Online pedophiles

[WalkedUp]

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Unfortunately I think it's far simpler than a lot of answers so far, the fact is, if they acted or even locked up every pervert who gets their kicks from kids online, the criminal justice system would be completely overwhelmed. I've said it before, build more highly secure prisons and warehouse dangerous people like pedos cheaply so they never walk the streets again. 

Agree. And just in case they do get released, make sure they can never walk again. 

[clangerman]

29 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

So what's your idea? Seriously, What is your solution that doesn't involve breaking a shed load of privacy laws and doesn't treat the innocent like criminals and is open to massive abuses of power?

there is no privacy today and already massive abuse of power it’s nothing new how much is privacy worth one two three children raped? 

[mel b3]

2 hours ago, Zapp said:

The (assessed) figures here put into context the challenge faced by law enforcement nationally and internationally:

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2019/05/14/uk-could-have-seven-times-more-paedophiles-than-previously-estimated/

There are more people offending in this way than there is capacity to investigate/arrest/prosecute in a timely way, and those at the upper end of the cyber capability spectrum are capable of evading identification for years.

It took the NCA 5 years, with the help of GCHQ, to identify Matthew Falder for example.  Whole international LE taskforce exist to track and take down forums containing the worst things imaginable only for them to reappear in days.

That's some pretty grim reading pete.

You wouldn't think that a huge dangerous machine like the Internet,  could be built without a few emergency stop buttons.

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

there is no privacy today and already massive abuse of power it’s nothing new how much is privacy worth one two three children raped? 

Of course there's privacy. Even at its most basic level, why do the vast majority of their members here not have their real names as their profile names? however much you'd love to make a conspiracy of the government's magic powers of seeing everything we do, the reality is far more mundane. As I said earlier, there have been a number of high profile cases of late where the police in this country and even the FBI in the States haven't been able to gain access to even Whatsapp end to end encryption, let alone ultra secure computers. For good or ill, both privacy and anonymity are a reality. Of course a lot of that privacy and security is in irrelevancy; you're just not important or interesting enough to be bothered with. but the more you are worth bothering with, the more likely it is you'll use methods to keep yourself anonymous. There are plenty of things the police, and government agencies would love to be able to do online, but it lacks both the technology and the legal backing to be able to do it. You can't just go onto the internet and google 'where do the naughty people live' and then knock on their door and arrest them. We do have privacy and we do have a lot of freedom within that. As to the price of freedom, are you going to be handing in all your weapons and calling for the banning of all fire arms? After all how many innocent lives is a right to shoot worth? What is your solution, by the way? I'd genuinely like to know how you think the problem of online paedophilia can be thwarted. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by chrisjpainter

[clangerman]

20 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Of course there's privacy. Even at its most basic level, why do the vast majority of their members here not have their real names as their profile names? however much you'd love to make a conspiracy of the government's magic powers of seeing everything we do, the reality is far more mundane. As I said earlier, there have been a number of high profile cases of late where the police in this country and even the FBI in the States haven't been able to gain access to even Whatsapp end to end encryption, let alone ultra secure computers. For good or ill, both privacy and anonymity are a reality. Of course a lot of that privacy and security is in irrelevancy; you're just not important or interesting enough to be bothered with. but the more you are worth bothering with, the more likely it is you'll use methods to keep yourself anonymous. There are plenty of things the police, and government agencies would love to be able to do online, but it lacks both the technology and the legal backing to be able to do it. You can't just go onto the internet and google 'where do the naughty people live' and then knock on their door and arrest them. We do have privacy and we do have a lot of freedom within that. As to the price of freedom, are you going to be handing in all your weapons and calling for the banning of all fire arms? After all how many innocent lives is a right to shoot worth? What is your solution, by the way? I'd genuinely like to know how you think the problem of online paedophilia can be thwarted. 

authorities are useless had the police claim they were dropping a case as unable to locate the suspect egg on face when i pulled his full details out took me two days to find him don’t have a solution hopeless using tech but if something can be built it can be altered or dismantled 

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

there is no privacy today and already massive abuse of power it’s nothing new how much is privacy worth one two three children raped? 

I knew someone would come out with a stupid statement like this at some point. 
 

If we all give up our privacy are you seriously suggesting that someone who would commit such a horrific crime would just totally stop from going down that road? 
 

Don’t be so naive. 
 

 

 

There absolutely is privacy today and if you think the Government had invaded your privacy unlawfully you have the ability to take them to court for it. 

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, clangerman said:

authorities are useless had the police claim they were dropping a case as unable to locate the suspect egg on face when i pulled his full details out took me two days to find him don’t have a solution hopeless using tech but if something can be built it can be altered or dismantled 

So if the authorities are useless, given that they have the police, GCHQ and MI5  working with them, then we must have privacy after all? With all those resources at their disposal and they're still useless, it must mean that there is such a thing as security. The reality is it's simply not possible to dismantle the web. It might be the prepper's wet dream, but short of a catastrophic, global collapse of society, the internet's here to stay. Business relies on it, government relies on it, ordinary people rely on it. The world's moved on for it to be dismantled now. There is no magic 'off button' and in any case, would you really want to live in a world where we don't have the internet, but Russia does? It's been developing its own entirely independent internet for a few years now and it's said to have been successful without Russian users even noticing the change during the test. Much like nuclear weapons, the genie's out of the bottle now and we can't unlearn the technology behind it. As to altering it. How? Tech companies are doing all they can - after all it's in their interest to keep their clients secure, If someone wants to break the law, they will. You close one door, another opens. 

[NoBodyImportant]

Liberals over here are starting the claim that being attracted to children is a sexual orientation and should be treated as such. 

[mel b3]

46 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Liberals over here are starting the claim that being attracted to children is a sexual orientation and should be treated as such. 

Iirc , this was spoken about on here some time ago , and it's pretty shocking . It's another whole murky world of nastiness , that's dressed up as a bit of fun.

I truly hope that I don't live to see the day , when this is acceptable as normal. 

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, Zapp said:

The (assessed) figures here put into context the challenge faced by law enforcement nationally and internationally:

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2019/05/14/uk-could-have-seven-times-more-paedophiles-than-previously-estimated/

There are more people offending in this way than there is capacity to investigate/arrest/prosecute in a timely way, and those at the upper end of the cyber capability spectrum are capable of evading identification for years.

It took the NCA 5 years, with the help of GCHQ, to identify Matthew Falder for example.  Whole international LE taskforce exist to track and take down forums containing the worst things imaginable only for them to reappear in days.

This demonstrates the scale of the problem, bare in mind the UK has (last time I checked) approximately 80k spaces which are almost always full. The problem of how they investigate that number of people, never mind how we find space and money to lock them all up is obvious. 

[WalkedUp]

It is amazing how many parents see the internet as a benign thing, full of educational promise. An architect who worked for me let his 4 year old have free reign, watching YouTube over Ceebeebies, she also had a phone with snapchat and tiktok. No it isn’t “great” how tech savvy your child is, you are effectively letting unvetted strangers and damaging material into your home. 

[vmaxphil]

Maybe the answer is to educate the children better and not to be so naive?

[henry d]

3 hours ago, mel b3 said:

Iirc , this was spoken about on here some time ago , and it's pretty shocking . It's another whole murky world of nastiness , that's dressed up as a bit of fun.

I truly hope that I don't live to see the day , when this is acceptable as normal. 

It goes way back in the UK, 1970's iirc, with a group called PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) and there are some extremist lesbian feminists that have moved down that particular route too.

[mel b3]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

It goes way back in the UK, 1970's iirc, with a group called PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) and there are some extremist lesbian feminists that have moved down that particular route too.

I can remember ditchman mentioning it . It's something that makes me very uncomfortable , in fact , the whole subject is very , uncomfortable,  confusing,  horrific , sad , and lots of things , in lots of different ways . I'm learning new things every day , and I don't like most of it.

[bottletopbill]

Having to see a child or any one go through all the interviews and having to have a medical and photos taken does really make every person sick .Had to take another child to the police station for taped interview a few weeks ago. Does not get any better after attending three different cases all sexual assault on very young children .Hope I never have to go through that again for the sake of any child

[Yellow Bear]

3 hours ago, henry d said:

PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange)

IIRC heavily supported by some prominent members of the labour party.

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

IIRC heavily supported by some prominent members of the labour party.

And government funding by both Labour and Conservative governments.

[Gordon R]

I agree that the use of the internet by these monsters is appalling, but the time and effort involved in even curtailing it would be astronomical. The Police have enough demands on their time, without being further tied to a desk.

Grooming gangs flourish, almost above the law. I accept there have been token prosecutions, but there seems to be a lack of will to tackle these, rather than a resource issue.

[ehb102]

9 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Liberals over here are starting the claim that being attracted to children is a sexual orientation and should be treated as such. 

🤬

I will shame every person who says that and you won't shut me up by accusing me of "kink shaming" either. 

Lots of prominent people supported PIE, like Peter Tatchell, who refuses to condemn it or say he has changed his mind about what is acceptable . Now they support transitioning children from own sex to another. Why are they so keen that prepubescent children get puberty blockers? And why are they so keen to shut up women who are screaming safeguarding concerns?

🤮

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by ehb102

[mel b3]

46 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I agree that the use of the internet by these monsters is appalling, but the time and effort involved in even curtailing it would be astronomical. The Police have enough demands on their time, without being further tied to a desk.

Grooming gangs flourish, almost above the law. I accept there have been token prosecutions, but there seems to be a lack of will to tackle these, rather than a resource issue.

Being pretty non techy , it had never really occurred to me , that the Internet was pretty uncontrollable.  I understand the reasons why(now that I've given it a bit of thought ) , but , it's just amazing that it has no fail safe setting, to stop these , and other things , from happening. 

I was always of the mind , that grooming gangs were left to operate because of the race issue ( yes I know not in every instance) ,  but I've just had the awful thought,  that it's just starting to be tolerated more ,   and that eventually,  it will just be seen and accepted as normal.  I really hope that I'm either ,  wrong , or , that I'm long dead and gone before it happens. 

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

Being pretty non techy , it had never really occurred to me , that the Internet was pretty uncontrollable.  I understand the reasons why(now that I've given it a bit of thought ) , but , it's just amazing that it has no fail safe setting, to stop these , and other things , from happening. 

I was always of the mind , that grooming gangs were left to operate because of the race issue ( yes I know not in every instance) ,  but I've just had the awful thought,  that it's just starting to be tolerated more ,   and that eventually,  it will just be seen and accepted as normal.  I really hope that I'm either ,  wrong , or , that I'm long dead and gone before it happens. 

I don't think it's tolerated more. I think it's tolerated less, but it's understood to be far more widespread than we were previously aware. That means far more crimes are known about, but what hasn't changed is the resources to tackle it, so it feels like there's less of a response. Ultimately, to make serious inroads into tackling abuse, you'd probably have to double the police force and have that new half solely dedicated to tackling child abuse, both online and domestically. There's simply not the budget to do that. And crime priorities are extremely personal things. If your shop's been broken into 4 times in three months, you're going to demand police action and might be thinking a cop sat at a desk flicking through the internet could be better served out on the streets and stopping crimes like burglary. 

You've also got to have a lot of pretty self sacrificial policemen and women out there to do the job. As @bottletopbill can testify, it must be a horrible, horrible job to investigate these crimes and then have to take victim statements and trawl through mountains of the most vile and dehumanising evidence it's possible to get. Would you really want to do that for a day? Then get up and do it the next day, and the next and the next...

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

IIRC heavily supported by some prominent members of the labour party.

As well as Liberal, Conservative and the former head of MI5 and it was said that they were allegedly involved in some way.

[ferguson_tom]

4 hours ago, mel b3 said:

 I'm learning new things every day , and I don't like most of it.

The vast majority of us live sheltered lives when it comes to understanding the true extent of child protection issues, not just sexual but physical, mental and emotional abuse as well. I don't think any of it has become more accepted or tolerated over the years just before it was ignored by the authorities and people in general. Everyone knew about choir boys being touched up by priests yet no one did anything about it, the situation now for children is a lot better than it was 30 years ago as at least now when a child does have the courage to say something is happening there is a much greater chance they will be listened to. 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, mel b3 said:

, but , it's just amazing that it has no fail safe setting, to stop these , and other things , from happening. 

What are you blathering about?  How would such a fail-safe setting work?  If you mean government-mandated backdoors to encryption -  Some of the brightest minds in the world have yet to come up with a workable solution for that isn't inherently vulnerable to bad actors.

Of course, you could always go and live in a country were all the connections are piped through a government filtering station.  The Chinese, Saudis etc, have 'cracked it'.  Am sure the forum Saudi correspondant will be along shortly to tell us how wonderful life is there.

So, once again: The 'fail safe' is good parenting (speaks the as-yet-childless wonder).

If you allow your children unfettered access to the internet, you might as well drop them off in Tower Hamlets, at 2am, with an Oyster card and £20 spending money and saying "Be home by dawn, good luck"

It is a dangerous place, beyond the gift of National governments to regulate to make 'safe' for you.

 

[mel b3]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

What are you blathering about?  How would such a fail-safe setting work?  If you mean government-mandated backdoors to encryption -  Some of the brightest minds in the world have yet to come up with a workable solution for that isn't inherently vulnerable to bad actors.

Of course, you could always go and live in a country were all the connections are piped through a government filtering station.  The Chinese, Saudis etc, have 'cracked it'.  Am sure the forum Saudi correspondant will be along shortly to tell us how wonderful life is there.

So, once again: The 'fail safe' is good parenting (speaks the as-yet-childless wonder).

If you allow your children unfettered access to the internet, you might as well drop them off in Tower Hamlets, at 2am, with an Oyster card and £20 spending money and saying "Be home by dawn, good luck"

It is a dangerous place, beyond the gift of National governments to regulate to make 'safe' for you.

 

for a bloke with such a vast knowledge of everything in the whole world as we know it  , you dont half spout some paranoid cack .

now pull your tinfoil hat on properly , and go and have another look at what i said , and can you please try to understand my meaning this time , before you start blathering again.