Jim Gamble: Vigilante Hunters aren’t the solution; Digital Detectives are

Posted: January 15, 2018  |  Admin  

The fact of the matter is, unregulated Paedophile Hunters aren’t going away.

In reality, their numbers are increasing and their activity is more frequent; often encouraging reckless actions by others. The irony is, we’ve now come to a point where some of them are asking the government to issue guidance on preventing less scrupulous, or over enthusiastic Hunters from going too far; doing the wrong thing.

Ultimately, keeping our children safe is the emotive issue.  Every parent, carer, brother, sister or friend is horrified when they hear a child has been groomed.  When they hear the news, they feel terrified to their core at the thought that it could ever happen to one of their loved ones.  So, it’s little wonder that many people are happy to adopt the ‘end justifies the means philosophy’. 

However, this attitude simply acknowledges that collateral damage is acceptable; that their bull-in-a-china-shop approach is now ruining the reputations of, and causing harm to innocent people.

The root of the problem starts with the fact that too few police resources are dedicated to this vital area of work.  Contrary to views recently expressed, it’s not a training issue; the few police officers who do this work are actually amongst the best in the world. There simply aren’t enough of them.

The toxic narrative that the police don’t care simply is not true.

The blaming of law enforcement’s inability to engage and deter predators online creates the perfect storm; exploited by some well-intentioned individuals, as well as a few others. They are the self-promoting, self-serving, egotistical live streamers, who take matters into their own hands and out of the hands of justice.  No matter what they say, the greater good is not achieved by naming and shaming the wrong person, or by providing the excuse for others to adopt the role of judge, jury and executioner.

If the vigilante phenomenon has taught us one thing, it’s that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to catch a predator.  Ordinary people can make a real difference. 

So, let’s take a hard look at the facts; The Chief Constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, set out the scale of the problem last year when said that 100,000 UK IP addresses are downloading indecent images of someone’s child every single day and there could be 20,000 predators online right now seeking to groom our children.  We are also told that nationally about 400 arrests are made for offences related to this abuse every month.  How do these numbers stack up? They don’t.

That said, it is clear to everyone that the police need to be empowered to do more.  They need support; greater access to resources, real investment from government and critically, an open mind to the possibilities that can be found in ethical and appropriate partnerships with the public. 

The answer does not lie with unregulated cowboys lynching people online or via live streaming at the point of confrontation.  The answer must begin and remain within the law.


Therefore, we could start by creating an offence of Masquerading, i.e. Make it a criminal offence for anyone above the age of 18 to engage online with someone they know, or believe to be, under the age of 18, unless they can show they had lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

This isn’t unreasonable – where else would it be okay for a 50 year-old-man to pretend to be a teenage girl?

This approach of regulation would make it easy to stop predators engaging in this way and actually inhibit paedophile hunters themselves.  Critically, it would also open the door for police forces to recruit and authorise special constables.  Special constables are not a new phenomenon; they have existed in England and Wales since the 60’s and comprise of citizen volunteers who are recruited, vetted, trained and supervised by local police forces.  They wear a uniform and patrol real streets.

Why shouldn’t these public spirited, vetted volunteers be deployed on our virtual highways?

https://ineqe.com/2018/01/15/vigilante-hunters-arent-the-solution-digital-detectives-are/

Crucial facts missing from that article -
Some statistics on how many wrongful attacks on innocent people there have been, compared with how many convictions have resulted from such groups actions?
In the good morning Britain segment the other day, the hunter on there said that this had occurred very few times and neither Gamble nor Morgan disagreed with him. I'll therefore take it as fact.

Also, the actual law surrounding posting something online that is verifiably true. I stand to be corrected, but isn't it fully within the law to post a video of an actual paedophile in the act of trying to meet a victim? If the video is a true depiction of events I don't see what law is broken.

At the same time I don't want to give the impression I'm in favour of these groups, I'm not particularly. I just doubt and am highly sceptical of the reasons that Jim Gamble takes umbrage at them.

Online child abuse expert Jim Gamble gagged by inquiry chief Alexis Jay

Sean O’Neill, Chief Reporter

January 24 2018, 12:01am, The Times



Jim Gamble has criticised the low number of arrests of internet offenders

MATT LLOYD FOR THE TIMES

A leading figure in the fight against online paedophilia was barred from giving his full evidence to the public inquiry into child abuse yesterday.

Jim Gamble, founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), was placed under a restriction order by Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA).

Mr Gamble has been a critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders and the gagging order was sought by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which claimed that he planned to disclose “sensitive information”.

The issues were discussed behind closed doors in London yesterday.

Later, in public evidence to IICSA’s investigation into internet abuse, Mr Gamble said that the exponential growth in the number of online offenders…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/online-child-abuse-expert-jim-gamble-ceop-gagged-by-inquiry-iicsa-chief-alexis-jay-k3k02n6hs

Anyone who subscribes to The Times, please fill in the detail.  Thanks.

Doesnt like people stepping on his toes or stealing his thunder does he.

He likes the McCanns !

Vigilante hunters are not the solution - but, the head of CEOP attending and advertising a child brothel, being very lenient on paedophiles who download illegal images of minors & support the market for this, and covering up for two prime suspects in a missing child case is?

Struggling with this Times report regarding a Restriction Order placed on Jim Gamble.
 
Alexis Jay opened with the following on 22^nd January:
 
P3

1. As you will hear in more detail from counsel, there
   
2. are restriction orders in place in relation to some of
   
3. the evidence. If there is any inadvertent breach of
   
4.  a restriction order, I will ask that the simultaneous
   
5.  recording be stopped momentarily so that the issue can
   
6. be addressed, as appropriate.
   

Nothing more was heard from counsel in the whole of the weeks transcripts that I can see.

Restriction Orders are however published in the IICSA library pages and the only one that has been posted in relation to this part of the investigation is this:

Internet Investigation Background

Restriction Order Pursuant to Section 19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005

1. On 12 January 2018, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (‘NPCC’) made two applications for Restriction Orders pursuant to section 19(1) and (2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005.
   
2. 
   
   
   
   
   1. The first application relates to sensitive information contained in a document provided to the Inquiry by West Midlands Police titled ‘National Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Action Plan: Benchmarking Report’, authored by the College of Policing and dated January 2014.
      
   2. The second application relates to sensitive information contained in two spreadsheets annexed to a letter from Chief Constable Simon Bailey to the Inquiry dated 18 July 2017, which were inadvertently disclosed by the NPCC to a journalist pursuant to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
      
   3. On 16 January 2018, I issued a provisional determination indicating that I was minded to grant both of the NPCC’s applications. Core participants were provided with my provisional determination, together with the applications, so that they might make submissions upon it. Enquiries were made with media representatives to find out if they wished to make submissions. I received no submissions and I now make the order below.
      
   
   
   

Restriction Order

3. This Restriction Order is made pursuant to section 19(1) and (2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 and binds all members of the public, the media and Core Participants.

Professor Alexis Jay OBE 18 January 2018 Chair, Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse


which does not seem to tie in particularly with the Times statement that:

' A leading figure in the fight against online paedophilia was barred from giving his full evidence to the public inquiry into child abuse yesterday.

Jim Gamble, founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), was placed under a restriction order by Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA).

Mr Gamble has been a critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders and the gagging order was sought by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which claimed that he planned to disclose “sensitive information”.

The issues were discussed behind closed doors in London yesterday.'

For starters the NPCC is not the NCA, but whether the concern was that he might reveal some shocking statistics, I have no idea.

Monday afternoon’s session was adjourned, to reconvene at 14.00 on Tuesday, which is when Jim Gamble was called, but there is no sign that anything else was held in private, although there was the morning window seemingly available.

If this was the case, should The Times not be held in contempt for exposing this?

Links to the various IICSA transcripts etc can be found at:
  
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14885-jim-gamble-iicsa-the-internet-child-sexual-abuse#380393

"Mr Gamble has been a critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders"

Why would Gamble criticise this when he seems to think that its is perfectly OK for paedophiles to view images online? Didn't he say that these people should not be arrested for this sort of thing?

Are they now trying to cover for him or regain some of his lost credibility?

Verdi wrote:Online child abuse expert Jim Gamble gagged by inquiry chief Alexis Jay

Sean O’Neill, Chief Reporter

January 24 2018, 12:01am, The Times



Jim Gamble has criticised the low number of arrests of internet offenders

MATT LLOYD FOR THE TIMES

A leading figure in the fight against online paedophilia was barred from giving his full evidence to the public inquiry into child abuse yesterday.

Jim Gamble, founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), was placed under a restriction order by Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA).

Mr Gamble has been a critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders and the gagging order was sought by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which claimed that he planned to disclose “sensitive information”.

The issues were discussed behind closed doors in London yesterday.

Later, in public evidence to IICSA’s investigation into internet abuse, Mr Gamble said that the exponential growth in the number of online offenders…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/online-child-abuse-expert-jim-gamble-ceop-gagged-by-inquiry-iicsa-chief-alexis-jay-k3k02n6hs

Anyone who subscribes to The Times, please fill in the detail.  Thanks.

I subscribe to the Times, here is the remainder of the article; 1. be aware the Murdoch empire are part of the conspiratorial cover up by the British establishment and mainstream media and thus the report of a gag on JG may be dis-information. 2. JG was part of the RUC in Northern Ireland who used spying on the Kincoran boys home to blackmail and thus turn IRA informants. 3. JG is a 'big' Gerry McCann supporter and I strongly suspect Gerry 'worked' with or for him against the PIRA. 4 quite simply, has JG ever 'nicked' or prosecuted any nonces in his career or was CEOP simply intelligence gathering on a grand scale?

“Later, in public evidence to IICSA’s investigation into internet abuse, Mr Gamble said that the exponential growth in the number of online offenders required a stronger response from law enforcement agencies and greater investment from government.

“There are too few police and far too many predators in the online space,” said Mr Gamble. “These predators . . . can be teachers, police officers, from all parts of society and they live in real homes with real children. It is a critical problem. Yet we’re told that ‘we’re doing as much as we can’.”
Police say that 400 people are arrested every month for viewing child abuse images but “tens of thousands” more are engaging with paedophile material online.
Mr Gamble told the inquiry that the NCA chose to spend just £14.5 million of its £450 million budget on Ceop.
Mr Gamble resigned as head of Ceop in 2010 when Theresa May, then home secretary, decided to merge the agency with the NCA. The former police chief said that that decision had been “political vandalism”.
Jacqueline Carey, IICSA counsel, said: “The inquiry has actively sought to ensure that as much information as possible is publicly available about how law enforcement investigates online abuse without compromising the sensitive nature of the police’s work.

Found it at last. Dated weeks ago which is why I couldn’t find it.


Seven paragraphs out of more than one hundred in his statement. Gagged from being made public, but not from the inquiry.


Submissions are made to Alexis Jay and her team and it is up to her to decide whether or not to grant Restriction Orders, so got to give her the benefit of the doubt.


Internet Investigation Background


Restriction Order Pursuant to Section 19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005
1.     On 21 December 2017, the National Crime Agency (‘NCA’) applied for a Restriction Order pursuant to section 19(1) and (2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005. The application related to sensitive information contained within the witness statement of Jim Gamble QPM dated 20 December 2017.
2.     On 22 December 2017, I issued a provisional determination indicating that I was minded to grant the application. Core participants were provided with my provisional determination, together with the open part of the NCA’s application, so that they might make submissions upon it. Enquiries were made with media representatives to find out if they wished to make submissions. I received no submissions and I now make the order below.


Restriction Order

3. This Restriction Order is made pursuant to section 19(1) and (2)(b) of the Inquiries
Act 2005 and binds all members of the public, the media and Core Participants. 4. This Restriction Order prohibits the disclosure or publication of:
a. Paragraphs 43-47, 81 and 94 of the witness statement of Jim Gamble QPM dated 20 December 2017.
b. Annex G to the NCA’s application dated 21 December 2017 (the ‘closed’ section).
5.     This Restriction Order does however permit disclosure to the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and/or their legal representatives.
6.     Where the material identified at paragraph 4 above is to be referred to at a public hearing, this Restriction Order will cover the exclusion of the public, the media, and Core Participants other than those referred to at paragraph 5 above, from the hearing room. The proceedings will not be broadcast and the transcript of proceedings will not be published.
7.     Pursuant to section 20(4) of the Inquiries Act 2005, the Chair may vary or revoke this Restriction Order by making a further order in the course of this Inquiry.
8.     Any person affected by this Order may apply in accordance with section 20 of the Inquiries Act to vary its terms.
9.     This Restriction Order continues in force indefinitely, unless the Order is varied or revoked pursuant to section 20 of the Inquiries Act 2005.


Professor Alexis Jay OBE 3 January 2018 Chair, Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse


[url=https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/3683/view/Restriction Order - Internet Investigation%2C 3 January 2018.pdf]https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/3683/view/Restriction%20Order%20-%20Internet%20Investigation%2C%203%20January%202018.pdf[/url]
 
He is not alone however and there are also restriction orders in place against:
 
NCA – Keith Niven
NCA – Matthew Long
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Commander Richard Smith
NPCC – CC Simon Bailey, CC Alan Pughsley, a number of police forces and the Eastern Region Regional Organised Crime Unit.
Plus the NPCC one previously posted.
 
These were two IICSA tweets about the Restriction Orders:
 
InquiryCSA (IICSA)‏Verified account @InquiryCSA
FollowFollow @InquiryCSA
More
Restriction Orders have been issued by the Chair to protect sensitive information on police practices used to prosecute child abusers. To put that information in the public domain would harm police operations. 1/2
3:16 am - 24 Jan 2018
 
InquiryCSA (IICSA)‏Verified account @InquiryCSA
FollowFollow @InquiryCSA
More
Restriction Orders do not prevent the Inquiry hearing all the evidence it needs with regard to law enforcement responses to child sexual abuse facilitated by the internet. 2/2
3:17 am - 24 Jan 2018