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

OPERATION HYDRANT

View previous topic View next topic Go down

OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.09.16 22:31

@sallypelt wrote:Has Operation Hydrant ever been discussed on this Forum?
@ sallypelt        A very good question, though somewhat off topic for this thread, I fear.

Funnily enough, only a few days ago one of Les Balkwell's contacts spoke to me about Simon Bailey, Chief Constable of Norfolk Police, who heads up Operation Hydrant. The person raised questions as to Mr Bailey's impartiality and suitability for his job, which involves a kind of supremo, umbrella role over all the various child sexual abuse operations going on at the moment. In other words, it is a very powerful position. 

If you look at this article in the Guardian from 2014, you'll probably see why some people are concerned:

========================

Top police officer: many viewing child abuse images should be treated on NHS


Norfolk chief constable Simon Bailey believes thousands on police database ‘pose no threat’ and don’t belong in prison



Norfolk chief constable Simon Bailey, also the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on child protection and abuse investigations. Photograph: Martin Godwin

Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor

Friday 5 December 2014 06.00 GMT 
 
Thousands who view child abuse images online should be treated as patients by the NHS rather than sent to prison because they pose no threat to children, says one of Britain’s leading police officers.

In an interview with the Guardian, Simon Bailey, chief constable of Norfolk police and the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (Acpo) lead on child protection and abuse investigations, said that while police had a database of 50,000 people who regularly viewed indecent images of children, research suggested not all were an immediate threat.

“What academic research would say is between 16% and 50% of those people who have viewed indecent images of children are then likely to be ‘contact abusers’ [of children]. That can be as high as 25,000 or as low as 8,000. [This group] poses a threat,” he said. However, the remaining group of child sex offenders – who are committing a crime by viewing the material online – are “non-contact abusers” who Bailey says do not “need to come into the criminal justice system in terms of being put forward before a court”. 

Alternative solution          


He added: “We have to think about an alternative solution. [We] need to engage with service providers from mental health and the health service to work with us to say these people need help.”

The new approach provoked a debate among child protection experts and health professionals over whether the police were in effect decriminalising child sex offences at a time when online abuse appears to be increasing.

David Cameron will call next week for further controls over child abuse images. There are thought to be more than 100m of them in circulation on the web, up from 7,000 in 1990.

Admitting the new strategy appeared “a very unpalatable response from a senior police officer,” Bailey said the decision to give priority to active paedophiles rather than browsers of images that include the rape and torture of children was “based on realism ... it is based upon the fact there will be a significant number of those people who will simply not go on to contact abuse.”

This week a doctor, Myles Bradbury, was jailed for 22 years for “grotesque” abuse of 18 vulnerable children in his care. Police in Canada had told their British counterparts he was buying indecent images of children on the internet, but UK investigators failed to act for 14 months, classifying him as low risk.

The new strategy, which is being implemented by police forces and Ceop, the child exploitation and online protection command of the National Crime Agency, is a reversal of official thinking which has until now been that “anyone who possesses [images] poses a risk of committing contact sexual offences against children”.

Some have welcomed the shift. Jackie Craissati, fellow of the British Psychological Society and clinical and forensic director at an NHS trust, told the Guardian her reading of recent studies suggests 25% to 33% of web users of child abuse imagery should be “worried about”. She said: “A much larger group have nothing to suggest they are unconnected sex offenders.” Craissati welcomed the move to seek help from mental health specialists, but warned it would not be easy to get the NHS to engage with child sex offenders.

“First, if they had children, social services would have something to say about whether their kids could stay with them. Second, we are a long way off the NHS being comfortable about saying it is the health service’s job to treat these people. Third, the therapy is only effective for serious deviance. If you aren’t a problem then it does not work.”

Others were sharply critical. Jim Gamble, a former head of Ceop and now safeguarding chair for City of London and Hackney, said there had always been an academic debate about what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them.
He said it was conclusively answered by a 2008 US study of convicted web child sex abuse offenders which revealed 85% had admitted when taking lie detector tests that they had committed previously unacknowledged acts of sexual abuse against children, including rape.

“This is a gimmick by the police. It’s a nonsense. [Paedophiles] are manipulative and lie. They try to convince everyone else they are normal.

But they are not. They are upstairs in their bedrooms looking at pictures of child rape. The youngest child in these images I saw when I ran Ceop had an umbilical cord. I would ask these academics who think people who are viewing this stuff are OK if they would let these guys babysit their daughter or grandchildren.”

Bailey rebutted the idea that the police had “gone soft” on child sex crime, pointing out that in the 12 months since October last year 715 people had been arrested for possession of indecent images – the largest single haul in Ceop history. Last year fewer than 200 people were arrested.

He said: “We are at the beginning of a journey. That is why [Ceop boss] Johnny Gwynn and I are driving this agenda and starting to tackle the threat posed. The figures bear it out.”

==================

So, a year after the Guardian published this interview with Chief Constable Simon Bailey, guess who was appointed by the government to head up Operation Hydrant?!

ETA:   I don't think this has been discussed on the forum. I will see if I can transfer this post to the 'News - Have Your Say' section and open an Operation Hydrant thread there.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by Nina on 18.09.16 23:15

Ok, so a percentage will never actually touch a child in an inappropriate way but the people who are supplying these images do. Or were these images produced in the 20th century and not a single child harmed since?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.09.16 23:29

@Nina wrote:Ok, so a percentage will never actually touch a child in an inappropriate way but the people who are supplying these images do. Or were these images produced in the 20th century and not a single child harmed since?
Also, given that paedophiles 'manipulate and lie' (at least Gamble has got that one right), how do these self-professed experts like Simon Bailey (police officer) and Jackie Craissati (psychologist) know in advance which paedophiles will or will not become physical abusers?

In addition, it is clear from the above article that, as with drugs law enforcement, the police are making their own decisions about what laws to enforce. They KNOW that many individuals are watching horrific images of children being abused, they even KNOW WHO THEY ARE, and are doing NOTHING about it.

They are letting them carry on!

Is this not a scandal?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13971
Reputation : 2146
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by Verdi on 19.09.16 0:00

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Nina wrote:Ok, so a percentage will never actually touch a child in an inappropriate way but the people who are supplying these images do. Or were these images produced in the 20th century and not a single child harmed since?
Also, given that paedophiles 'manipulate and lie' (at least Gamble has got that one right), how do these self-professed experts like Simon Bailey (police officer) and Jackie Craissati (psychologist) know in advance which paedophiles will or will not become physical abusers?

In addition, it is clear from the above article that, as with drugs law enforcement, the police are making their own decisions about what laws to enforce. They KNOW that many individuals are watching horrific images of children being abused, they even KNOW WHO THEY ARE, and are doing NOTHING about it.

They are letting them carry on!

Is this not a scandal?
Exactly!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3547
Reputation : 2065
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by sallypelt on 19.09.16 1:22

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:Has Operation Hydrant ever been discussed on this Forum?
@ sallypelt        A very good question, though somewhat off topic for this thread, I fear.

Thank you, Tony.  The reason  I asked  is I came across this on Textusa's blog and found it interesting:


Snipped:

The game and its moves

In any and all collective sports there are always 2 vectors present: the offense and the defense.

The offense is the process whereby a team does what it can to score against a defending team. Defense is the process used by the other team to avoid that from happening.

The Freud move was definitely an offensive move by the government.

The other side was only able to respond with saying that there was no need for any more forensics. We will deal with this later on.

This move show how weak the other side’s defense has become. Really pitiful when compared with the magnitude of the Freud move. Let us not forget that the backdrop of the Freud move is the Portuguese Appeal Court giving, unsurprisingly, full reason to Mr Amaral.

The other side has only and one only objective: archival.

And it’s showing signs that it has resigned itself of not achieving it.

We wish we could have the same clarity about the government’s intentions.

All seems to point that it wants to go for full truth – involving Clement Freud with Maddie is the biggest example of this – but one is fully aware that it never commits itself clearly to an objective. It treads the path towards truth but keeps all other doors wide open.

To give an example of what we are trying to say, when it’s said that it’s Operation Hydrant that will look into the mail exchange between the McCanns and Freud, is exactly what we mean by leaving all doors open.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/mitchell-walking-plank.html

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by MayMuse on 19.09.16 2:57

Thank you for the blog which I've read in entirety; the analogy of the game I get, with the unicorns, stardust fever and the leprechauns it's like stepping through fairyland when in reality it's a parasitic world; so in the depths of this big bad "wood" who is next to slip off the moss laden toadstool? .....A King Elf or a Queen? thinking

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1109
Reputation : 831
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by skyrocket on 19.09.16 8:49

Simon Bailey clearly didn't/doesn't get it. If he were Joe Bloggs working in any unrelated job it wouldn't be surprising or of any real consequence; but he's not is he. 

This bloke is at the top; he's looked to for guidance by subordinates, other organisations and government; and this is the sort of crap that he obviously not only believes but is happy to espouse in a national newspaper. 

Child porn is a business - every single time someone downloads a photo/film to view, the business expands. The higher the demand for photos, the more are taken and the more babies and children are abused. Viewing child porn is simply child abuse by proxy. It's no different than paying a contract killer to finish off your wealthy wife/husband/business partner - the fact that you only paid for the trigger to be pulled, doesn't make you any less guilty of murder. The ONLY innocents in all of this are the children. Viewing child porn should be fully recognised (particularly by those at the top of the field) for what it is - child abuse in its own right; it is not some sort of insignificant precursor.

Bailey's 2014 comments, can only have been damaging - not least because they give affirmation and confidence to thousands of armchair abusers.

skyrocket

Posts : 463
Reputation : 402
Join date : 2015-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by Doug D on 19.09.16 11:02

Operation Hydrant
 
This is the Operation that the CSA briefing paper (Ben Emmerson?) instructed its panel back in early 2015 ‘do not mention as receptacle' to Keith Vaz & HASC, shortly before Sharon Evans got kicked off.
 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6422p225-operation-fernbridge-timebomb-at-elm-guest-house
 
 
Yet within days we were then told:
 
‘A national police group is being set up to explore possible links between child sex abuse probes involving celebrities, elected officials and institutions such as schools and care homes.’
 
It was never clear why Emmerson felt this needed to be kept secret at the time.

Doug D

Posts : 2147
Reputation : 639
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Ref;Operation Hydrant

Post by willowthewisp on 19.09.16 14:53

Operation Grange has tasked Operation Hydrant to look into the e-mails between the parents of Madeleine McCann and Clement Freud,is this standard Police procedure in a missing child investigation?
Why is it not possible for the Operation Grange Team and the "New Funding"to consider if there is any connection between the supposed E-mails to Clement freud and the whereabouts of missing Madeleine McCann after spending over£12-15 Million pounds so far on the Investigation,why the need to Outsource to Operation Hydrant,Simon Bailey Team,or is this another coincidence?

willowthewisp

Posts : 1357
Reputation : 514
Join date : 2015-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: OPERATION HYDRANT

Post by plebgate on 19.09.16 17:04

@skyrocket wrote:Simon Bailey clearly didn't/doesn't get it. If he were Joe Bloggs working in any unrelated job it wouldn't be surprising or of any real consequence; but he's not is he. 

This bloke is at the top; he's looked to for guidance by subordinates, other organisations and government; and this is the sort of crap that he obviously not only believes but is happy to espouse in a national newspaper. 

Child porn is a business - every single time someone downloads a photo/film to view, the business expands. The higher the demand for photos, the more are taken and the more babies and children are abused. Viewing child porn is simply child abuse by proxy. It's no different than paying a contract killer to finish off your wealthy wife/husband/business partner - the fact that you only paid for the trigger to be pulled, doesn't make you any less guilty of murder. The ONLY innocents in all of this are the children. Viewing child porn should be fully recognised (particularly by those at the top of the field) for what it is - child abuse in its own right; it is not some sort of insignificant precursor.

Bailey's 2014 comments, can only have been damaging - not least because they give affirmation and confidence to thousands of armchair abusers.
Internet trolls (who makes the decision that someone is a troll anyway) must be tracked down and made an example of but these disgusting people - no sweat.  Hey man this is laid back Britain where anything goes unless of course you have the temerity to question things that don't seem to make any sense.

What a shocking state of affairs and it is still going on, despite the public constantly being fed the line that we are all equal.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
Rolling Eyes

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1159
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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