).Don't criticize something you haven't taken the time to look at in any depth or with an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How very rude of you to imply that I haven't taken the time to look at this subject in depth, if at all.

      I am a careleaver, a survivor of institutional abuse, and the author of a book about that abuse. Not only have I studied the subject, I have spoken to hundreds of survivors. I study this subject from a psychological perspective, and have done since the age of 14. My quest is to discover the root of evil. Don't you dare tell me that I do not know what I am talking about.

      Don't be fooled by the simplicity of my writing style, 18:18, it's what I aim for. Take a look at the Einstein meme in the right hand margin, 'if you can't explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough'.

      Delete
    2. You haven't explained anything simply. You've presented opinions. Your personal crusade attached to your abuse predates the internet - that's quite an important point as your title tells us that you're discussing online predators. Whichever perspective you choose to study from. you still need to support your opinions in order to validate them.Then we'd all know what you're talking about, instead of just you.Was your book reviewed by the Psychology community ? You tell anyone and everyone they don't know what they're talking about and rarely explain why.Could that be because they have the audacity to think differently to you ?That's what it looks like as long as you don't offer support to your opinions. If you've studied the subject since you were 14 and still haven't found the root you're looking for, maybe you could look in different areas. How long do you dig in one spot before accepting that maybe you should broaden your search.

      Delete
    3. LOL 20:46, if you can dispute what I say with statistics, please do go ahead, I have nothing to prove. People will read what I say and make their own minds up, and I fully expect many to disagree with me.

      I have no inclination or desire to delve into the sick world of online paedophiles, I don't have the stomach for it, nor am I interested in the punishment side.

      I don't have to support my opinions with academic studies and mathematics, lol, and that I need to present my opinions in a style other than my own is absurd. Blog Title : Cristobell, who's opinion were you expecting?

      Your final lines are just insults for the sake of it. The root is not singular 20:46, there are many, and even if I live to be 100, I would not have enough time to study all of them. Education you see, always reveals how much you don't know, that's why it can be so addictive.

      Delete
    4. ''I have no inclination or desire to delve into the sick world of online paedophiles''

      Yet you seem to be introducing the topic for discussion with increasing frequency.

      ''I don't have to support my opinions with academic studies and mathematics, lol, ''

      True, providing you make it clear that they're merely opinions and not facts.


      ''Your final lines are just insults for the sake of it. The root is not singular 20:46, there are many''

      You mentioned it within the context of a single instance.Not generally.

      '' Education you see, always reveals how much you don't know, that's why it can be so addictive.''

      A bit like preaching. I don't think you're close to needing rehab for your addiction just yet judging by what I read here.



      Delete
  4. "So let's start with the basics. The generic image of a paedophile is a dirty old man alone in his bedroom trying to groom young girls and boys online. Someone socially inept, isolated but somehow also hooked up to others just like him, extremely unlikely btw, because paedophiles have difficulty relating to their peers, on any level. This group, happily is minute, and the perpetrators more likely to be sad, than bad, they are afraid to go out."
    -----------------------------

    You have repeated this every time you have one of your many paedophile blogs.

    If you want to make sweeping assertions and expect to be believed then you should once and for all publish details of your research into online paedophiles.

    1. where are they on the internet?
    2. how many are there?
    3. how do they communicate with each other?
    4. which forum/blogs do they frequent?
    5. how do they keep their activities secret?
    6. how do they pass on information about their victims and targets?

    etc etc.

    Without the details of your research your assumption is not only outdated and unjustified, but also extremely misleading and dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Questioning the expertise of Rosalinda ? Tut tut..did you not know that she is all knowing and speaks with boundless wisdom about all subjects us plebs wouldn't even dare to consider trying to grasp.

      Delete
    2. It amazes me that people come on here telling me what I should and shouldn't do.

      The answer to all your 'how do's', how the feck do I know. The subject repulses me, I have no inclination whatsoever to do what the paedophile hunters do, that is, google freaky stuff. I'm far more into recipes and works of art. The Tudors I could study to infinity and beyond. The 'P' word, nah, I'll give it a pass.

      If my assumptions are outdated, unjustified, misleading and dangerous, the answer is simple. Rebut them. Post your own statistics, deconstruct and challenge every opinion I have put forward. If you are right and I am wrong, it should be easy.

      Delete
    3. ''If my assumptions are outdated, unjustified, misleading and dangerous, the answer is simple. Rebut them. Post your own statistics, deconstruct and challenge every opinion I have put forward. If you are right and I am wrong, it should be easy.''

      They are rebutted. Constantly. The onus is on the proclaimer of big statements to provide statistics and proof, not the receiver. If the subject repulses you then why keep bringing it up and talking big numbers that you imagine ? It doesn't hurt to make your assertions and add that you are only assuming or guessing. But to present them with authority without having the actual figures invites criticism.Something you may like to consider for future reference.

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 22:26

      I am not the one who wrote a blog giving opinion/advice/expertise.

      I am not the one who said "I am a careleaver, a survivor of institutional abuse, and the author of a book about that abuse. Not only have I studied the subject, I have spoken to hundreds of survivors. I study this subject from a psychological perspective, and have done since the age of 14. My quest is to discover the root of evil. Don't you dare tell me that I do not know what I am talking about."

      I challenged your assumptions and opinions and asked you provide some research to back it up - you have failed to do so.

      Delete
    5. Pacify me, remind me of the rebuttals 22:38.

      If you don't like my writing style, go elsewhere. I'm not changing the way in which I write for you or anyone. If your way is so much better, prove it. Post an example of what you demand from me, a precedent if you like, setting out your opinions backed up with facts. I look forward to it.

      You tell me what I HAVE to write as if there were a set of bloggers rules I should abide by. Please note the title of this blog, particularly the 'Unbound' part. I'm not a rule follower 23:06, as if, lol.

      Delete
    6. This is the kind of thing you could post Ros:

      "We’ve continued to see an
      increase in children and
      young people needing
      to talk to us about online
      safety and abuse – this
      year there were over 12,200
      counselling sessions, up
      9 per cent on last year."
      Childline 2016/17 report
      https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/annual-reports/not-alone-anymore-childline-annual-review-2016-17.pdf

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 January 2018 at 23:25

      ''If you don't like my writing style, go elsewhere. I'm not changing the way in which I write for you or anyone. If your way is so much better, prove it. Post an example of what you demand from me, a precedent if you like, setting out your opinions backed up with facts. I look forward to it.''

      The trademark grace yet again...

      If you're writing about a serious subject and including numbers, figures, and trends to support what you're asserting, then style isn't required. It's about content, not style.Criticizing the lack of facts or statistics to back up what you write is criticizing the content and criticizing the author for trying to claim they're valid without them.I'm not demanding anything of anyone.I'm just reminding you that opinions are only opinions and should only be presented as such. It's misleading,and a shade dishonest, to try and sneak them under the radar.It's a habit you have whatever you write about. By all means express your bias, but you should admit it rather than try and convince a reader that it's well researched ( 40 years plus?).

      I don't need to back up opinions myself.If I offer one, i say it's an opinion.Nothing more.If I want to quote research, I'll include the source.

      ''Pacify me, remind me of the rebuttals 22:38.''

      Reminding you that you're stating opinions and speculation as findings yielded through years of research, ergo, they can't be taken at face value without citations.

      Delete
    8. Unknown 29 January at 23:26

      Regarding your link: Foreword by Esther Rantzen.

      ----------

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9587450/Jimmy-Savile-allegations-Esther-Rantzens-response-defies-belief.html

      Delete
    9. The Hypocrisy Of Esther Rantzen

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTnLgx7VsRg

      Delete
    10. @ anon 14:37 @ 19:09.

      I wait with interest to see what comment Ros makes about your posts and links. Especially as it shows how a determined paedophile can fool and outwit so many people in all walks of life for so long without being brought to justice.

      Delete
    11. Ratzen's typical of hypocrites at the BBC . She was part of the little cabal that wined and dined with Savile knowing his unofficial job was to procure children and enjoy the perks without any questions.The whole Children In Need fakery was put in place for times like this. Their argument against child abuse and their defence against any allegations of it themselves. They underestimated us all. Janet Street Porter was no better in her reaction. She lost it and was angry when interviewed.Not about what happened but because the BBc failed to ''keep a lid on it''. What a disgrace to their gender. There was only one woman among them with integrity as well as professionalism and that was Jill Dando. And we know what happened to her.We just don't know what happened to the investigation into her murder..

      Delete
  5. "Physical abuse, which is far more prevalent and can be fatal, rarely if ever gets a mention. The best protection is education, so much is spent on educating children on internet safety, how about educating them on safety in their immediate world. Especially those young naïve mothers who go from abusive relationship to abusive relationship. We should be empowering children and young parents, not taking over their personal responsibility."

    Would educating you and your parents have stopped the physical abuse of you? I understand that you did not tell your father about the abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without question, yes. As enlightened as my parents were, they had no idea about the abuses that went on in the convent. They naively believed that we were receiving a good education in a safe environment.

      It is very difficult to explain the reasons why 'we' didn't tell to people who have never been in that situation. There was a very strong sense of 'them' and 'us', we kids stuck together with a bond closer even than natural siblings and the Nuns and the 'Uncles' were the enemy. A punishment for one, usually mean't a punishment for all, everything had to be covered up, we were as protective of each other as prisoners in Colditz. Not telling, started from the top, the Nuns, it was the first rule. I 'told' once, and the whole house was punished for a week.

      Then there is the love. We didn't want to tell our parents how bad things were, because we didn't want to hurt them. It is always kinder to say, 'yeh, I'm fine', thank explain the painful truth.

      My own ancient records contained an account of myself at 14 written by my social worker. I had become quiet, morose and introverted, but even when pressed, I said I was fine.

      The dangers of institutional abuse was known as far back as Charles Dickens but they weren't commonly known among the working classes. A convent education was seen as a good thing. Had the parents of all those children known what was going on, there may have been intervention.

      Would education have helped me. It did. It taught me how to survive in that environment and how to survive from then on. Luckily my education preceded the convent, I was never going to be a victim.

      Delete
  6. Will the day ever come when you won't feel the need to spill it all out as you moved on and left it behind you or will you always need to keep the journal going until you have

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that day won't ever come 11:49. I saw and experienced child abuse ever almost day for 5 years, and I will always use my experience to help others. I know exactly what child abuse looks like so I have no qualms whatsoever in challenging the 'experts'.

      Delete
    2. I should add, that sadists outnumbered the paedophiles by about 2 to 1, so how come those who torture and batter kids never get a mention?

      Delete
    3. it's covered by physical and psychological abuse.Though I'd suggest that sadism needs to be reconsidered as a sexual buzz and power play.

      Delete
  7. I have just read your update Ros and your opinion and statements are wrong on so many counts it is not even worth listing them all (oh apart from the fact that you magically converted 700k to £750k).

    You have said the same as you blogs published not long ago:
    WHAT'S THE BIGGEST DANGER TO CHILDREN?
    WHAT'S TO FEAR ON THE INTERNET
    McCANN SUPPORTER GUILTY OF DOWNLOADING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

    all within the space of 2 or 3 months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She may be unbalanced but at least she's consistent.

      Delete
    2. My interest is twofold 20:51. I don't want the hysteria surrounding trolls and child pornography to be used to herald in new laws that will restrict the freedom of the internet.

      My second concern, is that potential crimes have taken priority over actual crimes. The majority of children are being abused in the home. Not just sexually but physically and psychologically. Those abusing will not be caught via the internet because they have access to real children.

      Your concern is 'potential' crimes, my concern is concern is the real ones.

      Delete
    3. Like all areas in crime today, there's a need for deterrents that move with the times. In our time we've seen bombings and terrorist strikes all over the world- most of which were pre-internet .Governments have now decided that terrorists are all over the internet as well as the streets.So, they're 'protecting' us by watching everything we do as they hunt for them. We know that's bullshit but how else could they herald the Big Brother era ? So, the nets under surveillance either way.It would be even without child porn and it's customer base.

      It's all well and good making potential crimes of secondary importance, but the old adage of prevention is better than cure stands.Why do Psychologists scrutinize the historical crimes of psychopaths if it isn't to build up a data base of factors that might potentially alert police forces to behavior patterns ?

      While I don't advocate bring back the rope, it needs to be said that, as a deterrent, it was a powerful weapon.Murders in everyday public life were headline news in the days of capital punishment . Today w're so used to them we can watch reports on TV without batting an eye.What I take from that is the importance of powerful deterrents.We don't need capital punishment but we need serious, carved -in-stone, penalties put in place for serious crimes . It would deter, in my opinion, a large amount criminal who know the law's slack attitude too well and cancel out the long, drawn out arguments of defence counsels trying to influence juries and judges with spurious tales of 'mitigating circumstances'. Human Rights can take a back seat, as they had to when the criminals wanted to put them there when committing crimes and creating victims.

      Delete
    4. "My second concern, is that potential crimes have taken priority over actual crimes. The majority of children are being abused in the home. Not just sexually but physically and psychologically. Those abusing will not be caught via the internet because they have access to real children."

      Watching child pornography alone in the privacy of your home is also child abuse. Real children are being abused by the makers of those films and by the viewers.

      Delete
  8. "A Home Office study in the mid-1990s found that at least 110,000 men had a conviction for an offence against a child.

    In 2000 Det Chief Insp Bob McLachlan, then the head of Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit, extrapolated from this number to suggest that there may have been as many as 250,000 paedophiles living among us, including those not convicted."

    "In 2012/13 there were 23,663 recorded sexual offences against children across the whole of the UK. Some 19,112 of those were recorded by police in England and Wales, including 6,296 rapes."

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-paedophiles-britain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ros,anon 21.00 mid 1990's, 110,000 with convictions for an offence against a child.
      2000,250,000 Paedophiles living among us,including those Not yet convicted. an increase of 140,000 in ten years Ros,now thought to be 770,000 by Big Jim Gamble former CEOP Leader,January 2018,but no increase, eh Ros,just figures?

      Delete
  9. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jan/30/glee-actor-mark-salling-dies-35

    "Glee actor Mark Salling found dead aged 35

    Salling, who played Puck on the hit series, was facing up to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to possession of child abuse images

    Mark Salling, the actor best known for his role in Glee, has died at the age of 35.

    His attorney confirmed the news in a statement. The cause of death has not yet been verified.

    “Mark was a gentle and loving person, a person of great creativity, who was doing his best to atone for some serious mistakes and errors of judgment,” Salling’s lawyer, Michael Proctor, said. “The Salling family appreciates the support they have been receiving and asks for their privacy to be respected.”

    Salling pleaded guilty last October to possession of child abuse images, and his sentencing was scheduled for 7 March. After his arrest in December 2015, Salling, best known for playing Noah Puckerman on the hit TV series, was indicted in May 2016 after a search warrant led to the discovery of over 50,000 images on his computer and flashdrive.

    In a plea agreement reached with prosecutors, Salling was to face four to seven years in prison to avoid a maximum sentence of 20 years. Salling was ordered to pay each of his victims $50,000 and register as a sex offender. In March, Salling reached a separate $2.7m settlement with a woman who sued him for sexual battery.

    According to court documents circulated at the time Salling agreed his plea bargain, he said in court: “I am pleading guilty because I am guilty of the charges and wish to take advantage of the promises set forth in this agreement, and not for any other reason.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A gentle and loving person who paid 2 million to a victim of his sexual battery.Welcome to Hollywood.

      Delete
    2. I find this story horribly sad. I don't know the details of Salling's crimes, but he received a death sentence. And that will apply to anyone accused of looking at images they shouldn't.

      Jim Gamble knows the consequences of accusing innocent men of downloading child pornography, at least 40 committed suicide following Operation Ore. Despite this, he still thinks an army of specially trained vigilantes should enforce this kind of mob justice.

      Delete
    3. And the consequences of child pornography for the abused child are lifelong also - their images will be forever on the internet.

      Delete
    4. ''I don't know the details of Salling's crimes, but he received a death sentence.''

      Received one or created it himself ?

      ''Despite this, he still thinks an army of specially trained vigilantes should enforce this kind of mob justice.''

      Trained vigilantes ? Source ?

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton31 January 2018 at 17:45
      "I find this story horribly sad. I don't know the details of Salling's crimes, but he received a death sentence"

      Details of the crimes are detailed in the newspaper report posted at 22:32 which you obviously read as you replied to it - why are you saying you don't know?

      What about the victims - the children in the photos he viewed illegally?

      Delete
  10. Interesting that you should mention Cooke.

    "Following an investigation by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches, Thames Valley Police began the reinvestigation of a series of rape and other serious sexual offences against young boys. On 26 January 1999, Cooke was again arrested by Thames Valley Police and charged at Reading police station with committing 18 sex offences which occurred between 1972 and 1981. These included repeated abuse and assault of two brothers and the rape of a young woman. Many of the offences had come to public attention after they were disclosed in the Channel 4 documentary."

    In your opinion Ros were Channel 4 acting as vigilantes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they were acting as investigative journalists. They weren't a gang of thugs pretending to be nubile teens in order to lure Cooke to a carpark where they could meet him with baseball bats. They were investigating the appalling miscarriage of justice that released Cooke from prison. Quite rightly.

      Delete
    2. Make you mind up Ros - a gang of thugs with baseball bats - or, as you said at 17:45, specially trained people as Gamble suggests (not "vigilantes").

      Delete
  11. You may wish to read this Ros:

    https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/3722/view/Rapid%20Evidence%20Assessment%20-%20Quantifying%20the%20Extent%20of%20Online-Facilitated%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse.pdf

    RAPID EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: QUANTIFYING
    THE EXTENT OF ONLINE-FACILITATED CHILD
    SEXUAL ABUSE:
    Report for the Independent Inquiry into Child
    Sexual Abuse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Disclaimer

      This rapid evidence assessment is prepared at IICSA's request. The views expressed are those of the authors alone."

      Delete
  12. Ros asks: "But if this kind of thing is happening, why aren't the makers and distributors of these images being rounded up?"
    ------------------

    "A female paedophile found with a huge stash of child porn has been jailed for seven years.

    Michaela Sheldrake, 41, described herself as a 'monster' after a court heard she had amassed indecent images and videos and had taken 356 indecent photographs of a girl under 16 - sending some of the pictures to a man.

    Speaking after the case, a relative said the victim had been 'left serving a life sentence' and Sheldrake should be 'behind bars for the rest of her life'.

    She was jailed after admitting nine offences at an earlier hearing.

    They included two charges of taking indecent photographs of a child - three of the images were classed as category B and 353 were category C.

    Sheldrake also admitted two charges of making indecent photographs of a young boy in connection with two images classified in category A - the most serious category - and five in category B."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5334255/Female-paedophile-jailed-seven-years.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ the update

    ''it sounds truly alarming. Are they paedophiles in the Sidney Cooke mould? ''

    What does that matter ? Are you trying to created degrees of paedophilia now on top of everything else ?

    '' The majority of that 750,000, actually, scrap that, 749,999 will probably Not molest a child''

    And here we are again. Big numbers and a guess at statistical probabilities.

    '' Evil isn't triggered by movies, books, music, the arts or even pornography.''

    That's of secondary importance.Of primary importance is the outlets now available to carry it out unseen and undetected. Paedophilia isn't sexuality, it's a psychological disease that presents in sexually deviant ways.

    ''I do not accept that looking at images makes these 750k men dangerous criminals.''

    It doesn't matter what you can't accept.If 750K men are potential threats due to their 'preferences', then increasing likely stimuli to them as well as access is a dangerous situation. Your reference to Cooke and Co is evidence that even before the internet they possessed the ability and organisational skills to form rings within counties and then globally with other rings. The 21st century and it's wonderful progress has made that far easier thanks to technology.

    ''But if this kind of thing is happening, why aren't the makers and distributors of these images being rounded up?''

    Possibly the weakest link of your already weak argument. Why aren't they rounding up Drug Barons , thus cleaning up the streets ? Simple.They can't catch them.They can't find them.Even if they did, it would create vacancies.Put 5 away, 5 take their place.Then, of course, as we have learned and are continuing to learn, those at the top of the tree are movers and shakers and have money and power.A bit like politicians do ( ask Archer and Howard how they were tucked up by gangsters and Drug Barons).Some of the 'customer/ client base are different to Cooke.They sit in Westminster and Police forces.Children are tools for leverage.

    Finally, how do these two statements you have made both survive :
    ''The largest group by far, are those active paedophiles who ingratiate themselves into vulnerable families by grooming the Mother.''

    and..

    ''Most of their victims were missing teenagers, boys who had run away from home ..they would be drugged, raped and murdered... it highlighted the dangers faced by rent boys and runaways, not just in London, but worldwide.''



    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5335007/Inquiry-opens-Westminster-paedophilia-claims.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good post. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. ''The son of the late Lord Janner has slammed an inquiry examining allegations of paedophilia in Westminster as a 'stain on British justice'.''

      Yes, that's right, Janner. it's the inquiry that's the stain.Typical. A chip off the old block.

      Delete
    3. ''The Westminster strand of the inquiry 'should not investigate whether former prime minister Sir Edward Heath was a paedophile', the hearing was told''

      This sounds really independent doesn't it.Investigate certain politicians but not big politicians.This is why they never get outed until they're no longer around and protected like the crown jewels when they are.Who else will they not investigate ? Freud, Smith ,Blunt,Brittan ? There's far too much smoke for there to be no fire.

      Delete
    4. I'm afraid I don't go along with the bloodlust for famous names 18:55. Again, it is a diversion from the reality of child abuse as it affects children NOW.

      Those going after famous names are not doing so out of compassion for children. It is a witch hunt, an opportunity to go after political enemies and win public approval. No child is protected via any of these witch hunts and Inquiries. It's a showboat.

      Delete
    5. Yes, let's just casually refer to them as 'famous names' rather than the people who rule over us and pass bills to guard themselves and screw us all while they indulge in filth.

      ''It is a witch hunt''

      No, it's a hunt for people who abused and allegedly worse, children, then covered it up and included the police in the cover up.

      Defend them all you like. It's that mentality that ensures the problem continues. But it fits with the rest of your stand against those who stand against crimes against children.

      Delete
    6. ( yes, leave the politicians lust alone..it might hint at their interference in a well known case in 2007 in PDL. We can't have that can we.It was the parents etc etc etc..)

      Delete
  15. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. Most active paedophiles have access to children by ingratiating themselves into families. They are not picking up 8 year olds at King's Cross.

    Sidney Cooke and his gang operated in an entirely different way. They targeted runaways directly. How is that confusing for you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. postscript to my earlier posts :

      With regard to your stereotyped image of a typical online predator of children and objecting to creating a specialist police force, you need look no further than the Ian Watkins case of recent years and reconsider your initial thoughts.

      http://www.nme.com/news/music/child-taken-care-ian-watkins-grooms-young-mother-prison-2148319


      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/25/police-missed-chances-stop-paedophile-ian-watkins-ipcc

      Delete
    2. "Most active paedophiles have access to children by ingratiating themselves into families."

      Absolute tosh - before the internet that might have held some weight but nowadays most active paedophiles are downloading images of children rather than "ingratiating themselves into families".

      Delete
    3. The internet hasn't stopped men and women getting together in the real world 18:27, so to say it doesn't happen now is absurd.

      If paedophiles are now downloading porn rather than ingratiating themselves into families' isn't that a good thing?

      Delete
    4. ''If paedophiles are now downloading porn rather than ingratiating themselves into families' isn't that a good thing?''

      And you claim you're not a paeodophile apologist .Downloading child porn is a good thing you say.Nice.

      Delete
    5. "If paedophiles are now downloading porn rather than ingratiating themselves into families' isn't that a good thing?"

      What planet are you on Ros? You seem hell bent on defending the rights of the paedophile to download images of abused children yet offer no defence of the rights of those same defenceless children who have been abused.

      Delete
    6. On the contrary 19:54, my thoughts are with those abused children and I am horrified that they are not the priority. If the images are as you say, they are suffering horrific abuse, so who is rescuing them? And why aren't the bastards who are abusing them receiving life sentences?

      Delete
    7. Ah, here we go with accusations of 'paedophile apologist', almost on cue.

      I physically stood up to child abusers 19:38 and I took the beatings for it. I also faced them again in a Court room. To call me an apologist is not only offensive, it is blatantly untrue.

      Delete
    8. "And why aren't the bastards who are abusing them receiving life sentences?"

      They do, if they're caught. But it's much harder to catch them than those who watch on the internet and can more easily be traced.

      And anyway, there is no difference between watching child abuse on a computer or sat in the corner of the room watching as the abuse actually takes place.

      Delete
    9. Tell that to your keyboard before it types any more excuses for them or how they're misunderstood.Or how we should rethink what porn is. Or before you call for people to back off them . You are using the subject to exorcise your own demons. That's clear by the constant references to you and your own experiences . Are we reading your private journal or are you inviting opinions from other people.So far, it seems to be the former. You've stated what things are and that's law.Because you say so.Again.

      Delete
    10. this : '' If the images are as you say, they are suffering horrific abuse, so who is rescuing them?''

      does not excuse, or justify, this :

      "If paedophiles are now downloading porn rather than ingratiating themselves into families' isn't that a good thing?"

      Delete
    11. You have taken two of my sentences out of context and put them together.

      Cheap trick.

      Delete
    12. My personal experience is relevant to this discussion 20:59, though I can see why you would prefer I kept them to myself.

      Delete
    13. If your personal experience of abuse had included images of that abuse being posted on the internet for the fulfilment of trawling paedophiles, then I believe that your opinions would be different. Bear in mind that these images would be downloaded and shared by your so called 'passive' paedophiles and continue to be shared and downloaded long after you've gone. The act is horrific but the abuse continues after the act only because of the people who are prepared to pay to view it.

      Delete
    14. Ros, how is your personal experience of abuse that ( I assume) occurred within the walls of a trusted institution related to people hunting paedophiles that have evaded public view and the police and who network online ?

      Delete
  16. Hi Ros,Sidney Cooke and his gang,a bit like the bible quotes an eye for an eye?
    If Mr Cookes gang had been taken out,ergo,if they were the only one's,would it have stopped the regrowth of a Paedophile gang,maybe not but it would have served as a detterant,as the Police say!
    Do not forget those Loveable brothers from the 1960's,with so many film remakes of their life,but choosing to gloss over the reality of who they were involved with,Soliciting for the elite echelons from lower classes in society,got the picture yet Ros!

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're deliberately missing the point. Cooke and Co, and PIE, showed what can be achieved successfully by being well organised and devious. In their day it was underground ( out of view). Today we have the internet and mobile phones. Your tenuous supposition that 'most' integrate themselves into families is in dire need of some numbers to support it.Yes, it can and has happened on occasion.That doesn't make it a vast majority or even majority.If anything, it's likely to be a minority.You mentioned care homes. It's on record how much abuse has been covered up globally and how far back it goes.It's thousands of victims, and counting. Yet you assert that family infiltration throws up larger numbers. How realistic is it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I talk to people 15:56. In my working and social life I have met dozens, if not hundreds of women who's children were abused by their 'partners'. Women who have taken men into their homes and given them parental responsibilities for their children, discipline especially, and who did not know about the abuses until many years later. I know there are hundreds who read here, who recognise that scenario and have experienced it themselves or know others who have. Being a single mum is a tough job, but sadly, too many women spend less time choosing the right partner, than they do choosing a new dress. They are vulnerable to strong, alpha males who will come in and take over and I've seen this happen time and time again. This is where education comes in. Many of these women repeat the same pattern with the men they get involved with.

      I actually worked for a while at a Womens Refuge, Domestic violence and child abuse usually go hand in hand, accompanied by financial abuse, as the predator takes over the finances too. Look at the murderer of Tia Sharpe, Stuart Hazell, first he moved in on the mother, then he moved in on the grandmother.

      Talk to any group of survivors of child abuse and the majority will state they were abused by their mothers' partners. All those kids who turn up at London terminals are usually escaping something.

      Delete
    2. As I said, the instances have and do happen.They're just the minority on the graph.That doesn't mean they have to be minimized, just that the problem need to be looked at more fully and with more depth and honesty. Those charged with that job should also be monitored for performance.

      I've known women who were in a refuge and women who were abused, along with their children in more ways than one.I've known it to end in death more than once.I've sat toe to toe with a woman who had tried to kill her partner and her babies and actually succeeded in killing one of the babies.She was here under a false name and false history provided by the establishment and her privacy had to be respected or those who didn't were fired.I didn't really care for that bullshit.I saw her coming out of a nursery and she informed me that she'd been given a job there.I broke rank and walked away.
      Then there was the case of John Venables ( Jamie Bulger murder)... Let out with the same deal ; false history and new name. Arrested within weeks with a computer full of child porn.

      The whole area needs to be looked at.The attitudes of those who have the power to prevent the protection of criminals in case of potential vigilantism need also to put measures in place that track their movement once they've won back their right to move among us.If that's a breach of their civil liberties, tough.They could have avoided that by not committing the crimes in the first place.They don't deserve to have both sides of their bread buttered.

      Delete
  18. Hi Rosalinda
    You are so right in what you say.

    The idea about paedophiles being represented everywhere in society’s institutions makes me think of the Joseph McCarthy claims in the 50s about communists being everywhere within the political administration.

    Anyway, the subject paedophilia is almost impossible to discuss in a sensible manner. Thanks for giving it a chance Rosalinda. Anyone, who publicly tries to express his deviant view of the morality hysteria surrounding sexuality in general, often becomes accused of defending all kinds sexual perversion.

    If we don’t seriously try to discuss relations between adults and children in terms of intimacy, love and respect, silence will soon replace what should be debated, which gives opportune politicians and simplistic legislators excellent opportunities to introduce any insane sexual law, that they believe might fit into the current age of sexual fear, without anyone outside the political establishment daring to dispute or challenge it (Germany in the 30s).

    Politicians’ and legislators’ perception of reality becomes so to speak superordinate to reality itself, and that is what leads to completely unnecessary and inhuman laws, many of which are linked to the state's supervision of us, such as laws for the protection of children, which often are so widely formulated, allowing arbitrary prosecution and persecution of good and decent citizens (Operation Ore). If we let traditional freedom under responsibility be removed by law and replaced by freedom under control (Internet related laws) then we don’t deserve our freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn31 January 2018 at 16:19

      ''Hi Rosalinda
      You are so right in what you say. ''

      Hold the front page.

      Delete
    2. Björn31 January 2018 at 16:19

      '' Anyone, who publicly tries to express his deviant view of the morality hysteria surrounding sexuality in general, often becomes accused of defending all kinds sexual perversion.''

      Anyone expressing a deviant view of anything is open to criticism. What exactly are you trying to say ?

      Delete
    3. ''If we don’t seriously try to discuss relations between adults and children in terms of intimacy, love and respect, silence will soon replace what should be debated, which gives opportune politicians and simplistic legislators excellent opportunities to introduce any insane sexual law,''

      Yes, imagine introducing laws to punish paedophiles. Disgraceful isn't it..

      You need to understand that normal, well adjusted adults know the difference between intimacy and love as opposed to sexual.One is driven by the heart, the other by the genitals and an abnormal desire. That's the debate over.

      Delete
    4. I am giving the discussion a chance Bjorn, but as you can see, there are a few determined to shut it down. I think people are so terrified of being accused themselves, that they have to go into full rage mode to demonstrate how much they hate paedophiles. Rational discussion therefore, is virtually impossible.

      I am a careleaver and survivor who faced the evil bastards in a Court room, so their usual 'you are one yourself' or you are supporting them doesn't apply. I remember the police officer who told me off for the Bennett incident, asked me how I would feel if I were accused. I laughed and said it wouldn't bother me a jot because I'm not one and there is absolutely nothing in my history to support it.

      I agree with your comparison to the McCarthy witch hunts, the idea that there are enemies within our midst and that we should all be afraid. They used the same tactics in the 1950's and 1960's when the enemy were homosexuals, and naturally we were told homosexuals were genetically inclined to prey on children. In fact one weird poster on here has stated that paedophilia is a disease rather than a sexual preference.

      Those giving hugely inflated numbers for predators on the internet are being disingenuous. Dangerously so. They have prioritised potential crimes over real crimes and they are inciting dangerous group to enforce mob justice. It is so barbaric is almost medieval.

      Politicians I fear, are much like the rest of us Bjorn, in that they don't want to know the reality, therefore they are advised by people who are willing to look at it (not many) and who are willing to come up with cut price solutions that will make it look as though the government are doing something. And that something is not investing in those on the front line. Those social workers collapsing under the weight of the massive increase in their case loads.

      Unfortunately, there are so many who cannot see that 'first they came for socialists' is history repeating itself. The socialists weren't popular, so no-one cared. Paedophiles are despised, so they care even less.

      Delete
    5. How many people have you seen led by their genitals and lusting over children 17:31? Because at the age of 60, that's something I have never seen in my life, wtf kind of circles do you move in?

      Delete
    6. ''In fact one weird poster on here has stated that paedophilia is a disease rather than a sexual preference.''

      I was the 'weird poster'

      ''Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children''

      Maybe you need to share your definition of 'weird'.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

      Delete
    7. I haven't 'seen' any of any age. If that's your idea of a rebuttal to my outlining a distinction between love and sex then you should really stop and think, instead of blindly protecting your pets who arrive here to echo you with any kind of nonsense.

      Delete
    8. Weird: People obsessed with child pornography. On both sides.

      Delete
    9. Can we have you definition of 'obsessed' now

      Delete
  19. ''as you can see, there are a few determined to shut it down. I think people are so terrified of being accused themselves, that they have to go into full rage mode ''

    Is exposing the flaws in your thinking now considered rage and a fear of being exposed as a paedophile ? Can you show us some examples of the rage please.Or the fear ?


    ReplyDelete
  20. A question for you Ros:

    You propose that the solution to child abuse is education. Who do you suggest does the educating of the parents/carers and children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Surestart was a good initiative that could have been built on 19:14, and I hope it's something Jeremy Corbyn will bring back.

      However, I have long 'had a dream' of parenting classes for all kids. I used to teach young adults, some of whom were parents, and it was frightening how naïve they were. Not entirely their faults, many now do not have the family support systems that were prevalent in the past, Nan next door and Aunty over the road. I once had a student who told me she and her husband were having problems because their two toddlers wouldn't go to be bed until they did. She was mightily relieved when I told her it wasn't up to the toddlers, it was up to her! It was as if she needed the go ahead to take back control, from an older woman.

      Primarily, I would like to see Surestart return, or Centres where young parents can go for help, advice and support. And of course friendship. Being home alone with a young child can be desperately lonely, particularly for single parents. as a young mum, I honestly used to weep at times through lack of company.

      I will, in my forthcoming book, devote a whole chapter discussing the danger signs to look out for, but unfortunately, women 'in love' are very hard to get through to, but I will give it a try.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 20:06

      Have you any evidence that education through Sure Start had any impact whatsoever on paedophilia which is what this blog is about.

      Delete
    3. My actual words 23:02 were, 'Surestart was a good initiative TO BUILD ON'. That is a place for young parents to get counselling and advice.

      Delete
    4. Then I will repeat my question in the hope that you will answer it this time. After all you have been saying that education is the answer to the problem of paedophiles for years so you must have given it some more thought than Sure Start.

      You propose that the solution to child abuse is education. Who do you suggest does the educating of the parents/carers and children?

      Delete
  21. maybe the education could centre on teaching kids that they shouldn't be parents if they're still too young to take on the responsibility and avoid it until they're mature enough

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another book???

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anonymous31 January 2018 at 17:26
    Hi and thanks for commenting on my spot.

    "Anyone expressing a deviant view of anything is open to criticism" What exactly are you trying to say ?"

    What I’m trying to say is, that there’s so much that has been labelled paedophilia, such as looking at pictures of naked children, even if they appear in a natural context. Moreover, the very symbol of virginity and purity in our Swedish tradition is a naked child, and the most known is Einar Nerman’s naked boy, which can be seen on all the Swedish boxes of safety- matches. In public facilities many old paintings illustrating naked women, whose age cannot be determined are being taken down. At Uppsala University a mobile piece of art on the wall showing how a naked Appollon chases a naked Dafne will be take down, if the students get what they want. There are hundreds of similar incidents or“happenings”would be a better word. One may be labelled a paedophile for disliking what I’ve mentioned here, and some people even imply that I've a peverted view on sexuality for defending arts and our own tradition. Small children still bathe naked, but dare not take a picture on the surrounding landscape, because some little child may appear in a corner of your photo, which means that this little poor child's life becomes completely destroyed, given that the Internet is not in the Governments control, not yet. What is all this, but madness.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ros,So which Paedophile hunters are you against"
      The Hunters who use entrapment methods,posing as under eighteens,on an adult sight?
      Or Mr Jim Gambles to be newly recruited 16,000 PCSO's using the same methods,backed up by Police officers?

      Or would you as your original posting,stating children are not sexualised,but frequently seen adorned in garments with the Name sexy embroided into the Garments,for the said Paedophiles to cast their gazes at,aka the Dance classes,jon Benet depictions,X factor?

      Delete
    2. I don't think Jim Gamble has been given his own force of 16,000 PCSO's, and hopefully he never will, do have a read up on Operation Ore. Most of the men targeted were innocent, their credit card details had been stolen.

      The second part of your post 10:17, I don't understand. Does the word 'sexy' on a toddler's t-shirt make them sexual? No, of course it doesn't to 99%, and the only way to stop paedophiles casting their gaze at kids, would be to dress all kids head to toe in burkas at all times.

      That of course would be ridiculous, but as we don't know what paedophile turn ons are, it's the only way of ensuring they never seen underage flesh.

      What if they turned on by school uniforms? When I worked in Holborn many years, most of the men in the office would go off once a week to a place called 'School Dinners', where the (adult) waitresses were dressed as schoolgirls. I don't know if the attraction was the school uniforms or their own adolescent memories of what they got up to behind the bike sheds.

      The whole schoolgirl thing is a major genre in the mainstream porn world, but that doesn't make the viewers paedophiles because the models are over 18. Men looking for that kind of porn however, may be taken to pornography that isn't legal and then find themselves labelled paedophiles. Its a slippery slope,

      Delete
    3. It is madness Bjorn, I agree, particularly where the Arts are concerned. For centuries religious zealots have tried to attach evil to nakedness with the same unhinged arguments. Ie. 'Some' people will be sent into a frenzy by the sight of a bare bosom or a cherubs naked buttocks, or God forbid, a book that mentions sex. You can see how so many were persuaded to destroy art and literature in the bonfire of the vanities.

      I'm not familiar with the Swedish naked child Bjorn, but, like the Belgian Manneken pis, I am sure the original designers would be placed on the Sex Offenders Register! As would Michelangelo and most of the old Masters who often depicted naked cherubs in their paintings. Raphael would have been led away in handcuffs. Welcome to the 21st century eh?

      Delete
    4. ''Does the word 'sexy' on a toddler's t-shirt make them sexual?''

      Maybe you need to first understand 'sexualise' as a verb and 'sexual' as an adjective.That would be a useful starting point for you before you carry on with your strange pontificating.

      Delete
    5. You should go to Blackpool any Friday night. The women dressed as schoolgirls don't stir anything in a man except the kebab he might have had earlier

      Delete
    6. Hi Ros,You still fail to offer a solution,Paedophile hunters or Trained Police,PCSO's,which one!
      Or are the kids to be left with the present Police standards,of"Priority"?

      The UK Public are seeing what were once designated as"Criminal Events,activity",now glossed into,its a civil matter,let the Insurance company etc,deal with the problem,due to so called smart clever Politicians,with close connections from the Home Office to Area Police Commanders,pushing for,FPN's,Fixed Penalty Notices,as alternative solutions to Crimes for littering etc?
      aka the below scenario,
      That if the FPN's are Not paid,they apply to the"Magistrates court for Warrant's",therebye Agents supplied with the Warrants,then are Assisted by the Boys/Girls in blue/black uniforms to Prevent a"Breach of the Peace",its a Government Legal extraction method to extort funds from the least well off in society?
      How many times have you seen on "Youtube" Mansions with their fronts doors hanging off their hinges!
      But the queen of the UK has a "Share holding" in the biggest retailer to supply"White goods"at extortionate rates as opposed to cash,if you can afford it,getting the picture! Money making enterprises.
      But,BBC they were well informed about Sir cliff's Abode being raided,now who supplied that information,as Only the Police knew when they were going to procedure at cliff's House?

      Delete
  24. Rosalinda 31 January at 20:16

    “my thoughts are with those abused children and I am horrified that they are not the priority.”

    I couldn’t agree more, children should be the priority, from any point of view.

    I cannot help but wonder what caused the rise of paedophile hunters. Why do these people take the law into their own hands?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5351086/paedophile-hunter-regret-target-killed-himself/

    0:48 Paedophile hunter Alex:

    “The police, I speak to officers nearly every day and I speak to sergeants or even had conversations with CID; their hands are tied by the people above, they cannot do anything about this.”

    Bread and games? What do you think?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. paedophile hunter Alex didn't name names to the tacky tabloid did he..he might as well have said ''i've been told by people i can't name''. It would suit his position on it all.

      Delete
  25. @Anonymous31 January 2018 at 17:31
    Hi and thanks for your comment

    "You need to understand that normal, well adjusted adults know the difference between intimacy and love as opposed to sexual"

    Yes you're so right, but paedophile hunters certainly cannot make that distinction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they can't make that distinction, why are they hunting them ?

      Delete
    2. ''Yes you're so right, but paedophile hunters certainly cannot make that distinction.''

      Why are they so angry then ? If they can't make the distinction that places them in the same category that their prey are already.

      Delete
    3. NL, T Rosalinda
      Anonymous1 February 2018 at 13:37
      Anonymous1 February 2018 at 13:55
      @Anonymous31 January 2018 at 17:31
      and others whom it may concern
      Hi everybody

      "You need to understand that normal, well-adjusted adults know the difference between intimacy and love as opposed to sexual" said anon 17:31

      I agreed to that, and I claimed that paedophile hunters cannot make that distinction, and I should have added, that they are therefore unable to distinguish between a normal loving relation between an adult (parent or whomever) and a child. Yet, they’re successful in attracting paedophiles by pretending to be chatting girls on the Internet. In doing so, they use their own perverted mind and language, which of course, is very different from young girls' ways of expressing themselves, but very exciting for like-minded people, some of whom might be unable to resist the temptation to respond to the faked girls’ indecent and filthy language.

      If paedophile hunters in loosely assembled network, manage to make their vigilance committees become an integral part of the official society, we may relive Germany and especially the S.A in the 30's. Alex’s vigilante group, which NL mentioned in a recent spot, is an example of what I’m trying illuminate.

      Most of these men, who search for paedophiles online aren’t really emotional thoughtful and understanding fellow human beings and I doubt they truly sympathise with young girls who have been, or who might be abused. It’s more likely that they’re manifesting their own power position in a patriarchal power structure, which essentially is based on contempt for weakness. Thus, paedophiles are being treated by them in a similar way as sexual offenders in prison are being treated by other inmates, who’ve committed heinous crimes, though not directly related to deviant sexual behaviour.

      Delete
    4. Björn2 February 2018 at 13:56

      ''I should have added, that they are therefore unable to distinguish between a normal loving relation between an adult (parent or whomever) and a child. Yet, they’re successful in attracting paedophiles by pretending to be chatting girls on the Internet. In doing so, they use their own perverted mind ''

      If they couldn't see the dividing line, they wouldn't perceive the wrong being committed.Therefore, they wouldn't want to hunt and stop it.

      If we extend your observation of the underhand strategy undertaken by police, we'd have to assume also that when detectives and forensic psychologists 'get into the mindset' of a serial rapist or serial killer then they too must be potentially as sick. It's called knowing the enemy.Getting into their head increases the chance of anticipating their next move.It doesn't mean they're sick.

      '' is very different from young girls' ways of expressing themselves, but very exciting for like-minded people, some of whom might be unable to resist the temptation to respond to the faked girls’ indecent and filthy language.''

      In that case their strategy has succeeded.They're only pretending to be like minded remember. It's used as bait . The bait will only attract a specific fish. An adult who fails to resist what he thinks is a minor talking dirty is that specific fish if he doesn't choose to swim away.

      The Germany of 1933 is already here. Brick by brick the wall grows.Observe the class apartheid and tell me that it isn't evidence of social elitism.

      ''Most of these men, who search for paedophiles online aren’t really emotional thoughtful and understanding fellow human beings''

      Because they'e trying to protect children and punish those out to hurt them ?

      '' It’s more likely that they’re manifesting their own power position in a patriarchal power structure, which essentially is based on contempt for weakness.''

      Why ? Why is that more likely ? Setting up a network with the intention of protecting the innocence of children is Matriarchal as well as Patriarchal.It's a show of contempt of others who have contempt for innocence but not for their own weakness which they don't and won't address.

      ''Thus, paedophiles are being treated by them in a similar way as sexual offenders in prison are being treated by other inmates''

      In prison they're not looked at favourably by other inmates and frequently have a wing of their own for protection. A lot of other inmates can be parents of children.it's a biological reaction.Online, a network wouldn't be treating them like anything other than a target to be taken down and removed from the company of minors.

      Delete
    5. @Anonymous2 February 2018 at 23:34
      Hi I suppose VT/ZD
      Thanks for comment.

      Apparently we have different views on what we believe makes a paedophile hunter commit himself to chase paedophiles.

      Delete
  26. Björn 31 January 2018 at 23:38

    Hi, Björn

    Quo vadis?”
    "Romam eo iterum crucifigi

    I get your point.

    Thinking and looking along similar lines:

    “A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
    Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
    By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
    He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

    How can those terrified vague fingers push
    The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
    And how can body, laid in that white rush,
    But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

    A shudder in the loins engenders there
    The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
    And Agamemnon dead.
    Being so caught up,
    So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
    Did she put on his knowledge with his power
    Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?”



    https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://interestingliterature.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/leda-and-the-swan-yeats.jpg&imgrefurl=https://interestingliterature.com/2017/01/25/a-short-analysis-of-w-b-yeatss-leda-and-the-swan/&h=750&w=1096&tbnid=xDLja-mT6PInOM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=233&usg=__pWnWReVVAd9YOZTwcVa2VuJegYA%3D&vet=1&docid=t5XHMrV6yMkMFM&client=firefox-b&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdp46e0YTZAhUsLsAKHVUDBN8Q9QEIKzAA#h=750&imgdii=Ysw5psYtVVLJFM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=233&vet=1&w=1096


    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeats, comrade. Respect.

      Delete
    2. @15:13

      One could reasonably doubt whether you were still here, brover.

      And thank yóu for yóur quote from a fab Senator’s poem. It was appreciated. Good was our old Bill. I felt like saying something in reply, got last in thoughts and didn’t get down to it. In a nutshell: the difficulty of telling the dancer from the dance arises from the perceived coalescence of the two (no dichotomy). No need to argue about that, for you know I’m always right.:)

      I do remember I owe you a reply to one of your posts from quite a while back. I’ll look it up.

      Fifteen men on the dead man's chest… Be cool, brover, stay out of trouble.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    3. @ T 1 February 2018 at 12:04

      Добрый вечер

      Hi T (though not time for tea)

      Jim Gamble and his paedophile hunters should be asked “Quo vadis?”

      Nevertheless, Yeats’s ’Leda and the Swan’, which I remember having read many years ago, is, I suppose, the most modern version of this mythological ancient Greek story and just like the story about Apollo and Daphne, which mentioned earlier, it originates in ancient Greece and all such mythological stories have been retold through generations first by Hellenistic and then by Roman authors and also later by French 17th century authors, but always in some altered forms like, for example, Racine's tragedy about Phaedra and others. Such mythological stories can be understood and analysed on so many levels and from so many different perspectives, and that’s what makes literature, from all times, and in all its forms so interesting. Isn’t it?

      Certainly, a film or theatre set-up based on ancient stories, must be viewed in its historical context, yet many of them will by many moralists today be perceived as a legitimization (is that a proper British word) of rape and abuse of girls/women, and if Jim Gamble and his likes were to gain more power in society, I fear that all "immoral" poetry, literature and art in general could be censored ( ref. Entartete Kunst München 1937), which we must all be aware of.


      Delete
    4. Leda : England
      Swan : Ireland.
      Theme :Rape

      Clue : Yeats

      yw

      Delete
  27. Talking of child exploitation.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5473303/madeleine-mccanns-parents-celebrate-twins-becoming-teens-with-prayers-for-missing-daughter-wherever-she-is/

    Comment:

    "Madeleine you were so let down by so many different people... won't even bother mentioning your parents, the world knows... ;( x"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what way does your melodramatic statement relate to child exploitation as indicated by your opening sentence ?

      Delete
    2. In what way does the twins' birthday relate to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

      Melodramatic:

      'As Maddie’s younger brother and sister blow out candles on their cake a family pal said: “Their only wish is for their big sister to come home.”'

      Delete
    3. Still waiting for the reply to post above - 'child exploitation'. As for two children wishing their missing sister to be returned, that's not melodramatic, it's sad and it's real. They're not online vigilantes, they're Madeleine's siblings.

      Delete
    4. Still waiting to see a reply to question of child exploitation by the way..

      Maddie's siblings wishing for the return of their sister isn't melodramatic, it's touching, sad, and realistic.They're her brother and sister, not a pair of angry bloggers.

      Delete
    5. @Anonymous2 February 2018 at 15:26
      Hi
      I shouldn't really answer as you didn't ask me, but felt I had to.
      "it's touching, sad, and realistic", you say

      Yes I agree insofar, that it's touching, sad and may I also add real, but it's not realistic to believe that Madeleine will ever be found alive.

      What's realistic, however, is to hope that the Madeleine case will be solved, so that the McCanns children can move on with their lives.

      Delete
  28. Stuart Hazel who killed Tia Sharp
    "Her blood was found on a sex toy in the house and on his belt, and his semen was on the bed clothes in the bedroom where she slept.

    After finding the body, police discovered he had a fascination with child pornography, and had searched for obscene material online using terms including "violent forced rape", "little girls in glasses" and "incest"."
    --------------------------------------------------

    Mark Bridger who murdered April Jones:
    "Detective Superintendent Andy John, the senior investigating officer, said he believed April was probably sexually assaulted by Bridger either at a remote spot or at his cottage, Mount Pleasant.

    He said images found on Bridger's laptop – including pictures of sadistic child sexual abuse – suggested the killer was building up to the crime.

    "For me the computer evidence points towards an individual who is evil, manipulative and has premeditated this," said John. "The unhealthy interest he has in indecent images of children for me is a clear indicator that this individual was going to commit something as horrific as he did."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Violent sadists would be violent sadists even without the internet 23:14, Did they claim it was the images that made them do it? Or did their evil natures lead them to seek out horrific pornography?

      The idea that images lead to violent behaviour is as ridiculous as the idea that a Batman movie led to a mass shooting. The human psyche is much more complex than that. a trigger could be as simple as 'your turn to take the rubbish out'.

      Computer evidence may give an insight into a psychopath's mind, but it is not a defence to what the psychopath has done. Ie. 'If I hadn't looked at that image I wouldn't have done it'.

      Delete
    2. Have you heard of the deep concept of something called 'temptation' at all Ros ? Wave a drink in the face of a recovering alcoholic, or a cigarette in the face of a recovering nicotine addict. Some, hopefully most, will resist and walk away.Some will succumb. Now imagine a world that offers them free access to a stash. Nobody blames the stash.It's the weak will. Even legal porn sites are aware that they're serving an existing viewer base and newcomers are the smaller demographic to begin with.

      It wasn't a Batman movie that led to mass killings.You're either making that up or you're talking about something else you don't know about or haven't researched.The movie hadn't begun and the shooter had a severe and sudden mental abberation . He was a high performing student studying prior to that . He exhibited all the classic signs of drug -induced mind alteration that had gone badly wrong and he hasn't recovered .

      Suggesting that images light a fuse in the mind of a psychopath isn't offered as a defence or excuse. It's offered as an explanation.

      Delete
  29. Christabel, you did a more insightful article on paedophilia in society beck in 2015:

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-truth-about-paedophilia.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't realise she'd been going on and on about it since then. Insightful ? That article compares childhood experiences from the 1960s to the present day. In the 1960s it was grooming and 'hands on' to coin an unfortunate phrase.To draw the conclusion that the real danger isn't loners who sit alone at the computer online because of what happened 40 years before computer and the internet were in existence is wrong.It's tantamount to saying child abuse 40 years ago went on without the perpetrators having to go on the internet so the internet isn't the problem

      Delete
    2. I just read that link. What can I say , he voice of authority speaks too loud again.

      ''The idea of experts compiling the profile of a typical child molester is ludicrous. You can make them ugly, give them pimples, bad breath and tattoos but you may as well shoot goldfish in a tank. There is no such thing as a 'typical' child molester.''

      Do you seriously think 'experts' compiling a profile are compiling a physical one ? The experts ( real ones, not bloggers) compile psychological profiles based on the characteristics suggested by crimes , such as opportunity, times and geographical locations, method of grooming, reaction during questioning and so on. Pimples don't matter.That's what's ludicrous.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  30. Your comments, particularly in the update section, are complete nonsense.

    You seem to think that your personal experience of abuse makes you an expert. It doesn't, any more than breaking your leg makes you an orthopaedic surgeon.

    Most sexual abuse of children happens in the home, by a relative or someone close to the child. Your post is possibly the most ill-informed article I have ever read on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My update is complete nonsense. LOL, that's it, that's your rebuttal?

      Yes 12:00 most sexual abuse happens in the home, and if you cannot comprehend that, I suggest you speak to survivors and runaways, I've spoken to hundreds, and not one of them were abused by a stranger.

      Delete
    2. They are no longer a stranger when you have been chatting and sharing with them online for two months.

      After you have met them a couple of times they are definitely not a stranger, even if they look a bit older than they said

      Delete
    3. Are you drunk?

      I said "Most sexual abuse of children happens in the home" and you respond with " Yes, most sexual abuse happens in the home and if you cannot comprehend that...."

      Comprehend what - the same thing I just said?

      This is the most baffling passage of your post:

      "I don't know what kind of crazy world you live in Bishop, but with my opposite of a sheltered life, I suspect I'm a lot closer to reality than you are, and I have never met anyone the slightest bit interested in having sex with kids. And it's the kind of thing you would remember."

      Seriously?

      You are staggeringly ill-informed. I also find your comments on the viewing of child porn truly offensive. You don't regard it as a crime, despite the fact that each image represents a child being abused. It is not a victimless crime, by its very nature.

      I think you need to go away and sort your thinking out, because you are all over the place


      Delete
    4. No, I'm not drunk are you? You seem to have come out without your manners (if you ever had any).

      If I am so staggeringly ill-informed, why does my blog bother you?

      You are truly offended that I don't regard viewing images because you have bought into the hysteria, hook, line and sinker. An image can be reproduced zillions of times, and if someone were so inclined, they could flood the internet with illegal images and every viewer could end up on the Sex Offenders Register.

      Those making the images, that is those kidnapping kids, raping and abusing them, should be the top priority. There is no excuse whatsoever for allowing that kind of abuse to continue. How fecking useless are child protection if they can't rescue the actual kids who are being abused? Those who are physically assaulting these children should be behind bars for life.

      But it is not really about the images is it? If it were, doors would be broken down and producers and distributors would be in jail. Jim Gamble wants to include cartoon images too, do you have similar crocodile tears for the toons?

      Delete
    5. @ 'jersey'

      ''They are no longer a stranger when you have been chatting and sharing with them online for two months.''

      I watched a documentary only yesterday.The story of a 13 year old girl with little self confidence.She received attention from a boy of 16. A good looking boy who talked and listened to her. It lifted her no end. Then her mother found out and tried to talk sense to her and then argued with her( he's 16 too old etc). It escalated after the mother found that the daughter had gone to school but remained logged in.She typed to the boy that she was the mother and it had to stop.No threats, just laying the law down.It stopped but her child killed herself.

      Eventually a neighbour- another mum- of middle age confessed to her that she and her two adult daughters had created the false profile of the 16 year old boy and were deliberately teasing her daughter. The police said no laws existed to arrest the neighbour.Eventually she went to court under some kind of forgery based on false information passed from one to another.But the judge said he wasn't prepared to set a precedent that could lead to anyone having anyone who lied to them online arrested and brought to court.

      Think of this case, and there's plenty of the same, when you claim a few conversations online means those talking are no longer strangers.It's naive at best, dangerous otherwise.

      Delete
    6. ''If I am so staggeringly ill-informed, why does my blog bother you?''

      I believe the poster explained that he found your line of thinking offensive.

      '' An image can be reproduced zillions of times, and if someone were so inclined, they could flood the internet with illegal images ''

      There are filters that block them.

      '' How fecking useless are child protection if they can't rescue the actual kids who are being abused? Those who are physically assaulting these children should be behind bars for life. ''

      That's down to the police / vice squad, not child protection.

      ''But it is not really about the images is it? If it were, doors would be broken down and producers and distributors would be in jail.''

      They have to locate the doors first.

      Delete
    7. @18:09
      I was answering RCH and you misunderstand me.
      I should have made myself clearer:

      "They no longer SEEM a stranger when you have been chatting and sharing with them online for two months.
      After you have met them a couple of times they definitely do not SEEM a stranger, even if they look a bit older than they said."
      This was written to highlight the perspective of the 13 year old being groomed. I should have included the capitalised words -sorry.

      I was highlighting the danger, not being complacent. Indeed your tragic suicide story highlights how a naïve 13 year old can be totally taken in even by a fictitious profile.

      Delete
  31. Hi Rosalinda a correction

    My sentence in my recent post “ they are therefore unable to distinguish between a normal loving relation between an adult (parent or whomever) and a child”

    should be “they are unable to understand a normal loving relation” (just to tired)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ros says: "I have long 'had a dream' of parenting classes for all kids."

    And it will remain a dream Ros because with your internet and blog history available for anyone to read there is no way that you would ever get through a background check to work with vulnerable children (or parents for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what are you accusing me of 18:05?

      What is there in my internet and blog history that makes me a criminal and unsuitable to work with vulnerable children and their parents?

      I'm not the one obsessing over vile pictures on the internet, you are. I'm not the one saying children are sexual if you put lipstick or a tshirt that says Sexy on them. All that creepy shit is coming from you.

      I have never failed a CRB check and never would, how dare you come on here making such vile accusations, anonymously naturally, you fucking coward. But that your stock answer isn't it. ACCUSE in order to shut down discussion.

      Delete
    2. Strange that,an ACCUSE is being made to Textusa to shut their blog,whats going on?

      Delete
    3. @Unknown2 February 2018 at 18:05
      Good Night Miss Unknown


      “And it will remain a dream Ros because with your internet and blog history available for anyone to read there is no way that you would ever get through a background check to work with vulnerable children (or parents for that matter)”
      I know you disrespect whatever I say, yet I've some words to say to you.

      Rosalinda has openly and wholeheartedly told us and everybody about her life, especially her own childhood, partly by publishing a book, partly by often taking her own experiences as a starting point for a general discussion about children's social situation in society.

      Who would be more competent to engage in family counselling with emphasis on children, or in other activities concerning children’s well-being than Rosalinda?

      Personally, I admire her for her openness about herself, which is what makes the discussions on this blog more homely and sensible, than they otherwise would have been.

      All I can say is. Never despise those who dare speak openly about themselves, their merits and shortcomings, only bullies do so.

      Delete
    4. All counsellors need to show they have completely cleansed their own house of all demons before they set about facing somebody else's.If they haven't, they can likely be confronted and lose all objectivity, thus compounding the problem rather than dispelling any.I'm not saying this as a criticism of Ros or anyone else. It's just how it is.

      Delete
    5. You ought to see what I am putting in my spam box Bjorn. Those crying crocodile tears over survivors have no qualms whatsoever in abusing me, a, hmm, survivor.

      Delete
  33. "Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone child pornography in any way but I do not accept that looking at images makes these 750k men dangerous criminals."

    A couple of things:

    There is no such offence as ''Paedophilia"

    A paedophile is a person, male or female, with an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. The offences you describe relate to making ie, downloading or being in possession of indecent images of children.

    Here's the thing.

    Why would anyone search for those images unless they had an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children? Why would anyone engage in online grooming of children unless driven by the same abnormal interest?

    It's not the viewing of the images that makes them dangerous criminals - it's the abnormal psyche that makes them view the images.

    Viewing indecent images of children is no guarantee that the viewer will progress to sexual abusing a child, but I bet nearly every abuser starts off viewing images and goes from there.

    ''
    Apparently Jim Gamble, former head of CEOP has said there are 700,000 paedophiles operating in the UK. I don't know what that means, but it sounds truly alarming. Are they paedophiles in the Sidney Cooke mould? Does operating mean active? As in trying to groom children online? The figure is staggering, but more troubling in my opinion, is who are their victims? The childrens homes and institutions no longer exist, and it is very hard now for anyone to go off radar. As I don't know what this 700k demographic is made up of, I presume he means on social media, thus presenting the internet as the biggest danger to our kids and the need for a specially trained police force. "

    Most paedophiles are not in the Sidney Cooke mould. The sidney Cookes of this world are few and far between.

    They're the man next door, they're your GP, your plumber, teachers, lawyers, writers - they occupy every profession and operate at every level of society. Their victims are their own kids, nieces and nephews, pupils, patients, the school friends of their kids. Most Paedophiles are married, most identify as heterosexual, many assault both boys and girls. They are not the dirty old man in a raincoat, they are to all intents and purposes, ordinary. Which is exactly why they are a problem.

    Now, if you don't think someone downloading or viewing child porn is a concern - well, no offence, but I wouldn't entrust you with young children

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I may summarise....

      The majority of male heterosexuals who look at images of young ladies performing sexual gymnastics are doing it because they like the former and imagine they could perform the latter.The young ladies are, for the most part, stunningly attractive and fit.They are also unobtainable.In their ( viewer) fantasy, however, they are.They know they'll never get that lucky deep inside.What do you reckon their answer would be if by chance they were in a social situation and one of those ladies offered themselves ? Would it be ''no thanks, I'm only into images'' ?

      People like images of things that pleases their eye.If it's a horse galloping through a meadow, a sunset , or a kitten. They like to look at what they enjoy seeing. It's about what appeals.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous2 February 2018 at 21:40
      Hi
      Just some thoughts related to what you've said.

      ”People (including hetero sexual men)like images of things that pleases their eye. If it's a horse galloping through a meadow, a sunset, or a kitten. They like to look at what they enjoy seeing. It's about what appeals”

      If hetero sexual men, who like watching young girls dancing and doing gymnastics, would violate them and have sex with them as soon as they get a chance, wouldn’t such men then also ruthlessly ride across all meadows on a horse they’ve fancied on a picture, until that horse collapsed and died, if they would just get a chance to do so.

      Wouldn’t they also chop down all the trees on their neighbour's plot to better enjoy all the future sunsets, or get them themselves a lot of kittens, instead of just looking at images, and then leave them in the forest when the holiday is over.

      As I see things, those who see real beauty in images of children, horses, sunsets, kittens or whatever, wants to keep that feeling within themselves and will certainly not offend anyone, let alone commit immoral acts.

      Delete
  34. Anonymous2 February 2018 at 19:50
    Hi

    "Viewing indecent images of children is no guarantee that the viewer will progress to sexual abusing a child, but I bet nearly every abuser starts off viewing images and goes from there”

    Oh, I honestly never thought of that!

    Very interesting. I think the solution is around the corner now and you’re about to solve western civilisation’s dilemma with all its sexual filth indecency.

    Since young girls, who live in our western society, are the most vulnerable and the most exposed to paedophiles on the Internet, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to demand and to introduce laws compelling them to hide their faces behind a veil and wear clothes that cover the entire body, just as it is in many Islamic states, where the problem does not exist. I beg those, who don't agree with me, to just see it as a complement to Cameron's internet filter laws.

    After all, it's all about protecting our children from evil and how can some further restrictions on freedom do any harm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Bjorn, thank you for point out how ridiculous the 'looking at images' argument is. If images are a trigger, how do you prevent paedophiles from getting their jollies from a clothing catalogue, childrens TV or hanging around schools and playgrounds. If an image can lead to an assault what happens if they see a 'real' child?

      When I was in the convent, we were given nightly lectures from the head paedophile. He was a devout catholic and former Jesuit monk who practiced Opus Dei and who believed perversion was all around us and mini skirts were the root of all evil. He would proudly tell us that he had tied his genitals up with string that he would tug on in order to punish himself.

      His logic and reasoning were not too dissimilar to the arguments being put forward now by those with a fear of the internet. They too see perversion and sexual deviancy all around them. Where we see a toddler dressing up as a toddler dressing up, they see sexuality and titillation. The pictures of Madeleine wearing make up for example, kicked off a frenzy in the cesspit and Mark Williams Thomas found them alarming. They are the ones who are pitching kids as sexual beings, the rest of us don't think that way.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda

      Yes,anything could be child pornography, at least in the mind of a person who's obsessed with sexuality. I haven't yet, though I've tried hard, found a comprehensible definition of child pornography,but it seems to come about when an adult looks at an image/picture of a naked child, or possibly of a child in swimming suit. LOL

      Delete
    3. Sentencing Council's Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline. April 2014 for crimes relating to indecent images of children.

      Category A: Images involving penetrative sexual activity and/or images involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism

      Category B: Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity

      Category C: Other indecent images not falling within categories A or B

      Delete
    4. @Unknown3 February 2018 at 15:34
      Hi and thanks for giving me those guidelines

      So, dear Unknown, let us now see under which categories my ”indecent” images might fall then.

      Category A: Images involving penetrative sexual activity and/or images involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism

      "Leda and the Swan" Yeats’s sonnets first published in the Dial in 1923, illustrated by a painting in which Zeus, in a SWAN’s disguise rapes Leda, which is a link I got from Mr T, on this blog.
      So I may have been downloading child pornography, if the depicted female character would be younger than 18.

      ”La Renaissance épanouie”, is one of my French books, which treats the poems by Pierre de Ronsard and others is illustrated by a painting by Jacques Ibert ,labelled; “Les amours de Jupiter”. Very erotic and indecent indeed, as it shows penetrative sexual activity.

      Category B: Images involving non-penetrative sexual activity

      The narrative poems by William Shakespeare ”The Rape of Lucrece which is about the legendary Lucrece, which is illustrated by a painting by Tiziano Vecelli  in a book about Shakespeare, which is in my possession. What’s her age? Certainly under 18.

      Category C: Other indecent images not falling within categories A or B

      A postcard in which two naked 4/5 years old children are photographed, while holding hands in an idyllic Swedish summer landscape. I bought it a few years ago, but I haven’t sent it to anyone, because I happened to like it. Maybe I’ll send it to the corresponding Swedish CEOP as a X-mas greeting.

      One 18th century painting in my living room, depicting a nude cherub and a half naked male adult close to that character.

      Reproductions of some Karl Larsson (Swedish world famous painter) paintings depicting naked or half-dressed children, who are very photo-like, set in a typical Swedish 18th century environments.

      A naked little girl in statue shape on my piano.

      Lots of photo albums from my childhood in which I and my peers are shown in swimsuits or without.

      The picture of Einar Nerman’s naked young boy on a dozens of boxes of matches. His son was the model.

      And some hundred more images and photos of my friends and school mates dressed, but posing in a way, that might attract the attention of many paedophiles today if I were to publish them on the Internet.
      So Gamble's Sturmabteilung and the archbishop of Canterbury can turn even on me, I suppose. Hopefully Brexit will come to my rescue.













      Delete
    5. Bravo Bjorn! I feel so privileged to have such an enlightening and articulate scholar such as yourself posting here and naturellement Mr. T. understood your reference to Leda and the Swan, so I am blessed. I am ashamed to say I had to look it up, but as always, you have left me with much to look Bjorn, lol - and thank you :)

      I wish I had the ability to c/p, because it deserves a much bigger audience Bjorn. It is very difficult to explain to angry people who believe children are at risk, that images are not the problem.

      Artists have depicted pictures of naked children since time began, because they are beautiful. I took loads of pictures of my naked babies, especially during and after a bath, when they were all pink and fluffy and sweet smelling! They made me smile then, and the memory makes me smile now. Come to think of it, I put several pictures of myself aged 4/5 wearing nothing but frilly knickers in my book Cry and You Cry Alone. Pictures that would almost certainly be classified a B or a C. Am I a distributor of child porn, even though the pictures are of myself?

      I think Jim Gamble also wanted cartoon child pornography to be included, which is bizarre, because if victimless images are included, the next step is historic and priceless works of art. Churches would be stripped of naked cherubs and Jesus would have to wear a shirt and trousers or be accused of exposing himself!

      The idea of creating a citizens army to go after 700,000 unseen, unknown, would be predators because they saw an illegal movie, is absurd. That figures is made up of 700,000 individuals, enough to fill up several stadiums, each of whom have different personalities, different ages, different economic groups, etc, etc. One size doesn't fit all. You can't just take a large chunk of the population and say ALL of them will go on to commit a serious crime.

      Sorry, lol, I went all preachy there in the middle Bjorn, that little section was aimed at the Quakers.

      You have explained the 'Arts' perspective far more clearly and eloquently than I could have Bjorn, and I hope readers take the time and trouble to read and ingest your words Bjorn.

      Delete
    6. @Björn3 February 2018 at 14:02

      ''I haven't yet, though I've tried hard, found a comprehensible definition of child pornography''

      Then why are you putting together a protracted dissertation on the subject ? If you don't know the definition of something, you're not qualified to lecture or preach about it.

      ''t it seems to come about when an adult looks at an image/picture of a naked child, or possibly of a child in swimming suit. LOL''

      'LOL' ? Is this ongoing conversation amusing to you ?

      Björn3 February 2018 at 09:58

      ''After all, it's all about protecting our children from evil and how can some further restrictions on freedom do any harm?''

      That world famous Swedish sense of humour is on a roll. Sarcasm too no less.I think you've missed another obvious point. It's about restricting the freedom of a specific group intent on keeping child abuse alive.

      Delete
    7. Sweden

      Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, even if they are drawings.[34] A "child" is defined as a “person” who is either under the age of 18 or who has not passed puberty.[35]

      These laws have been recorded in the media being put into play in Uppsala: the district court punished a man with a monetary fine and probation for possession of manga-style images.[36][37] This was appealed and taken to the Court of Appeal.[38][39] In court, Judge Fredrik Wersäll stated that a "person" (as in the definition of a "child") is a human being. The man possessing the illustrations, as well as his lawyer, stated that a comic character is not a person (a comic character is a comic character and nothing else) and that a person does not have cat ears, giant eyes, or a tail and that a person has a nose. Some of the pictures featured illustrations of characters with these unusual body parts. The prosecutor and an expert on child pornography argued that these body parts had no effect and that the comic characters indeed were persons. As examples of what is not a person, the child pornography expert mentioned The Simpsons and Donald Duck.[40] The Court of Appeal upheld the former verdict, for 39 of the 51 pictures, and the monetary fine was reduced.[41][42][43] It was immediately further appealed to the Supreme Court.[44] While the Prosecutor General agreed with the verdict of the Court of Appeal, he still recommended that the Supreme Court hear the case, to clarify the issue,[45] and the Supreme Court decided to do so.[46] On 15 June 2012, the Supreme Court found him not guilty. They decided that the images were not realistic and could not be mistaken for real children, and that they therefore could not be counted as exceptions to the constitutional law of freedom of speech. One picture was still considered realistic enough to be defined as child pornography according to Swedish law. However, his possession of it was considered defensible through his occupation as a professional expert of Japanese culture, particularly manga.[47]

      Delete
    8. @Anonymous4 February 2018 at 00:45
      Hi

      "Then why are you putting together a protracted dissertation on the subject ? If you don't know the definition of something, you're not qualified to lecture or preach about it"

      Didn't you see that "Unknown" helped me to understand what child pornography could be from the legislators' perspective, by referring to Sentencing Council's Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline.

      So naturally I felt that I, at least, had to give it a thought, fearing that anyone could be targeted by paedophile hunters in action.

      Delete
    9. @Unknown4 February 2018 at 09:34

      Hi there, a Swedish pal I suppose

      Intellectually well-formulated and perfectly correct, as far as I can see. There are only a few things I would like to add

      It is important to emphasise that Simon Lundström was acquitted in the Supreme court, despite having one image classified as child pornography as you pointed out.

      Naturally, the image in question is not to be found anywhere on the Internet, but kept by the authorities ever since the verdict in the Supreme court.

      Still it has been described by so many moralists so many times, who’ve assured me and others, that it’s really a disgusting image, implying or showing a sexual penetration act in which two fantasy characters are involved. I’m not really so interested in trying to find out how and where they have found this indecent image, but shouldn’t they in accordance with the Swedish law on child pornography be investigated, or at least asked wherefrom they’ve got such a detailed description?

      Moreover, anyone, in case he /she would be suspected of having a similar image, would need to come up with a fairly good explanation as to why he/she has been looking at it, in order to avoid being prosecuted. Won’t he.

      Even more important, in my opinion. Shouldn’t we also tell the world, that Swedish authorities (politicians in parliament) have tried (possibly still trying) to make the Japanese society and its judiciary prohibit all manga-cartoon of the sort Lundström, was translating, in their own country, despite neither having any evidence proving that pictures of this kind could be harmful to small children, nor knowing anything about how such images are perceived in the Japanese culture.

      People may think that I’m referring to the humorous American cartoon movie ”Family Guy” when I’m talking about our own Swedish authorities and its system of justice, which, I assume, is not quite different from that in the UK.


      Delete
  35. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 February 2018 at 14:28

    This is a blog is open to comments that I publish, even those that disagree with me. Ergo, it is not one sided."
    ------------------------------------------------------

    That is a lie - see your own comment @ 3 February 2018 at 13:13 "You ought to see what I am putting in my spam box Bjorn."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm spamming personal abuse. How is stating I should not be allowed near young children, not offensive? You are trying to silence me by calling me a paedophile, the usual trick of those uncomfortable with this subject being discussed.

      As a young girl I did everything in my power to protect the little ones, including putting myself between the child and the abuser and taking beatings for it.

      A couple of years ago I had a phone call from a man who had been in the same children's home as myself. He was calling from the US, and he wanted to thank me for what I did for himself and his sister when we were in care. Even though he was only 5 at the time, he clearly remembered the kind, older girl who comforted him, taught him how to make daisy chains and made him laugh. I fought back against the paedophiles and sadists and I fought them again in a Court room.

      How fucking dare you accuse me of the kind of sick shit that goes on in your head. Yes your vile posts are going in my spam box, and keep it up and I will pass them to the police.

      Delete
  36. Ros, I posted earlier - "If your personal experience of abuse had included images of that abuse being posted on the internet for the fulfilment of trawling paedophiles, then I believe that your opinions would be different. Bear in mind that these images would be downloaded and shared by your so called 'passive' paedophiles and continue to be shared and downloaded long after you've gone. The act is horrific but the abuse continues after the act only because of the people who are prepared to pay to view it." I would like to hear your thoughts on that, please.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The abuse I suffered was physical - our carer liked boys. Most of the abuse was cruelty. Sadists in carework outnumber paedophiles by at 4:1, but as someone said earlier some people get a buzz out seeing others suffer.

    Would it bother me if pictures were put up of myself and others being battered and punished by being made to stand on a cold marble floor all night in a flimsy nightdress? Yes, it probably would, but my anger would still be aimed at my tormentors. Those who looked at the pictures wouldn't bother me.

    I'm not precious about my image, I accept that every time I step out the door my image will be 'captured' pretty much everywhere on CCTV. I have bad pictures out there that make me cringe, but again, I accept that bothers me more than anyone else. Most people see an image in a split second and move on.

    Once our image is out there, it's beyond our control. Thinking about what other people do with them is an area most of us don't want to go to. And even if they do something yucky with them, so what? They could do the same with any picture of any person, we will never know about it.

    Royals, A-listers and VIPs do not protect their children from photographers, because the only way they could do that, would be to put masks or veils on them, Michael Jackson style.

    Some might argue that the 'stolen' pictures of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie as half naked tots playing in pool were child pornography. Were they abused, are they still being abused by them?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "...Finally, public hysteria over a perceived problem often results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify the agendas of those in positions of power and authority."

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201507/moral-panic-who-benefits-public-fear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that 08:54 - it is one of the most enlightening articles I have ever read! Probably because it explains with far more clarity than I, the phenomenon of Moral Panic. I'm also extremely grateful for the terminology, 'folk devils' is spot on!

      I am now a huge fan of Dr. Scott Bonn (@DocBonn)and am off to find more of his work! Again, many thanks 08:54.

      Delete
    2. Shall we call it a draw ? Clearly those who are keen on the law coming down hard on paedophiles and child porn producers have missed an important point. Thankfully, Ros and Bjorn have been at hand to clear things up. It's all just misunderstood art. Thanks, Ros. Thanks,Bjorn.

      Delete
    3. ''I am now a huge fan of Dr. Scott Bonn (@DocBonn)and am off to find more of his work! Again, many thanks 08:54.''

      Is that it ? One reading of somebody who thinks as you think and you're a 'huge fan' ? No wonder what you comment about lacks any depth or research. As long as somebody thinks as you do, that's enough. Your vanity does the rest. it's pretty much consistent with how you talk to posters here really. Those who agree are praised and fawned over as a way of thanking them, even if those with the ability to think properly see the rubbish for what it is and question it ( but rarely receive sensible answers if any at all).The ego has landed.And it won't budge.

      Delete
    4. I am astounded that you were able to turn my admiration for the renowned Dr. Bonn into personal criticism of me, yet again, lol.

      Why does my praise of other trouble you so much? Perhaps if you weren't always so angry and belligerent you would get praise yourself?

      Your reasoning, as always, is completely illogical. Who better to read on the subject we are discussing than a Professor in Criminology, Sociology etc?

      I muse 13:51. I don't claim to have studied all the 'ologies in depth, and your demand that I should before I comment is absurd. Every teacher and lecturer out there will identify with me in collecting useful articles as a teaching aid. Some of us photocopy them and hand them out to each student (teaching is a constant search for resources).

      Dr. Bonn's article is one such, let's call them, lightbulb moments, in understanding the bigger picture, it is the kind of enlightenment that is really only available to those who attend University. When I went into higher education as a matter student, my whole belief system changed completely. I compare it to 'Educating Rita', though rather than being a hairdresser, I was more of a conservative. I wasn't a fully fledged hippy chick until about Year 3.

      Yes, Dr. Bonn's article confirms exactly what I have been saying, but I will give myself a pat on the back, because I worked it out myself anyway. It's no wonder academics do not support the scaremongering that goes on - they can see straight through it.

      I'm not in the least embarrassed to admit I have learned something new 13:51, in fact I take a great deal of pleasure from it, especially the part where I can share it with others. For me this blog is a journey that I am sharing with others, we are all learning as we go along.

      I am only rude to posters who are rude to me 13:51. There seems to be a hardened group determined to bully me on my own blog and I'm not putting up with it. The solution is simple 13:51, and entirely in your own hands. Stop being so angry and hostile.

      Delete
    5. @Anonymous4 February 2018 at 08:54
      Hi

      Quote from the same article by the same Scott A. Bonn, who really talks sense in my opinion.

      ”Third, there is a great deal of fluctuation over time in the level of concern over a condition. The typical pattern begins with the discovery of the
      threat, followed by a rapid rise and then peak in public concern, which then subsequently, and often abruptly, subsides”

      We can always hope he’s right about that as well.

      Delete
    6. He may well be right. But if he was aware of the thousands of tweets, blogs and youtubes put online about the McCann case over 11 years he'd have to concede that's it's a general rule only.

      Delete
  39. ahh yes..'folk devils'..i recall referring to the McCann parents as folk devils last year.You were outraged.Typical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a shame you didn't explain it to me 13:33, I'm sure you would have got a much better reception.

      Delete
  40. Some food for thought...

    As i perused my way through this particular thread, a few points of relevance stood out among the weeds.

    The main course seems to be- or was intended to be - a discussion about vigilantism.Is it right or is it wrong.Or is it right if it is targeting something i stand against myself but wrong if it stands against something I don't mind.A double standards argument if you will.Also standing out is the question ( mainly asked by Ros) of why those who feed the industry of illegal porn ( child) and those providing the players go unpunished or, seemingly, evade detection.

    I think the apparent failure of the police / law to clamp down on it all is what has created the vigilante reaction. After all, isn't necessity the mother of invention ? It's easy to criticize mob mentality. It conjurs up images of loud fist -waving lunatics who have brawn to spare but not so much in brain .They have a limited set of ideas and a bias that they believe is law and that's it. That's enough to justify their actions. What makes things worse now is the internet. Mobs can grow at a rapid rate.The most disturbing thing about that is that the same shallow thinking is married up with the desire to be part of a deluded moral majority.They prefer to be called the court of public opinion as that lends their cause a little gravitas.That the number within these groups is so large means it's a waste of time trying to get them to consider alternative views or persuading them to think a little more broadly.They're enjoying themselves.They're 'in a gang' .

    But, in the particular area that this particular thread is discussing, and those stand outs i referred to, i think we need to consider the thinking behind the mob.It seems that the trust in our great police forces investigating horrific crimes against children is eroding as time passes.We seem to be hearing and seeing cover up after cover up exposed.Why would police forces do that rather than make arrests and expose the crimes ? After all, if they simply did the job it would be a feather in their collective cap and a reassurance for the public.The only reason they would do that and risk prosecution and humiliation is if they had assurances or orders from their bosses - the state . So, why would those in the highest seats of power want to gag the police and bind their hands ? I would suggest that this is the most important question and the darkest area of it all . It would also explain the call for vigilantism.

    Here's a short video ( 2 minutes).Some may have already seen it ( it isn't that recent). But, some might not have.


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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous4 February 2018 at 16:40
      Hi

      “So, why would those in the highest seats of power want to gag the police and bind their hands? I would suggest that this is the most important question and the darkest area of it all . It would also explain the call for vigilantism”

      You raise an important question here. This was exactly what the paedophile hunter Alex gave an hint of in the conversation with Piers Morgan and in the presence of Jim Gamble as well, when he claimed to have spoken with police detectives, who felt they had their "hands tied". What is true and what is false here?

      Delete
    2. watch the short vid in previous post

      Delete
  41. Manchester gallery rehangs Hylas and the Nymphs after accusations of censorship

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/04/manchester-pre-raphaelite-soft-porn-painting-hylas-and-the-nymphs-back-on-view-after-outcry

    'Jonathan Jones, the Guardian’s art critic, was among those who did not appreciate the idea. “To remove this work art from view is not an interesting critique but a crass gesture that will end up on the wrong side of history,” he wrote, saying of Waterhouse: “Even a kinky old Victorian perv has his right to paint soft-porn nymphs.”'

    ReplyDelete
  42. This crusade to create a defence for depicting underage ( sexual consent) children in the name of subjective interpretation is in pretty poor taste as well as weak. it doesn't take a reputable art critic or historian to note the difference between a portrayal of innocence and sexual exploitation.

    The link provided doesn't portray children anyway, they're young women exposed above the waist.It was 'po-faced' to censor it, I'd agree with that. There are far too many sanctimonious wristband wearers sat like hawks looking to swoop on anything to expose it as politically incorrect or offensive and await the applause for their personal awareness and enlightenment.

    The argument of whether or not to celebrate artists past and present once their dirty deeds are revealed is another grey area.Do we exhibit the art of a pervert and child abuser if his art portrays neither ?Sticky one, that. It's a matter of personal choice. To remove it seems to be a gesture ; bury his art, bury him.And the more arty-farty types will stand before their works in deep study in the gallery seeing all kinds of deep meanings ready to inform anyone who listens that the creator and created are two distinct animals.We should keep that in mind if we want to 'understand' the work.

    No such grey areas exist in illegal porn.Subtlety and depth don't sell.It is what it is.It isn't the finished product of somebody who was inspired by a muse.it's an industry driven by supply and demand and doesn't try to explain or excuse itself behind the mask of art.Until somebody in that industry does, nobody else should either.

    Some links.

    Eric Gill ( BBC darling)

    https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/tag/eric-gill/

    Graham Ovenden ( convicted)

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/oct/17/from-caravaggio-to-graham-ovenden-do-artists-crimes-taint-their-art

    And, for those still confused by the manic panic of VIP players in high places, a link you should follow

    https://spidercatweb.wordpress.com/category/vipaedo/page/10/?iframe=true&preview=true%2Ffeed%2F

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole subject is in pretty poor taste 15:33, but it is lack of discussion that keeps the matter shrouded in darkness. Most of us are hugely uninformed on this subject, through choice, we have all left it to those who call themselves experts and they have created hysteria.

      What I hate most about this hysteria is the distance it is putting between men and children. Men are now afraid to embrace even their own children because of those who see deviancy everywhere. I don't know how its happening, but it seems Men as an entire gender are becoming the enemy, the folk devils.

      I'm an old feminist of the Germaine Greer mould, who isn't in the slightest bit impressed with this 'me too' victim culture. Most men aren't sexual predators, but from now on I fear very much will be made of very little, and as for flirting in the work place, forget it.

      Given the vagueness surrounding child pornography this is an issue that should be discussed 15:33, because anyone could be charged at any time on any outrageous charge.

      As for the issue of whether the work of artists convicted of or suspected of sexual deviancy, art galleries and libraries would be stripped! I once gave a lecture to an A-level English, where one, very religious student stood up and questioned the morality of reading texts by Lord Byron and Percy Bysse Shelley, given their penchant for sex and mind altering substances.

      I stood back and threw the question open to the entire class and it kicked off a very lively and informative debate. Which eventually, as all these debates do, ended in book burning and the destruction of art.

      As the late, great, Bill Hicks once said, if you disprove of writers and artists drug taking and immoral lives, go home and burn every book and CD you own. Arguably, it is their unstable minds and unique perspectives that make them geniuses.

      As a parent and as a teacher, I would tell every student to reach their own conclusions. Do you shut out art and literature because the morals of the artists and authors offend you? If you go to Rome, do you skip the Vatican because Michelangelo was a homosexual who painted naked babies while upside down?

      Some, very few happily, will opt to go through life in blinkers, but the majority will look at the bigger picture, the art and literature that reflected the culture of the time?

      If you are a bible reader, and I suspect you are, you will find the bible is littered with enough stories of begetting with young virgins and women over 100, to make your hair curl. Should the writers of the old testament be put on a Sex Offenders Register? If you are going to get all moral about what you see and look at, you might just as well live in a box.

      Delete
    2. I think, with so many experts and life gurus surrounding us,we sometimes forget that good, old fashioned common sense is often a sufficient remedy to a lot of problems.But we live in a meme culture now.A quote goes viral online and it's forgotten 5 minutes later.This declining attention span is disturbing.So many preachers out to tell you what's right and wrong ; moral and immoral.We'e told what to think and why to think it.Then we're told why it's right and other views are wrong.The bigger crowd holds sway.No sheep wants to wander away for fear of being ostracized completely.What happened to thinking for ourselves ?Why is a certain political viewpoint or 'cause' seen as fashion now ? Screw that. I wasn't born to have other people use my head.I can use it myself. As for PC - no thanks. I open doors for men as well as women because it's good manners. I've only ever received glares or sarcasm from women for it.

      Regarding any vagueness surrounding pornography, I think it can be made clear easily.We use the age of consent as a guideline.Anything depicting obvious sex or designed to stimulate feelings of that ilk is only to involve those of legal age.Anyone who isn't of legal age renders it illegal porn.I haven't seen anything in this area but a friend of mine in the 90s was a scavenger at the docks and he had to watch Disney cartoons that, after 15 minutes, turned into the real thing. He told me enough.He was glad to leave the job and become a tax inspector.Basically, none of it is open to interpretation or subjective.I think the area that keeps causing confusion here is the still images and deciding what is innocent but labelled porn by hysterics. I think it's a matter of examining the customer base.I also think those who produce the images should be asked about the supply and demand and what their best sellers are.

      Art is easier.I don't think an image produced in paint and from another age would detract from the theme merely because it isn't a digitally produced image produced by a camera.Your eyes don't lie.But none of the more frequently referenced examples talk about any child being abused or engaged in something untoward.That's why the comparison isn't strong in terms of debate.

      Most artists down the ages and even in living memory owe their better works to a certain Bohemian bent.The 'free spirit' has been responsible for brilliance, from Shelley to The Beatles( post-65).And, dare i say it, Bill Hicks.He was right, it's just a ride.But that ride can be pretty dangerous and it isn't slowing down.

      As for the good book. Yes, I've read most of it.I like to have a good grasp of something before i dismiss it.It's full of stories.Men write stories.God's don't.Men want power over us.God's don't.I find religion to be bullshit.It's a tool for mass control.With the exception of Buddhism, which is about self control and not bowing submissively to an imagined Godhead.The only religion I'd like to study now is Freemasonry.Not the leaked 'secret' teachings online from 'former mason Fred Smith'.I mean the real closed shop Luciferian shit.Yes, it's conspiracy talk.But I didn't ask them to lock outsiders out and swear an oath of blood to guard their secrets.I won't let mainstream religion distract me from what happens in the world.The root of the evil isn't there, that's merely a branch.

      Delete
    3. I think, with so many experts and life gurus surrounding us,we sometimes forget that good, old fashioned common sense is often a sufficient remedy to a lot of problems.But we live in a meme culture now.A quote goes viral online and it's forgotten 5 minutes later.This declining attention span is disturbing.So many preachers out to tell you what's right and wrong ; moral and immoral.We'e told what to think and why to think it.Then we're told why it's right and other views are wrong.The bigger crowd holds sway.No sheep wants to wander away for fear of being ostracized completely.What happened to thinking for ourselves ?Why is a certain political viwepoint or 'cause' seen as fashion now ? Screw that. I wasn't born to have other people use my head.I can use it myself. As for PC - no thanks. I open doors for men as well as women because it's good manners.I've only ever received glares or sarcasm from women for it.

      Regarding any vagueness surrounding pornography, I think it can be made clear easily.We use the age of consent as a guideline.Anything depicting obvious sex or designed to stimulate feelings of that ilk is only to involve those of legal age.Anyone who isn't of legal age renders it illegal porn.I haven't seen anything in this area but a friend of mine in the 90s was a scavenger at the docks and he had to watch Disney cartoons that, after 15 minutes, turned into the real thing. He told me enough.He was glad to leave the job and become a tax inspector.Basically, none of it is open to interpretation or subjective.I think the area that keeps causing confusion here is the still images and deciding what is innocent but labelled porn by hysterics. I think it's a matter of examining the customer base.I also think those who produce the images should be asked about the supply and demand and what their best sellers are.

      Art is easier.I don't think an image produced in paint and from another age would detract from the theme merely because it isn't a digitally produced image produced by a camera.Your eyes don't lie.But none of the more frequently referenced examples talk about any child being abused or engaged in something untoward.That's why the comparison isn't strong in terms of debate.

      Most artists down the ages and even in living memory owe their better works to a certain Bohemian bent.The 'free spirit' has been responsible for brilliance, from Shelley to The Beatles( post-65).And, dare i say it, Bill Hicks.He was right, it's just a ride.But that ride can be pretty dangerous and it isn't slowing down.

      As for the good book. Yes, I've read most of it.I like to have a good grasp of something before i dismiss it.It's full of stories.Men write stories.God's don't.Men want power over us.God's don't.I find religion to be bullshit.It's a tool for mass control.With the exception of Buddhism, which is about self control and not bowing submissively to an imagined Godhead.The only religion I'd like to study now is Freemasonry.Not the leaked 'secret' teachings online from 'former mason Fred Smith'.I mean the real closed shop Luciferian shit.Yes, it's conspiracy talk.But I didn't ask them to lock outsiders out and swear an oath of blood to guard their secrets.I won't let mainstream religion distract me from what happens in the world.The root of the evil isn't there, that's merely a branch.

      ( apologies if this landed twice )

      Delete
  43. @Anonymous5 February 2018 at 12:18
    Hi

    From the same article

    "Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Rachel Johnson said: “We are already in a living nightmare of political and historical correctness, but to retrofit ‘artistic correctness’ on top is a step too far back to the neo-Victorian age.”

    I doubt the general public in Sweden would have bothered to protest against an art gallery removing a work like this. None-feminist journalists, hopefully would, but I'm not sure.I used to think of the UK as the spiritual home of freedom of expression, and I still do so, though I sometimes become a little bit disappointed. Really interesting event and article.

    ReplyDelete
  44. anon 15:33

    ''an industry driven by supply and demand and doesn't try to explain or excuse itself behind the mask of art.Until somebody in that industry does, nobody else should either.''

    Good point well made.

    ReplyDelete
  45. HI

    @anon 15:33 and anon 18:08

    Have anyone of you heard about Pole Dance.

    ”Pole dance combines dance and acrobatics centered on a vertical pole. This performance art form takes place Not Only In Gentleman's Clubs As Erotic Dance, but has also recently gained popularity as a mainstream form of fitness, practiced by many enthusiasts in gyms and in dedicated dance studios.[1] Amateur and professional pole dancing competitions are held in countries around over the world”


    Imagine men (adults) watching young girls doing this, and in fact I believe they already are, and just not in "Gentlemen's Club. Wouldn’t it be horrible, or isn’t awful and disgusting! What would "Family Guy's wife say about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pole dancing is just as popular here in the UK Bjorn but it hasn't yet been picked up by the morally outraged. Give it time, I expect the child protection experts and paedophile hunters are probably checking it out as we speak. Little girls in leotards, hold the front page!

      Delete
    2. @Bjorn

      I'm afraid I don't see the connection you're trying to make between child porn, porn, and pole dancing.You keep making references to 'young girls'. Young can be 23 or it can be 12.I don't understand it even if you're just trying to make a point about moral outrage.

      Pole dancing, as your quote points out, has a few different functions.It can be a good way of keeping fit as an exercise.It can be entertaining as a gymnastic performance. it's popularity owes most, however, to the adult clubs in the city.Here it is performed in the same way as the traditional strip tease has been for decades.The emphasis is on the tease.Men pay money, girls tease and tantalise.As such nobody objects to it going on within the walls of an adult location by and for adults.Bouncers are at hand to make sure nothing gets out of hand.So, your point ?

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 11:59

      I surprised that you didn't provide an anecdote from your past to illustrate how experienced you are in the world of pole dancing!

      You are slipping.

      Delete
    4. 15:22, And you are still struggling to come up with a funny or insightful line, and settling on sarcasm. Again.

      Delete
  46. @Anonymous6 February 2018 at 13:37
    Hi, I appreciate your comment.

    What I tried to point out was, that a special dance performed by young women (adults) with the purpose to entertain and also, as you say, with the intention of evoking sexual feelings ( your word; tease) among the male part of the customers in a closed club, situated in a shabby dark basement, can be imitated, into the smallest detail, by teenage girls who appear in front of a paying audience in a sports arena.

    Assume that it now would be very popular among young or middle aged men to visit sports events of the latter kind, instead of spending their time in unhealthy and smoky scrubs. Perhaps it already is. Would you then see that as a problem? Should there be anything to prevent or ban, if that happened.

    I’ve heard about middle aged women watching Björn Borg playing tennis, even before his 15th birthday, even if they weren’t interested in tennis, but because they thought he was sexy.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''can be imitated, into the smallest detail, by teenage girls who appear in front of a paying audience in a sports arena. ''

      That's called gymnastics. It's competition.

      ''Assume that it now would be very popular among young or middle aged men to visit sports events of the latter kind, instead of spending their time in unhealthy and smoky scrubs. ''

      You're suggesting that men who like to be teased by erotic dances performed by young women in a club would surreptitiously sit in a grandstand to watch non-adult girls performing in a gymnastic competition.Why ? If they like young women and being teased by young women for a price, why change preference and pay money to enjoy covert voyeurism of young girls who aren't doing that ?I can't speak for Sweden, but the pole dancing scene in England has been well organised for years and the days of the back street dive are long forgotten,as have 'smokey scrubs' ( all premises are non-smoking).

      ''Should there be anything to prevent or ban, if that happened.''

      Ban gymnastics because the crowd has been infiltrated by secret paedophiles ?I doubt that very much. The most they can do is look, thankfully.Nobody would be in danger and nobody is breaking any laws in that scenario.You appear to be trying to label people who want some kind of control over dangerous situations as over zealous neurotics.

      ''I’ve heard about middle aged women watching Björn Borg playing tennis..they weren’t interested in tennis, but because they thought he was sexy. ''

      Were the women in that anecdote recalling a time when they were 15 too or recalling being middle aged but sexually attracted to a schoolboy ? Sweden is oddly proud of it's liberal attitudes towards sex. More oddly is that, in Bjorn Borgs day, 15 wasn't breaking a law.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous6 February 2018 at 17:00
      Hi again

      I’m not the least worried, neither about sexy women performing pole dance in Gentlemen’s clubs, nor about men, at whatever age, who’re watching and taking photos of teenage girls doing similar gymnastics in sports arenas, but paedophiles hunters may see it as a problem.

      So, I just wonder if photos of lightly dressed teenage girls dancing pole dance in a sports arena, should be exempted from the child pornography law, if they’re seen as sexy and challenging by some people. I'm just trying to problematize the issue concerning our fear of sexuality. What I’m driving at is of course the tragedies following the “Operation Ore”. Imagine such photos being found in someone’s computer and being the cause of suicide.

      The most innocent phenomena can seem to be sexist and seductive, if you choose to interpret them in a predetermined manner. What I mean is, that pole dance can be artistic and contest-oriented no matter who is the organizer, no matter where it happens, regardless of who performs it. It’s all so innocent, in my opinion. A dancing couple on the pub, dancing an erotic dance kissing and hugging is not so much different from a couple, who in a national competition perform the same dance in a dance contest festival in front of a large audience. A teenage girl who participates in a sports event may be just as sexy, innocent or natural as any woman performing a dance in a night club, and I cannot see anything wrong about that.

      Delete
    3. It seems deviancy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder Bjorn.

      In the Madeleine case for example, most of us didn't see anything sexual in the photos of her dressing up and wearing make up. Mark Williams-Thomas however, said they were highly inappropriate in a case that probably involves paedophiles. And the more disturbed member of CMoMM, dedicated entire threads deconstructing the McCann family photographs looking for 'signs' of perversion in kids eating ice cream and the angles of their limbs. There is enough in the cesspit to fill an entire psychologists convention.

      You and I, more you, lol, have raised the level of this discussion to a point where common sense is making a breakthrough Bjorn. Those angrily using the 'it's because you are one or you are defending them' argument, has been exposed as the juvenile, playground taunt that it is. The debate has succeeded despite them. Your brilliant 'Leda and the Swan' post and the clarity of Professor Bonn's article have I am sure opened new doors of enlightenment for many, though I am sure they would never admit it! lol

      Delete
  47. Hi Rosalinda and everybody

    I am so overwhelmed and also much surprised, that the subject of pornography has now been discussed by so many and for so long time on Rosalinda’s blog, as the subject in question is more or less tabooed in the everyday life, at least among those I know. Yet, we were the generation that started the sexual revolution in our country, which has been so misunderstood, just as much abroad as in our own country.

    ReplyDelete