Madeleine McCann, Robert Murat And PC Porn
MADELEINE McCann is missing. Still missing. And news. It is that Robert Murat used his computer for something more than looking up property prices and football results on the web.
As the Sun’s front-page headline screams: “MADDIE SUSPECT HAD KID PORN.”
Ever since Madeline went missing, child pornography and paedophilia have been the tabloids’ main line of speculation.
No meaningful debate on “every parent’s worst nightmare” has been had in the past two weeks. There have been no calls for a paedophile amnesty, a period of grace in which anyone with child porn on their PC or in their locker can contact the authorities and explain how they came by it without fear of being branded and charged. The police could then trace the material to source and catch the evil profiteers.
What we have is finger-pointing and the news that Robert Murat “visited a string of depraved sites”. And this is Murat who lives “yards” from the holiday flat where Madeleine was snatched. Or Maddie, as the Sun insists on calling her.
For those of you not yet familiar with Murat’s face, the Sun produces a shot of suspect No. 1, the only suspect. Beneath it runs the legend “web filth”.
The Mirror says: “The police haven’t told the family what is on Murat’s computer, they want to shield them..” Readers learn that Gerry McCann has been “made aware of the development” and that Kate McCann “is being completely protected from the nature of the web links”.
Until now. Until she reads the Mirror.
But what’s this? A police source tells us: “There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine. But officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history.’”
Why Murat should choose to look at such things - if indeed he did choose to and did not stumble upon them – suggests much. But if this is the sum of the evidence then are the police to search the logs of every computer in a, say, 50 mile radius of the McCanns’ holiday apartment? Will anyone found in possession of “web filth” become a suspect?
And if questions are asked, perhaps co-workers can step forward and say how they always thought such and such was a wrong ‘un.
Murat’s ex-boss Paul Titcombe calls his former employee “a huge porn fan addicted to women”. And once again we invite the police to question men who look at porn and who are obsessed by sex. It threatens to be a big job, huge even - it may even involve the police looking at some of their own - but it is vital that it is done if this mystery is to be solved.
“Paul also suspected Murat had an unhealthy interest in children,” notes the Sun. Interesting. But, sadly, the Sun does not enlarge on this. The usually loquacious Titcombe is not quoted. Examples are not cited.
And Murat remains the chief suspect – the only suspect…
Posted: 28th, May 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (107) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
May 28th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Think most people have that opinion Bogan!
May 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
jane sorry, its the effect of 4 of my wicked gin and tonics.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
i’d actually give my legs to brng madeleine back alive and unharmed, so… i am not such a bastard am i.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Once again bogan dude, you mis-read a post. I said YOUR postings were semi-illiterate and opined that a clear majority of posters on this site were BIGOTED. Read before you write.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
ross dude, i actually agree with youe text book definitions and distinctions. however, i personally think that a member of either group should be castrated.
sorry if i ama bit harsh.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
if you consider the majority of posters on this website to be illiterate, then what in god’s name are you doing here. it is just too low level for the likes of you my friend.
get thee to the times literary supplement, and pen them a tirade.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
First of all, I am not on here trying to protect, justify or stick up for child sex offenders. I just think that there is an important distinction to be made between the two.
I do not work for Anorak, as I am sure whoever runs this site will verify.
Thirdly, I am not goign to go into personal details about myself and what I do for a living (except saying that I dont hold a post with Anorak!) but I do work in this field. Regardless of what my occupation is, huge swathes of informtaion about this is available online and in most University or reference libraries, so anyone could know this information.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
jo sorry i just reread and saw it was you… sorry.
i found that confusing as i didnt see quotes.
well… i agree with you.
dude
May 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Seems bogan dude, as well as having difficulty writing is also unable to follow the postings on this site in a chronological order. Jo was quoting you in her first paragraph but is clearly adding her own opinion in the second. Doh dude
May 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
but who knows there may be truth in that insert.
i believe that could actuallybe quite true.
but who inserted that and how ?
May 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
haha
so mr ross dude
you are just a flame thrower.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
my last comment ended with
“that my friend is not found in a book.”
but somehow…
the next para
“According to Ross it is. According to Ross, he is in a profession that deals with these issues. According to Ross, it isn’t in the main paedophiles who abuse children, its sexually frustrated heterosexual males who don’t want to get caught.”
is not of my writing…
so it seems to me ross is working at anorack !
May 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
bogan dude Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
you want to see expertise ?
that my friend is not found in a book.
According to Ross it is. According to Ross, he is in a profession that deals with these issues. According to Ross, it isn’t in the main paedophiles who abuse children, its sexually frustrated heterosexual males who don’t want to get caught.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Anti_idiot you are right - don’t waste your time arguing the toss with the clear majority of bigoted sheep that post on this website. As for Dude - I’d think twice before you post your next semi-illiterate tirade, it’s one thing to call someone an arrogant fuckwit, another thing entirely to accuse someone of being a ‘paedo’ regardless of the fact it happens to be via the internet. Your last posting speaks volumes - abusers and bullies are highly likely to have been bullied and abused themselves - the tone and manner in which you write makes me believe you are clearly a disturbed person angry with the world and all who live in it - I’d get some help if I were you
May 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
you want to see expertise ?
that my friend is not found in a book.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
my father was also an arrogant fuckwit, a bit like the anti idiot actually, or his archtype, i.e. the type who contents himself on pinpointing other peoples mistakes as the have bugger all else to feel good about. the type that should get a life.
my father used to drive my brother and i in dead silence (we were 3 and 5 yrs) to the “naughty boys home” 20 miles away up in the foothills of the cyprus kyrenia mountains in the 1960’s, way before the tourist industry took off, with its western friendly facade. the home transpired to be merely a disused army barracks with broken windows a sentry box with a sad soldier and broken glass windows… at 5 this was pure psychological torture. yes ive been tortured psychologically, sexually and physically, but i survived, and i am really pissed off.
i can imagine what madeleine is going through. the bastards will tell her her parents are now dead, that she has new parents… and so on…
the likes of you pedo protectors really get my goat.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“Ross Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
The reason that children are offended against is that they provide an easire target than adults, and as such the chance of getting caught are much lower. The child is often used as a surrogate for the true object of their desires, be that a adult female or whatever.”
I don’t know what profession you are claiming to be in that bestows upon you some authorative knowledge of the subject. There’s no expertise demonstrated here.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
No, I wouldn’t leave any kids under my care with a paedophile….likewise I wouldn’t leave them unattended in an unlocked appartment whilst I was out on the piss!
May 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
So they have a description of a man seen holding potentially Madeleine McCann .. Is anyone aware that there is a picture that has been used widely by the media since nearly ay one that clearly shows Murat in beige trousers and also sporting black shoes supported by a middle sized build
May 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
fortunately where i live i cant buy gutter english press. so i am saved from page 3 shit., zurich does have its equivalents though.
look… why split hairs.
ross… anti idiot dude, do you have kids ?
would you leave them alone with a paedophile… ross.. would you leave your kid with anti idiot, and you anti idiot, if your not ross… wouls you leave a kid with ross ? i expect not.
anti idiot, the name you have chosen shows me immediately that you have a predisposition to labelling people as an idiot.
ross… you have an issue with kiddy fiddlers.
perhaps both your names show your inner selves.
bogan.
yes i am a bogan at heart.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Gold star on using an instead of a!
May 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
anti idiot.
you are an arrogant fuckwit.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Ross - we’re wasting our time trying to use logic and common sense with these Sun-reading muppets.
They condemn anyone who doesn’t say “OMG SIK PEADOFYLZ DUN KILD MADLIN. CUM BAK MADDEEYY!!!1111 x X x X WE LUVZ U!”
If their kids are the future of Britain, then with any luck Darwin is watching out for them.
Oi, Fraggles, where are YOUR kids while you sit posting invective filled drivel about paedophiles?
BTW Bogan, Phil, etc. - please be aware that in most countries a naked 17 year old is considered ‘child porn’. Think of that next time you’re cracking one out over Page 3. Sickos.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
unfortunately i don’t/can’t read the spanish press, but I’ll take your word for it.
http://www.shfri.net/trans/lautmann/lautmann.htm
Evidence of the link - or lack thereof - between paedophilia and child sex offenders.
I am not ‘protecting’ anyone, it is just that in my profession I happen to have to know quite a bit about these subjects.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
sorry ross but in my book ( and i dont read news of the world ) someone with sexual urges towards a child is a potential paedophile. I grew up in the middle east where the men like sheep, goats and children, i was a blond haired white skinned child so i was targettedmore than once. i have four children, and if anyone comes close to them who is either one of your paedophiles or one of your child sex abusers, i would quite happily remove them from this planet.
there is the text book definition, and there is reality.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
the bollox was for ross.
i think ross is also a paedo.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
bollox.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Ross…..actually the “child porn” issue has also been in Spanish papers!!! IF in Murrats situation and IF I had nothing to hide…. SURE I would welcome a lie detecter test from The Mirror!!! The 2 guys have had plenty to say…. despite the secrecy law, and indeed NONE of it added up!!!!!! You seem very protective towards these individuals???????
May 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
there’s absolutely no difference!
a chile sex offender IS a paedophile.
anyone claiming otherwise in my opinion is highly suspect.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’ll put things in simple terms (I know some of you read the News of The World)
Paedophile - someone who has sexual urges towards a child.
Child sex offender - someone who commits sexual acts towards a child. Between 90-98% of child sex offenders are NOT paedophiles, they have sexual urges towards adult females, but as they are unable to fulfill their urges commit sexual acts towards a child., as children present as ‘easier’ targets.
I am not condoning either group, but it is innaccurate to think that child sex offences are only commited by paedophiles..this is a red top myth. The vast majority of cases also occur within the family setting.