Advanced search

Why can't he be locked up forever... don't read if you are faint hearted as it's an abuse article

(31 Posts)
UCM Mon 18-Jun-07 18:01:40


He looks like a normal 27 year old, even had the girlfriend.

You just can never tell.

PersonalClown Mon 18-Jun-07 18:08:55

Stick them on a rock in the middle of the ocean on their own I say.
No worries about ethical arguements over the dealth penalty. Although someone will say something about human rights.

kel4mum Mon 18-Jun-07 18:13:42

OMG sick fucker.

excuse my language

UCM Mon 18-Jun-07 18:15:44

I am just so fed up with reading about it. This man was younger than me and abuse has been in the news alot since he was born. So there is no danger that he wasn't aware of what he was doing was wrong as some older abusers claim.

If one political party started up on the premise that paedophiles would be locked up for life. I think they would get my vote.

snowwonder Mon 18-Jun-07 18:17:59

what a sicko

thank goodness that the police have the intelligence to find this sort of stuff

DominiConnor Mon 18-Jun-07 18:23:55

I'm all for the middle of the ocean, with or without the rock for him to sit on.

But, the police are not to be trusted in this area one little bit. They fabricate and grossly misrepresent evidence and rely far too much on the average person's desire to put the scumbag away.
In this case, there is relatively little doubt, but lest we forget there was the infamous Operation Ore
For all the flashy logos and Blairite form over substance, the people doing this are grossly under resourced, and thus "cut corners".

They are capable of catching dumb fucks, but it's an arms race, and Darwininan process will eliminate them. Problem is that smarter bad guys watch the dumb or unlucky one get zapped and learn.
We sadly know that police are already infiltrated. You may recall that two of the senior policemen involved in the Soham case got caught with a PC full of this shit, including the family liaison officer.

Reckon they got them all ?

I've seen the evidence that other people have been convicted on, and it's a joke. I'd bet money that juries in these cases are vetted to ensure no one with technical knowledge is on them.

chestnutter Mon 18-Jun-07 21:56:30

Sorry DominiConnor but your posting is deeply deeply flawed, especially in relation to Operation Ore but that's another story.

Let's hope that if your kids ever come across a paedophile online who attempts to groom and abuse them, or if they are ever for whatever reason dependent on the expertise and commitment of the officers who worked around the clock to protect children like yours and bring these sick deviants to justice, that your attitude is a little more respectful

The Soham officer you refer to was a disgrace but you might as well tarnish all midwives by the action of one bad midwife.

Hulababy Mon 18-Jun-07 21:58:56

DC - do you really believe all PC have these types of images on their computers,e tc. You are very wrong there ,a dn it is deeply insulting to anyone who works in the force or knows people, good decent people, in the force.

newlifenewname Mon 18-Jun-07 21:59:26

Yes. Of course! Human Rights - who needs 'em eh?


DeviousDaffodil Mon 18-Jun-07 21:59:52

DC I work in Child Protection.Myself and my colleagues are dedicated nad hard working.
I find your comments offensive and outrageous. On what do you base them?

DeviousDaffodil Mon 18-Jun-07 22:07:06

Sounds to me like the Police did an excellent job here and should be applauded.

DominiConnor Mon 18-Jun-07 22:55:28

I base them on the fact that people you know for a fact will abuse children are let out to hurt them again.
I see that as bad.

Call me judgemental if you like.

Chestnutter, my comments about Operation Ore, aren't my own opinion but that of experts in their field.
The Soham officers were indeed a disgrace, and my point was that the police, like any other body has some severely bad people in it.
Yes, many police officer worked very hard during the Soham inquiry, but let us not forget that the girls were murdered because senior officers decided to play silly buggers with some laws they didn't like.

easywriter Mon 18-Jun-07 23:12:30

No DC.
The girls were murdered because Ian Huntley chose to murder them.

You are only responsible for your own actions, the police are not responsible for the deaths of Holly and Jessica.

barnstaple Mon 18-Jun-07 23:22:42

Middle of the ocean? What if they can swim? Can't we really punish them - castration, lobotomy and then put them to work in the sewers so that they can contribute to society without menacing it.

edam Mon 18-Jun-07 23:35:07

DC is right that Operation Ore has made some mistakes. And labelling an innocent person a paedophile has huge ramifications.

And he's right that police failures allowed Huntley to remain at large, and to get the job at that school.

Police officers are only human, they fuck up, some of them will actually be paedophiles, just like any other group of human beings. Sadly. It's the job of the guys at the top to close loopholes and root out the incompetent and criminal.

DominiConnor Tue 19-Jun-07 08:45:34

I disagree, Operation Ore did not make mistakes, though I'm sure that when the police review this case, "mistakes" will be the term used.

My reading of it is that they lied. Not the same thing at all.

chestnutter Tue 19-Jun-07 10:24:44

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories against Operation Ore (perpetuated by the unsubstantiated websites on which you choose to base your information) which I suspect will be discredited in due course. Personally, I would prefer the police to investigate - and then clear if necessary - anyone whose credit card details have been used to buy images of child sex abuse online. The fact is that 90% of those who were charged with Operation Ore offences either admitted their guilt through accepting a caution, or were found guilty in a court of law. Yes, a court of law which is independent of the police officers you accuse of being corrupt.
Get your facts straight, DC.
And as for saying that Holly and Jessica were murdered because of the actions of senior police officers - that just exposes your ignorance on this particular subject. I hope their parents don't read your opinions.

emmatomATO Tue 19-Jun-07 10:41:56

I wouldn't take anything DC says seriously. You can guarantee that wherever there is an opportunity to slag off the Police, DC will be at the front of the queue.

No balanced arguments at all, just unjustified criticism.

Can't take anyone like that seriously really.

Rest assured that decent, balanced people recognise that despite a few bad apples (who are abhorred by the rest of their colleagues), the men and women of the Police forces are dedicated to ridding us of the scum the OP talks about.

DominiConnor Tue 19-Jun-07 10:45:13

Pc Pro is a highly respected outfit, it has people who I personally respect writing for it. The people who write for it have a very negative view of child porn, they would not publish such an article without checking it.

I've seen the screen shots, the way the evidence was presented was highly dishonest. You clearly have not bothered to do so, even though I supplied the link.
Yes, many admitted the offence, because they were intimidated into accepting cautions. If you had bothered to read the article, you hhave seen this.
Don't you think it's a bit odd ?
If you were a copper, presumably someone who dislikes nonces and sees your duty as putting them away, why go so easy on them ?

DominiConnor Tue 19-Jun-07 10:54:40

Just to clarify my position here.
I am all for permanent removal of paedos from society. To me, harsh punishments require strong evidence.
I'm all for strengthening the policing of the web, with proper IT experts.

DeviousDaffodil Tue 19-Jun-07 18:21:19

How can you support the removal of paedophiles from the community but not support the Police?
Unless you envisage anarchy, civilised society needs a Police service.
God forbid anyone in your family was abused where would you go for help?
We do all that we can to put these people away but we are let down by a justice sytem that will not prosecute unless they are confident 100% of getting a conviction. That should be for the Court to decide.

kookaburra Tue 19-Jun-07 20:08:27

Personal clown - yes to the rock.

DeviousDaffodil Tue 19-Jun-07 20:16:42

Or aprison ship, anchored in teh antarctic.

chestnutter Tue 19-Jun-07 22:37:22

DC - I am amused that you think that reading an article in a magazine places you in a position of greater knowledge than the police officers who gathered evidence for the prosecutions!

I have read the article you linked to. I question the qualifications and experience of the so-called experts you refer to.

I certainly challenge your assertion that people are 'intimidated' into accepting a caution, which is an admission of guilt and places them on the sex offenders register.

But most of all I resent your reference to 'child porn' - I assume by that you mean child sex abuse images, where every image is a crime scene? Nothing remotely pornographic about that in my opinion.

DeviousDaffodil Wed 20-Jun-07 17:38:31

Well said chestnutter I wish I could be so eloquent.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: