thousands of "paedos" to escape justice
Discussion
JagLover said:
Without knowing the severity of what is not being pursued it is difficult to make a judgement.
By today's standards anyone who has some old Page 3 newspaper clippings of Sam Fox when she started out is in possession of child porn, should we be pursuing that?. But anyone downloading images of child abuse should be pursued.
spot on and i am assuming ( hoping ) theres not 50k serious offenders out there and if so then that leads to whole new set of questions of why and how we deal with them.By today's standards anyone who has some old Page 3 newspaper clippings of Sam Fox when she started out is in possession of child porn, should we be pursuing that?. But anyone downloading images of child abuse should be pursued.
by downloading do u mean what the layperson would describe as downloading or do you mean viewing ( or even having on the screen without actually viewing )?
otolith said:
It's difficult - I am sure that sites must get blocked or shut down, but the internet is designed to be resilient. If you have a bunch of pervs communicating via email, social media, private web forums, text message and phone, etc, all it takes is someone in somewhere without much in the way of regulation or enforcement to plug a couple of hundred quid's worth of PC into a network connection and they've got a place to upload and download their content from. Doesn't need to be searchable, all it needs is an IP address shared via word of mouth. Likewise, setting up peer to peer file sharing is not difficult. There is a huge amount of the internet that although not necessarily encrypted, is not indexed by anything.
true although again i think of how well facebook seems to block stuff and wonder if more could be done ( even though it is possible it cannot )There was a program on the telly last week (24hrs hours in Custody or something) which showed a nonce being interviewed by the nonce squad and she was asking him what terms he had been searching for on Google, I think there must be special ways of finding this stuff.
With regards the article in the op - you could say the same about any crime, it's just the nature of crime and policing that as many people get away with stuff as get caught.
With regards the article in the op - you could say the same about any crime, it's just the nature of crime and policing that as many people get away with stuff as get caught.
petemurphy said:
woman in channel 4 program year ago found it within a minute on google? tbh even some daily mail images could be classed as it
No, she found it by following links from prawn site directory page to prawn site directory page. I've heard of it happening before, all you have to do is follow the dodgiest-named link at the bottom of each page.Also, and I don't know how true/related to darker stuff this is, but I have heard that some sites can somehow disguise themselves: you follow the web of links and end up on a patently illegal site. However, if you refresh the page, or try to go back to it from your history, you end up on a completely above-board prawn site. Same address displayed in the header bar, totally different page loaded. Sounds weird and impossible to me, but then I don't know the ins and outs of web stuff.
Me? I keep myself firmly on well known and legit sites as I don't fancy my door being kicked in by plod...
petemurphy said:
spot on and i am assuming ( hoping ) theres not 50k serious offenders out there and if so then that leads to whole new set of questions of why and how we deal with them.
by downloading do u mean what the layperson would describe as downloading or do you mean viewing ( or even having on the screen without actually viewing )?
The only difference between downloading and viewing is what you do with it when it is on your computer. From an interception point of view (i.e. seeing that 50k IP addresses have requested an image) it's impossible to differentiate.by downloading do u mean what the layperson would describe as downloading or do you mean viewing ( or even having on the screen without actually viewing )?
Viewing = Taking a copy of the image from the server, displaying and storing in a temporary location that gets overwritten by the browser
Downloading = same as viewing but saving to a different location where the file won't be overwritten.
50,000 is a lot and even harder still to tie it to individual machines and therefore users. The advent of home routers and WiFi makes it harder to track to even a specific machine as this information is hidden from the wider web. You'd need to seize these machines and find the material on them for a prosecution otherwise its all rather circumstantial.
Hiding your path across the internet is pretty easy, how many folk watch US Netflix in the UK or iPlayer from outside of the UK?. How many people log into the work's network from home? In each of these cases tracing back to a single machines can prove v. costly.
At least the force has admitted it has problems. The evidence is there, they can name the offenders, bring them to justice, but they haven't got the resources to do so. The odd thing is that if an officer serving in the sex crimes unit came out with this fact he would have been guilty of an offence and there is little doubt they'd be prosecuted.
That makes protection of the vulnerable a triage crime.
This sort of thing has been going on for years of course. There are major crime units across the country which 'sleeve' some offences because of lack of manpower. This despite offenders being known and sufficient evidence being available.
The good thing is that it will not be recorded as individual crimes so the stats will stay stable and the government can show that slashing manpower by over 20% has had no effect on policing in this country.
That makes protection of the vulnerable a triage crime.
This sort of thing has been going on for years of course. There are major crime units across the country which 'sleeve' some offences because of lack of manpower. This despite offenders being known and sufficient evidence being available.
The good thing is that it will not be recorded as individual crimes so the stats will stay stable and the government can show that slashing manpower by over 20% has had no effect on policing in this country.
The rate that these 'type' of stories being reported has to be on the up? I don't recall ever having heard so much about child porn in the media?!
From Savile, to that Elm Guest House, to this... Are there really that many f
ked up people about?!
I watched a Louis Theroux doc on an American 'institution' setup to deal with convicted paedophiles. It was basically one huge open prison where they'd condition the fellas to stop fancying kids; I'm not sure how many had been 'cured' exactly, or how many had been released back into society, but it wasn't many.
One fella even put himself forward to chemical castration because he knew that was the only way.
One guy, one deemed to be doing well in his recovery, wilfully hung a picture of a teenage boy ballet dancer in a state of undress on his wall.
My overriding impression was that those people will never be 'cured'. And if todays media is to be believed, it's everywhere!
Seriously, stop the planet, I want to get off.
From Savile, to that Elm Guest House, to this... Are there really that many f
ked up people about?!I watched a Louis Theroux doc on an American 'institution' setup to deal with convicted paedophiles. It was basically one huge open prison where they'd condition the fellas to stop fancying kids; I'm not sure how many had been 'cured' exactly, or how many had been released back into society, but it wasn't many.
One fella even put himself forward to chemical castration because he knew that was the only way.
One guy, one deemed to be doing well in his recovery, wilfully hung a picture of a teenage boy ballet dancer in a state of undress on his wall.
My overriding impression was that those people will never be 'cured'. And if todays media is to be believed, it's everywhere!
Seriously, stop the planet, I want to get off.
Define Pedo.
On Radio 4 years ago, there was a guy who had to sign the sex offenders register as a pedo.
His crime: He was stupid enough to sign up to a commercial porn site using his credit card.
Police viewed this Porn site and decided that some of the female "stars" looked young and may or may not have been of the age of consent. They then got recorded of anyone who had registered with this site and required them to prove that said porn stars were of a legal age, even if there was no actual evidence that any particular individual had viewed that female specifically.
Their options were either fight a pedophilia case in court with all the local publicity that follows or quietly accept the charge and sign the register.
All because he used a credit card on a site where some females "looked" young.
On Radio 4 years ago, there was a guy who had to sign the sex offenders register as a pedo.
His crime: He was stupid enough to sign up to a commercial porn site using his credit card.
Police viewed this Porn site and decided that some of the female "stars" looked young and may or may not have been of the age of consent. They then got recorded of anyone who had registered with this site and required them to prove that said porn stars were of a legal age, even if there was no actual evidence that any particular individual had viewed that female specifically.
Their options were either fight a pedophilia case in court with all the local publicity that follows or quietly accept the charge and sign the register.
All because he used a credit card on a site where some females "looked" young.
JagLover said:
By today's standards anyone who has some old Page 3 newspaper clippings of Sam Fox when she started out is in possession of child porn, should we be pursuing that?. But anyone downloading images of child abuse should be pursued.
I very much doubt any newspaper published topless pics of Sam Fox before she was 16. TwigtheWonderkid said:
I very much doubt any newspaper published topless pics of Sam Fox before she was 16.
Images of girls below the age of 18 are treated as child porn these days as far as I am aware (I am no expert)I think over in the US you can even get in trouble with pictures of 18+ year old girls who "look younger"
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I very much doubt any newspaper published topless pics of Sam Fox before she was 16.
The law is 18.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_law...
It is illegal for two 17 year olds to possess images of them legally having sex with each other.
petemurphy said:
woman in channel 4 program year ago found it within a minute on google? tbh even some daily mail images could be classed as it
I saw that program and don't believe for one second she 'stumbled' upon it or was directed towards it from seemingly legitimate sites as claimed in the program.It was sensationalised for the purposes of dramatic TV.
Moonhawk said:
petemurphy said:
woman in channel 4 program year ago found it within a minute on google? tbh even some daily mail images could be classed as it
I saw that program and don't believe for one second she 'stumbled' upon it or was directed towards it from seemingly legitimate sites as claimed in the program.It was sensationalised for the purposes of dramatic TV.
Anyway, as for the chap who signed up to the site - I refuse to believe there isn't more to it than that. Any commercial site will have a U.S.18 certificate disclaimer at the bottom- there are plenty of very petite looking girls who are on such sites and will have had to show a birth certificate. The sites are not stupid, they don't want to be found making CP any more than the average person wants to be found with it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff