Sunday 21 June 2015


Where has the idea come from that small (British) children in bathing suits are sexual beings?  Why are UK parents obsessed with the idea that people are trying to take photographs of their children for sexual purposes? 

The fear and hysteria around paedophilia stirred up by people like former head of CEOP Jim Gamble, make the UK look like a nation of paranoid weirdos.  Most holidaymakers, foreigners too, have cameras with them to take pictures of their holiday and their kids and their reasons for carrying them are no different to their British counterparts.   

The case of missing Madeleine McCann and the UK's Mainstream Media's desperation to find a foreign paedophile to take the rap, encourages badly behaved Brits abroad to fill their boots.  A 'heroic' Brit punches a Bulgarian for taking pictures of kids, and chief vigilante Jim Gamble steps forward to validate the brave man's actions. Every swarthy foreigner is a paedophile unless proven otherwise. 

It is a nothing story of course, there was no gang of human traffickers, nor any attempt to abduct children.  But these badly behaved Brits abroad gave the UK Mainstream media several days of sensational headlines that supported the British myth that all adult men, especially foreign ones (and some women) want to have sex with children. 

Schools in the UK now prohibit photographing or videoing children (even your own) when they put on plays and pageants.  The assumption being, that everyone with a camera has perverse motives. Parents accept that 'everyone is a suspect' (themselves included) without question and many have a bag of stones at the ready in case they hear the click of a camera where they shouldn't be one. 

Others are demanding that lone adults shouldn't be allowed to visit parks or public places where children are playing.  A lone poet taking the time to stand and stare would be hung from the nearest tree before JG could say 'he's a pervert, so he is'. 

So what is the truth behind this latest 'foreign paedophiles stalking kids like Maddie' story.  During the afternoon, a friendly Bulgarian momentarily put his arm around a 7 year old British boy.  By the evening, the British contingent had built a story of men taking photographs of kids and a cunning plan to abduct 3 (British) children.  All the (drunken) allegations were checked out by the police and none of the Chinese whispers had any foundation whatsoever.  The friendly Bulgarian the hero punched and the angry mob pounced on, had NO photographs of children on his camera and there was absolutely nothing to suggest he was part of gang trafficking British kids. 

It truly saddens me to see this era of fear and paranoia.  Fear and paranoia that has been artificially created by our wannabe protectors.  The truth is, the majority of people  (worldwide) see kids as kids!  Sometimes cute, sometimes irritating and unless they are their own, they prefer them in small doses.  I feel desperately sorry for today's kids, they are being sexualised by the people who are supposed to be protecting them.  Their natural childhood sense of awe and wonderment is being suppressed by the irrational fears of the adults around them.  The world is out to get them just as much as it is their fearful parents.

I doubt for one second that the 7 year old boy saw the friendly hug from a stranger as anything other than a friendly hug, but I doubt he will ever think that again.


  1. You are of course aware that you spent a long time on a forum that read sexual connotations into every photo of Madeleine ever published!

  2. I am indeed. In fact I am beginning to see much of what is written on CMoMM in a completely different light, though I should say, I did find the detailed analysis of some of the pictures and the sexual connotations they found, more than a little bizarre.

    1. " I did find the detailed analysis of some of the pictures and the sexual connotations they found, more than a little bizarre."

      What a strange choice of word to use "bizarre". You could have used wrong, disgusting, perverted etc.

      But of course you choose to play down reports of sexual abuse of children in so many of your posts despite having posted about your own sexual abuse on this very blog,

    2. Bizarre was the right word, and carefully chosen.

      I'm not playing down sexual abuse, I am merely pointing out that 'stranger danger' is the LEAST likely. Children are sexually abused in their own homes, by people who know them. They are not abused by weirdos on the internet or strangers in the park, they are abused by family, friends and their parents' partners. Eg. Instead of worrying about a stranger on a beach with a camera, a young mum should worry more about the boyfriend she moved into her home after 3 dates.

      And lets not forget, that physical abuse is far more prevalent, and in many cases terminal.

  3. I have also noted that whenever I have previously posted any in depth theories on CMMM ( with Mr. Bennet acting as a tyrant towards me whenever I had posted ), Only In America, Laidbare blogs etc they are instantly followed by long, distracting posts on subjects involving pedophilia & similiar fear propaganda. Who is doing this fear propaganda & why is still a mystery to me. Regards from W.B. Universe.

  4. I believe that the Bell Pottinger PR company was paid to protect Mark Warners worldwide, valuable childcare licence. I believe that Mark Warners nanny was minding Madeleine in apartment 5A when she fell off the top of the sofa (while holding cuddle cat, hence the cadavour odour) onto a tiled floor, smashed her head & sadly died. I believe the McCanns were terrified of an autopsy being done ( due to long term sedation, etc) & Warners did not know this when they offered the McCanns & Tapas group mega money to say that no Warner nanny was minding Madeleine in 5A when she died. I believe that Madeleine died on Sunday evening & that Bell Pottingers Crisis Management Team were employed very early on by Warners to assist with the coverup of their nanny minding Madeleine in apartment 5A on that fateful Sunday evening. Warners had too much to lose by this revelation, their worldwide valuable childcare licence & reputation. The McCanns had too much to lose if an autopsy was done (unknown to Warners) & it became a win/win situation for all concerned when the mega money deal was done. Follow the money trail. I believe that Lord Bell has boasted of his contacts in government & that he was paid to keep the McCanns (& Warners) version of their story in the newspapers. Warners are a client of Bell Pottingers PR company...join the dots. I believe that the 3 Mark Warner nannies, Catriona, Amy & Charlotte wrote their police statements under duress with Warners pressuring them to give Warners (& McCanns) version of events only. Later, they & the Tapas group found they were in too deep & would face pergury etc charges if they now told the truth. Pact of silence resulted. I believe that apartment 5J was used for short term storage of Madeleine's body in the fridge there from Sunday evening. (Gerry's large blue bag being used to take her body to apt. 5J). Access to this apartment would have been provided by Warners in conjunction with Pottingers Crisis Management Team. I believe that Warners & their CMT phoned Robert Murat to rush to PDL (using a pre-text ploy to get him there early in the week) to eventually have him offer his translating services to the up-comming police investigation to keep Warners informed of what the police were learning etc. The reasoning behind my beliefs of what happened to Madeleine are based on research of many years to help get justice for Madeleine & Mr. Amaral. All the above beliefs/theories that I have written are OMO (only my opinions) & are written "without predudice" & Gerry said at the Levenson enquiry that he was fine with/about people haveing theories on this case. Regards from W.B. Universe.

  5. I am still looking for any connection between Mr. Brian Kennedy (the wallet/financial benefactor) & the Bell Pottinger PR company &/or the Mark Warner company. Was he the financial front for Warners continuing to pay for the deception to protect their company & thus the McCanns version of events. Any information/connection from internet investigators would be greatly appreciated. thankyou from W.B. Universe.

  6. Basic stranger danger rules your child should know

    Never accept gifts or sweets from a stranger
    Never accept a lift in a car from a stranger
    Never go anywhere with a stranger
    Never go off on your own without telling a parent or trusted adult
    Never go up to a car to give directions - keep away so that no one can get hold of you and you can run away
    Always tell a trusted adult if you have been approached by a stranger
    Remember the Yell, Run, Tell rule - it's okay to run and scream if you find yourself in danger. Get away from the source of danger as fast as you can.
    If you find yourself in danger always run towards shops or other busy places with lots of people
    If you think that you are being followed, go into a shop or knock on the door of a house and ask for help
    Never play in dark or lonely places
    Stay with your group of friends - never wonder off on your own
    Never agree to do a job for someone you don't know in return for money - they may be trying to trick you
    Make sure your parents know where you are going and when you will be back. If your plans change be sure to tell your parents


    Strange but I don't see any mention of friendly hugs from stangers?

    1. Friendly hugs are clearly the work of Satan, you keep fearing them.

      I think it is disturbing the way in which the Madeleine case has left a legacy of fear in British parents, they are seeing paedophiles everywhere, especially when holidaying abroad. I think the behaviour of those parents at that Cyprus hotel is right up there with the appalling behaviour of England's worst football hooligans. There could well have been a tragedy, having decided the 19 year Bulgarian was paedophile, they went into full bloodlust mode and chased the poor guy and an innocent female bystander with God knows what intention on their minds.

      Even now the British MSM are pushing the idea that foreign hotels are filled with gangs of paedophiles on the lookout for children to abduct. I expect the hearts of hoteliers worldwide must sink when they see parties of Brits arriving - they probably have to warn all their waiters and staff not to speak to, look at or on any account touch a British child, God forbid.

      The saddest thing is that all this hysteria has been artificially manufactured to support a scam. How many UK tabloids run with sensational headlines about foreign gangs of paedophiles scouting holiday resorts and targeting British kids? So desperate are they to prove Madeleine was abducted, they have not considered the knock on effects, or truth be told, they just don't care. If an innocent man is battered to death by an angry mob, he will simply be collateral damage, sadly, just as Brenda was. The public must believe their children are at risk, or they won't need a multimillion pound agency or an army of vigilantes to protect them.

  7. Ros says: " Children are sexually abused in their own homes, by people who know them. They are not abused by weirdos on the internet or strangers in the park, they are abused by family, friends and their parents' partners."

    I suggest you contact all your local schools and give lectures to parents and children to pass on that message.

    Let me know how you get on.

    1. So you think it better to maintain the lie? Or more accurately the myth that the ONLY fear parents should have is from strangers?

      Let me try to explain it to you in the same way as Father Ted to Father Dougal. In the whole area of child sexual abuse, the chances of a child being sexually abused by a stranger are very remote, the chances of a child being sexually abused by a family member/person known to the child, are very high. Ask any adult who suffered abuse as a child, almost all of them will have been abused by someone they knew.

      Sadly, the media and indeed the public are so focused on sexual abuse, that physical abuse (the worse kind), emotional, and psychological abuse is often sidelined. Harsh disciplinarians for example, can leave lasting scars and fears.

      I would be happy to go to local schools and give lectures, I strongly believe that parents should be educated as to what to look out for, and how best to protect their children. Lone parents are particularly vulnerable.

      You believe people prefer to bury their heads in the sand and that I would probably get battered for daring to speak the truth, or maybe's that's what you are hoping? Its much easier and more palatable to imagine the threat to children comes from nameless, faceless bogeymen, but it simply isn't true.

      I actually believe parenting classes should be part of the National Curriculum. Many young parents no longer have their immediate and extended families around them, which was why SureStart was such a good thing.

      It is better to give a child confidence than a panic button and a lifelong dependence on a nanny state. Yes, kids will encounter weirdos on the internet, but they will encounter them in every other area of their lives as well, and those in the real world have the potential to be far more dangerous.

      We should all of course give our kids the very good advice above (many thanks), but there is no need to cripple them with fear. If a creep on the internet says something nasty (or even sexual), there is no need to go into meltdown and board up the windows. There is more chance you will win the lottery than there is of a deranged psycho troll climbing into bed alongside you. The fear of these trolls, is totally irrational. If you are insulted/abused as you go about your daily business, you don't demand 24 protection and the imprisonment of all potty mouths.

      I am trying to keep my head whilst all around me seem to be losing theirs. I feared for that young Bulgarian man, chased by an angry (British, oh the shame, the shame) mob, wired up on cheap alcohol and a daily diet of 'kids stolen from their beds like Madeleine McCann' stories.

      One poor woman has already died as a direct result of the British media's attempt to stir up an angry mob to target 'trolls'. Selected as the 'example' she was held up for ridicule, abuse and hatred. Sadly, she did not live long enough to see that that particular evil propaganda trick backfired.

  8. & yet this non story of an almost abduction in Cyprus, chinese whispers, (Brit tourist witness actual description), fiasco continues in the UK MSM with this in The Mirror yesterday 23/6/2015. An allegation by a parent following their alleged description of "incidents" in 2012 comes forward to the national press now
    Daily Star had it too.

    So presumably there's other parents who will back this this up who also saw everything & complained?

    Surely any responsible parents/guardians would have got together to plan next steps for the immediate & ongoing protection of all children at the place while they were on holiday?

    What did this person say when approached & asked about these alleged "incidents"? I presume that at least the parent who saw this & has gone to the UK press 3 years later asked the person for an explanation at the time if they were that concrened?

    Presumably there's ample pictures & phone camera footage of this person whilst allegedly taking picures specifically of children in & around the pool whilst other parents kept close watch over the children? Like I say all parents at the place at the time were involved in helping protect their children if there was a risk of abductors, paedophiles etc surely?

    You can obscure the face of the alleged "child stalker" of course UK MSM but until you can actually come up hard facts to back up any of the above I'm afraid I shall remain highly sceptical of such reports. Proof please not scaremongering & resort ruination, thanks x.

  9. Cristobell brilliant as always. I watched with absolute horror the pitchfork mentality which surrounded the MM case raise it's ugly head in support of this drunken mob of Brits. What sort of country do we now live in that foreigners of any sort are now seen as perverts and child snatchers. Of course you are right that the biggest threat is to children of vulnerable women who move men into their homes after 3 dates or who bring strangers into the house with young children after 1 date. Not that I'm saying that children from better off families weren’t at risk they were, in fact in their cases it was likely not to have been detected as quickly as they hid behind the cloak of respectability. My grandchildren now live in Australia and my daughter is bemused by the fact that complete strangers usually Asian will stop to admire the kids and take photos of them. No Malice intended they just like photos of blond haired white children. When news of the latest "full on attack" on British children reached Australia it was met with disbelief at the evidence presented which the British MSM were happy to run with. You have to wonder why there are not similar stories originating from Australia from paranoid Brits given their lax attitude to harmless photographing. I would hazard a guess that 1)It's so in your face is impossible to misread the Asian photographers intentions 2) it doesn’t support the Mcscam theory that we have been subjected to for 8 years i.e. European holiday resorts are filled with child snatching monsters.

    1. Isn't it more sensible to err on the side of caution rather than adopt a downright naive attitude to such a serious pandemic modern day disease?

      Innocently taking photographs of a strangers child because they like blond haired white children? I don't like the sound of that at all, why would anyone want to take photographs of a strangers child? I wouldn't dream of doing so, not because political correctness dictates but because the mere idea is preposterous.

      The world is full of dubious characters, it's therefore more sensible to bring children up to be street-wise and generally cautious and for parents and/or guardians to be mindful of potential dangers at all times. A good starting point would be to maximize on family togetherness rather than dumping the kids in their bedroom to amuse themselves or encouraging them to naff off somewhere because you can't be bothered to give them the attention they deserve.

      Very irresponsible to take such a lackadaisical approach to so serious a problem.

    2. There is a pandemic of child abuse? Seriously? If it is going on all around me, I have been blissfully unaware this past 40+ years.

      Between the ages of 11 and 15 I was in the care of the Catholic Church, more precisely, a convent run by nuns and devout laystaff, that is staunchly religious 'Uncles' and 'Aunties', who, like the nuns, were determined to set the children in their care on the 'right' path through discipline and physical/sexual abuse.

      Since leaving that evil institution at 15, and now approaching 58, I have never encountered people like that since. Thank God(s). Possibly because the moment I left, I abandoned all of the religion, the philosophy and the ideology that had been battered into me and I have fought against it ever since.

      As a young single mum, I was extra vigilant. Contrary to the belief that the abused go on to abuse, in most cases, the opposite is true. I was and still am, a ferocious mummy tiger as indeed are my peers.

      I was no angel as a young single mum. I worked hard, played hard and loved to party as did the people I mixed with, and like young people the world over, we were into each other, not kids. Where my kids were concerned, there was no compromise, they were part of my life and my TOTAL responsibility. I could not, and would not, allow anyone to interfere in the way I was bringing them up. Probably why I remained single, but in any event, control freaks quickly move on if they can't take charge.

      I have of course met people like those from the convent in the intervening years, like my peers, I can spot them in a nanosecond. Though they send chills down my spine, they no longer scare me, the power has shifted, I'm now an observer.

      Child abuse both physical and sexual is indeed pandemic 23:24, but not in the ways you are suggesting. The care system has allowed decades of abuse and kids seized by the authorities have had their lives wrecked, the prisons are full of them as adolescents and adults. Historically, it is kids in care who are used and abused by organised gangs.

      Sadly however, most kids are abused by people they know within their own homes. Such is modern life, people change partners and predatory paedophiles and sadists actively seek out vulnerable women and children - society, sadly, is full of vulnerable people. Paedophiles don't need to spend hours on the internet grooming children, the cunning ones already have access to kids in the real world.

      I know that is an unpalatable truth, but not only are the pages of Take a Break full of stories by women who have been taken in, we know too many in the real world as well. And it is not confined to any specific class, being battered for not doing your homework or being raped hurts just as much in a mansion as it does in a council house.

    3. 14:09. Crazy isn't it? This generation of British kids with all the technology available, will have fewer photographs of themselves than their parents!

      I had to laugh at the shock, horror and outrage of the poster who followed you. Stop the press, little blonde kids are attractive. Actually all kids are gorgeous, and funny and cute, even other peoples (sometimes, lol). I am at an age where I ask young mums if I can peek in their prams, because their babies' little faces make me smile all day. And the mums are happy too, because most mums will bask in and remember every compliment their little one receives.

      I loved travelling with mine when they were little. Both were little blonde cuties and the waiters and staff always made a fuss of them, it was one of the treats of travelling to a foreign land. Other countries don't seem to have the weird hang ups that we do and a friendly waiter who interacts and plays with the kids will usually be part of the happy holiday memories. What a tragedy that the British press are now portraying them as predators.

      Parents (non fearful ones) love it when their children are made a fuss of, praise the child, you make love to the mother - which may be what some waiters have on their mind, lol.

      This whole idea that photographing children is somehow sexual, gives me the creeps. Who the hell thinks that? The assumption that everyone does is not only insulting, it is off the scale bizarre. There is a sinister, almost '1984' aspect to this yucky ideology, almost as if seeds of distrust are being planted between parents and their children.

      We have almost reached a stage where people can be arrested or pounced on, for carrying a camera on the beach! Should one child make friends with another children, express permission must be sought before taking images of proud kids with sandcastles! WTF!

      I fear if Renoir had set up an easel on a Benidorm beach, the Brits would have spit roasted him.

    4. Shock, horror indeed christobell. Anon at 23:24 I have a "downright naive attitude to such a serious pandemic modern day disease" omg I was talking about an innocent photographing hobby of Asians I didn't realise that was such a Hugh red flag in identifying peadopillia . If only Father Brendan Smith from our community had taken a few photos of children then we may have identified him years before he was able to do so much damage. I mean the taking of photos of children is a much bigger red flag than the ones the church leaders, parents and teachers missed. You know the red flags like the terror in a child face when he visited the school and ask for a quiet word with them, or the red flag when the doctor diagnosed him with peadopillia. Maybe the red flag where the father of a 13 year old reported him directly to the cardinal wasn't quite up there with taking a photograph of a child or where a young priest was prepared to have a stand up fight with him in front of a class full of 7 year olds rather than let him into the school. I mean come on get yourself together there are serious crimes relating to taking and distributing images of children, not being too familiar with this legislation i would hazard a guess that it's not images of children playing on a swing that concerns the authorities. JG was a police officer in our community he has more than enough experience of the dangers of mob mentality particularly in such a volatile community as ours was. The fact that he has set aside all the experiences he has had at home in support of his latest agenda beggars belief. That's twice he has waded in there with his vigilante a boots, it had already led to 1 death was he hoping for 2 this time around.

  10. Ros what is your relationship with Teddy ‏@TeddyShepherd

  11. Jim's agenda seems to be to convince the British public that their children are in constant danger of online predators. I believe his dream is to set up some sort of child protection agency to carry out 24/7 surveillance of the internet, made up of, err, a team of vigilantes.

    As you have rightly pointed out, for those intent on interfering with kids, photography is way down on their list of priorities. One of the saddest aspects of a being a care leaver is the LACK of photographs they have of themselves as children. I left the convent with NO photographs, and it is only in recent years as I have met up with my peers, that the very few pictures of us that existed, have emerged.

    I am not denying paedophile gangs exist, but when they are live and in action, the whole of society knows about it - children disappear from the streets as in the case of Sidney Cooke and his gang and the horrors of Marc Dutroux in Belgium. These gangs and indeed wiley operators like Savile were not scouring the internet for victims, not because it wasn't up and running, but because they didn't need to!

    The internet leaves a paper trail, or more accurately, a cyber trail, for paedophiles, individually or in gangs - their use of the internet will provide all the evidence the police will need to prosecute them in the event they are caught. Ergo, it is probably the least likely way in which a gang or an individual would select a victim.

    Kids and young people are far more computer savvy than their parents, and in most cases way ahead of us when it comes to safety online. The best, or I should say, the only way, in which to protect them is to give them confidence and tell them the truth! A potty mouthed troll on the internet can't harm them! Confirming their worst fears, calling in the police and demanding new laws (Richard & Judy) will turn your already nervous child into a basket case.

    In order for Jim to get his child protection agency, he must create the fear, and the MSM seem to be more than happy to oblige as we saw with the NON abduction story from Cyprus.

    Nothing arouses anger and hysteria so much as the subject of child abuse, most people shy away so the discussion is led by those who know the least about it. And worse, it is being picked up on by self appointed vigilantes who are taking the law into their own hands. Angry mobs are not rational and that recent incident could well have resulted in tragedy. Until people, politicians especially, start to discuss the subject logically this danger will continue to escalate, unfortunately spreading hysteria has that effect.