Tuesday, 13 February 2018

FUNDING FOR MADELEINE AND IN SUPPORT OF HARRY

Just to let friends and followers know, my AOL email account was hacked, an I can no longer access it.  Ditto my Facebook page.  If you want to contact me, please email me at Rosalindahutton@gmail.com.
_____________________

In response to a post on my last blog and the twitter spat between Jim Gamble and 95 year old Harry Leslie Smith (@Harrylaststand). I would just like to point out that I have followed the amazing Harry for a long time.  When he talks, I listen.  He has 95 years of accumulated wisdom and he is in full possession of his marbles.  The man has as much compassion for the human race as his dear friend Jeremy Corbyn, though Lord knows why after all the horrors he has lived through.  Mark his words well, he IS the Warning from History. And besides,  not everything is about GM and KM.  
 
Of course it is ridiculous to keep ploughing money into this seemingly bottomless pit.  Millions are being spent on, effectively, one child, while so many children desperately need help.  And bless him, he is doing a tour of the Refugee Camps and bringing awareness to their plight. I'm not as old as Harry, but I have never seen the UK in such a terrible state before.  Doesn't Theresa May feel any shame when she meets with other World leaders?  Does she smile and say 'yeh, I ran the country into the ground'.  Doesn't she cringe that she is dragging the UK back, not only to the last century, but to the one before!  How does she sleep knowing that kids are going to bed hungry?  Look around you all those jumping to the defence of ploughing more money into Operation Grange, do you not see the suffering - everywhere?
 
I was a child of the Sixties, looking back now, a fortunate beneficiary of all the progress made by the Attlee government in the 1940's.  I didn't know it then, but I can see now, what a huge period of growth and prosperity followed.  Even under the (seemingly) grumpy old 'Arold Wilson, England swung like a pendulum do.  Food banks were unheard of.  Now they are on every high street.  Had my father lived, the shock of what's happened to the UK would have killed him. 
 
As for Jim Gamble, of course he still supports Gerry and Kate, he is one of the main factors in the original investigation being taken off course.  He admits as much in his statement given to Sky TV when they were on a troll hunt where someone actually died.  He refers to the interference of the British police agencies.  CEOP of course, was one of those agencies.  As Head, I think, he wanted to turn CEOP into his own personal quango, a police agency to target pre-crime, that is rounding up all those who are 'likely' to commit a heinous crime, 750,000 of them apparently.  Blair, who was turning into a dictator and literally starting wars could have done much with a police agency like that. 
 
What reason did CEOP have for getting involved in the Madeleine case?  Child Exploitation and Online Protection - what part of that title relates to a small child going missing abroad?  At 3, Madeleine wasn't being exploited online and searching the vicinity was the immediate need.  JG is more of a computer guy, he has really taken to new technology, and seems to think that is the future of policing. 
 
I think he and Gerry wanted to replicate the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, that receives billions of dollars each from the US government and even have their own TV show. The host is John Walsh, who's own small son was kidnapped and killed in 1984, and has been actively campaigning every since.  Perhaps Gerry saw himself as the UK equivalent.  Following Madeleine's disappearance, and the 'inadequate' police response, Jim Gamble iirc wanted a National/International task force who could step in every time a (British) child went missing abroad. However, that should be moot now, because there hasn't been another in 11 years.
 
Of course, none of that would be possible if the parents of Madeleine were involved in her disappearance.  Madeleine was the driving force behind all the new ideas and initiatives - in a nutshell an abduction was boosting everyone's coffers - the police agencies, all the politicians, journalists, celebrities et al, who jumped on the popular bandwagon, and of course the Media. Not thinking badly of the child's parents, was a sign of good character and a compassionate nature. Being suspicious of them 'revealed' the inner chav, the hidden spite. Hater was added to the lexicon to describe those without the good grace to give Gerry and Kate the benefit of the doubt.

 
Harry is right.  And by heaven he has guts.  No politician dare question the cost, no newspaper columnist or any even any media mogul, because you are still judged as a mean person if you don't believe Gerry and Kate.  Harry doesn't say either way, he is questioning the costs.  And the costs should be questioned.  Who can name any other missing child, or even missing person investigation being funded with £12m for 7 years, without any questions being asked?  Well questions are being asked, but only by the certifiable in the cesspit and those of us crazy enough to put principles before pay.  Not only are we pounced on with great vengeance and furious anger, but we will never get paid work.  And for all those who are regular readers and who enjoy my blog, please consider a small donation, I am typing by candlelight. 
 
That's why the 'big' names don't comment.  They too are pounced on immediately if they criticise the McCanns, and the backlash is too much.  They even got the usually fearless Sharon Osborne to back track.  And I don't think it's just trolls, I think quiet words are spoken directly into the ear.  Didn't John Redwood, Tory MP,  write an unfortunate blog, and then quiet on the subject thereafter.  Ditto George Galloway, though as a far superior orator, he at least came out with the far more memorable 'mother of all injustices, before he too backed off.  In this case, Jim Gamble himself stepped in, not with one of his usual ferocious attacks, but with his friendly policeman's back off voice. I do hope Harry wasn't perturbed, he didn't seem to be.

 
 
 
 

174 comments:

  1. "The search for Shannon was one of the largest ever conducted by the West Yorkshire force.

    Prosecutor Julian Goose QC told the court today that the 24-day hunt cost almost £3.2 million"

    24 days £3.2m

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If nothing else, this surely demonstrates just how much the McCann case has cost Portugal. And don't forget the Leicester Police were awarded a top up of an extra £1m (EXTRA) for going over budget and they didn't even investigate, they helped!! Before we even get to Gamble's £100k scoping exercise and the major expenditure of the MET. Which has to be concluded, as being mostly a paperwork exercise.

      Delete
    2. @ anon 09:12

      You completely miss the point. Harry tweeted:

      "You know damn well that if they had come from my side of the tracks & that had occurred they would have been pilloried by the press and the government wouldn't have spent 11 million pounds looking for the child"

      Shannon and her parents were from "his side of the track" and £3.2M was spent on a 24 day search.

      Delete
    3. 9:58

      As you say, "search", and there lies the difference.

      Delete
    4. @ 10:23

      The difference between what and what?
      Looking for a child and search for a child are the same.

      Delete
  2. '' I would just like to point out that I have followed the amazing Harry for a long time. When he talks, I listen.''

    Not being a member of the penned herd, I can't really say anything of Harry as I haven't been aware of him. I'm only guessing, but does Harry believe that the Mccanns are guilty ? Your tone was a sort of hint.

    ''Doesn't Theresa May feel any shame when she meets with other World leaders? Does she smile and say 'yeh, I ran the country into the ground'.

    She didn't run the country into the ground, That began with Blair and gathered pace under Cameron.She's merely making sure things don't turn around. Cameron aimed directly at 1947 'austerity' Government model post-WW2. He hit his target faster but with less excuses to justify it. When you look at the bigger picture, as you claim to be doing, you'll see how tiny Operation Grange is in comparison to the ravages that have hit the NHS. Welfare reforms( 'reforms' meaning savage attacks on those living on the poverty line) are the most prevalent of the war declared on the lower classes. Funding Op Grange has been insulting and a waste of money, that's true.Nobody with an open or balanced mind has expected anything to come of this case for close on 11 years.

    ''I was a child of the Sixties, looking back now, a fortunate beneficiary of all the progress made by the Attlee government in the 1940's.''

    The children born in the 60s in the UK were born into the age of promise.Anyone could have a job if they wanted one and homes were affordable whoever you were. From the 70s onward the bill arrived.Buy the late 80s the crash had.Nothing comes easy.There's always a bill.Deposits for houses now are colossal and jobs with a reasonable contract as rare as Unicorn droppings.

    ''Jim Gamble, of course he still supports Gerry and Kate, he is one of the main factors in the original investigation being taken off course. ''

    Is that your opinion ? Why would he want to do that ?

    He admitted taking the investigation off course ? This crime was in PDL, not online.Online isn't important.

    ''I think, he wanted to turn CEOP into his own personal quango, a police agency to target pre-crime, that is rounding up all those who are 'likely' to commit a heinous crime, 750,000 of them apparently. ''

    Is that another opinion ? Why would he do that and why do you keep getting quietly angry about that 750,000. Why does it rankle so much ?

    '' Blair, who was turning into a dictator and literally starting wars could have done much with a police agency like that. ''

    He did enough before he left along with Brown in PDL.

    ''What reason did CEOP have for getting involved in the Madeleine case? Child Exploitation and Online Protection - what part of that title relates to a small child going missing abroad? ''

    The abduction of a child is generally carried out by a specific kind of perpetrator.They don't have social clubs or bars to have meetings.So, you go to where they are most likely to have a presence.

    ''I think he and Gerry wanted to replicate the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, that receives billions of dollars each from the US government and even have their own TV show''

    Why ?

    ''Hater was added to the lexicon to describe those without the good grace to give Gerry and Kate the benefit of the doubt.''

    Only to those in that group who spoke with such vitriol and refused point blank to accept reason or lack of evidence.

    ''That's why the 'big' names don't comment. They too are pounced on immediately if they criticise the McCanns''

    Plus, of course, they might be asked to back up their claims and find themselves exposed when they can't.

    '' I do hope Harry wasn't perturbed, he didn't seem to be.''

    He had no need to be.It was merly a polite reply.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't get your lengthy post there 23: you are pretty much agreeing with everything I said.

      I will pull you up on your use of the 'generally', as in 'the abduction of a child is generally carried out by a specific kind of perpetrator. As child abduction is so extremely rare, 2 in 30+ years, how can you get to 'generally'? How can you say a certain group act this way 'generally' when you have such a miniscule number to work with, and in both the Ben Needham and the Madeleine cases, the abductors are unknown. No two crimes are the same, your use of the word generally to describe a specific demographic is nonsense, as they only have two unknown ones to work with.

      I'm not quietly getting angry about anything 23:12, certainly not figures plucked out of the air to cause panic. I'm a peace loving tree hugger most of the time, anger is such a negative emotion, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. You are simply not reading what I say 23:12, no hinting, no subterfuge, I say quite clearly, Harry doesn't say what he believes, he is questioning the outrageous costs.

      I am in fact getting a tad irked at being accused of saying things I haven't because you can't read properly. Do you have ADHD?

      Delete
    3. Seriously, do you have to be so bloody rude to people? I get that you've had a hard life, etc, but you're an adult now and some basic manners wouldn't go amiss.

      Delete
    4. Another thread , another platform for Ros to display her natural grace, manners and charm.

      Delete
    5. @ anon - but that's not fair - Ros writes like an angel according to one of her supporters.

      Delete
  3. Hi Ros

    I don't think Harry was too perturbed. After 95 years witnessing poverty, exploitation, the evils of war and the evil nature of men who are rich and powerful, he knows he has nothing to lose and we have everything to gain by him speaking his honest mind.

    Everything he says is measured and apposite, and he sweeps whippersnappers like Gamble aside by the dozen, so resigned, I'm guessing, has he become over the years to their ulterior motives.

    Pertinently, and just so we could be doubly certain he meant what he said last night - Gamble or no Gamble and hosts of others with mouths open and arms flung upwards in outrage - he made sure the first thing he did this morning was Retweet his original McCann thoughts from last night. This despite being in excruciating pain with his leg.

    Harry knows what's right. And he knows what's wrong. And he's spending the last years of his life preparing and warning us. Is he one of the 2 most selfless men in Britain today? Thank God for Harry Leslie Smith.

    And please, everyone - LISTEN to him @Harryslaststand

    Kindest regards to you,
    Dee Coy

    ReplyDelete
  4. What do you mean by ''pre-crime''?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous14 February 2018 at 00:24

      ''What do you mean by ''pre-crime''?''

      Please...don't encourage her. It will kick-start yet another 'hands off our paedophiles' rant. Let's stick to this little campaign to drive more followers to a twitter account.At least it isn't in bad taste( comparatively) .

      Delete
    2. 'What do you mean by pre-crime?'

      You have literally just read what I mean by pre-crime, I explain in the sentence that follows! When someone is as thick as you 00:24, the only way through is with a sledgehammer, and I can't be arsed.

      Delete
    3. I notice that for all your bluster and faux-bravado, you don't have the bottle to just come out and say it, do you?

      You do not regard being in possession of images of child abuse as a crime, do you?

      If that is your view, at least have the guts to say so, rather than using insults and bluster to cover your embarrassment

      Delete
    4. Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension skills 10:18, blame your English Teacher, or were you just not paying attention in class?

      Delete
    5. Quod erat demonstrandum

      Delete
    6. @13:07

      and may I add Argumentum ad hominem will not be accepted as valid :)

      Delete
  5. Apparently, Rosalinda, on your most recent thread / topic, you stopped publishing replies that were a little awkward for you and questions you were unable to answer. Two problems brought about by yourself, it has to be said.You did the usual thing and abandoned it to begin a new one, possibly hoping readers would forget them and that any new readers wouldn't look beyond whichever topic was current.A sort of desperate attempt to start afresh. All of this could of course be avoided if you were to state that you have changed your mind on certain issues or your 'views' on them now that you've read alternatives to them or had a closer look at the subject.But that would be like saying 'I was wrong, others were right'. A sentence all of your readers would no doubt screen shot,, print, and place in a frame for posterity.

    This escape thread is only five minutes old and already you are refusing to publish views and question that don't suit.What happened to your passion for free speech ?I believe your stance, according to earlier threads, was anti ALL censorship, regardless of content as we don't live in the dark ages. Has it been replaced by a new stance ? One that states that only you ( and anyone who agrees with you) should be entitled to uncensored free speech but the rest of us should only be allowed to listen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 14:13

      very good accurate points.

      Delete
    2. After reading the previous thread I looked up the thread relating to Chris Langham, which was referenced. It's not often I am shocked, but that thread truly shocked me. It seems Ros has some very strange opinions and they seem to stem from a resentment that her physical abuse as a child was not, in her opinion, afforded the same profile as the sexual abuse of other children.
      Ros does not regard the viewing or possession of child abuse images as a crime, even though it is. She refers to it as a ''pre-crime" and raises the non sequitur that "they may not go on to snatch children"

      Very few do, Ros.

      I'm going to say the same to you as to Bjorn; you clearly have some issues. The only people I have ever heard ''talk down'' the issue of images were paedophiles, trying to excuse their own behaviour.

      I'll also put my cards on the table and say that I do not find your claims about your childhood remotely credible, Ros. Others who lived in the same home at the same time dispute your claims entirely and I understand you lost the cases you brought against the authorities.

      At the very least, if you intend to opine at length on an issue, equip yourself with the facts. Your ignorance appears to have been taken directly from the pages of cheap tabloid rags, which is probably where your stories belong

      Delete
    3. powerful post- strong stuff @ 18:47

      Delete
    4. Deary me 18:47, you have worked yourself up into a tizz. Your reasoning for my reasoning is frankly hilarious. I'm just wondering why so many middle aged men are so fixated on the sexual side of child abuse.

      You then go on to accuse myself and Bjorn of being paedophiles because the ONLY people blah, blah, lol. Have you spoken to a lot of paedophiles? Because I can't ever say I have ever seen paedophiles 'talk down' images, or anything actually, probably because I've never looked. In fact, I can't say I have ever seen a paedophile (singular) talk about anything. And for the pedantic, in adult life.

      As for your 'cards on the table', bless. You have set off the anecdotes, ha ha. Firstly I am in contact with many who were in my 'house' at the convent. We Share a bond that makes us closer than blood siblings. It was us against them, and not one of us will ever forget that. Each, asked me why I didn't go further in book, there was much more besides. The reason I didn't was because I wanted to give a truthful account, my story as told from my perspective, what I saw and experienced. I do say, in my book and elsewhere, that others, even in the same house as me, suffered so much more. I was lucky. I had parents who visited regularly and a lovely old social worker who visited from the Royal Borough of Richmond. Most of the other children in the home came under Kent County Council, who appeared to have abandoned them. Each of us has our own story from the convent, just as each soldier has own story from fighting the same war as a million others. We are each unique. I wasn’t graphic enough for the Misery Memoir genre, and I didn’t embellish. Honesty and integrity. I was very aware as I wrote my book of the effects it would have on others. I respect that others have put the past behind them, and in retrospect, that is what I should have done. They were right. I was wrong. Copy/paste and hang that on your wall.

      I was wrong, not only because I I wanted revenge (dig two graves), but because I wasted so much of my life as a victim. I believed that my depression was somebody else’s fault. I blamed all my crazy behaviour, my crazy choices, my multiple personalities etc, etc, on the trauma I experienced in the convent. I was blaming other people, rather than myself. I should put BN here, Before Neitzsche. Every decision, every life choice, had been my own. It’s quite a watershed when you realise everything is your own fault or cause to pat yourself on the back. The life you now have, is the one you chose.

      continues....

      Delete
    5. As to the experiences of those who trashed my book on Amazon, I have no doubt that their time in the convent was far 'happier' than mine. I arrived at the convent aged 11 and I had already seen much of life. I KNEW what the nuns and creepy Uncles were doing was wrong and I rebelled against it every step of the way. I just couldn't and wouldn't do what they said, much like now, lol, so yes, I don't think I had a moment in there when I was not 'in punishment'. My critics, I suspect were obedient and submissive, favoured by the nuns but despised by the rest of us. Their comments on Amazon made my dear friends absolutely furious. and it spread onto Facebook. Nasty people. A bit like those who collaborated with the Nazis.

      Delete
    6. 'All of this could be avoided if you would state that you have changed your mind......'

      Is that some kind of threat? As in, 'I'll call the rottweillers off if you take it all back. Seems kinda desperate.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2018 at 23:32

      ''Deary me 18:47, you have worked yourself up into a tizz. Your reasoning for my reasoning is frankly hilarious. I'm just wondering why so many middle aged men are so fixated on the sexual side of child abuse. ''

      The tone doesn't do what you hoped it would. The post you're referring to was well observed and the points made were all clear and unambiguous. They all made sound sense.

      More than a couple of times, you have referred to men who want to close down paedophile activity and the hunting and grooming of innocent children as being obsessed with the sexual side of abuse.You're clearly trying to be subtle and failing.You are trying(badly) to imply they are obsessed with the sexual. That's either even more clumsy and disturbing than your already odd observations. It's cheap.Why wouldn't normal adults be outraged and angry at the idea of sexual abuse being inflicted on innocent children ? Are you hoping you can come back with 'physical /violent abuse is more prevalent' again ? Maybe it is. And it is also disgusting and normal adults get angry at that too. But the damage left by sexual abuse runs far deeper and the damage is more catastrophic.

      Delete
    8. It was nothing more than friendly advice.How you read that as a threat is beyond me.I can understand why it's contents made you feel threatened in terms of you having to show something like humility. But the 'call off the rottweillers if you take it back'' inference is truly bizarre. You shouldn't view friendly, reasonable suggestions as a personal threats when they would clearly benefit you. It helps you grow.

      Delete
    9. You know what, Ros, this passive/aggressive trick of accusing the writer of being 'angry' or 'in a tizz' is getting really old, along with your attempts to stereotype people as "middle-aged men"fixated with CSA.
      But I guess it should come as no surprise, considering you classified those who spoke about a very different experience in the home where you spent a few years as ''Nazi collaborators''

      Really, Ros? Nazi collaborators? For saying they do not recognise the place you describe and that their experience was completely different?

      You're a very sick individual

      Delete
    10. Oh, the horror, the horror 09:06. Would it help if I put a warning on my blog? Keep the smelling salts handy!

      Delete
  6. @Anonymous14 February 2018 at 10:18
    Hi
    "You do not regard being in possession of images of child abuse as a crime, do you?"

    As I see the hysteria related to what's called "child pornography" in a similar way as Rosalinda does, I felt that I had to say a few words about it, because I'm very often misunderstodd as well.

    If a person, child or an adult, is seen in a photo or in a film sequence being sexually assaulted, tortured or raped, that person is most likely a victim of such treatment in real life as well, unless the motif has been photo shopped.

    Common sense tells us, that the victim(s) should immediately be taken care of and the perpetrator(s) should be brought to justice. In case neither perpetrator nor victim can be identified or be found, should we then prosecute those who’re looking at or who possess such material?

    If that’s what happens, I maintain that it’s an unforgivable injustice toward the real victim, who is a real person and will keep on suffering no matter how many images are being seized and regardless of the number of Peeping Toms that are being persecuted and prosecuted for looking at them.

    If looking at such atrocities of sexual kinds becomes equated with the documented real crime, then the victim's perspective and experience of the crime has been completely ignored and he/she has become degraded to an object like a fictional character in a cartoon book, which only comes to life in an imaginative world, when viewed by society's moralists or by presumptuous criminals.

    According to this reverse approach to crimes, those who, by the end of WW2 had managed to get hold of photos showing the Nazi cruelty against the Jews, should not only have been prosecuted, but should also have been so before the victims in the concentration camps had been freed and before the Nazi beasts and the torturers had been found.

    Likewise, all those who’ve spread and watched all the video clips showing the cruelty by the ISIS in Syria should be the first ones to be arrested, as the bearded barbarian terrorists and their victims are indeed difficult to identify, let alone to find in order to be examined for what they’ve done. I'm just trying to point out some absurdities in the legislation, which we at least should be aware of.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is, without doubt, the most fatuous argument I have ever heard.

      First of all, please stop using the term "child pornography"

      It is nothing of the kind. It is images of child abuse and should be referred to as such. Pornography implies consent, and these children are not consenting.

      So, let's imagine someone says to you "We're planning to rape the kids on Friday night - want to pop round and watch?"
      Okay - you just imagined viewing images of child sexual abuse, because that is what it is; the collusion of the watching adults in the abuse of a child.

      Of course the priority is identifying the source and helping the victims. That does not, however, mean that the consumers of the images get a free pass. The market exists because of the principles of supply and demand. Those who consume the images are as complicit as those creating them.
      If your ludicrous claims of injustice towards the victim were not so sick, they would be frankly laughable. Those images exist for one reason and one reason alone - for the titillation of those with a sexual interest in children.

      Your comparison with images from the concentration camps is frankly both ridiculous and fatuous.The purpose of those images is not to titillate, it is to inform, and if you can't tell the difference then you have a problem.

      There are no 'absurdities' in the legislation. The legislation is perfectly clear, no matter how much nonsense you and Ros come out with. There is a classification of the images in terms of the seriousness and those convicted of their possession or distribution are likely to be placed on the Sex Offenders register, because that is what they are. They are accomplices to the abuse, just as if they sat in a room and watched it happen. Calling them ''peeping toms'' does not describe what they do and appears to be coined to try to minimise it. They are criminals, they are sex offenders and your defence of them is frankly nauseating

      Delete
    2. @ anon 18:29

      I believe VT tackled similar issues on one of the other strange threads that defended paedophiles and defended the industry as misinterpreted.That was mainly in reply to Ros and Bjorn as they seem to be in tandem on this.The responses to his points were astonishingly misinformed and little more than snipes. It says much.

      Delete
    3. Yo Bjorn, good to see a friendly face :) I've been surrounded and they are moving in fast, lol.

      Did you ever get to see Brass Eye with Chris Morris? Sadly the UK wasn't ready for that kind of humour then, and it certainly isn't now. Though I do wonder how the morally outraged cope with Herbert the Pervert on Family Guy, but I suspect it goes over their heads.

      None I think are louder, than those shouting 'think of the children', they believe it showcases their goodness and humanity, it raises them above the riff raff. It carries a snidey 'because you're not' connotation, that makes the shouter feel superior. You don't hear them shouting 'think of the refugees', 'think of the elderly', think of the disabled'. All vulnerable groups, all at risk of abuse. It kind of reminds me of DW Griffiths, Birth of a Nation, where the little blonde girl is stolen in the night by a black man. All the big macho 'heroes' donned white cloaks and hoods in defence of little white children everywhere. Methinks damsels in distress are a dying breed, damsels these days are more likely to say 'sling your hook' should a man try to rescue them.

      I think it is difficult for men who are genetically programmed to go to war when their testosterone peaks. There is nothing like fighting off marauding invaders to release all that aggression. These days its more likely to be Call of Duty on Xbox. Now, as I am not quite being offensive enough, lol, think of an excitable dog who won't settle down and give you a minute's peace. You have to give in in the end, because when a dog wants to go for a walk, he fetches the lead and your wellies! lol. Once he has had a good run and a few fights, he's happy to snuggle up and watch the telly.

      A lot people carry a lot of pent up rage. Mostly men, lol. And unless they are doing something physical to 'release' it, it festers. It needs a cause, something outside your own immediate worries which you can worry about tomorrow like Scarlett O'Hara. A 'bigger' cause always takes precedence. And what could be more noble than defending children. I'm sure I could write an entire thesis on it, lol, but 'causes' are something I have tried, and failed at, throughout my life. I'm just not that committed. No, I tell a lie, on the Madeleine case I haven't given up because I'm determined to clear my name. Unfortunately my name has been so entwined in this case, that I am fighting my own libel war on here and the only way I know how.

      continues...

      Delete
    4. You are spot on Bjorn, my thoughts are with the victims being brutalised and photographed! Who are they? Are they regular children going to school every day, having been raped and tortured the night before?

      Are they 'lost' children? Is there such a thing in this modern world? And by lost, I mean children who have just vanished, never seen again? I can't see how that is possible now. When children go missing, it goes global, almost instantly.

      It is absolutely horrific if these horrors are going on in our midst. 700,000 Josef Fritzles with murky underground cellars. Just as we are all on tenterhooks each and every time a child goes missing, shouldn't we all be on tenterhooks for those kids to be rescued? If scenes of a murder were circulated on the internet, the police would be kicking in doors before he/she wipes the blood off the blade. And that's as it should be. So why not this urgent response to rescue those kids?

      I fear we could argue imagery with these particular marauders until the cows come home, but it would be like taking someone from their A,B,C to the works of Shakespeare with nothing in between ;)

      They do of course have motive. Whole companies and careers have grown out of the moral panic caused by fear of paedophiles. It is in their interests to keep that level of fear at maximum high. They are never going to say, 'it's OK you can sleep well tonight'.

      Many years ago, one of my lecturers described me as an iconoclast. I was extremely chuffed, especially when I looked it up, lol. That you and I seem to be a small minority, bothers me not, I've been at odds with the world most of life, lol.

      Delete
    5. Most abusive images of children will be made in countries where children are more vulnerable and their disappearances go unnoticed. Having lived in Bogota and Delhu, I have seen and met these street urchins. They live in a constant state of insecurity and fear.

      I have no idea of how many people in the UK or around the world watch these images but the business is obviously very lucrative and therefore we have to estimate that it is a relatively significant proportion of the populatiob - hundreds of thousands in the UK? Maybe. And you cannot excuse their support of this industry.

      Anyone who accesses and downkoads images of child abuse is a paedophile, the watcher in the room cannot use their distance from the actual abuse to deny what they really are.

      G.

      Delete
    6. Posting in tandem! I truly am laughing out loud at that. Who the feck would go to that much trouble, lol, this is a blog. Large readership imo, but small in the whole scheme of things. Are you one of the inspector gadgets from the cesspit?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous15 February 2018 at 20:10

      ''That was mainly in reply to Ros and Bjorn as they seem to be in tandem on this.''
      ______________________________________________________

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2018 at 23:45

      ''Posting in tandem! I truly am laughing out loud at that''
      ______________________________________________________

      Laughing out loud at what ? Something you imagined you
      had read ? Or did a subtle rewording enable you to 'lol' in some misguided attempt to belittle the observation( accurate observation).Only you mentioned posting in tandem.

      'in tandem':

      ''doing something together or at the same time as someone or something else''

      https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/in-tandem

      Delete
    8. "It is absolutely horrific if these horrors are going on in our midst. 700,000 Josef Fritzles with murky underground cellars."

      Probably the most ignorant sentence of all the ignorant rubbish you have posted and illustrates perfectly your total lack of understanding of the subject.
      Although it's a close run thing between that and your frequent description of CSA as ''yucky''

      Delete
    9. Thank you for your reply G. Even street urchins don't just disappear G, they may live on the streets but they look out for each other.

      You say the industry is obviously very lucrative. Really? Lucrative for who? The producers, directors, distributors? In which case, why are they not being arrested?

      How can they operate a lucrative industry based on the kind of crimes that attract global outrage? In this age of technology if a child goes missing, it makes headlines around the world. If they then use these children in their films, they would be pounced on.

      This debate reminds me more and more of the Satanic Ritual abuse theory of Ray Wyre. Somehow this seriously creepy man managed to persuade the establishment, the media and the gullible, that hundreds of thousands of kids were being sexually abused by Satanists in homes all over the UK.

      I don't buy that it's all happening again in the form of child pornography. Seriously, what parent would abuse their child to entertain weirdos on the net? The natural instinct of parents is to protect their children, and that's what most parents do. The idea that parents would invite friends and neighbours around to watch them rape their kids, wouldn't even make a plotline in a bizarre Freddie Kruger film. I know it wasn't you who came up with that scenario, but it was very disturbing. Who thinks like that?

      Delete
    10. Are you getting a bonus for each ignorant statement you make?

      "You say the industry is obviously very lucrative. Really? Lucrative for who? The producers, directors, distributors? In which case, why are they not being arrested?"

      Of course it's lucrative. Of course they are being arrested, when they can be caught - it's not as if they put a return address on this filth.

      And how do you think the authorities find out about them? They find the images on the computers of paedophiles, Ros - do you see how it works, now?

      Then you ask "Seriously, what parent would abuse their child to entertain weirdos on the net? " which makes me wonder if you have cracked open a book or newspaper at any time this century. Paedophiles, Ros. Are you telling me that a self-appointed expert such as you has never heard of this happening?

      Of course most parents protect their children. As you well know, and perfectly well understand, the analogy of the consumer of the abuse being a fly on the wall when the abuse takes place was to describe to your friend why and how viewing the images is an abuse, so you probably don't want to go there.



      Delete
    11. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2018 at 21:11
      Hello Rosalinda

      Child abuse, child pornography are so difficult to discuss. If you just try to see things from a little different perspective than people in common do, there's a risk that everything becomes misinterpreted

      ”Are they regular children going to school every day, having been raped and tortured the night before?” you ask yourself.

      Yes, Rosalinda that’s the kind of question I’d expect from someone, who really cares.

      Some years ago a short film clip of a child being tortured and sexually assaulted was shown on Swedish TV. It was in the context of a debate about child abuse and child pornography. A Swedish group of MPs had seen the film in its entirety and were, of course shocked.

      What struck me then was, that no-one asked what child that could be or where this hell hole was where this heinous crime had been taken place, or was perhaps still taking place. What was discussed was just how terribly awful they all thought it was and what laws should be introduced to stop it etc.

      I seriously asked myself. Do they really care? Aren’t children individuals anymore, but just an anonymous mass, that politicians use to promote their own ideas.

      Delete
    12. Am I getting a bonus? Are you saying I'm being paid by child pornographers? Lol, that's some fantasy land you live in.

      How is it lucrative? Do pervs buy this imagery online? In which case it shouldn't be difficult for law enforcers to track where the money is going, credit card details etc. And why are the authorities relying on the pervs to find the images? Why can't they find them themselves and arrest the monsters? You don't seem to be very up on technology 09:44, tracking people down is not difficult. Face recognition for example, can pick up a face in a crowd.

      Probably not a book or newspaper this century, I do all my reading online these days, it's easier on the eyes. And of course, I am thoroughly enjoying all the new (to me) and exciting writers who exist outside the mainstream media.

      Yes I have heard of paedophiles. Sarcasm btw, is cheap and not an admirable trait, not even in a playground. What I haven't heard of, ever, is parents sexually abusing their children for online entertainment. It makes my skin crawl as I type it.

      I have seen a lot of evil in my life but I still have faith in humanity, with all it's sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. I simply don't believe we are surrounded by monsters. And I speak as one who has actually encountered a monster an active paedophile given full authority over groups of children. I know monsters exist, I can spot them in a nanosecond, but happily they are very, very rare.

      Those shouting 'think of the children' are implying that THEY are the only ones who do. Rubbish of course, we are all just as compassionate and protective of children as they are, we just don't feel the need to shout about it.

      Delete
    13. “I know monsters exist, I can spot them in a nanosecond, but happily they are very, very rare “

      Let’s use the term “paedophiles”, shall we? And you clearly cannot spot them in a nanosecond. Nor, sadly, are they ‘very, very rare’

      Frankly, with each post you reveal how confused you are. You conflate CSA by a family member with children going missing. Don’t you understand that the majority of children who are victims of CSA never go missing? It’s as if you can’t focus your mind on one concept for two seconds, before it goes skipping off at a tangent.

      Frankly, Ros, I don’t much care what you think or believe, so long as you no longer teach, as I would have such safeguarding concerns about you that I would have a professional obligation to raise them with the relevant bodies.

      Delete
    14. The lack of concern for the actual victims alarms me Bjorn, they have been written out of the narrative. Imagine the parents of a missing and abused child being told by the police that they are going to go after all the viewers of the abuse images first!

      I don't get how these well adjusted, and well informed posters can get so worked about this subject yet not know who the victims are, and where these atrocities are taking place.

      On a lighter note, I have the winter Olympics on in the background, Sweden v GB at 'Curling', a sport I just don't get, lol. It seems to enthral many, but it's lost on me ha ha. The male figure skating however is sublime.

      Delete
    15. You have a professional obligation to report me to all the relevant bodies? For what? Not wanting to join your let's string up a paedo gang?

      So you are professionally involved with protecting children eh? Don't they give you people psyche tests, I would be very concerned that you operating with so few brain cells and a pathological obsession with the sexual abuse of children. Your fixation with the subject is, quite frankly, creepy.

      Your professional obligation doesn't extend to revealing your name, lol, what are you afraid of? You are on here calling me a paedophile, simply because I don't agree with your maniacal opinions, very professional, lol.

      What you paedophile hunters don't seem to understand is that in order to abuse children, paedophiles must have access to them. And if they are abusing them, they have to keep them hidden away, see Fred and Rose West, and Joseph Fritzl.

      I don't have access to children, I don't want access to children. I've done my bit! Now is my time. I don't look up violent pornographic images, the world is full of so much beauty, I like images that are uplifting, currently, the sheer beauty and grace of figure skating.

      I can't handle graphic violence and images of horror, too soft, as explained earlier and I unfollow people who put such images on my social media. The most obscene image on my phone is a vegetable curry that went wrong.

      But back to having access to children. All the morally outraged claiming Madeleine and the Tapas kids were being abused, overlook the fact that the tapas children were left with nannies every day and in the evening their parents were in the tapas bar. Kids talk. Some kids, like Madeleine I suspect, talk constantly. They tell their nannies and their teachers everything about their lives, completely unfiltered. That's why abusers keep them locked up. The tapas parents had no concerns whatsoever about handing their toddlers to the nannies, that alone confirms they were not being abused.

      Why can't you debate this subject rationally, without resorting to calling me a paedophile because I don't agree with you. Your accusations against me would be laughable if they weren't so offensive. They are based on nothing more than my not sharing the same opinions as you. If you do have any professional capacity, you should be reported, is that why you hide behind anonymity?

      Delete
    16. Right, that's it 09:14, you are getting an anecdote! Many years ago, when my son was a toddler, I employed a wonderful Croatian Au Pair who even to this day calls me her English mum. At the time, she was learning most of her English from a babbling 3 year old, much to all our amusement. DaDa bless her, accepted without question that 'yucky' was part of the English vernacular, actually from then on, we all did, together with the childish pronunciation, lol.

      Delete
    17. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 February 2018 at 12:18
      Hi again

      I used to fancy curling in the old days, when it was still an outdoor sport.Anyway, Sweden is doing remarkably well in the Olympics right now, especially in the cross country skiing, but I wouldn’t mind seeing Andrew Musgrave win a medal (Scottish I think).

      However, I’m very sceptic about the North and South competing and participating under the reunification flag, as I suspect that the dictatorship in the north will exploit this for propaganda purposes.

      Talking about sports, the soccer team Arsenal visited Östersund yesterday and was rude enough to beat Sweden's best international soccer team (Östersund FK). The town was embedded in loads of snow,and the guests were amazed by the beauty in the scenery, only the course was free from ice and snow.

      I’d have liked to see the players stay a little longer and learn more about our beautiful little Östersund, located in the mountain area in the very geographic midpoint of Sweden, in fact right in the wilderness with elks, wolves and bears just around the corner. I suppose the players weren't quite aware of where they were, besides some of them come from southern Europe I suppose.

      Delete
    18. Let me add OO;55, those are very serious allegations you are making. I might have a word with the police myself, I'm sure they could track down who you are.

      Delete
    19. Oh dear, I just can't get excited about curling, they don't look like real athletes! Smart Arsed Son said, if one of the sweepers drops out, they could grab a cleaner! Lol, sadly he is a philistine like myself.

      Unfortunately, GB are not doing so well in the medals stakes, so I am now cheering the athletes on simply because I like the cut of their jib! I'm still very excited for our girl Elise, the speed skater, I shed a tear with her when she crashed out in 500m. She was robbed! I think she is skating again tomorrow, so I will have to make sure I watch it.

      The football and the ice hockey are too 'boyish' for me lol. No sparkly costumes or feminine grace! As you can probably tell, I am mesmerized by the figure skating! I loved the 'half pipe' (?) too, it was breath taking!

      The cross country looks absolutely gruelling, I felt exhausted watching them! Was the Scottish chap the one without a hat?

      Yes indeed, it is very odd that North and South have reunified for the Olympics. The presence of the Kim Jong Un's sister, caused quite a stir, in the US especially. Could it be that the South are preferring the lunatic closer to home than Donald Trump.

      Apologies for Arsenal, lol, how dare they! I hope they did enjoy the beauty of their surroundings, I don't think it couldn't be any more different to their homeground in North London!

      Delete
  7. ''As I see the hysteria related to what's called "child pornography" in a similar way as Rosalinda does, I felt that I had to say a few words about it, because I'm very often misunderstodd as well.''

    For clarity : Anger is an understandable response.We're talking about innocent children. Hysteria isn't always the same as anger despite it having anger at it's core.Hysteria implies that imagination has taken over and cause an overreaction. Running in opposition to both of these is the relaxed attitude as put forward by the likes of yourself and Ros. Bearing in mind the subject, which is really the most dangerous attitude and mindset ?
    ''If a person, child or an adult, is seen in a photo or in a film sequence being sexually assaulted, tortured or raped, that person is most likely a victim of such treatment in real life as well, unless the motif has been photo shopped. ''

    Can you support your 'most likely' with anything whatsoever ? Or are you guessing ? have you considered orphaned children from state homes or abducted children who are trafficked in order to feed the machine ?

    In answer to your third paragraph,If we prosecute thieves or people in possession of controlled drugs because both practices are illegal, we should prosecute anyone committing a crime ( 'illegal' is the key word).

    ''If that’s what happens, I maintain that it’s an unforgivable injustice toward the real victim, ''

    Unforgivable to the real victim that the customer who is helping keep the crimes alive is prosecuted ? Why ?

    ''If looking at such atrocities of sexual kinds becomes equated with the documented real crime, then the victim's perspective and experience of the crime has been completely ignored ''

    If nobody was looking the business would end-as would the crimes.

    ''According to this reverse approach to crimes, those who, by the end of WW2 had managed to get hold of photos showing the Nazi cruelty against the Jews, should not only have been prosecuted''

    The Nuremberg Trials.

    ''Likewise, all those who’ve spread and watched all the video clips showing the cruelty by the ISIS in Syria should be the first ones to be arrested,''

    The two extreme images you have attempted to equate with child porn have no legs to stand on.They were atrocities committed in the name of war. The clips were circulated within mainstream news stations and Alt media to highlight the proverbial 'man's inhumanity to man'.The abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo ( water-boarding /rape /assaults) were carried out by ( un-bearded and /or female )adults on adults .Some 'heroes' were court-martialed.. No politicians stood trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous15 February 2018 at 18:22
      Hi, I'm pleased to read any comments about what I've tried to say.

      Referring to what I’ve said about the Nazis and the ISIS, you wrongly claim, that”(t)hey were atrocities committed in the name of war”

      As for the former they were crimes committed in the name of the Nazi ideology,
      while the latter were just as cruel acts, but in the name of Allah.

      In both cases, it was about propaganda and defence for the right to assassinate innocent people, who did not fit into the utopian society that the dictatorship tried to make people believe in.

      Nothing of this is about photos of injured soldiers taken by a journalist or a press photographer on a battlefield during a war, with the purpose of reporting the truth.

      The horrors of Raqqa were not directly related to the war, nor was the Holocaust in the 30s and 40s. The Holocaust came about before the war and would have been completed after the war, had not German lost the war.

      The documented terror and murder existed within the ISIS’s Caliphate especially in Raqqa and also in other places before the bombings started and regardless of what the Americans and the Russian did, and would still have existed had not the ISIS been defeated.

      The Nazis never got the chance to use the documented material for their own purpose. The ISIS used their images and video clips to deter the attackers and also to recruit and radicalize additional followers.

      Neo-Nazis can today use the documented Nazi material for their own purposes in order to depict the Jews as “untermenchen” and Islamists can similarly use the documented ISIS material to show how infidels should be treated.

      When pictures/photos of the most terrible abuse of children are kept secret from us, why shouldn’t all of the Nazi- and the ISIS material be kept secret as well?

      About a year ago, I looked for and found one video clip on YouTube about children’s situation in Raqqa. I thought I had the right to know more. Suddenly two boys aged about 6 or 7 appeared in a YouTube clip kicking ball with the head of an infidel who had recently been beheaded. What could be worse? Perhaps a little boy in swimsuits hugging a little girl in bikini, in a photo labelled child pornography, if you ask Jim Gamble.









      Delete
  8. It's all gone the way of the pear for the gruesome twosome, to coin a phrase :/

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2018 at 10:32

    Your compassion for children overwhelms me 09:34. Nothing says I love kids more than kicking in the head of a suspected paedophile.

    Does your compassion extend to kids living in poverty, or battered kids? How about those kids in the Refugee camps?

    Or like most of these paedophile hunters and their supporters, are you only interested in the sexual abuse?"
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Why do you only blog (regularly) about paedophilia?

    Why don't you ever blog about children in poverty?
    Why don't you ever blog about battered children?
    Why don't you ever blog about refugee children?
    Why don't you ever blog about the children who are victims of child sex abuse images and videos?

    Try blogging and expressing your opinion about those subjects that you keep referring to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I could 20:47, but I suffer from a condition that my dear old dad referred to as being too soft. That is, as a manic depressive I have to filter out many atrocities, because the sorrow would overwhelm me. I have huge admiration and respect for those 'stable' enough to handle those subjects, which is why I do a lot of retweets! I know my limitation and my talents 20:47.

      There is also 'write about what you know'. I know a lot about the Madeleine case and I know a lot about CSA. I have an audience for my writing, or as your associate just pointed out, supply and demand.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2018 at 23:58

      '' I know my limitation and my talents 20:47. ''

      Wrong, and wrong again.

      ''There is also 'write about what you know'.''

      Good advice.But you write about what you pretend to know.

      ''I know a lot about the Madeleine case ''

      You know , at best, as much as anyone who has looked at it in the last 11 years. It doesn't take long to absorb the important points. You just suspect and opine far more than most without actually supporting it.

      ''I have an audience for my writing''

      You have a blog, a paypal button, a wing, and a prayer.

      Delete
    3. You really should make a copy of that post and give it to your psychiatrist - it will save them time.

      Let's start with the idea that you are "too soft" and likely to be overwhelmed with sorrow.

      This is an example of a delusion.

      I have witnessed you strike out at people again and again, with accusations clearly designed to cause distress. Rather than being 'overwhelmed with sorrow' you appear to be intent on hurting others.
      Your faux-justification of your actions is utterly self-serving; having criticised others with your whataboutery nonsense you then recuse yourself on the grounds of being just too much of a sensitive soul. As if.

      You claim to know your limitation and your talents. Then you claim to know a lot about CSA and the Madeleine case, which strongly suggests that you don't.

      Your knowledge of the Madeleine case is best described as 'rudimentary' and you have no understanding of CSA whatsoever - in fact, you are one of the most ill informed people I have ever encountered.
      As for your writing - well, you remind me of the character Tom, in Bridget Jones' Diary, who perpetually lives off the success of the one hit he had many years before

      Delete
    4. You asked me why I didn't write about a list of subject and I explained. But you don't like my explanation so you launch into another personal attack.

      I get that you hate me, lol. But that's your problem, I'm quite happy with who I am and have no inclination to change and definitely don't want to be like you. As if, lol. You can sit and stew on all the reasons you hate me til the cows come home, it matters not, I never think about you.

      Delete
  10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 February 2018 at 20:40

    ''Did you ever get to see Brass Eye with Chris Morris? Sadly the UK wasn't ready for that kind of humour then''

    It still isn't. Pushing the envelope has it's limits. Morris got the notoriety and publicity as the new face of satire prepared to go where nobody else would.Mission accomplished. But he didn't make the subject of paedophilia humorous under any genre of comedy.You need to understand that normal people don't find it funny.

    '' I do wonder how the morally outraged cope with Herbert the Pervert on Family Guy, but I suspect it goes over their heads.''

    I was a fan of the series before it was trendy to be.Satirical, daring, zany and often clever.All characters get their share of good lines and situations.Herbert is the stereotypical disgusting old man with a penchant for schoolboys and physical contact.Seth Macfarlane failed to make anything involving that character anything but disturbing and never made him or the situations funny.Can you explain otherwise please- it went over my head.

    ''None I think are louder, than those shouting 'think of the children', they believe it showcases their goodness and humanity, it raises them above the riff raf''

    No, it shows common sense.It shows decency.

    ''I think it is difficult for men who are genetically programmed to go to war when their testosterone peaks''

    What is ? It isn't merely testosterone peaking when children are seen to be hurt or attacked.It's a biological reaction.It's easier to understand tan the one you like to talk about when 'reading' faces. It's the protective instinct. Women peak even faster, it's a genetic programme. You should ask a mother when you next meet one.

    ''A lot people carry a lot of pent up rage. Mostly men, lol. And unless they are doing something physical to 'release' it, it festers.''

    They often do what you don't seem able to stop doing to release yours. They start a blog.

    '' No, I tell a lie, on the Madeleine case I haven't given up because I'm determined to clear my name. ''

    You're not involved in the case.Being obsessed with doesn't count.

    ''You are spot on Bjorn, my thoughts are with the victims being brutalised and photographed! ''

    Read the replies to Bjorn from well adjusted people who are able to think.

    ''Many years ago, one of my lecturers described me as an iconoclast. I was extremely chuffed... I've been at odds with the world most of life''

    Your lecturer should have looked up 'contrary' first, then 'stubborn'.How odd you are is an interesting debate for a new thread maybe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seth Macfarlane never made Herbert the Pervert or the situations funny? Really? Even the name's funny, you eejit.

      I should ask a mother when I next meet one? Ouch, you managed to insult me and my own mother there. I expect they are cheering in the cesspits as we speak.

      No I am not involved in the Madeleine case, but despite that, you and your ilk are determined to trash my name far and wide. Like Goncalo Amaral, I'm not just going to roll over and let you get away with it. So yes, I have a blog.

      Replies from 'well adjusted' people? LOL, they are more like escapees from the cesspit or Stop the Myths, trying to ram their deranged fears down my throat. BB1, Tigerloaf, or how about Verdi or that well known child defender Tony Bennett?

      As for your final paragraph, aw shucks, I love talking about me, but even I don't want an entire thread on it.

      But let's focus on your problem. Your irrational fears that children are being sexually abused. Your fears would be calmed if you applied a bit of logic. Do you honestly believe for example, that you are surrounded by monsters pretending to be normal people? Do you honestly believe that your friends, neighbours, family, are raping their kids behind closed doors? If you harbour those fears no wonder you are going nuts.

      It's all very well saying hundreds, if not thousands of children go missing all the time, but who are they? Shouldn't identifying the victims be the first priority? Who are they and why aren't they being rescued? Even in the middle ages the whole town knew when the Pied Piper had been.

      I don't know why your anger isn't directed towards the actual abusers. It isn't a case of supply and demand it's a case of cutting off the source. As long as law enforcement focuses on the 'users', the 'source' continues to brutalise kids. That makes no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. ''Seth Macfarlane never made Herbert the Pervert or the situations funny? Really? Even the name's funny, you eejit. ''

      My bad then. He had a jokey name.So the character and situations ( wanting kids to touch him) were /are therefore hilarious.

      ''Ouch, you managed to insult me and my own mother there. I expect they are cheering in the cesspits as we speak. ''

      I managed to give you a little advice and you managed to add to that with your masochistic interpretation.Who gives a toss who is doing what in the cesspit. I don't.You should pay less attention too.It's having a negative effect on you lately on this blog.

      ''No I am not involved in the Madeleine case, but despite that, you and your ilk are determined to trash my name far and wide. Like Goncalo Amaral, I'm not just going to roll over and let you get away with it. So yes, I have a blog. ''

      You have no knowledge whatsoever of me so are not qualified to make personal observations of me or know what my 'ilk' is.Paranoia isn't a talent.I have no interest in trashing your name. I don't discuss you vocally or in print.I speak directly to you here.If your name is being trashed, as you claim, you should consider where. Maybe then you can play detective.As for Amaral, he lacks the credibility for any discussion of merit.Clumsy detective, crafty author.

      ''Replies from 'well adjusted' people? LOL, ''

      You can 'laugh' in capitals as loudly as you like.A lot of good posts / points have been submitted to you here lately but, as usual, when you can't counter them with anything resembling intelligence or reason, you try to attack whoever posted in the hope they'll stop.

      ''But let's focus on your problem. Your irrational fears that children are being sexually abused. ''

      Spare me the daytime TV pop psychology.Let's talk about where I said I have a fear about it.I didn't.

      '' Do you honestly believe that your friends, neighbours, family, are raping their kids behind closed doors? If you harbour those fears no wonder you are going nuts.''

      Did i say that ? No, I never. You're the one continually saying all dangers to children are in the home.I'm the one saying you're way off the mark.Who is really going nuts in that case ?

      ''I don't know why your anger isn't directed towards the actual abusers. It isn't a case of supply and demand it's a case of cutting off the source.''

      You keep doing that and it's getting weaker and weaker.Any time your flawed arguments are exposed by logic, you call whoever exposed them 'angry'. It's juvenile.The customer base needs to be behind bars and the market will collapse - but only temporarily.A new audience will show up.The same applies with the source.Jailing producers of the material will provide vacancies for their position.Ridding society of both is what's needed.Far stiffer carved -in-stone deterrents would be step one. Penalties imposed need to move with the times as fast as crimes do.

      Delete
    3. Wow, brave, you speak to me directly, err, anonymously, lol.

      You kind of shot yourself in the foot there with 'the customer base needs to be behind bars' it's a phrase I will certainly remember,

      You still haven't produced a single coherent, logical argument for arresting the customer base rather than the suppliers, 16:55, and that is deeply disturbing.

      Who's going nuts here? Well I've always been nuts lol, and have a certificate to prove it. You however, are trying so hard to be normal, that you are coming across maniacal. You seem to think that you can force me to agree with you by threatening to report me to, well, whoever, lol. You must be gutted that you have no power or authority over my blog whatsoever, that I am free to say whatever I want. I suspect it's something you are not used to.

      As for fear. You are riddled with it 16:55, it is your Master. You are so desperate to be part of the angry mob, you are scratching around to find arguments to support the ridiculous. It's quite painful to watch.

      Delete
    4. ''You still haven't produced a single coherent, logical argument for arresting the customer base rather than the suppliers, 16:55, and that is deeply disturbing. ''

      From top to bottom on this thread, only your arguments are incoherent.Your use of 'deeply disturbing' to describe your thoughts about other peoples' ideas is insincere and nothing more than a transparent, poor attempt to dismiss them rather than address them. When you can defend attitudes toward child abuse and child pornography on the grounds that people overreact or misinterpret them both, and defend jailed paedophiles as victims of an oppressive, outmoded legal system, you have no grounds to call anything else disturbing.

      ''As for fear. You are riddled with it 16:55, it is your Master. You are so desperate to be part of the angry mob, you are scratching around to find arguments to support the ridiculous. It's quite painful to watch.''

      And the accusations of fear again. That's getting older by the post and weaker too. Tell me, as I'm a complete stranger to you, what makes you think you know what I think and what I feel about anything other than what i post here ? Fear is my master ? Nothing, and nobody, is my master.

      Please don't trick yourself into thinking you're the master of mind games.You're not.You should spend far less time trying to read other peoples' minds, as you clearly can't do it very well,and more time trying to understand the one you actually have access to - your own.It needs attending to PDQ. It's never too late.

      I remember a few months back, you mentioned on one of your other crazy threads that you were creating this blog as a legacy for your grandchildren. That was when you were flying the flag for Amaral's confusing, conflicting hypotheses that stated Madeleine McCann was dead and her parents had buried her.To this day nobody knows if she's dead or alive.But you like that set of ideas from him and refuse point blank to entertain any arguments that can wreck his.Each to their own. But, the next time you sit before your monitor to enjoy yet another angry white -knuckle ride you call typing, consider what your legacy will read like. The larger part( and boy is it large) dedicated to trying to create hatred of two parents who lost a child and the rest defending paedophiles as misunderstood.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous15 February 2018 at 23:58

      Hi there

      Your offensive or may I say brutal attack on Rosalinda would certainly have been very much appreciated if it had been spoken by an actor in a humorous theatre play about our need to joke at the expense of others.

      There are so many power-hungry, selfish and dangerous people in high positions, that deserve to be ridiculed and Rosalinda is definitely not one of them. Why not use your talent to criticize them instead. Power always deserves to be challenged and that’s my basic view of life in a nutshell.


      Delete
    6. Anonymous17 February 2018 at 05:16
      Hi again

      ”The larger part( and boy is it large) dedicated to trying to create hatred of two parents who lost a child and the rest defending paedophiles as misunderstood”

      Here we go again. Rosalinda has never defended paedophiles, but just as myself she questions the official view, that there’re hundreds of thousands dangerous paedophiles sneaking around in our society and she argues, as I do, that we should first of all focus on the sexually offended children.

      As for the McCanns, how would you know that they’ve ”lost” a child. Suppose that they’re involved, as I believe, then they must have ”hidden” her body. Using the verb ”lose” implies innocence, doesn’t it? You’re of course entitled to believe whatever you want, but you cannot possibly know more than I do, so I feel free, as may others do, to assume that Madeleine is dead and that the McCanns are implicated in the disappearance of their daughter. Moreover, I’ve always argued that the McCanns should be further investigated, because I suspect that they haven’t. I’m not a hater for wishing so. Neither is Rosalinda. It’s just nonsense.

      As for myself I’m just so disappointed, that the Portuguese and the British police do not make any progress in the Madeleine case, as it seems, and I’m just as disappointed that the British society so ruthlessly pursues suspicious paedophiles, who may be completely innocent, instead of focusing on finding and rescuing the violated children. We just have divergent views, so there’s no reason for rude comments.

      Have a nice weekend

      Delete
  11. Very simple question, Ros

    Why, in your opinion, do people view or download child abuse images?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who knows 13:19? I've spent a lifetime trying to understand the root of evil, and I'm not there yet.

      Why do people look up live executions? Why do people watch Saw movies? Not my cup of tea, but I understand enough to know that everyone is unique, even perverts.

      I know where you want me to go with this, but I'm not going to talk dirty to you, my skin is crawling enough already.

      Delete
    2. Who knows?

      Well, you claimed earlier that you know a lot about CSA, so it’s not unreasonable to expect that you would know, Ros.

      So, do you want to take a wild stab in the dark?

      Delete
    3. I know all about these CSA Inquiries abusing the victims all over again. It's not about justice for those who were abused, or even failure of care by the Local Authorities, it's all about targeting political opponents. It breaks my heart to see these victims being so ruthlessly exploited. This subject has a way of stirring up the wannabe Witchfinder Generals those who get their jollies from being the leader of an angry mob. And those who think if they are part of the mob, that they will always be safe. It's an ugly scenario.

      Again. I'm not going to talk dirty to you, you will just have to look up rude words in the dictionary. Alternatively, you could while away a couple of hours watching, or reading, Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible'. You may find it very enlightening.

      Delete
    4. “Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 February 2018 at 13:18
      You have a professional obligation to report me to all the relevant bodies? For what? Not wanting to join your let's string up a paedo gang? “

      At no time have I suggested stringing anyone up.


      “So you are professionally involved with protecting children eh? Don't they give you people psyche tests, I would be very concerned that you operating with so few brain cells and a pathological obsession with the sexual abuse of children. Your fixation with the subject is, quite frankly, creepy. “

      Anyone who works with children, including teachers, has a safeguarding responsibility towards them. My concern is that your personal beliefs do not suggest you are a suitable person to take that responsibility. Also, your frequent use of pejorative terms would not be tolerated in a modern teaching environment.

      “Your professional obligation doesn't extend to revealing your name, lol, what are you afraid of? You are on here calling me a paedophile, simply because I don't agree with your maniacal opinions, very professional, lol. “

      I would not advise anyone to share their personal details with you. Perhaps you could point out where you allege I have called you a paedophile? You may also want to consider whether your frequent use of the abbreviation “lol” is appropriate, given the subject matter

      “What you paedophile hunters don't seem to understand is that in order to abuse children, paedophiles must have access to them. And if they are abusing them, they have to keep them hidden away, see Fred and Rose West, and Joseph Fritzl. “

      It is opinions like this which make me believe you do not have a proper understanding of the issues. In fact, I would go so far as to say it displays worrying ignorance.

      “I don't have access to children, I don't want access to children. I've done my bit! “

      Good.

      “Now is my time. I don't look up violent pornographic images, the world is full of so much beauty, I like images that are uplifting, currently, the sheer beauty and grace of figure skating. “

      No-one suggested that you did

      “I can't handle graphic violence and images of horror, too soft, as explained earlier and I unfollow people who put such images on my social media. The most obscene image on my phone is a vegetable curry that went wrong. “

      How is this relevant?


      “But back to having access to children. All the morally outraged claiming Madeleine and the Tapas kids were being abused, overlook the fact that the tapas children were left with nannies every day and in the evening their parents were in the tapas bar. Kids talk. Some kids, like Madeleine I suspect, talk constantly. They tell their nannies and their teachers everything about their lives, completely unfiltered. That's why abusers keep them locked up. “

      Staggeringly ignorant. Just staggering.

      “The tapas parents had no concerns whatsoever about handing their toddlers to the nannies, that alone confirms they were not being abused.”

      This is why you are not a suitable person to be entrusted with safeguarding.

      “Why can't you debate this subject rationally, without resorting to calling me a paedophile because I don't agree with you. “

      No-one called you a paedophile.

      “Your accusations against me would be laughable if they weren't so offensive. They are based on nothing more than my not sharing the same opinions as you.”

      My observations are based on your stated views.


      “If you do have any professional capacity, you should be reported, is that why you hide behind anonymity?”

      I would advise everyone to avoid sharing personal information with you.

      Delete
    5. OK, blah, blah, blah, I won't be asking you for a reference, lol.

      I actually teach all the time. And I teach far more 'students' than I ever did as a lecturer. It is my nature to teach, beyond my control, I feel obligated to share everything I learn.

      It's not kids you need to worry about, its everyone who reads here, those who are, possibly for the first time, reading another perspective on this issue that you lot keep so guarded. And you guard it by accusing anyone questioning the reasoning behind your campaigns of being paedophiles or paedophile defenders. Your sole agenda is to shut down discussion. Why?

      As for your snidey word of advice at the bottom. You snivelling coward, your fear of revealing your name is my fault? I bet you used to get beaten up a lot as kid, probably why you are such an obnoxious arsehole now.

      Delete
    6. There is no legitimate “other perspective” , Ros.
      What you clearly can’t bring yourself to say is that those who seek out those images do so as they have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

      The problem is you then talk about rescuing the children as if it is something which never occurs to the authorities because they are too busy arresting the end user. How do you think they find them, Ros? How do you think they get to the suppliers? Does it even occur to you that if someone is found downloading child abuse images, that they may represent a danger to the children they have access to?

      Or are you too far gone to understand that simple issue?

      Delete
    7. There are always other perspectives 16:02, not everyone wears blinkers.

      Second para. Nope. Still not convinced me that the viewers are more of a threat than the actual abuser.

      Am I 'too far gone to understand that simple issue?'

      Is it necessary to be so abusive? Why are you making this so personal? What do you mean by 'too far gone' ffs?

      Why are you so desperate to discredit me in whatever way you can? What does it matter to you what I think? Why this desperate need to force me to agree with you? Your vile insults are completely over the top, you sound disturbed. Seek help.

      Delete
    8. ''It is my nature to teach, beyond my control, I feel obligated to share everything I learn. ''

      It's your nature to preach, not teach. If one of your students handed you an essay making sweeping statements or claims, you'd hand it back with your red -penned advice ''sources?'' . We do the same here with you.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda 16 Feb 2018 15:01

      I can't believe the insults and language from you of late. It's not endearing or clever.

      Delete
    10. You might think you are 16:27, but I'm actually using you as a teaching device. Your staggering ignorance is a good example of what happens when you go through life with blinkers on.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 February 2018 at 16:50;

      ''You might think you are 16:27, but I'm actually using you as a teaching device. Your staggering ignorance is a good example of what happens when you go through life with blinkers on.''

      You lack far too much to be able to teach me anything. As for the remarks concerning ignorance and blinkers.They apply to you and you alone( although Bjorn runs you close).

      Delete
    12. "Second para. Nope. Still not convinced me that the viewers are more of a threat than the actual abuser."

      No-one has said they are more of a threat.

      What YOU claimed, wrongly, is that possessing these images isn't a crime. In fact you referred to it as a ''pre-crime''

      Try telling that to the judge

      Delete
    13. "It is my nature to teach, beyond my control, I feel obligated to share everything I learn"

      So, not a full-time job then.......

      Delete
  12. Ros....

    Further up this thread, you state :

    ''How is it lucrative? Do pervs buy this imagery online? In which case it shouldn't be difficult for law enforcers to track where the money is going, credit card details etc. And why are the authorities relying on the pervs to find the images? ''

    The thread at he end of January ( 'No to paedophile hunters') has you stating :

    ''
    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? ''

    How do you hold both of these views simultaneously ?

    PS

    I wish to draw your attention to something you often fail to see.

    '' I haven't heard of...''

    and

    '' It's unheard of...''

    They sound similar but are very different.You would do well to remember that when making comments about events and people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Is it necessary to be so abusive? Why are you making this so personal? “


    “I bet you used to get beaten up a lot as a kid. Probably why you are such an obnoxious arsehole now”


    Behave.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The info at the following link might be of interest. Not to be taken as indicating my views please.

    “The criminalization of child pornography is one of the most stupid decisions ever made…” (From ‘An Insight Into Child Porn’ http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/livres10/intochildporn.pdf )

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaarg T, I can't find it! No, still can't c/p lol, but typed in the link very carefully. It looks like an interesting article, so I'm kicking myself :(

      Delete
    2. @ T 17:22

      Do you support the views in that paper?

      D

      Delete
    3. @ Ros

      How do you manage to comment on so many things published her via a link if you can't copy and paste ? Ether you're copying and pasting but only commenting on the ones that suit you or you can't copy and paste and you're only arguing against other people's observations merely because they differ from your own.Bad show.

      Delete
    4. anon 16 Feb 2018 at 17.22 - 'T'

      Report by 'Mr X'

      Not a promising start, it has to be said.Even 'source close to' sounds and reads better.

      ''Given the contents of this letter,everyone will understand my wish for anonymity''

      (Naturally...the floor's yours, 'Mr X'...)

      ''In my current countrythere are no laws relating to surfing, viewing, downloading and saving any type of files. For this reason, I am fully able to follow what happens''
      (That would be 'Country X' then...)

      The long introductory paragraph is mainly concerned with trying to identify a crossover between legitimate child modelling and pornographic images.

      A far shorter paragraph follows concerned with legality. It points out the 'child' is defined differently in different countries so it causes confusion with an overall definition.True.But, it doesn't acknowledge that all countries in the western world do have an age of consent clearly defined.

      The following 3 paragraphs are peppered with figures regarding how the business transactions ( credit cards etc) were practiced. It was akin to pushing treacle up a hill.But, at least it showed how global it was /is .The prominence of Germany and Israel is mentioned.
      In the middle of the paper, the assertion is made that most of the hardcore material originates at home and is committed by incestuous ( unnamed) fathers then sold to producers( how did they know where they were or who they were?). Then, almost glibly, it is claimed that Russia( yes, them pesky Russians, enemy of US/UK/Israel) publish them on commercial sites.Really ? That smells very much like propaganda to me...

      The sub- headed 'In The Name Of The Children' marks where things begin to get a little tainted..

      ''For years, I hear and read how kids supposedly are so immature.''

      And there it is ; that tone.That 'supposedly' as the thinly veiled disagreement. Mr X- your knickers are showing...

      ''Child protection has become a real industry.''

      Really..not a necessity then, just an industry. Those cynical businessmen exploiting something like the crime of child abuse just to make money. What has child pornography become, Mr X ?

      There follows a short list of what Mr X informs us is some over zealous, evangelical shock tactics put forward by MoralityInMedia. They are dubious claims it has to be said and need some valid support.But then the astonishing interruption by our guide states :

      ''I stop here because otherwise I would burst with anger and bloodthirst...The Western world hardly has to worry about the Talibans but more about Christian fundamentalists crawling in through the back door of "Child protection".''

      ( says our Mr X, who has quite an intimate, long standing relationship with the country that reads The Torah and Talmud and spits on Christianity and Islam)

      Further on we are informed that :

      ''Based on my descriptions so far it should be clear to anyone sensible reading this that filtering and censorship make absolutely no sense.''


      Really, Mr X ? Is that why you relocated to a place that doesn't have them ? Don't tell us, it's 'easier to research' ( wink wink)

      We then learn ( in loud shouty capitals)

      ''I AM NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE CASE WHERE A PEDOPHILE WAS HEALED AS A RESULTOF THERAPY''

      That rant actually strengthens the argument of how dangerous it is if it resists all efforts to treat it.

      The paper comes to a predictable end by celebrating paedophiles that have heroically overcome their urges and integrated into society against all odss.
      Mr X has no name.Mr X has a new location where censorship and filtering don't exist. Mr X spend over ten years involved in the child modelling industry. During those years, by complete coincidence I'm sure, he got to know a lot of paedophiles intimately and listened to their plight.

      An unnamed source can see his agenda in this paper. ;-)

      An interesting find, comrade

      Delete
    5. Many thanks for posting that T (?) but I am a tad confused, even though I have read it twice! Possibly because it is hard to distinguish who is saying what. Though, the hints and jibes that Mr. 'X' is a 'P' himself don't detract from the key statements.

      Significantly 'Christian fundamentalists crawling in through the back door of child protection'. In my opinion people obsessed with what is going on in the bedrooms of others, have limited, if any, experience of normal sex themselves. Look at the Textusa sisters who think Warners family resort was full of swingers. Or look at Tony Bennett and Ray Wyre, both religious zealots and no oil paintings. Because they are not getting any and have never had any, they have to imagine what other people do and there is where it gets freaky.

      Most of us couldn't care less as long as it doesn't frighten the horses, but the Christian fundamentalists, I call them the morally outraged, believe all life's evils stem from below the waist. Sex has had a bad press for over 2,000 years, it’s not surprising some still want to create legislation for it. The more disgusted they are the less likely they have ever had such impure thoughts themselves. The more they hate paedos the more it proves they are not one.

      Delete
    6. Christian Fundamentalists have absolutely no influence on how the law works.They haven't for hundreds of years.Religion doesn't either in the west.They may voice their outrage, they may not.It doesn't matter.

      Delete
  15. An extremely relevant and well-researched article, which addresses the nonsense Ros and Bjorn have been posting.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/sep/03/childprotection

    Others to follow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I've just read the article by Phillipa Ibbotson professional musician and freelance writer.

      Has it changed my opinion? No, it is quite clearly in support of creating moral panic, and most of the information comes from CEOP. There's a surprise.

      I actually view this kind of research in the same way I view the research of Ray Wyre. Sex offenders will say anything the researcher wants them to say. Ray Wyre for example, treated them with saturation therapy. Instead of taking away their child abuse images, he gave them more. Some might see it as a reward for saying the right things.

      Delete
    2. "
      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 February 2018 at 19:17
      Yes, I've just read the article by Phillipa Ibbotson professional musician and freelance writer.

      Phillipa Ibbotson is an extremely experienced journalist with the Guardian who has written extensively about a number of high profile child abuse cases.

      "Has it changed my opinion? No, it is quite clearly in support of creating moral panic, and most of the information comes from CEOP. There's a surprise."

      That is complete nonsense on both fronts.


      "I actually view this kind of research in the same way I view the research of Ray Wyre. Sex offenders will say anything the researcher wants them to say."

      Another ignorant comment, and I can only assume you didn't actually read the article

      "Ray Wyre for example, treated them with saturation therapy. Instead of taking away their child abuse images, he gave them more. Some might see it as a reward for saying the right things."

      The study referred to had nothing whatsoever to do with him and your comment is ridiculous

      Delete
    3. Here is a link to the published study which is the source of information for the article posted above
      https://www.scribd.com/document/46829505/Butner-Redux-Study-Bourke-Hernandez-2009

      Delete
    4. Just to be clear, I am not publishing the scaremongering and propaganda for Jim Gamble or paedophile hunters on my blog, so stop with the spamming.

      I don't have any interest in the graphic detail that you lot get off on, so don't bring it here. Surely you must forums and websites catering specifically for your tastes, this isn't one of them.

      Delete
    5. Are you disassociating yourself from Ray Wyre? Odd, he should be one of your heroes, a founding member at the very least.

      He wanted witch hunts. Quite literally, his folk devils were Satanists sexually abusing children. Except of course, there were no Satanists it all came from his twisted mind.

      This 700,000 monsters in our midst, are no different to Ray Wyre's Satanists on every street, that is false flags, inflated figures and seeds of fear planted in the media.

      Your enemy is as invisible as Ray Wyre's, and you don't even know who the victims are! You are trying to cause hysteria in the same way Ray Wyre did, but for him it was easier, he lived in a less enlightened age.

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous16 February 2018 at 18:40

      Good night.

      Just read the article you refer to, but in a hurry. Not a word about where those children are being photographed or filmed. In what institutions? In what homes? In whose basements? In what countries? Just figures and statistics, but nothing about where a responsible parent or a caring nanny might be. Some of the children, who’re supposed to be found in images or film clips on the internet, are said to be aged 2. Are all those victims stolen and from whom, or do parents lend their toddlers to paedophile rings, so that their children can be filmed and sexually offended? Or is it the parents themselves, who do it.

      Finally, as far as I can see, not the slightest suggestion in the article about how to rescue all these children, who, according to the article, must regularly be subjected to torture in form of sexual abuse.

      May I also add, that the article is written by a musician (Philippa Ibbotson), not by a scientist.

      Delete
    7. I really would suggest you read the article properly next time, Bjorn.

      If you object to the journalist's credentials, perhaps you ought to have noticed that the research upon which she reports - which incidentally, I provided a link to, and which is a pivotal study cited in a further 120+ studies - was conducted by experts in the field. She is merely reporting on it, like reporters do.

      I'm sure if it is important to you to know where the children are, you can ask for the information; however I doubt it would be provided to someone with no legitimate right to it

      Delete
  16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 February 2018 at 21:21

    ''Just to be clear, I am not publishing the scaremongering and propaganda for Jim Gamble or paedophile hunters on my blog, so stop with the spamming. ''

    So, to be clear, you have another list added to your 'bin list'- right ? That's posts that point out your faulty arguments, ask you questions you can't answer, and now scaremongering.So much for rallying cries against 'all and any forms of censorship'
    Why do you repeatedly refer to Ray Wyre in such angry terms ? Is it because he was so strongly opposed to child sex abuse ? Calling his mind 'sick and twisted' is your opinion.An opinion you obviously don't mind stating as he's dead now.Another corpse to prop up your unpleasant crusade/s.

    ''Your enemy is as invisible as Ray Wyre's''

    Because we can't see something doesn't mean it's invisible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "False Allegations Action Scotland" re: Ray Wyre, the "Expert"

      http://fbga.redguitars.co.uk/aLiveWyre.php

      "In the subsequent enquiry into the case, Wyre was heavily criticised for his actions and influence on the case. As the bizarre allegations became more and more fantastic, a rift formed between police investigating the case, who could find no evidence supporting the allegations, and the social workers, who were adamant that this abuse had occurred. Police refused to accept any further allegations, and refused to accept as evidence the journals that Wyre had urged the foster parents to keep.

      A committed believer in the SRA movement, Ray Wyre continued to spread his beliefs, as did other workers swept up in the tide of hysteria. An associate of Wyre's, Pamela Klein, also lectured at joint training conferences for police and social workers on the subject of SRA. Originally from Illinois, and a rape crisis worker, Klein's activities had previously been criticised by an Illinois judge, who stated that she "was not a legitimate therapist" and that she was not licensed to practice.

      Wyre and Klein both were instrumental in spreading the SRA movement through Australia and New Zealand. Klein's list of indicators included bedwetting, a fear of ghosts and nightmares. Four of those involved in the infamous McMartin pre-school scandal in the US, also targeted Australia and New Zealand. Almost immediately cases with strikingly similar allegations to those already seen in the US and UK sprang up.

      Despite being criticised for his influence on the Nottingham case, and warnings that training workers to look for these indicators, and the methods used to elicit the desired responses from the interviewees were dangerous and should be stopped, Wyre continued."

      Delete
    2. @ anon 00.51
      I posted the full text of the article from the Guardian, as it made no reference to Jim Gamble as Ros falsely claimed, and the bulk of the evidence was obtained from the published study I also linked to. It was nothing to do with CEOP

      She published it at first then presumably realised it blew her arguments out of the water, so she deleted it.

      There was no graphic detail, that is simply a lie, ironically, shouldn’t she be publishing it, if it’s “graphic “?

      After all, that’s just a pre-crime.

      Lol etc

      Delete
    3. anon 09:57


      ''Wyre and Klein both were instrumental in spreading the SRA movement through Australia and New Zealand.''

      I don't think anybody tried to spread SRA. it's not like the Moonies or Jesus Family. It's pretty much illegal and carries a life sentence in prison. It exists and always has.But those who comment read the surface and imagine 'tabloid' witches and cloaked figures with silver goblets, swords and humming mantras.A sort of 1970s movie scenario.That's why they won't believe anything to do with the subject.They'll believe what documentaries and books tell them about children being sacrificed in the name of whatever in ancient days as they believe they were unevolved nutcases whereas today, we're ever so knowledgeable and sophisticated. Hence our crime-free, violence-free peaceful world.

      There's a sinister area to the whole subject that comprises a twisted rationale for those who indulge in it.A handy loophole for certain well positioned people in our modern world.

      Delete
    4. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra_intro1.htm

      "Also joining the SRA movement in the early 1980's were many psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, counselors -- particularly feminists"

      (...)

      "These appearances in England, Australia and New Zealand led to the formation of national ritual child abuse groups which promoted the SRA movement in their countries. Many were government funded."

      (...)

      "Specialists know today a great deal more about conducting proper child interview techniques, inaccuracies of physical examinations and lab testing. It is unlikely that the Satanic Panic will reappear in the future. However, something similar may surface in its place."

      Delete
    5. Why do I speak about Ray Wyre in such angry terms?

      Because of Ray Wyre's freaky ideas, hundreds of children were seized, put through horrendous intimate examinations and interrogation and placed in care. Their families and their communities were torn apart. No-one was saved, but hundreds, if not thousands of lives were destroyed.

      .....he was so strongly opposed to child abuse? Really? Do you not think snatching hundreds of children, subjecting them to intrusive medical examinations and denying them access to their parents is abusive? Do you advocate seizing all the children of those who have looked at illegal images and carrying out such tests on them?

      Hundreds of kids were placed in care during Operation Ore, torn from their homes and families while their dads were investigated. Of course most of the dads were innocent, but that kind of damage can never be repaired.

      Delete
    6. "Of course most of the dads were innocent, but that kind of damage can never be repaired"

      On what basis do you make that claim?

      Delete
    7. Also, Operation Ore was nothing to do with Ray Wyre, So perhaps you could explain why you have conflated them

      Delete
    8. As for ‘curing’ paedophiles, I’m pretty sure that hasn’t come from a scientist. Can anyone be cured of what turns them on? What do they use? Electric shock therapy, saturation therapy (popular with Ray Wyre) That sounds laughable. Any imprisoned paedophile, like any imprisoned criminal, will tell the Parole Board exactly what they want to hear. Sadly, on the other side of the coin, those victims of CSA will exaggerate and embellish to give the investigators what they want to hear, the objective being to sensationalise the crimes. There is a very sad clip of a supposed victim of RSA on Youtube documentary about Ray Wyre. The young girl reels of the most horrific stories of babies being sacrificed and eaten without so much as a blink of the eye. It’s uncomfortable to watch.

      I haven't looked into the 'curing' side tbh, because I find the whole idea ridiculous. No-one has ever found a cure for human nature. One hundred lashes won't cure it, imprisonment won't cure it and nor will brain surgery. The lashes and brain surgery goes some way to satisfy the morally outraged, and imprisonment protects the rest of us. Behaviours can be managed and some can be controlled by drugs, but even that could never be 100% effective.

      Keeping those who abuse children away from children should be the top priority, especially those who are making the grotesque films and images. I can't get my head around the fact that they are not being arrested, or why the priority isn’t to cut off the source.

      As for the 750,000 paedophiles out there, there is no way of knowing which, if any, of them will go on to enact the horrors they saw, but this charge them all anyway approach is just crazy.

      There is no scientific way to compartmentalise those very rare lunatics who will go on a killing or kidnapping spree. History is littered with them, every society, every culture, has it's share of notorious monsters that no-one could have predicted. Happily it these awful events are so rare, we can't allow them to inhibit the way we live our lives. And fortunately, the UK's strict gun laws spare us the regular mass shootings we see in the US.

      Delete
    9. Because there are parallels to be drawn 09:15. Ray Wyre was seeking out Satanists, Jim Gamble is seeking out viewers of illegal images. Wyre claimed SRA was prolific, JG claims viewers of child pornography are prolific. Both target demographics are presumed guilty before trial.

      And while it's in my head, I'm not defending paedophiles, I am defending men who are accused of being paedophiles based on what they view online. I'm doing it, because ridiculously, they men are unable to defend themselves. No man dare question the hysteria around CSA as I have done because their lives would be wrecked. Many have seen the abuse I am receiving, and I'm only publishing a fraction of it. Already there are concerned citizens who feel duty bound to report me to relevant bodies.

      When I worked as a support worker for those with learning difficulties, I was told of an elderly, disabled man who was beaten to death by an angry mob, who suspected he was a paedophile. It broke my heart because I cared for many who were at similar risk. It is impossible to explain that such men are completely harmless in the face of such hysteria. It reminds of when an angry mob of News of the World readers burned down the home of a paediatrician, senseless.

      Delete
  17. ''In my opinion people obsessed with what is going on in the bedrooms of others, have limited, if any, experience of normal sex themselves. Look at the Textusa sisters who think Warners family resort was full of swingers. Or look at Tony Bennett and Ray Wyre, both religious zealots and no oil paintings. Because they are not getting any and have never had any, they have to imagine what other people do and there is where it gets freaky.''

    At some point you really must try to separate adult relationships and child sexual abuse. The lines appear very blurred in your case and frankly I suspect the one with the problem is you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because I have never met any adults who are into kids. As an adult, every social situation I have been in, gets a lot more interesting when the kids are safely tucked up in bed. The conversation's better, they are allowed in the pub, and you don't have to accompany them to the toilet. Being stuck with the kids is the short straw.

      I've never had a problem distinguishing adult relationships and CSA, and yuck, it's never entered my mind. I like grown ups! My heart is set aflutter by wisdom, age and experience, especially now the mojo's gone, lol. I lust, if you can call it that, after John McDonnell, Jack Nicholson and Anthony Boudain, for Anthony Boudain, I would risk a hip, to jump on the back of his moped. JM for his wisdom, JN because he's wild and AB because he is adventurous.

      Just to outrage you even more, it amuses me to think of you shrieking, the horror, the horror, on this nice Sunday morning. I have to say, I was totally smitten by the young male figure skaters in the winter Olympics. Especially, the Japanese lad who won (only just 18 I think) and the beautiful Spanish boy who I was delighted to see, was a Charlie Chaplin fan. Their grace and beauty was enchanting. But before you go sending off warning letters, be aware my chances of rugby tackling any of them, even if I wanted to, are very remote, not with the arthritis.

      Delete
    2. “Probably because I have never met any adults who are into kids. As an adult, every social situation I have been in, gets a lot more interesting when the kids are safely tucked up in bed. The conversation's better, they are allowed in the pub, and you don't have to accompany them to the toilet. Being stuck with the kids is the short straw. “

      You think paedophiles normally just drop it into conversation?

      Delete
    3. “Just to outrage you even more, it amuses me to think of you shrieking, the horror, the horror, on this nice Sunday morning. I have to say, I was totally smitten by the young male figure skaters in the winter Olympics. Especially, the Japanese lad who won (only just 18 I think) and the beautiful Spanish boy who I was delighted to see, was a Charlie Chaplin fan. Their grace and beauty was enchanting. But before you go sending off warning letters, be aware my chances of rugby tackling any of them, even if I wanted to, are very remote, not with the arthritis.”

      I am sorry that you are so damaged by your experiences that you are unable to discern the difference between adult attraction and paedophila

      Delete
  18. "As for ‘curing’ paedophiles, I’m pretty sure that hasn’t come from a scientist. Can anyone be cured of what turns them on? What do they use? Electric shock therapy, saturation therapy (popular with Ray Wyre) That sounds laughable."

    Well, you haven't given any indication of where you are quoting from, so who knows?

    "Sadly, on the other side of the coin, those victims of CSA will exaggerate and embellish to give the investigators what they want to hear, the objective being to sensationalise the crimes."

    Jesus, there really is no depths to which you will not sink, is there?



    "I haven't looked into the 'curing' side tbh, because I find the whole idea ridiculous."

    So why are you talking about it? effective.

    "Keeping those who abuse children away from children should be the top priority, especially those who are making the grotesque films and images. I can't get my head around the fact that they are not being arrested, or why the priority isn’t to cut off the source."

    It IS the priority, you fantasist

    "As for the 750,000 paedophiles out there, there is no way of knowing which, if any, of them will go on to enact the horrors they saw, but this charge them all anyway approach is just crazy."

    If they are in possession of CSA images it is a crime. So why are you suggesting not charging criminals?


    "There is no scientific way to compartmentalise those very rare lunatics who will go on a killing or kidnapping spree."

    Which is a different issue altogether

    " Happily it these awful events are so rare, we can't allow them to inhibit the way we live our lives"

    We don't.

    " And fortunately, the UK's strict gun laws spare us the regular mass shootings we see in the US."

    What does that have to do with CSA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you forgotten you said arresting the customer base is the only way to reach the source. Very inept imo, if the police must rely on the criminals tracking down the crime.

      No, not a different issue, I had actually moved on to the bigger picture. Horrific crime happens. There is no way of preventing it, except in the case of gun law, but even then, if someone is determined to get a gun, they will.

      If we start demanding legislation and policing of the internet, we will be inhibiting ourselves, we will be asking for our freedom to be taken away.

      Not everything is to do with CSA 10:26, try broadening your mind a little.

      Delete
    2. And not everything has to do with Ray Wyre, or with you, for that matter

      I think your position is summed up in this comment
      "Sadly, on the other side of the coin, those victims of CSA will exaggerate and embellish to give the investigators what they want to hear, the objective being to sensationalise the crimes."

      Your problem, dear, is with the victims. It seems you actually resent them for getting more attention than you

      Delete
    3. You don't seem to realise how painful and debilitating it is for these victims to relive over and over the horrors that have left them so wounded. It doesn't help them, it doesn't cure them, it doesn't compensate them.

      They are being used. Hideously in my opinion. If you keep telling someone they are a victim, they will become one. The best thing they could do is put the past behind them and enjoy their lives.

      Locking up people like Rolf Harris does nothing to save children but everything to boost the coffers of the media and the child protection industry. Why are they so intent on pursuing elderly VIPs and celebrities?

      Yes victims do exaggerate and embellish, spare me your faux outrage at my stating the bleeding obvious. They do it for their own revenge and they do it because they are being led by those questioning them. In the Misery Memoir genre for example, the more unspeakable and the more traumatic, the higher the sales. Denying reality in order to make yourself appear as a concerned citizen, it shows just how one sided your thinking is.

      I care deeply for the victims and hate that they are being put this. Most have no idea what is going on, that they are again being exploited.

      Delete
    4. “You don't seem to realise how painful and debilitating it is for these victims to relive over and over the horrors that have left them so wounded. It doesn't help them, it doesn't cure them, it doesn't compensate them.”

      Nor does accusing them of embellishing their accounts

      “They are being used. Hideously in my opinion. If you keep telling someone they are a victim, they will become one. The best thing they could do is put the past behind them and enjoy their lives. “

      Hypocrisy alert - clear the room

      “Locking up people like Rolf Harris does nothing to save children but everything to boost the coffers of the media and the child protection industry. Why are they so intent on pursuing elderly VIPs and celebrities? “

      So we should just let their crimes go unpunished?

      “Yes victims do exaggerate and embellish, spare me your faux outrage at my stating the bleeding obvious. They do it for their own revenge and they do it because they are being led by those questioning them.”

      Like you did?


      “In the Misery Memoir genre for example, the more unspeakable and the more traumatic, the higher the sales. Denying reality in order to make yourself appear as a concerned citizen, it shows just how one sided your thinking is. “


      Mahoosive irony alert

      “I care deeply for the victims and hate that they are being put this. Most have no idea what is going on, that they are again being exploited”

      So deeply that you accuse them of embellishing their accounts

      Delete
    5. “Have you forgotten you said arresting the customer base is the only way to reach the source. Very inept imo, if the police must rely on the criminals tracking down the crime. “

      Do provide a cite showing that

      Delete
    6. Anonymous18 February 2018 at 11:00

      ''Your problem, dear, is with the victims. It seems you actually resent them for getting more attention than you''

      The tip of a sizable iceberg that i pray remains mainly submerged. Sharp observation nonetheless..

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 February 2018 at 11:35

      ''You don't seem to realise how painful and debilitating it is for these victims to relive over and over the horrors that have left them so wounded. It doesn't help them, it doesn't cure them, it doesn't compensate them.''

      What would you suggest, Dr Phil ? let them bottle it up to fester for years and see how that works out ? Let them suffer alone in silence and hope 'it goes away' from their mental history ? A victim is a victim.They don't magically become one because you keep telling them they're one.

      I don't know how long ago you cleared the shelves of half baked self help psychology in Waterstones so I can't recommend seeking a refund. Advertise them on twitter. There's a huge audience for it there.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 February 2018 at 10:47

      '' Very inept imo, if the police must rely on the criminals tracking down the crime. ''

      What would call it when the police publicly ask for members of the public ( who pay their salaries) to 'come forward' or taxi drivers. What would you call Crimewatch reconstructions intended to jog the memory of the public ?It all comes under the umbrella of 'intel'

      ''If we start demanding legislation and policing of the internet, we will be inhibiting ourselves, we will be asking for our freedom to be taken away.''

      The internet is already heavily policed.It has been for years.We don't like it and most of us object to the contrived reasoning behind it. But it's firmly in place. We're told about 'cyber crime' and 'cyber terrorism'. The end result is the same- the erosion of liberty.Thank the Patriot Act.

      ''Not everything is to do with CSA 10:26, try broadening your mind a little.''

      Not everything to do with policing the internet is about CSA. Broaden yours a little.It won't hurt. Much.

      Delete
  19. "Because there are parallels to be drawn 09:15. Ray Wyre was seeking out Satanists, Jim Gamble is seeking out viewers of illegal images. Wyre claimed SRA was prolific, JG claims viewers of child pornography are prolific. Both target demographics are presumed guilty before trial."

    So because one was wrong, the assumption is made that both were? Why?

    No-one is assumed guilty before trial


    "And while it's in my head, I'm not defending paedophiles, I am defending men who are accused of being paedophiles based on what they view online"

    What they view online makes them, upon conviction, sex offenders who will have to sign the register. I get that you don't think it should be an offence, but tough, it is.

    "I'm doing it, because ridiculously, they men are unable to defend themselves."

    Nonsense. They have the same right to a defence as every person charged

    "No man dare question the hysteria around CSA as I have done because their lives would be wrecked."

    Nonsense. You have not 'questioned the hysteria'. You publicly defended a convicted sex offender and referred to his offences as ''pre-crime''

    "Many have seen the abuse I am receiving, and I'm only publishing a fraction of it."

    I seriously doubt you are withholding any abuse. Let's see it all.

    "Already there are concerned citizens who feel duty bound to report me to relevant bodies"

    Tell the truth. I stated that if you were still teaching, as you claim to have done in the past, I would feel your inability to safeguard them is something which should be reported to the various bodies

    "When I worked as a support worker for those with learning difficulties, I was told of an elderly, disabled man who was beaten to death by an angry mob, who suspected he was a paedophile. It broke my heart because I cared for many who were at similar risk. It is impossible to explain that such men are completely harmless in the face of such hysteria."

    What does that have to do with an admitted and convicted paedophile to whom you publicly sent messages of support?

    ReplyDelete
  20. 10:43. Because I study history, and history always repeats itself. The objective here is the same. Mass arrests and hundreds of children taken into care. As for innocent until proven guilty, tell that to those in the Paedophile hunters videos and the families of those who committed suicide.

    ...but tough it is. The Law's an ass.

    .... publish it. I'm not allowing my blog to be spammed with abuse and feeble propaganda. So, tough.

    As for your reporting me, I expect you have a hotline. How many lives can you ruin in a day? I can see how your intimidating tactics would normally work, as I said, men couldn't dare state the kind of views that I am, because you've got your hotline there to report them as paedophiles. All anonymously of course, because the root of your problem is that you are a coward. Are you not proud of what you?

    I was hoping the story of the disabled man kicked to death might open your eyes to the tragedies this hysteria unleashes. I even remember a crazed British mob trying to batter a Spanish waiter for being friendly with their kids in the swimming pool. That's how paranoid people are becoming, and I think it is sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't isolate a mob near a swimming pool to cast judgement over people in general.That's sickening too.

      Delete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 February 2018 at 12:19

    '' As for innocent until proven guilty, tell that to those in the Paedophile hunters videos and the families of those who committed suicide. ''

    You're pointing to the fact that vigilantes can often act before they think things out. That they can make mistakes, whereas police would investigate properly, make an arrest and possibly charge.It's true, it can happen. But it isn't a sufficient argument to defend criminals and doesn't take into account the inefficiency of the police that isn't exactly rare.

    When somebody has been found guilty by a kangaroo court then beaten up and it turns out they had no grounds, nobody likes it.When rumours are spread that make the victims targets of the public without knowing the facts it's wrong too.When the police have investigated and found no grounds to arrest the victims it makes it even worse. This is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, to the parents of Madeleine McCann. The online vigilante group is, by far, the biggest vigilante group in recent history. You are part of that vigilante group.But, as you say : '' I study history, and history always repeats itself.'' You're not the only one who studies it, Many remember what Lindy Chamberlain went through. First the nation wept for her.Then it began to suspect her.Then the world joined in.Then she was universally hated as she went to prison for 4 years until actual tangible evidence proved she was innocent. Study all history, if you'e going to cite it to support your argument, not just selective snippets.

    Your response to the post is becoming a theme now.You begin by suspecting /imagining ( both forms of guesswork) that somebody deconstructing what you think passes for logic and criticising you is out to get you, report you, and so on.You're witholding more than you publish and are trying to say it's because it's offensive or abusive. I know of twp posts you haven't published that were neither offensive or abusive to you or anyone. I wrote them.

    '' the root of your problem is that you are a coward. Are you not proud of what you?''

    Whatever that means.That's another theme now. You dress an insult up as some kind of forensic psychological profile.That's hard to do for actual psychologists in the real world, let alone somebody just blogging to people she hasn't met or spoken to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is doing the same with many of my posts, which is kind of a dumb thing to do

      Delete
    2. How do you define abuse VT, is implying or stating I am a paedophile abusive/not abusive? perhaps that's one for a Judge.

      Kudos in bringing the topic of the McCanns' continued persecution into the debate, very subtle. Though I am not sure linking the persecution of the parents to the persecution of suspected paedophiles, does either cause any good.

      There is considerably more evidence against the McCanns than there is against the suspected paedophiles. For one, they were and are the main characters in the drama that unfolded. It was they who brought the drama to the public's attention, and who have gone above and beyond to keep that drama on the front pages.

      It is truly crazy to demand that only good things are published about you. Not even victims. If you put your story out there, it will be dissected, and people will reach their own conclusions.

      You say, the Madeleine case has created the biggest army of vigilantes in recent history. Not believing the McCanns' abduction doesn't make you a vigilante. That's not to say this case doesn't have more than it's share of self appointed Judges. The neglect of the children brought the sanctimonious out in legions, full of heroic tales of their own perfect parenting.

      I despise the mentality of the vigilantes and the concerned citizens, even with the Madeleine case. As should be clear, I am the enemy of these groups. The anti Christ telling them all to calm down.

      As mentioned many times before I am not interested in the punishment side of law and order, but I am interested in discussing the psychology behind the crime. As indeed are many, hence the popularity of my blog. I shown that it is possible to discuss the crime of century, without being abused. Though, I struggle to say that lately, because the abuse I am receiving is going through the roof. Some are determined to shut me down.

      And the people who read here are not vigilantes, if they were, they would be reading elsewhere because I offer nothing of that kind. There are no campaigns, no Petitions, no handing out leaflets. I'm not trying to rally anyone to do anything, my blog is an ongoing debate that leaves readers to make their own minds up.

      Delete
    3. ''Though I am not sure linking the persecution of the parents to the persecution of suspected paedophiles, does either cause any good. ''

      That would depend on the level of comprehension skills of the reader. The reference to the parents had nothing to do with anything in the paedophilia discussion. It was referring to your sage remark about history repeating itself. It was pointed out that vigilantes were effective in spreading hate far and wide about Lindy Chamberlain despite the lack of real evidence but plenty of bored amateur detectives using what they considered was 'instinct'. Vigilantes are a sector of your favourite ( when it suits) 'court of public opinion'.

      ''There is considerably more evidence against the McCanns than there is against the suspected paedophiles. For one, they were and are the main characters in the drama that unfolded. It was they who brought the drama to the public's attention, and who have gone above and beyond to keep that drama on the front pages. ''

      Which part of that points to evidence of committing a crime ?

      ''You say, the Madeleine case has created the biggest army of vigilantes in recent history. Not believing the McCanns' abduction doesn't make you a vigilante. ''

      Taking to the internet, contributing to online forums and social networks to promote invented evidence and trying to pass off suspicion as fact is.Accusing them of burying their child without any evidence that police have is. Calling for their arrest is.

      ''I despise the mentality of the vigilantes and the concerned citizens, even with the Madeleine case. As should be clear, I am the enemy of these groups''

      You share their conclusions.

      ''As mentioned many times before I am not interested in the punishment side of law and order''

      You have gone to great lengths discussing how the 'law's an ass' where the punishment of paedophiles is concerned.

      '' I am interested in discussing the psychology behind the crime. As indeed are many, hence the popularity of my blog''

      Then bring some sources.Otherwise the popularity of your blog will be due to the same attractions P T Barnum relied on.Or the same attractions that drew the well - heeled to Bedlam and it's ilk.

      Only Google can shut you down.Nobody else. Crime of the century ? We all have our own ideas of what constitutes the crime of the century.An abduction or worse of a child isn't mine.It's horrible, yes.But bigger things have happened before and since.

      '' I'm not trying to rally anyone to do anything, my blog is an ongoing debate that leaves readers to make their own minds up.''

      You'e giving a different impression if you're refusing to publish all views.

      Delete
  22. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 February 2018 at 10:03

    ''As for ‘curing’ paedophiles, I’m pretty sure that hasn’t come from a scientist. Can anyone be cured of what turns them on? What do they use? Electric shock therapy, saturation therapy (popular with Ray Wyre) That sounds laughable.''

    You're pretty sure ? So, you don't actually know then. As usual your suspicion is more important than research merely because it's yours; the usual combination of arrogance and ignorance followed by your informed ( unresearched) conclusion. Maybe you should read a bit.

    Paedophilia is an illness. It isn't a sexuality. It is a psychiatric disorder .All disorders require treatment.Just because a successful treatment has thus far evaded Psychiatry doesn't mean there isn't one, it means they haven't found one yet. Alluding to outmoded treatments that have failed in psychiatry in order to say the idea is- in your words-' ''laughable,'' is glib and in very poor taste. The need to cure people of ''what turns them on'' isn't laughable. Raping innocent women, beating them up, murder, stalking and committing random acts of violence are all 'turn-ons' for certain sections of society. Do we laugh at the idea of 'curing' them too ? Or is it just the area of paedophilia and crimes relating to it that you find amusing.Is that the only area you feel the need to minimise the damage caused.Why ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea of curing paedophiles is laughable, because what it boils down to is aversion therapy, brain surgery or castration. Psychiatrists don't offer 'cures' only snake oil salesmen do that.

      Are you saying some modern day genius has pinpointed the libido? Is it a gene? Is it a cell? Whatever, it is, it is a miraculous breakthrough, right up there with a cure for cancer, the Big Bang and Viagra. Wannabe despots can think of ways to wipe out complete nations, the humane way, by removing their sex drive. It's pure genius.

      You may think experimenting on human beings that no-one cares about is reasonable, but most of us find it gross. You say paedophilia is a psychiatric disease. Some say the same about alcoholism, which is generally accepted as being a lifelong 'disease'. There is no psychiatric cure for it. George Best received all sorts of treatments, including implants that would make his body physically reject alcohol, but sadly as we saw, it didn't work.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 February 2018 at 12:27

      ''The idea of curing paedophiles is laughable, because what it boils down to is aversion therapy, brain surgery or castration. Psychiatrists don't offer 'cures' only snake oil salesmen do that. ''

      It's laughable to someone who doesn't understand the area.The aversion therapy you're hinting at for sexually-related behaviour is from 1960. Brain surgery ? Where did you get that from ? The castration is chemical, not literal and, either way, this is culture - bound. It has been tried, and still is being, in the US. In he UK it hasn't, nor ever will be, as it's viewed as a violation of human rights.

      ''Are you saying some modern day genius has pinpointed the libido? Is it a gene? Is it a cell? Whatever, it is, it is a miraculous breakthrough, right up there with a cure for cancer, the Big Bang and Viagra.''

      No, what I actually said was :

      ''Just because a successful treatment has thus far evaded Psychiatry doesn't mean there isn't one, it means they haven't found one yet. ''

      ''You may think experimenting on human beings that no-one cares about is reasonable,''

      Did I actually say that anywhere ?

      ''You say paedophilia is a psychiatric disease. Some say the same about alcoholism, which is generally accepted as being a lifelong 'disease'''

      I didn't come up with it. Psychiatry did.

      ''George Best received all sorts of treatments, including implants that would make his body physically reject alcohol, but sadly as we saw, it didn't work.''

      Alcoholism requires more treatment to the mind than body.We're talking about the psychology of addiction rather than the psychology of impulse.My personal view is that the remedy to paedophilia will eventually be found to be a link between a hormonal imbalance and glandular dysfunction.

      Delete
  23. Ros I suggest you start a campaign to change the law on the viewing of images of child abuse/sexual abuse. You believe that those who view it are not committing any crime, should not be punished and they won't go on to commit any crime.

    You obviously feel very strongly about allowing people to view the images because you have been blogging about it and repeating your opinion for years.

    So go ahead - start your campaign - you could twitter your views - publish your views on Facebook, start a blog on what changes you demand and even start a government petition.

    You could tweet your opinion to Corbyn, Harry and Dr Bonn - those are the type of people who will add weight to your campaign.

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you start a campaign to get me hung, drawn and quartered - oh yeh, you already have, but you are scared to use your name. D. lol. Right hero you are ha ha, you cowardly little shit.

      I'll state my view on whatever I like whenever I like, we don't all have the need to start campaigns.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros

      It appears that you are taking a proverbial kicking on this subject once again. That's merely my observation after reading all of what has been posted here.

      My questions to you :

      Are you refusing to see common sense or recognise the overwhelming consensus is against you out of sheer bloody mindedness or intellectual vanity ?

      Have you always had difficulty, rather like 'Fonzie' did, in saying ''i was wrong'' ?( you could cure this one by saying ''you were right'' )

      Would you be prepared that you are probably the only person who can't see that contrariness is blighting your ability to hold a reasoned debate ?

      Delete
    3. ''I'm not allowing my blog to be spammed with abuse and feeble propaganda. So, tough. ''

      That seems rough.People contribute to your blog despite the abuse and feeble propaganda you post. From one or two posts previous to yours, i pick up that a few people are making contributions claiming only to question you and your ideas. Is that considered 'abuse' by you now ? That seems to be a pretty weak excuse for not publishing what you can't counter.That would suggest you have an agenda. And, of course, that your rant against censorship was merely to impress.

      ''I was hoping the story of the disabled man kicked to death might open your eyes to the tragedies this hysteria unleashes''

      I'm sure people don't need their eyes opening to mistakes that bring about tragic deaths. They know that it happens.That doesn't make it the norm.The Yorkshire Ripper was interviewed 5 times by policemen and still was only caught by chance 7 dead women later.So, do we replace the law with vigilantes ? No, because that mess of an investigation isn't the norm.

      We can all cherry pick examples to persuade people our way.Like those who find themselves with their backs to the wall mid -rant about the need for evidence against the McCanns pluck Brenda Leyland's tragedy from thin air...

      ''I'll state my view on whatever I like whenever I like, we don't all have the need to start campaigns.''

      You'll enjoy the liberty to express your views and opinions ( and occasional fact).But, those you address can do the same but wait for your approval as to whether or not they get published. Can you see a double standard here ?If you can't take a punch you shouldn't start a fight.

      You have managed to simplify one main point here. You've decided that those who are anti-paedophile are pro-vigilante. Like they're two ends of one stick.It isn't necessarily the case.There's little or no evidence on here that those expressing anger about paedophiles practices are calling for blood.They're trying to express common sense as well as legal definitions while, at the same time, point out the weakness of the defending of them on very shaky ground.

      Delete
    4. Yes I am taking a 'proverbial' kicking, again, it seems you child protectors and paedophile hunters use the same tactics with your critics as you use for your targets.

      Now that I've had my head kicked in, have I changed my mind? No, no more than all the beatings I took as child, made me believe in God. I guess I am stubborn. All that abuse in my spam box and I'm still here saying fuck you. Bummer eh?

      Delete
    5. I'm not defending paedophiles 20:51 - that big long rant and you still don't understand what I have been saying, as you finish by claiming I'm defending them 'on very shaky ground'. I am not those who harm children in any way, I never would - see my history.

      I just don't accept you can label people and find them guilty of a crime based on the images they have looked at. As I said earlier, many of us googled 'Leda and the Swan', ergo we are all guilty of looking at category A child abuse? Powers of arrest based on such fuzzy laws are downright dangerous - for all of us.

      You say you are not all crying out for blood, in the sense of stringing them up or kicking them to death, yet you are oblivious to the fact that accusing someone of being a paedophile IS a death sentence. Presumably you are all for dawn raids on families, parents being arrested, children seized and placed into care? All based on someone having looked at illegal images including cartoons. I can see how that kind of mentality could grip the public in the dark ages, but in the 21st century it is mind boggling.

      The idea that looking at pictures leads directly to heinous crime it ridiculous and it certainly isn't based on anything academic. That it is written into law is beyond belief, and I can only assume that is because the law makers, like the rest of us, find the subject too yucky to look into. And anyone who does gets a proverbial kicking until they change their minds.

      I accept that some people look at sick images, humanities love of blood and gore goes back to the beginning of time. Throwing Christians to lions played to packed houses and getting a good seat an execution was must, you could take your knitting.

      I'm talking about violence here, because those are the images I find the most traumatic, and sadly they can't be avoided, because they are everywhere. Though news reports and indeed movies do at least warn that some viewers may find the images distressing, and I have to say I am among those who appreciate the warning.

      Any form of abuse towards children, the elderly and the vulnerable should never be tolerated in a civilised society. Those abusing kids to make films and images should face the full force of the law.

      However, I don't hold with the argument that looking at an image is abuse. We are now in the bizarre situation, where we can watch kids having their limbs blown off on our TVs, but watching them playing in the bath leads to prison.

      And why should I be taking punches? For having an opinion? What kind of barbarian are you? Why must there be something bad and twisted about me because I don't share your views? Why should I hand my blog over to you because you and your gang have thrown the most punches?

      I know that I am largely fighting this battle on my own, though honourable mention to Bjorn who has taken on a quick jaunt through the history of art, and exposed the absurdity of the 'image' argument.

      Far nobler people than I have stood up against popular opinion and history has proved them right. Unfortunately for me I have opined on a taboo subject, one that is so controversial and emotive, I'm effectively going where angels fear to tread.

      I fully understand why so few are supporting me on this topic. No-one dare! And I don't blame them one bit, they are watching me get the proverbial kicking, and the 'do you surrender now?' before they stamp on my head.

      But my figures say they are watching, reading and learning, and I'm pretty sure, some are even taking off the emotional blinkers and thinking about the subject logically.

      If you have a reasoned, logical argument as to why you right and I am wrong, bring it on. But if you are not capable of showing decency and respect to me as host, forget it. This is not a showcase for your hatred of me, the only one who cares about that is you, and it's eating you alive.

      Delete
    6. "I just don't accept you can label people and find them guilty of a crime based on the images they have looked at."

      It's not about the images they have looked at, it's about the images that they have paid to look at. The images of child abuse are very rarely available in the mainstream internet - you would have to go into the dark web and would certainly have to pay to be able to access those images. Therefore,the person who is downloading and viewing those images is, by taking the step of using a credit card to pay for them, well aware of the crime that they are committing.

      Delete
    7. I'm beginning to think the dark web is an urban legend, like snuff movies. How come the police can't get into it?

      So the crime now, is not the images, it's the fact that they paid for them? By your logic, funding the industry.

      You have also said Child pornography is very lucrative? I'm not seeing tbh. It has a very niche audience and the makers must be constantly on the run. For collectors of trivia, early film makers chose Hollywood so they could 'break for the border' to escape Thomas Edison's patent police. I can't see that making illegal films is any easier these days.

      I doubt there is very much money in it at all, 1)tiny audience, 2)huge risk. Those making the films face a lifetime in prison, probably in solitary, how many would be prepared to take the risk?

      Delete
    8. My word, Ros, you are very naive and ignorant. The police access the dark web continously - I have to for my work and I'm not a policeman - I just have to investigate things. It is where you can buy all the things that you would normally not be allowed to buy legally and this is possible because of encryption and the use of multiple servers in different jurisdictions that is extremely difficult to track. It is simple to access - you just need to download a friendly browser like TOR (google, Firefox etc will not get you in).You really should do some research - the dark web is certainly not an urban legend.

      Please don't twist my words - images of child sexual abuse will normally only be accessible when paid for. The dark web makes it extremely difficult to track payments which have been used to buy or download images because of the reasons I set out above.

      Making films is far easier today than it ever was. You just need a camera and a ubs lead to upload the images. The use of the dark web will hide the person or people behind the making of the images.

      Your opinion that this is not a lucrative industry is unbelievably ignorant. Here are a few statistics that bring home the reality: -

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

      600,000 to 800,000 women, children and men bought and sold across international borders every year and exploited for forced labor or commercial sex (U.S. Government)

      When internal trafficking victims are added to the estimates, the number of victims annually is in the range of 2 to 4 million

      50% of those victims are estimated to be children

      It is estimated that 76 percent of transactions for sex with underage girls start on the Internet

      2 million children are subjected to prostitution in the global commercial sex trade (UNICEF)

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 February 2018 at 15:09

      ''I'm beginning to think the dark web is an urban legend, like snuff movies. How come the police can't get into it? ''

      ''''You have also said Child pornography is very lucrative? I'm not seeing tbh.''

      You won't see anything unless you look.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/01/ameliagentleman.philipwillan

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

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 February 2018 at 10:40

      '' As I said earlier, many of us googled 'Leda and the Swan', ergo we are all guilty of looking at category A child abuse?''

      Firstly, Leda And The Swan was a poem written by WB Yeats using a Greek Myth as a metaphor for the rape of Ireland by England. I didn't need Google for that as i studied anglo / irish literature a long time ago. Secondly, imagery created by a writer isn't a real image. Imagery in your mind is interpreted subjectively when expressed verbally. Some see it vividly, some see it faintly, some may not even see it at all. Artists representing Leda And The Swan depict a young lady, not a child, and a Swan.They all suggest an approach without the actual act, if we're sticking to detail.Photographs of sexual acts /abuse aren't so subjective. They're explicit.

      Delete
    11. Ros -

      ''If you have a reasoned, logical argument as to why you right and I am wrong, bring it on. But if you are not capable of showing decency and respect to me as host, forget it. This is not a showcase for your hatred of me, the only one who cares about that is you, and it's eating you alive.''

      It would appear, Rosalinda, that you're the only one being eaten alive. Partly(mostly) by paranoia, and partly by one or two of your contributors. Kudos for your never say die attitude.It might look a bit crazy, but it's somehow strangely heroic. very 'charge of the light brigade'

      Delete
    12. @ Ros

      ''I'm effectively going where angels fear to tread.''

      And where the sane have more sense than to tread.

      Delete
  24. But all the millions spent weren't spent on a search were they? They were spent on a cover up and cover ups don't come cheap. Nor does money laundering.
    I'm beginning to think the whole thing was an hoax. Did Madeleine even really exist? Photographs prove nothing .I just don't know what to believe any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Did Madeleine even really exist? Photographs prove nothing .I just don't know what to believe any more.''

      Have a lie down

      Delete
    2. 20.57 : Remember you said that. The joke could well be on you.

      Delete
  25. "in England, Wales and Northern Ireland Child pornography laws are covered by the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"), which made it illegal to take, make, distribute, show, or possess for the intent of showing or distributing an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. In the context of digital media, saving an indecent image to a computer's hard drive is considered to be "making" the image, as it causes a copy to exist which did not exist before.[1] Indecency is to be interpreted by a jury, who should apply the recognised standards of propriety.

    The prohibition of content on the Internet that is potentially illegal under this law by British internet service providers is however self-regulatory, coordinated by the non-profit charity Internet Watch Foundation (who has partnerships with many major ISPs in the country).

    The 1978 Act was extended in 1994 (by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) to cover "pseudo-photographs" - images that appear to be photographs. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 amended the age of subjects to which the act applied from under 16 to under 18. In 2008 the Act was further extended (by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) to cover tracings, and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. In 2009 all sexual images depicting under 18s, not just those that were derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs, were criminalised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, under which any possession of images also became a criminal offence (whereas before it was legal to possess hard copies of images so long as there was no intention to show or distribute them to others).

    Similar legal provisions exist in Scotland but the 1978 Act does not extend to there."
    --------------------------------------

    Note - laws have existed since 1978

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for publishing that D, it is interesting.

      The original Law looks fine to me, but the amendments should scare the hell out of everyone.

      ....recognised standards of propriety. Who is dictating the 'standards of propriety' and who recognises it? Is there a panel of experts wading through naked baby pictures deciding which are, or are not, obscene. Who volunteers for that kind of job, because right now I am picturing Ray Wyre, Tony Bennett and Mary Whitehouse. Or experts like Mark Williams-Thomas who saw sexual connotations in the make up pictures of Madeleine.

      The amendment that makes 'possession' as serious as distribution opens up a whole new criminal demographic, 750,000 of them, no less. It justifies the child protection industry, because it gives them 'real crooks' to go after. The makers of these horrific images are few and far between, and unreachable according to all the concerned citizens posting here. Ergo, with the addition of a few words, 750,000 new criminals have been created.

      Delete
    2. ''The amendment that makes 'possession' as serious as distribution opens up a whole new criminal demographic, ''

      Similar was said concerning the crack cocaine and heroin industry.Do we leave those found in possession alone then ? What about criminal fences ? Do we leave them alone and go after their supplier ? How many other laws would you like to see amended to protect criminals ? Or is it just the paedophilia area that angers you. Why do you always dismiss panels of experts and imply they have demons for wanting to do the unpleasant job rather than talk about the real demons out there that created the need for panels ?

      ''The amendment that makes 'possession' as serious as distribution opens up a whole new criminal demographic,''

      All successful industries are pyramids. The biggest layer is on the ground, the smallest at the peak.Both exist. But most arrests occur where the population is greater- the ground level. Several layers lie between there and the peak.But the peak is still there.

      Delete
  26. "Paedophile Matthew Falder has been sentenced to 32 years in jail after admitting 137 charges including rape and blackmail.
    Sentencing at Birmingham Crown Court, Judge Philip Parker QC said Falder's crimes began with voyeurism as a student, but escalated.
    He said Falder had a "lust to control other people", becoming an "internet highwayman" by contacting people on Gumtree, pretending to be a woman.

    Once victims complied, the court heard, the blackmail began.

    There were 24 victims, 18 of which were underage, three under the age of 15.

    Four of Falder's victims attempted suicide."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you think you could have picked him out of the 750,000? Or do you think the police should pick up the remaining 749,999 in case they do the same thing? I have never denied there are monsters out, I merely question that there are three quarters of a million of them.

      I agree that the internet has unleashed a whole new breed of predators, which is why education is vital. Ridding the internet of predators is just as realistic as ridding society of them in the real world. People are too unpredictable to ever feel 100% safe. But if we allowed our fears to govern us, we would never step out the front door.

      You may think this man's arrest and conviction validates your claim that 'it' is everywhere. Clearly it isn't, or this wouldn't have caught your eye. Is there not a date for that report, or an author?

      The question I suppose is, would Falder have been a hideous monster before the internet? Because for me 'the internet made me do it', is as abhorrent as 'I was just following orders'.

      Delete
    2. Not once have you produced anything other than your own belief. Despite the fact that these offences have historically been vastly under-reported, a Home Office study in the mid-1990s found that at least 110,000 men had a conviction for an offence against a child. So that was where the offence had been reported, the offender charged and a conviction obtained. It is likely to be vastly less than the real figure

      Seeing that the figure you keep quoting is a figure arrived at by experts and you have no expertise and have done no research whatsoever, I am far more inclined to believe them than you.

      Your final comment, that 'the internet made me do it' is total nonsense. YOU are the one that keeps suggesting this

      Delete
    3. Instead of quoting 750,000 every two minutes for effect, maybe you could talk about why you think the figure is a fiction. There must be some reasonable sources available you could quote rather than condemn it on the grounds that you just don't buy it.

      Delete
    4. ''I agree that the internet has unleashed a whole new breed of predators, which is why education is vital''

      People are educated in the areas of home security so make sure they have alarms. The same applies to cars.That's why they recognise the need for good locks and reliable alarm systems. It hasn't prevented car theft and burglaries from remaining prevalent.Education is only a part of the solution when talking about crime.There's a difference between letting our fears govern us and remaining vigilant.

      I note that you request a source of your poster.Does everyone have to validate the instances they mention except for you ?

      You need to understand that any 'monster' that emerges in a person was already there. The internet doesn't create monsters, it merely creates an arena that provides more shadows to hide in.Monsters emerged in many people before the internet.

      Delete
    5. Ros: "You may think this man's arrest and conviction validates your claim that 'it' is everywhere. Clearly it isn't, or this wouldn't have caught your eye. Is there not a date for that report, or an author?"

      It is the top news today on the BBC website and other news report.

      Delete
    6. @ Ros - I won't post the "yucky" details but the report is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43114471

      Extract:
      "Investigation timeline

      August 2013 - FBI begins its investigation into dark web paedophilia sites, identifying user known as Inthegarden and passing files to the NCA.

      April 2015 - The NCA investigate 666devil with "daughter" icon posting on a dark web forum. Officers discover links between 666devil, evilmind and Inthegarden while seeking to "safeguard" the girl.

      August 2015 - Suspect's webmail accounts are accessed, identifying the girl in his profile and further US victims. Taskforce set up between NCA, GCHQ, Homeland Security, Europol and Australian Federal Police.

      March 2017 - "Person of interest" identified at an address in Birmingham.

      April 2017 - Falder identified as the suspect.

      June 2017 - Falder arrested while at work at the University of Birmingham. Devices seized and Edgbaston home raided. Three days of questioning reveals Falder is behind 666devil.

      June to October 2017 - Falder admits to and is charged with 137 offences. A further 51 remain on file."

      D

      Delete
  27. Ros;

    The bit that I do not understand is why you think it is okay for people to possess these images.


    Perhaps you could explain that?

    ReplyDelete
  28. The only way that the Madeleine 'abduction' makes sense is, if it didn't really happen.
    Think about it.
    There's no way any of it adds up. There's no way any of it CAN add up. For me, there's only one possible conclusion. It never happened and yet here we are, 10 years down the line, still discussing it ad nauseam failing miserably to give it any credible structure.
    Time to bow out, I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''The only way that the Madeleine 'abduction' makes sense is, if it didn't really happen. Think about it. ''

      I've thought. An abduction only makes sense if it didn't happen ? I'll resist a linguistic analysis and just ask how that works..

      ''For me, there's only one possible conclusion. It never happened and yet here we are, 10 years down the line''

      For you,maybe. What are your credentials and what are those of the two police teams ? What would you call a credible structure ? The child was left in an apartment without adults. When the adults returned she wasn't there.

      Let me ask you and others who are trying to dismiss the abduction story :

      A child has gone missing from the apartment you left her in. How can you tell if it was an abduction ? What signs or clues would lead to the conclusion that an abduction seems to have taken place ?

      Delete
    2. What about the dogs Gerry?
      What about Operation Grange Hill?
      What about the non 'Window of Opportunity?'
      What about the 'witness' contradictions?
      What about.........................oh forget it, who's got time for this farce?

      Delete
    3. Ask Scotland Yard. Ask the PJ. Ask the team of forensic experts.

      Delete
  29. Hi Anonymous15 February 2018 at 22:44, Rosalinda and others.

    Interesting comment, much appreciated.

    ”Most abusive images of children will be made in countries where children are more vulnerable and their disappearances go unnoticed. Having lived in Bogota and Delhu, I have seen and met these street urchins. They live in a constant state of insecurity and fear”


    Yes, you're of course so right. It is in poor undeveloped countries with dictatorship or weak democracies that children suffer the most.

    In Bogota, New Dehli and in a lot of other big cities around the world, there’re vulnerable, abandoned and homeless children. I’ve personally experience that in Saint Petersburg.

    We should not forget all those who’ve fled to China from North Korea, especially young girls, who’ve become slaves and are exploited sexually, without being able to move on to the freedom in South Korea. Many of them may end up as abused victims in pornographic films. Wherever children are abused and neglected, society is responsible. Saving children from being used in whatever business by ruthless criminals, who exploit them is first of all a political issue, which should be dealt with, on a global level.

    Trump, in my opinion, could easily rescue all North Korean refugees in China, whereof many are children who’re sexually abused, if he just demanded China's co-operation in solving the problem.

    I’d rather discuss child pornography and abuse of children in the light of, or perhaps in the darkness of political failures in many countries to create human living conditions for their people, and for children in particular.

    We must never forget, that the inhuman socio-economic conditions were there long before the child sex industry on the internet was invented, and will remain, no matter how many paedophiles will be jailed and regardless of how many indecent images will be seized by our western authorities.

    In short, what I’ve tried to say here is, that there aren’t thousands of Fritzes abusing thousands of children in their basements, who keep the sex industry going, but the dire and unbearable living conditions in socially and economically underdeveloped societies.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I’d rather discuss child pornography and abuse of children in the light of, or perhaps in the darkness of political failures in many countries to create human living conditions for their people, and for children in particular"

      I'm sure you would.
      It would however be a redundant debate, given that most abuse happens in the home regardless of wealth, occupation, class or social standing.

      Delete
  30. Re Matthew Felder sentence

    A good post.

    With regard to the current discussion, the Felder case couldn't have been better timed. it's been argued certain types of people wouldn't be likely to engage in such terrible and sickening practices ( with no source to support that argument, by the way).Felder was a Phd ( yes - a 'Dr').

    The so called difficult line between art and sickening images has relevance to the case too. Felder posed as a female artist as a ruse to procure photographs from women. In the name of art, they complied.He then used the photographs to blackmail the women into the real agenda. To get them to go much further and with babies. This involved torture.I won't repeat the details.They're online in news reports.The difference between art and illegal porn/ CSA was easily distinguished by Felder, or else he wouldn't have asked for them. The women wouldn't have objected to them.What followed ( blackmail) is evidence that the difficulty in interpreting the difference doesn't exist.it's a poor argument in the defence of the laws that find the perpetrators guilty and of policing .

    Also relevant to this discussion was that a collective effort by combined task forces were successful. The dark web was at the nub of the case. I've seen it mentioned here that such a place may be an urban myth. I think we can put that to bed too.I've seen the question repeated regarding the producers of such filth and where they are and how they operate so well without capture. Felder managed to work around a filter system using trickery and blackmail before earning VIP status on sites on the dark web. A knowledge of the dark web and encryption techniques enabled him to achieve his ends.

    Also of relevance was that none of the victims were related to Felder, despite the ongoing claim that the most dangerous place is the home.Felder didn't have 'difficulty relating to peers' either, neither socially or professionally.

    In he meantime, Barry Bennell was being sentenced elsewhere. Another man who wasn't related to, or friends with, his victims. Nor did he have any difficulty relating to peers.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barry-bennell-child-sex-abuse-prison-sentence-football-coach-sexual-assault-crewe-manchester-city-a8217941.html

    Your take on all of this, Ros ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous19 February 2018 at 22:46
      Hi
      Just a new perspective on "blackmailing"

      ”The so called difficult line between art and sickening images has relevance to the case too. Felder posed as a female artist as a ruse to procure photographs from women. In the name of art, they complied. He then used the photographs to blackmail the women into the real agenda.”

      If we hadn’t had our culturally inherited fear of nudity and sexuality and our sickly prejudiced perception of how women should or shouldn’t be depicted in image form, it wouldn’t be possible to use any innocent images at all for the purpose of extortion.

      If more women, with the support of men, would just dare to challenge the patriarchy like the FEMEN movement does with all their brave topless female activists, Felder and his likes wouldn’t have a chance to do what they’ve done.

      How could a blackmailer possibly use any of the topless images of Inna Shevchenko or of her followers in order to blackmail them?

      Why cannot parents husbands and friends of those women/girls, whose ”artistic” images are circulating on the internet tell them, that they’ve no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of themselves, as we all have been living in an enlightened world since the French Revolution and that we don’t need to care the least about what the Pope, the Prophet Muhammad or the Archbishop of Canterbury tell us to do.

      Delete
    2. Oh Bjorn, I wish I could c/p your last 3 posts onto my latest blog, is there any chance you could re-send?

      You are right of course, the devastation caused to the victims is symptomatic of our 'Guilt Culture' and based on doctrines that are thousands of years old. The victims are riddled with guilt at what they have done, unaware, that their deed was harmless. Those who preach guilt and shame should have no place in the healing process.

      It reminds me of the argument that saw me banned from MMM. The topic of discussion was a picture of a young girl, aged about 12, with a nipple peeking from beneath her loose fitting blouse.

      I wasn't alarmed by the picture, even though it was the work of a convicted paedophile. The child looked beautiful, serene actually, no signs of distress or torture.

      MMM of course went into meltdown. The offending nipple was seen as clear evidence of a child being abused and continuing to be abused because the picture was made public. I couldn't see it myself, the girl was exceptionally beautiful and there was nothing perverse about the picture other than a hint of a nipple. And the chances are when she gets to old age, she can look back on the picture and say 'wow I was hot'. It's quite an experience seeing so many people so wound up by a nipple, by there you go.

      Sadly, Bjorn, like myself you can see major flaws in the dominant ideology, but we are facing far bigger mountains than you recently experienced. How many years did it take before a hint of stocking wasn't seen as something shocking?

      Amazingly, 100 years on from that frivolous song, this century's concerned citizens are seeing obscenity and perversity everywhere. Even in the partially exposed nipple of a teenage girl. How do you fight that kind of mentality?

      Delete
    3. "I wasn't alarmed by the picture, even though it was the work of a convicted paedophile. The child looked beautiful, serene actually, no signs of distress or torture."

      It is like you come from another planet, it truly is. It's not the image itself which is the problem - it's the fact that it's a sexualised image of a child, taken by her abuser. Do you not get that? You cannot argue that the image was beautiful and innocent yet at the same time acknowledge that it was taken by her abuser and that, given your suggestion that she would look back at it in later life and consider it ''hot'', it was clearly a sexualised image. You also seem to be completely unable to consider an image abusive unless it shows evidence of sadism or torture. It is as if for you, nothing less qualifies as abuse.

      You have lost touch with reality, I'm afraid

      Delete
  31. Ros - I am sure you have fully read about the falder case by now.

    Do you stand by your statement at 19 February 2018 at 15:09

    "I'm beginning to think the dark web is an urban legend, like snuff movies. How come the police can't get into it?"

    Incidentally - you have stated previously that you don't believe the dark web exists.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'As ECM, a non-profit, (Every Child Matters Education Fund) President Michael Petit wrote in a news essay published by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

    “Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The child maltreatment death rate in the US is triple Canada’s and 11 times that of Italy. Millions of children are reported as abused and neglected every year.”'

    https://americanspcc.org/child-abuse-statistics/


    "Why is the problem of violence against children so much more acute in the US than anywhere else in the industrialised world, asks Michael Petit, President of Every Child Matters."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15193530

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 08:17, that looks like an interesting article, I shall look it up.

      Delete
  33. @ Bjorn and Ros

    I'm addressing you both as one as it appears that the beast has two heads.

    Your defence of the obscene and those who keep it alive was, initially, misguided and ill judged. It wasn't thought out with any depth or objectivity. It was a case of just wanting to be different and, therefore, appear sharp. That would have worked had the ideas you post had any merit at all . They don't. Since then you have gone off on a tangent and your stubborn refusal to accept facts and research or opposing ideas that actually stand up has finally began to look quite disturbing. You're creating your own thin ice and alienating the few that give this blog a chance.

    ReplyDelete