Worlds largest paedophile ring discovered

[stitched]

Shay HTFC said:

You've got the wrong end of the stick then.

Frankeh never said that the guy was innocent, only that he wasn't the reason for the images coming up in the first place.

The way I understood Frankeh was that he was saying there is an inner circle of people creating and swapping videos and at some stage the inner circle get 'bored' of them and just chuck them away.
They don't give a st what happens to the video after that; its trash. It is at that point other people come along and effectively pick up the trash (akin to a kid picking up a thrown away an unwanted pokemon card out of the bin) and watch the old material.
Its like if a tramp picks out a paedophillic(sp?) image out of the bin... even though what he is looking at and doing is wrong and criminal, he isn't actually fuelling the paedophile industry through his actions.

Its all wrong and quite sickening, but if the above is true, then in my opinion the people on the outside are less guilty in the fact that they are not instigating the crimes or infact fuelling them. They are still very guilty of crime however and need psychological help.



My view on it is that I don't believe that paedophiles are born paedophiles, but instead are very emotionally immature and damaged people who never matured past a certain stage in their development. Rather than just executing them and coming no closer to understanding the problem, I would rather imprison them and study them to try and understand the root of paedophilia.

It would be much more beneficial to millions of children in the future if we could today avoid kneejerk reactions and actually study why these people act the way they do. Is it psychological, or is it genetic? Either way, a bunch of pitchfork wielding mobsters on PH aren't gonna have a fking clue whats true, other than what their wild emotions are telling them.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Thursday 17th March 17:18

An excellent post which I completely agree with on a rational level.
But I know that my outlook on life in general changed considerably when I became a father, generally I'm pretty easygoing and have always been against capital punishment, not just because the innocent may suffer, but also as I see it as barbaric.
However if anyone deliberately assaulted my son, physically or sexually, I know that all my comfortable notions of human rights would vanish and I would be replaced by a club dragging neanderthal with blood in his eye.
I can take a lot of abuse and pressure but threaten the lad and the gasket blows.

[Frankeh]

TonyToniTone said:

Frankeh said:

He did/does look at pictures/films and I put it to him that he was creating the demand for such material.. I then got schooled pretty comprehensively on how the scene actually works.

Frankeh said:

Just to clear things up for the monumentally stupid. I don't support or condone paedophilia in any shape way or form.

So why don't you report him to the relevant authorities?

I wasn't going to reply after the unfounded accusation and then limp wristed apology earlier but I feel like I should probably address this.
First and foremost I don't feel he is a threat to children at all. There was a time in the past when I would have thought about reporting him but that time is long gone.
Secondly, I don't have enough information about him. I know his first name and that's it.
Lastly, he sought help from professionals so I don't think it's my business to get involved.. The people of importance in his life know (his parents).

Anyway, that's me done for this thread.

I hope my views have at least been interesting to some.

Edit: Shay HTFC has understood what I was saying impeccably.

Edited by Frankeh on Thursday 17th March 17:38

[TVR1]

Frankeh said:

I'd like to remind people that the word paedophile and the term 'child abuser/rapist' are not synonymous, no matter what the media tell you..

I've mentioned it before in other threads and I figure I'll mention it again here as it's on topic.
I'm a member of a forum where there's an out of the closet paedophile as a member. The idea of the forum is, well, there isn't one. We all met in varying ways and it's grown into a bit of a private community of about 30 members.

We're all within 4 years of each other in terms of age and over the past 5 years we've grown to know each other pretty well.

Anyway, one of the members is an open paedophile and has spoken rather frankly about it in the past, including constant talks of suicide when he was about 19-20. He knows that it's wrong and he's been to therapists and even told his parents about it.

In the end nothing they gave him really worked and now he just lives with his condition (Note the word condition, it's used intentionally).

This guy didn't want to be a paedophile, he didn't ask to be different and he knows that if he was to ever act on his urges he'd be looking at prison time and the worse part (His words not mine) ruining a childs life, which is something he's said he'd never do.

During his teenage years was when the talks of suicide ramped up (Probably something to do with the hormones) and for a bit he had a 'There's nothing wrong with me, it's society that's wrong' attitude but he eventually grew out of that.

Now he's just ticking along at a college in the USA, doing his thing.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that not all paedophiles are inherently bad people. They've got a mental disorder and treatment should be sought, but with the current view of paedophilia then it's no surprise they're reluctant to go to therapists and such.

Just some food for thought.

An interesting acceptance of a problem. The difficulty is that in a small society group we are bound to empathise with our 'closed community'. Eventually it becomes acceptable. To get a real reference and balance of what and what is not acceptable, we have to ask the same questions and pose the same issues to a wider audience.

Your friend may very well be 'struggling' with his 'demons' but has also learned(within a small group of friends) that his thoughts and feelings are acceptable. You have all validated his position. I agree that he may not be inherently evil but by finding a community that will sympathise and even worse, empathise with his position, feeling sorry for thoughts of suicide etc. He has found people who will 'overlook' his predelictions.As long as he doesn't act on them. But if he does, he has an accepting community to come back to.

At the same time, he has also manipulated the people around him to sympathy for the 'terrible plight' he is undergoing. He is simply enforcing the sympathy. I am sure you will have heard stories of 'how it was so difficult to resist' or 'I felt so bad that I couldn't continue' and 'I'm really a nice person' but as he feels it is now acceptable to validate thorugh discussion, please don't forget that his thoughts may very well be....

'I REALLY WANT TO fk THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THAT 4/5/6/7-10/12 YEAR OLD BOY OR GIRL. I WANT TO HEAR THEM CRY! I CAN DO WHAT I WANT, BECAUSE I CAN'

Moved to America, you say? College to do his own thing? Let me tell you that moving to another country is the BEST way of starting a new life. Unfortunately this time, finding a new life may very well be not having to bore himself with explaining and trying to find a socially acceptable way of dealing with his sexual preferences. He may very well just act on them. America is a big place and being a college student is a great cover.

I sound cynical? Yes but only because you and your group seem to have a lovely, smiley view of life, thinking that all problems can be solved with a bit of understand and a 'never mind dear, huggy mentality'. I have seen some bad stuff and bloody good stuff too, so feel I can balance my experiences.

Your friend has now found himself in a situation that there are no reasons to prevent him acting out his urges. My feeling is that, sooner or later, he will. he cannot do anything else-that is how he is made. There is no one to stop him.

My best advice is that as soon as you get the slightest feeling that something is going wrong in America ie. He suddenly doesn't want to take the 'friends group calls' or 'seems a bit distant' or 'too busy to speak to old friends' or 'went away for a few days and no one could contact him' etc etc. Then please call someone. There are agencies in America who may help (but be very brutal about removing him from the States with ANY suspicion of wrong doing)use your imagination. FBI sexual and behavoural crimes unit springs to mind. Otherwise, there are more subtle agencies. A few of them who have members on here, in VERY high positions of authority, who I have had the great pleasure in bumping into here and there-so if you ever feel that concerned, PM me and I will try and get them in touch with you. (a broad old Church PH, isn't it )

Maybe he is ok now and has left those feelings behind, once he has embarked upon a different life? I hope so-ever the eternal optimist me, thats why I have such a pretty good life now (bad st happens but I can deal with anything!) However, keep an eye on him and don'y be afraid to act. And with that I will ponder the difficult question of is it better to act before the fact or wait until you can be sure? You decide.

HTH

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 17th March 21:36

[Great Pretender]

I have nothing to add other than I'm glad we've been able to have a mostly adult discussion about this.

I'm deeply moved by some of the things I've read this evening.

[F93]

People say paedophiles can be treated. I don't think they can. Think about it, it is essentially a sexuality. This is hard for many people to accept, but it's the same thing as homo or bisexuality. (Not that they are the same, just that they are all sexualities)

It is the worst kind of sexuality, as it does actually cause damage to society and is complete non-consenting for both parties (just mentioning this gives me the creeps).

So, you can't treat it. People don't say 'thank god! i'm cured from paedophilia'. They just have therapy, they fail, they reoffend. There was even one guy who when he was about to be released from a prison sentence for holding child pornography, and he basically said to one of the newspapers 'I'm going to reoffend, I don't know why i'm being let out'. Of course he was, under the guise of 'rehabilitation'.

Rehabilitation? You can't! Paedos are paedos.

But what to do? Morality is questionable. If you remove paedophiles completely, such as through euthanasia, is there any actual loss to society? Losing one repressed or incredibly negative member of society? I mean, how many children's lives are ruined (you can't say it's perfectly fine for this to happen or that kids aren't ruined by it) per paedo's collection? Removing them all as they appear would essentially mean that no kids would be ruined. This is moral depending on how much you value the sanctity of life overall or the sanctity of a child's right to be happy. BUT you can't say that 'well, we can rehabilitate paedophiles' and then say you respect the right for all children to be happy. Because as long as there are active paedophiles, there are unhappy children. As long as there are no paedos, then that's one less thing for children to worry about, as well as there parents. Then they're one step closer to being happy.

I accept that people don't like the idea of euthanasia for paedo's, but what else? Pay for them to be treated? Ha, that won't work. Sexuality is who you are. Paedophilia is a sexual disorder. Of course this means that eventually someone might say 'But paedo's should have a right to express themselves too!' When that day comes, then i'm buying a shotgun.

Edited by F93 on Thursday 17th March 22:44

[Eric Mc]

Kill all the socially undesirable.

Kill 'em all.

It's been tried before.

Worked out well last time.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Fascinating debate and some hard posts to read. Thanks Frankeh for contributing a different and thought provoking viewpoint - it certainly made me stop and think about this whole subject in a different way. TBO, i'm not sure that I fully understand how watching / holding images of children does not contribute to the market (unless I completely misunderstood what your wrote). I understand your analogies but I am still not convinced that the viewer of this material is not contributing to the market for it.

I want to also say to those that have survived and got through the other side of abuse, I have a profound respect for you in doing so - that you can get on with life is wonderful. Long may you continue to do so.

[Great Pretender]

Shay HTFC said:

Aberdeenloon said:

IainT said:

TonyHetherington said:

Just about to delete everything, edit, you name it but just seen the apology.

As you can guess, it was an extreme and unwelcome thing to suggest, but thanks for bringing the discussion back to decency and feel free all to carry on.

Tony (moderator)

It's ok to accuse someone of being a pedo as long as you apologise quickly for it?

Balls is it.

Yes, I overstepped the mark, and yes I apologised for it. I was trying to highlight the point that Frankeh's friend was not "innocent" because he was "only looking at the pictures".

You've got the wrong end of the stick then.

Frankeh never said that the guy was innocent, only that he wasn't the reason for the images coming up in the first place.

The way I understood Frankeh was that he was saying there is an inner circle of people creating and swapping videos and at some stage the inner circle get 'bored' of them and just chuck them away.
They don't give a st what happens to the video after that; its trash. It is at that point other people come along and effectively pick up the trash (akin to a kid picking up a thrown away an unwanted pokemon card out of the bin) and watch the old material.
Its like if a tramp picks out a paedophillic(sp?) image out of the bin... even though what he is looking at and doing is wrong and criminal, he isn't actually fuelling the paedophile industry through his actions.

Its all wrong and quite sickening, but if the above is true, then in my opinion the people on the outside are less guilty in the fact that they are not instigating the crimes or infact fuelling them. They are still very guilty of crime however and need psychological help.

Is that where it stops though? I'm not sure it does. The 'cravings' will inevitably lead to the search for more. That's human nature.

I agree there is less guilt - or rather the crime is less - by 'looking' as opposed to 'doing', but I'm not convinced that one can simply 'look' without ever feeling the urge to contribute in some way.

Shay HTFC said:

My view on it is that I don't believe that paedophiles are born paedophiles, but instead are very emotionally immature and damaged people who never matured past a certain stage in their development. Rather than just executing them and coming no closer to understanding the problem, I would rather imprison them and study them to try and understand the root of paedophilia.

It would be much more beneficial to millions of children in the future if we could today avoid kneejerk reactions and actually study why these people act the way they do. Is it psychological, or is it genetic? Either way, a bunch of pitchfork wielding mobsters on PH aren't gonna have a fking clue whats true, other than what their wild emotions are telling them.

I agree with this, but how long will it be until 'ooman rights' stops the 'research' unless a crime has taken place, by which time the purpose of such is pointless; the child's already been harmed.

[IainT]

F93 said:

People say paedophiles can be treated. I don't think they can. Think about it, it is essentially a sexuality. This is hard for many people to accept, but it's the same thing as homo or bisexuality. (Not that they are the same, just that they are all sexualities)

Firstly let me start by stating that I do not think that Homosexual tendancies and Pedophillic tendancies are in any way moraly the same and, in the context of your post only compare them as sexual in nature. Pairing the two for comparison may give the impression of likening the two and I'm not.

There are many cases of Homosexual men covering up their natural sexual preference for their whole lives and not acting on the urges. This goes on even today where Homosexuality is, rightly, accepted for many reasons. I don't see any reason why someone who has entirely inappropriate sexual urges could not, at least in theory, successfully control them and present no danger to children.

[wiggy001]

IainT said:

F93 said:

People say paedophiles can be treated. I don't think they can. Think about it, it is essentially a sexuality. This is hard for many people to accept, but it's the same thing as homo or bisexuality. (Not that they are the same, just that they are all sexualities)

Firstly let me start by stating that I do not think that Homosexual tendancies and Pedophillic tendancies are in any way moraly the same and, in the context of your post only compare them as sexual in nature. Pairing the two for comparison may give the impression of likening the two and I'm not.

There are many cases of Homosexual men covering up their natural sexual preference for their whole lives and not acting on the urges. This goes on even today where Homosexuality is, rightly, accepted for many reasons. I don't see any reason why someone who has entirely inappropriate sexual urges could not, at least in theory, successfully control them and present no danger to children.

I think a better comparison, which would prevent the need for your disclaimer, would be to liken pedophiles with rapists.

Frankeh is deluding himself unfortunately. Would this "friend" be so innocent if, instead of watching this apparently discarded filth in his own bedroom, he was actually watching the abuse of these poor children through a window as it happened? After all, the act would still take place whether he was there or not.

In my mind, to do anything other than report this guy to the relevant authorities is to support the act itself. I certainly couldn't live with myself in Frankeh's situation knowing what he knows. With any luck Frankeh's "friend" is one of the 70,000 reported by the OP. One of the 70,000 that actually get arrested, tried and convicted for their part in global child abuse.

[Eric Mc]

Have 70,000 indivduals REALLY been arrested?

I think the number quoted was actually 30.

[Frankeh]

I never said innocent, jesus. Twisting of my words or what!

[IainT]

Frankeh said:

I never said innocent, jesus. Twisting of my words or what!

The problem with emotive subjects is that any discussion tends to be emotive rather than reasoned. Emotive arguemnts rarely remain rational or adhere to facts.

[wiggy001]

Eric Mc said:

Have 70,000 indivduals REALLY been arrested?

I think the number quoted was actually 30.

Of course not! That was my poor grammar!

When I said "One of the 70,000 that actually get arrested" I meant "One of those arrested from the estimated 70,000 involved".

[wiggy001]

Frankeh said:

I never said innocent, jesus. Twisting of my words or what!

To be fair, you did say that you were led to believe that your friend was not responsible for the creation of the material in question. I and many others disagree and feel that, due to the nature of supply/demand, your friend is as guilty for its creation and those holding the camera.

You also started by stating that your friend never acts on his urges (innocent) then went on to explain that he, in fact, does (guilty).

At the end of the day, your friend is as guilty in the act of child abuse as a recipient of stolen goods is in the act of theft. The only difference is that theft pisses people off and costs victims money. Child abuse destroys the lives of many innocent people.

[Eric Mc]

wiggy001 said:

Eric Mc said:

Have 70,000 indivduals REALLY been arrested?

I think the number quoted was actually 30.

Of course not! That was my poor grammar!

When I said "One of the 70,000 that actually get arrested" I meant "One of those arrested from the estimated 70,000 involved".

I can imagine the headline -

"Police Swoop Results in Doubling of Prison Population".

[menguin]

Aberdeenloon said:

Sensationalist bks? The woman was photographing kids for a paedophile ring and has since been convicted!

Frankeh is defending a person's right to view child porn "because he didn't take the pictures/make the video" - you think that is a decent point?

He didn't defend his right to view the images you cretinous loon. He is trying to make people realise that the offense of looking and the offense of committing is not the same thing...

If someone views a snuff film, produced specifically for that kind of consumption, should they go to jail for murder?

[stitched]

menguin said:

He didn't defend his right to view the images you cretinous loon. He is trying to make people realise that the offense of looking and the offense of committing is not the same thing...

If someone views a snuff film, produced specifically for that kind of consumption, should they go to jail for murder?

No.
They should go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder.
They are providing a market for such films which is the cause of the makers killing someone.

[menguin]

stitched said:

No.
They should go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder.
They are providing a market for such films which is the cause of the makers killing someone.

Conspiracy to commit, even if they were not born when it was made, but decide to buy it when they grow up?

Surely the crime of making something illegal cannot be the same, or linked to (unless it is made specifically for) the crime of consuming something illegal? Are you suggesting that if I smoke some weed I should be charged with conspiracy to grow cannabis, because I am providing a market for weed which is the cause of the grower deciding to grow weed?

[Aberdeenloon]

menguin said:

stitched said:

No.
They should go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder.
They are providing a market for such films which is the cause of the makers killing someone.

Conspiracy to commit, even if they were not born when it was made, but decide to buy it when they grow up?

Surely the crime of making something illegal cannot be the same, or linked to (unless it is made specifically for) the crime of consuming something illegal? Are you suggesting that if I smoke some weed I should be charged with conspiracy to grow cannabis, because I am providing a market for weed which is the cause of the grower deciding to grow weed?

So you are saying that it should be illegal if you consume something that is made specifically to be illegally consumed??? I think that question kind of answers itself...

That is exactly what is happening, even if the original intent wasn't for some of these people to view it (only the "inner circle", as Frankeh put it), they are eventually viewing it and it IS AND SHOULD BE illegal - and punished severely.

The bottom line I feel is this: It should (and is) illegal to make, distribute and/or consume child pornography, and all three should dealt with equally severely because they are all interlinked - one part of the chain wouldn't exist without the other parts (whatever other people believe on here).

I may be wrong, probably am, but that's what I think for what it's worth.

Edited by Aberdeenloon on Saturday 19th March 00:10