Comments on: A Paedophile Amnesty

By: Tazia

Tazia — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:12:48 +0000

“Jim Gamble has probably talked to some of these guys and realised there are controlled and intelligent paedophiles and that they may hold the key to this problem”

You figure he has ever been in the same room as one? I would find that surprising.

By: Trevor Loughlin

Trevor Loughlin — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:38:25 +0000

One other thing. I think there should be a Sun readers register. This is one deviant group that needs careful supervision.

By: Trevor Loughlin

Trevor Loughlin — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:21:17 +0000

“Paedophile” and (also soon to be illegal) violent pornography do not cause abuse and in fact some academic studies show that viewing these images can prevent abuse by sublimating deviant desires. However if somone is already inclined to sexual abuse it is likely they have viewed such material but the vast majority are not abusers.
I have after much study of the issue decided that whilst there most certainly are appalling crimes commited in the higher grades of violent pornography and child pornography, with regard to so-called (viewing only) “child pornogrphy crimes” (note the Orwellian misuse of language favoured by the BBC) the real phrase must be one that I am proud to have coined, namely “Visual Psuedo-Crime” where the criminality in fact belongs to Jim Gamble and other so-called experts in framing laws based on a false theory leading to intrinsic miscarriages of justice for thousands of decent people.
Now I will own up. I have seen the ultimate snuff movie involving a teenage girl. This was of course the infamous Kurdish Yezidi girl stoning. Should I be arrested for looking at this (in which case I will resort to political violence) or would a policy of extra-national assasination, asset confiscation oil re-mandation (and when met with terrorism, ethnic cleansing) be more appropriate against nations that condone this ultimate in sexual abuse ? The same for Eastern European sexual slavers.
The U.K. government is not tough on crime, it is tough on the symbols of crime, and by persecuting “politicallyincorrectphiles” because it cannot catch real sexual predators, it is in fact engaged in criminal behaviour. I propose that abuse industry officials face massive financial and criminal retroactive penalties because they have failed to prove a causal link between viewing and abuse. Moral crimes belong in the degenerate lands of Islam.
As for the lower grades of “child pornography” that are in fact child nudity this represents an attack on Aryan beauty in preparation for the new era of the Feminist Taliban, where men will only be allowed out with the permission of a female (since if looking at pictures can instantly convert them int a sex monster they must of course be controlled.)
Twenty-nine years ago as a sixth form student I gave a speech as part of an oral English exam where I described the former Soviet Union as a literal “Red Herring,” a false enemy that would be replaced by a very real enemy ,fundamentalist islam. Along with Jilie Burchhill I was of course right. Joan Bakewell questioned the thoughtcrime aspect of visual psuedo-crime laws and compared them to islam and the west was quite rightly outraged by the Mohammed cartoons riots but in turning the immuture human body or even depictions of abuse into sacred tabboo objects is guilty of the same retarded thinking.
Most to blame must be the B.B.C. in it’s craven refusal to allow any expert to refute people like Jim Gamble or Ray Wyre because though they are backtracking a little from the human
rights disater they have created they still insist that people “guilty” of visual psuedo-crime face psychiatric abuse and employment discrimination (they would be very foolish to come foreward for the so-called amnesty) and so they are still a danger to the innocent.
May I make it quite clear. The viewing of an image, no matter how horrible or otherwise has no moral implications whatsoever. If you think otherwise you have been brainwashed as surely as the Islamicists have been. One of the problems the BBC has is that academics are afraid to contradict visual psuedo-crime superstition for fear of their jobs. The case of Chris Brand who was treated as a Nazi Paedophile and sacked because he questioned sexual psuedo-crime laws and mass immigration of unskilled socially backwards groups is a classic case.
I therefore invite the B.B.C. to invite an academic brave enough to counter the nonsense spouted by false abuse industry advocates, the most latest and most outragious being virual abuse in virtual worlds (if a pervert is doing this in virtual reality he is less likely to be doing it in the real world) or failing that I will get up and say my piece, though I am not a great public speaker. It takes an Overman to defy group dynamics and do the right thing rather than the expedient thing.
There is of course another reason to abandon these evil laws (almost comparable to the Thailand drug laws or Sharia Law) and that is that governments that respect human rights get will data from the quantum time reversal precrime technology I have developed-so its your choice, catch sexual predators and terrorists before they commit their crime, or stay with psuedo-crime law which only destroys the innocent. The Indian government will, for example have to wait the length of time Daisy Angus spent in jail on false chemical-psuedo-crime charges (newspeak- drugcrimes) before it can use data from my predictor. What crime and disaster may befall them in this period?
The destruction of the innocent in place of the guilty was not my idea, but since even relatively civil governments such as th U.K. seem untroubled by this concept perhaps this is the only way to go, but at least in my case it will be by negelect.

By: otherwize

otherwize — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:43 +0000

I know June. It scarcely bears thinking about and the spamming of forums and websites (I know a bit about that) shows it is an attack on us all not just the kids (or maybe a cunning device to ensure that the presence of that stuff on a hard drive is not proof of involvement). Family backgrounds are something else we don’t know about (is there an identifiable type?) - probably professionals know more than they reveal. It’s not therefore an informed opinion but a suspicion on my part that family cause doesn’t necessarily lead directly to depraved effect. I still think it’s a pathological phenomenon - although I believe it is known that abuse can create abusers “but not necessarily. Fred Wests son was treated leniently - even compassionately - by a court though I think he was obviously supervised pretty extensively following an incident, relatively minor. More than family it’s the whole community which needs to be healthy, trustworthy in general and genuine not critical and defensive. God knows how it will be achieved when people don’t even know what it is to have it and think it can only be got through government control. I live in a small place, out of the way, not in England and an island. In the country at large these things are not unknown but it is harder for a disturbed individual to be unnoticed, unwatched and frankly, thankfully, hopefully this level of atrocity has not occurred. WE only have to lock down for a couple of months in the tourist season. I think these dangerous people are flourishing in huge impersonal, anonymous urban environments where a person can remain unknown and unknowable to others. Private and Secret - probably even respected to some extent for that and able to keep up a front. The way my neighbours are would be considered terribly intrusive in England. I’ve learnt to find it caring, inclusive and secure. Apart from a bit of pretty low level teasing bullying is an unknown concept to the school kids who have known and expect to know eachother all their lives. We don’t have that intimacy and interrelatedness in England, France, Belgium, the US etc - big landmass countries basically. The media - tabloids, soaps, reality tv - provides us with a fake sense of community which is a completely straw house. I find England, my birth country, to be in a tragic and disturbing state to be honest. I’m often really frightened at the way things are deteriorating, not just in terms of the “big stories” and their exploitation by the media but by the everyday shit, the lack of happiness, the unkindness and the mindlessness. I’m a pretty undepressed person these days though. We may live in “interesting times” - so much we used to rely on as “society” has broken down irretrievably apparently - but then much of it was past its sell by anyway, fake in itself, and I actually believe that less and less people not more and more are conned by the fake stuff we’re being sold instead of reality. This is perhaps social meltdown and glaring horrors are charging out of the broken sewers but all is not said and done yet, and certainly not by the newspapers. The Sun may be as impervious as ever, the Mail as confident it knows the answers and spite and nastiness apparently the new national sport - Look at this story from today’s Standard and the comments below it for a straightforward expose of how medievally ignorant our shiny new world really is:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23398938-details/Red-headed+family+forced+to+move+after+%27ginger%27+hate+campaign/article.do
“It must be about more than the hair colour. These people (one of whom is 11 years old and suicidal) LOOK AS IF they could be victimised whatever the colour of their hair. ” says one jerk, very pleased with himself, apparently so successful in life he lives in a 500k house.
BUT I still believe in freedom. Those comments don’t stand alone. People answer back. On dark days I fear we are heading for fascism
because so many people are so desperate, distressed and afraid they’ll beg for it and there are those that will give it to them. But it’s not here yet. Not as long as we’ve got freedom of speech to demand better and figure out what better is.

By:

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:20:32 +0000

Had an idea it was you Otherwize!

But I think they are only going to get an inkling of what makes these people tick after they have been caught and some dreadful crime committed.
Without sounding like a prude, an amoral upbringing could be a cause, not teaching right from wrong, or perhaps just being unable for a parent to get the difference through.
But then again some clergy who DO know the difference and have also taken a vow of celibacy still indulge themselves.
Sadly its inside the person’s head and not visible, only to their victims.

But back to the main bit of the topic, perhaps the ‘viewers’ could assist. But given the level of porn we sometimes get on here from spammers it can be very scary, and even though we are both adult we have got a parental guard on here to stop even accidental viewing.

My husband at one point worked for ParcelForce, and all the exec level had to spend a year in Customs and Excise, and the tapes they and the Police had to sit through were beyond belief and left case hardened people feeling sick for days.

June

By: otherwize

otherwize — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:55:17 +0000

Oh, yeah, that was me, Otherwize again if you hadn’t guessed by the length of the post.

By: otherwize

otherwize — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:54:23 +0000

Jim Gamble has probably talked to some of these guys and realised there are controlled and intelligent paedophiles and that they may hold the key to this problem albeit that their condition is probably at the milder end of the spectrum. I agree June that the market for the pictures is vile and increases the danger to children and has to be ruthlessly stopped. I don’t think however that what generally passes for self control - enough to stay on a diet, give up smoking or even stay faithful to a partner, things that huge numbers of people find difficult enough - deals with fetishistic compulsion enough let alone enabling someone subject to it to absolutely abstain from any action at all on sexual fetishes which are dangerous to others. And the fact is we have to demand total eradication of action on their sexual desires of these people. There is virtually nothing they can do other than silently wank in the dark somewhere which is not going to cause unacceptable harm. It’s not realistic to imagine that that level of self control will be achievable enough. Paedophilia, especially paedophiliac psychosis, is a totally monster cat amongst the pigeons of the ideals of human rights. Fetishistic compulsion (there are many comparatively harmless forms - shoes for instance - silly odd things that people have fixations about) overrides the personality for periods of time. When it’s not operative the person is as embarrassed and even revolted as every one else and of course desperate to keep their secret. And then it comes again. Jekyll and Hyde. No-one in their right mind reveals these things if they can avoid it. Where the compulsion is dangerous the problem is magnified to the nth degree and the (obvious) inability to accept his/her own secret is ultimately psychiatrically disastrous in itself. I don’t know of an adequate explanation, whether in terms of brain chemistry or damage or through behavioural or psychoanalytic forms of psychiatry yet. In the US there are fetishists who are also psychiatrists. I am not sure they always succeed in keeping the balance but they help some and some genuinely strive for safe, even happy existences for those with unsafe sexual natures. The fact is that without a medical scientific breakthrough it is unlikely there is any alternative to total confinement under Mental Health legislation coupled with some really difficult to implement attempt to identify such people before they act - in such a way that clear cut legislation (sectioning)could be enacted to deprive them of liberty. I suspect Gamble has realised that there is also a subset of paedophiles that are not complete monsters, not self-delusional, who wish to control themselves and who also want to join the search for better understanding of the condition. I can’t actually deal with idea too well myself but there are apparently some who use photoshop etc to create harm-free porn so to speak and insist this is the only type they will view. Beyond that level there are obviously many who don’t give a shit who they hurt right the way up to the unspeakable ring members and lone stalkers and killers of kids. I am wondering if Jim Gamble believes, based on experience, that there are more of these than there need to be, some who might have been gotten into psychiatry if they had ever had any awareness before it was too late that there were people who might at least try to help. Policemen who see the reality are less interested in the finer points of good and evil, and more pragmatic perhaps about preventing as much as they can even if not all. At least I hope that’s where he’s coming from rather than as some ill-informed judges (and church elders) who think that normal repentance, an understanding of the harm they do or even a genuine desire to not offend again - based on the assumption that these people think in the same way as people without fetishistic pathology - is any trustworthy match for a compulsive aberration. It is the really heavy paedophiles themselves, speaking at the end of lengthy jail terms who tell us they know they cannot be controlled only contained. Maybe that could be done humanely in some way if we could understand enough to get to them before they offend rather than after. Only real knowledge and understanding of the condition will ever achieve that even some of the time. WE’ll have to get that from the people themselves not from theories or morals. Tabloid induced hysterical, idiotic vigilanteism obviously reduces the chances of such an outcome, increases the pressure on the individual pre-offending paedophile, reduces the chances of him seeking psychiatric help and therefore is entirely likely to be increasing the number who, desperate, despairing or unspeakably isolated beyond endurance lose all hold on social conscience and/or their personalities and commit truly terrible offences. The tabloids should get out of it. The issue is deeply serious and they are not the proper forum for its discussion or valid opinion makers on matters so complex and misunderstood.. I think maybe Jim Gamble is a very brave man.

By:

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:35:23 +0000

I don’t go along with Mr Gamble’s views on that.
Real children are subjected to goodness knows what for those pictures, but if no one viewed them , the market could collapse.
But while people pay to view them , then more children suffer.
I understand what he is saying that its just looking and not touching (the child) but I can only imagine they are sexually aroused, and its the narrow end of the wedge that leads onto child abuse.

It has been broached that potential abusers come forward so that medical science can understand what is happening, BUT is there anything happening to them that self control can’t take care of?

June Johnson

By: Dogstar

Dogstar — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:32:06 +0000

I heard the BBC report on the Today programme this morning. It was a bit of a circus - these things almost always are. The BBC had a report from Mark Easton featuring Jim Gamble (CEO, CEOP), and a studio discussion with Mark Easton, Ray Wyre (’Specialists in the prevention of Sexual Crime & Abuse’) and some clown from The Sun (just to spice things up a bit, should the other two prove a bit less than sensational, one assumes).

What a complete farce. Despite the best attempts of John Humphrys to intervene every time Ray Wyre tried to make some important distinctions, or explain how popular myths about paedophilia somehow become ‘fact’ (i.e. - extremely sloppy and incendiary ‘reportage’ from the tabloids), Wyre did at least manage to get across a few truths… but the whole thing was a travesty and a sad indictment of the fact we NEVER get any sensible discussion about this complex subject in the public domain without some idiot (step forward, Mr Humphrys) feeling the need to ’sex it up’ for the listener/viewer, or without the whole discussion starting from a very fixed and biased standpoint which makes it clear there is little to no chance of any real FACTS emerging from the whole sorry business.

Jim Gamble’s comments, for the first time, and very suprisingly, make sense. The way the law operates at the moment, sending anyone who has ever viewed any so-called child porn to court and very possibly prison is a complete shambles. (What exactly constitutes ‘child porn’ is a constantly shifting picture in law - and is therefore very much open to serious debate.) Of course, the fact the prisons are filling up, thanks in large part to the Polices’ and courts’ current stance on the issue, has a lot to with his interventions.

Child advocacy groups have been on the airwaves, as usual, claiming unequivocally that ‘anyone who views child porn is as guilty of taking the photos themselves and should go to prison’. Yep, that’s the level of debate we have to deal with here. They simply don’t make the distinction between anyone who ‘views’ and anyone who ‘pays for’ - whereas the law, by a hair’s breadth, still manages to recognise there is a very big difference. Even big Jim himself (for it is he) is sensible enough to know that someone who pays for kiddie porn is guilty as charged of ‘incitement’, whereas some poor sap who’s stumbled across it on a file-sharing network, where it is free for all to see, has not in anyway contributed to its manufacture. Ray Wyre also made this point, to his credit.

One day, some enterprising and utterly fearless journalist is going to tell the real story here - the dreadful mistakes of Operation Ore, the vested interests of countless advocacy groups all hoping to capitalize out of maintaining the air of hysteria surrounding paedophilia, the truth about online child porn - who and where it comes from and how it is accessed (clue: Eastern Europe/criminal gangs/constantly moving pay-per-view sites almost impossible to shut down) and the real numbers involved (clue: nowhere near the Biblical proportions the media would like to have us believe) and the complete failure of law here and abroad to make any distinction between real child sexual offenders and those who pose no threat at all to children.

Jim Gamble is a man in the know. For the first time in a long time I find myself agreeing with his take on the present situation - and hear The Sun, for so long his Witchfinder-General, in almost total opposition.

What goes around… LOL.