Undercover Police: Hunting Paedophiles

[MonicaGellerBing]

Channel 4 now. Anyone watching? I'm finding it really hard to watch and listen to. How the undercover police do that job talking to perverts all day using that language I don't know, what an amazing job they do though.

It's really hard to watch but I want to see the conclusion of the man they've arrested.

[PlinkPlink]

I dont think paedophilia is a sexual preference.

Due to the way that abusers have absolutely no regard for their victims and utter devastation abuse causes, its about power. Just like rape and sexual assault involving adults.
The fact that 2nd bloke had all those videos on his phone, despite protesting he wanted help and didn't want to hurt children... I don't understand how you could find watching an extremely distressed child go through that a turn on, unless it's a power and degradation thing.

[BertieBotts]

I would guess if there is a gene component it may be environment activated, that's what the research suggests about many other genetic related things. That people can have a tendency towards something but that it will only come out of they have certain experiences or exposures, perhaps in utero or during childhood. Or it can be a lack of something for example if someone has a tendency towards whatever syndrome and they don't get enough appropriate socialisation as a child then it may be activated.

So there probably wouldn't be a case for eugenics as you'd need to have the gene + some sort of adverse experience as a child, and the kind of person who raises their child in an abusive or neglectful environment is probably not as likely as the average person to get screening tests in pregnancy.

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

plinkpink I understand exactly what you’re saying and that’s why the research is so important. There is some evidence available to suggest that there are two different ‘types’ of offender. Estimates for child sex offenders abusing for power/control range between 50-75%, the rest appear to be paedophiles abusing because they have a sexual preference (again, this does not make it right but is helpful to categorise reasons why). But no, ultimately I would say it would be nigh on impossible to find any type of sex offender that has any regard for their victims. It’s why anything they say cannot be trusted - because in living with their disgusting ‘preference’ they have learnt that they need to continuously lie and deceive. Manipulation comes as second nature to them.

[BertieBotts]

Calling it a sexual preference really doesn't sit right with me. Sure I can see that something isn't right with a person's sexual function if they are experiencing sexual arousal from viewing abuse materials, and that probably isn't something they can control or choose. But that doesn't mean it should be considered a sexual preference or orientation.

[QuimReaper]

Does anyone know the legalities around this? Did these men have to give consent to be have this footage and their full names broadcast? I couldn't believe how clearly identified they were!

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

bertie I do agree that ‘sexual preference* isn’t great terminology for the small group that appear to fall into that category. Putting it alongside heterosexual and homosexual doesn’t sit right with me personally. There could be a danger that a minority will seek to exploit or excuse for being a ‘preference’ on the basis of terminology. PIE tried to do something similar between 1974/1984. Thankfully they didn’t get very far. The latest area of concern is MAP (minor attracted person). For those asking what they can do to make a difference, contacting your MP to ask them if they can lobby Twitter to remove these accounts would be great. MAP are becoming more prevalent on social media. Have a look if you can stomach it.

[ExhaustedGrinch]

I watched this on catch up yesterday. I'm glad they were fairly explicit because it makes it easier to watch and forget if it isn't.

Personally I'd like them all rounded up and put on a deserted island and then rich people who usually pay to hunt giraffes/lions etc can pay to go and hunt those evil pricks instead.

That said, if we gave them the death penalty could it result in more children being murdered after being abused because the stakes are so high if the child ever spoke out? I don't know what the answer is but clearly the current sentencing isn't a deterrent nor does it reflect the seriousness of the offences being commited.

It made me worry about the impact of lockdown too. All these children at home with no one ie teachers to keep an eye out for signs of abuse.

[Booph]

There are under 100,000 prison places in the UK and an estimated 300,000 offenders who view or create child abuse images. Unfortunately its impossible to even imprison a large percentage of offenders. Prisons that house vulnerable offenders are also not as "punishing" as people would hope.

[Needsmustnow]

Does anyone know the legalities around this? Did these men have to give consent to be have this footage and their full names broadcast? I couldn't believe how clearly identified they were!

My understanding from watching 24 Hours is that they have no choice if found guilty. I can only think of one instance where the suspect agreed to be shown and was then found not guilty (I think he was guilty and happy to be shown getting away with it).

needs can you stop please. Nowhere have I said paedophiles have physical characteristics.

Of course @Handsoffstrikesagain. Let me make myself very clear, I apologise unreservedly for putting another poster's words to your name. It was a genuine mistake, and I'm sorry for upsetting you.

[QuimReaper]

My understanding from watching 24 Hours is that they have no choice if found guilty. I can only think of one instance where the suspect agreed to be shown and was then found not guilty (I think he was guilty and happy to be shown getting away with it).

Ah, so they have no choice in being initially filmed, but they can refuse to have the footage used if they're acquitted?

I suppose that is consistent with the point the officer made about not 'outing' them in the community because that could drive them underground. I was wondering how they squared that anxiety with then giving the guy's full name and filming his property; but I guess they only broadcast it if he's then in prison.

[Needsmustnow]

Ah, so they have no choice in being initially filmed, but they can refuse to have the footage used if they're acquitted?

I'm not sure about initially. I have the impression that we don't have a choice if we are arrested, but do have a choice about the footage if we are later found not guilty. Not sure where I've got that impression from, probably just that I can't believe that people agree to be filmed in the first place.

[hamsterchump]

@Handsoffstrikesagain

needsmust where on earth did I say that DNA or facial features can predict paedophilia? I cannot believe that such a sensitive subject is being turned into a bun fight.

You didn't, but ReluctantHomeSchooler did and you said her theory carried weight. I think you were probably referring to her saying that it could be an innate sexual preference rather than offenders sharing facial features but she did say that and you didn't specify which of her comments you were supporting so I think that's where the miscommunication has arisen.

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

hamster, needsmust has already apologised as she incorrectly attributed that specific bit about physical features as something I had said. She just mixed the usernames up.

[Needsmustnow]

Yep, when you said, There is some research in the public domain to support what reluctant is saying. I presumed you were saying that there is research to support what @ReluctantHomeschooler had said when I asked, "Have you any references to support your theory?".

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

needs then why did you apologise for ‘putting another posters words to [my] name’ you then said it was a genuine mistake. Which is it?

[randomer]

I suppose these creatures must have been delighted when the internet arrived.

It simply must be possible to put more effort onto monitoring the interent. There clearly isn't the will to do so. Money talks.

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

Also, having read back through what I wrote, I specifically mentioned sexual preference. That is the comment you then responded to -


Bookmark

Today 08:02 Needsmustnow

If you google it needsmust there are many psychologists discussing evidence that for a percentage of paedophiles it is a sexual preference.

If there is evidence that DNA or facial features can predict paedophilia, I would be genuinely grateful for you sharing it.

You actually highlighted a post in which nowhere did I attribute physical features and DNA to paedophilia.

[Needsmustnow]

then why did you apologise for ‘putting another posters words to [my] name’ you then said it was a genuine mistake. Which is it?

I apologised for getting you and @ReluctantHomeschooler mixed up, I apologised for attributing her words to you.

I also thought when you said, There is some research in the public domain to support what reluctant is saying. I presumed you were saying that there is research to support what @ReluctantHomeschooler had said

[Needsmustnow]

There are under 100,000 prison places in the UK and an estimated 300,000 offenders

@Booph, this is the crucial point for me that makes me feel helpless. I do wonder if there's a lot of truth to those posters that reckon the explicit nature of the programme is the police response to such overwhelming odds.

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

But the post you highlighted querying what I said didn’t say anything about physical features...

[TheQueef]

Did anyone see the story in the mail today about the man and woman convicted?
The next progression is getting women to perform the abuse.
I can't help but think if we could stop the sexual gratification it would cut out a big chunk of abuse.
I don't know the full effect of depo in men, I know it prevents sexual arousal and climax and reduces violence to my mind all positives.
I'm ok with depriving these men of their sex drive for life, I can live with that.

[PlinkPlink]

@Handsoffstrikesagain I think you can let it go now. Needsmust has apologised for getting things mixed up.

I've just had a look on Twitter at this MAP stuff... fuck... I clicked onto a site called prostasia.. wtaf... the whole website is trying to justify one's feeling towards children. That its okay if you don't offend... that there's no danger if they just keep it as a fantasy in their head...

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

plink I was more than happy to let it go, it just derails the thread - hamster brought it up again and I was confused by needsmust response. Anyway, let’s move on it’s just derailing an important message.

The MAP message is terrifying.

[Handsoffstrikesagain]

thequeef that story was disgusting. It reminded me of that beast Vanessa George. I completely agree re removing the sexual gratification. There is definitely an argument for chemical castration there in that potentially you remove the desires of the 25-50% who are classed as ‘paedophiles’ - I.e. it’s a sexual preference. The other 50-75% do it because they enjoy the power and control and they are particularly evil and sadistic. Chemical castration would arguably do nothing for them and we’d need to look for alternatives, I.e indefinite sentences.

[ReluctantHomeschooler]

I am sorry if I upset anyone. I just wanted to point out that the features I have noticed are not facial features. That’s all I’m saying. It’s just my personal experience.

And as for the theory that paedophilia is innate, I don’t think it gets them of the hook at all. On the contrary, they could be offered treatment to stop them offending.