Thursday, 15 December 2016


Bar those kids who's creepy stepdads, uncles, family friend etc, sneaked into their bedrooms at night, the majority of the public know little, if anything about the subject of Paedophilia.  And you can't blame them for that, it's a yucky subject, best avoided, even by Home Secretaries. 

Perhaps I should say especially Home Secretaries, who are advised by experts from law enforcement who err on the side of popular public opinion, rather than the scientific findings and recommendations of the academics.  Pillorying the misfits, the socially inept, and those with learning difficulties can still rouse an angry mob and is a sure fire vote winner.  It's a bit like the 'drug' problem, the advice of the real experts is ignored, in favour of public opinion and pressure from huge pharmaceutical companies.   Paedophiles are a catch all public enemy, everyone hates them.   

Having spent 5 years, from the age of 11 to 15 in a Catholic children's home run by a paedophile and a sadist, and having spent my life researching 'evil', I know more about the subject of child abuse than most and that's why I speak up.  In the late 1960's, it was decided that children in care would benefit from having a male role model, and the Catholic Children's society advertised for religious, disciplined, single men to come and take (often sole) care of vulnerable children.  This of course opened the floodgates for every pervert, predator and sadist to move in with us.  And they did.  The CSA Inquiry can only be the tip of the iceberg, because putting freaks in charge of kids was the ideology of the time.  One can imagine the fatcat Council officials discussing the care of orphans with the Church leaders and a picture of Oliver Twist, a large ham and a wad of notes comes up. 

For whatever reason, society, or should I say the Media have picked up and focussed only on the child sexual abuse.  This is actually an affront to most of the survivors of these institutions, because the majority of the abuse that was going on was physical and mental.  The agenda was to break our spirits, make us conform.  The institutions were run like prisons, though we had fewer rights than prisoners, less freedom and more punishments.  It wasn't until years later when I learned about the 'Zimbardo Experiment' that I began to make sense of it, though I have to say, I am not entirely sure our 'guards' started out as normal human beings. They were already predisposed to that sort of thing.

But I digress.  The ex Jesuit and practicing Opus Dei monk, who had charge of our day to day care had a penchant for boys and a seething hatred for girls.  All women (apart from nuns) were whores, he would tell us during his daily sermons.  He was accompanied in his vocation by a Sister of Mercy nun who was enraptured by him, and who's idea of fun was giving small children 'Chinese burns' until they cried. 

Religious zealots and most of my critics, would argue that the above is a more healthy and nurturing environment for children than say, living with two homosexuals who would never hurt them in a million years.  It had the approval of society and the blessing of the Pope.  But I'm not bitter, lol. 

But let's get back to that 'P' word and more importantly, where the REAL risks to children lie.  The unpalatable truth is that the more devious and manipulative paedophiles are drawn to jobs where they will be working with vulnerable children.  It is an unavoidable fact, but as we become more enlightened and whistle blowing is becoming more acceptable, the numbers are much fewer (I hope). 

From speaking to hundreds of middle aged women over the years, I would say the largest and most active group of practicing paedophiles are those evil men who worm their way into the affections of single mothers.  And sexual abuse is probably only one of many distasteful traits brought to vulnerable families by these predators.  They normally come with a set of rules for a 'new order', they project manage life to suit themselves, and if they are that way inclined, disciplining the kids will be part of it.  To the single mums out there, if you ever meet a guy like that, run! 

My next category, I would call The Bogeyman.  The one stalking rooftops at night dressed in semi gimp black, waiting to sweep into the bedrooms of kids who's neglectful parents left the window open.  He is about as real as the guy dressed as a spider and hiding behind the next chimney.  He is a myth created by those who kinda like keeping us all living in fear. 

Next up is the Loner, often confused with the Bogeyman, because it is believed that men looking at underage porn online, will go on to buy a black balaclava and abduct children.  Highly unlikely.  The Loner is the least active, they are not lurking in bushes, they are alone and attached to their PC screen - err, 24/7. That leap from 'watching it' to 'doing it' almost never happens. It's like saying a slasher movie will send the entire audience rushing into the street waving machetes.  If one raving lunatic blames his killing spree on a movie he has seen, should it be banned for all the millions who didn't? [go on a killing spree]. 

A paedophile, or a mass murderer, will always blame someone, or something, else for their wicked actions.  That is, 'I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't seen Chucky or Taxi Driver.  However, a sexual offender, like anybody else, is the sum of a million composite parts.  Triggers can come in any form, all our sexual awakenings are different.  Some men can get tinglings from remembering the spankings they got from the dorm mistress, and the gym slips of St. Trinians could bring back happy memories of the girls' school next door.  Both could have connotations of 'child sex' in the minds of those who think about that sort of thing.  A lot.  Is there an appropriate code of behaviour for sexual turn ons? What is or isn't correct in the bedroom? And who gets to decide?  Worse, who gets to enforce it?  Can you expect a dawn raid if the missus orders a naughty schoolgirl costume and a set of fluffy cufflinks from Anne Summers?   

Judging what is, and isn't appropriate is a very grey area, how on earth do you categorize that sort of thing?  Betty Boop caused outrage in the 40's because it was believed subliminal images of her naked were being flashed on screen and coud have led to allsorts of gawd knows what.  I believe there is a scale for categorizing underage pictures but I daren't look it up in case my computer is pounced on!  That's the problem with the 'P' word, we 'know' if we type it out in full, there will be some sort of surveillance team out there flagging us up as dodgy. 

I'm simply not convinced that looking at images on a screen leads automatically to violent crime.  If the person is already predisposed to violence and abuse, naturally their computer will be filled with obscene images and violent movies.  It's not a chicken or egg situation, the rage, the resentment, the hatred and anger has been simmering away for years.  They were never going to find Snow White and It's a Wonderful Life in Fred West's cellar.  Does anyone honesty believe the tragedy of Aurora, Colorado was the fault of Batman?  Choosing which form of art to blame is down to the prosecutor, or more accurately, the press and they usually go for the leftie, commy, artists and musicians like Marilyn Manson.   

Demonising art, films and literature because it has had an adverse effect on one raving lunatic in 60million+ illustrates how ridiculous it is to blame child pornography for turning men into predatory paedophiles.  I imagine the majority of men look at pornography as often as they can, but that doesn't mean they will sexually assault the first female they encounter.  

The Bogeymen and the Loners, live very solitary lives.  They have little if no access to children, and due to their inability to socially connect with their peers and other adults, they are timid and fearful.  They are trapped in the adolescent stage of their sexual awakening, or should I say the safe world of the pre-pubescent.  They have never been able to move onto the next milestone because they have never been able to handle rejection. They don't have the guts or the means to organise a pyjama party for all the local kids.

Despite the dominant ideology that there are predators lurking on every street corner, or more accurately looking at mucky pictures on the net.  The reality is, the greatest threat and most immediate danger to kids comes from within the home and from people known by them.  That's what the statistics show and so too the tragic headlines that appear when a child goes missing. 

But let's get back to those paedophile rings, that dark underbelly of depravity that is supposedly going on underneath all our noses.  In the heart of Westminster especially.  I don't doubt that kids IN CARE were sexually abused by establishment figures in the 60s, 70's and beyond.  The children's  home I was in, was 30 minutes from Westminster, and favoured boys were often taken on outings and overnight visits to the capital, plus several days at the Vatican.  In those days children's homes and institutions were supermarkets of goodies for those in the know.   Children had little, if any, protection.  Hardly any saw their assigned social workers, and the orphans literally saw no-one from the 'outside'.  Besides which, 'telling tales' incurred punishment for everyone. 

I think the break up, and quite literal, knocking down of institutions in the 1970s, reflected the enlightenment as to what was actually going on in these places.  The way in which good causes can so easily and so terrifyingly go so bad.  The children's institutions and the vast mental hospitals became an abomination on every level.  From children forced to scrub floors through the night, to vulnerable patients being hosed down in ice cold showers. 

Given the culture that existed at that time, it is probably more than likely that some sort of circle, or in the know club existed.  But the crux of the matter here is that kids were available to abuse, that is, kids who would keep their traps shut and had no-one to tell anyway. 

That concentration of vulnerable kids is no longer available to the upper echelons.  That leaves young offenders and runaways.  Sadly, history has shown that the bodies of those seized by evil sadists usually do turn up.  When a paedophile ring was operating in Belgium, kids were literally being snatched off the street. everyone knew about.  So my question would be, who exactly is being abused by these sex rings?  

As for paedophile gangs in the suburbs disguised as regular people, seriously? The majority of us love our kids to pieces, our natural instinct is to nurture and protect them.  And most of us, if we are honest, breathe a huge sigh of relief when they are safely tucked up and asleep and we can do what WE want.  What most people fail to understand is that child abuse is so much more than inappropriate touching. It is all about grooming and developing a relationship with the child, and the truth is, most adults don't have the time or inclination. 

I think the idea that there are paedophile gangs in the suburbs stems from the very strange fantasies of the very strange Ray Wyre that led to the Satanic abuse hysteria in 1988.  The establishment took the word of self proclaimed child abuse expert Wyre, and hundreds, if not thousands of lives were destroyed, as kids were seized and subjected to crude and degrading tests while their parents were being demonised, and so too anyone who dared to speak on their behalf.  That kind of medieval witch hunt should never happen again, but it did, with Operation Ore, and remains simmering away because witchfinder generals always find a place at the top table.  They cast themselves as protectors of children, but I doubt they will find one child who will thank them for being seized.   

The goals of the super rich are to own vast mansions and helicopters, dine at the finest restaurants and mingle with the great and good.  They don't want to be stuck indoors with the kids.  The idea that any of these people worked to get where they are in order to molest children is absurd.  These people like challenges, with a child there is no challenge. 

The average, middle class professional family, down the road have pretty much the same ideals.  Maybe not the helicopter.  That is, they don't see children as sexual and yuck, and they don't keeps their kids locked up in the basement like Fritzle.  Abused kids don't mix with others, they don't go to school and they don't see medical professionals.  Everything those alleging child abuse in the Madeleine McCann case, is contrary to everything we know about child abuse.

For those who genuinely care about children's welfare, the kindest thing they can do, is to offer a warm smile to the stressed out single mum who's baby won't stop crying, and who's toddler is about to kick off.  For me the hardest part about being a single mum, was trying to run a household on one wage, and the desperate loneliness.  The opportunity to meet men was very limited, I did at one stage, date my stalker (I'll spare you - for now, lol).  I remember one New Year's Eve crying into my wine, writing the saddest letter about loneliness you have ever seen and drunkenly faxing it to the Daily Mail.  I was mortified when they published it! 

It is not only old people who get lonely, it is young people too, especially when they face those long evenings on their own when the kids are in bed.  For young women when their need to reproduce (and/or party) is at it's strongest, nature has confined them to the cave.  On the odd occasion they do get to go out and shake their pert tiger skin clad bottoms, they are fighting for the leftovers.  The good providers have been taken by those with time to fashion their animal skins, paint their toenails and no hungry mouths to feed.  All that's left is the wanderers, the thinkers (cute, but a dead loss when there is only one dinosaur toe left in the store cupboard), and those with an excessive love of rotting grapes.  Or as I like to call them, the fun ones.  I can kind of see now where I went wrong. 

But I digress.  The best way to protect children is to protect those who take care of them.  Most of our population is now upwardly and indeed, downwardly mobile.  That is they do not have the close family networks of previous generations.  I have always advocated parenting classes, I would put it in the school curriculum if I could!  Most parents are shell shocked when the babies arrive, torn between different childcare experts and conflicting advice from two separate families.  I come from the 'bin there, dun that' school of thought.  The best childcare advice I have ever truly valued, has come from reading about the personal experiences of others.  It has also come from wise old men and women I have met along the way, sometimes a few kind words from a stranger can be life changing.  I remember one time, dropping one child off at school and hopping on a bus with a suspiciously smelly baby under one arm and a folded buggy under the other. Stressed, dishevelled and balancing precariously, I was stopped in my tracks by an elderly lady who smiled at me and said 'beautiful baby and beautiful mummy'.  It changed the entire course of my day, maybe even my life!

Child  sexual abuse is by it's very nature, dark, seedy and hidden away from society, but happily it is extremely rare.  Other forms of abuse however are extremely common, and actually, fairly easy to spot.  Especially when the 'perfect man' starts restricting the vulnerable woman's access to family and friends.  I was deeply saddened when the Surestart scheme was demolished by the tories.  The best way to prevent child abuse is to educate the mothers.  Not with mythology, but with reality.  Instead of warning them about a sex offender in Afghanistan who has access to a cyber café, warn them about the boyfriend who demands the kids respect him and says a good hiding never did him any harm. 

The best way to protect children is by teaching them to protect themselves.  No-one, as yet, has the technology or the public vote to ban information being publically available on the internet.  They can, and probably do, carry out all the surveillance they want, but anything they try to ban will instantly go viral.  Accept that you cannot protect your children from what they will see and encounter in life.  The internet is probably the least of their worries. 

As a young, pregnant with my first child, legal secretary to a top London lawyer known as the Silver Fox (yes, I had a huge crush on him), and among his many memorable words were, the best gift you can give a child is confidence. Making the child dependent on you and 'the State', does them no favours whatsoever. I remember my mum telling me, you don't cry in front of anyone, because that means they win.  I was going into the convent at the time, and to be fair, that advice probably upped the batterings, but it gave me a severe aversion to hanging my head in defeat. 

If you want your child to survive 'in the wild', you have to teach them the skills to survive.  Watch the divine David Attenborough for half an hour, and you will soon see that the predators go for the weakest first.  If kids respect themselves, they will (subliminally) command respect from others.  How do you ingrain that self respect into them?  Easy, if you treat your kids with respect they will expect, and indeed demand, that same respect from others. They will know the difference between normal and abnormal behaviour.   Children are mimics, they do exactly what you do.  If you always say please and thank you, so will they.  Unfortunately, the same applies with the negative. If they see you being disrespected and accepting it, that 'acceptance' will become normal.  

Complete honesty is essential.  They trust you implicitly and if they find you have lied to them about anything other than Santa, they will struggle to trust you again.  If you don't tell them the truth, they will lie in bed worrying and filling in the gaps themselves.  But don't fill them with fear.  The world is still a wonderful place, and everywhere there is beauty. 

What troubles me most about our inability to discuss paedophilia rationally is the fact that those children most at risk are not getting the help and resources they desperately need.  Those who's parents are cracking under the stress of poverty and homelessness.  And it is not sexual assault they fear it is hunger and violence. 

Because discussing Paedophilia is considered taboo (I will get 0 retweets), the only side of the debate we hear comes from law and order enthusiasts and alt right loons who have set themselves up as vigilantes.  (see Nietzsche quote about punishment on previous page).  And because no-one really knows very much about the whole unsavoury business, those with an agenda, can put up virtually any statistics they want. If we take the missing children's stats for the number of kids who go missing each year, they would probably equate to an overcrowded inner city school.  Who knew? 

But what irks me the most is the demonising of men, and I say this as a post modern feminist and then some.  I am blessed in that as a child, I had such positive male role models.  Not only my beloved Dad, but a lonely single man who I instantly made my best friend, because he didn't have any.  I had the kind of parents who didn't bat an eyelid when their 4 year old daughter introduced a single man in his 30's with a camera as her new best friend.  Nor were they in the slightest bit concerned when I insisted on spending every waking moment with him.  It was a friendship that lasted many years, and one of the happiest and most rewarding relationships of my entire life. 

Sadly it is the kind of relationship that can probably never happen again.  Poor old Tom, who had catalogues of pictures of me (I was his muse, lol) would have been placed on the Sex Offenders Register , and I would have been deemed at risk.  There was however, nothing sexual in the relationship, all the pictures were in clothes, in public places and with my full and enthusiastic consent.  It is tragic that words of wisdom are lost, because there are still troglodytes out there who try to put men off loving kids.  I often speak to little ones when in supermarket queues and out and about, but I always make eye contact with the parent first.  But for men, they must keep their eyes front, not daring to look at, let alone speak to a strange child.  The cloud of suspicion hangs over everyone, but men especially. 

But back to confidence, the old Silver Fox was right.  At the time he gave me that advice I was reading How to Win Friends and Influence People (Dale Carnegie) (lent out and not returned 4 times!) - now on personal copy 5 and it is marked 'Do Not Remove!'.  It contained within it the most moving and beautiful text relating to our attitude to kids that I have never been able to forget.  It is the reading equivalent of pure nectar, my Christmas gift and a gentle reminder of the innocence of childhood. 

A Father Forgets by W. Livingston Larned   


  1. Meanwhile, a child protection expert calls for funding for ‘paedophile hunters' (a “citizens’ army”). The creation of amateur detectives.

    Talk about amateurs, he also said:

    “Read the Summers and Swan book if you want an impartial intelligent insight. It debunks conspiracy theorists amateur analysis.”

    “an impartial intelligent insight” - You couldn’t make it up!

    1. Many thanks for being brave enough to reply 08:04! Whenever I write about this subject I don't expect any replies or retweets. Sadly, too many people don't want to see past the hatred and the hysteria, and those who err towards understanding and compassion dare not speak out for fear of being accused themselves.

      Unfortunately, this has led to a situation where the most powerful voices on the subject are the official and unofficial, vigilantes. That is people intent on rooting out and pillorying the Loners and the socially inept based on the fear of what they MIGHT do because they look at mucky pictures. Meanwhile the active child abusers carry on as usual.

      The idea of a 'citizens army' is chilling. Isn't that how most authoritarian regimes begin? Apart from sounding like the dream of a wannabe despot (can you imagine the sort of people it would attract?)it is ludicrous on every level. Targeting the watchers of underage porn rather than the makers of it is on par with targeting the users of illegal drugs rather than the suppliers.

      How many kids have rescued from these evil gangs? And who are they? Not their names but shouldn't we be told how they fell into the hands of these perverts, so lessons can be learned?

      Unfortunately, people like Jim Gamble, Tom Watson, Tony Bennett and Stinson Hunter have the loudest voices. They appeal to humanity's basest instincts of cruelty and retribution. And because they have chosen a subject so abhorrent and distasteful to the majority of us, their ideology and methods go unchallenged.

    2. A comment for you Ros - just to show what you accept:

      Is that you Tony

    3. If there was a joke there somewhere 19:48, it went right over my head.

      Having looked at the works of Stinson Hunter and the amount of support he receives from people like Jeremy Kyle and Mark Williams Thomas, I despair of humanity. The suicides of the men they target doesn't seem to bother them a jot, nor indeed does the thought of any sort of fair trial.

      I know this isn't a popular subject, but I am not going to stop speaking up about it, because these vigilantes have way too much power.

      In decades gone by, homosexuals in power or in the public eye, were always vulnerable to blackmail and corruption. With paedophilia, the accusation is enough to destroy lives. And I say lives deliberately, because these accusations affect the whole family, the children especially, some of whom also go on to commit suicide.

      Under Operation Ore thousands of men were wrongly accused of watching child pornography, their names came up because of credit card fraud. However, it was too late to repair the damage, 39 men killed themselves, over 160 kids were seized and placed in care.

      I know a lot of people out there support the paedophile hunters, simply by looking at twitter and the facebook pages. Based mainly on the perceived threat of paedophiles all around them.

      The Madeleine McCann case was sensational because it was so rare, the only other 'similar' case was that of Ben Needham - so 2 in 25 years. However, it was reported as if ALL our children were at risk of being stolen from their beds. And that fear persists, parents are now so overprotective of their children, they would prefer them to remain isolated in their bedrooms with their games, eating junk food. This generation of kids have a lower life expectancy age than their parents!

      This is quite frustrating actually, I know many out there will strongly disagree with me on this subject, but I just wish they would say why.

    4. Really interesting posts as always! I would say that in both the McCann and Needham case there is no evidence whatsoever of abduction and many pointers indeed that the families of the children know what happened and are responsible, at least in part.

      Yes - it is possible the cases were to do with tragic accidents (I suspect the Needham case) it is possible that it was passed off as a 'tragic accident' (the McCann case?) when it wasn't.

      Either way, both cases fall squarely into the non-abduction category, imo.

      While I feel genuinely sorry for the Needham family as I think it was an accident (but Kerry must know the truth by now, imo) I think in the McCann case it is much more complicated than that.


    You might relate to some of this, Ros?

    1. It sent several shivers down the spine 07:26, many thanks ;) It certainly explains the rather odd behaviour of Julian Assange. Living within a cult or an institution leaves with you a lifelong morbid fear of doing things wrong.

      Whilst in the convent, I once put the cups away the 'wrong way up' after drying them. It led to being dragged from bed and made to stand in the dark playroom for the whole night on my own. I was so traumatised that I live in constant fear of crockery police carrying out a dawn raid to check my cupboards.

      The irony is, to this day I still don't know which way up cups should go, ergo, the fear continues :(

  3. I certainly don't disagree with you Ros, Gamble employed exactly the same tactics that he employed in his previous job. The term a force within a force was used then to discribes how him and his team worked I.e. No accountability to the main police hierarchy and it was the same as when he was head of Ceop. In his previous job they used and protected people who committed terrible crimes with the justification that they were fighting a war against people that didn't have much support with the public. At that time him or his organisation had no qualms on the effects of innocent people and their families and relied on the overall public distaste of the emery by a good size of the population to mask some of the awful things they did and facilitated. His role in operation ore and with CEOP worked pretty much the same persecute and distroy lives and families and rely on the public support because it's a war against paedophiles. Theresa May in fairness to her seen what he was creating and put a stop to it with the moving of CEOP into the NCA. What was and continues to be gambles mantra to discredit the PM on this " The C in CEOP always referred to child....." look at me I was protecting your children with my private army of paedophile hunters and the PM is preventing me from doing it. That baby's death in Portugal was just another way of him cementing himself as the protector of our children and he is such a vile b......he had no problem with the subject matter. I mean why would someone specialist in on line protection of children get involved in the "abduction" of a 3 year old who persumanely in 2007 wouldn't know what on line was. The public are not just as gullible as he thinks, just like at home they realised that we all still have to live within moral boundaries and regardless of your thoughts on the enemy the rule of law, decency and justice must prevail. Now he is reduced to commenting on the Stephen Nolan show on things of little important and that's getting few and far between now or selling apps to security firm to allow parents to locate their children to be located at a concert. I even laughed at that one as if every child now doesn't have a mobile phone that the text from to say where they are but again he relies on scare them into thinking there is more they can do to protect their children and all common sense will go out the window

    1. 09:51, many thanks for your considered reply, I have read it several times, and I'm so relieved that someone out there 'gets it'.

      As for Theresa May, regardless of what I think of her, she was on the ball in getting rid of Jim Gamble as head of CEOP. That force within a force, was very much a New Labour and Blair thing.

      'Think of the Children' was their rally cry and it supported their ID card and national DNA database agenda. Anyone protesting was not thinking about the children, and probably a paedophile.

      Jim Gamble speaks with authority, it's his USP, he sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, and you'd better believe it or else. He is quite a scary character and seems to relish his 'we are coming to get you' private moments with the camera. From the perspective of an aspiring politician, he is probably a good mate to have.

      As you say his work has become hugely devalued. Probably because he is competing in the world of technology against youngsters who have grown up with computers and mobile phones and probably know more about them than their parents by the age of 10. My sons taught me about online safety!

      As head of CEOP he fell out with the owners of the social networks because they were not going to kowtow to his scaremongering demands. The new kids on the block are philanthropic and altruistic, they are all about sharing information, not restricting it.

      The truth is most teenagers are not as stupid as Jim Gamble would have us believe. They are what we have raised them to be, and if we have raised them right, they will tell dirty old men on the internet(and in real life)to feck off.

    2. Just to annoy my non film loving critic, the whole business is reminiscent of 'Minority Report'. If I remember the premise correctly, wasn't there a government department and enforcement agency to arrest people on the probability that they would commit a crime. That is a pre crime unit set up to prevent crimes happening based on the minority report of 'Pre-Cogs' - people who could see into the future basically.

      The work of the paedophile hunters, official and unofficial is run along similar lines, except the visions of the future, come from the imaginings of the hunters themselves rather than 3 psychics in a tank of water.

      It is easy to forget that the majority of those men dragged out of their homes, their faces splashed all over the TV and newspapers, have not and probably never will assault a child. They only get as far as they do with the 'hunters' online, because the hunters are offering a hell of a lot more than the average 12 year old girl. I actually find those pretending to be kids just as creepy as those getting their kicks out of talking to them.

      Just as there is no evidence to link 'regular' pornography to violent crime, there is no evidence to link viewing 'underage' pictures to child abduction and child murder. As I have said before and will keep repeating, ANYthing can be a trigger, any book, any picture, any sound, any smell or even Jodie Foster can set a killer off on a rampage. Looking for someone or something to blame is natural, but it isn't logical.

      The problem with underage imagery is the fact that the Laws are so vague, I mean does anyone know them? Unfortunately, fear of being accused makes everyone afraid to ask. Could our suitcase full of pics of our kids growing up incriminate us? The bubble bath ones especially?

      Who scrutinizes these pictures looking for signs? And who decides what the signs are? We have already seen the odious way in which members of the cesspit have put the McCann family snaps under the microscope, yet some people demand a government department to do just that.

      When I had my 'to do' with Bennett, the police officer I spoke to (on the phone, no-one came around) asked how I would feel if I were called a ********. I said it wouldn't bother me because I know I'm not, in fact I would laugh at it and see it as the cheap shot it was. I was angry, a little bit drunk and I got down and dirty, it wasn't my finest hour.

      And the truth is, most people shouldn't be bothered because they have a life history that proves they are not! I know that is easier for me to say as a woman, but it shouldn't be. Those tugging at the leash to carry out these witch hunts rely on 'if you don't support us you must be a paedo' mentality to isolate and pillory their opponents. No-one dare speak up for the accused.

      Unfortunately, because most people, especially politicians, keep their heads firmly in the sand where this murky subject is concerned, and are prepared to believe anything if it makes it go away. I expect many a Home Secretary has breathed a sight of relief when an 'expert' has said 'don't worry I'll deal with it'.

      Unfortunately, in ignoring the subject, those with the loudest voices get to make the laws and enforce them. This pre crime mentality puts us all at risk.

  4. Rosalinda @11:56 “My sons taught me about online safety!”

    Our children are our best teachers.

    I remember, when my children were in what I think you call ‘secondary school’ (‘voortgezet onderwijs’ NL), a scheduled parent-‘teacher’ conference about child safety online was cancelled due to lack of interest. Most parents and their children see such things as outdated scaremongering nonsense.

    1. The skill with which today's kids handle mobile phones and technology constantly amazes me 13:23 (Bjorn?), even the tiniest hands can zip their way through phone apps and games, it's as if they were born to it through some evolutionary leap.

      As a very liberal parent, I can't remember if I used parental controls on our computer, but even if I did, I knew my kids could get round them.

      But to be honest it never worried me. I knew my kids would look up 'dirty pics' just as I looked up 'dirty words' as soon as I got my first dictionary. Youngsters will explore, that's what they do! Even if you put an unsuitable video like Judge Dredd in the top cupboard of your wardrobe, the little tykes will construct a ladder system to reach it!

      I did raise an eyebrow when my 12 year old son became enamoured with a buxom 18 year old called LollyPopHappy that he was chatting to regularly. But when I pointed out that the luscious LollyPop was probably a 50 year old hairy arsed builder, he swiftly moved on.

      The idea of policing the internet to protect people, children especially, is ludicrous. Those who need smelling salts when they stumble across an image or words that offend them, should ask themselves if the internet is really for them? Or indeed, why they feel the need to keep looking for stuff that will outrage them? If you imagine the internet were a great big shopping mall, we all have the same choices as to which shops we go into.

      Naturally, we have to warn our kids about the 'hairy arsed builders', but there is no need to traumatise them! Of course the net is full is creeps, but so too is real life, and it's the real life ones who pose the greatest threat.

    2. Rosalinda @11:52

      Lol, sounds familiar, although I’m not sure about ‘liberal’. I know ‘conservative’ parents being on the same wavelength. For me, it’s just a matter of common sense.

      I am not Björn from Sweden, I am a Dutch woman, so pardon the grammar.


  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. With Freud ‘out of the picture’ in death, that still leaves the Pig’s Head without any kind of apology.

    Robert Hurst tells us he is “working on it” and in contact with the McCann’s legal team.


    June 23, 2016

  7. Björn Sundberg/Sweden18 December 2016 at 11:08

    Thanks for talking about difficult things Rosalinda.
    This may shock many a reader, and I’ll fully understand if you don’t wish to publish this, but as human beings we must seriously be able to discuss, what we denote paedophilia and child pornography, without just expressing our disgust and contempt as soon as somebody mentions these epithets. I’m able to defend every single word I write down here.

    Sexuality is something that embraces our souls and our hearts, and civilized people, whatever their sexual orientation may be, are capable of controlling and gathering strength from it and do good things. Hetero sexual people, who believe, that their sexuality can only be expressed in a sexual act, but not in feelings of compassion, in real love, in sentimentality, in remorse, in happiness or in thoughtfulness etc., tend to ascribe their own, often primitive view upon sexuality to others, who have a deviant sexual orientation, like those, who prefer to socialize and be with children, but who would never harm or abuse any child.

    Why would people, who are fond of children be a threat to them, more than hetero- or homosexual adults are to those they take care of and socialize with? Why would anyone whose sexual orientation is towards children, be more inclined to sexually victimize or rape those he cares for, than homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual people are in all kinds of relations? What’s the difference? Why are such people judged by their sexuality?

    The real cause of sexual crimes is not the sexuality in itself, but people’s general disposition for crimes. If a person , molests somebody sexually, such a crime is likely to be related to that person’s sexual orientation, whatever that may be, so in this respect we are all the same.

    Those, who cannot, but discuss sexual intercourse in different forms, when talking about sexuality, and who cannot see anything deeper in it, has ceased to be a civilized human being and fallen to a primitive level, that does not even reach that of the chimpanzees’ intelligence and emotions.

    Gender affiliation, identity and sexuality are so intimately intertwined, and are so much more than biology and physical sex. Finally, once again, those who are sexually oriented towards children, are not so much different from me, who is sexually oriented towards women, in that I’m a heterosexual person, and I therefore prefer to socialize with them, discuss my feelings, listen to their feelings etc., although I’ve nothing against any other category of people.

    I’m simply, in an emotional way, closer to women than men. How awful, isn’t it. Shouldn’t I be labelled a potential rapist at least? Am I not a threat to a lot of women? Must my ultimate goal always be to have sex with them, and if I’m being rejected, am I then inclined or predestinated to become a rapist? Those who believe so, must also believe, that adults who love children, not just their own, and socialize more with them, than with “normal” adults, are potential child abusers. A person, with a sexual orientation towards children, even if he is hugging or kissing them is not a sexual offender or a child abuser. I beg everyone to understand that.

    1. Many, many thanks for your considered post Bjorn, you have made so many sane and valid points, I don't know where to begin!

      I totally agree it is ridiculous to assume that those who are sexually attracted to children want to hurt them. As illogical as saying men who are attracted to women want to hurt them if they ask them out on a date.

      The assumption that men who like children must have some sicko ulterior motive is insulting to all men. My dear old dad was much like yourself Bjorn, he loved women, especially feisty ones who were as intelligent as himself.

      But he also loved kids. He once spent an entire summer with my older son making an army of soldiers out of cardboard to re-enact a famous battle. My own, dare I say, balanced perspective, is a result of the huge amount of time he took to educate myself and my brother.

      My dear old Irish granddad loved kids too and was a bit of a Pied Piper and philosopher in the small village where he lived. Myself and my numerous cousins would latch onto him, fighting to hold his hand, and walking for miles with him through the fields and lanes. He would tell us long rambling stories, especially about the horrible English and the Black and Tans, and when he was in good mood, we could persuade him to sing Paddy McGinty's Goat. I wonder how Hans Christian Andersen and JM Barrie would be viewed today?

      It is tragic that this, I agree, primitive ideology, is creating such a huge barrier between men and kids. That a man who bathes a child must be a paedophile, and no adult male should be alone in a room with a child. Wanting to film your child in the school nativity play is now prohibited in case the image of small children with tea towels on their heads sets certain sections of the population off into a frenzy. I mean seriously, who thinks like that?

      As for my own sexuality, I always loved a challenge, the bad boys in the early days, then no-one with less than 2 A-levels as I got older and wiser. However, my penchant for guys who can flick a quiff back has never entirely gone away. Men have been my joy and my downfall, but I don't think I would have had it any other way. I think if there is a good Lord, he gave us sexuality to spice things up a bit. Life would be dead boring if all we did was toil, suffer and die. Although some relationships can be like that too.

      So much food for thought there Bjorn, thank you. You have actually prompted me to have another go at completing a blog I have struggled with for years. That is, my own close relationship with a man (not a relative)that began at the age of 4!

  8. Like the war on drugs, the war on paedophilia is lost as well due to its global nature. Sadly as well as drugs there is a global market for such items. The best way to combat this horrendous crime is through education and tough penalties for the offenders. With a quick reference to amateur hunters, how will they be vetted as the best way to hide would be to join the group hunting for you. Also the chance of mistaken identity and malicious claims increases greatly. Look recently at Op ORE, if the professionals got it wrong what chance will amateurs have.

    1. Unfortunately John, attraction to children has been part of mankind's genetic makeup since time began. Look at the Romans, look at the Spartans. Look at the works of the old Masters, the paintings, the sculptures. Are the children being portrayed as beautiful, or are they being sexualised? How many years jail time would Rubens have got?

      Unfortunately the myths surrounding paedophilia has 21st century society in such a tight grip, that everyone and everything is under suspicion. Sanity has left the building.

      Children are beautiful, and it pains me that so many people now feel restricted in taking kids pictures. At the age of 4, I made friends with a single man who was an amateur photographer. For 5 years he was my best friend, and I was his muse. And no, my parents didn't bat an eyelid, I was happy and he became a family friend.

      At the age of 21, I received a huge parcel in the post. It contained albums and albums of pictures of my childhood, complete with dates, names of little pals and a commentary as to what was going on at the time. I cannot even begin to describe what a wonderful gift that was.

      But let's return to the amateur hunters. These are men, and sadly some women, who know absolutely nothing about their subject, and even less about psychology and criminology. The way in which they are egging these misfits on could lead to a real crime. What if they get their rendezvous and times mixed up? And the by now frenzied paedophile is ready with his ether, his van and masking tape should an innocent child walk by?

      What do they say to these men while pretending to be children? I wouldn't mind betting, its nothing a 12 year old girl would say. Twelve year old girls are excruciatingly shy, I know because I was one.

      What are they using to entice these men? More pictures of a model who looks young? How are they leading them on? I saw an episode of Aaron RoachBridgeman's Vigilante Brits where the hunters mentioned they had been after a particular man for 7 months. My question would be how did they keep that man 'on the hook for 7 months'. Over the course of 7 months conversations can become quite intimate. What does the girl say, I love your bald head and pot belly? Or is this pretend 12 year old OK with the fact that she never gets to see pictures of him, for err, 7 months?

      The misfit is either incredibly stupid, or the pretend 12 year old must be saying some pretty spicy stuff to entice them along to a meeting, especially the one in Vigilante Britain who came equipped with condoms and all sorts of paraphernalia. I expect the transcripts of those conversations would be enlightening on all sorts of levels.

      I am guessing a 12 year old girl is not going to defy her parents to go meet a balding 40 year old? From what I know of 12 year old girls, it takes the promise of a new summer/winter wardrobe and £20 to get them to wash up. How are they convincing these men they are real?

      How do they persuade the predator that they are indeed female and 12 and willing to go meet them in a dark alley. Wouldn't the predator be alerted if the girl didn't ask to see what they looked like? Question 1 would be what do you look like? And after seeing the unfortunates entrapped by these 'hunters', I'm guessing for most 12 year olds the conversation would end there.

      It seems to me that the hunted are being as dishonest as the hunters. It reminds me of that 'Catfish', where the nubile young blonde turned out to be an overweight housewife and the 19 year old Marine was in 50's, grumpy and disabled.

      I don't know at which point in history appreciating the beauty of children became taboo and perverse, but in the 21st century this constantly suspicious ideology seems to have taken on the proportions of the bubonic plague. That is, if we are to believe everything we read.

    2. Absolutely agree with you, I attended my son's School Nativity last week and the first thing the teacher said was no cameras or filming allowed. With regards to the hunters, they certainly wouldn't have access to any Intel that is available to the security services or police. If they are using 12 year olds as bait then surely it will be classed as entrapment and will never see inside a court room.

    3. I also forgot to add the Colin Stagg case, were the Police used an undercover female officer. Again if the professionals can make errors, what chance has the vigilantes got.

    4. That nativity picture ban really gets my heckles up John. In what way, shape or form can images of small children dressed up as shepherds and angels be regarded as sexual? Who thinks like that ffs?

      And what if you by the official school video and show it to your friends, are you sharing underage images?

      The creepy thinking of a tiny few has taken the annual nativity play - an absolute joy for every generation of parents - and added a dark, murky tinge that can never be erased. It really does make me mad!

  9. 09/09/2003

    “The answer is not to restrict the technology, because technology isn’t the perpetrator – criminals are.”

    “In the meantime, it’s shameful for the Hollywood-based music industry – one that reaps billions glorifying the abuse of women, sexualizing minors and making role models of thugs, rapists and felons -- to exploit this problem for its own agenda of greed. Not every scoundrel, it appears, is to be found lurking in the darkest back-alleys of the Internet.”

    1. 'Woman in Peril' is such a common narrative 07:31, that it would whoosh at least 50-75% of movies.

      As an old feminist however, it warms the cockles of my heart to see actresses like Jennifer Lawrence taking the lead in action movies.

      I know you are referring more to the music industry 07:31, but a lot of those female stars are pretty much sexualising themselves, eg. Miley Cyrus and indeed Madonna. I think the message they are sending is confidence in their sexuality, they are not crying about the men they lost, as per Billie Holliday, they are telling about the men they are going to whoop.

      Entertainment is entertainment 07:31, and sex sells. The audience wants to be dazzled and taken beyond those barriers.

      I was going to accuse you of being an old fogey there with your reference to 'thugs' (presumably rappers) 07:31, but I have to say my heckles are similarly roused by Joey Essex Why? why? why?

      Unfortunately, bleddy kids never choose the role models we want them to choose! And parents have probably been saying that since the beginning of time.

    2. I guess I chose the wrong link; better next time.

      The point I was trying to make is that it's a sorry state of affairs when this problem has been exploited for one’s own agenda, e.g. the Madeleine McCann case.

      As for the role models, I can’t complain. My children love music, but Miley Cyrus and Madonna don’t come into their view other than being smart business women.


    TB doing his best.

  11. Sex has always sold, since the invention of TV it enabled the companies to reach a national audience. Example a dish washing detergent will always feature a housewife in marigolds. Also since Victorian times were morality was preached, sex was a taboo subject and suppressed but underneath was a very dark timebomb. When I was growing up in the early 80's (loved the 80's) finding a top shelf magazine or trying to buy one was the considered wow look what I've got. The fun part was trying to take it home without your parents knowing & finding somewhere to hide it. I was also a fan of The Sun's page 3 again part of my teenage years which I will fondly remember. Sex will always have a market but since the introduction of the internet it's now on tap.

  12. @john100
    ( now we know your secrets ) :-)
    I loved the 80s too, although i'd left school. That was when Sex Dwarf O'Sullivan ( and Karen Brady was his 'apprentice.). It raised the bar( no pun intended) with the nudity and circus sized boobs and endless ads for blue films and marital aids. The news was about fridges found on everest and aliens in Tescos. So, it was a pivotal moment. Page 3's popularity vanished overnight.

    The pushing of the envelope and raising of the bar is what drives the business. That's what i mean when i mention the habit needing feeding. What's 'tittilating' soon becomes dull and more is required, like with drugs or drink.We, like you, used to think we were really bad sneaking through the pages of artistically - posed naked women. It was so bad then, the thought of kids viewing it was taboo. They wouldn't bother now. Not because they're a new moral breed or enlightened, but because it's nothing to what's 'on tap'. It's progress for the sex industry and the sex industry never makes a loss whatever the economic climate.It aims higher and higher as its audience becomes younger and younger. It's weird times we live in. Sex, violence and drugs have always gone on.But it was headline news if a scandal was discovered. Today it's nothing. Passive acceptance allows its freedom to continue . People might shake their heads and tut tut, but that's it. I'm not saying we're breeding prostitutes and rapists, but it definitely sexualises kids minds and if the curiosity wasn't there it wouldn't be happening. With so many predators watching from the wings it isn't good.

  13. ( i missed out Sunday Sport as O'Sullivan's rag in that opening)