How to report paedophiles on Twitter?

[timetostepup]

A bunch of people who claim to be "non offending" paedophiles have joined twitter recently. They're openly tweeting about being paedophiles. They call themselves MAPs (Minor Attracted Persons) or NOMAPS. Their bios contain info such as the age of children they're attracted to.

I've reported some of them using Twitter's link for reporting Child Sexual Exploitation but I'm not sure if that's the right place as there's no evidence of any child being involved, also I reported them 3 days ago but the accounts are still up and I haven't had anything more than a confirmation - and I don't have a lot faith in twitter at the moment tbh.

They're claiming they're not a threat because they control their urge to offend. But we've been here before haven't we - this is just like PIE.

What should we do? Who can we report this to? Would the police be interested? Are they breaking the law?

Should we mass report Twitter on this?

I've attached an example, to find the others use the hashtags MAP or NOMAP or search for "MAP community".

What's the best way to deal with this?

NothingOnTellyAgain

Absolutely.

I think Cantor is just trying to be logically consistent as he sees it, he’s one of those utter twits (nearly all men) who can’t place their logic in a social or political context and therefore thinks everyone who disagrees with him (people who do have that skill) is being irrational. A Richard Dawkins type.

I think he thinks you can add P to the rainbow to advocate for “non-offending pedophiles” to be socially accepted and that would be only right and fair since they can’t help it.

He can’t see how that position looks to other people, he can’t grasp how it would be interpreted by most people if that did happen, he can’t see a slippery slope from normalisation of pedophilia and he doesn’t understand the damage he’s doing to gay rights. He’s not directly advocating for child abuse to become acceptable; he’s just such a twit that he doesn’t see that his idea could lead to that.

Amongst other edifying recent remarks, Cantor has responded today to somebody disclosing her experience of child sexual abuse in order to illustrate her concerns by telling her that "experiencing such a trauma is consistent with a revenge- rather than solution-oriented approach"

So the opinions of survivors about paedophilia are worthless and should be written off as "revenge-oriented" and "emotional" (same tweet). That isn't just naivety. That is a deliberate ploy to silence and dismiss those who have been victimised.

from my understanding openly being a pedophile per se isn't against the rules of twitter (so twitter or the police can't do anything if a man simply announces "Hi I'm a pedo")

Twitter is a commercial company. They write their own rules, and they can change them - just as they did the other week when they changed their rules on misgendering, and allowed TRAs to get feminists chucked off Twitter by crawling through feminists old tweets, and finding examples of misgendering made before the ban.

The police won't arrest paedophiles for simply being open, of course not. But they should be aware of these networks, as I don't think anyone's naive enough to think none of them are offending. I'd bet good money they share CSE images - even if mostly only drawings ./ animation or CGI of CSE (which is illegal in the UK, incidentally).

timetostepup that is interesting. If drawings are illegal in the UK, but legal in continental Europe (not sure they still are. They were when I read an article about therapies), do therapies diverge? And if so, how? —or is that why the whole furry porn stuff started?—

deepwatersolo I think it depends on the content of the drawings. If they depict, for example, rape of a child by an adult then they'd be illegal I think. But a sexualised picture of a child, possibly not.

I don't know too much about it. I tried to google but not sure what I could search on that wouldn't lead me to loads of dodgy sites! It's a law that was brought in not that long ago IIRC and has been discussed on MN before in reference to John Ozimek AKA Jane Fae*. John Ozimek campaigned against restrictions on extreme porn, including this law. (Yes, the same person who later advised the Girl Guides).

Also, it's been mentioned here in relation to the images on Jess Bradley's blog. There were images of a cartoon character boy being raped by his father and as I understand it, that's illegal now even if it's a cartoon, not an image of real people.

But that's all I know about it.

*(please note, eager TRA reporters, I am not deadnaming - Jane Fae is quite open about the old name and even has articles out there that are copyrighted in both names.)

Yeah, you are right. There are big differences in possible drawings, so the impact of legislation on therapy may not be dramatic. (I suppose getting individuals to use more harmless drawings plus less realism is a therapy goal, anyway. Which is why I very much doubt dolls are a step in the right direction. We'll see, I guess.)

I don't think drawings are illegal in UK.

May be a grey area with drawings of actual people in same way as that girl aloud case.. not sure.

What the fuck is a 'zoophile'?

What the fuck is any of this?

This is pervy weirdy men getting sad feelz that their pervy weidy ways mean that people think they are pervy and weirdy and so dont' want to go anywhere near them / let their kids anywhere near them etc

That's v mean I mean it's innate and they're virtuous honest and no kink shaming and blah

Whatever - meanwhile women who are barely represented in these groups will carry on steering clear and teaching our kids to steer clear of pervy weirdy men when we can spot them (which sadly isn't anywhere near often enough).

The gall of these men to think they can go on the net and say oh look at me in all my peverse glory and get fucked off when people say yiles pervy weirdo.

NothingOnTellyAgain are you saying that because you know that to be true or assuming it?

There was a change in the law not so long ago that did make content such as child rape illegal even when the images weren't from real life.

I can't remember the detail of it, so I guess it's possible that some mediums are exempt, I don't know. But, the law was nothing to do with depicting real people or not, it was to do with what acts were being portrayed IIRC.

It is illegal to post or pass around manga images of child abuse, there was a guy in Newcastle a few years ago convinced , and this year two men convinced in Wales in June 2018 for sharing indecent images of children based on “hentai-style Japanese cartoons”.
I think it must depend on the images depicted though and I know different police forces and judges seem to vary sentences a lot.

Oh weird.

I had no idea images of children had been made illegal.

How were they allowed to show those pics of brooke shields not so long ago? Which were originally published in a porn mag (she was 11 or something). And I mean they were actual photos. Or is it images of abuse or what?

Also that famous painter pics of his daughter with no clothes on it's known he sexually abused her.

Might have a google.

Thanks snowbear66.

I wonder if the offence is sharing rather than possessing or creating? If so then the therapy example would be legal no matter what it depicted.

"The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since Scotland has its own legal System, the Coroners and Justice Act does not apply, although due to the introduction of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act by the Scottish Parliament, the aforementioned cartoon images are also specified as illegal. This Act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs"—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs.[56] A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs.[57] The new law however covered images whether or not they are realistic."

So how come Jess Bradley didn't get clobbered for having images of Ben 10 being raped on their blog?

Or is it images of abuse or what?

Yes, I think it's images of abuse.

Be careful googling!

If you do come across any dodgy images, you can report them here: report.iwf.org.uk/en

Cross post.

I must admit I'm very surprised that drawings are illegal - just drawing them at home type thing.

I suspect it's hardly ever proscuted but there if they need it, sort of thing.

I was wrong - happy to put hands up to that!

It is subjective though not total>
Image needs to be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character"
the last bit could mean anything!

Thanks, that's really useful.

Jess Bradley should have been clobbered for that image.

The NUS should have reported it to the police.

I would imagine other people may have reported it to the police also.

It may be that he has been done for it. Or perhaps not. No way of knowing.

If the NUS don't report it, but know about it, are they acting criminally I wonder?

I don't know if they are acting criminally.

I'm more concerned about Jess wanking their cock at bus stops TBH which is fucking appalling.

Anyone who admits to public mastrurbation needs a visit from the police surely?

"experiencing such a trauma is consistent with a revenge- rather than solution-oriented approach" That isn't just naivety. That is a deliberate ploy to silence and dismiss those who have been victimised.

That response is completely consistent with the Richard Dawkins personality type, not naivety so much as pig-headed arrogance. Although I think Cantor has been heavily manipulated by the pedophiles he studies; it would be pretty easy for them as he's too arrogant to realise he can be manipulated.

He linked to this organisation on his feed and is an advisor to it. prostasia.org/ I don't think for a second that this is an organisation who have the ultimate goal of making it legal to have sex with children, but looking at its platform and policies, it could prove very useful to people who do have that goal.

This is a really, really sad thread. It's hard to believe that these sorts of people are allowed to just openly say, Hey, I'm a paedo, send me messages! Really scary and they should be on some sort of watch list because that isn't the action of someone who is disgusted with themselves and wants to move on with their life.

They are obviously wanting to talk about it, make their life completely about their sickness, seemingly revelling in it.

Slagging of victims of child sexual abuse for not having a "solution oriented approach" to their trauma is about as low as you can fucking go.

Dawkins said CSA wasn;t that bad, he'd been assaulted once at school and it wasn't the end of the world, or something, I think?

Also some awful stuff about rape? - can't remember

These men are so arrogant they dont' even notice their massive biases and misogyny.