SICK: He had 47,000 photos of children being abused.

[Jetfire]

SICK: He had 47,000 photos of children being abused. He is now allowed to work with kids.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objecti ... _page.html

He was caught trying to meet up with an 11 year old.
I have no words that can express my anger.

What is wrong with this country?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

WTF?

I thoght be default he would go on the sex offenders list?

You might notice the problem here is he wants to give private tution to ppl, thats very hard to keep controll of.

[Kaylee]

He was caught organising a meeting with an 11yo... for computer lessons. The man is attracted to children, and the reasoning seems to follow that because he has these urges, we should lock him up and throw away the key. He's has apparently never molested a child and 'experts' (?) have said he is no threat- imo most everyone deserves a chance to put things right and do good before being eternally branded as a villain.

There doesn't seem to be any level of understanding of the subject as a human- its simply 'hes a paedophile hes evil'; learning that even bad people are still human beings is part of life imo.

However I'm more interested in the article itself- why weren't the police interviewed to give their assessment and input? Where are the psychological expertise? Articles designed to sell papers by playing on one of the great obsessions of our time ('celebrity' probably being the biggest of course) aren't an especially good foundation for the judgement of someone or the police services.

[Jetfire]

He was caught organising a meeting with an 11yo... for computer lessons. The man is attracted to children, and the reasoning seems to follow that because he has these urges, we should lock him up and throw away the key. He's has apparently never molested a child and 'experts' (?) have said he is no threat- imo most everyone deserves a chance to put things right and do good before being eternally branded as a villain.

Actually he had photo's of children being abused. If someone has urges then i'd never have made a topic about it. However he is encouraging others or letting others abuse children so he can still get off on it. That's hardly much worse than him doing it himself.

[Kaylee]

He was caught organising a meeting with an 11yo... for computer lessons. The man is attracted to children, and the reasoning seems to follow that because he has these urges, we should lock him up and throw away the key. He's has apparently never molested a child and 'experts' (?) have said he is no threat- imo most everyone deserves a chance to put things right and do good before being eternally branded as a villain.

Actually he had photo's of children being abused. If someone has urges then i'd never have made a topic about it. However he is encouraging others or letting others abuse children so he can still get off on it. That's hardly much worse than him doing it himself.

I quite agree, thats why its illegal. What I'm concerned about is he's done this thing and been punished, which again is all as it should be, but there seems to be little evidence of any sort of rehabilitation going on. Society seems unwilling to give people a chance and help them to change and be forgiven, its easier just to write them off as evil and revile them. We've got no input from anybody in the know about this guy, just the Mirror's journalists participating in a sort of half-baked vigilantism (ostensibly to help the public, but i suspect having more to do with selling papers).

In short I'd much rather have some evidence from the police and analysis from experts (rather than the opinion of a tabloid), some attempt to rehabilitate these people rather than just trying to brand them then... presumably forget about them, and rule of law rather than vigilantism.

I might do the Mirror an injustice and the journalists do believe they're helping people, but legitimate ends don't justify illegitimate means imo.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

"me, in a girls domatory, at this time of night, with my reputation?"

Sex offenders are genrally repeat offenders, they are techically mentally ill, but we prosocute them under normal laws.

Given that the guy finds abusing kids interesting, his time in jail wont have changed he likes the idea of abusing children. hes never done it of course... you want to take the risk.

the classic example is the big cat.

U keep it in a cage, you feed, it purs, its never harmed you. its still a big cat, it has instincts, it has urges, it can lose controll.

would u risk it to roam free in a school and argue "its never eaten anyone?"

Of course not. Sex offenders are mentally ill ppl who should seak therapy. anyone who downloads 40k of images on the same subject has a fetish for it, and part of the fetish of seeing children abused is most likely to do with past experience and controll. placing kids in his care is asking for trouble.

[Kaylee]

Sex offenders are mentally ill ppl who should seak therapy

Precisely. We don't know if he has had any, what psychological profiles the police might have made on him etc.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

If I recall nearly all sex offenders cannot be cured and seek to re-offend, hence the sex-offenders list as they are threats

[Kaylee]

If I recall nearly all sex offenders cannot be cured and seek to re-offend, hence the sex-offenders list as they are threats

well the police haven't put him on it (far as we know), I guess they have their reasons- hence why it'd be nice to hear something from them.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

out of interest, if u had a child would u leave him with a man who was found with 40k of child abuse images?

[Kaylee]

out of interest, if u had a child would u leave him with a man who was found with 40k of child abuse images?

depends whether he was found guilty of acquiring/owning them n_n

should have asked 'a man convicted of...'

in which case, if the guy was a stranger I would not. Same way I wouldn't let a convicted thief alone near my new computer. If I knew him well and trusted him that would be a different matter for consideration-

for example I like to think I know/trust you well, if you had done something bad which might make people think twice about leaving you around innocent people, and we'd talked about it and I believed you were going to go straight then I believed would trust you with my hypothetical children, because I trust you as a person (albeit one who makes mistakes).

Of course I'm also speaking as the same guy who has no problems letting children go out to play etc., I would imagine when you become a parent a lot of defensive instincts you didn't have before start up.

[Shanti418]

I agree entirely with Karl. There is a difference between fantasy and reality, and even though pedophilia fantasies may make you sick and having pedophile images may be illegal, he is not a danger to society.

Impy, I find your dichotomy of "There is no God, there is no morality, we're all just animals" and "We need a strong central government to come down hard on people for things I don't agree with" fascinating.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I understand what Karl is saying, but I dont belive that someone who, and lets put this into context, takes a big interest in seeing kids being abused, is the right person to be around kids. no brainer in my book.

this is pointless IMO , for me the guy needs a doctor, and whilst he might not of actually abused anyone, he helps an industry. sick ****s who carry out the abuse need guys like him to sell the images to.
And, where your missing the point, is that he condones violence on children, and you think a man that thinks hurting kids is good, is the type of man who should have, (and lets make this clear) the privlidge to teach children!
No he bloody shouldnt. he should be sent to doctor to get help, not have his own sick fantasy sourounded by its very media.

Impy, I find your dichotomy of "There is no God, there is no morality, we're all just animals" and "We need a strong central government to come down hard on people for things I don't agree with" fascinating.

I have said,

there is no god - I belive this
there is no morality - ive never said that
were all just animals - last time I checked I was an animal, are u different in someway?

We need a strong central government to come down hard on people for things I don't agree with - and where exactly have I said this? care to show me? - huh?

And just how is your made up quote facinating to you?
Dont make things up about me !!!

[Kaylee]

You're right that he needs a doctor Mark, I think so too. I think he needs help. My main point wasn't so much about that as the general attitude of the media that such people should be dealt with by vigilantism (some of the tabloids have made it something of an unofficial mission statement to deal with paedophiles, as I said that imo is the job of the law not journalists).

[Impactor returns 2.0]

That I agree with completely.

[Kaylee]

That I agree with completely.

Not that vigilantie style tactics is anything new, the Mail has been doing it against anything vaguely un-right wing for years

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I wonder how much fact there is init. is this man on the sex offenders list, is he about to be, etc...

[The Last Autobot]

From a Psychological point of view

(Note: I exactly dont know the english terms for a few psychological terms )

In the chapter on sexual and gender identity disorders of the DSM-IV:

"Paraphilias are defined as recurrent, intense aphrodisiac fantasies, sexual urges or behaviours which occur over a period of at least 6 months and generally involve
(i) non-human objects
(ii) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner or
(iii) children or other non-consenting persons (Criterion A).

Moreover, the fantasies, sexual urges or behaviours cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning (Criterion B). If these recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviours involve sexual activities with prepubescent children (in general under 14 years of age) the main diagnostic criterion for paedophilia is met.

Some paedophiles are sexually attracted only to children (exclusive type), whereas others are sometimes also attracted to adults (non-exclusive type). Paedophiles can express their sexual urges in different ways. They may limit their activities to undressing the child and looking, exposing themselves, masturbating in the presence of the child, or gentle touching and fondling the child. Others perform fellatio or cunnilingus on the child, or penetrate the child's vagina, mouth or anus, sometimes using varying degrees of force to do so"

....A lot of people explain that they always have the fantasies, but that there are periods of time in which the frecuency and intensity vary in a sustancial way. These alterations tend to intensify and last a lot of years, but they finally decrease with the pass of time. Nonetheless they can return/intensify in stress periods, with the apearrance of other mental disorders or the oportunity of practicing the paraphilia.

These activities are often rationalized:

"It can have an educative value for the child"
"He/she -the kid- obtains sexual pleasure"
"He/she is sexually provocative"

Themes that are common in child pornography.

Individuals with this dyagnosis tend to be very kind with the child desires, to gain his trust to avoid him telling the truth. Others -who do it frecuently- develop complicated techniques to achieve proximity to the victim. Like jobs or relationships that allow him the chance...."

-------------------------------------------

Also, a lot of cases of paedophilia are very difficult to prosecute because the child/children involved are coerced in many subtle ways by the offender (who usually has a "nice guy"attitude toward the common people ).

In these cases "fantasy" and "reality" are two lines that are very blurred so if this guy havent done anything "wrong" yet he is most probably in the path of doing so.

And if we consider the sheer amount of images he had and the impact of his behaviour in the nasty "big picture". At the least he maybe didnt touch any kid, but he indirectly caused or promoted such things by requesting "A type of sexual relationship with a X girl" "such video with a boy" and so forth.

"I accept I shouldn't be in a room on my own with a child. That's why I've never abused one

So just put one, and he ll probably do it.

[Kaylee]

And yet the huge network and parent organisations set up in the UK to monitor and deal with such people (which we spend a lot of money on each year) seems to have different ideas in this instance- hence it would be nice to hear from them and know their reasoning and evidence before we decide we're judge and jury.

[Jetfire]

He was caught organising a meeting with an 11yo... for computer lessons. The man is attracted to children, and the reasoning seems to follow that because he has these urges, we should lock him up and throw away the key. He's has apparently never molested a child and 'experts' (?) have said he is no threat- imo most everyone deserves a chance to put things right and do good before being eternally branded as a villain.

Actually he had photo's of children being abused. If someone has urges then i'd never have made a topic about it. However he is encouraging others or letting others abuse children so he can still get off on it. That's hardly much worse than him doing it himself.

I quite agree, thats why its illegal. What I'm concerned about is he's done this thing and been punished, which again is all as it should be, but there seems to be little evidence of any sort of rehabilitation going on. Society seems unwilling to give people a chance and help them to change and be forgiven, its easier just to write them off as evil and revile them. We've got no input from anybody in the know about this guy, just the Mirror's journalists participating in a sort of half-baked vigilantism (ostensibly to help the public, but i suspect having more to do with selling papers).

In short I'd much rather have some evidence from the police and analysis from experts (rather than the opinion of a tabloid), some attempt to rehabilitate these people rather than just trying to brand them then... presumably forget about them, and rule of law rather than vigilantism.

I might do the Mirror an injustice and the journalists do believe they're helping people, but legitimate ends don't justify illegitimate means imo.

The vigilantism, i believe results greatly from the laws on such cases a) Not nearly being strong enough with their sentencing and b) Do very little to protect possible victims afterwards.

The main cause of my outrage was tht this man was caught as part of an international paedophile ring. He was actively involved in an organisation of paedophile's and so is more than indirectly responsible for children being abused and creating media that others can enjpy children being abused. This isn't just a case of someone looking up pictures tosatasify a curosity, he was actively involved in other children being abused. That sort of action is far more than a man who has some "innocent thoughts" he is unable to help.

My probelem isn't that he served his time but he certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue with a job that lets work with children and that is what is so outrageous. Particulary as it's been stated to the point it's fair common knowledge that rehabilitation of paedophile's doesn't apparently work.

[Kaylee]

The vigilantism, i believe results greatly from the laws on such cases a) Not nearly being strong enough with their sentencing and b) Do very little to protect possible victims afterwards.

Or possibly from the police and legal services acting on greater knowledge and understanding of whats going on one case to the next than we do- producing an outcome which is unpopular- we have laws and a system which executes them fairly based on reasoned arguments, the fact that mistakes are sometimes made and that we can't always just lock people up because we think it's a good idea doesn't justify a carte-blanche attitude to take matters into one's own hands whenever one disagrees with the outcome of the system.

Again- having heard nothing from someone who actually understands the intricacies of this case it seems a bit unreasonable to throw casual conjecture around (i.e. the services involved in this are stupid) to justify the media trying to do the job of the police. Whilst it's exceedingly easy to assume the police know nothing and screw up everything they do have their own sets of experts and huge amounts of resources on which they rely and generally imo work hard.

Furthermore given we have a huge network of officers, experts and at least two departments dedicated to solving and preventing these crimes, I don't see how its reasonable to imply the law doesn't do enough- unpopular as I'm sure this will be, in my opinion they spend a disproportionate level of money and resources in this area, despite its severity. There needs to be a greater sense of balance imo between on the one hand its a horrible crime but on the other it affects a tiny fraction of the millions of people who live in this country and there are other issues which need attention.

There are also several charities and a huge system of welfare and counselling to help deal with victims of such incidents, the fact we can't wrap the victims up in cotton wool for the rest of their lives, savage as their ordeals were, is rather unchangeable. People commit a crime and are punished for it, certain crimes (such as child abuse) result in these people being constantly monitored and tracked. Short of putting them (or the victims) in a box forever there isn't much more to be done. Or castrating the offenders would solve the problem entirely and allow them to be released into society as free people (not that they would be recieved very well, many people seem to confuse 'justice' with 'revenge').

Particulary as it's been stated to the point it's fair common knowledge that rehabilitation of paedophile's doesn't apparently work.

The only person who's demonstrated even an entry level understanding of sexual deviations is The Last Autobot- who said no such thing, his quote (presumably from an introductory academic tone on psychological issues) seems to imlpy that said urges are not constant and wax and wane with various factors. In short we don't know; which is generally my point. The police and other services in theory do know, so hearing from them would probably be a good idea before we decide the universe is going to rack and ruin.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

what we do know is that

A: he had 40k of images that show children being abused.
B: he was proven guilty

I did psycholagy at A level years ago, funnily enough we never studied pedophila, so i cant comment on that either.
we probably cant find anyone here who can either.

what I do know is Lion theory, the big cats at London zoo have never eaten a human being, they look at humans every day, but they have never eaten them.

so do you open the cages and let them walk around with humans? surely they are safe?




sexual disfunctions in nearly all cases start with fantasy, which is pretty logical, u fantasise about your fantasy, then it moves to reality. a rapist for instance doesnt just one day get out of bed and rape someone with no previous thought, he thinks about it, fuels his thoughts, and then carrys them out, thats like 100% true in every case.
whats very common in pedophila according to various google sources is that mostly they are men, the more recently collect images, to fuel the fantasy, it also helps them make them feel less different to society, being able to communicate with others, even downloading images from others makes them feel more comftable with thier act.




once more, this is the act, and this is what people are not thinkikng about.

this is a man who belives that child abuse is ok.

now, someone who belives child abuse is ok, shouldnt be allowed to work with children.

ok as i realise this is obviously some alien concept, im going to change the parameters
I download pictures of ppl kicking the [composite word including 'f*ck'] out gay guys, i love to see a gay guy get the **** kicked out of him. its the best thing ever.
I have never kicked a gay **** in myself.
im trying to find work at local gay help group.

its that simple.

dont dangle a carrot

[Kaylee]

So we know more about how to deal with this than the police and investigators who's job it is to deal with this do?

We seem to be fragmenting what imo is dangerous about this issue- its not 'paedophiles shouldn't be dealt with': its that we have people who deal with them who in theory know more about it than we do and we have a legal system to deal with them. Firstly we don't imo need journalists deciding what's going to happen to anybody and secondly if we pay for experts, train them and educate them to deal with these people why don't we listen to their advice?

It might be that the guy is highly dangerous and needs putting away: the police and antipaedophile departments will know and have their reasoning, why is it so foolish to want to hear from someone who knows something about the case before deciding what should happen? That is how the law in theory works!

ok as i realise this is obviously some alien concept, im going to change the parameters
I download pictures of ppl kicking the **** out gay guys, i love to see a gay guy get the **** kicked out of him. its the best thing ever.
I have never kicked a gay **** in myself.
im trying to find work at local gay help group.

its that simple.

And if experts in 'homophobes' (we'll pretend there is such a thing) have extensively analysed you and said you do not pose a threat to anybody I think there is good reason to listen to him. Or perhaps the experts has said otherwise. We DO NOT know. This is generally my point.

Rule of law requires assessment from experts not journalists- we have not read anything by people with any qualifications in the field so we DO NOT KNOW and cannot make meaningful judgement. We don't even have a comment from the police! This is the sort of input you need to make an informed decision, not one based on your first reactions.

Allow me to illustrate what may or may not have occurred here:

They have the bloke under surveillance. The police have had him analysed by psychologists and know he will begin reacquiring child pornography. By tapping his Internet connection, not only can he be reacquired and again convicted and removed from the streets but also the individuals supplying such materials can also be tracked down. All because he was allowed to walk out without a restraint put on him at that time.

Such techniques would not be anything new for the police and certainly not for their departments dedicated to tracking and convicting paedophiles who regularly both pose themselves as children to trap paedophiles but also investigate chat rooms, sites and other mediums to infiltrate the source of child pornography.

The police have reasons for doing what they do.

The police are not generally stupid and nor are people trained to deal with dangerous individuals, if they have come to this decision to let him go with no (pending) restrictions they must have a reason. We need to know their reasoning and we have NONE.

Or let me put my concerns another way: I trust the judgement of the police more than I trust that of the Mirror.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Ok going on that, i think the mirror newspaper is a pointless thing to use as fact, and i rekon he probably is on police file, because what i dont understand is.

When u get caught with pedo images on your compu you go on the sex offenders list - and this means u cant work with kids. either this guy has slipped under the radar, theres been a techicall fault somewhere or the paper is talking bollox before paper work has gone through.

Im pretty sure this guy will be on the sex offenders list, the police will be watching him, he wont be working with kids again.

and its IMO that this man should not ever be given the chance to work with children, ever.

so 40k of images = 2 years of prison, and then your ok? what, so 20k = 1 year, what about 80k, does that take 4 years.

If hes not a threat, and im not going to let a lion out on the public because hes never eaten anyone, he needs doctors help because condeing violence on children is wrong.





im going to state this again, clearly







This man thinks hurting kids is a good thing.


and with that, he shouldnt work with kids.

end off

[Kaylee]

Well the Mirror seems to be the only paper that covered it, so it might be that they've got the thing completely ass-about-face and the guy is on the sex offenders list, which as you said much earlier is what the police normally do.

Like I said, I wouldn't put it past the police/child abuse officers have some plan involving him, maybe using him to 'fish' for the suppliers of child porn and catch them too.

[The Last Autobot]

Allow me to illustrate what may or may not have occurred here:

They have the bloke under surveillance. The police have had him analysed by psychologists and know he will begin reacquiring child pornography. By tapping his Internet connection, not only can he be reacquired and again convicted and removed from the streets but also the individuals supplying such materials can also be tracked down. All because he was allowed to walk out without a restraint put on him at that time.

Such techniques would not be anything new for the police and certainly not for their departments dedicated to tracking and convicting paedophiles who regularly both pose themselves as children to trap paedophiles but also investigate chat rooms, sites and other mediums to infiltrate the source of child pornography.

The police have reasons for doing what they do.

The police are not generally stupid and nor are people trained to deal with dangerous individuals, if they have come to this decision to let him go with no (pending) restrictions they must have a reason. We need to know their reasoning and we have NONE.

Thats a probability, but him being under vigilance to frame his companions it would only -under that assumption- prove that he is going to reincide.

Paedophiles are not "evil" (and furthermore most people dont see themselves as such, but that would require another topic of human consciousness and "normality") as a sexual paraphilia the paedophiles usually rationalize it and think that what they do is "correct". For all the "data" we have, instead of going to prison he shoud be under counseling, and thats not a maybe he simply should.

Being "cured" is different matter, which is not that easy.

Oh, and what I wrote before was extracted from the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ) but I translated it from the spanish

[bumblemusprime]

honestly if I had a kid, that guy would not be allowed in fifty feet from my kid. I would trust the man less if he was a friend of mine. Every friend of mine that was raped or abused when she was little was done so by a person the family trusted.

[bumblemusprime]

Child abuse and rape is a lot more common then people realize. A lot of times the child does not want to confess because they felt they were at fault. There are more cases then police know about.
This man can live a normal life but should not be allowed alone with children. No exceptions.
This is a real problem and cannot have leniency.

[The Last Autobot]

Every friend of mine that was raped or abused when she was little was done so by a person the family trusted.

And thats fairly common in a lot of cases.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

A man who thinks hurting children shouldnt be with children.

I cant belive theres even all these posts, its like we look at things o finely, just use some common sense.