Oh it is hard to sort all the information printed. There is some info I think appears probably true but some info I reject that could end up true, all a process that is difficult and risky for everyone until the facts are known. No doubt you are the most trusting news reader I have noticed so far.

Why wouldn’t the Portuguese police do that then? Over here Plod has just jackbooted its way into a pensioner’s house at 2am to find Madeleine. Of course, that wasn’t on a whim, a psychic told them to do it.

Murat complained to the Portuguese police about being followed after suntanned bimbo hack Lori Campbell had grassed him up because he ‘looked creepy’. Murat had challenged the police and Portuguese men do not like being challenged. Think Jose Mourinho, if you will. Now they have a real suspect, and after being laughed at by our press when their first suspect turned out to be a boiled egg, they’re not going to give up on him easily.

As for the child porn, this whole debate assumes he did actually have some on his PC. But the information was published in the Sun, quoting a police ’source’. The same police who are sworn to secrecy.

you need to come up with a formula if you want to re-educate Jo, Debz and the other

members of KIllZaTPEdo.

Try this, three or four giant words with at least one juicy, “KIDDIE” is a good one,

there are twenty or so tried and tested ones in existence according to the WIKI

“tabloid editor” entry.

Two possibly three but certainly not four paragraphs, keep it emotive and always

assume the reader is eleven or under (pre-pubescent if you like). And never give

them too much detail, NEVER!! Like Jo said “this is not the Times Education

Supplement”.

If they can’t digest the basics in 10-15 seconds with Jeremy Kyle blaring in the

background you will lose em, they may even turn nasty and frustrated if you expose

them to knowledge they cannot possibly grasp. Intellectual inadequacy exposure

syndrome (IIES) is on the rise and it’s dangerous to them and to your message, avoid

it. If you want them tuned in simply - make em feel bright by serving up shite,

works like a charm.

Good luck, it’s tough but like I always say, thicker skulls just mean we all must

crack on!

I think Ross and Anti have made some interesting and pertinent points. Of course they’re right to illustrate the distinctions between paedophiles, ephebophiles and child molesters when we’re discussing a case of this nature, although to be honest, Ross, I think your ‘breath’ may be wasted here. Personally, I come back for the poetry. Check out these gems (from here:http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/tabloids/173352.html#comment-3477)!

Mick Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
A little girl, no more than three
Before a few, now millions see.

Two eyes unique to all she knew
Now so many for a mass to view.

Dont just look down but left and right
Any there she maybe in your sight.

Because of you she could come home fine
Lets hope she does sweet Madeleine.

Ian Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
There was a glass eyed man name murat
Who appeared a bit of a twat
It wasnt me I was home alone
so why was he on the mobile phone
to a russian man who lives all alone.
and kiddy porn on his pc so now cant you see
what these twats apeear to be
Just sick pedos living near to the sea.

Don’t bother. Your style of teaching really doesn’t work and anyway, this isn’t the Times Educational Supplement.
And the answer to your question is - yes of course you are assisting the publicity - ask any spin doctor.

What’s your point? that paedophile means something different than child sex offender in a particular context? Do parents care? Would you have either one babysitting your children?
Ross is laughable if only because he has jumped up and down more than anyone about the unjustified (he says) publicity this family is getting and yet has been instrumental in keeping these threads alive - you seem to spend hours on here in one forum or another. Oh the irony of it….

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HelpMadeleine/

Worth a sig?

Jeff

Gemma - how can you be sure you dont already spend time with a paedophile? The bar man, a guy at work, your milk man etc

Approximately 30% of adult males admit to have had sexual feelings toward a child at some point in their life. Thse are just those brave enough to admit it during research!

Taking the 30% figure to be correct, that means almost 1 in 3 males you have encountered have had thes urges. that is not to say they are paedophiles, but it is an interesting point none the less. Most adults only have these thoughts during adolescence, and in the process of growing up these thoughts disappear, as many sexual feelings do at this stage of life.

My point is this - paedophilia is the state of having thoughts towards children, and whilst I am not condoning anyone acting upon these thoughts, there is nothing you can do to make thoughts of one kind or another illegal.

Surely it is better for society to provie support for people with thes tendancies rather than simply driving them underground, where they become more and more frustrated.

Plus I didn’t pay any attention to that, I know what you meant - but thanks anyway!

Right I am going promise. Good luck with it all.

Anyway - you asked “Just don’t really understand what point you are attempting to make. It doesn’t make any difference if someone’s sexual taste ‘isn’t usually children’ when they use a child to satisfy their sexual urges, or if they don’t particularly usually fantasize about what they see when they view child pornography. There is no argument there, and it has no relevance to this case.”

It’s wholly relevant. In every discussion thread about this case people bandy about the word ‘paedophile’ (or some badly spelled variant), “Sick paedos have Maddie” or “a paedo ring has her”, or “kill all paedos”, “make paedophilia illegal” etc.

Because of the tabloid hysteria and lack of facts, people automatically assume that a paedophile=child molester. It’s simply not the case. How can you make a thought illegal? How can you kill everyone who’s ever thought sexually about a child? As distasteful as it may seem to you, it is not justification to kill someone.

I’ll lay it out again:

Paedophile - someone with sexual attraction to prepubescents
Ephebophile - someone with sexual atraction to post-pubescents
Child molester - someone who sexually assaults a child

Now of course there will be overlap, of course *some* paedophiles will attack children, but that doesn’t mean that all child molesters are paedophiles! A true paedophile, by their very nature would rarely be able to have a relationship with an adult female, especially to the point of procreation, yet most children are molested by their fathers or stepfathers.
Child molesters are predominantly white, male, heterosexuals in positions of power, such as a father, uncle, family friend, teacher etc. They molest not because they are attracted to children, but because of a pathological inability to direct anger and frustration anywhere else. It’s the power that they get the kick from, it’s just that a child is easier to manipulate and less likely to cause problems than an adult female or male, so they take it out on the child. This is not indicative of paedophilia or any other paraphilia, just an abuse of power.

The media attitude, and the attitude shown by some of the more rabid posters here, is part of a growing misconception that there’s a nonce on every corner, waiting to spirit off Jimmy and Suzie, when there isn’t. Jimmy and Suzie are far more at risk from their parents or guardians. The media is once again propagating the very dangerous myth that only paedophiles abuse children, and that paedophiles are odd-looking, shifty perverts lurking in every park in the land.

Guess what this results in? That’s right, people discovering they have attraction to children, but being afraid to ask for help and therapy, in case they’re put on some register, or outed to their neighbours and lynched, despite committing no crime. They feel alienated, have nowhere to turn to. Every time they open a paper it’s paedo-this and paedo-that, meanwhile all the blokes actually molesting their own kids are going unnoticed because the camera eye is turned outward. The lone paedophile may then go online, find other people to talk to, be introduced to child porn, be more desperate than ever for help. Eventually a sense of normality sets in, they become complacent and are arrested and jailed for viewing child porn. Horrible, yes, and quite right that there should be reparations for that, but they also need serious therapy and rehabilitation. Our offender, on admitting he is attracted to children is placed on a sex offender’s register for life, meanwhile the music teacher at the local comp. is still abusing the 11 year olds who he gives music lessons to, as he has done for the last 20 years.

The difference between those who are paedophiles who look at child porn, and the actual people out there huting children is vast. Just because there is an inevitable crossover it doesn’t mean that only people who view porn will attack children, and that everyone else is safe. It doesn’t mean that only paedophiles attack children, again it’s quite the opposite, but “Respectable father and city worker impregnates 13 year old daughter” isn’t as good a headline as “Police in kiddy porn sting on Village nonce”.

One last thought to leave you with - Operation Ore.

Bloody hell my fingers hurt after typing all that.

No one is trying to justify sex offences against children!

You are stifling debate by attempting to insinuate that anyone who has any knowledge of this area must be involved in these acts or is defedning such acts.’

Eh??? No I’m not?! I completely agree and understand with the facts you are stating - I just wanted to know what your point was, I’m not stifling anything, I’m merely asking questions.

Yes Gemma, in the context of poor Madeleine, it is pretty irrelevant what someone’s label might be, though I think it is a valid point in general that most child abuse happens in the home. Everyone who abuses children, no matter what their individual labels might be, should all be locked away together, well away from decent society and children, with no possibility of return.

No one is trying to justify sex offences against children!

You are stifling debate by attempting to insinuate that anyone who has any knowledge of this area must be involved in these acts or is defedning such acts.