主播大秀

ok so he recons looking at pictures of innocent children isnt such a bad crim so they shouldent be sent to prison,well as a mum to 6 daughters and 5 sons this disgust me.every person who takes a childs precious innocense away should go to prison even if its taking pics or touching,god help the children of our future .if this man allows pedos to just get a caution and told go be good,what will be there next step take another madeline away?,just the same as petty theft turns into bigger crime.people who comit offences progress to worse crimes.i can only asume this man is encouraging pedophilia because he too has it on his comp,otherwise how can he come to the conclusions he has?would a normal man allow these men to carry on because thats what he is going to allow.every person who comits such degrading things againt children should get just punishment.i am one woman who stand on the side of kids,i want to protect them not let some nast evil pervert do horrid stuff to them.come on people of the uk,stand by our kids and dont let perverts get at em.send each and every one of them to prison as the rightly deserve.....tracy

It's anyone with the thought that Paedophiles (any) should not face a prison sentence who should be put away - for a very long time.
The Moral Fabric of this country over 10 years has been shredded, when Homosexuality can be legally 'Promoted' in schools to kids and as young as four is a damned disgrace.
Who was it that made it legal?
Yes a Government bereft of any Moral Values whatsoever!
But that's the Socialist for ya, bent in all aspects!

The issue of child pornography in particular and paedophilia in general deserves a much better coverage than asking 2 totally unqualified people to discuss it.

It's about time you realised that the issue is of such a huge magnitude that there must be something more to it.

To adopt the line that innocent children are being abused is being most naive.

And it is necessary to discriminate between issues related to boys and girls.

The word "paedophile" has lost its true meaning because of hysterical reactions to a few isolated albeit shocking instances of stranger attack on girls.

True paedophilia and the associated matter of child pornography is a much more benign situation. And there is a mass of evidence that there is much good that comes from it.

The topic deserves a far more detailed coverage rather than leaving it to the ignorant attacks emanating from a certain kind of woman and the tabloid press.

I would say it was more than socialists that were bent.

I am wheelchair bound and I get about the best way I can. What I cannot understand is this, I spend quite a bit of time surfing the net and blogs in particular when I cannot get out.
It is surprising just how many blogs some people go on. I see the same names over and over again, always griping about the same subject either the Labour Governments or Muslims. The whine like a cracked record.
I am sure they are not all housebound. I just think they are sad individuals who need to get a life. They must be quite sick in the mind to prefer to sit writing to blogs instead of getting out and about.

Maurice appears to be drunk. New Labour socialist? Eh?

I presume he/she is also a member of one of those mad sects, e.g. Christianity, who associate homosexuality with paedophilia due to their own hatred and mental retardation.

Forza reason.

Well well - Who associated Paedophilia with Homosexuality?
Not I Mr. Dawkins but you, why would that be?

I do however associate this Government with both, yes this Labour Socialist one. When they legalise the 'Promotion' of sex of any kind to kids as young as four - what would you call it? Education Education Education maybe.
Try Sick Sick Sick!

Read:-

#6 I would say it is more the sign of an embittered tormented mind with a bad outlook on life and an attitude problem.
Imagine having to live with that 24/7 it is enough to give anyone the screaming hab-dabs.

I would say it is you who are sick Maurice, you make Homosexuality sound as though it is something dirty.
It most certainly is not and incidently I am hetrosexual.
The only sick-sick-sick I can see is in your sewer of a mind. You are judging others by your own standards.
As for Perer Hitchens that just about says all that needs to be said. Weird-Weird-Weird

Try tolerence tolerence tolerence and there but for the grace of god...

When homosexuality drags kids into the frame - that is sick!
Obviously some don't think so and says more of them than I!

Tolerance = Weakness, Weakness Weakness and due to the Grace of God I don't do weakness when it comes to youngsters!

Labour "Don't do God" do they?

I believe that I am sensible, realistic person of this day and age. I am a Chartered Engineer, and an Engineering consultant, who is well versed in keeping an open minded opinion on many variable issues, but what I have heard tonight gives me a great deal of concern. Following the comments by the gentleman being issued, I would suggest that if he (or any similar minded persons) were kicked up and down my street, than I would happily not just overt my eyes, but most likely applaud! I do not have any children at this time, but do have 5 nieces and 2 nephews, and if I worry for their safety, if these are the type of individuals who are being punished for their actions (namely the viewing of child pornography etc.), and have been released while still bearing these views. I hope that Government and Law begin to be more sensible and moral about such issues, before I have the pleasure of gracing this earth with my children. Thank you.

I was photographed as a child & there is nothing more horrible, horrendous, sickening, shameful, gut wrenching act than the actual physical abuse itself! To have to lie on a bed & be positioned into various poses with your legs up & spread wide or urinating into a bowl (you couldn't even go to the toilet without abuse! This all started when I was 4yrs old! I had intelligence - I knew it was all wrong but no-one would listen!
I have one simple remedy other than prison & why no-one has thought of it before I don't know! Its called CASTRATION! 2 strikes & your out! Lets take the abuse right back to them! After all it takes away ALL libido & the sex-drive doesn't it!?!

I was photographed as a child & there is nothing more horrible, horrendous, sickening, shameful, gut wrenching act than the actual physical abuse itself! To have to lie on a bed & be positioned into various poses with your legs up & spread wide or urinating into a bowl (you couldn't even go to the toilet without abuse! This all started when I was 4yrs old! I had intelligence - I knew it was all wrong but no-one would listen!
I have one simple remedy other than prison & why no-one has thought of it before I don't know! Its called CASTRATION! 2 strikes & your out! Lets take the abuse right back to them! After all it takes away ALL libido & the sex-drive doesn't it!?!

I was photographed as a child & there is nothing more horrible, horrendous, sickening, shameful, gut wrenching act than the actual physical abuse itself! To have to lie on a bed & be positioned into various poses with your legs up & spread wide or urinating into a bowl (you couldn't even go to the toilet without abuse! This all started when I was 4yrs old! I had intelligence - I knew it was all wrong but no-one would listen!
I have one simple remedy other than prison & why no-one has thought of it before I don't know! Its called CASTRATION! 2 strikes & your out! Lets take the abuse right back to them! After all it takes away ALL libido & the sex-drive doesn't it!?!

Thabo Mbeki has singularly failed to live upto the example of the one great African leader Nelson Mandela. His comments deriding HIV/Aids as a 'social problem'; South Africa's rampant criminality as a hangover from Apartheid and not something the government need specially address; and his shameful failure to deal with the suicidal and racist policies of the Mugabe regime (one which he could bring to heel tomorrow) - rank him as a global imbelice and the latest in a long line of substandard and corrupt African leaders. Extremely disappointing. In terms of Blair - his power evaporated in the wake of the Iraqui fiasco - what would help ameliorate Zimbabwe's injustice? A bombing raid on the centres of power Mugabe maintains to consolidate his power to precipitate a revolution from below. The chances- nill. Interventionism is on the retreatm, and sadly, Africa is not important enough for the West.

Is Damian Hi/urst not the most boring interviewee ever? He's said the monotonous phrase 'you know' at least five hundred times during Kirsty's hagiographic worship of this eminent mediocrity. In 50 years people will look back in shame at the money and attention thrown at this shambling, moronic and ultimately meaningless emblem of a new and worthless gilded age of immoderate excess.
Oh and by the way, has the moderator departed for a night on the tiles? Or has the bbc's commitment to diversity grown to include homophobic idiots - I speak of the calamitious provocateur Maurice.

#16. The man is more to be pitied than laughed at.
I ask you who is more sanctamonious than Blair then Maurice says:-
Labour "Don't do God"
Read the rest of the blogs he posts to when he is not rabbiting on about homosexuals, it is Muslims-Foreigners-Socialists-African poverty-Socialists and Muslims. he spends most of his day looking up the net trying to find every bad piece of press given to these subjects but always manages to miss the positive.
This is day in and day out.
I think if I had to live with this character I would be perfectly happy to keep him blogging day and night.

#6 He is not drunk what you see here is what you get stone cold sober-can you imagine what things would be like if he were drunk- a bit of sanity and less bigotry perhaps- it can only be an improvement and he may just manage to join the human race.

First and foremost I will express my feeling of excitement about the video's show of Allan Johnson,who by himself said he was fit and well.

Though he was made to claim to be fit and well under the duress of his captors,when in fact he was not well, then I am only excited that he is alive.

For Allan's captors, on my personal level, I can not put them in an innocent category. This is because journalists, as is well-known, are impartial group of professionals who can, if for any reason, communicate with devils in an impartial manner, and so is Allan.

Their demands, for whatever reason, are not claimed through a right, fair and convincing channel.

Allan was there to provide a fair and an impartial coverage of all developments in Gaza where their demands could also have been covered in a fair and unbiased manner.

Allan is the one who turned me on to listening to the world news on 主播大秀 with a special interest in Gaza.

I believe if it could be somebody else kidnapped instead of himself, Allan would provide us with full information about his condition and about the group of captors. But now all information about his captors and, to some extent, his conditions remain a mystery.

I missed Allan alot on 主播大秀 news.

Any society and or culture which respects its children must regard paedophilia as a crime and protect those children from such people by imprisoning them, otherwise the victim is further humiliated by the lack of serious response to the incident/crime. We have had on record breathtakingly crass statements from Judges who have said of female child rape victims, "She'll forget all about it."

Almost all paedophiles are men and most of their victims are little girls. This sexual problem that these men have is on a continuum of a desire for domination and power over the female which expresses itself in rape of not just children, but women too, not just of individuals in peacetime, but also en masse, as in situations whereby social cohesion has collapsed e.g. in wars and in natural disasters, tsunami, earthquakes, etc.

I suggest that because this is a male to female problem, like rape, it is not owned by men as being their problem, but it is excused as more of a natural instinct that men have and females must accept. This particular perspective is overt in some cultures, but in ours it tends to be covert. Men are reluctant to face this fact about their sexuality and many sadly regard it as a natural male trait, others who would not even contemplate such acts are too embarrassed to acknowledge that their fellow men do want to indulge themselves in this way and push away the problem as being that of a few deviant males, or deploy the pernicious excuse of 'cultural relativity' to the problem if it takes place outside their own ethnic group.

To properly address the problem of male sexual deviation we have to have a society that admits to it, and to the extent of it. We have to look at male sexuality, not from the male perspective driven by the self protective interest of patriarchy, but of how much and how often men claim to "need" sexual relief and come to understand in order to deal with the ways in which male sexuality becomes deviant. In fact one can, if facing reality, not even regard this behaviour as deviant at all because it so prevalent. In many cultures sex with little girls is the norm, and rather than being labelled as paedophilia it is called marriage. In our own culture if we talk to women about the things they have experienced in their childhood it is astonishing just how many report sexual behaviour directed at them by adult males even if some instances where not traumatic but regarded as funny eg. exposure.

There has to be a seismic change coming from men about their sexuality.

All viewers saw the start of a debate that must be had, NN works to the clock and so are limited as the how far they can go!
The invited guest with an unhealthy disposition was exactly what the limited interview needed and got!

Jim Gamble, what an appropriate name for someone who is ready to gamble with the lives of children because he has a theory which would allow a criminal to circumvent the proscribed penalties of the enacted law.

Dr. Nigel Leigh Oldfield; I have always felt that anyone who asserts that an individual convicted of a crime should face a reduced period of incarceration below what the law proscribes and the court sentenced should vouch for the criminal by signing a contract agreeing that should the offender commit another crime during the time he would have otherwise been incarcerated, the sponsor would be required to serve the same sentence and pay a stiff penalty to the victims. You say that nobody would ever go out on a limb to make such a guarantee and put themselves at risk? And that is precisely my point, you would have others assume a risk based on your theory you would not take yourself. You thinking is a menace to public safety.

FAO Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield. I refer you to my comment at 20. and my post below and would be interested in your male response.

Paedophilia is NOT a mental illness, it is a culture perversion maintained by male hegemony and therefore must be dealt with by the law. The argument below outlines my reasons for this point of view.

Listening to the therapist on the "Any Answers" prog. rad. 4 we heard a therapist say what many of us, including orgs. like UNICEF, Amnesty International, Save the Children et al already know, that THAT THIS PROBLEM IS VAST, paedophilia is NOT something that a handful of nasty men do.
THis is a vast problem encompassing both here and the rest of the world. One sadly, could even state without contradiction that it is normal, where here the word 'normal' covers what is prevalent and not in the least unusual. What we must do is bring it into the open, and get men to have a long hard look at the frequency with which their sexual predilections become a dangerous and sadistic menace to children, while not forgetting that this very same inability to control their sexuality is also a problem for adult women too.

Throughout all the discussions there has been much huffing and puffing and shock horror, yet this has been going on since time began in all cultures, many cultures accept it allowing marriage to little girls.

I personally do not think it is a mental illness, I believe it is a CULTURAL PERVERSION MAINTAINED BY MALE HEGEMONY.

We are social animals, our sexuality is NOT controlled by biology, but by culture, as women, we are more aware of that fact than are men, because it is men who have, through their patriarchal networks, the power to dictate what those cultural norms are going to be, and what punishments will obtain if they are not upheld, and so it is bent in their own favour.

Women's natural biological sexual urges and desires are repressed by various methods, and the same could be applied to men if the desire where there. Women's sexuaity is controlled by methods from the mild, i.e. being morally outcast, right through to the most draconian method, the abomination of fgm. But these prohibitions, these indictments are made by men for the benefit of men. Men's own sexuality has costs too, but not ones that are as restrictive as those he puts on the female.

Now if paedophilia is not to be tolerated in our culture, and this is a choice, one that MEN make, and there are signs now that men are beginning to think that this cannot go on, then THEY [because they still wield the most power even in our so called modern liberal democracy] then THEY have to own this problem as being theirs and decide how they are going to address it in such away as to bring it under proper control. In what way are men going to set controls and not just silly ineffectual window dressings to this problem they have in their propensity to slide into deviant sexual aggression that brings harm to children?

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield;

I live in the United States. We had a system where judges had great discretion in imposing sentences. It didn't work. We had a terrible crime problem about 35 years ago. One notorious judge in New York City Bruce Wright nicknamed "turn 'em loose Bruce" felt that any African American who was accused of a crime was automatically innocent because of the cultural oppression their group had lived under and every case against one in his courtroom was dismissed. This is why many states removed much or all discretion in sentencing and imposed manditory minimum sentences on criminals. Some states have even gone so far as to enact three strikes and you're out laws meaning that if someone is convicted of three felonies, they automatically go to jail for life without the possiblity of parole. In part, as a result of these Draconian measures, crime has dropped dramatically as over two million criminals are currently incarcerated in the US.

Adopting your position would nullify the democratic right of the citizens to pass laws imposing sentence through their legislators and to enforce them on the say-so of someone considered an expert. This is not democracy, it is technocracy, dictatorship of the elite.

In the preamble to our Constitution among the stated purposes of government are; establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility....secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

This means the establishment of a criminal justice code by the legislature and enforcement of the laws by the executive and judical branches. It is important for children when being educated to understand that if they break the law and are caught, they will have to pay the penalty. When I was in high school, one class trip was to the Queens County Courthouse where we not only had a talk about the criminal laws by the District Attorney and saw the courtrooms but got to see actual prisoners in holding cells awaiting trial. I think that can be a sobering experience making those who would be irrational enough to contemplate crime to think twice, too bad everyone doesn't do it.

Criminals always look for a scapegoat to excuse their crimes. The drug addict says that if illegal drugs weren't available, he wouldn't have had access to them and wouldn't have committed the crime of buying, possessing, and using them. The supply chain all the way back to the producing country says that if there were no market for them, their people wouldn't be growing them or distributing them. The answer of course is to attack the crime from end to end.

In your case, the market you'd allow for child pornography to go unpunished at times contributes to heinous crimes against children somewhere in the world. Were such policies as you advocate imposed where I live, I'd start a campaign to have those who enacted it removed and I think a lot of my neighbors would agree and I don't even have children. You might say that officials complying with such a threat would be bowing to political pressure and so they would be. That's how it is in democracy, the majority of people get to decide what the laws are and what the punishment is, not some expert. When they allow their rights to be trampled without reacting, they lose their democracy.

In the very rare instance where the system has broken down and a horrible miscarriage of justice has obviously occurred, there is always the possibility of appeal for a pardon to the Governor of a state or in the case of a federal crime, enactment of a law or a pardon by the President for a one time special case. This would be most unusual for carefully crafted laws though.

The range of images which fall into the category of child pornography is quite wide.

From images created entirely on a computer, without the involvement of children, images of those between sixteen and eighteen, legally able to have sex, but still morally questionable to take photos of them, all the way to explicit sexual acts with pre-teen children.

It is obvious that a person found with a small number of CG images is far less of a threat or has caused less damage than a person who has a collection of thousands of photographs of sex with pre-teen children. And of course there are an infinite variety of levels of offence between these extremes.

To say simply looking at images, which did not involve actual abuse to make, is on the same level as habitually collecting photographs of real abuse is nonsensical.

We need to stop the hysteria and approach this sensibly. Someone who looks at images that do not contain actual abuse, and has no record of sex offences, may well be better dealt with outside of prison.

We also know that, despite the widely held belief of a 'spiral of offending', that viewing does not lead to doing.

The crime commited, by viewing photographs of abuse, is the incitement to abuse more children, in order to supply more photographs.

This is a serious crime and should be treated seriously, but not more so than 'hands on' offences, which result in a lower proportion of prison sentences.

Striking to see such shrieking about Paedophilia on the Newsnight site, making it read like an erudite version of the 'Sun' letters page.

Punish those twisted creatures who actively harm kids (or knowingly commission such harm) by all means but I don't fancy living under social lockdown brought on by a hysteria whose rise and all-pervasiveness is eerily similar to that of "anti-bigotry", albeit subscribed to by the opposite end of the social spectrum.

I'm not a psychiatrist but it seems to me that in those adults who would find it pleasurable to engage in or contemplate sex with children, there is a deep underlying mental illness in which the feelings of inferiority are so strong that they cannot deal with other adults on equal terms and need to confine their intimate relationships and fantasies to those they can exercise complete control over. Among the criminal classes in prison, paedophiles are so dispised that often their very lives are in danger. Society at large is equally repulsed by them. In many states in the US, convicted child sex offenders who are released after serving their prison sentence are required to register with the local police and be known to their neighbors so that they can protect their children from them. Child sex offenders in the US are viewed as one step below lepers.

It's interesting that you would say the US in in decline. Actually, it is Europe which is in decline and while other Euros from Polish plumbers to French graduates of business school flee their failing nations to Britain, 10% of Brits have fled Britain to live elsewhere according to 主播大秀, and from the widely spoken British accents I hear, many have fled to America. Apparantly your sense of inferiority doesn't limit itself to sexual matters.

I really don't know which large European countries are safer due to lower crime rates. Hardly large British cities. Certainly not Germany or Italy. And I don't think France or even Spain. Many of the crimes revolve around abuse of foreign nationals and go unreported. A large alienated subculture in most European nations is on the verge of rebellion, especially Moslems. Europe is in race relations where America was about 50 years ago and there is no comparable civil rights movement to improve it. (If this topic is too far afield for you, you have no one to blame but yourself since you responded to it.)

When it comes to the infringement of human rights, convicted paedophiles in my society have few rights remaining. They have shown utter disregard for the most basic rights of the most vulnerable in society often in one way or another contributing to the destruction of their entire lives. The chances of those of your views of beating me or those of my view in any campaign to determine what the laws will be and how they would be enforced is zero.

BTW, were there not a large market for paedophilic pornography, nobody would bother to post it on the internet and charge money to view it or download it. Why would anyone risk being discovered breaking the law if there were no profit in it?

Mark, you asked and I shorten it: were there not a large market nobody would bother to post it on the internet and charge money to view it.

What you mention is rare, outside of credit card fraud and commercial law enforcement, the market you refer to is a myth. Although Mr Gamble at CEOP said there had been 1000% increase in CEOP reports in the past year, CEOP only came into being on the 1st of April 2006.

This story overall kicked off bigtime in the states. First up was Landslide, and it turns out they were just an AVS service. A couple of rogue webmasters with illegal material had big revenues, but their business was credit card fraud. They were working with US law enforcement, the secret indictments against them were unsealed, and the honesty of US law enforcement was called into question.

Consequently, Detective Steven Nelson left Dallas PD, Michael Mead left USPIS, Mike Marshall left the District Attorney's office and filings remain outstanding against Special Agent Frank Super of the FBI.

What is certainly desirable behaviour, is to base an argument on the facts. Dowloading cp intentionally is illegal in most contexts, it is taboo, yet you seem to believe there is a substantial market out there of people about to submit their credit card to an illegal website. I would suggest most unlikely.

Undaunted by that disaster, operation Candyman was launched to great fanfare. Once again, things came a cropper. The FBI had given false information to the courts and in two US courts on the same day, when Yahoo evidenced that the FBI had falsely incriminated thousands of citizens, that was the end of Candyman. That wasn't a commercial site, it was discussion groups, and Yahoo were not willing to allow the FBI to distribute child pornography and they shut the site down, shortly afterwards facing a prosecution themselves. Draw your own conclusions.

Next up the FBI launched operation sitekey saying they had taken out another child porn host. Like Landslide it wasn鈥檛 a child porn host, just an AVS service to prevent minors from accessing adult material. Whilst the FBI were busy putting people in prison, the business owners were talking about setting it up again, it had been shut down a year before the FBI got there due to credit fraud, Landslide being shut down about a month before the FBI got there for the same reasons. Over a year is legally significant in the US, as the evidence could be ruled inadmissible in court.

Although Mark you might be basing your assumptions on public information and even on official reports, these and other high profile operations were launched to great fanfare in the media, their collapse and irregularities went virtually unreported.

In Operation Ore in the UK it was originally reported that nearly 50 people were being targeted, then nearly 1,000 then over 7,000. To you perhaps that means there is a big market, but thousands of those cases have been dismissed already and others are going back to court in what equates to a class action whilst the police officers administering it remain subject to official complaints.

The 'crime' I refered to is not on the statute books, it is why I support the prosecution of those who download and view abusive child pornography.

People have been prosecuted for 'buying', that is paying for child porn without having downloaded it. The argument for such prosecutions is that it constitutes incitement to create child porn.

I'm sure you must be familiar with Ore where people were prosecuted and convicted, even though they had no actual child porn and may not have ever seen any.

With the photographs of dead children, whilest I believe that news reports can cause trauma to children viewing them, I recently heard a report of children frightened of being abducted like Maddie Mcann, and I despise the rise in the use of 'necro porn' amongst newsgatherers, there is no direct abuse involved to the deceased.

Dignaty in death and the feelings of the family certainly should be taken into account when showing such images, but a certain amount of reality brings home just how bad war is.

The law, in the U.K. deems anyone under the age of sixteen, unable to give consent to sex. It may well be that they happily indulge in sex and feel willing and uncoerced, that is not the point. The judgement of lawmakers is that they are not capable of assessing all the ramifications of such decisions and should be protected from possible emotional trauma.

Some may say that sixteen is an arbitrary line to draw and different people mature at different rates, but what is the alternative? Individual assessment by psychologists and the presentation of a licence to have sex?

Incitement is potentially a topic on its own, but it was raised by Steven in the context of people paying for something but not downloading it. That is a rather strong indicator of credit card fraud, it has been evidenced as such in Operation Ore though I would have hoped it was self evidentally dangerous to tilt the scales of justice that a criminal conviction did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is I think useful to understand what originally happened, how AVS and cc fraud became normal on the Internet. It is quite obvious from some of the steam here how cp became the favoured fraud device, incriminating the accused perpetuates the scam by mitigating complaint and one has to remember most fraud is not reported anyway, and that which is is seldom investigated properly.

That explains perhaps 'the market' but not how it came about. These laws substantially originate from US presidents being tasked with censureship of the Internet. In an attempt to establish an academic basis for this commissions were set up (Lockhart and Meese). Although laws were passed, the academic findings of the commissions were that the censorship was specifically harmful to minors.

That is a profound conclusion, and evidences laws were wilfully enacted knowing that they were harmful to children.

I don't concur with the American poster, child care in Britain and the US are a disgrace, worst still, that issue isn't a secret, it is continuously reported in the media how real children at known risk are abandoned by very expensive child care systems.

David;
Let's not be naive here. Just because I don't frequent adult bookstores or research the pronogrophy market myself, I have no doubt that there is a lucrative worldwide market for all types of sexual perversions including child pornography and child sex. It is an entire industry in some countries such as in the far east like Thailand, the Phillipines, Indonesia, and others and the major paying customers are often middle class and wealthy men from Europe, North America, and Japan on sex holidays. We have testimony from someone on this very thread and as a mere tourist in Mexico some years ago, I was propositioned out of the blue by a man who offered me his 14 year old daughter laughably claiming she was a virgin.

So what are you telling me, that the FBI can't find child pornography on the internet or that all of the providers have smartened up and run their businesses from beyond the US borders where the US government can't touch them and local laws are either unenforced or non existant?

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield

A Euro calling America a criminal country, that is rich, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Europe's history is an endless sorry litany of wars, murder, inquisitions, crusades, imperial empires of exploitation, slavery, and every other heinous crime under the sun perpetrated in every corner of the globe. A few weeks ago, we celebrated the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. What most accounts left out was that shortly after the English settlers arrived, so did slaves. Africa in an entire wasteland cataloging Europen crime as is southeast Asia. So is Arabia, while South America is mostly the work of Spanish atrocities. The US is a rejection of everything European, always was, always will be.

The Europeans didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq because they doubted Saddam Hussein had WMDs, every intelligence agency in the world and even his own generals believed it, they opposed it because they were making money illegally circumventing the UN sanctions just like the criminals they always are and because they wanted to see America attacked. That's why they criticize the US for GHGs but not China which now produces even more than the US. And to boot, they would have denied the Iraqis American liberation from a terrible tyrant having enjoyed the aftermath of American liberation from Hitler themselves. What horrible people Euros are. It hardly surprises me that someone like you with a tyrannical personality which seeks to impose its will on everyone and anyone would take this position but it won't work. I don't know how long they'll put up with you over there but I wouldn't come here if I were you, it wouldn't be long before you'd wind up in jail or in a bar room brawl. BTW, another thing most Americans despise....pedantic personalities who pontificate.

I lived in Europe myself many years ago for nearly two years, Bordeaux France to be precise. I've also traveled around there some to try to understand it and frankly I will never go back. America's shortcomings notwithstanding, Europe is clearly a very inferior civilization to my own.

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield

With all due respect.....your whole argument doesn't add up to a hill of beans. Even if everything you said were true instead of false, it would hardly matter. In a democracy, the majority of voters through their elected representatives get to say what the laws are, what the punishment is, and how it will be enforced, not some sanctimonious expert. And if those representatives don't comply to the satisfaction of the voters, they are removed and replaced by others who will. That's how democracy works. In America's democracy, drunk drivers and paedophiles go to jail. That's how it is here now. Just be glad that so far, it isn't a capital crime, we still have the death penalty in 38 states too.

As for America being a criminal nation, I remind you that many of the people who emigrated to the USA were considered criminals in one way or another in the societies they came from even if it was only the crime of having the wrong religion or ethnicity. There is no doubt that among its many positive attributes, America when judged fairly is by far the most violent and dangerous nation this world has ever seen. That is why it is not a good idea to cross it. If there were any doubts, dropping two atom bombs on Japan not only took whatever fight was left out of it, it sent a clear message to the USSR and the rest of the world that the US would not hesitate to use such weapons again in the future if it became necessary. For America, in the exercise of foreign policy, the use of military force to achieve its objectives is NEVER off the table.

Mark

You have mixed issues in your post; it could be misleading were I not to deal with each separately.

Underage sex in the real world is not something I have knowledge of so it would foolish of me to comment. I personally believe it would be naive to trust the UK or US governments to enter other nations especially in the name of helping children.

Issues I can personally comment on relate primarily to the Internet. If you were to assert that there was a substantial commercial market for underage imagery in the UK and US on the Internet, I think I have commented sufficiently, though you may like to research what happened back in the 70鈥檚 and 80鈥檚, strikingly similar.

The topics at hand appear to be the following:
1) Should individuals found with a "handful of images" be imprisoned?

2) What consitutes an "indecent image of a child"

In order to answer this first question and perhaps what Gamble was attempting to say is that he has learned from Operation Ore. The man has made a rod for his own back. It has now been proven that Gamble lied to the general public as far back as 2003 and as recently as Jan 2007. Ore was not about catching internet paedophiles- it was a set up. Gamble claimed that all 7K of these men paid to view "horrific images of child abuse"- again not true. We now know that some areas of Landslide were up to 80% fraudulent credit card transactions. (In my families case that was proven by the CPS carried on regardless)

Gamble claimed that all 7K "clicked here for child porn"- again a fabrication.

So armed with his incorrect and life destroying accusations, he authorised police up and down the country to raid thousands of homes at 7am in the morning- admitting this was done for "maximum impact". Now lets forget about the terrified wife once her husband is hauled off in plain view of the neighbours and being left to explain to them and the children. Let's forget about she then has social services at her door telling her that her life partner is a sick paedophile who may have been grooming HER for years. Forget that this woman is given 30 seconds to make a life changing decision- "Kick your husband out and refuse him any contact with yourself or the children until the end of proceedings or we will put your children in care."

Forget the small children at the time of the raid being dragged from their beds by the police and then locked in a room until they can watch daddy being arrested by the police. (again for "maximum impact")

Remember Gamble told us this was all in the name of child protection.

And so husband is locked in a cell for hours and finally interviewed. Question one: Have you seen this picture before? No
Question 2: How old is she? Uhm maybe about 16/17
Statement 3: See this screenshot? You clicked on that screen in 1999! Admit it! I have never seen that before in my life.
Statement 4: You are guilty of buying child pornography from this website- and you have to be guilty of this because we found some "indecent images" in your Peer2Peer file.

(18 to 24 months later- standing outside the Crown Court)
Statement 5: If you plead guilty, we will try and be easier on you and you might see your children again someday.

In the example above, in such a situation, back in 2003/04/05 that man would have been sentenced to anywhere from 28 days to 6 months in prison. He would have been placed on the sex offenders register for 5 or 7 years. As part of this, the local rag would have a headline "pervert downloaded horrific images of child abuse." Within the article the judge will undoubtably be quoted as saying "these are the vilest images I have ever seen."

Upon release, he is still not allowed to see his children and will have had no probation and no sex offenders treatment programme as part of his sentence. But justice will have been served. But was it really? How many children were better off because of this? How many worse off because of this?

How many children have been "saved"? (Remembering that these children are 15/16/17 year olds- who for all we know put the images on a peer to peer network themselves)

This is the type of situation Gamble is talking about in question one.

Given what we know about Peer to Peer (KaaZa, Limewire, 360 share, etc) Are these images put on the internet for grown men to salivate over? I would suggest that more like kids thinking they are cool and showing off for their friends. Even Rye Wyre has admitted that you can get these images by accident and that on p2p files don't necessarily say what they really are.

But remember, this is all about child protection.

1) Should individuals found with a "handful of images" be imprisoned?

The question itself is simplified to the point of being unanswerable as it does not relate directly to an act, intent or how the Internet works. That was pointed out in the US courts and there is a precident there.

The number of illegal images present alone does not indicate whether a) a person is guilty or b) the extent of that offence. In both instances it can be wholly irrelevant.

2) What constitutes an "indecent image of a child"

There is no scientific definition, so one can only look at what is happening in practice, the subjects in the photograph could be of any age, in their twenties for example. It is not possible to do justice to such a question here. That people are charged for imagery that is not remotely adult, e.g. a picture of house sounds a simple issue, but it is much more involved.

If one thing has been made clear on this subject, it is how simplistic, 'soundbite', definitions can be so badly interpreted and mislead so many.

When asked about this, the average person assumes A; each image is abusive and the worst possible and B; every viewer is already, or on the road to becoming, a 'doer'.

We have already seen how wide the definition of child porn can be spread, but as an illustration of the second point these quotes may be of interest;

At an International Investigative Psychology Conference held on December 12th 2005, Dr Stuart Kirby, a Detective Chief Superintendent with Lancashire Police (who himself holds a PhD in Psychology), said "When you look at all the research that has been done nationally, the consensus is that there has not proven to be a link between the viewing of pornography and the committing of hands-on offences."

David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, funded in part by the US Department of Justice, after a study was completed that revealed that rates of reported child sex abuse in the US have dropped by 30 percent in the past 10 years, concluded: "There is no evidence that the Internet is fueling an explosion of child sexual abuse." And that: "pornography is not one of the major causal factors" in the abuse of kids.鈥�

No doubt various journalists, think such complexities are too much for the average person to deal with (or are too afraid to tackle a real controversy, instead of their usual knee-jerk opposition to politicians), it is certain that the Police and CPS take advantage of public ignorence of such matters, even encourage it to further increase their powers.

Unfortunately this ignorence and the hysteria whipped up around Peadophilia, all help to generate the 'lynch' mentality that assumes anyone accused is guilty and ruins so many lives, as we have heard that includes ruining the lives of innocent men, women and children too.

When Gamble declares the number of children 'saved' what he means is the number seperated from parents convicted of such crimes.

You apologists for viewing child pornography on the internet just don't get it. It doesn't matter whether what you say or not about child pornography is true or not, what matters is that it is illegal. The perps were investigated, were indicted, either pled guilty or were convicted by a jury and sentenced under the law. It is the same argument the pro marajuana advocates make, but it doesn't matter there either. If you want it to be legalized, then start a campaign to get it reversed by convincing the public at large that it is not a danger. Unless and until that happens, you take your chances even with one download. The perps in Lisa's entry (assuming it is Lisa and not Lisle) got what they had coming to them because they either pled guilty or were convicted. Just be glad it was 7 am and not 2 am when they made the busts. Are you a perp or the spouse of a perp? They got off easy this time in my opinion, next time they might not be so lucky. If their ordeal was injurious to their family, they should have considered that before they broke the law. If they hadn't downloaded the porn, there would be nothing on their computers to produce as evidence in court. If they were solely the victims of credit card fraud, they should have discovered it in their bill and reported it to their credit care company immediately, I for one don't believe it for one second. My kid had access to my computer, he was the one who did it...teenage boys what do you expect. hah, the judge or jury didn't buy it because there would have been no restrictions placed on people found innocent.

Dr Oldfield, for someone who is so busy as you claim, you certainly have found plenty of time to gripe here.

Mark,

Credit card fraud on this scale can easily go unoticed, the fee to sites may only be a pound or two. Add to that the fact that under ORE many thought they were paying for adult sites and had no idea the payment processor had child porn sites as clients too, but they were assumed guilty and prosecuted anyway.

As for images being on your computer without your knowledge, this is perfectly possible, either placed there by a virus or downloaded disguised as part or all of a legitimate file. It is easy to hide a graphic image within almost any other file type (Google steganography).

Unless you know what you are looking for it is invisible to you, but Police forensic technicians will find such things very quickly.

Accidentally clicking a link to such a site, perhaps a link hijacked from another site, will put any images on a page on your drive and deleting them does not make you 'safe', forensics can recover them. You have to prove that you did not deliberately download them.

Pled guilty?

If you have any idea of the horrendous ordeal of being under investigation for a peadophile crime and knew that the Police will threaten to tell your collegues, family, friends and the local newspaper if you don't confess. What then would you do if offered a caution as an 'easy way out'?

But your attitude of there being no smoke without fire and that the police and courts are always right and fair, makes life very simple for you.

I hope you are not brought down to Earth by an unfounded accusation against you or a member of your family.

Mark, I don't know if you in US law enforcement or somehow stand to profit from this, but it is certainly strange that by inference you are keen to call so many innocent people in the US perps. Many of them are in jail for a long time based on such allegations and tactics as yours.

Also, had you been so inclined to look at what happened in the 70's and 80's as mentioned here, you might have found the big distributor of illegal imagery was the federal government, by their own claims the biggest and big busts didn't follow because the market wasn't there. Times haven't changed much, Operation Avalanche was based on a federal government child porn server, again confirmed by US law enforcement themselves.

It is the war game to bang a drum about cp, as if everyone should either be banging a drum for it or against it. I don't fit into either camp, it isn't to me an issue that I see merits priority consideration, what is being done and why is a different matter.

I saw someone make a post on a newspaper blog, it wasn't on this topic, but I thought it was rather apt.

"Fear and anxiety are weapons in the social armoury for control of primal human aggression. The media are complicit in manipulating this - to the cost of truth and true democracy. For how can 'the public' respond appropriately to such news as this when it is being disinformed of the real strategies that lie behind such events. It is all about resources. Be calm. Measured. Search for the truth. You won't find much of it in the headlines."

It's really funny. "Oh it was only a $2 charge, I completely overlooked it when I got my monthly credit card statement." "Oh, they downloaded it on me as part of a virus, I never knew it was in my computer, it seemed to work just fine anyway." We had a case of a man on trial last week who claims he was a sleepwalker and that he was fast asleep when he sexually assaulted the baby sitter.

The jury didn't believe his story either.

I'm not in law enforcement, never have been and nobody in my family is either. But every perp in prison has a story about why he is not guilty and is working on an appeal.

When you are accused and plead innocent, you may get your reputation smeared if people believe you are guilty anyway. When you plead guilty, you know they will find out and you know that they will believe you did it. Therefore there is no profit to protect your reputation by pleading guilty. People plead guilty because they know that they are likely to be convicted if they go to trial and confess in exchange for a reduced sentence.

My attitude isn't where there is smoke there's fire, my attitude is that juries are far more often right in their verdicts than not and while the jury system may not be perfect, it's the best system so far devised. I don't think they are ready to convict people against whom the evidence is suspiciously flimsy or can't be substantiated. The notion that you can convict on anything is wrong, all it takes is for one juror to say no.

Insofar as entrapment goes, there are very clear cut definitions of what is legal and what is not legal in the way the government act in enticing criminals to commit crimes and then get them prosecuted for what they have done.

When is a rape not a rape? When the defendant hires a convincing enough shrink to persuade a jury that he did it involuntarily in his sleep. In this case the jury didn't buy it. Funny thing about juries, they actually take ALL of the evidence into account not just a well paid psychiatrist's testimony about what is hypothetically possible. They are also probably usually skeptical about coincidences. Does daydreaming count?

Gee Dr Oldfield, isn't this too far off the topic for you? It's not kiddie porn....unless the perp was below the age of consent. So you say that in Mexico the age of consent is 12 years old? Strange, at that age, some girls haven't even reached puberty yet. Odd for a country so strongly influenced by the Catholic Church.

Mark, it is quite obvious that you will not believe anyone can be bullied into confessing, based on your optimistic view of how things work. Good luck with that.

With the lynch mob hysteria that surrounds this type of crime and the assumption of guilt, even those who are cleared have, along with their families, already suffered a horrendous ordeal.

I don't know if you have a system of police cautions in the U.S., but accepting one here means no trial (with all the pressure and publicity that a trial brings), but it also means pleading guilty. It is well within the rights of the police to interview an accused persons family and friends and it is not unusual for details to be 'leaked' to the press. So this is a potent weapon for the police and a threat against anyone, even the innocent. In fact it is easy to see why an innocent person may well take a caution.

You dismiss out of hand the perfectly reasonable prospect of someone overlooking a few pounds credit card charge, or the possibility that you could have illegal material on your computer without knowing it and you try to justify that dismissal with an extreme example of a hard to believe excuse.

This is not logical argument it is prejudice, you have decided that those convicted must be monsters and are happy with that.

If you share your computer with others, how can you be sure that they have not, even accidentaly, downloaded something illegal? Can you tell if a file contains something other than what it says? Not everyone can. Have you or any of those you share your computer with ever clicked a link and been taken to a page you didn't expect?

Perhaps someone you share with has and was too embarressed to tell you?

The only defence in such circumstances, at least in the U.K., is to prove yourself innocent. Not so easy to do.

But you live in a perfect world where only justice is served and only the guilty are punished by the police and courts, I wish you well in your fantasy.

Mark, if you seeking to help rather than profit from your words then they have worth. You did say: 'But every perp in prison has a story about why he is not guilty and is working on an appeal.' That statement was untrue, if you are interested in truth, you might consider withdrawing that statement.

The idea that everyone in prison is claiming to be innocent is a myth, it is more normal (and easier) for innocent people to keep their heads down and suffer in silence. America has a fund of people who are awake and angry because the US DOJ wilfully delivers the opposite of its name.

You said: 'People plead guilty because they know that they are likely to be convicted if they go to trial and confess in exchange for a reduced sentence.' This is the way the US incarceration system works, they create absurd sentences so that people cannot afford to go trial, guilt or innocence is irrelevant, plea bargain is a matter of survival. During Op Ore, the UK police were first calling for prison, then longer sentences then calling for life sentences, to force people to plead guilty in any circumstances.

The jury system has merits, but there are ways to rig a jury. One is release false information in the media, the other is to deny access to the evidence (the truth). Both of these were done in Op Ore, so you have a blind jury who don't want to risk being responsible for letting someone go free who might be guilty. That is why the false claims were made that they were arresting child abusers.

That has no semblence of justice, rather it represents a material threat to the public as a whole.

You said "as entrapment goes, there are very clear cut definitions of what is legal and what is not legal in the way the government act in enticing criminals". There used to be but if you presuming those rules are followed, you would be mistaken. To introduce another US sting, RegPay, the federal authorities were distributing child pornography world wide by spam. That puts illegal imagery in the forensics of people's computers. The FBI said if you have it, it is a bust, it sure is, statistically it is likely to be a plea bargain, but it is completely illegal.

FAO Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield.

While we seem to agree above that paedophilia is not a mental illness we then part company. I claim that it is a cultural perversion maintained by male hegemony, deriving from male self interest to the detriment of the female child. I believe it ought to be regarded as a crime with draconian punishments to follow.

In your reply you do the typical male thing, compartmentalising an issue that you need to hold in abeyance because it is too hot to handle. You did this with my argument by categorising it as a 'feminist argument', 'feminist' generally being regarded by many men as a derogatory term, in order to distant yourself from the truth that it upholds. However, I am NOT arguing from any theoretical feminist standpoint, I'm arguing from the standpoint of a women, from what I know and understand from that experience in our patriarchal society, albeit a fairly benign one, at least from the perspective of other patriarchal cultures.

So to continue. Here I would like you to consider a comparison between society's attitude to killing and sex with children.

Killing people is a very natural response to great anger. It is cathartic and a perfectly understandable response in many instances. However, we do not tolerate this on an ad hoc basis in any known societies. We feel the need to ritualise many of our natural needs to kill, (capital punishment, soldiers ritualistically trained to kill in war, to give a few examples) in order to distance ourselves from strong emotions, to control them. Otherwise we know that life would be chaotic and very, very dangerous, 'nasty brutish and short' to quote Hobbes. And we shall see that this is always the case for the female, something men have chosen to ignore.

Paedophilia, we seem to both agree, is likewise so common an urge as to be perhaps "normal". (I defined what I meant by this term very clearly above) It is possibly as frequent an urge if not more of an urge than the one to kill. Why therefore do I claim that this ought to be a crime with very severe punishments attached when in many cultures it is openly accepted as normal, e.g. Afghanistan, where an 8yr old child can be used as a sexually active wife, Iran whereby the mullahs in 1979 moved the marriage age for girls from 18yrs to 9yrs, and you can still marry a 9 yr old girl with the consent of her father and one imam. These are just two examples of paedophilia being accepted as culturally normal and defined in ritual as marriage. There are many more countries that have ritualistically accepted paedophilia.

Why is it wrong? Simply because of the damaged, physical (we wont even go into the psychological) damage it does to a females child.

And why is not regarded by men who make the prohibitions that we all live with, as being unacceptable to the well being of a society when they clearly are able to see that ad hoc killing would render their society chaotic and short lived.

This blindness to the well being of the female and to the female child no less, is selfish, self centred and cruel. It has developed out of fears that men have about women.

Their first and greatest fear is centred around the fact that they have no way of knowing who their progeny are. In order to have any control over this predicament they MUST possess the reproductive organ that incubates the foetus. So women's reproductive and sex lives have to be controlled and owned by men, and consequently that is why there are greater punishments for those women who contravene the laws made by the men. The easiest and safest way to be sure of your progeny is to take a wife BEFORE she reaches puberty, hence the Afghan saying, "Better your daughter has her first bleed in her husband's house than in her father's house." The other certainty about progeny is of course virginity, at least so men believe.

With these two fears contained for men we can now see how the younger and younger female became a safe bet for men's certainty over their progeny and this too, I have no doubt, is how the male fetish for virginity arose.

Men's fears we see override the horrific affect and show their incapacity to empathise with the female bcause of this 'need' they have for certainly. So eventually they become detached from caring for females in an appropriately empathetic manner.

Now I hope that the moderators will bare with me here over the graphics, but the female vagina in a prepubescent child is no more an appropriate place for an adult penis or indeed any object than is the anus of a little boy. Yet men seem to think it is! They tend to be far more outraged by the latter than the former, yet both are equally horrific asaults. The prepubescent female who has been used in this way will tear and the long term consequences for her are dire. She will later, when adult and giving birth, not be able to stretch, scar tissue is not pliable and so she is destined to tear again.

Now what of the pubescent child? We have well documented evidence of children giving birth. The consequences are horrific. Unfortunately for the human female nature has not been kind. She is fertile BEFORE she has reached her full physical maturity, she can be made pregnant before her body is equipped to deal with a pregnancy. Death by childbirth is something she, in the more primitive cultures, and the more misogynist cultures, has to face quite frequently. (Unfortunately the death rate has never quite been enough for the human race to be wiped out and a better design take its place. God would not get a GCSE pass in design technology for sure.) Possibly the frequent death rate of young birthing females has contributed to men being able to detach themselves from this suffering. "Don't get too close because she'll be gone in this birth or the next." Certainly in Afghan culture no one bothers to grieve or even mention the death of a mother in childbirth, she is simply never referred to again.

So my contention is that we have to make men face the fact that their fears have developed over the centuries into a perversion that is detrimental to the well being of females and this urge for violence, because that is what it is, towards the female child has to be dealt with in just the same way that society deals with other urges like the urge to kill.

IMO a truly civilised society is not one to be judged by its music, its art; after all the Nazis were art lovers, Egyptian culture is very fine, yet that cultures has 90% of its females without genitals.

IMO a truly civilised society is one that allows its little girls to have their childhood. To grow up exploring themselves as whole and autonomous human beings, not wombs on legs, or vulvas for male gratification. One which allows young girls to reach their full physical stature before they start the gruelling business of giving birth. For that reason alone paedophilia ought always to be a crime and one with very strongly enforced levels of punishment.

It seems to me, if thousands of homes of innocent people were illegally "raided" in the UK there would be a national scandal, a loud public outcry, a thorough investigation, heads would roll, and some police might actually be prosecuted themselves. I don't know what the law in the UK is but as I said, in the United States, the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is a reasonable search and seizure? The District Attorney must obtain a warrant for each search proving to a judge who works for a completely separate independent branch of government that a crime has likely been committed and that there is reason to believe that pertinent evidence germane to that crime can be found on the premises to be searched which is described in the warrant with specificity. The police cannot just arbitrarily raid people's homes here and if they do and find evidence, not only is it not admissable in court, but any further evidence or testimony obtained from the fruits of that evidence is also inadmissable. (Watch Law and Order, it's an education.) Were we talking about one or a few people I might find it plausible, when there are thousands involved, I don't.

What probably happened is that the police found the source of the kiddy porn inside the UK, obtained their credit card payers names and account numbers from the owners of the site, and then obtained the addresses from the credit card companies, got warrants, and searched every one of them simultaneously finding their downloads still on their computers. They were probably told that if they didn't plead guilty to a lesser charge, they would go to trial and likely be convicted on the strength of the evidence. From what Lisa posted, that's how it sounds to me. It was one great big GOTCHA! By the way, any judges, MPs, corporate execs, or other bigwigs in that rodeo roundup? Nah, they probably get their rocks off with the real thing on sex holidays in Thailand.

David, there is a fund of people in prison who are angry because they were caught committing crimes and were prosecuted, convicted, and are serving their sentences.

"they create absurd sentences", the "they" happens to be the elected representatives of the voters who elected them because they want criminals taken off the street because they were tired of the revolving door justice we had when judges had discretion. If these animals can't be trained to behave like civilized human beings when they are free in society, then the only rational choice is to put them in a cage where the can't hurt anyone else. In many states they get just two chances to demonstrate that as adults they understand this and if they still don't get it, they get put back in a cage for the rest of their lives. That's how we want it. Your theory of jury selection is absurd. The jury pool is chosen from the list of registered voters and either side can dismiss a certain number of prospective jurors on any grounds during the voir dire process. This assures a fair jury. In my experience, juries take their responsibilities seriously. All it takes is one unconvinced juror to prevent a conviction in a criminal trial. As for what constitutes entrapment, that is also subject to abjudication with appeals right up to th Supreme Court if necessary. You still fail to understand that the laws and penalties are ultimately what the voters say they are and in democracy, there is no alternative.

Mark
You are making alot of assumptions.......I am an american being held hostage in the UK.. I say that because it is the truth.........I got divorced and was told my american chldren could not leave the country without the government's permission for more than 28 days.......I contacted the embassy in London and was told we are stuck as the British have jurisdiction. We are effectively prisoners here.
Now how about this...my second husband and I never actually got round to be being married (you know that ceremony stuff) but I feel more married than I did for the 12 years, 1 day and 1 minute I had to endure it (that should say alot)
Get this.....out son is not classed as British......mummy from brooklyn and daddy from dumfermline in scotland....he was born here but is not entitled to a UK passport.

But as part of Operation Ore they took my baby's passport.......in case I would "abscond" with the child..factually true. Evidence available.

So what is the British government doing detaining and abusing a child that they will not give citizenship to even though born in this country?

How out of control is this gov't?

What hogwash. So anyone who gets caught molesting or raping someone should get away with a defense that they did it in their sleep? They'd better have some pretty darn convincing evidence that this was the case in their instance or they will be headed straight for the slammer.

You presume that
(1) juries cannot tell the truth from lies.
(2) juries are prejudiced against the defendant but experts are not prejudiced in favor of anyone.
(3) juries are ignorant, stupid, and incompetent, cannot understand the law or be relied on to render a fair verdict.

Therefore....all such cases should be tried before King Nigel Leigh Oldfield or his appointed royal minions who will render justice based on real knowledge and a fair unbiased assessment of the case because no one else can.

You know what your problem is? You were born 700 to 1000 years too late. You just don't get it. Legislators will listen to what you have to say when they hold hearings on the subject of reviewing and changing criminal law and will act in a way that they can defend their actions to their constituencies when their re-election comes up...or their recall vote. Yes we have that too in many places...if the elected officials do not bow to the will of the voters. Yes, I hear what you say, they have mobocracy in America. That's undoubtedly what King George III and Louis XVI said too.

I think he went back in his cave, dawn will be breaking soon :-)

I think he went back in his cave, dawn will be breaking soon :-)

Dear Lee

It does not surprise me, having known you personally for a number of years, that your response to your conviction, under British Law, is met with same amount of arrogance that you displayed then.

Your attempt to defend the fact that (quote) - "A TWISTED teacher jailed for downloading 11,000 vile images of children is masterminding a website for paedophiles from behind bars"(Mirror -31/08/2005) - after being caught taking photographs of children in a shopping centre - is beyond my belief and the comprehension of any decent individual. Perhaps you would like to print the newspaper link in your reply for others to judge for themselves.

As a person who was entrusted with the education of our children, as you were, you should and was correctly dealt with- excuses such as stress/pressure of work etc. surely do not account for the 11,000 images that were found on your computer! Perhaps the next stage of your argument would be to convict individuals on the number of images found! Therefore 12 months, in your case, would seem to me to be a very lenient sentence indeed.

Your comment that you are now running your website at tax payer's expense, presumably dole payments as the result of your convictions, just displays your arrogance further.
Also your earlier comment of appearing on an important National News programme would seem that you wish to revel in and claim some form of credibility, which to me would indicate that your rehabilitation has yet to begin. Lee, discard with the smokescreens and face reality.

Mark
You are making assumptions about the UK legal system. The way Op Ore worked was:
1) the government leaked false information to the public- therefore there was no chance of a fair jury trial of one's peers
2) your own children were used as pawns in the game to get a conviction.
3) In the majority of Ore cases, independent defense experts were not allowed to analyse the computer or any other evidence......is that fair?
4) psychological torture was used. the men of ore were bailed for up to 2 years pending their day in court. In the meantime, they were interviewed over and over and over.....and told....you did this. As my first husband used to say, "tell them something regularly enough and they will believe it"

The majority of Orees had either no images found on their computer or a "handful"- ie under 20 or so. All could rationally explain how they got there.......but given all the above no one would believe them in a jury trial. Even with nothing found on their computers, they were still forced to plead guilty to incitement. As I said, torture- "plead guilty and you can see your children"- it really was done that way. No jury to hear the whole story and evidence (still bearing in mind you were not even allowed to look at it yourself)Didn't that save alot of money!!! And look we have this wonderfully high conviction rate- hey public, we are effectively policing! We are protecting your children from perverts!!!!

Finally Mark, think about this.....if all these men had knowingly committed this crime, would they not have destroyed their hard drives before the knock at the door? They didn't because they did not know that their computers were a crime scene. They did not know what was on their computer.

The British also have a process that is not very American. We proved the basis of the search warrant was false in our case.......in the UK that is not relevant. The example we were given was "If they search your house for stolen goods (basis of the warrant) and find nothing like that but find a dead body in the freezer- they will just arrest you for that" Illegal search and seizure is not recognised in the UK courts

Due to the heavy handed nature of Operation Ore I now: have to take blood pressure medication, for two years had to be on medication for panic attacks, I have been formally diagnosed as having post traumatic stress disorder, I have had a stroke that partially palalysed me for a few months, my children have suffered. It is all well documented that all of this is due to Ore. Can we get any justice? No we have been told that to sue for compensation would cost us 拢100K and we would only get probably about 拢7K in compensation. Due to Ore, my youngest child and I were threatened with him being "forcably adopted".

Mark, our rose tinted view of criminal justice as is done in the US does not apply in the UK. You have no idea what this country is like. I said in an early post, I am being held hostage here. I stand by that statement. I have been told I can escape but only if I leave my children. Clearly as a responsible loving mother, not an option. My rose tinted glasses are off.

If the way operation ore was handled was so fair and really going after only guilty people, please explain this: why would a woman of 36 years old who had never had any health problems physically or mental health issues have to go to her doctor and state "I am terrified.....if I see a policeman, I climb into a closet terrified they are going to rape my life again."

Why would this same woman with a double masters degree in history and economics who was a non executive director of a company also respond to the police in this way (having been stopped for supposedly running a red light)-"Get away from me you B""""""- you kill people, destroy their lives, you try to steal their children, you make them hate figures. People die because of your lies."

Clearly there is a heck of alot more to Ore than you think

Have a nice day
L

Lisa, as I said, I am not at all familiar with UK law. OK, I'll assume for arguments sake that what you say is true. Then there are several things which follow. It was always my hunch that in reality, Britain is no democracy. No written down Constitution guaranteeing protection of civil rights. Every one of your points would have not only been a violation of constitutional rights in the US, even individually the cases would have been thrown out of court, collectively the prosecution surely would have had no case and there would have been a political firestorm, possibly with prosecutions and civil suits against the authorities. Where was the public outcry? Where are the UK civil rights organizations marching in the streets, petitioning MPs, demanding reform and dismissal of this miscarriage of justice. Why did the police need special laws passed regarding terrorist suspects if they could get away with this, even terroristss couldn't be held without charges for more than a couple of weeks.

In the US every one of your points would not have been possible. What happened to bail? What happened to the right to have a lawyer present while the police questioned the suspects?

So if this is the way criminal justice is carried out in Briatins... then what right does anyone in the UK have to complain about how the US handles a relative handful of dangerous suspects of terrorism in the way they are interrogated or by putting them in GITMO? So by UK standards this is SOP for suspected kiddy porn customers? And by the way, where are the defendants attorneys in all this, the MPs, and the press to expose it to the public. The police even colluding with the courts are not the be all end all where there is a free press and a right to petition the government. So which is it, the UK is a police state and GITMO is no worse that what happens in the UK to small time criminals or the whole story here is made up? I have no way of knowing which is the truth. Perhaps a UK lawyer could post here and sort out fact from fiction.

Mark
The UK is a police state. I know that every one of my points would be illegal/not tolerated in the USA. Try and imagine a "duty solicitor" in the UK trying to get their head around such an issue- they couldn't do it. You have to also remember that lawyers were not allow to see the "evidence" against the accused.

Why no public outcry? Easy. Because Gamble and Co said that they were doing this to "protect the children"- who is going challenge that and not be seen to be a "paedo lover"? (Mr. Gamble's followers actually put a cartoon of me on the internet calling me "the paedo loving yankee bird")

Where did you ever get the idea Britain has a free press? You are talking about a country where you have to pay to watch the news! (the tax is sneakily called a "TV license"- guess who collects the money- the government!)

I only came here 21 years ago to get my masters degree on the cheap......still stuck here. Trust me, this place ain't no democracy.
TC

No.72 and 73,

Interested to hear that Britain is not a democracy.

Just out of interest, how does the American political process work regarding the raising of local issues by the individual and the populace, to the addressing of these issues by the Senate and President?

There is no single form of Democracy!

The British form evolved internally over a thousand year period, the American form was an act of creation based on a blueprint.
The British form is practised through accessibility and unity, the American through the courts and individual right.

Maybe this is the reason why you all live your lives in the courts, suing over the most petty of issues, claiming an infringement of rights as you try to fleece the next man of a few extra dollars.

Ah, the American Dream.

As for paying for the news, well its actually the 主播大秀, which is why it is the most impartial broadcast service in the world, evolved from the British form of democracy. I suppose we could tune in to the American news channels, but that means having to hear the news through broadcasters opinion.
I wonder how many innocent people have been found guilty of a crime, either through the courts or by society, because of the opinions of a news reporter.

I used to play games of dressing up with my uncle with the aid of fashion magazines and his late wife`s clothes which turned into games of dressing down with the aid of a different sort of magazine and a camera. I wanted to be a model when I grew up and he told me that women got paid a lot more money for taking their clothes off. I had no idea at the time that it was wrong. He told me there was no film in the camera but when I discovered a photograph of me I suddenly realised I had done something very very bad. It caused me to suffer a VERY severe mental and physical breakdown many of the effects of which I have suffered much of my life. IF ANYBODY REALISED THE HORRENDOUS GUILT, SHAME AND FEAR THAT A VICTIM OF CHILD PORN CAN SUFFER IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING, VIEWING AND PURCHASING OF CHILD PORN SHOULD BE PUT IN PRISON FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IT IS THE ONLY THREAT AND IT IS VERY MUCH NEEDED IN THIS COMPUTER/INTERNET AGE WHICH IS A PAEDOPHILE`S PARADISE THAT HAS CREATED A GREAT EXPANSION OF INTEREST IN LOOKING AT CHILD PORN WHICH IN TURN IS CREATING A GREAT INCREASE IN CHILD VICTIMS. THINK AGAIN Mr GAMBLE OF THE CHILD EXPLOITATION CENTRE - ANYBOLDY "JUST LOOKING" AT CHILD PORN NEEDS TO BE KEPT OUT OF THE WAY OF CHILDREN.

IT`S TIME THAT THE HORRENDOUS CONSEQUENCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM OF CHILD PORN WAS BROUGHT OUT INTO THE OPEN AND DEBATED INSTEAD OF BEING CONTINUALLY SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET

I just posted a comment on this site because I was a victim of child porn - and because no other victim seems to have had the courage to have their say on the subject. VICTIMS EVERYWHERE - YOU MUST DEBATE THE SUBJECT. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REALISE THE HARM YOU SUFFER AND THAT SOMETHING REALLY HAS GOT TO BE DONE TO STOP PEOPLE WANTING TO LOOK AT CHILD PORN.

There are sharp contrasts between American government structures and concepts and those of other democracies. Some of the differences I've noticed about Britain's is, no separation of powers between legislative and excutive and to some degree judicial branches, a state religion, no written constitution with guarantees of citizens rights, no fixed terms of office, and of course what is for all practical intents and purposes a state owned quasi monopoly on radio and television 主播大秀 even if the current management has run completely amok and for the time being out of government control. There is also an unelected upper house based on an officially recognized aristocracy and a monarch who is titular head of state and which is passed on through heredity. Laws against the exercise of free speech also seem much more severe. The cost of the courts in civil suits is borne by the loser discouraging its free usage by just anyone for all grievances great and small. Against that backdrop, It seems plausible that Britain could suffer the impositon of police state like tactics more easily than in America. Of course it is possible in the US but I don't think the abuse of power is normally possible on such a vast scale. The worst of course was Watergate which brought the Presidency of Richard Nixon to an end but there were others such as during the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. There were also very dangerous qustionable events surrounding the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and of course the 2000 presidential election process which seemed entirely corrupted and in the end was decided by a single person, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'connor.

Brian, I am not sure I understand your question. In the making of state laws, each state has its own legislature which decides what the laws will be in its jurisdicton. Each electoral district has representatives in both houses. These laws are passed by the state legislature, administered by the executive which is headed by the governor, and ruled on by the state courts in much the same way as the federal system. The principle of American democracy is to limit the overall power of government and then to break it up into small pieces though the division of powers between states and the federal government and by separation of powers between three equal branches in both. In some states such as in California, the people can directly over-ride the entire system of legislation by putting laws directly to the electorate in a "proposition" by getting a sufficient number of signers of a petition. This is how the famous Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 which basically overturned the entire state real estate taxation system the government had crafted and rolled back taxes for most people to where they were in 1975 and where they have stayed for anyone who still owns the house they lived in if they've stayed there ever since. The constitution also recognizes the role of a free press as being nearly a fourth branch of government and makes it very difficult for the government to squelch it in any way. The overriding principle is to keep any one group of politicians from seizing controlling power by setting their interests against others who in agregate will be powerful enough to limit and stop them. The press is the ultimate safeguard against all three. This is the principle of checks and balances.

We don't consider a court ruling that an individual will receive redress for damages suffered by another due to a violation of tort law to be fleecing someone else, we call it justice. And yes, the courts exist to be put to maximum use so as to serve as a user friendly alternative to violence.

主播大秀 is hardly an impartial reporter of the news. I'm not going to go into all of its many techniques to skew the news to its own political views in the service of its current management but suffice it to say that in the US and in Israel, it is widely regarded as very highly biased interspersing opinion with facts almost inextricably.

Do innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit in America? Yes they certainly do despite the way the system is constructed to reduce that likelihood to a minimum. Do some get executed? Yes that has happened too. Is it normal? No. Can a news reporter get someone convicted in the media? Yes that is also possible but frankly, not nearly as easy as you would think. Here is an example. During the investigation of the murders which led to the trial of OJ Simpson, one of America's most dangerous and popular media reporters Jeraldo Rivera who had a widely seen TV talk show every weekday evening on the Fox News Channel had OJ Simpson convicted over and over and over again, yet when the real trial was over, Simpson was acquitted because IMO, the prosecutor hadn't proved its case. (I was probably one of the few people in America who was not interesed in the case, didn't follow it, and frankly having looked at it in retrospect I'm possibly one of the few white people in America who thought OJ Simpson was innocent.)

Were the arrests, convictions, and punishments of the people accused of downloading child pornography on to their computers in he UK a miscarriage of justice? I have no way of knowing but frankly, I doubt it. I still think there would have been a far more vocal public outcry if they hadn't broken the law so they probably did even if it was only once and got caught at it.

OK, that's your American high school civics lesson for today. No charge for this first class.

Mark, either you are very naive or you have no idea how things work here, possibly a little of both.

The hysteria surrounding peadophilia and associated crimes is so rife and has such a stranglehold over the public imagination, that anyone even questioning the laws or how they are applied is in danger.

No M.P. or lobbyist has come close to criticising these laws, despite the obvious inequities and the 'stretching' to breaking point of definitions by the courts and police.

Furthermore, the powers that be are trying to bring in new laws based on the same principles for some 'extreme' adult pornography and cartoon child pornography.

Distatseful as we may find Cartoon child porn, the possibility of confusion with Manga porn is clear and three years lockup for looking at a cartoon is a little excessive to say the least.

It is clear that they are paving the way for laws to control inetrnet traffic and restrict access to material they deem unacceptable.

If they were simply aiming at abusive material, then I doubt many would complain, but that is not the case, these new laws set very worrying prcedents and no one of note is questioning them, because they are afraid that they will be branded 'peado-lovers' or 'apologists' for perverts.

The European Human rights charter was meant to be our equivalent to your bill of rights, but ever since signing up to it, the Government has been trying to find ways to undermine it. Recently even putting forward the idea of 'opting out' of clauses they find inconvenient.

To date the 主播大秀 have been little more than cheerleaders for these creeping infringements of human rights.

sylvia macpherson comment 75
Dear Ms Macpherson
I'm so sorry to read that you have suffered in this way. The whole issue of paedophilia needs to be brought to the surface. The difficulty is that obviously those with a predisposition for it want it to remain underground and those who have no interest are reluctant to face the obscenity of it, and so we get posts like the one above calling it hysteria and denying this cultural perversion that is far more prevalent than any of us were prepared to acknowledge. Men have to come to terms with this problem that far too many of them have.

At least in the West were our modern liberal democratic values have loosened the grip of male hegemony and our respect for the rights of the female are on the increase we have identified paedophilia as a crime, labelled it, and although reluctant, we are trying to deal with it. In many countries in fact in most of the rest of the world it is something that is incorporated into accepted social behaviour whereby little girls are made to be the wives of adult men.

We are in the process of enlightenment, but many men are finding it hard to accept that this is such a great problem. Almost all the women I know have had the experience of a paedophile. Not all have been traumatised fortunately. Many like myself have just had men expose themselves to us when we were children playing in a park. In our innocence we thought this hilarious. As an adult I am aware that this very common activity indicates the extent of male sexual deviation that needs the attention of the law.

Your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said does not help foster confidence in the views you put forward Pippop.

At no time have I denied that peadophilia exists or that it is a serious problem.

I'm sure you could not have failed to see recent reports which suggest most parents believe they should not allow their children out without supervision until they are 14 years old. This is, in part, because of the exaggerated fear of peadophiles snatching them from the streets.

Children pickup this fear from their parents and we have heard of incidents of frightened children asking if they will be 'taken' like Maddie Mcann.

We have come to the point where the mere accusation of this crime, will ruin lives, not just the lives of the accused, but their families, including their children, too.

The damaging of the innocent in the persuit of a monster whose existence is magnified by our own fears is hysteria, pure and simple. This does not help the real victims of the real monsters, it merely piles tragedy on top of tragedy.

Steven M.Dorif at post 80.

I appreciate your concerns about this restriction on children but the answer is not to castigate the protective parent but to FACE the true extent of paedophilia and address it in a decisive way rather than the piecemeal reluctance with which it is dealt with at the moment. (See my posts above for my point about it being cultural and maintained by male hegemony. posts 25 and 61.)

As a female child brought up at a time when we a were left to play unattended and talking to other women of a similar age about these times, it is truly astonishing just how many men are interested in little girls in a sexual way.

And there but for the grace of God many have not had anything more than either a confusingly puzzling experience or one like my own which was regarded in all innocence as hilarious. However it does not change the fact that these men were in need of restraint because of their predilection and were a potential danger to these children, and further more given a better opportunity might well have taken things further and for all we know did when the opportunity arose. Men MUST address this problem they have with their sexuality and the judiciary predominantly male has to stop waving it by as nothing more than a misdemeanour.

Note the deeply inadequate short sentencing for really horrific sexual abuse against children that is an insult to the dignity of the child and females in general. The Scotish case of a man who 'enjoyed' raping toddlers, having a long history of this activity, then 'progressed' to a baby girl of 10 months. The Judge (male) and the psychiatrist (male) decided between them that five years was enough because the man was sorry for what he'd done! At least there was a huge protest about this some (approx 5 years ago). But there are too many cases, too numerous to mention about the attitude men have to this sort of thing. THAT is what has to be changed, the assumption sadly amongst many men in quite high places that this is just a little problem of the magnitude of "not very nice old boy" rather than the true horror that the victim faces.

The Animal/Primeval objective of species survival through the orientation of gender and competition, together with the Human/Abstract interpretation of consciousness and experienced reality is the reason for all Human culture and existence. Sexual power is the drive that ensures the achievement of the Primeval objective, with the power taking two forms, the aggressive power of dominance and the passive power of attraction.

The achievement, failure and pursuit of the objective, the abstract interpretation of the inner primeval drive of sexual power, and the consciousness of not only its individual self, but also the consciousness of the individual self of the species are the internal factors that determines the social/personal psyche and sexuality of the individual Human being, with the external factors of time and experience influencing the direction
of ephemeral and/or permanent change to the conscious psyche and sexuality.
The natural process within nature determines adolescence as the period of time for processing survival information to develop the instincts needed to assert the oncoming sexual power of sexual awakening in order to pursue the Primeval objective. With the development of the Human abstract mind and the progression out of the static world of the Animal/Primeval mind, the period of 鈥渋nformation gathering鈥� needed to survive to achieve the primeval objective is now no longer defined. This now undefined period of time can span an entire lifetime, with the results of ongoing ephemeral and/or permanent negative and positive changes to the psyche and sexuality.
With the ever changing external factors having direct influence on the internal, the achievement of the Primeval objective now needs to be validated for the sexual power to be suppressed to satisfaction. The validity of achievement in relation to supremacy to the abstract interpretation is how the human being expresses and suppresses the sexually intended power. With these factors the human psyche and sexuality splits into two distinct aspects, one the result of adolescent experience and therefore pre sexual awakening, and the other the result of progressive supremacy/achievement validity and therefore post sexual awakening. This interpretation of the sexual power to the conscious self, and the awareness of the sexual power within the consciousness of the collective and individual determines the direction of the self's sexual power within both genders. This internal interpretation by the abstract mind of sexual power covers all aspects of the powered and over powered, from the physical act of sex to the most trivial acts of social integration.

Sexuality and all forms of sexual acts are the result of the factors outlined. These factors are at the core of post sexual awakening paedophilia/rape . The reasons the validity of achievement has lead the male abstract mind to paedophilia/rape are varied, and cover all social spectrum's. To take the purely sexual spectrum of sexual supremacy as an example, with self imposed/social sexual inadequacy at the beginning and self imposed/social sexual supremacy at the end, the inadequate sexually orientate towards the child due to the physical ease of empowerment, while the supreme sexually orientate towards the child due to the power of attaining the socially unattainable.

Treating paedophilia as a disease, is a disease, with the only consequence of creating more potential pre sexual awakening paedophiles and destroying more innocent lives.

Paedophilia is a germ that should be exterminated the moment of detection.

Allan we are with you together and i pray that your captives set you free soon.