Jim Gamble on Good Morning Britain

by nglfi 16.01.18 8:30

I've just watched Jim Gamble talking about paedophile vigilante groups with Piers Morgan and a 'paedophile hunter '. What a sickening display. Personally I'm not fully in favour of such groups, but if they lead to convictions of paedophiles then they can't be a bad thing. The whole segment was basically Piers and Gamble attacking the guy for posting videos online, saying it's a violation of privacy for said paedophiles. There was no discussion whatsoever of the victims or their feelings. There was no discussion of whether the paedophiles involved had themselves accessed child pornography online and therefore subjected their victims to the same thing Gamble was attacking the guy for. He defended himself reasonably well and made the point that he hasn't been arrested, and his actions have led to the conviction of many paedophiles.
It was interesting to see how upset Gamble was at the idea that paedophiles are being caught and arrested without his input or knowledge. He claimed that it was inappropriate and only police should be responsible for gathering and collecting evidence, and that it needs to be more regulated . I wonder why? I wonder why he would have such an issue with this? Is it because it makes CEOP look bad? Something more sinister? Or both? He came across as someone that was very upset that paedophiles were being arrested and exposed online.

by **Jill Havern** 16.01.18 8:38

I wonder if he helped McCann supporter Nigel Nessling evade justice?

by Mark Willis 16.01.18 9:21

The hypocrisy!
MSM persons having a go at this guy calling him 'Judge, Jury and Executioner'. Have they forgotten what they did to Brenda? ..and she didn't break any laws!

by Guest 16.01.18 12:00

nglfi wrote:I've just watched Jim Gamble talking about paedophile vigilante groups with Piers Morgan and a 'paedophile hunter '. What a sickening display. Personally I'm not fully in favour of such groups, but if they lead to convictions of paedophiles then they can't be a bad thing..

I don't much like the idea of vigilante groups either, apart from anything else they don't always get it right. To publicly out someone as a paedophile when that someone is not a paedophile is catastrophic to say the least - a stigma that will stick forever! Perish the thought. However, the UK authorities seem very reluctant to take the problem seriously so who can blame members of the public taking the law into their own hands when they think their children are at risk?

by nglfi 16.01.18 14:09

I have the same concerns, vigilante justice has the potential to be very dangerous. It was however very interesting to see the angle at which Piers and Gamble attacked him from. Even after emphasising that the people under discussion had been charged with child sex offences, the pair of them were still most concerned with and offended by the fact that those paedophiles had been outed online. I'm not in favour of sensationalism and I feel that such videos do tap into that market. It was just very odd to see it even being debated as a topic. Why should we feel bad for a paedophile, who has potentially taken part himself in uploading images of children online, when his actions are made public? Why is Jim Gamble so concerned with such people's privacy? The overwhelming emotions being conveyed by him were anger and indignance, where I would have expected to see concern for the victims and perhaps a healthy, reasoned debate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the implications of releasing evidence into the public domain pre trial. In the cases of these people who have agreed to meet for underage sex, it seems there have been very few cases of the release of such videos preventing an effective trial.

by Guest 16.01.18 15:29

There is a very short clip here nglfi - it gives a general idea of your point..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes, Mr Morgan, give the information over to the police so the suspect can appear before a court of law and be subsequently cleared of all culpability. Meanwhile hundreds and thousands of children continue to be abused and used to feed the sick industry.

Makes my blood boil!

by polyenne 16.01.18 18:44

What Moron is doing is hypocritical beyond belief. This is the man (ha !) who condoned, nay AUTHORIZED, phone tapping of the public, celebs and ORDINARY, people and caused some of them immense distress. And he bleats on about innocent until proven guilty !!

He is also a bastion of the freedom of press movement believing the MSM to be almost beyond reproach and have the ability, on the basis of “public interest” to publish and be damned.......a “source” said etc etc.

IMO, second only to Anthony Blair as the most odious creature on the planet. A true apologist for certain elements and it wouldn’t surprise me if, in the next 5-10 years, his name wasn’t linked to something rather unsavoury. I hope me & this forum are around for me to say “I told you so”.

by nglfi 16.01.18 18:47

Thanks Verdi smilie

Who would have guessed the Mirror would take Piers' side eh?

by Guest 16.01.18 21:04

nglfi wrote:Thanks Verdi
Who would have guessed the Mirror would take Piers' side eh?

Oh come on be fair - that's the '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tabloid - that makes you think' you're talking about. sarcastic

by **sharonl** 16.01.18 21:56

Two McCann supporters together. Gamble should be praising the work of anyone who successfully gets these low life paedophiles convicted and I don't think that his failure to do so in this case was anything to do with professional jealousy.

A few points about Gamble, bearing in mind that he was head of the CEOP until forced out by Theresa May.

He says that paedophiles should not be convicted for viewing or obtaining illegal images of children (doesn't he realise that these people are the filth that support the market for these images and that children are abused in making them?)

He was seen at a child brothel in Cambodia, what was he doing there? Allegedly, he was making a film. As a child protection officer I would have expected Gamble to have taken steps to get this place closed down, but no, instead he decided to advertise it on National television and via the media.

Despite the evidence that suggests that Madeleine died in the apartment and the lack of evidence to support an abduction, he heavily supports the two prime suspects in the case.
l
IIRC, it was Gamble who asked for all PDL holiday makers in May 2007 to forward their holiday to him and not to the PJ. Why, when this was a Portuguese case? Did he send the photographs on? Highly unlikely.

So in-professional, he takes to Twitter to abuse anyone who questions the McCanns story of abduction.

As for Piers Morgan (the worlds most arrogant and conceited man), wasn't he a suspect in the Leveson Inquiry? How did he get away with that? His support for McCann is ludicrous when you see him trying hard to did-credit the evidence and sell us the abduction tale.