Former Ullapool teacher struck off for indecent images

aquila and Chillyheat.

I understand your points. It is really such a shocking thing for a Mother to write about her little girl. And yes, in some respects, the more people who are made aware of the way Kate's mind works, the better.

To put it in writing, in a book - a book that your other children will probably one day read, is UNthinkable and, unless I'm missing something, totally unnecessary.

I will avert my eyes from any further repeats of it.

Because it still makes me :bad:

Nereid wrote:And guess who are on the Parents Council (page 19).



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

Any relations to Calum McRae?

Mr C McRae is Calum's dad, Cameron McRae a police officer.

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

admin wrote:

Nereid wrote:And guess who are on the Parents Council (page 19).



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

Any relations to Calum McRae?

Mr C McRae is Calum's dad, Cameron McRae a police officer.

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

I swear this little shit has something to do with all the efits.
Sorry....couldn't help it

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

No offence, Copedenieve.

Yes, I know what you mean. Sorry. It does make her sound very weird too though. I wonder what a psychologist would make of that statement.

A very annoying link there - opens up the image and then automatically goes through to an advertiser's 'app for sale' in iTunes. Suppose that's the price ya pay for free image hosting.

ChillyHeat wrote:

aquila wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

I think the same Lance De Boils and then I think to myself it ought to be repeated as it is such a strange thing for a mother to want to publish and I don't know how it got past the advisors.

It's just too strange a thing to pass by. There are also the strange/inappropriate photographs of Madeleine in weird poses wearing make-up and a pearl necklace. A pearl necklace also makes me shudder (look it up). I have pondered on this and have been too afraid to post on it but what the hell.

The more we try and shy away from the unthinkable, then the more the lie will continue. This has to be looked at the correct way. As difficult as it may seem, the truth is being covered purely because many minds wont go down this route...They are sinister and belittling.

I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

Daisy wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

aquila wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

I think the same Lance De Boils and then I think to myself it ought to be repeated as it is such a strange thing for a mother to want to publish and I don't know how it got past the advisors.

It's just too strange a thing to pass by. There are also the strange/inappropriate photographs of Madeleine in weird poses wearing make-up and a pearl necklace. A pearl necklace also makes me shudder (look it up). I have pondered on this and have been too afraid to post on it but what the hell.

The more we try and shy away from the unthinkable, then the more the lie will continue. This has to be looked at the correct way. As difficult as it may seem, the truth is being covered purely because many minds wont go down this route...They are sinister and belittling.

I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

Drip drip drip.....That's whats happening Daisy unfortunetly. Flood us with crap daily, hoping it eventually becomes the norm.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ChillyHeat wrote:

Daisy wrote:I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

Drip drip drip.....That's whats happening Daisy unfortunetly. Flood us with crap daily, hoping it eventually becomes the norm.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I know all about it CH. As a Mother/Grandmother I watch on in horror as they steal children's innocence bit by bit.

Sorry for going off topic.

admin wrote:

Nereid wrote:And guess who are on the Parents Council (page 19).



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

Any relations to Calum McRae?

Mr C McRae is Calum's dad, Cameron McRae a police officer.

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

Thanks admin.

Can anyone access the following article?

"people who had taken scoraig children in as lodgers attack council over new nine-child building
Ullapool folk ‘incensed’ over £300,000 school hostel plan
By Mel Fairhurst
Published: 24/11/2010

Residents of Ullapool are “incensed” about plans by Highland Council to build and run a £300,000 hostel to house up to nine school pupils.
Planners gave the green light for a two-storey, nine-bedroom student block to be built beside Ullapool High School to accommodate its pupils from the remote Scoraig peninsula.
Youngsters from Scoraig take a ferry and then travel the 40 miles to school on Mondays and stay in Ullapool during the week, returning home on weekends.
For the full story, pick up a copy of today’s Press and Journal or read our digital edition now."

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


I remember Tony Rickwood being quoted in it as one of the incensed residents.

Daisy wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

aquila wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

I think the same Lance De Boils and then I think to myself it ought to be repeated as it is such a strange thing for a mother to want to publish and I don't know how it got past the advisors.

It's just too strange a thing to pass by. There are also the strange/inappropriate photographs of Madeleine in weird poses wearing make-up and a pearl necklace. A pearl necklace also makes me shudder (look it up). I have pondered on this and have been too afraid to post on it but what the hell.

The more we try and shy away from the unthinkable, then the more the lie will continue. This has to be looked at the correct way. As difficult as it may seem, the truth is being covered purely because many minds wont go down this route...They are sinister and belittling.

I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

You are all absolutely right with this issue - we ARE being de-sensitised, more importantly our children are. IMO, with sex education they cover more than is necessary for their age. TV and printed media are continuously pushing the boundaries further and further, things that were kept behind closed doors a decade ago are now becoming mainstream, and the proponents for excessive liberalisation call it progress. I call it removing boundaries and reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

The Perverts In Power (PIP's) are doing this on purpose. They know with the internet and social media, rumours and exposure of weird proclivities spread like wildfire, and there is precious little they can do about it, so they are allowing the "normalisation" of the obscene and merely paying judicial lip service to the issue (jail a few chavs, ignore the rest) so by the time the whole filthy quagmire is exposed, no-one gives a monkeys. The PIP's, when they have been completely exposed, will have the "defence" that so many other people are doing it their consequences will be completely watered down. And we'll all want our kids microchipped and given a handful more vaccines.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Daisy wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

aquila wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

I think the same Lance De Boils and then I think to myself it ought to be repeated as it is such a strange thing for a mother to want to publish and I don't know how it got past the advisors.

It's just too strange a thing to pass by. There are also the strange/inappropriate photographs of Madeleine in weird poses wearing make-up and a pearl necklace. A pearl necklace also makes me shudder (look it up). I have pondered on this and have been too afraid to post on it but what the hell.

The more we try and shy away from the unthinkable, then the more the lie will continue. This has to be looked at the correct way. As difficult as it may seem, the truth is being covered purely because many minds wont go down this route...They are sinister and belittling.

I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

You are all absolutely right with this issue - we ARE being de-sensitised, more importantly our children are. IMO, with sex education they cover more than is necessary for their age. TV and printed media are continuously pushing the boundaries further and further, things that were kept behind closed doors a decade ago are now becoming mainstream, and the proponents for excessive liberalisation call it progress. I call it removing boundaries and reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

The Perverts In Power (PIP's) are doing this on purpose. They know with the internet and social media, rumours and exposure of weird proclivities spread like wildfire, and there is precious little they can do about it, so they are allowing the "normalisation" of the obscene  and merely paying judicial lip service to the issue (jail a few chavs, ignore the rest) so by the time the whole filthy quagmire is exposed, no-one gives a monkeys. The PIP's, when they have been completely exposed, will have the "defence" that so many other people are doing it their consequences will be completely watered down. And we'll all want our kids microchipped and given a handful more vaccines.

   You speak my language.

Daisy wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Daisy wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:

aquila wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:PLEASE don't repeat that horrendous quote. It makes me want to puke.

I think the same Lance De Boils and then I think to myself it ought to be repeated as it is such a strange thing for a mother to want to publish and I don't know how it got past the advisors.

It's just too strange a thing to pass by. There are also the strange/inappropriate photographs of Madeleine in weird poses wearing make-up and a pearl necklace. A pearl necklace also makes me shudder (look it up). I have pondered on this and have been too afraid to post on it but what the hell.

The more we try and shy away from the unthinkable, then the more the lie will continue. This has to be looked at the correct way. As difficult as it may seem, the truth is being covered purely because many minds wont go down this route...They are sinister and belittling.

I can't argue with that. But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

You are all absolutely right with this issue - we ARE being de-sensitised, more importantly our children are. IMO, with sex education they cover more than is necessary for their age. TV and printed media are continuously pushing the boundaries further and further, things that were kept behind closed doors a decade ago are now becoming mainstream, and the proponents for excessive liberalisation call it progress. I call it removing boundaries and reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

The Perverts In Power (PIP's) are doing this on purpose. They know with the internet and social media, rumours and exposure of weird proclivities spread like wildfire, and there is precious little they can do about it, so they are allowing the "normalisation" of the obscene  and merely paying judicial lip service to the issue (jail a few chavs, ignore the rest) so by the time the whole filthy quagmire is exposed, no-one gives a monkeys. The PIP's, when they have been completely exposed, will have the "defence" that so many other people are doing it their consequences will be completely watered down. And we'll all want our kids microchipped and given a handful more vaccines.

   You speak my language.

Mine too. 

We must be Ladies of a certain age surfing on the same vibe!!     

Smokeandmirrors wrote:We must be Ladies of a certain age surfing on the same vibe!!      

Might be!

 
Or perhaps......

Or even

   

Sorry for going off topic  

Daisy wrote: But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

Yes I agree with you Daisy, paedophilia is gradually being minimised and is often treated as a minor offence by the courts. Many offenders - some of whom have actually abused children - have either received suspended sentences or very lenient sentences.
Only a month after Maddie's disappearance CEOP's former boss, Jim Gamble, whose main interest is child protection, was advocating a softer approach to paedophiles. He proposed a caution and treatment rather than prison for "lower risk offenders", because "too many people were being convicted of child sex offences to be dealt with in the criminal justice system"  Now, if "too many people" were being convicted of burglary, for instance, there'd be calls for harsher sentences, but for some reason the answer to too many paedophiles is even more leniency. I am all for rehabilitation of offenders but imo paedophiles can never be rehabilitated.


The Guardian

Paedophiles 'need treatment, not prison'

Friday 1 June 2007

Jim Gamble says not all offenders should go to jail.

"Viewing" paedophiles should be treated in the community rather than be sent to jail, the head of the national police child protection unit said today.
Jim Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said too many people were being convicted of child sex offences to be dealt with in the criminal justice system.

He proposed that lower risk offenders, such as those convicted of downloading abusive images of children, should receive a police caution and then be managed in the community.

"We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison," Mr Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Mr Gamble said he was not suggesting that paedophiles who committed violent offences, such as raping a child, should escape jail. But someone caught looking at child pornography who had not directly abused a child could be dealt with in a different way.

"[If] someone is at the beginning of the spiral of abuse, where there is evidence to indicate during the investigation that this person may well benefit from a police caution and be managed, then of course that needs to be done," Mr Gamble said.

The CEOP was set up last year to tackle child sex abuse in the UK, and the information flow on paedophilia since its launch has increased enormously.

Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, said not jailing paedophiles because there was not enough room in the prison system for them was "crazy".

She said the proposal risked sending out the message to paedophiles that their crimes were not serious.

"I agree with him that these people need treatment, however to treat them in the community sends a message that what they have done is not very serious," Ms Elliott said.

"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs. You create a market because you want to view child pornography, therefore a child is abused for your pleasure. As far as I am concerned, that means prison."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

tasprin wrote:

Daisy wrote: But on the other hand, I feel a desensitisation of paedophilia  going on (especially since the Savile exposure) and that scares me.

Yes I agree with you Daisy, paedophilia is gradually being minimised and is often treated as a minor offence by the courts. Many offenders - some of whom have actually abused children - have either received suspended sentences or very lenient sentences.
Only a month after Maddie's disappearance CEOP's former boss, Jim Gamble, whose main interest is child protection, was advocating a softer approach to paedophiles. He proposed a caution and treatment rather than prison for "lower risk offenders", because "too many people were being convicted of child sex offences to be dealt with in the criminal justice system"  Now, if "too many people" were being convicted of burglary, for instance, there'd be calls for harsher sentences, but for some reason the answer to too many paedophiles is even more leniency. I am all for rehabilitation of offenders but imo paedophiles can never be rehabilitated.


The Guardian

Paedophiles 'need treatment, not prison'

Friday 1 June 2007

Jim Gamble says not all offenders should go to jail.

"Viewing" paedophiles should be treated in the community rather than be sent to jail, the head of the national police child protection unit said today.
Jim Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said too many people were being convicted of child sex offences to be dealt with in the criminal justice system.

He proposed that lower risk offenders, such as those convicted of downloading abusive images of children, should receive a police caution and then be managed in the community.

"We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison," Mr Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Mr Gamble said he was not suggesting that paedophiles who committed violent offences, such as raping a child, should escape jail. But someone caught looking at child pornography who had not directly abused a child could be dealt with in a different way.

"[If] someone is at the beginning of the spiral of abuse, where there is evidence to indicate during the investigation that this person may well benefit from a police caution and be managed, then of course that needs to be done," Mr Gamble said.

The CEOP was set up last year to tackle child sex abuse in the UK, and the information flow on paedophilia since its launch has increased enormously.

Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, said not jailing paedophiles because there was not enough room in the prison system for them was "crazy".

She said the proposal risked sending out the message to paedophiles that their crimes were not serious.

"I agree with him that these people need treatment, however to treat them in the community sends a message that what they have done is not very serious," Ms Elliott said.

"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs. You create a market because you want to view child pornography, therefore a child is abused for your pleasure. As far as I am concerned, that means prison."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

She is 100% right of course, but this is in line with Harman and her bloody disgraceful past involvement with PIE.

THIS perfectly illustrates what the PIP's want. Jim Gamble IMO is a seriously dodgy individual and I would personally pay to have his hard drive forensically analysed.

Personally, I would rather have my valuables stolen than have someone abuse any of my children, or anybody else´s for that matter.

Copodenieve wrote:Personally, I would rather have my valuables stolen than have someone abuse any of my children, or anybody else´s for that matter.

I should think so. What a strange thing to say.

Daisy wrote:

Copodenieve wrote:Personally, I would rather have my valuables stolen than have someone abuse any of my children, or anybody else´s for that matter.

I should think so. What a strange thing to say.

Meaning, that if they have to be less strict with some criminals than others, I would rather them be less strict with the thieves than with the paedophiles Daisy. Sorry, I´m tired now and obviously not expressing myself correctly.

Copodenieve wrote:

Daisy wrote:

Copodenieve wrote:Personally, I would rather have my valuables stolen than have someone abuse any of my children, or anybody else´s for that matter.

I should think so. What a strange thing to say.

Meaning, that if they have to be less strict with some criminals than others, I would rather them be less strict with the thieves than with the paedophiles Daisy. Sorry, I´m tired now and obviously not expressing myself correctly.

No problems, thanks for explaining.

PeterMac wrote:And here they are.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />


So if you live in Ullapool and were in PdL 6 years ago, for the first week in May, ideally on the second or third day, you may be able to help.

There are 1,300 of you after all !

IMO 1a looks more like Jeremy WILKINS, Matthew OLDFIELD or even Russell OBRIEN than wee Gerry MCCANN.

At the risk of being unpopular, I worry that some people have gone a bit overboard trying to make mud stick to this guy. I know there are people who believe the 'last' photos are faked (particularly the pool picture) and latch on to anyone in the McCann's immediately family who can do clever things with photoShop. 

I've got a lot of experience working on images (including faking images which is great fun as my avatar shows) and I am confident that while the pool photo may have been taken on some other date, it certainly hasn't been photoshopped. I've made this point to folks with a lot less experience than me on a couple of threads in this forum but many want it to be true so much that they ignore my advice and go looking for the photoshop wizard in the McCann family to back up their conspiracy theory. 

As to whether creating pictures of women in quicksand is anything more than an unpleasant (but essentially harmless) middle-aged fetish or fantasy, who know? At worst, it suggests to me the kind of low-level misogyny you find everywhere online in Facebook, YouTube, discussion forums, Twitter and so on - but that doesn't make him a pervert or a dangerous individual. 

For your information, 'Deviant Art' is one of the oldest and - in internet terms - most respected creative websites for showcasing all kinds of digital 'artwork'. To go off on one about it being perverted and obscene reveals a lack of understanding of that community. Deviant Art is just a cross-section of the internet; it represents everything and stands for nothing in particular. Of course there are some pictures there that make you uncomfortable but that's a matter of preference, a subjective judgment. 

The eagerness with which people have pounced on this man in the quest to find some kind of paedophile angle (the Holy Grail of the McCann case?) does this forum's credibility no favours IMO.

Though I don't disagree with anything you say ProfessorPPlum, I have to ask you about the rotated reflection in Gerry's left sunglasses lens.

Evening searching Google images, I haven't come across another photo with that effect. Polarised lenses was an explanation I read here before but am still not convinced. 

Here's two example's:

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

Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'd love this to be explained!