The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by MRNOODLES on 16.07.14 16:52

Came across this from a year ago

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/barry-george-jill-dando-jimmy-savile-bbc-paedophiles-cliff-richard-alan-farthing-nick-ross-and-britains-dirty-secrets/

Please delete if necessary, hoewever I thought it was interesting how it mentions the Barry George stitch up.

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by bubblewrap on 16.07.14 17:19

http://www.theinterim.com/oct98/2porn_laws.html

Sound familiar ?

On Sept. 2, police in 12 countries simultaneously arrested almost 50 people. The sting, dubbed Operation Cathedral, was described by authorities as "the most extensive child pornography sting in history." Begun by the British National Crime Squad six months ago, it uncovered a database with more than 100,000 pornographic photographs.
Police have seized "boxes of pornography, various software materials, and hardware," 8mm film, and videotapes. Some suspects had personal databases of 10,000 images, including some depicting children as young as 18 months.
"The content would turn the stomach of any right-minded person," said Operation Cathedral leader, Det. Supt. John Stewardson of Britain.

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/did-alan-farthing-come-face-to-face-with-jill-dandos-killer/

bubblewrap

Posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 16.07.14 17:33

@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:@Cristobel - My thoughts are with the 400 children who have been 'protected' - God help them.


You mentioned this on the other thread. Could you explain what you mean by it? As I thought you wanted a crackdown on lower profile child abuse. Less of the Celeb stuff? Whether this is true or not (as Aquilla just said) we don't know what situation thEese children were in . It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be removed from their families and put into care. The 400 protected might just mean - children in scout groups, on doctors patient lists, being taught by teachers  - this might be how they got this figure. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be put in care. It may be similar to an incident that happened in my little part of the world recently  - when we were informed of the arrest of a nursery school worker, he was young and single, no kids - the parents of the children were informed. I guess you could call these children 'protected'.



ETA - Just heard on Beeb - that the majority of the children have been 'safe guarded', some 100+ have been removed (not necessarily to care though - maybe other family member - we can hope) Included in the arrests was one foster carer looking after a 'vulnerable' child, computer seized etc. And a doctor with more than 1Million pics of child (I'd guess abuse of children) on his computer!!!!!!
I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse.

However, I would respectfully suggest you take a look at Operation Ore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore.  The word paedophile is so emotive it whips up hostile public opinion and rational discussion is impossible.

A lot of the men arrested under Operation Ore had their credit cards used fraudulently.  They had their homes raided by the police in the middle of the night and their children seized and placed into care.  Thirty nine of the men committed suicide. 

These arrests I believe are the result of similar enquiries, ie, the perpetrators have been tracked by what they have viewed online. My problem is the way in which the authorities are approaching child protection.  Its like arresting all the viewers of a 'banned' film, rather than tackling the makers and distributors of a movie.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have seen the 'Evil Dead' - a banned film, should I therefore be arrested on suspicion of being an axe wielding psychopath? 

Unfortunately, I think these 400  'protected' children have probably been taken into care, and as I said earlier, God help them.



"I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse".


But you have - because you've posted one in two threads.

I have enough empirical evidence to know about the care system Mouse, which is what I commented on.

So you know as fact - that these children are all now in care? Come on - you're on the outside of this investigation like the rest of us - so you are purely making assumptions.

As for the paedophile word raising hysteria - what would you have us do - not talk about it, ultimately sweep it under the carpet???

The opposite Mouse, I want to be able to discuss the subject without hysteria.  You have stated you put the welfare of the child first, which suggests that I don't.  You could not be further from the truth. 

You didn't really answer the hysteria question - you appear to be the only one getting hysterical about this subject. And I haven't heard much sympathy for the victims from you tbh. Only when your are questioned on the subject. 


You once again appear to come down on the sympathy side of the men arrested. Sure, some will who may be innocent, but I would think that they would be able to prove this. As for downloaders of child abuse - well I think we all know that old credit card stole one, just doing research etc. From what I have read it is pretty much impossible to stumble across such site, and in the rare occasion that you find something that is suspect - I would think that a right minded person would report this site. Anyway, these guys, from the sound of things have downloaded quite a lot of pics! 

It was found and proved during Operation Ore that thousands of men had their credit card details stolen.  That is a fact.  You have acknowledged some of the men may be innocent - what of their children now seized by the authorities?  What of their families, their jobs, their marriages?  How do you recover from an accusation of paedophilia? 

How do you know they are innocent. Have you sat in on the investigation - if someone downloads abuse pics -they better have a mighty good excuse.

Anyway, I don't suppose we will ever agree on this matter, as I always put the child's welfare first. I want more people to talk about child abuse - it doesn't have to be hysterical, just informed discussion so that we can enable parents and children to always be aware of the possible dangers out there. I don't want children and parents to be constantly scared, but wouldn't mind a few child abusers to feel the stress of knowing that it could be their door the police maybe knocking on next!

How many kids will be protected by rounding up men viewing dodgy images online?  Remember the theory behind this, is that they 'might' go on to abuse children, not that they have.  I would quite like to see the research and statistics to back this up.  In my opinion, they are following the futuristic thinking of Philip K. Dick and arresting people before they commit an offence and I'm really not comfortable with that.

Where do I start with this one? Arresting people before they've committed an offence?........ They have already committed an offence by downloading illegal images, they are complicit. You're sounding a bit like old Jim Gambol now (who didn't deem it that serious)...........Dodgy Images????? You know full well that the images they are looking are not some adult porn - they are abuse of children. Being, as you say, someone who has experienced child abuse - why oh why can you not understand the plain fact that these images aren't cartoons, they're real, a child was abused/abuse had to take place for these images to be out there on the web.  If there was not a call for it, money to be made (kerching with their credit cards) less children would be abused - IMO.

 
I want more people to talk about child abuse, however, people like myself who have actual experience of child abuse and its effects, are shut down by wild accusations of supporting paedophiles!  I speak out because I can.  Firstly, I am female and secondly I have been through the care system.  I have no agenda to support paedophiles, my priority is the children who are being abused now.  A multimillion pound task force seeking out men (via the internet) who might commit crimes in the future is absurd.

Oh right, not allowed to disagree with your opinion now because you've been abused and been through the care system. Are you not trying to shut my argument down with that statement. How do you know what I've experienced, or have personal knowledge of? And I've heard many voices recently, that have complained of abuse, they are victims, and they most definitely do not support downloading of this child abuse. Incidentally, one of the men who has been arrested, (the investigation today) not only downloaded pics, he filmed himself abusing a child.  

And what a lazy form of policing!  All they have to do is sit watching computer screens all day, studying child pornography and tracking down anyone else who might be looking at it.  Who exactly is this helping?

I don't know. I would hope that they are looking to arrest people who are viewing child abuse - thus stopping more children being abused for others entertainment, titalation. Not lazy - I would imagine completely harrowing. And there was you stating the other day - why weren't the police cracking down on lower profile people.....And now they are -you're still not happy???????

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Woofer on 16.07.14 17:47

Mouse - since when has this forum become the Spanish Inquisition.  Do you think you can tone your attitude down a bit please.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 16.07.14 17:53

@Woofer wrote:Mouse - since when has this forum become the Spanish Inquisition.  Do you think you can tone your attitude down a bit please.
Excuse me - but Cristobel - copied my post down and addressed each para, I just did the same. She has done it before and I haven't bothered. This time, however, I thought I would. I'm sure she can answer for herself though. And if the Mods aren't happy with what I've said - though I'm only defendiing my opinions on the downloading of child abuse, I'm sure they will let me know.

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by bubblewrap on 16.07.14 19:15

@bubblewrap wrote:http://www.theinterim.com/oct98/2porn_laws.html

Sound familiar ?

On Sept. 2, police in 12 countries simultaneously arrested almost 50 people. The sting, dubbed Operation Cathedral, was described by authorities as "the most extensive child pornography sting in history." Begun by the British National Crime Squad six months ago, it uncovered a database with more than 100,000 pornographic photographs.
Police have seized "boxes of pornography, various software materials, and hardware," 8mm film, and videotapes. Some suspects had personal databases of 10,000 images, including some depicting children as young as 18 months.
"The content would turn the stomach of any right-minded person," said Operation Cathedral leader, Det. Supt. John Stewardson of Britain.

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/did-alan-farthing-come-face-to-face-with-jill-dandos-killer/

Was Jill Dando taking a deep look at things ?...Its possible I believe

http://brynalynvictims.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/operation-cathedral.html

bubblewrap

Posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Cristobell on 16.07.14 19:42

@mouse wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:@Cristobel - My thoughts are with the 400 children who have been 'protected' - God help them.


You mentioned this on the other thread. Could you explain what you mean by it? As I thought you wanted a crackdown on lower profile child abuse. Less of the Celeb stuff? Whether this is true or not (as Aquilla just said) we don't know what situation thEese children were in . It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be removed from their families and put into care. The 400 protected might just mean - children in scout groups, on doctors patient lists, being taught by teachers  - this might be how they got this figure. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be put in care. It may be similar to an incident that happened in my little part of the world recently  - when we were informed of the arrest of a nursery school worker, he was young and single, no kids - the parents of the children were informed. I guess you could call these children 'protected'.



ETA - Just heard on Beeb - that the majority of the children have been 'safe guarded', some 100+ have been removed (not necessarily to care though - maybe other family member - we can hope) Included in the arrests was one foster carer looking after a 'vulnerable' child, computer seized etc. And a doctor with more than 1Million pics of child (I'd guess abuse of children) on his computer!!!!!!
I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse.

However, I would respectfully suggest you take a look at Operation Ore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore.  The word paedophile is so emotive it whips up hostile public opinion and rational discussion is impossible.

A lot of the men arrested under Operation Ore had their credit cards used fraudulently.  They had their homes raided by the police in the middle of the night and their children seized and placed into care.  Thirty nine of the men committed suicide. 

These arrests I believe are the result of similar enquiries, ie, the perpetrators have been tracked by what they have viewed online. My problem is the way in which the authorities are approaching child protection.  Its like arresting all the viewers of a 'banned' film, rather than tackling the makers and distributors of a movie.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have seen the 'Evil Dead' - a banned film, should I therefore be arrested on suspicion of being an axe wielding psychopath? 

Unfortunately, I think these 400  'protected' children have probably been taken into care, and as I said earlier, God help them.



"I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse".


But you have - because you've posted one in two threads.

I have enough empirical evidence to know about the care system Mouse, which is what I commented on.

So you know as fact - that these children are all now in care? Come on - you're on the outside of this investigation like the rest of us - so you are purely making assumptions.

The news reports say over 400 children are now being protected.  I interpret that as 'being taken into care', you may of course interpret it differently.


As for the paedophile word raising hysteria - what would you have us do - not talk about it, ultimately sweep it under the carpet???

The opposite Mouse, I want to be able to discuss the subject without hysteria.  You have stated you put the welfare of the child first, which suggests that I don't.  You could not be further from the truth. 

You didn't really answer the hysteria question - you appear to be the only one getting hysterical about this subject. And I haven't heard much sympathy for the victims from you tbh. Only when your are questioned on the subject. 

I have actually done rather a lot to bring attention to historic child abuse Mouse, and I am actively involved in trying to change the lives of deprived children. 

I have spent many years studying the subject of abuse, more particularly, 'what makes people evil'.  My studies and indeed life experience has changed my thinking dramatically. Without going into too much detail as yet, my biggest concern at the moment at the moment are the millions of children suffering in these times of austerity.  Cutbacks have led to drastic cuts in social services and at a time when the need is greatest, we are investing in crimes that are decades old.  Its madness imo.

As to hysteria, no hysteria from me.  I would like full and frank discussion.  I would like to see legitimate studies and actual figures.  I want to know the criteria by which people are judged paedophiles, its a pretty damning accusation that covers a inordinately wide range, yet there appears to be no categorization, so anyone accused is believed to be guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. 

I once looked after an elderly man with learning difficulties, who liked to photograph kids in the park.  We told him off again and again, but he still he continued.  He was always remorseful, tears and promises not to do it again. I should also state, that he was completely harmless.  He was terrified of children, and took his pictures from a distance.  What category would he fall in? 

I have also experienced life in children's home ruled by a prolific paedophile and sadist, (also a scout master) who I have no doubt whatsoever, was involved in systematic, organised paedophilia.  I know how I would have liked to categorize him if the Good Lord hadn't got there first. 

I have nothing but sympathy for the victims Mouse, I wrote a book with intention of helping others who had experienced the same horrors in childhood.  I reply with help and advice to anyone who writes to me. 



once again appear to come down on the sympathy side of the men arrested. Sure, some will who may be innocent, but I would think that they would be able to prove this. As for downloaders of child abuse - well I think we all know that old credit card stole one, just doing research etc. From what I have read it is pretty much impossible to stumble across such site, and in the rare occasion that you find something that is suspect - I would think that a right minded person would report this site. Anyway, these guys, from the sound of things have downloaded quite a lot of pics! 

It was found and proved during Operation Ore that thousands of men had their credit card details stolen.  That is a fact.  You have acknowledged some of the men may be innocent - what of their children now seized by the authorities?  What of their families, their jobs, their marriages?  How do you recover from an accusation of paedophilia? 

How do you know they are innocent. Have you sat in on the investigation - if someone downloads abuse pics -they better have a mighty good excuse.

With respect, I suggest you read the wiki link to Operation Ore.  It was proved both here and in the USA (where the financial fraud took place) that thousands of credit card details were stolen. 

As for these present police raids, I await the results with interest, particularly with regard to those responsible for producing these 'images' and the children 'rescued'.
  


Anyway, I don't suppose we will ever agree on this matter, as I always put the child's welfare first. I want more people to talk about child abuse - it doesn't have to be hysterical, just informed discussion so that we can enable parents and children to always be aware of the possible dangers out there. I don't want children and parents to be constantly scared, but wouldn't mind a few child abusers to feel the stress of knowing that it could be their door the police maybe knocking on next!

How many kids will be protected by rounding up men viewing dodgy images online?  Remember the theory behind this, is that they 'might' go on to abuse children, not that they have.  I would quite like to see the research and statistics to back this up.  In my opinion, they are following the futuristic thinking of Philip K. Dick and arresting people before they commit an offence and I'm really not comfortable with that.

Where do I start with this one? Arresting people before they've committed an offence?........ They have already committed an offence by downloading illegal images, they are complicit. You're sounding a bit like old Jim Gambol now (who didn't deem it that serious)...........Dodgy Images????? You know full well that the images they are looking are not some adult porn - they are abuse of children. Being, as you say, someone who has experienced child abuse - why oh why can you not understand the plain fact that these images aren't cartoons, they're real, a child was abused/abuse had to take place for these images to be out there on the web.  If there was not a call for it, money to be made (kerching with their credit cards) less children would be abused - IMO.

I don't know what these images are, anymore than you do, nor do I know how the images are categorized.  Why assume that they are all 'the worst possible kind'?  This where the emotive language comes in and logical thinking flies out the window - the headmaster had over 1m images, Ok, images of what?  That is left to our imagination.


 
I want more people to talk about child abuse, however, people like myself who have actual experience of child abuse and its effects, are shut down by wild accusations of supporting paedophiles!  I speak out because I can.  Firstly, I am female and secondly I have been through the care system.  I have no agenda to support paedophiles, my priority is the children who are being abused now.  A multimillion pound task force seeking out men (via the internet) who might commit crimes in the future is absurd.

Oh right, not allowed to disagree with your opinion now because you've been abused and been through the care system. Are you not trying to shut my argument down with that statement. How do you know what I've experienced, or have personal knowledge of? And I've heard many voices recently, that have complained of abuse, they are victims, and they most definitely do not support downloading of this child abuse. Incidentally, one of the men who has been arrested, (the investigation today) not only downloaded pics, he filmed himself abusing a child.  

Whoa there, you are implying that I support the downloading of child abuse.  I most certainly don't, and I want to see anyone using their, or anyone else's kids for financial and sexual purposes should receive the worst the law can throw at them.  I shudder at the memory of that nursery, where babies were attacked and filmed by the creatures who were supposed to be looking after them.  I'm not a violent person, but people like them incense me.  However, it should be pointed out that the nursery abuse was not uncovered by a crack internet task force, but by a colleague whistleblowing. 


And what a lazy form of policing!  All they have to do is sit watching computer screens all day, studying child pornography and tracking down anyone else who might be looking at it.  Who exactly is this helping?

I don't know. I would hope that they are looking to arrest people who are viewing child abuse - thus stopping more children being abused for others entertainment, titalation. Not lazy - I would imagine completely harrowing. And there was you stating the other day - why weren't the police cracking down on lower profile people.....And now they are -you're still not happy???????

Whilst they are watching all that harrowing child abuse, they are not actually helping anyone.  Kids are coming home from school and being beaten up and raped in their own homes on a daily basis.  Real, flesh and blood kids terrified to go home, terrified to tell anyone.  Its a bit reminiscent of that scene from Dickens where the fine ladies and gentlemen step over the dying child to go into church. 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Cristobell on 16.07.14 20:04

@nglfi wrote:Isn't the mere act of viewing child pornography criminal? Personally I wouldn't want to think of any child living with an adult who is proven to have viewed child pornography. As has already been said, it's very difficult to come across these sites accidentally.  And I don't really understand the credit card issue. Whether or not someone claims to have had theirs stolen is immaterial,  viewing such sites is proven by IP addresses and looking at browsing history.
Indeed, nglfi, which is why thousands were released without charge.  But the damage was already done.  Thirty nine men committed suicide.

Child pornography is such a taboo subject, that I doubt any of us have the faintest idea of how it is categorized.  For example is someone puts up a picture of their child in the bath on Facebook, is that sharing underage images?  The problem is most people are reluctant to discuss the subject, mostly for fear of being called paedophiles or paedophile supporters themselves. There doesn't appear to be any greater or lesser degree as to the seriousness of each, individual crime.  Society seems quite prepared to condemn all 600 odd men as being the worst kind of sexual predator, yet we don't know what crimes they are alleged to have committed and we don't know what the images were of. 

We have all the headlines, but as yet no real details.  Were these 600 men looking at the same images for example and same child? Or are thousands of children being abused and the UK has a problem that is out of control? 

We don't as yet have any details, but we do have a huge shock horror response from the public, which I imagine is what they were going for. 

Personally, I await further details, and naturally, I have further questions.  What I would be most interested to know, is why these 600 perverts have never been reported in the 'real' world and if they it were, why wasn't it acted on?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Guest on 16.07.14 20:28

@Cristobell wrote:

Child pornography is such a taboo subject, that I doubt any of us have the faintest idea of how it is categorized.  For example is someone puts up a picture of their child in the bath on Facebook, is that sharing underage images?  The problem is most people are reluctant to discuss the subject, mostly for fear of being called paedophiles or paedophile supporters themselves. There doesn't appear to be any greater or lesser degree as to the seriousness of each, individual crime.  Society seems quite prepared to condemn all 600 odd men as being the worst kind of sexual predator, yet we don't know what crimes they are alleged to have committed and we don't know what the images were of. 


I believe that the picture accompanying this article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28324118 - could be considered to be child pornography, depending on the context in which it was stored and viewed.

I've already mentioned Lottie Moss elsewhere today.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by MRNOODLES on 16.07.14 21:19

I believe there's also a bit of a grey area where images are concerned. For example photoshopping children's heads onto adult bodies. If some sickos do that it is difficult to get a conviction because defence lawyers can ague no harm is done.

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 16.07.14 21:32

In response to cristobel - didn't want to quote the whole thread again as it starting to resemble a rainbow.


@cristobel As to hysteria, no hysteria from me.  I would like full and frank discussion.  I would like to see legitimate studies and actual figures.  I want to know the criteria by which people are judged paedophiles, its a pretty damning accusation that covers a inordinately wide range, yet there appears to be no categorization, so anyone accused is believed to be guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. 


I would define somebody charged with Paedophilia - as somebody proven to have abused/sexually assaulted a child. This thread concerns charges brought against downloaders of child abuse some of whom have prev. convictions I believe of paedophilia - police being aware of them, and some who have abused - the man who filmed himself. Downloaders I would say are people obviously interested in paedophilia and are therefore judged as a risk to children.

@cristobel I don't know what these images are, anymore than you do, nor do I know how the images are categorized.  Why assume that they are all 'the worst possible kind'?  This where the emotive language comes in and logical thinking flies out the window - the headmaster had over 1m images, Ok, images of what?  That is left to our imagination.

These images would have to be abuse of children - categorised as illegal or they would not have been arrested would they? Where did I say they were the worst? I don't know what category they are - but if they were pictures of legal adult porn - they wouldn't have been arrested would they. In any case what do you catergorize as worst...Any category of child abuse is wrong in my book. And those who profit from this stuff - are beyond disgusting too. 

@cristobel Whoa there, you are implying that I support the downloading of child abuse.


In that paragraph - nothing was implyed from me at all. I was saying that you were trying to shut my argument down and that you didn't know of my experiences.


@cristobel Whilst they are watching all that harrowing child abuse, they are not actually helping anyone.  Kids are coming home from school and being beaten up and raped in their own homes on a daily basis.  Real, flesh and blood kids terrified to go home, terrified to tell anyone.  Its a bit reminiscent of that scene from Dickens where the fine ladies and gentlemen step over the dying child to go into church.  

So you think that these arrests are futile - that they have done nothing? I agree as many have said today in Media interviews that we are merely only at the tip of the iceberg of all this. We will never stop this happening completely as we won't, sadly, stop children being battered abused at home. For all the adverts that say we must give money to stop a child being hurt in the home - a ridiculous statement from a certain charity - we will never be able to completely stop it. We can help to stop some -that is all. As we can't stop drug dealing, elderly and those with disability's being abused, women and men being stalked, domestic violence etc. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to close in on/arrest those that we discover are doing harm to others?

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by bubblewrap on 16.07.14 21:51

Has this been called Operation Oreful ?

bubblewrap

Posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by waiting for justice on 17.07.14 0:23

I completely agree with Mouse. 

The police aren't going to go wading in over a random person lingering over a holiday snap on Facebook. 
If the odd one has had their cc stolen this will easily be proved. 

Just because you're not the maker of said pic or video doesn't make you in any way innocent as just a viewer. At the end of the day the whole affair consists of a vile network of sick and twisted individuals and the only way to get to the root is to break it down piece by piece which is what this is about. 
I applaud their work. I know I couldn't do their job, it must be heart breaking. 
Removing just one child from harm and showing others who are clearly too stupid to think they can go undetected on these sites is a victory IMO. 

I have to say I like a comment on sky news (can't post) about not leaving stones unturned. 
Sounds familiar.

waiting for justice

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 17.07.14 0:47

@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@mouse wrote:@Cristobel - My thoughts are with the 400 children who have been 'protected' - God help them.


You mentioned this on the other thread. Could you explain what you mean by it? As I thought you wanted a crackdown on lower profile child abuse. Less of the Celeb stuff? Whether this is true or not (as Aquilla just said) we don't know what situation thEese children were in . It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be removed from their families and put into care. The 400 protected might just mean - children in scout groups, on doctors patient lists, being taught by teachers  - this might be how they got this figure. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will be put in care. It may be similar to an incident that happened in my little part of the world recently  - when we were informed of the arrest of a nursery school worker, he was young and single, no kids - the parents of the children were informed. I guess you could call these children 'protected'.



ETA - Just heard on Beeb - that the majority of the children have been 'safe guarded', some 100+ have been removed (not necessarily to care though - maybe other family member - we can hope) Included in the arrests was one foster carer looking after a 'vulnerable' child, computer seized etc. And a doctor with more than 1Million pics of child (I'd guess abuse of children) on his computer!!!!!!
I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse.

However, I would respectfully suggest you take a look at Operation Ore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore.  The word paedophile is so emotive it whips up hostile public opinion and rational discussion is impossible.

A lot of the men arrested under Operation Ore had their credit cards used fraudulently.  They had their homes raided by the police in the middle of the night and their children seized and placed into care.  Thirty nine of the men committed suicide. 

These arrests I believe are the result of similar enquiries, ie, the perpetrators have been tracked by what they have viewed online. My problem is the way in which the authorities are approaching child protection.  Its like arresting all the viewers of a 'banned' film, rather than tackling the makers and distributors of a movie.  As I said earlier in this thread, I have seen the 'Evil Dead' - a banned film, should I therefore be arrested on suspicion of being an axe wielding psychopath? 

Unfortunately, I think these 400  'protected' children have probably been taken into care, and as I said earlier, God help them.



"I haven't got enough information yet to form an opinion Mouse".


But you have - because you've posted one in two threads.

I have enough empirical evidence to know about the care system Mouse, which is what I commented on.

So you know as fact - that these children are all now in care? Come on - you're on the outside of this investigation like the rest of us - so you are purely making assumptions.

The news reports say over 400 children are now being protected.  I interpret that as 'being taken into care', you may of course interpret it differently.


As for the paedophile word raising hysteria - what would you have us do - not talk about it, ultimately sweep it under the carpet???

The opposite Mouse, I want to be able to discuss the subject without hysteria.  You have stated you put the welfare of the child first, which suggests that I don't.  You could not be further from the truth. 

You didn't really answer the hysteria question - you appear to be the only one getting hysterical about this subject. And I haven't heard much sympathy for the victims from you tbh. Only when your are questioned on the subject. 

I have actually done rather a lot to bring attention to historic child abuse Mouse, and I am actively involved in trying to change the lives of deprived children. 

I have spent many years studying the subject of abuse, more particularly, 'what makes people evil'.  My studies and indeed life experience has changed my thinking dramatically. Without going into too much detail as yet, my biggest concern at the moment at the moment are the millions of children suffering in these times of austerity.  Cutbacks have led to drastic cuts in social services and at a time when the need is greatest, we are investing in crimes that are decades old.  Its madness imo.

As to hysteria, no hysteria from me.  I would like full and frank discussion.  I would like to see legitimate studies and actual figures.  I want to know the criteria by which people are judged paedophiles, its a pretty damning accusation that covers a inordinately wide range, yet there appears to be no categorization, so anyone accused is believed to be guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. 

I once looked after an elderly man with learning difficulties, who liked to photograph kids in the park.  We told him off again and again, but he still he continued.  He was always remorseful, tears and promises not to do it again. I should also state, that he was completely harmless.  He was terrified of children, and took his pictures from a distance.  What category would he fall in? 

I have also experienced life in children's home ruled by a prolific paedophile and sadist, (also a scout master) who I have no doubt whatsoever, was involved in systematic, organised paedophilia.  I know how I would have liked to categorize him if the Good Lord hadn't got there first. 

I have nothing but sympathy for the victims Mouse, I wrote a book with intention of helping others who had experienced the same horrors in childhood.  I reply with help and advice to anyone who writes to me. 



(MOUSE) once again appear to come down on the sympathy side of the men arrested. Sure, some will who may be innocent, but I would think that they would be able to prove this. As for downloaders of child abuse - well I think we all know that old credit card stole one, just doing research etc. From what I have read it is pretty much impossible to stumble across such site, and in the rare occasion that you find something that is suspect - I would think that a right minded person would report this site. Anyway, these guys, from the sound of things have downloaded quite a lot of pics! 

It was found and proved during Operation Ore that thousands of men had their credit card details stolen.  That is a fact.  You have acknowledged some of the men may be innocent - what of their children now seized by the authorities?  What of their families, their jobs, their marriages?  How do you recover from an accusation of paedophilia? 

How do you know they are innocent. Have you sat in on the investigation - if someone downloads abuse pics -they better have a mighty good excuse.

With respect, I suggest you read the wiki link to Operation Ore.  It was proved both here and in the USA (where the financial fraud took place) that thousands of credit card details were stolen. 

As for these present police raids, I await the results with interest, particularly with regard to those responsible for producing these 'images' and the children 'rescued'.
  


(MOUSE) Anyway, I don't suppose we will ever agree on this matter, as I always put the child's welfare first. I want more people to talk about child abuse - it doesn't have to be hysterical, just informed discussion so that we can enable parents and children to always be aware of the possible dangers out there. I don't want children and parents to be constantly scared, but wouldn't mind a few child abusers to feel the stress of knowing that it could be their door the police maybe knocking on next!

How many kids will be protected by rounding up men viewing dodgy images online?  Remember the theory behind this, is that they 'might' go on to abuse children, not that they have.  I would quite like to see the research and statistics to back this up.  In my opinion, they are following the futuristic thinking of Philip K. Dick and arresting people before they commit an offence and I'm really not comfortable with that.

Where do I start with this one? Arresting people before they've committed an offence?........ They have already committed an offence by downloading illegal images, they are complicit. You're sounding a bit like old Jim Gambol now (who didn't deem it that serious)...........Dodgy Images????? You know full well that the images they are looking are not some adult porn - they are abuse of children. Being, as you say, someone who has experienced child abuse - why oh why can you not understand the plain fact that these images aren't cartoons, they're real, a child was abused/abuse had to take place for these images to be out there on the web.  If there was not a call for it, money to be made (kerching with their credit cards) less children would be abused - IMO.

I don't know what these images are, anymore than you do, nor do I know how the images are categorized.  Why assume that they are all 'the worst possible kind'?  This where the emotive language comes in and logical thinking flies out the window - the headmaster had over 1m images, Ok, images of what?  That is left to our imagination.


 
I want more people to talk about child abuse, however, people like myself who have actual experience of child abuse and its effects, are shut down by wild accusations of supporting paedophiles!  I speak out because I can.  Firstly, I am female and secondly I have been through the care system.  I have no agenda to support paedophiles, my priority is the children who are being abused now.  A multimillion pound task force seeking out men (via the internet) who might commit crimes in the future is absurd.

(MOUSE) 
"Firstly I am female" What has that got to do with the argument? - I don't feel the need to sate my sex? And is rather strange as both girls and boys are abused, and I would think that most right minded/law abiding adults, male and female would think child abuse/downloading child abuse wrong. And are you suggesting I am not allowed to disagree with your opinion because you've been abused and been through the care system. Are you not trying to shut my argument down with that statement? How do you know what I've experienced, or have personal knowledge of? And I've heard many voices recently, that have complained of abuse, they are victims, and they most definitely do not support downloading of this child abuse. Incidentally, one of the men who has been arrested, (the investigation today) not only downloaded pics, he filmed himself abusing a child.  

Whoa there, you are implying that I support the downloading of child abuse.  I most certainly don't, and I want to see anyone using their, or anyone else's kids for financial and sexual purposes should receive the worst the law can throw at them.  I shudder at the memory of that nursery, where babies were attacked and filmed by the creatures who were supposed to be looking after them.  I'm not a violent person, but people like them incense me.  However, it should be pointed out that the nursery abuse was not uncovered by a crack internet task force, but by a colleague whistleblowing. 

(mouse) Is my response missing here - I think I responded to this question - I don't know why you chose to ignore it - I did no such thing - I responded! (See Prev Post)

And what a lazy form of policing!  All they have to do is sit watching computer screens all day, studying child pornography and tracking down anyone else who might be looking at it.  Who exactly is this helping? I don't know. I would hope that they are looking to arrest people who are viewing child abuse - thus stopping more children being abused for others entertainment, titalation. Not lazy - I would imagine completely harrowing. And there was you stating the other day - why weren't the police cracking down on lower profile people.....And now they are -you're still not happy???????

 

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 17.07.14 3:39

@waiting for justice wrote:I completely agree with Mouse. 

The police aren't going to go wading in over a random person lingering over a holiday snap on Facebook. 
If the odd one has had their cc stolen this will easily be proved. 

Just because you're not the maker of said pic or video doesn't make you in any way innocent as just a viewer. At the end of the day the whole affair consists of a vile network of sick and twisted individuals and the only way to get to the root is to break it down piece by piece which is what this is about. 
I applaud their work. I know I couldn't do their job, it must be heart breaking. 
Removing just one child from harm and showing others who are clearly too stupid to think they can go undetected on these sites is a victory IMO. 

I have to say I like a comment on sky news (can't post) about not leaving stones unturned. 
Sounds familiar.
Waiting for justice" I have at least twice ( I have to add to that now three time ???) replied to your message earlier tonight - I really don't understand why it hasn't been posted  - as it was only in support of yourself, but for some reason it wasn't.  Alll the same - I think we are on the same page regards child abuse

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by mouse on 17.07.14 11:09

@mouse wrote:In response to cristobel - didn't want to quote the whole thread again as it starting to resemble a rainbow.


@cristobel As to hysteria, no hysteria from me.  I would like full and frank discussion.  I would like to see legitimate studies and actual figures.  I want to know the criteria by which people are judged paedophiles, its a pretty damning accusation that covers a inordinately wide range, yet there appears to be no categorization, so anyone accused is believed to be guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. 


I would define somebody charged with Paedophilia - as somebody proven to have abused/sexually assaulted a child. This thread concerns charges brought against downloaders of child abuse some of whom have prev. convictions I believe of paedophilia - police being aware of them, and some who have abused - the man who filmed himself. Downloaders I would say are people obviously interested in paedophilia and are therefore judged as a risk to children.

@cristobel I don't know what these images are, anymore than you do, nor do I know how the images are categorized.  Why assume that they are all 'the worst possible kind'?  This where the emotive language comes in and logical thinking flies out the window - the headmaster had over 1m images, Ok, images of what?  That is left to our imagination.

These images would have to be abuse of children - categorised as illegal or they would not have been arrested would they? Where did I say they were the worst? I don't know what category they are - but if they were pictures of legal adult porn - they wouldn't have been arrested would they. In any case what do you catergorize as worst...Any category of child abuse is wrong in my book. And those who profit from this stuff - are beyond disgusting too. 

@cristobel Whoa there, you are implying that I support the downloading of child abuse.


In that paragraph - nothing was implied from me at all. I was saying that you were trying to shut my argument down and that you didn't know of my experiences.


@cristobel Whilst they are watching all that harrowing child abuse, they are not actually helping anyone.  Kids are coming home from school and being beaten up and raped in their own homes on a daily basis.  Real, flesh and blood kids terrified to go home, terrified to tell anyone.  Its a bit reminiscent of that scene from Dickens where the fine ladies and gentlemen step over the dying child to go into church.  

So you think that these arrests are futile - that they have done nothing? I agree as many have said today in Media interviews that we are merely only at the tip of the iceberg of all this. We will never stop this happening completely as we won't, sadly, stop children being battered abused at home. For all the adverts that say we must give money to stop a child being hurt in the home - a ridiculous statement from a certain charity - we will never be able to completely stop it. We can help to stop some -that is all. As we can't stop drug dealing, elderly and those with disability's being abused, women and men being stalked, domestic violence etc. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to close in on/arrest those that we discover are doing harm to others?
My latest response to cristobel - prev one I tried to edit (due to my posts pos being construed as hers due to colour) but came out as a post?

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by BlueBag on 17.07.14 12:10

Papers today saying Police have a list with as many as 50,000 people.

Expect more laws taking away internet freedom, not just child porn, that is the stalking horse.

Yes we need to protect our children, but watch out for what comes with it.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by aquila on 17.07.14 12:27

@BlueBag wrote:Papers today saying Police have a list with as many as 50,000 people.

Expect more laws taking away internet freedom, not just child porn, that is the stalking horse.

Yes we need to protect our children, but watch out for what comes with it.
More statistics. This time in the form of a list. Santa has a list too and he too apparently decides who's naughty and nice.

No-one in government is included in these statistics. They must be on Santa's 'nice' list then.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by BlueBag on 17.07.14 12:34

@aquila wrote:No-one in government is included in these statistics. They must be on Santa's 'nice' list then.

Yes. We know no one in Government (or presumably politics in general) is on the list because they made sure to tell us yesterday.

What a relief.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by aquila on 17.07.14 12:44

660 people arrested. 400 children rescued (I love the rounded figure).

I doubt the conviction rate of any of these 660 people will see the light of day.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Cristobell on 17.07.14 15:24

@BlueBag wrote:Papers today saying Police have a list with as many as 50,000 people.

Expect more laws taking away internet freedom, not just child porn, that is the stalking horse.

Yes we need to protect our children, but watch out for what comes with it.
My fears too BlueBag.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Cristobell on 17.07.14 16:14

@mouse wrote:
@mouse wrote:Apologies for delay in coming back to you Mouse, was caught up in a project with a deadline.


Yes our debate was turning into a rainbow, lol - I'll stick with red :) 



In response to cristobel - didn't want to quote the whole thread again as it starting to resemble a rainbow.


@cristobel As to hysteria, no hysteria from me.  I would like full and frank discussion.  I would like to see legitimate studies and actual figures.  I want to know the criteria by which people are judged paedophiles, its a pretty damning accusation that covers a inordinately wide range, yet there appears to be no categorization, so anyone accused is believed to be guilty of the worst crimes imaginable. 


I would define somebody charged with Paedophilia - as somebody proven to have abused/sexually assaulted a child. - A bit of grey area here Mouse, charged is not convicted.  Nor is 'arrested'.  Innocent until proven guilty. 

This thread concerns charges brought against downloaders of child abuse some of whom have prev. convictions I believe of paedophilia - police being aware of them, and some who have abused - the man who filmed himself. Downloaders I would say are people obviously interested in paedophilia and are therefore judged as a risk to childrenAgain, that is a sweeping assumption, what about Human rights?  Who judges them a risk to children?  What evidence is there to show downloading these images leads to abuse? Of the 660 arrested, 39 were registered sex offenders. ergo 621 were not. That means they have never been reported for abusing children, or that they have never abused - which of course, negates the 'might go on to abuse' argument.

@cristobel I don't know what these images are, anymore than you do, nor do I know how the images are categorized.  Why assume that they are all 'the worst possible kind'?  This where the emotive language comes in and logical thinking flies out the window - the headmaster had over 1m images, Ok, images of what?  That is left to our imagination.

These images would have to be abuse of children - categorised as illegal or they would not have been arrested would they? Where did I say they were the worst? I don't know what category they are - but if they were pictures of legal adult porn - they wouldn't have been arrested would they. In any case what do you catergorize as worst...Any category of child abuse is wrong in my book. And those who profit from this stuff - are beyond disgusting too. 

Using the adult industry as a guideline, they have soft, hard and triple rated porn.  Everyone agrees any category of child abuse is wrong, including myself, but we can't discuss the subject unless we look at it logically and there has to be differentials.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, children in any stage of undress could be considered an illegal image.  But what of children that are dressed up?  The Jonbenet Ramsey pageant queens, that have a huge paedophile following?  Does exchanging photographs of little girls in make up constitute a criminal charge?  The motives for many in that industry, are, imo, just as creepy. 



@cristobel Whoa there, you are implying that I support the downloading of child abuse.


In that paragraph - nothing was implied from me at all. I was saying that you were trying to shut my argument down and that you didn't know of my experiences.

My apologies if I misintrepreted what you said. 

As for shutting your argument down.  Not at all, I welcome other people's opinions - my views are not set in stone.  You have given me several points to ponder on Mouse.



@cristobel Whilst they are watching all that harrowing child abuse, they are not actually helping anyone.  Kids are coming home from school and being beaten up and raped in their own homes on a daily basis.  Real, flesh and blood kids terrified to go home, terrified to tell anyone.  Its a bit reminiscent of that scene from Dickens where the fine ladies and gentlemen step over the dying child to go into church.  

So you think that these arrests are futile - that they have done nothing? I agree as many have said today in Media interviews that we are merely only at the tip of the iceberg of all this. We will never stop this happening completely as we won't, sadly, stop children being battered abused at home. For all the adverts that say we must give money to stop a child being hurt in the home - a ridiculous statement from a certain charity - we will never be able to completely stop it. We can help to stop some -that is all. As we can't stop drug dealing, elderly and those with disability's being abused, women and men being stalked, domestic violence etc. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to close in on/arrest those that we discover are doing harm to others?

I don't know what to make of these arrests Mouse.  I would have more belief in their being genuine if they 660 had been arrested by means other than the internet.  That is, if 660 paedophiles have been on the loose for however long, yet they have only now been identified?  Crimes against children predate the internet.




My latest response to cristobel - prev one I tried to edit (due to my posts pos being construed as hers due to colour) but came out as a post?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by paradigm67 on 17.07.14 19:10

I have to say that I find the timing and appearance and disappearance of this news article from such well balanced sites as the DM quite strange. Any possible relation to the gov pushing through its surveillance bill alongside the removal of the very competent Dominic Grieve and replacement by the wholly unqualified Matthew Wright as AG?

I would have thought that such a large number of people apparently caught would deserve a bit of a longer run than one day. Mind you I'm suprised that they didnt go the whole hog and state 666 paedophiles as being caught.

With regard to the ubiquitous number 50,000 people in a policelist - thats complete garbage. The number 50,000 as a perfectly nice round number has been touted by the likes of Gamble and CEOP in relation to how many people are online viewing indecent images for years. Its not just the UK that this number crops up and has been covered by the award winning Canadian journalist Dan Gardener in his 2008 book Risk : The Science and Politics of Fear.

He started to look into this number as it was cropping up all over the place and he asked the questions after it appeared in a paper he wrote for. He contacted the Canadian Police Board who told him it had cropped up in a conversation with British Police

The Independent over here stated that it had come from the FBI but the FBI agent who quoted it (Agent Ken Lanning) when pressed for where he got it from by a canadian radio show stated that:

“I didn’t know where it came from. I couldn’t confirm it, but I couldn’t refute it either, but I felt it was a fairly reasonable number."


“Lanning also noted a curious coincidence: 50,000 has made appearances as a key number in at least two previous panics in recent years. In the early 1980s, it was supposed to be the number of children kidnapped by strangers every year. At the end of the decade, it was the number of murders committed by Satanic cults. These claims, widely reported and believed at the time, were later revealed to be nothing more than hysterical guesses that became ‘fact’ in the retelling.”



Gardener notes
“It is indeed a terrifying statistic. It is also well-travelled. It has been sighted in Britain , Canada, the United States, and points beyond. Like a new strain of the flu virus, it has spread from newspaper articles to TV reports to public speakers, websites, blogs, and countless conversations of frightened parents. …

Unfortunately, the mere fact that a number has proliferated, even at the highest levels of officialdom, does not demonstrate the number is true. So what about this number? Is it credible?

There’s one obvious reason to be at least a little suspicious. It’s a round number. A very round number. It’s not 47,000 or 53,500. It is 50,000. And 50,000 is just the sort of perfectly round number people pluck out of the air when they make a wild guess.”

paradigm67

Posts : 64
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by Guest on 17.07.14 20:03

@paradigm67 wrote:

There’s one obvious reason to be at least a little suspicious. It’s a round number. A very round number. It’s not 47,000 or 53,500. It is 50,000. And 50,000 is just the sort of perfectly round number people pluck out of the air when they make a wild guess.”

I like the way that Tony put "six hundred and sixty" in words, in brackets, after the 660 in the headline. Homage to the BBC videprinter?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 660 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY) paedophiles arrested in 6-month operation by National Crime Agency (BBC News, 16 July 2014)

Post by sar on 17.07.14 23:33

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@paradigm67 wrote:

There’s one obvious reason to be at least a little suspicious. It’s a round number. A very round number. It’s not 47,000 or 53,500. It is 50,000. And 50,000 is just the sort of perfectly round number people pluck out of the air when they make a wild guess.”

I like the way that Tony put "six hundred and sixty" in words, in brackets, after the 660 in the headline. Homage to the BBC videprinter?
had a mate from school who loved the videprinter, used to run home on a saturday and skid down in front of the telly and watch the results being printed out.

sar

Posts : 460
Reputation : 139
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum