Friday 3 July 2015


In terms of evolution the internet has taken a giant leap for mankind, for the first time in history, EVERYONE has access to information and for those who rule us that is a terrifying and dangerous prospect.  We have already seen the power of the internet in the Middle East revolutions and on the streets of our cities.  Groups, gangs, protestors can contact each other within seconds. The people now have ways and means in which congregate with lightning speed, something no major 'Power' has ever had to face before. 

Probably the biggest hit the 'authorities' have taken is loss of media control - they can no longer, edit, censor or sanction the news, the truth is always one click away.  Education is spreading, not nearly quickly enough, but it is spreading nevertheless.  We are no longer a nameless, faceless mob, we are real people and we have a voice and a means with which to check out the truth behind those sensational tabloid headlines for ourselves.  Those in the news are no longer protected by their celebrity status, social media, twitter especially, has been a great leveller. 

Sadly, most societies are built on deceit, it is, arguably, the only way in which to maintain law and order.  If those who keep the wheels of society spinning in motion had to account for each and every one of their actions those wheels would stop spinning.  It's a rotten job, but someone's got to do it. 

The problem with power, is that once you get it, you then have to spend every minute of your day (and all your days thereafter) trying to hang onto it or get it back.  Kenneth Williams as Caesar in Carry On Cleo captured it in a nutshell 'infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy'.  History is littered with tyrants and despots (some who even set out with good intentions) who have had to be executed, hide in bunkers,  jump off yachts or be carried off in straight jackets.  Tony Blair became a Catholic.

At the moment there is a 'media war' going on.  The newspapers are losing readers in droves.  Most of us now turn to the 'net' for our news and updates and if a story catches our eye, the means to investigate it further, is at our fingertips.  We know that headlines like 'Madeleine was stolen by a swarthy paedophile gang' are rubbish, some of us are even offended that we are being treated as half wits.  Tis true to say the majority of people live such busy lives that they rarely have time to read beneath the headlines of most stories.  Governments are dependent on lethargy, its tried, its trusted, its reliable.  Most people don't care, and there is no point beating ourselves up about it, if we are living life to the full, we have to prioritise. 

The Madeleine Mystery is not a priority for most people, it is just a news story like any other.  But those of us who were gripped by it uncovered a rabbit hole full of doors with bleddy great big question marks on them. The Madeleine story may have made the tabloids millions, but it has also exposed the murky way in which 'spin' has been used by the mainstream media to manipulate public perception.  Many people are now seeing they can no longer trust the tabloids, people who would formerly have believed everything they read.  Ultimately, I believe the McCann story will cost newspapers millions of readers.  I think we are probably witnessing the fall of newsprint and the traditional media moguls, how many people still buy a daily newspaper?

Why the Need for Scaremongering?

Like their forefathers, today's 'authorities' must convince the masses that education is bad for them.  And in this context, education means internet and information.  Information equals power, and at this present time there is no way of restricting it to a chosen few.  Should a computer expert devise a system of policing the internet, within hours, a more advanced and probably younger, computer expert will discover ways in which to get around it.  Most kids snigger at parental controls.  Fact.

The only way in which to persuade people to give up their freedoms and vote for legislation to police the internet, is by persuading them that they, or more specifically, their children. are in danger.  Allowing the 'authorities' legal access to all our personal files would allow any government to arrest any citizen on any charge.  Claiming our children are 'at risk' is a back door way in which to police the internet with the public's full support.  Anyone objecting would be seen as a)having something to hide, or b)a paedophile defender. 

According to last week's headlines, there are 750,000 male paedophiles out there, or 1 in 4, or whatever sensational stats you can pull out of those figures.  These figures are not coming from psychologists or academics, they are coming from police sources and in reality they are meaningless.

750,000 men waiting to do what?  Are they on the verge of attack? Is the danger to our children imminent?  Have we entered the world of Philip K. Dick, where people who 'might' commit a crime need to be arrested and dealt with for the good of society?  Are we so short of real crime that we have moved onto thought crime?

Unfortunately for Jim Gamble and the Police Federation, Theresa May is a Capitalist with a big 'C' - she understands the power of spin and the way in which different crime areas compete for funds.  Western society is dominated by capitalism, even during the Labour years it was encouraged.  Our local Councils. actually ALL our public services are now run as businesses - that is, they are run for profit.  Their primary objective is no longer to serve the people, but to make cash (under the guise of serving people).  It has all happened so gradually most of us didn't even notice, but in retrospect, it does explain why you will get a £60 parking fine if your tyre goes 50cm onto a white line and no reply to your request for a new bin. 

The police, like every other public body compete for public funds. They are never going to say, 'things are improving, so you can give us less money next year'.  A more cynical commentator might say they have an agenda to exaggerate the scale of the problems they face and the amount of work that they do. 

Imagine for a moment that the police are not public servants, and that we live in a capitalist society where private security companies compete with each other to protect us?  Their funding being dependent on how much protecting they do?  As a society, our most precious possessions are our children, and when it comes to protecting them, money is no object and rationality flies out of the window.  Whenever there is a baying mob, sure as eggs is eggs the more hysterical will be shouting 'think of the children' - those thinking of the children being the most popular and the vote winners.

Fortunately, defenders of Freedom of Speech are in the majority and those trying to seize power of the internet (and thus get back control of the news) will always face huge opposition.  Whenever the powers that be take away our freedoms they tell us it is for our own good, our own protection. Creating imaginary danger goes back to biblical days, it keeps the mob in line, in order to stay under one safe, enclosed, protective roof, they have to obey the rules.

We all have an innate need to be protected, to pass responsibility for ourselves onto a higher power, be it a God, someone in authority and/or an alpha male/female.  We are pack animals, we prefer to be in a group, hermits are rare, or perhaps I should say were rare, because technology is creating a whole new army of hermits, people who rarely see the light of day or interact with anyone outside cyber world, but that is a whole new argument.

Most people opt for law and order, they moan about jobsworths and petty bureaucracy, but they understand the need for it, its a rotten job etc.  We have created a society in order that we don't have to look after ourselves from scratch, that is, physically do our own hunting and gathering, house building, repairing of broken limbs etc. We are no longer responsible for life as individuals. Phew. On the whole, we are happy that there are people higher up the food chain who will make our decisions for us and we trust them to make those decisions for the greater good.  If the authorities tell us the enemy is at the gate, why would we doubt them?  Kings have always needed money for armies to protect their subjects, in fact protection money makes up a large proportion of our taxes, it's something we never question.  We demand more police on our streets, we demand well equipped armies and weapons of mass destruction that can never be used. We believe everyone is out to get us, and we believe those protecting us know best.  If they tell us a Muslim guy in the deserts of  Iraq is arranging with pals in the UK to steal a British child via Facebook, why should we doubt them?

In most instances it is better not to know the truth, knowing everything would drive us insane.  However as Nietzsche said far more eloquently than I, there is NO higher power, no God to relieve us of self responsibility and those who believe themselves to be Gods, really aren't.  Sadly, those who think they are God are the ones aiming for the top jobs and so intent on their goals are they, that they usually succeed.  For some, their domain may simply be a stretch of highway with notoriously bad parkers, for others it could be an entire country.  Their confidence in themselves knows no bounds, and such is human nature, it inspires others to believe in them, the leaders that is not the traffic wardens. If a leader tells us they will take control and make everything right, we can breathe a sigh of relief, check in our baggage and go out to play.  We all have an innate desire to designate so we can crack on with what we really want to do without being bothered by boring details.

The scramble to get higher up the food chain is rarely a pretty sight because all the goodies are at the top and those who have reached it ain't letting go.  It takes a certain kind of madness to hang on in there until the bitter end.  For the majority of us, the battles rarely make any difference, one set of despots is much like any other, and unless new policy affects us directly, we do little more than grumble. It's the British way.  And it is the way in which Governments chip away at our freedoms without anyone noticing. 

Freedom of speech, or more accurately, Freedom of Information is probably the biggest threat to every government worldwide and there is very little they can do about it.  At present.  In order to gain control, they need laws to access every individual's private information.  A government that knows everything about its' people will stay in power forever.  Protesters, rebels, subversives could be rounded up in moments.  Those who say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear are being na├»ve.  Whilst they may have nothing to hide under an incumbent government, that might not be the case under the next - if there is one.  They are also signing away the liberty of their children and future generations.

Governments have historically used foreign wars to maintain power over their own populations, the enemy was far away and unseen and united the people as one.  A common enemy is the foundation of many friendships and mutual admiration societies and it brings crowds together in a way that (almost) nothing else can. 

In recent years the war has been against the adjective 'terror', and the public are united against the terrorists who hide among us, dawn raids are applauded, swarthy men are marched off in handcuffs with hoods over their heads, heroes are created, terrorists don't deserve any human rights - they are terrorists!  And no government would misuse terrorist laws to arrest innocent citizens right?

This year's witches are the paedophiles and the perverts.  The gangs hiding among us plotting dastardly schemes on the internet (thus leaving a cyber trail) and single adults having the audacity to go for a stroll in the park on their own.  For most of us, fear for our children's safety overrides reason, and we believe that those higher up the food chain (professionals especially), know better than we do.  We suppress our own instincts because we lack faith in our own judgment.  We prefer to 'ask the audience' than make a decision ourselves. 

So successful has the stranger danger message been, that the public now believe all adults (men especially), unless proved otherwise, are paedophiles.  So strong is this ideology, that people automatically go into a defensive mode in order to prove they are not paedophiles themselves.  They overthink, over explain, and overcompensate by declaring how much they despise paedophiles and in some cases they will join in an attack, or set themselves up as vigilante internet warriors.  Nothing says you are not a paedophile, like punching one or hating them more than anyone else.  Asking a hostile mob not to string up an elderly man with learning difficulties for leering at schoolgirls will get you hung alongside him.  A paedophile defender is even worse. 

But lets get down to the nitty gritty, the underage images online that demand a police clampdown on the internet.  Surely the best way to protect the children being used in these images is to arrest the film makers!  I know there is a supply and demand argument, but the present approach of CEOP to child porn is comparable to the drug police arresting all the addicts and ignoring the suppliers!

The truth is, most underage images online are being sent by randy teenagers to each other, which is fair enough, their hormones are raging and its what kids do, but should one of those images accidentally end up on the pages of anyone over 18, they could, literally speaking, be charged with possessing child pornography and placed on a sex offenders register.  And if someone really wanted to arrest you, you could be done for your holiday snaps or taking a picture of your child in school play!

Because child abuse is such a taboo subject, reasonable, logical people are not getting involved in the debate.  No-one dare question the facts and figures supplied by the police and the 'experts' for fear of being accused of being defenders of paedophiles, or worse still, paedophiles themselves.  It is probably the worst accusation anyone can have against them, it destroys lives.  Thirty nine men committed suicide as a result of Operation Ore. 

Unfortunately, unless the academics,the intellectuals and those with common sense speak out, the lunatics will take control of the asylum and people will find themselves facing sexual deviancy charges for taking pictures of their toddlers making sandcastles.  Schools are already banning photographs and there are demands for lone adults to be banned from parks. The 'think of the children' brigade have thousands of followers and they have lost the power of reason - we almost saw a tragedy last week in Cyprus.

Convincing the public of the need for a rigorous child protection unit has been the subtext to the Madeleine McCann Mystery all along.  As head of CEOP JG wanted to break away from the National Crime Agency, and form his own quango - a government sponsored agency dedicated to protecting children from predators on the internet.  Jim is a gadget man, he loves technology, and he understands its' power.  Fortunately, so too do those who own the powerful social networks which is probably why CEOP remained with the NCA, and Jim moved on.

Sadly, Jim is not the only one who can see the potential of the internet.  Child protection is a very lucrative business. it's an emotive subject that unites the public and the politicians and its an area safe from financial cuts. It may even be an area the police could outsource to private companies, so kids can be extra safe. 

Madeleine McCann went missing at a time when the incumbent government were promoting a nationwide bank of our DNA and micro chipping of our newborns in the zillion to one chance that they might be abducted.  Poor Maddie was the poster child, the little blonde cherub stolen from her loving, responsible parents who were entirely blameless and also church goers.  Her's was not the face of a spotty, sullen teenager who had gone off in a huff, it was the face of an innocent, appealing toddler, snatched in the night.  Her face quite literally launched a thousand appeals. 

Her parents, as well as producing an amazing campaign for their daughter, also quickly became involved in the Amber Alert System.  Ostensibly, a way in which to quickly track stolen children, but in reality, a way in which to enforce stricter border controls. 

Gerry and Kate are typical obnoxious little Englanders, they believe themselves to be a cut above our European neighbours, which is why they have always treated the Portuguese with such disdain.  They are also part of the school of thought that believes 'if we ban everything for other people, our lives will be better', their enthusiasm for Hacked Off was above and beyond.   If people are forbidden by law from saying nasty things about them, the McCanns believe everything will be alright and they will get the respect they deserve.  And it goes without saying, that newspaper editors, journalists etc, should abide to rules similar to those doctors have to, or be thrown in jail.  I suspect the liberalism and power hungry world of the media world must have been quite a shock to them, but to their credit, they quickly got the hang of it.



  1. Speaking for myself I enjoy reading your articles so do not stop writing.I do not always agree with your point of view (IMO a good thing) but this article is spot on.

    The powers that be would like to strangle free expression but there are always a few plebs that will not obey.
    Long may it remain that way!

  2. So how would you suggest the Police monitor the activity of paedophiles who use the internet to view, meet or publish films of their acts?

  3. I honestly don't see how a dedicated police force watching child pornography online 24/7 helps anyone. How many abusers have been arrested, how many children have been rescued from exploitation?

    The most evil paedophile gangs we have seen over the years have been caught because people of good conscience have blown the whistle and it is probably the most effective way still. Money needs to be pumped into the frontline services, those who deal with dysfunctional families and troubled teens, especially now in these times of austerity. Kids who are secure and confident will not fall prey to online predators. The best form of protection for children, must come from the home, the family and through education.

  4. April Jones.

    1. The tragic case of poor little April Jones had nothing to do with the internet.

  5. "More than 100 Britons were among 1,000 men caught trying to pay a computer-generated child to perform sex acts online, after a Dutch children's charity set up a fake profile."

    1. A 'computer generated child' - an avatar? A cartoon?

      So a 1000 men are being prosecuted for attempting to have sex with an avatar, meanwhile in the real world how many kids are being physically abused and battered and why do their needs come so far below those of a computer generated child?

    2. I believe the computer generated child was a fake image and a program created to respond, not an obviously fake thing. Also those men were trying to abuse a child, that they latched onto a sting instead of an actual child is down to luck.

    3. Not sure where luck comes in. The computer generated child and the obscene actions etc, were the product of someone's imagination and the subsequent behaviour was invited. Some might call it incitement.

      The world of violent online games has a huge following globally, the players actively shooting up towns, villages and their opponents accompanied by graphic special effects. None of their online gaming carries through to the real world - if it did people would regularly be charged with grand theft auto and mass murder.

      There is a separation between reality and fantasy, particularly online. People behave online in ways they would never dream of in the real world. Cyber violence and cyber sex has little to do with reality,

      I would actually be more concerned about the minds that came up with interactive child sex, rather than the ones they were trying to entice with it.

    4. Rosalinda, you're trying very hard to defend predatory men even though you might not think you are.

      The men charged were attempting to meet up with what they thought was a child in order to abuse, stop defending it.

    5. I thought they were attempting to view child abuse images. Are you saying the 650 men were trying to meet with 650 children?

      I am not defending anything, I am merely trying to get the details Dawn - how can we debate the subject if we don't have the facts?

      And why shouldn't I ask what these men are being charged with? You are telling me to stop defending these men so presumably you have already found them guilty and have condemned them. Isn't everyone entitled to present a defence, even the most savage of murderers are entitled to a fair trial. With paedophilia, a single accusation is enough to ruin a life and so great is the fear of being accused, that literally no-one will speak out against the injustice that is going on.

      Just as throwing outcasts on bonfires in the past never cured society's ills, it won't cure them now. It's not the misfits and the mentally disabled we should fear, it is the well clad pillars of the community who are pointing the finger.

      If the powers that be really wanted to tackle child abuse, they would be tackling the root causes, the poverty, the ignorance, the predators who have direct, daily, contact with vulnerable children.

      For every weirdo on the internet that the police arrest, 100 will take their place. The only control each of us has, and that includes our children, is the way in which we react to their anti social behaviour. We can choose to be terrified and baton down the hatches, or we can say 'whatever' and move on.

      The best gift you can give a child is confidence. In homes where the lines of communication are always open and kids are confident in themselves and secure in their surroundings, the internet will pose no danger whatsoever.

      Most kids go slightly loopy when they hit adolescence and beyond infuriating, but underneath the acne and the raging hormones, they are still the same loveable little tykes they always were and they will carry the same morals, values and outlooks as those who have loved them, taught them and raised them. The foundations are firmly in place.

      Sadly, there are vulnerable youngsters out there who may slip through all the safety nets, and those are the only ones the predators online have a chance of reaching. The best way of helping these kids is through education and support services in schools - they become vulnerable when they have no-one to confide in. They need counselling and support or they will be victims all their lives. That is, predators in every area of their future lives will hone in on them.

    6. Rosalinda, follow the conversation better.

      The original comment references that more than a 1,000 men were caught trying to pay what they thought was a child to perform sex acts.

      These men were not just innocents wandering accidentally into this, they would have ABUSED a CHILD if the account had been that of an actual child rather than a string. They probably have abused children prior to that.

  6. " Although the Internet did not create child predators, it has significantly increased the opportunities predators have to meet victims while minimizing detection. They can communicate with children anonymously through instant messaging, social networking sites, chat rooms, message boards, and even cell phones.

    Online predators do not fit any one mold or stereotype; seemingly upstanding citizens have been caught enticing children for sexual acts. Contrary to popular belief, most online predators are not pedophiles. Pedophiles target pre-pubescent children, while online predators typically target adolescents who engage in risky online behavior."

    1. I would argue that the internet significantly increases the chances of predators communicating with children online and that it minimizes detection. Everything online produces a cyber trail, which of course is far more incriminating than a paper trail.

      Adolescents and even younger kids are not as stupid as these 'protectors' seem to think, in most cases their understanding of the internet goes way beyond that of their parents. And, as I keep repeating, the only way to protect a child is from within. That is by telling them the TRUTH, there are people out there who will abuse them, but in almost every case, it will be someone they already know.

      It is impossible to wipe out an unseen, unknown, enemy, there is no definitive way of knowing how many potential predators there are in the cyber world or the real world. It is all speculation. There could be thousands, there could be a handful and all their motives will be different. Some men who are labelled paedophiles simply have difficulty relating to adults, J.M. Barrie and Hans Christian Anderson for example, would almost certainly have been labelled offenders.

      The word paedophile is either used as a battlecry or whispered in hushed tones, many people are reluctant to spell it out in full as they know it is a key word that will be honed in on by the 'watchers' and might incriminate them. As we daren't type it, how are we supposed to discuss it?

  7. "More than 650 suspected paedophiles have been arrested as part of a six-month operation targeting people accessing child abuse images online."

    1. 650 'suspected' paedophiles?

      'Suspected' is of course the key word here. Presumably they are suspected of being paedophiles because they looked up child porn online? I would be interested to know the link being looking at child porn online (including cyber generated cartoons) and child abuse. Will ALL of these 650 suspected paedophiles go on to abuse? Has it been proven?

      The internet, as we all know, is full of pornography - sex is largely made up of fantasy, even in the case of happily married couples, and it is little if anything to do with the way people behave in the real world. If it did, the chances are, your boss would turn up for work in a gimp suit and your wife would be dressed as a slutty French maid.

      People have weird taste in porn. Fact. But happily the majority keep their bizarre fantasies to themselves or share them with their partners and maybe others with similar tastes. As long as they don't scare the horses or involve children, no-one really cares.

      Everyone, without exception, lives in fear that their deep, dark, carnal desires will become public knowledge, and in acrimonious divorces, it usually does. The News of the World gave us decades of smut, filth and how's your father, and we lapped it up - nothing more titillating than reading about the quirks and fetishes of the great and good.

      I accept that most societies are probably dens of iniquity and a hotbed of vices, but if they are, they have passed me by (sadly), and it must be said, almost everyone I know (unless they weren't telling me), because thus far I have only read about. Just as I have never been surrounded by heroin addicts, I have never been surrounded by sexual deviants or paedophiles either (apart from the convent). And I have led far from a privileged life, I have lived in areas where postmen and policemen fear to tread and found myself in crazy places, but I have never encountered a bogeyman.

      To be honest, I fear for these men who have been arrested. What is the connection between watching obscene images and going on to commit abuse in real life? In the 'normal' porn world, people are shackled, lashed and dressed in nappies, but they wear normal clothes in their day to day lives and spanking employees would be frowned on. We need to separate reality from fantasy.

      I know that what I am saying will not be popular, but these 'suspected' paedophiles are being arrested for thought crime - especially in the case of the computer generated child (wtf?). Most people do not act out their sexual fantasies, if they did the prisons would be overflowing.

    2. Rosalind, you do realise that the men in question are not looking at fantasy images, they are looking at images of children being abused, it's NOT a victimless crime.

    3. @ Ros 09.44

      maybe you should have looked at the link I provided:

      "More than 650 suspected paedophiles have been arrested as part of a six-month operation targeting people accessing child abuse images online.

      The National Crime Agency (NCA) said among the 660 were teachers, medical staff, former police officers, a social services worker and scout leader.

      More than 400 children have been protected as a result, the agency said.

      Child protection experts have praised the arrests but warned they were "the tip of the iceberg"."

    4. You didn't provide a link and I think you should. 650 or is it 660 men have been arrested and you are claiming among them are teachers, medical staff etc and 400 children have been protected. If there are as many professionals as you claim then the number of children protected would surely run to thousands?

      You also claim that this is just the tip of the iceberg? So effectively, all our public services NHS, Education, Social services, police etc are chocoblock with paedophiles? Oh and one scout leader. Who knew?

      So what are these hundreds, or is it thousands, of weirdos watching? and who is supplying it? The scale of the problem suggests studios on par with MGM so how are they going undetected?

    5. I did provide a link - it is in my post original post

      "Anonymous3 July 2015 at 21:23

      "More than 650 suspected paedophiles have been arrested as part of a six-month operation targeting people accessing child abuse images online.""

      My comment at 18:03 - included a quote (hence the quotation marks) - they are not my words but from the article on the BBC.

    6. Apologies, I have now looked at the link and it makes chilling reading. I see Jim Gamble is in there pushing the agenda, no surprises there. I also see Phil Gormley wants confusion and fear, I suspect the less the public know about these arrests the better.

    7. "I suspect the less the public know about these arrests the better."

      I disagree - why should these arrests be hidden from the public - the more people who know about the dangers the better.

    8. Ros says at 12.16: "lets have a sample of the crimes these 650 men have committed, surely the public have a right to know?"

      Yet Ros says at 18.52: "I suspect the less the public know about these arrests the better."

      How strange!

    9. I was being sarcastic. Of course the public should know the details, it's Mr. Gormley who wants confusion and fear.

  8. I used to respect the Police, Social Services, Law Courts etc, but over the years have become more disillusioned with how things are deteriorating, more than I could ever have imagined. It doesn't fill me with confidence knowing there are people working within these services, mentioned above, that either have gone into these jobs for the wrong reasons!! or use it as a cover for their own agendas If you know what I'm getting at. As my nephew who is a Policeman said to me... in a recent conversation, It's nothing to do with class even those that present themselves as pillars of society need watching closely.When I asked him how we are supposed to get justice, who do we turn to if we can't trust the courts? he replied with.....I collect the evidence, present it to the court the rest is up to them. Many times cases have gone to court, with as far as he's concerned enough evidence to bring charges, but they've had a good barrister and got off on some technicality. It angers him after all the reams of paperwork/ statements taken, time to attend court, is there any wonder even the non-corrupt policeman can't wait to retire?

    Sorry if I've come across as being angry and gone a bit off track, but this bloody justice system and all that's connected to it, needs seriously looking at because if it isn't...God help our own children/grandchildren.

    1. Interesting point 21:23, I am not sure if they are deteriorating, levelling out of improving. From my own experience of teaching and support work, it seems to me that teachers and carers are being tied up in knots with paperwork. The constant fear of litigation means that every t must be crossed and every i, dotted. I am not sure whether this is removing abusers or creating them.

      I think it would be a good idea to use the knowledge of psychology we now have to weed out abusers before they go into the caring professions. I know that makes me also sound a bit 'Minority Report' also, but we have the means and sadly abuse within the care industry is rife. It is not only children who are abused, it is vulnerable adults and the elderly too. In fact, the stark reality is, that any time in our lives, any one of us could be in the care of an abuser.

      As I have said in earlier blogs, psychopaths (not the axe wielding ones) are necessary in order to keep the wheels of society turning, however there are some professions we would prefer them to stay away from and some professions they deliberately target.

      During the 1960's, some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to give children in care substitute fathers, fine, upstanding religious fanatics and disciplinarians to give them physical and pastoral care. Ditto, religiously possessed females whose lives were devoted to suffering. Look how that turned out.

      Traditionally, being religious and going to church every week means you are a good person. I prefer to judge people on whether they like dogs, I have always found it a more accurate guide, but even then, it's not definitive and more accurate ways exist. Unfortunately, it opens a whole new 'Big Brother', moral dilemma but as the problem is so great it should be debated.

      Unfortunately, the whole of society, including the police, the courts and the advocates, is bogged down with bureaucracy, we literally cannot see the wood for the trees.

      I actually worked as a support worker for people with mental health problems and learning difficulties. Of all the jobs I have had in my life, it was the one I loved the most. That is, I actually loved the people I looked after, I had hit empty nest syndrome with a vengeance and found the people I cared for enchanting and so appreciative of everything I did for them and every moment I spent with them. They were (almost) completely without malice or any of the other vices that afflict the rest of us and they shared the same childlike joy and amazement as myself in the face of a large cream cake or a day at the seaside. It broke my heart to leave them so vulnerable, but the system broke me.

      My efforts to spend more time with them was met by constant opposition, and in the end, I was only going in for 'disciplinaries' - I used the wrong colour ink in the contact book, didn't clean the microwave (that I didn't use), whistleblowing (fair cop) and failure to hoover under a table. I must blog about it at some time. The constant 'disciplinaries' combined with family bereavement = meldown. I am sure anyone who has ever been lined up for the bullet will know exactly what I am talking about.

    2. It's meaning less adults can get away with turning a blind eye to abuse, a child was RAPED in my junior school IN FRONT OF A TEACHER, at the time no mandatory reporting law existed so that teacher got to walk away from what one would consider to be a basic expectation of a teacher, that they act.

  9. Of course it helps. Families will always be important for identifying paedophilia but to ignore the dark side of the internet would be foolish and criminal. Remember, the images and films found on the internet are usually made using children who are the victims of human trafficking, not family members or friends, and probably most not from these shores. Do you advocate ignoring it? Do you advocate ignoring those British men (I say British men because you tend to focus on Britain) who pay to watch these obscene acts and therefore support and finance a foul industry? To say that you 'honestly don't see how a dedicated police force watching child pornography online 24/7 helps anyone' is at the best naive.

    1. So you are saying these children are victims of human trafficking? So why are we not hearing about human traffickers being arrested and children being rescued? We keep hearing about men being arrested for viewing these images, but we never hear about the ones making them. Surely rescuing the victims should be the priority?

      As you can see, I am not advocating ignoring it, I am advocating the urgency of rescuing these victims. As I said earlier, arresting the viewers of these horrendous crimes is not dissimilar to arresting drug addicts, its the suppliers who need to be tackled.

      Unfortunately, such is ghoulish human nature, people watch all sorts of 'video nasties'. Because one person (out of 50million) acts out Night of the Living Dead, does it mean all video nasties should be banned? Or perhaps just films involving knives and guns? Maybe if we all had nothing to watch except Walt Disney and Terry and June, with our news rubber stamped by Kate, Gerry and Jim, the world would be nicer place?

      I would never ignore child abuse, I come from a unique position, in that as a child I was incarcerated in an institution where children were abused daily, and even I, as a strong and wilful child, could do nothing about it. I was powerless, and it is a 'guilt' that still eats at me. Perhaps I am getting old, but those memories of crying myself to sleep every night in anger and frustration are as clear now as they were then.

      I still feel powerless, because kids are still being seized and placed into care (where they are MOST at risk) and the real abusers are being ignored. Some of those being targeted as 'paedophiles' are probably among the most vulnerable in our society. The misfits, the outcasts, the eccentrics and the mentally disabled. That is, people who have no access to children, and probably no intent to physically harm them. Meanwhile, thousands, if not millions, of kids are still going home to people who are abusing them sexually, physically and mentally.

    2. I suggest that you read up a bit more on human trafficking, its effects and what is being done to stop it. Try reading the US State Department Country Human Trafficking reports to begin, or access the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime website for a deeper insight. You might learn something.

      You say, "these 'suspected' paedophiles are being arrested for thought crime - especially in the case of the computer generated child (wtf?)". You just don't get it, do you?. The websites tend to be operated outside of Britain, using non-british children who are far more vulnerable. But you advocate that the British police stop monitoring their use by British individuals because these men are only indulging in 'thought' crime! The money they pay supports the whole vile industry and therefore allows it to continue. They are as culpable as those making the child porn.

    3. 11:31 yeh, I'm not going to read those reports and I doubt my readers will either. Why you don't give it to us in a nutshell?

      Unfortunately, we all support vile industries one way or another 11:31 - what about child labour in third world counties - thousands if not millions of children and young adults being abused so we can have our cheap throwaway fashions. Ditto every other aspect our consumer society.

      Why so much focus on child sex crimes above all other crimes against children? Why no raids on inhuman factories where kids are being treated as slaves? What about the thousands of kids dying from malnutrition and lack of medicines? Where do they fit in the one in a zillion chance that a cute western kid might be abducted by a pervert?

      If we start charging people for contributing financially to vile industries, where do we begin?

  10. "It takes an honest person to say they are wrong."

    You are wrong in so many ways Ros - move on.

  11. 'In recent years the war has been against the adjective 'terror', and the public are united against the terrorists who hide among us, dawn raids are applauded, swarthy men are marched off in handcuffs with hoods over their heads, heroes are created, terrorists don't deserve any human rights - they are terrorists! And no government would misuse terrorist laws to arrest innocent citizens right?'

    Did I imagine the brutal killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, did I imagine 7/7, ditto Charlie Hebdo, was the murder of 38 innocent holiday makers on a Tunisian beach, just the other week - merely a bad dream?

    You admire Christopher Hitchens - do you not?

    Hitchens first warned of the caliphate coming to the western world some 15 years ago - and, alas he will be proven right.

    The caliphate has always been coming 1683 - the siege of Vienna - and in recent years Bliar and Bush just hastened it's arrival.

    And if and when it does come, girls and women - will have the most to lose.

    Therefore I suggest you reserve flippancy - for lighter subjects - such as weightloss
    and the price of cheddar.

    1. I didn't agree with Christopher Hitchens on everything! Good heavens.

      The tragic murder of Lee Rigby was not connected to the internet, unless you are saying the killers were corrupted by the information they had read? I believe 7/7 was the result of our going to war against Iraq.

      I fear my own government more than I fear the citizens of the middle east!

      Btw, I like the way you juxtapose your last two paragraphs. I take it from those last two comments that you are an elderly patriarch wannabe who thinks my fluffy female head should occupy itself with pink shoes and cross stitch, rather than matters of state, lol.

    2. 'I fear my own government more than I fear the citizens of the middle east!'

      So you'll join Russell Brand on his flight to Syria shortly?

  12. Annon at 18.20, How many people die in the UK daily as a result of what is happening in the middle east, compare that to how many die as a result of sheer UK government stupidity, or should I substitute stupidity with avarice and hypocracy?
    There really is no need to take a flight to Syria, for what is happening there is happening here, only difference is, Western governments do it in a less overt manner.

    1. So according to your logic, Isis, Al Queda, the Taliban and Boko Haram

      are no better than our Eton boys who don't know the price of a pint of milk?
      ..a moral compass is in need of recalibration

      I wish everyone who thinks Islamic State is the Shangri La - would fly out
      to Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan - and it's spreading into Egypt and Gaza too.

      On a one way ticket only.

      Report back, kindly.

      Whilst you can.

    2. And here is that reply.
      Carefully read your first sentence/question, read it very carefully and you will see you have answered your own question.
      Secondly, I don't think many people believe Islamic state is Shangri La, as you put it but if they do I would go further than you and suggest there should be a goverment sponsored programme offering those one way tickets for free.

    3. 'Secondly, I don't think many people believe Islamic state is Shangri La, as you put it but if they do I would go further than you and suggest there should be a goverment sponsored programme offering those one way tickets for free.'


  13. Your comment you would be interested to know the link of looking at child porn online and child abuse.Have you not considered that child porn of any description involves children being violated and abused.Children the most vulnerable of our society who should be protected at all costs.Are you making light of the fact that it's harmless for people to view child porn as long as they don't go on to abuse?The people who view this material are as guilty as the film makers or photographers.I am disgusted with what you have written.Im lost for words.

    1. Where am I making light of child porn? On the contrary, I am highlighting the urgency in rescuing these children and arresting the film makers.

      I am saying that what people view and what they do in reality are entirely different. I love spooky films and disaster movies, that doesn't mean I want a poltergeist to move in with me or a meteorite to hit the earth. I like watching it, I don't want to live it.

      I am asking the very obvious question, how can you arrest people for their bad taste in porn? Many years ago I went to the Sensation Exhibition at the Tate Gallery, its' most sensational exhibit being a wall sized portrait of Myra Hindley made up of childrens' handprints. Whilst I was there someone threw paint over the portrait and the incident made the national news.

      The whole exhibit was, shall we say, in extremely poor taste, not my cup of tea to be honest, but the public's reaction was quite extraordinary. Many of the artists who exhibited could be accused of creating child porn, as too could all the people who went along to view it, I can't say I understood it entirely, if at all, but it opens up the whole question of aesthetics, what is good, or bad, taste? And who should be the judge? It also drew attention to child abuse.

      The idea that the people who view these images are as guilty as the those who produce them is absurd. How can they be? Are drug addicts AS guilty as their suppliers because they keep them in business?

      The majority of people who watch sick shit online do not go on to act out what they have seen. During the 80's we had the prophets of doom telling us that video nasties would bring about the apocalypse, ditto graphic nudity and saying feck on the BBC.

      I'm not advocating child porn, I merely want to know more about it, who the victims are, and who is making it. Unfortunately, it is one of those subjects you can't look up on google without fear of a SWAT team crashing in through your front window.

      My question remains valid. Do those viewing the images go on to abuse? Does their attraction to children arise from these images, or would they have been attracted to children anyway?

    2. "I'm not advocating child porn, I merely want to know more about it, who the victims are, and who is making it. Unfortunately, it is one of those subjects you can't look up on google without fear of a SWAT team crashing in through your front window."

      This is a ridiculous statement for someone who calls themselves a journalist. You can research this subject as much as you want (although when given websites to research by an earlier poster you weren't interested) - its when you give your credit card details to access the actual pornography that you (hopefully) would draw attention.

      You just don't get it, do you? Or you are just not prepared to admit that you are wrong. Watching child porn requires payment by the individual, which in turn finances the industry. Every man who signs up to child abuse sites on the internet is physically supporting the abuse of children.

    3. You are demanding that I admit I am wrong without putting forward any valid argument to prove it!

      I invited the earlier commentator to give us the stats in a nutshell, the highlights, I extend the same offer to yourself, lets have a sample of the crimes these 650 men have committed, surely the public have a right to know? What is the correlation between viewing these images and REAL crime? It's not a difficult question.

      You, and indeed the powers that be, are telling us that these men are guilty of heinous crimes and many of them may be facing many years in prison. So who are their victims, and have they been rescued? I can't just switch on the hate I'm afraid, I need to have a reason.

      If you look at the subject of paedophilia from a Freudian perspective, some adults, mostly men, become trapped in the adolescent stage of their sexual development, putting it bluntly, they are turned on by schoolgirls, frilly knickers etc, for their entire lives. Some pay prostitutes to dress up as dominatrix and give them a darn good thrashing because it allows them to revert to their own inner child. Like it or not, sexual fantasy often includes memories linked to childhood incidents, the time at which a person becomes sexually aware. Most (normal) heterosexual men are turned on by girls wearing short skirts and playing netball for example. It doesn't make them perverts, their memory banks are simply retrieving early memories of tingling in the groin area.

      In my opinion it is too simplistic to label thousands of men as sex offenders and find them guilty of crimes that most people do not understand. And the reason most people do not understand these crimes is because people like yourself are going out of your way to shut down discussion. They are guilty. Hang them. End of.

    4. Now you are being simplistic. No one is saying that men who fantasize should be hung or, indeed, criminalized - you cannot stop fantasies arriving in your head no matter what your sexual persuasion. What I, and several other posters here, are saying is that the act of getting out your credit card and paying to watch child pornographic images is going that further step in giving financial support to a vile industry and, therefore, helping continuing the whole sorry affair. If the trafficking of children was widespread in Britain, then I think that you would have a different opinion.

      Here is a simple analogy away from child pornography or sex: -

      Husbands (or wives) might occasionally fantasize about killing their spouses. Is that criminal - of course not.

      Husbands (or wives) kill their spouses. Is that a criminal act that should be punished?
      Husbands (or wives) pay someone else to kill their spouses. Is that a criminal act that should be punished?

    5. "So who are their victims?"

      Callous and ignorant, don't you think, Rosalind.

      Funny how your supporters seem to have deserted you on this one.

    6. How is asking who the victims are callous and ignorant?

      I expect no support on this one 13:13, its a dodgy subject - the authorities rely on the fact that very few people would risk asking questions or, God forbid, in any way attempt to defend the monsters on death row, and be in no doubt, these guys are now on death row.

      I know the risk I am putting myself at, merely by discussing the topic, already the accusations that I am a paedophile defender are creeping in.

      Unfortunately, those men (and their families) will have little or no support whatsoever, the authorities rely on it. It's a crying shame of course, because if people can be arrested for the images they view, we are all at risk.

    7. You constantly harp on about the subject of child abuse being taboo and thus brushed aside by the masses because you say it's such an unsavoury subject. Well it is an unsavoury subject but it's far from taboo. I for one are quite prepared to discuss the subject no matter how revolting it might be.

      You suggest that people should be allowed to indulge their fantasies no matter what, - in this case child abuse - providing they don't act on it. Well here I must totally disagree. Nobody but nobody should be accepted nor even excused for having an interest in child abuse - even if they don't act on it or intend to act on it.

      Not sure if you are backtracking because your argument has no moral foundation but I can't really understand your point about 'all being at risk for the images they view'. If you are referring to your previous comment about media in all it's forms, then your comment is nothing short of ridiculous. I have complained numerous times to different television companies about the standard of programming viewers are subjected to as I have also complained to the UK press but needless to say it falls on deaf ears.

      I fear it's your agenda to sensationalize every subject you blog about, no doubt it's the only way you can hope for any response.


    8. Where have I said it is OK for people to indulge in their sexual fantasies 'no matter what'? Don't twist my words George, I have never said that. I have been campaigning against child abuse for my entire adult life, and your snidey twisting of my words will not change that.

      You think I am sensationalising the subject? I'm not the one compiling the sensational headlines and the unbelievable figures, I am responding to them. Its been a long, long time since I have believed the UK mainstream media and as for believing CEOP and the NCA after the Madeleine McCann fiasco, you have got to be kidding me.

    9. Perhaps we should all write in crayon mode in order to avoid misinterpretation - deliberate or otherwise. Your past words in my view show a strong tendency towards your defending and/or excusing people, in particular men, who have an interest in watching various forms of child abuse - hence my comment about your suggesting people should be allowed to indulge their fantasies (not act you understand) as being comparatively harmless.

      As for my twisting your words, I think we are all guilty of that although most of us do it without intending any malice. For example a little further down the page anonymous @ 13:05 said :

      "To say looking out for images of children is bad porn? Don't you realise that any image of a child used for gratification involves their ,violation and abuse."

      Your reply appeared to be a deliberate attempt to unfairly twist the posters words by saying:

      " Do you suggest the banning of all child photography? How do we know what 'gratifies' people? How do we know what gratifies paedophiles? Are these images classified in the same way as 'normal' porn - hard/soft? Are these men looking for images of children being violated or in swimwear?"

      Sensationalizing - see my point? I can't see any reason why you do this other than to excite a response to keep the subject rolling and keep the focus on yourself.


  14. I wonder, as I am the one time Russian Doll who chose not to belong to a club where you were a member , the MMM forum, if my reply will be published. Am I correct in believing that your view is that watching online child abuse [ it is not child porn according to experts who work in the field of child abuse, it is the abuse of children] , while horrific, is not as serious as the actuality of being involved in putting your hands on and sexually abusing a child?
    Do you therefore view the viewing of a child being abused as a crime, but a lesser crime than if a person had been the perpetrator of such abuse, or not a crime at all? In your post above, is it the people watching images of child abuse whom you are accusing of having bad taste in porn? Film-makers and adult participants need arresting for sure and the children need rescuing, but you fail to address the issue of those viewing these images. If they do not go on to abuse and act out their fantasies, is it not criminal in your opinion? Do you regard their actions of actively seeking out images of non- consenting minors being sexually abused to be no more than bad taste in porn?
    By the way, a drug addict is harming no-one other than him/herself. For you to make this analogy is absurd. The only others hurt are those suffering emotionally who witness self-harm.
    Now, without getting bogged down in equating / not equating a viewer of abuse with a perpetrator, will you get off the fence and say clearly what you think of the actions of an adult watching another adult harm a child?

    1. With respect Russian Doll, you can't debate any subject with a hypocrite and that is precisely what this blogger is, a hypocrite!

      By her own admission she believes she can be whatever or whoever she wishes to be at any one moment - even by clarifying her position with some trite comment as 'it's a womans prerogative to change her mind'. With that kind of mentality what hope is there for any rational thought process or discussion?


    2. You haven't challenged a single point I have made George, you are completely ignoring the subject matter.

      Presumably you have a clear, logical and rational argument to destroy everything I have said. I look forward to it.

    3. I have already explained myself, in case you've forgotten I will repeat.

      With respect Russian Doll, you can't debate any subject with a hypocrite and that is precisely what this blogger is, a hypocrite!

      By her own admission she believes she can be whatever or whoever she wishes to be at any one moment - even by clarifying her position with some trite comment as 'it's a womans prerogative to change her mind'. With that kind of mentality what hope is there for any rational thought process or discussion?


      Anything else you need to know?

  15. What consenting adults do in the bedroom such as dressing up and living out fantasies is fine ,and has nothing to do with child pornography.To say looking out for images of children is bad porn? Don't you realise that any image of a child used for gratification involves their ,violation and abuse.

    1. ANY image of a child 13:05? Seriously? Do you suggest the banning of all child photography? How do we know what 'gratifies' people? How do we know what gratifies paedophiles? Are these images classified in the same way as 'normal' porn - hard/soft? Are these men looking for images of children being violated or in swimwear?

      Again, I reiterate, if films of the nature you suggest are being made, why are the makers not being arrested and the children being rescued?

    2. Mane people aren't arrested because no one is actually looking for them.what about the victims in all of this?When a child is abused this affects them for the rest of their lives and they are serving a sentence forever.The effect on their lives is immense.You should be more concerned with the victims not the perpertrators.

    3. Err, I'm actually the only one asking who these victims are and what is being done to rescue them.

  16. OK - seeing as you are not prepared to do you own research, here is a little for you - UNICEF have estimated that worldwide 1.8 million children have been forced into prostitution and/or pornography

    1. Yeh, there you go with that estimated word. If 1.8 million children have been forced into prostitution and/or pornography, why is no-one rescuing them?

    2. One of the reasons is that they make so much money from men paying for subscriptions to watch their films that they can pay off corruptible policemen.

    3. You think policemen are taking cash to turn to a blind eye to young children and babies being abused and violated? You have a very, very, low opinion of the people you share this world with. That is quite sad.

    4. "You think policemen are taking cash to turn to a blind eye to young children and babies being abused and violated?"



    5. 20:39, That's a very serious accusation George, have you got proof that's what's happening? If the answer is yes, then I'd be a good citizen and report them!!!

  17. I am saying lets remove the hysteria Russian Doll. Should a man who googles 'schoolgirls in short skirts' be placed on a Sex Offenders Register? Lets get things into perspective. Clearly those seeking out and subscribing to websites where children are being abused should face trial. However, I suspect their numbers are very, very few and I would hope that the makers of these images are swiftly dealt with. I'm afraid I'm sceptical about these horrors we keep hearing about, in the same way that I am sceptical about snuff movies.

    Naturally, I think an adult watching another adult harm a child is horrendous, it's the reason I wrote my book and continue to campaign. Having lived in possibly the most abusive environment a child could live in, I understand child abuse more than most. I have also spent a lifetime trying to make sense of it, so your inference that I somehow approve of it, is offensive, but I think that is what you were going for.

    The word 'Paedophile' is too generic and it sparks off mass hysteria. The 650 men arrested (each of whom's lives and families have now been destroyed) are individuals, and their 'searches' and subscriptions will be diverse. You can't just label a group of people as sex offenders and give them the same harsh punishment. It is not so long ago that people, politicians especially, were hounded and imprisoned for being homosexual.

    And no, I would not label those who view obscene images in the same way as those making them. The idea is ridiculous. We are ALL guilty of watching children being harmed every time we switch on our televisions! Children being harmed is the premise of much fiction and way too much reality. Look what happened to Hansel, Gretal and Little Red Riding Hood. And don't get me started on 'women in peril'.

    Where is your outrage at the thousands of kids going home each day to abusive adults RD? Where is your outrage at the thousands of children dying from malnutrition? Where is your outrage at children being exploited to provide the West with dirt cheap consumer goods? Strange how those who claim to be 'thinking about the children', rarely do.

    Watching obscenity is not the same as participating in it and financially supporting it Russian Doll, if it were, we are all guilty.

  18. The only way to deal with those viewing child porn is harsher sentences.If more robust deterrents were put in place then this would reduce viewing figures and the abuse of children.If nothing is done to those only viewing it then more child porn would be made and more will be doesn't matter whether these people will go on to abuse,the aim should be to eradicate it in the first place.I don't think any amount of treatment would cure a paedophile,I believe they are born this way.I can accept that all paedophiles would not go on to abuse children but it is never right for child porn to be out there and available.In my opinion services should be more available for paedpohiles who may feel they are at risk of abusing.I don't have the answers to how they can be effectively monitored ,but I'm saying services should be more engaging and proactive.

    1. It doesn't matter if these people will go on to abuse? Seriously? Do you understand how many basic human rights you are tossing away with that one statement?

      You think harsh deterrents will solve the problem of child abuse? What harsh deterrents have prevented crime in the past? Did hanging solve murder for example?

      Child abuse happens within the home, eradicating men who watch dodgy porn on the net will not make the slightest bit of difference to children who are going home every day to abuse.

      Your priority is the one in a million child that MIGHT get abducted, my priority is the millions of children who are currently being abused in this country and worldwide.

    2. I never meant to say it doesn't matter how many will go onto abuse.I was stating that child porn should not be available in the first place.You asked a question of the 650 suspects how many would go on to abuse.I was trying to point out that it's still a violation by just looking and searching.

  19. I hope whoever is producing/funding your West End blockbuster is reading this.

  20. I am outraged at all you mention regarding child abuse, but the topic I responded to was limited to that of watching the sexual abuse of children. You have repeated that to watch it is not as serious as to participate in it, I agree. But the gravity is in my opinion only a question of degree : watching this is a serious criminal activity, regardless of the likelihood of the viewer becoming a perpetrator. To watch this abuse is to further the abuse which already exists as a still or moving image. Thank you for publishing my comment and for your reply.

    1. I don't fear debate RD, I am happy to publish comments that disagree with me and ones that challenge my own thinking. I strive to keep an open mind on everything.

      However, I won't publish comments that are simply abusive and add nothing to the debate because I hate having my time wasted. George above scraped through, but he will have to up his game if he wants to get through again :)

  21. "Where is your outrage at the thousands of kids going home each day to abusive adults RD? Where is your outrage at the thousands of children dying from malnutrition? Where is your outrage at children being exploited to provide the West with dirt cheap consumer goods? Strange how those who claim to be 'thinking about the children', rarely do."

    How about doing a blog on child labour and exploitation - although you'll have to do some research.

    1. If I blogged about all the injustices that upset me my head would explode.

  22. Apologies for the postscript. I overlooked this little snippet from your reply to me I QUOTE : so your inference that I somehow approve of it, is offensive, but I think that is what you were going for. UNQUOTE
    Firstly, I think you meant to say my implication ... the meaning behind words I wrote. The word inference applies to people and especially you, drawing meaning from my words. So let me be clear about my meaning. I do not interpret your words as meaning that you approve of adults watching the abuse of children. I believe it was reasonable for me to infer from your writing that you do not believe this to be especially serious, because you do not look at the matter in isolation, preferring to compare it to the horrific perpetration of the abusive acts themselves, against which it looks less damaging. As you have now clarified the matter by saying that watching these images is horrific, there is nothing more for me to say apart from this, for you to bring fairy tales into this debate is not rational , neither is it reasonable to say we all watch children being harmed when we turn on our televisions. There is a world of difference switching on the news to see images of children in pain and actively switching on a computer and putting child abuse into a search engine.
    Goodbye, I won't be posting here again -you will be glad to hear.

  23. You do love flouncing off Russian Doll, lol. It doesn't bother me tbh, I've never paid much attention to whether you are there or not, but it does amuse me that in taking the moral high ground, you deprive yourself of the right to reply. Bizarre.

  24. Who is George - that is referred to a couple of times here?

    (it certainly isn't me)

    1. George is George but who is this Anonymous that's asking?


    2. I haven't posted anything abusive, it was a statement of fact.


  25. Ros at 02.44

    "You are telling me to stop defending these men so presumably you have already found them guilty and have condemned them. Isn't everyone entitled to present a defence, even the most savage of murderers are entitled to a fair trial. With paedophilia, a single accusation is enough to ruin a life and so great is the fear of being accused, that literally no-one will speak out against the injustice that is going on."

    Don't you find that hypocritical in view of your involvement on Mccann forums and the comments you have made.

    Apparently you are prepared to stand up for the rights of paedophiles more than the rights of the Mccanns.

    1. I am not prepared to label people paedophiles without knowing the details, and I certainly wouldn't rely on the say so of Jim Gamble and those who are trying to convince the British public that the internet is dangerous.

      As for the McCanns, I am more concerned about the rights of their children, their elder daughter in particular who had a right to life. And in the case of the McCanns, we have had more details than any other 'heinous crime' in living history, therein lies the difference.

    2. @Ros - it was the NCA who brought the prosecutions. Just because you don't like Jim Gamble (who wasn't involved but only passed a comment in the BBC article) it doesn't diminish the offences.

      Anexample from the NCA website:

      "21 April 2015

      Seven men have been convicted of more than 30 child sexual abuse offences, including the rape of a child under the age of 13, following an investigation led by the National Crime Agency (NCA).

      John Denham, formally known as Benjamin Harrop (aged 49 from Wiltshire) has been found guilty of conspiring to commit sexual assault against a child and possessing and distributing indecent images of children.

      Matthew Stansfield (aged 34 from Hampshire) has been found guilty today of conspiring to rape a child under 13.

      Adam Toms (aged 33 from Somerset), Christopher Knight (aged 35 from Manchester), Robin Hollyson (aged 30 from Bedfordshire), David Harsley (aged 51 from Hull) and Matthew Lisk (aged 32 from East Sussex) all pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing.
      The men shared indecent images and videos of children being abused, communicating via social networking forums. Evidence shows that the group’s victims were mainly babies and infants, with at least one victim given stupefying drugs to enable offenders to carry out sexual abuse.

      Chat logs obtained corroborate this, with some members offering advice and guidance to others regarding how much drug to administer to a child, depending on their age.

      The men have been convicted of offences including the rape of a child under the age of 13, conspiracy to rape a child under the age of 13, sexual assault on a child under 13, sexual activity with a child under the age of 13, administering a substance with intent, making and possessing indecent images of children (IIOC) and breaching a Sex Offender Prevention Order (SOPO).

      The victims identified so far were under the age of five at the time the offences were committed.Three of the men – Robin Hollyson, Matthew Stansfield and David Harsley – are Registered Sex Offenders (RSO’s) after being convicted previously of child sexual abuse image offences.

      The investigation began in September 2014 when Adam Toms was arrested by Avon and Somerset police, after admitting that he had sexually abused a child under the age of five. As a result of these admissions, the investigation expanded rapidly which led to the identification of other offenders involved in the organised crime group. Officers were also able to identify three victims – a baby, a toddler and a pre-school age child."

    3. I am not denying there are monsters out there, and this mob certainly seem to fit the category, I would be interested to read more details about it. For example, how were they caught? and were the children they were raping and conspiring to rape known to them?

      I would also be interested to know how the 400+ children were 'protected' Were they seized and placed into care? Were they submitted to invasive, intimate examinations to establish they were abused, as in the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases advocated by Ray Wyre?

      Will these monsters be treated with masturbation satiation? Again, something advocated by Ray Wyre, a treatment whereby paedophiles are 'forced' to watch non stop child abuse images?

      As I said in my blog, it is in the interests of the crime agencies to exaggerate the amount of crime they tackle and this decade's enemies are paedophiles and perverts.

    4. @ Ros 00.31 - I gave you the source of the information I quoted at 23.05 and am now going to give the reply that you give to others - do your own research and you will find the answers to all of your questions!

  26. And now for something completely different:

    'My secret life as a busker'

    everyone's fav crime reporter (surely) - Martin Brunt's experiences playing Dylan on a street corner in Dieppe.

    (today's Telegraph)

    1. Ha! I always thought of the poor bugger as a budget version of Paul Weller.

  27. I wasn't going to comment again on this subject, but felt after reading through the comments on the blog... I felt I must. As you know Cristobell I've commented before on your blog about my own abuse, at the hands of my own Father. I often wondered why he abused both me and my sister, I know now I'm never going to find out as he died some years ago. I wish I'd have confronted him and told him how he'd made me feel, but he wasn't the type to answer my questions and to be honest even as an adult I was still a little scared of him. As far as he was concerned you should be seen and not heard, "speak when your spoken to" elbows off the table, If I dare to speak at the dinner table the chair was taken away and I had to stand there till I'd finished the meal, being force fed if I didn't like what I was given, until I was sick. that's apart from the sex abuse!! I have no sympathy for anyone who degrades children in any way,shape or form, I don't believe some of them can be helped it's in their makeup, maybe to do with genetics, who knows.

  28. 23:11, you have my full sympathy - so many 'normal' homes where horrific abuse is going on behind closed doors, it is heartbreaking. Sadly, most abuse is committed by people known to the child, and that is one of the biggest messages that I am trying to hammer home.

    I do hope that you are able to put it behind you. There is nothing that can be done about the past, so much that can be done to improve the future. You survived and you are strong and you can use what you have learned to help others.

    I spent 5 years bringing the convent abusers to court, even 40 years later I was still mad as hell and I wanted to see them in the dock. But to be honest, I achieved nothing, there was no satisfaction in confronting them and they received no punishment, I don't even know if I wanted them to punished, I had vowed as a child that I would face them, and I did, but it was my own life I wasted.

    Now I am more concerned with prevention, I hope that my personal experience and my words can help others to understand the real issues surrounding child abuse so other kids do not have to go through it. The answer lies in education and getting help and support to those who need it most.

  29. Thanks Cristobell for your reply. I have been able to put it behind me to some extent. I still suffer bouts of depression on bad days... thinking how my life could have been so different if I'd had a normal childhood. However, I soon snap out of it realizing no matter how much I dwell on the past, only I can change my future.

    I did see your reply to my other post at 21:23 but after two attempts to post I gave up, this blinking computer kept shutting down and loosing the message I was about to send. Great work you did with those people with learning disabilities, and mental health issues, which I know can sometimes be very challenging! But with patience, and a little kindness shown to them, the smiles on their faces make the job worthwhile. Like you say they're happy with the simple things in life, just an ice-cream and a trip to the seaside brings them such joy.

    It sounds like someone was jealous that you got such a positive response from them, It's a shame you felt you had to leave a job you loved just to get them off your back, you maybe made them feel inadequate, lol. :)

    1. I'm quite touched by your post @ 03:37

      You are right about little pleasures often rewarding the most.

      My mum worked with mentally disabled children most of her life, she had a deep distrust of psycho-pharma throughout.

      She saw the biggest positive change in the children in her care when she took them horse or pony riding - 'Their faces lit up instantly and they were content for days after'

      Just anecdotal - but a good and meaningful post like yours warrants a response.

  30. Thank you 10:26, I'm of the opinion... if you don't expect too much from life you won't end up being disappointed. Life is hard enough to cope with sometimes, without additional problems caused by disability. They just need a helping hand and someone to show them they care.

    My reply at 03:37 was in reply to Cristobells post at 11:45 further up the blog!! She was commenting on the people she used to care for, when she was a support worker, a good post to read if you haven't already seen it.