So while Rolf Harris and a few others go to prison and new investigations start amongst politicians

gramps

gramps

Suspended / Banned
Messages
44,805
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
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".
Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28326128
 
One was a doctor who allegedly had over 1 million child abuse images on his PC. How on earth can anyone wade through a million images (of anything).
 
arclight said:
One was a doctor who allegedly had over 1 million child abuse images on his PC. How on earth can anyone wade through a million images (of anything).
Click to expand...
He goes to a site looks at one pic and the rest are logged to his computer, so he may not have looked at millions but looked at 1 and 40 will be logged as they will be part of that cashie (spelling) of pics
 
There's one person lives around the corner to me. 17 PC's loaded and providing upload/download facilities.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/7265422.print/
He was jailed, then went to university to get further qualifications, then started applying for IT jobs in the local area.
Made the mistake of applying to our place and I recognised him.


Want to be shocked. Search the database for where you live: ukpaedos-exposed.com/
 
Assuming guilt (which I never do) it just goes to show that this kind of perversion has no social or occupational divides....
Scoutmaster - OK, nothing new there, think Thomas Hamilton - but I think we expect better from teachers and medical staff
 
Garry Edwards said:
Assuming guilt (which I never do) it just goes to show that this kind of perversion has no social or occupational divides....
Scoutmaster - OK, nothing new there, think Thomas Hamilton - but I think we expect better from teachers and medical staff
Click to expand...

Why would you expect better from teachers and medical staff?
 
chadders said:
Why would you expect better from teachers and medical staff?
Click to expand...
Good question, and the answer is that I don't really know - but I suppose that I expect people who are in caring professions to actually care, and for there not to be a minority who are prepared to damage the people they should be caring for.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Good question, and the answer is that I don't really know - but I suppose that I expect people who are in caring professions to actually care, and for there not to be a minority who are prepared to damage the people they should be caring for.
Click to expand...

Except that some are drawn to certain areas because it gives them greater/less questionable access to children & young people.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Good question, and the answer is that I don't really know - but I suppose that I expect people who are in caring professions to actually care, and for there not to be a minority who are prepared to damage the people they should be caring for.
Click to expand...

I think in recent years, whilst the vast majority of people in the caring professions do care, there has come to light far too many cases, and not necessarily involving child abuse, that show a significant number don't. Therefore we should be no more surprised that a teacher, or a member of the medical profession, should be involved with this than a scout master.. or indeed any other member of any voluntary organisations that is responsible for children.

In fact it's clear that in many of the cases of historical abuse of young boys, currently under investigation, so-called care workers in cage homes, were actively involved in procuring the boys.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Assuming guilt (which I never do) it just goes to show that this kind of perversion has no social or occupational divides....
Scoutmaster - OK, nothing new there, think Thomas Hamilton - but I think we expect better from teachers and medical staff
Click to expand...

The people I would expect the most from would be a child's family, yet I still believe that a kid's greatest risk of abuse of any kind comes from Dad / Mum / sibling / "uncle Bob"...etc.
 
viv1969 said:
The people I would expect the most from would be a child's family, yet I still believe that a kid's greatest risk of abuse of any kind comes from Dad / Mum / sibling / "uncle Bob"...etc.
Click to expand...

Thats right and it those ones we usually miss and drop thought any safety net out their :(
 
viv1969 said:
The people I would expect the most from would be a child's family, yet I still believe that a kid's greatest risk of abuse of any kind comes from Dad / Mum / sibling / "uncle Bob"...etc.
Click to expand...
Errr . . . . . . I have 5 nieces & 2 "step-nephews" (if that's s real thing)...... So I actually am "uncle Bob" ;)

Joking apart, one of the things that truly worries me about the widespread suspicion these cases have raised, is how people now react in public places. We were chatting in the pub last Sunday about what happens now if you're walking your dog in the park and child is running along in front of you and falls and hurts themselves and bursts into tears.

5 years ago, most people I know (especially "dads") would have immediately rushed to help - today, most of the people said they probably would help, but they'd be very cautious.

I fear the world has changed forever :(
 
BT Bob said:
Errr . . . . . . I have 5 nieces & 2 "step-nephews" (if that's s real thing)...... So I actually am "uncle Bob" ;)

Joking apart, one of the things that truly worries me about the widespread suspicion these cases have raised, is how people now react in public places. We were chatting in the pub last Sunday about what happens now if you're walking your dog in the park and child is running along in front of you and falls and hurts themselves and bursts into tears.

5 years ago, most people I know (especially "dads") would have immediately rushed to help - today, most of the people said they probably would help, but they'd be very cautious.

I fear the world has changed forever :(
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I don't think that the reluctance to help is limited to just kids.

Unrelated but not entirely...
Last night, about midnight, after taking my dog out I saw that my next door neighbour's front door was open, which it never is. House in total darkness.
So, I poked my head round his door and called his name a few times, no response.
Now, he is elderly and has epilepsy, and lives alone, so I was a bit concerned about his safety.

I probably should have gone in and searched, but I didn't. I just phoned the police, who said that they would go round there. I went to bed and don't know what happened after that.

Why didn't I go in? Fear of being suspected of burglary I suppose, it just seems to be the logical thing to do to go in and check that he's OK, but risky to just wander in uninvited.
 
BT Bob said:
Errr . . . . . . I have 5 nieces & 2 "step-nephews" (if that's s real thing)...... So I actually am "uncle Bob" ;)

Joking apart, one of the things that truly worries me about the widespread suspicion these cases have raised, is how people now react in public places. We were chatting in the pub last Sunday about what happens now if you're walking your dog in the park and child is running along in front of you and falls and hurts themselves and bursts into tears.

5 years ago, most people I know (especially "dads") would have immediately rushed to help - today, most of the people said they probably would help, but they'd be very cautious.

I fear the world has changed forever :(
Click to expand...

I wonder how those named Ernie felt after Tommy's release... ;)

Again, joking aside, Mrs Nod used to work in the local museum and was one of the first aiders there. If a solo child was found, they (the staff) were not allowed to hold its hand to lead it to the reception desk and gods forbid that anyone should put a sticking plaster on a booboo or owie.
 
Again, joking aside, Mrs Nod used to work in the local museum and was one of the first aiders there. If a solo child was found, they (the staff) were not allowed to hold its hand to lead it to the reception desk and gods forbid that anyone should put a sticking plaster on a booboo or owie.
Click to expand...

Thats simply internal rules, due to ignorance, supidity or just a fear of litigation that won't happen.
I am also a first aider, and if thats what it takes reassurance wise, I'd do it. Chances of prosecution? Nil.
People are scared these days of being prosecuted, mostly groundlessly.
The other myth is if you do first aid on someone and they die you can be sued. Well, they are welcome to try, but it won't get anywhere. So far in the UK, no one has tried it, probably because even solicitors realise they would be on a hiding to nothing.


Anyway, back to the point. Are the NCA on about the operation from a few years ago, where a child porn ring was uncovered in the US, and that implicated a large number of people in the UK? It led to a few suicides as I recall.
 
Bernie174 said:
Thats simply internal rules, due to ignorance, supidity or just a fear of litigation that won't happen.
I am also a first aider, and if thats what it takes reassurance wise, I'd do it. Chances of prosecution? Nil.
People are scared these days of being prosecuted, mostly groundlessly.
The other myth is if you do first aid on someone and they die you can be sued. Well, they are welcome to try, but it won't get anywhere. So far in the UK, no one has tried it, probably because even solicitors realise they would be on a hiding to nothing.


Anyway, back to the point. Are the NCA on about the operation from a few years ago, where a child porn ring was uncovered in the US, and that implicated a large number of people in the UK? It led to a few suicides as I recall.
Click to expand...


I think that was Operation Ore, Bernie. It was a sting where folk bought child porn on the net using credit cards (from which ID's were subsequently obtained). There were a lot of prosecutions and about 1300 (Wikipedia info) false arrests in the UK. Trouble was that a lot stolen card details were used and the wrong folk got accused.
 
That was it! Couldn't remember what it was called.

Anyway, the point I'd make about it is that different people have different things that float their boat. Irrespective of their occupation or status in society.
Be they Police Officers, or as I recall the Navy's Flag officer for Gibraltar, who was found face down in his swimming pool when he should have been attending a police station to be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Assuming guilt (which I never do) it just goes to show that this kind of perversion has no social or occupational divides....
Scoutmaster - OK, nothing new there, think Thomas Hamilton - but I think we expect better from teachers and medical staff
Click to expand...
As much as it hurts me to defend the man Thomas Hamilton was not a convicted paedophile
 
jakeblu said:
As much as it hurts me to defend the man Thomas Hamilton was not a convicted paedophile
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but that may be for reasons other than his innocence - whether or not he committed illegal acts, it's pretty clear that he had an unhealthy interest in little boys and that he used his position as a scout leader to get close to them.
 
Bernie174 said:
That was it! Couldn't remember what it was called.

Anyway, the point I'd make about it is that different people have different things that float their boat. Irrespective of their occupation or status in society.
Be they Police Officers, or as I recall the Navy's Flag officer for Gibraltar, who was found face down in his swimming pool when he should have been attending a police station to be arrested.
Click to expand...

He wasn't the only one, there were also policemen who were arrested. I know of one that committed suicide because of it
 
As I said there were a few suicides over it. I don't doubt they'll be more.
Like it or not, and I don't before anyone leaps on their personal bandwagon, people can't help what turns them on.
 
Bernie174 said:
As I said there were a few suicides over it. I don't doubt they'll be more.
Like it or not, and I don't before anyone leaps on their personal bandwagon, people can't help what turns them on.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but everyone is responsible for his or her own behaviour.
 
Maybe not, but everyone is responsible for his or her own behaviour.
Click to expand...

That depends on what their behaviour is. For example in some Countries the age of consent is much lower than the UK. If they were looking at pictures of people aged 14 from those countries where that is the age of consent, should that be illegal here?
In the 80's page 3 of the sun was often a 17 year old, nowadays those same pictures would earn you a place on the sex offenders register, and everyone here screaming 'pedophilie'
And before you doing a yer but thing, thats exactly what some of these offences are.
 
Just to throw a bit of a curve ball in.

Are paedophiles, and I mean in the sense of a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, (actually that is the definition isn't it?), mentally ill or abnormal, whatever that means, or are they criminals? (There's a lot of commas in there, but it's a complex subject.

Depending on the answer to that, how should they be dealt with?
 
simon ess said:
Just to throw a bit of a curve ball in.

Are paedophiles, and I mean in the sense of a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, (actually that is the definition isn't it?), mentally ill or abnormal, whatever that means, or are they criminals? (There's a lot of commas in there, but it's a complex subject.

Depending on the answer to that, how should they be dealt with?
Click to expand...

As abhorrent as it is, its a sexual preference, just as hetero and homosexual are. Fortunately though, it is not a preference that is accepted in civilised society, so they can all rot in hell as far as im concerned.
 
Bernie174 said:
That depends on what their behaviour is. For example in some Countries the age of consent is much lower than the UK. If they were looking at pictures of people aged 14 from those countries where that is the age of consent, should that be illegal here?
In the 80's page 3 of the sun was often a 17 year old, nowadays those same pictures would earn you a place on the sex offenders register, and everyone here screaming 'pedophilie'
And before you doing a yer but thing, thats exactly what some of these offences are.
Click to expand...
That's a falacious argument. At one time, the age of consent was much lower here too, and children could get married at 14 for boys and 12 for girls - but we've moved on, so what does that have to do with now?
If laws are being broken, then they are being broken in the country in which the offender is situated at that time and is subject to, end of.
 
arclight said:
One was a doctor who allegedly had over 1 million...
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to end with 1 m children. Some dr in US had pretty much every single IVF child in a huge area. That is news; people that mess around internet shouldn't make the news headlines (presuming he wasn't onto something else more physical).
 
simon ess said:
Just to throw a bit of a curve ball in.

Are paedophiles, and I mean in the sense of a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, (actually that is the definition isn't it?), mentally ill or abnormal, whatever that means, or are they criminals? (There's a lot of commas in there, but it's a complex subject.

Depending on the answer to that, how should they be dealt with?
Click to expand...

the urge is the former , the lack of control of the urge is the latter ( I mean the average heterosexual bloke might experience sexual attraction to any number of good looking women , but won't go out and rape every one that takes his fancy)

A bullet in the head covers all bases (and ensures the reoffending is not an issue)
 
Nikon_Nick said:
As abhorrent as it is, its a sexual preference, just as hetero and homosexual are. Fortunately though, it is not a preference that is accepted in civilised society, so they can all rot in hell as far as im concerned.
Click to expand...

Paedophilia is classed as a mental illness

Also homosexuality was classed as a mental illness until 1973
 
big soft moose said:
A bullet in the head covers all bases (and ensures the reoffending is not an issue)
Click to expand...

castration would also ensure the same and they would have to suffer it for the rest of their lives. I think this would be a suitable punishment. A warm room, free food and getting paid for staying there is not a suitable consequence for their actions. They could be out building the railways for example, and keep the prisons empty.
 
Bernie174 said:
In the 80's page 3 of the sun was often a 17 year old, nowadays those same pictures would earn you a place on the sex offenders register, and everyone here screaming 'pedophilie'
Click to expand...

Sections 1(1) and 1(2) of Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended by section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) prohibits the taking and distribution of indecent photographs of any person under 18 years of age (it used to be 16 but is not any more). The only exception to taking photos is if the person is married, but they must not be sent to anybody else.

So the real decision here is what's indecent. Would simple topless images be considered indecent, especially in the light of page 3?
The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognised standards of propriety. So do we fall back to the Obscene Publication Act 1959, with the test of does the material have a tendency to deprave and corrupt?

I can understand the decision to not risk the CPS, but even the prosecuting guidelines from Jan 2012 suggested community orders and non-custodial sentencing for large numbers of level 1 images and/or small numbers of level 2 provided for personal use and not distributed.


I'm seriously considering writing my thesis on the social restrictions of photography with children.
 
That's a falacious argument. At one time, the age of consent was much lower here too, and children could get married at 14 for boys and 12 for girls
Click to expand...

Actually it's not a falacious argument at all, it's indicative of the age of consent being a number and not being based on a need to protect. There is a very big difference between a child of say 6 and one aged 16. As I have said many times before, there's not that many 15 year old virgins, and many of their boyfriends are 17/18 and older. Yet we all accept that, although it's a sexual offence. But someone who has a nude photo of that 15 year old is in the eyes of the howling mob a pedophile.
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending it, simply showing you it's not as clear cut as an arbitrary age.

Byker, 'deprave and corrupt' is a moving feast, and thats the problem. The same applies to the word 'pornography'. Both though depend on the 'eyes of the beholder', hence it is for a Jury to decide. If you speak to the extreme feminist brigade, they will say Page 3 is porn, if you speak to the average man in the street it isn't.
Social attitude's in general move the perception of what is obscene or pornographic upwards. So once page 3 would have been taboo, it' isn't now. Once men and women having sex was defiantly porn and possession would lead to being changed. Now you can buy it over the counter in Soho, and of course view it anytime you like on line.
The CPA, strangely moved it back the other way, but I wonder of in reality the social attitudes would agree? It would I think come as a shock to many that a topless photo of a 16 year old could led to a trip inside, notwithstanding the CPS Guidelines.
 
READ ALL ABAHT IT! READ ALL ABAHT IT!

Geza in agreement with Bernie! Disagrees with Garry Edwards shocker!! :runaway:

Bernie has encapsulated almost all my thoughts though I'll just seek to correct him about one thing. Having step-fathered two girls in the modern age, there are probably more 15 year old virgins than he believes. And some several years older. Today's teenagers cover the whole specrtrum from old-fashioned innocent to shockingly over-worldly as they/we always did! Although social pressures for and against sexuality have changed. Which is why arbitrary ages of consent might have legal force but can have no absolute moral value. A bit like some speed limits actually!

Other than that, as I understand it, any two 16 year olds of whatever sexual persuasion can consent to do anything together except they cannot share pictures of themselves doing it until they're 18. That has to be bad law!! It isn't joined up thinking and as Bernie said, in this internet age how can you equate the legal position of a 15 year old Spanish girl sending selfies of herself from Barcelona as opposed to a 15 year old girl from Bolton? Or the legal position of the boys in those two cities they want to communicate with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top