Are you a PDP?
Cub Reporter
By Fiona Thompson
Sunderland Echo, UK: 20 August 2009
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Spotting-crime-danger.5574787.jp
A radical new scheme unveiled today aims to halt the sexual offenders
of tomorrow.
The Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDP) policy targets people who are
deemed at risk of committing a sexual offence but have no convictions
for such a crime.
Those leading the efforts believe the scheme will save lives and
prevent cases such as the Soham murders.
Killer Ian Huntley had been accused of sexual offences but was never
put before a court. He went on to murder schoolgirls Holly Wells and
Jessica Chapman.
The PDP initiative is now monitoring specific people in County Durham
and is helping authorities across Wearside, as information is shared
between areas.
The scheme is the first in the country, bringing together police and
the probation service with education, children and adult services
staff so they can share details and build a picture of a potential
offender's lifestyle.
A person can be classed as a PDP if police have evidence of their
crimes but do not have the backing of the Crown Prosecution Service to
charge.
As well as those at risk of committing serious sexual offences, the
programme also covers those who could potentially be involved in
serious violent attacks.
The programme leads on from multi-agency public protection
arrangements set up across the UK to deal with those who have been
through the criminal justice system.
Detective Chief Superintendent Ian Scott, head of Durham
Constabulary's CID, said: "There are some people that for whatever
reason have not been cautioned or convicted, but might cause harm or
danger.
"We have a responsibility and we are working in partnership to do
something about it."
The team is working with Northumbria and Cleveland Police to make sure
that information is shared between the three force areas.
County Durham's Public Protection Unit - the first in the country to
have police and probation officers working from the same office, is
dealing with eight men who are classes as PDPs. Overall it is managing
546 registered sex offenders, with 416 in the community.
Mike Creedon, assistant director of County Durham Probation Service,
said: "I think this has been long overdue.
"I think lives will be saved - and I don't think that's being
over-dramatic."
The Association of Chief Police Officers defines a PDP as "a person
who has not been convicted, or cautioned for, an offence but whose
behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will
cause serious harm".
4s00th
wrote:
>Thanks for the info, CR. Sounds good to me. :-)
Sounds an awful lot like the "thought police" to me. And since you and
the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
people, that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well, the bo0b
definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
violence, but he has on many occasions said that he thinks I deserve a
bullet and that he'd love to be the one to pull the trigger. I would
say that qualifies as "behaviour [giving] reasonable grounds for
believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an
offence or offences that will cause serious harm."
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
4s00th
wrote:
>So much for your stated desire to protect children, Steve.
Beavis, there is a distinct difference between protecting children and
profiling. I happen to believe a person is innocent until proven
guilty -- not that people are guilty just because someone thinks that
they are LIKELY to commit an offense. They talk of monitoring people
whom they have evidence that links them to a crime -- not that they
have been convicted of having committed. They talk of monitoring
people who fit certain alleged profiles for people who commit sexual
or violent offenses -- despite the fact that they've never committed
such offenses in the past. Under these criteria, the bo0b clearly
meets the definition of a PDP since he has, once again, stated he
would love to kill me -- see his reply earlier in this thread. That's
about as violent as you get. Do you think police should be monitoring
him too?
You can't protect anyone at the expense of basic civil liberties. No
matter how much I want to protect children -- and I do -- you can't do
it at the expense of basic human rights and in direct violation of the
principles upon which our country was founded and our Justice System
is based.
>> And since you and
>> the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
>> people, that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well, the bo0b
>> definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
>> violence
>
>I don't think I ever did. Did I?
>
On reflection, I don't believe you ever did. It's sometimes hard to
remember who made which particular comment when you've received
remarks such as "your mother should burn in hell for spawning a
pedophile [like me]!"
Doc Dice
For feeling so strongly against pedophiles?
I don't think so. Pedophiles are scum.
>
> You can't protect anyone at the expense of basic civil liberties. No
> matter how much I want to protect children -- and I do -- you can't do
> it at the expense of basic human rights and in direct violation of the
> principles upon which our country was founded and our Justice System
> is based.
>
> >> And since you and
> >> the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
> >> people, that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well, the bo0b
> >> definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
> >> violence
> >
> >I don't think I ever did. Did I?
> >
> On reflection, I don't believe you ever did. It's sometimes hard to
> remember who made which particular comment when you've received
> remarks such as "your mother should burn in hell for spawning a
> pedophile [like me]!"
You commited another misrepresentation of the truth and now you
attempt to cover it up by kissing ass.
DD
David
<steven_j...@rocketmail.com> typed furiously:
So you consider violence to be more socially acceptable than sex.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness
(-:arl
<usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:
> On Aug 22, 1:04 am, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:28:18 -0400, Beavis <christ.bea...@yahoo.de>
>
> > And since you and
> > the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
> > people,
>
>
> > that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well, the bo0b
> > definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
> > violence, but he has on many occasions said that he thinks I deserve a
> > bullet and that he'd love to be the one to pull the trigger.
>
>
> > I would
> > say that qualifies as "behaviour [giving] reasonable grounds for
> > believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an
> > offence or offences that will cause serious harm."
>
> catagory.
You're pedo. Seeking to vicariously expunge your own sexuality thru
the abuse of others.
Onideus Mad Hatter
>> So you consider violence to be more socially acceptable than sex.
>Haters LOVE violence! The more violent the better, as far as they are
>concerned.
Violence...if it's not solving your problems...you're not using enough
of it! ^__^
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.uncensored-inter.net
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Never do to anyone online what you wouldn't want done to yourself."
"Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Usenet Filters/Blinders - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>So you consider violence to be more socially acceptable than sex.
>The punishment of child rapists is obviously more socially acceptable
>than their disgusting activities.
Yes, especially when they're innocent and falsely accused! LOL, yeah,
it's always socially acceptable to punish innocent people when they
wind up falsely labeled...
: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/sexting-hysteri
David
<use...@backwater-productions.net> typed furiously:
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:32:52 -0700, Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>>So you consider violence to be more socially acceptable than sex.
>
>>The punishment of child rapists is obviously more socially acceptable
>>than their disgusting activities.
>
>Yes, especially when they're innocent and falsely accused! LOL, yeah,
>it's always socially acceptable to punish innocent people when they
>wind up falsely labeled...
>: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/sexting-hysteri
>
But ... but he was arrested and charged so he must be guilty. Who
cares what the facts are!
This is another excellent example of the hysteria that is sweeping the
western world where we are trying to protect children and ignoring the
task of educating them and preparing them for life.
TomBa
news:m74395d8ckdsi2bmh...@4ax.com:
>>>>So you consider violence to be more socially acceptable than sex.
>>
>>>The punishment of child rapists is obviously more socially acceptable
>>>than their disgusting activities.
>>
>>Yes, especially when they're innocent and falsely accused!
>
> The PDPs in question are neither innocent nor falsely accused.
>
> They are convicted and sentenced sex predators who have been foolishly
> released from custody and whose Probation Officers and local police
> feel are highly likely to attack fresh children.
My reading of the article leads to different conclusions:
The Potentially Dangerous Persons (PDP) policy targets people
who are deemed at risk of committing a sexual offence but have
no convictions for such a crime.
...
The Association of Chief Police Officers defines a PDP as "a
person who has not been convicted, or cautioned for, an offence
but whose behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that
there is a present likelihood of them committing an offence or
offences that will cause serious harm".
These don't fit the criteria for those that are convicted, sentenced, and
released from custody ...??
Am I missing other information?
--
TomBa NP-f36
(-:arl
<bobandcarole...@aol.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:
> usenet.
An Coibhi Drui
<usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:
> On Aug 22, 1:04 am, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
> > people,
>
>
> > definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
> > violence, but he has on many occasions said that he thinks I deserve a
> > bullet and that he'd love to be the one to pull the trigger.
>
>
> > say that qualifies as "behaviour [giving] reasonable grounds for
> > believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an
> > offence or offences that will cause serious harm."
>
David
> While there may be no Federal laws regarding (sexual) treatment of the
> dead, every state in the Union has a set a laws dealing with their
> treatment. In some cases, they are misdemeanors, while treated as
> felonies in others. A famous case was the death of a young woman in
> Florida where an old man dug her up and kept her corpse in his house
> for years, treating her as his bride.
Explain to me what or who his actions hurt? Sharing love and affection
is not wrong you know. It's time that closed minded individuals like
Jim
Lasky be re-educated and taught to drop the old and useless taboos
their
benighted parents taught him.
4s00th
No, child-molesters are scum. Pedophiles who choose not to have sex
with children are no more scum than you are.
>> You can't protect anyone at the expense of basic civil liberties. No
>> matter how much I want to protect children -- and I do -- you can't do
>> it at the expense of basic human rights and in direct violation of the
>> principles upon which our country was founded and our Justice System
>> is based.
>>
>> >> And since you and
>> >> the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
>> >> people, that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well, the bo0b
>> >> definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
>> >> violence
>> >
>> >I don't think I ever did. Did I?
>> >
>> On reflection, I don't believe you ever did. It's sometimes hard to
>> remember who made which particular comment when you've received
>> remarks such as "your mother should burn in hell for spawning a
>> pedophile [like me]!"
>
>You commited another misrepresentation of the truth and now you
> attempt to cover it up by kissing ass.
>DD
It is interesting that you A) believe I have "committed another
misrepresentation of the truth" when I have always stated that one
cannot protect anyone by taking away the basic civil liberties of
another, and that B) I am "kissing ass" by speaking civilly to one who
speaks civilly to me.
It's always fun to see how people interpret things through the filter
of their own prejudices. I have probably done more to protect children
on the Internet than all of you so-call anti-peds put together through
my attempts to help others learn self-control and why it is important
to learn self-control as well as by my reports to NCMEC and other
authorities about persons who have threatened children on the
Internet. Meanwhile you anti's sit back and yell names and scratch
your asses. It's entirely possible that I haven't helped a single
person -- but it hasn't been for lack of trying. While you judgmental
bastards try to intimidate with your rude remarks, I reach out and
offer help in finding a better of dealing with feelings in appropriate
ways. I don't take chances that people who make threats are only
kidding or just blowing off steam -- I take whatever actions are
available to me to help the authorities look into the situation. I've
made phone calls based on communications that came to me from sources
that I couldn't necessarily say were sound -- but I wasn't willing to
take the chance that their messages to me were false. I can't help
what the authorities made of my attempts to contact them, but I always
do my best to give them all of the information I am able to gather.
Take the stupid things that you take on faith to be true out of your
eyes and read what I'm actually saying here. Don't judge me by what
you were told to believe about "pedophiles" but actually take a look
at what I'm trying to do here. I am a pedophile, but I refuse to
become a child-molester. The last time I had sex with someone else was
1994 or so, and that was with an adult woman who was older than me. I
don't go around children; I might see them in the stores when I go
shopping, but the most I ever do is smile at them and go on by.
I never had a choice about what turns me on, but I will damn well
control my own behavior to see that it does not influence me to do
things that I know can be harmful to any child.
Am I still scum if I don't act the way you think pedophiles do?
4s00th
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:59:43 -0400, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I don't take chances that people who make threats are only
>>kidding or just blowing off steam -- I take whatever actions are
>>available to me to help the authorities look into the situation. I've
>>made phone calls based on communications that came to me from sources
>>that I couldn't necessarily say were sound -- but I wasn't willing to
>>take the chance that their messages to me were false. I can't help
>>what the authorities made of my attempts to contact them, but I always
>>do my best to give them all of the information I am able to gather
>
>So exactly what is your problem with other people doing the same when
>they /know/ a PDP is sexually abusing a child or indeed a stream of
>children?
>
>http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/ssacpc.nsf/a995f08678e0882f80256688005190dd/0bc9c1cf0d1f2db88025705b005077f5/$FILE/10%20Child%20Protection%20&%20Public%20Protection.doc
The article does not address people who are known to be sexually
abusing a child or many children -- it states people who they suspect
MAY abuse a child.
If you know or suspect that a person is molesting or otherwise harming
a child, you have a certain responsibility to report that information
to the authorities. People in certain professions are legally
responsible for making reports if they suspect a child is being abused
in some way.
>If an individual is considered to be a potentially dangerous person,
>whether or not s/he has a relevant conviction, an information sharing
>discussion/meeting should be held between the Nominated Person in
>Social Services and the Police, in order to identify the correct route
>into public protection arrangements.
>
>
>For individuals who do not have a relevant conviction, a Non MAPPA
>Referral Form will be completed by the Nominated Person in Social
>Services and submitted to the Police (an example of a referral form
>for this purpose is given at the end of this section). Risk management
>will be led by the Police, under the authority vested in them by the
>Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Depending on the assessed level of risk,
>management may be by the Police alone or may involve other agencies
>
The article that you criticized refers specifically to people who have
never been convicted of any kind of crime but who someone thinks MIGHT
be at risk to harm a child. And the article you appended above ALSO
makes provision for this kind of referral.
Now, there is precedent to report someone making specific threats
against specific persons being reported to the authorities, or even
specific threats against people in general. But the document you refer
to does not specify that such needs to be the case for a referral to
be made. Under this law, the bo0b could make a report against me even
though I have never made any threat against any children, even though
he doesn't even know me and has never met me, even though he lives
many states away from me -- and would the authorities be obliged to
investigate the matter even though there is no real evidence to
suggest that his referral has any possible value? Would there be some
penalties for making the police look into a situation like this that
merits no investigation?
For that matter, who decides what evidence is sufficient? Is it
sufficient evidence that a person admits that he is sexually attracted
to children -- or must he also have access to children? The article
you cite leaves a lot of that information very vague.
It's not enough to think that someone MIGHT commit a crime --
especially when they've never been convicted or even suspected of
having committed one in the past. Hell, anyone MIGHT commit a crime!
That's where the whole idea of "Thought Police" comes in. Is it now
illegal to think certain thoughts?
4s00th
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:02:26 -0400, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> They talk of monitoring people
>>whom they have evidence that links them to a crime -- not that they
>>have been convicted of having committed.
>
>They would be seriously failing in their duty if they did not monitor
>individuals known to be sexually abusing children.
That's not what the article says -- it says monitoring people that
they cannot prove have been committing a crime. Certainly, they have
every right to investigate the matter and gather evidence -- but if
they cannot prove that the person is guilty, then do they have the
right to continue to monitor that person and harass them? In the US,
Social Services are expected to destroy all information regarding a
complaint of child abuse that is determined to be unfounded within 90
days of the completion of the investigation. Even if they suspect that
there might be something going on, if they have made the determination
that the complaint was unfounded and cannot show any other abuse, they
have to destroy the information. It's a damn shame that they did away
with the determination "reason to suspect," which gave Social Services
the right to offer services to the family and keep an open case on the
situation so that any changes in the situation and any new evidence
can be considered.
>What the hell are you saying here?
>
>A child rapist shouldn't be monitored or investigated until he has
>been convicted?
>
>You think the police shouldn't monitor known child molesters until
>they have enough evidence to put them where they belong?
I'm saying that if they cannot prove the person is abusing a child,
then they have no right to monitor or harass that person. Of course,
if additional information about the individual comes in, then they
certainly must investigate that, but they do not have the right to
encroach on personal liberties just because they believe he might be
doing something wrong or that he might do something wrong in the
future. Aren't there already enough crimes to investigate without
having to go looking for crimes that may never happen?
>You make no sense.
>
>It's refreshing to see there are parts of the world where the
>protection of children is taken seriously.
>
>
>Take the trouble to look at the actual protocol,rather than a
>sensational dishonestly edited newspaper article, and pray enlighten
>us with what part of the flowchart you object to.
>
>
>
>http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/ssacpc.nsf/a995f08678e0882f80256688005190dd/0bc9c1cf0d1f2db88025705b005077f5/$FILE/10%20Child%20Protection%20&%20Public%20Protection.doc
>
>If an individual is considered to be a potentially dangerous person,
>whether or not s/he has a relevant conviction, an information sharing
>discussion/meeting should be held between the Nominated Person in
>Social Services and the Police, in order to identify the correct route
>into public protection arrangements.
>
>
>For individuals who do not have a relevant conviction, a Non MAPPA
>Referral Form will be completed by the Nominated Person in Social
>Services and submitted to the Police (an example of a referral form
>for this purpose is given at the end of this section). Risk management
>will be led by the Police, under the authority vested in them by the
>Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Depending on the assessed level of risk,
>management may be by the Police alone or may involve other agencies.
>
>Whichever route is taken, child protection issues should also be
>considered at every stage of the public protection/risk management
>process and a decision made at each MAPPA meeting as to whether or not
>a referral into the child protection system is required.
>
>The flowchart on the following page outlines the above processes.
>
> ----------------
>
>Lets not forget what a PDP actually IS!
>
>Take a hard look at this character and tell us you want him unchecked
>and unmonitored, free to continue his "career".
>
>Man held in kidnap, rape of 7-year-old autistic girl
>
>August 22, 2009 | 5:13 pm
>
>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/man-held-in-kidnap-rape-of-7yearold-autistic-girl.html
>
>
> A Huntington Beach man was arrested after he allegedly kidnapped a
>7-year-old autistic girl and then sodomized and raped her, police said
>Saturday.
>
>Daniel Blas Flores, 27, was arrested Wednesday at his apartment and
>booked for �several sexual assault related charges,� according to a
>news release from the Huntington Beach Police Department.
>
>Flores� apartment is near a Sycamore Boulevard complex where the girl
>was playing outside with friends, the release said. Flores allegedly
>kidnapped the girl and then took her back to his apartment where he
>committed the sexual assaults, police said.
>
>Huntington Beach Lt. Mike Reynolds said Flores� bail was set at $1
>million.
>
>-- Ari B. Bloomekatz
>
>Photo: Daniel Blas Flores. Credit: Huntington Beach Police Department
This is a clear case where there is sufficient evidence to indict a
person for a crime that was committed. The "PDP" program would make it
possible for police to "monitor" and harass people who have not
committed a crime, for whom there is no evidence that they have ever
committed a crime, but because someone says that they might commit a
crime in the future. Or because he fits what someone calls a "profile"
for those who commit certain crimes.
An Coibhi Drui
<usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:28:18 -0400, Beavis <christ.bea...@yahoo.de>
>
> > the bo0b have both talked about committing violence against other
> > people,
>
>
> > definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much about
> > bullet and that he'd love to be the one to pull the trigger.
>
> It would be a pure pleasure!!
>
> > I would
> > believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an
4s00th
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:57:27 -0400, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:30:41 -0700, Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:02:26 -0400, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> They talk of monitoring people
>>>>whom they have evidence that links them to a crime -- not that they
>>>>have been convicted of having committed.
>>>
>>>They would be seriously failing in their duty if they did not monitor
>>>individuals known to be sexually abusing children.
>>
>>That's not what the article says -- it says monitoring people that
>>they cannot prove have been committing a crime.
>
>The newspaper article omits an important part of the definition of
>PDS and totally distorts the purpose.
>
>Now you can either deal with the REAL definition of PDP or continue
>parroting the distortion.
I read the portion of the "REAL" definition that allows people to
refer others whom have never committed a crime. Now, one might assume
that the review process would then clear that person, but there is no
guarantee of that.
>> Certainly, they have
>>every right to investigate the matter and gather evidence -- but if
>>they cannot prove that the person is guilty, then do they have the
>>right to continue to monitor that person and harass them?
>
>Of course they do, it's their duty not a "right".
Suspicion can only carry an investigation so far. Continued harassment
leaves the LEA involved open to law suits, and the LEA administrators
know this. At some point, the investigators have to put up some
reasonable evidence or let it go.
>> In the US,
>>Social Services are expected to destroy all information regarding a
>>complaint of child abuse that is determined to be unfounded within 90
>>days of the completion of the investigation. Even if they suspect that
>>there might be something going on, if they have made the determination
>>that the complaint was unfounded and cannot show any other abuse, they
>>have to destroy the information. It's a damn shame that they did away
>>with the determination "reason to suspect," which gave Social Services
>>the right to offer services to the family and keep an open case on the
>>situation so that any changes in the situation and any new evidence
>>can be considered.
>>
>>>What the hell are you saying here?
>>>
>>>A child rapist shouldn't be monitored or investigated until he has
>>>been convicted?
>>>
>>>You think the police shouldn't monitor known child molesters until
>>>they have enough evidence to put them where they belong?
>>
>>I'm saying that if they cannot prove the person is abusing a child,
>>then they have no right to monitor or harass that person.
>
>What on earth do you think the role of a detective is?
>
>
>They gather the evidence that results in charges.
>Some investigations take decades.
Certainly -- but that doesn't mean that they get to monitor and harass
a particular individual for decades unless they have enough evidence
to show that the person is involved. Otherwise, their administrators
are going to call them off -- if for no other reason than to avoid the
lawsuits for harassment. You may have the idea that police don't abuse
their powers for personal reasons, but I don't. Again, they have to
have sufficient evidence. Theory or belief is not enough.
>A child molester or child pornography user/manufacturer
>should never think that he has got away with his crimes because arrest
>isn't immediate.
>
>
>> Of course,if additional information about the individual comes in, then they
>>certainly must investigate that, but they do not have the right to
>>encroach on personal liberties just because they believe he might be
>>doing something wrong or that he might do something wrong in the
>>future.
>
>WE are talking of people who the police KNOW are a serious threat to
>children based on their BEHAVIOR not thoughts.
No, not under the definition as stated in the document that you
referred to by link. There was a whole protocol for people who are not
even known to the police to be referred. And you really do need to
learn the difference between what the police "suspect" and what the
police "know."
>> Aren't there already enough crimes to investigate without
>>having to go looking for crimes that may never happen?
>
>What are you saying here?
>
>That detectives shouldn't be proactive?
>
>You can't be seriously suggesting sex crimes against children aren't
>happening if the perp hasn't been charged?
>
>
>You really do seem to want dangerous people to run free don't you?
>
>Why on earth do you bother reporting them?
I report people who have made threats against children. But someone
admitting that he or she is a pedophile does not constitute such a
threat. I report people whom I suspect may be abusing children -- it's
up to the police and social services to determine if my report is
founded or unfounded -- but there are laws that determine the length
of time that such investigations can go on; and, again, just the
admission that someone is a pedophile does not constitute a suspicion
that they are abusing a child or children. And, for the record, as a
social worker, I was required by law to make such reports -- and I
even pushed this fact with others in my agency. The important fact
here being that there had to be a clear reason to suspect that they
might be abusing a child or children or having made a clear threat.
>You are confusing mandated reporting with assessments of convicted
>sex offenders by their parole offices,psychiatrists and probation
>officers.
>
>The only "news" in this wretched article is that probation officers
>are to take a bigger role.
And again, you miss the whole point. Convicted sexual offenders have,
in my opinion, earned their monitoring -- unless we're talking about
one of those tick-tack offenses like "urinating in public" -- an
offense that should NOT be considered a sexual offense.
But the act clearly makes provision for monitoring people who HAVE NOT
been convicted of any crime or against whom there may not be any
amount of evidence. While I would hope that such persons would quickly
be cleared and the report dismissed, I'm not silly enough to believe
that it will, thereby giving the police the right to infringe upon the
individual rights to privacy and freedom from harassment just because
someone thinks that they MIGHT commit a violent crime even though no
such crime has been committed.
It's only right that we need to keep an eye on people that we know are
dangerous and have proven that they are dangerous -- but this gives
the police the power over individuals who have never committed any
crime and who may not, in reality, represent any kind of threat to
commit a crime -- i. e. thought police. And that's my whole objection
to the law.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>Yes, especially when they're innocent and falsely accused!
>The PDPs in question are neither innocent nor falsely accused.
>
>They are convicted and sentenced sex predators who have been foolishly
>released from custody and whose Probation Officers and local police
>feel are highly likely to attack fresh children.
>
>
>Are you suggesting they should /not/ be monitored?
That would depend entirely on their individual circumstances. And
quite frankly, as this is the Internet, I'm not rightly inclined to
believe what either side says about shit. As far as I'm concerned,
yer both probably liars and dipshits...but then I usually don't give
people the benefit of the doubt...at least online. Nothing personal
or anything, it's just the nature of the medium.
I generally counter *EVERYONE*, I don't ever really "take sides" on
any issue. I believe that to be a human addiction, and one that I
certainly don't want to start taking up myself. I'm no so limited
that I can only think in linear terms of "yes or no". For me it is
*ALWAYS* "maybe", I can *ALWAYS* see both sides, I can *ALWAYS* see
every point of view, I don't limit myself in the way that ordinary
folk liak you do.
>> LOL, yeah,it's always socially acceptable to punish innocent people when they
>>wind up falsely labeled...
>Convicted sex predators on the Sex Offenders Registry are neither
>innocent nor falsely labeled,and preventing them from sexually
>assaulting children is not punishing them.
And yet you're *ASS*uming that everyone on the Sex Offenders Registry
has sexually assaulted a "child". The problem is...what constitutes
as a "child"? If a 19 year old has consensual sex with a 17 year
old...yeah, in most states they're gonna wind up on that lil Sex
Offenders Registry list that you like so much if the 17 year olds
parents find out about it.
>Given that most people would like to see them dead they are getting
>off lightly.
>
>http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/publicationscheme/policiesandprocedures/active/172007
Given that "most people" are complete, stupid, fuckin morons with
barely a 5th grade reading level...yeah, that's not really sayin much.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.uncensored-inter.net
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Never do to anyone online what you wouldn't want done to yourself."
"Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"Never use your own limitations as the basis of measuring a technologies worth."
"I don't make mistakes, I have other people to make mistakes for me."
Onideus Mad Hatter
??? <usenetle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive:
>On Aug 30, 10:23 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>productions.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends bobandcarole
>>
>> €€€ <usenetlege...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >> That would depend entirely on their individual circumstances. And
>> >> quite frankly, as this is the Internet, I'm not rightly inclined to
>> >> believe what either side says about shit. As far as I'm concerned,
>> >> yer both probably liars and dipshits...but then I usually don't give
>> >> people the benefit of the doubt...at least online. Nothing personal
>> >> or anything, it's just the nature of the medium.
>> >And dats why yer a STOOPID cock-sukker ...
>>
>> Yeesh, it's liak I'm being verbally assaulted by a Ritalin deficient
>> 3rd grader with Tourettes.
>>
>> >> Given that "most people" are complete, stupid, fuckin morons with
>> >> barely a 5th grade reading level...yeah, that's not really sayin much.
>> >Iz zat so? Got any bcites ta proov that shit?
>>
>> Posting drunk...probably not the best idea you've had lately. *nods*
>
>Yo<WHACK>
Yeah, yer done now. Put it down. Time for bed.
Onideus Mad Hatter
? <usenetle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive:
>On Aug 30, 11:17 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>productions.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends bobandcarole
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ??? <usenetlegends0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >x-no-archive:
>> >On Aug 30, 10:23 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
>> >productions.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Usenet Legends bobandcarole
>>
>> >> €€€ <usenetlege...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> That would depend entirely on their individual circumstances. And
>> >> >> quite frankly, as this is the Internet, I'm not rightly inclined to
>> >> >> believe what either side says about shit. As far as I'm concerned,
>> >> >> yer both probably liars and dipshits...but then I usually don't give
>> >> >> people the benefit of the doubt...at least online. Nothing personal
>> >> >> or anything, it's just the nature of the medium.
>> >> >And dats why yer a STOOPID cock-sukker ...
>>
>> >> Yeesh, it's liak I'm being verbally assaulted by a Ritalin deficient
>> >> 3rd grader with Tourettes.
>>
>> >> >> Given that "most people" are complete, stupid, fuckin morons with
>> >> >> barely a 5th grade reading level...yeah, that's not really sayin much.
>> >> >Iz zat so? Got any bcites ta proov that shit?
>>
>> >> Posting drunk...probably not the best idea you've had lately. *nods*
>>
>> >Yo<WHACK>
>>
>> Yeah, yer done now. Put it down. Time for bed.
>
>A<WHACK>
You just let me know how many moar spankings you need child. Go ahead
and reply again...you know what yer gonna get...you know you want it
too. You *WANT* to have yer lil ass blistered, don't you? Hit the
reply button, Dipshit, show us all how much you want it. LOL
Lamey the Cable Guy
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:jlhk95pjmoqdcoige...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:14:30 -0700, Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM>
> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, especially when they're innocent and falsely accused!
>
>>The PDPs in question are neither innocent nor falsely accused.
>>
>>They are convicted and sentenced sex predators who have been foolishly
>>released from custody and whose Probation Officers and local police
>>feel are highly likely to attack fresh children.
>>
>>
>>Are you suggesting they should /not/ be monitored?
>
> That would depend entirely on their individual circumstances. And
> quite frankly, as this is the Internet, I'm not rightly inclined to
> believe what either side says about shit. As far as I'm concerned,
> yer both probably liars and dipshits...but then I usually don't give
> people the benefit of the doubt...at least online. Nothing personal
> or anything, it's just the nature of the medium.
They are liars and dipshits but how does your man milk taste? Does it have a
banana flavour?
> I generally counter *EVERYONE*, I don't ever really "take sides" on
> any issue. I believe that to be a human addiction, and one that I
> certainly don't want to start taking up myself. I'm no so limited
> that I can only think in linear terms of "yes or no". For me it is
> *ALWAYS* "maybe", I can *ALWAYS* see both sides, I can *ALWAYS* see
> every point of view, I don't limit myself in the way that ordinary
> folk liak you do.
Where do you stand on cross dressing? Do you have any pictures of yourself
in a bra?
>>> LOL, yeah,it's always socially acceptable to punish innocent people when
>>> they
>>>wind up falsely labeled...
>
>>Convicted sex predators on the Sex Offenders Registry are neither
>>innocent nor falsely labeled,and preventing them from sexually
>>assaulting children is not punishing them.
>
> And yet you're *ASS*uming that everyone on the Sex Offenders Registry
> has sexually assaulted a "child". The problem is...what constitutes
> as a "child"? If a 19 year old has consensual sex with a 17 year
> old...yeah, in most states they're gonna wind up on that lil Sex
> Offenders Registry list that you like so much if the 17 year olds
> parents find out about it.
I'm falling for you more and more every time I read one of your replies.
>>Given that most people would like to see them dead they are getting
>>off lightly.
>>
>>http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/publicationscheme/policiesandprocedures/active/172007
>
> Given that "most people" are complete, stupid, fuckin morons with
> barely a 5th grade reading level...yeah, that's not really sayin much.
Send me some email so we can be more alone please.
(-:arl
> Jim Lasky wrote:
> > While there may be no Federal laws regarding (sexual) treatment of the
> > dead, every state in the Union has a set a laws dealing with their
> > treatment. In some cases, they are misdemeanors, while treated as
> > felonies in others. A famous case was the death of a young woman in
> > Florida where an old man dug her up and kept her corpse in his house
> > for years, treating her as his bride.
>
> Explain to me what or who his actions hurt? Sharing love and affection
> is not wrong you know. It's time that closed minded individuals like
> Jim
> Lasky be re-educated and taught to drop the old and useless taboos
> their
> benighted parents taught him.
>
you can't blame their families for objecting to it.
David
On Aug 14, 10:19 pm, redboltoflife <redblotofl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can agree with you on the point of incest under the supervision
of a qualified adult
> but do you approve of it in other situations?
NO!! The incest experience should be witnessed by a participating
adult to assure that no unacceptable boundaries are crossed.
> I am not sure I agree with your positions on beastiality and necrophilia.
If you'll examine both beastiality and necrophilia you will find that
besides the antiquated
taboos associated with participation they are totally victimless
crimes. You cannot insult
the dead can you? The body is only a shell, what is wrong with
expressing your love in that
manner? The world is full of hate and war, we must allow our minds to
expand and accept
new concepts. When my father passed away {god rest his soul} I had a
fantasy of fondling
his scrotum. I was able to make this fantasy a reality and it was
good. There's nothing wrong
with expressing your love in such a manner just as there's nothing
wrong with expressing your love with a non human entity.
> Is it actually against the law to love the dead?
NO. As of May 2006, there is no federal legislation specifically
barring sex with a corpse
So if we abolish the silly taboos associated with expressing this type
of love it can be
a fulfilling experience for all of us! I would recommend that each and
everyone of you try it at least once.
Here's the research.
In 1958, Klaf and Brown[5] commented that, although rarely described,
necrophilic fantasies may occur more often than is generally supposed.
Rosman and Resnick[8] (1989) theorized that either of the following
situations could be antecedents to necrophilia (pp. 161):
1. The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to
a significant loss;
(a) He/she is very fearful of rejection by women/men and he/
she desires a sexual partner who is incapable of rejecting him/her;
and/or
(b) He/she is fearful of the dead, and transforms his/her
fear — by means of reaction formation — into a desire.
2. He/she develops an exciting fantasy of sex with a corpse,
sometimes after exposure to a corpse.
The authors also reported that, of their sample of 'necrophiliacs,':
* 68 percent were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and
unrejecting partner;
* 21 percent by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
* 15 percent by sexual attraction to dead people;
* 15 percent by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of
isolation; and
* 11 percent by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing
power over a corpse (pp. 159).
Minor modern researches conducted in England have shown that some
necrophiles tend to choose a dead mate after failing to create
romantic attachments with the living
(-:arl
my post)
David
I [am] responding to your post. I know you are an enlightened
individual and that you know
in your heart of hearts that incest, necrophilia and beastiality are
harmless and nobodies
business besides the actual participants. As with most activities
involving children, adult
supervision is necessary in all incestuous copulations involving
minors. This is the safeguard
which prevents unwanted or non-consensual activities to occur.
Necrophilia is, as you know, another harmless aspect of human
sexuality vilified by the
ignorant savage clerics thousands of years ago. The modern wiccans
embrace this practice on a regular basis as we all should. Love is
beautiful in all its forms and the experimentation
I engaged in with my deceased father was very fulfilling to me.
Beastiality, perhaps the most harmless aspect of human sexuality is a
good way to express your love to a non human entity. The haters will
howl like banshees but the open minded will
embrace it with open arms because it's the right thing to do. All
forms of love are good. You
must not put boundaries on love and expression.
Tim Merrigan
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>You just let me know how many moar spankings you need child. Go ahead
>and reply again...you know what yer gonna get...you know you want it
>too. You *WANT* to have yer lil ass blistered, don't you? Hit the
>reply button, Dipshit, show us all how much you want it. LOL
>
> --
>
>Onideus Mad Hatter
>mhm � x �
>http://www.backwater-productions.net
>http://www.uncensored-inter.net
I don't know which group you're posting from, though I don't recognize
your nym from Callahan's, so I've trimmed it from the cross post.
Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls, and two, if you do,
please don't cross post it.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:25:06 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
> <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>> You just let me know how many moar spankings you need child. Go ahead
>> and reply again...you know what yer gonna get...you know you want it
>> too. You *WANT* to have yer lil ass blistered, don't you? Hit the
>> reply button, Dipshit, show us all how much you want it. LOL
>>
>> --
>>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter
>> mhm ¹ x ¹
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net
>> http://www.uncensored-inter.net
>
> I don't know which group you're posting from, though I don't recognize
> your nym from Callahan's, so I've trimmed it from the cross post.
>
> Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls, and two, if you do,
> please don't cross post it.
And three, go fuck yourself, this is usenet, and we'll post where we
bloody well please.
Rusty Trombone
> Tim Merrigan wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:25:06 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
> > <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You just let me know how many moar spankings you need child. Go ahead
> >> and reply again...you know what yer gonna get...you know you want it
> >> too. You *WANT* to have yer lil ass blistered, don't you? Hit the
> >> reply button, Dipshit, show us all how much you want it. LOL
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Onideus Mad Hatter
> >> mhm ¹ x ¹
> >> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> >> http://www.uncensored-inter.net
> >
> > I don't know which group you're posting from, though I don't recognize
> > your nym from Callahan's, so I've trimmed it from the cross post.
> >
> > Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls, and two, if you do,
> > please don't cross post it.
one more thing. who made you the warden?
> And three, go fuck yourself, this is usenet, and we'll post where we
> bloody well please.
i reckon so.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>I don't know which group you're posting from,
There's likely a lot of things you don't know.
>though I don't recognize
>your nym from Callahan's, so I've trimmed it from the cross post.
Don't worry, I've fixed that.
>Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls,
Trollies, huh? Wow, boy that sure sounds like some *SRS* Internets
business. *nods*
>and two, if you do, please don't cross post it.
If I don't, will you promise to get all pissy and indignant about
it...maybe throw a lil tantrum? LOL I think I'd liak that. `, )
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.uncensored-inter.net
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Never do to anyone online what you wouldn't want done to yourself."
"Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"Never use your own limitations as the basis of measuring a technology's worth."
Straw Man
wrote:
>In article
><00289696-0ffc-45f5...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>Rusty Trombone <rustytr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > > Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls, and two, if you do,
>> > > please don't cross post it.
>>
>> one more thing. who made you the warden?
>>
>> > And three, go fuck yourself, this is usenet, and we'll post where we
>> > bloody well please.
>>
>> i reckon so.
>
>
>The posting requests/suggestions made were polite, sensible and in
>accordance with usenet conventions. Even more, they were designed to
>defeat morons and, for that reason alone, 99% of posters honor the
>stated protocols already.
>
>Sure, cunts, bozos, putrescent slime-buckets and necrotic, pus-filled
>assholes can jump up and down and demand the "right" to post where and
>what they like. But, at the end of the day, all they do is debase the
>newsgroup system, alienate civilized, intelligent folks who do
>recognize and honor a reason for "netiquette", and reduce themselves to
>the butt of ridicule or, worse, being totally ignored.
>
>No poster wants to be ignored and kill-filed so it makes no sense for
>intemperate pricks to post the sort of shit they sometimes do. No one
>will see it.
>
>And, I think, most people who generally fit that profile are still
>likely to be nice, kind folk face-to-face, which seems strange. So it
>really makes no sense to indulge in the usenet equivalent of road-rage.
>
>Please think again before taking the attitude you did. You'll feel
>better for it.
Oooh look!
A filthy PDP pedofuck on it's hind legs making a speech about
"etiquette"!
How kind of it to take time off from assaulting children and
downloading and uploading it's child porn to grace us with it's
presence.
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> In article
> <00289696-0ffc-45f5...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Rusty Trombone <rustytr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> please don't cross post it.
>> one more thing. who made you the warden?
>>
>>> And three, go fuck yourself, this is usenet, and we'll post where we
>>> bloody well please.
>> i reckon so.
>
>
> accordance with usenet conventions. Even more, they were designed to
> defeat morons and, for that reason alone, 99% of posters honor the
> stated protocols already.
>
> Sure, cunts, bozos, putrescent slime-buckets and necrotic, pus-filled
> assholes can jump up and down and demand the "right" to post where and
> what they like. But, at the end of the day, all they do is debase the
> newsgroup system, alienate civilized, intelligent folks who do
> recognize and honor a reason for "netiquette", and reduce themselves to
> the butt of ridicule or, worse, being totally ignored.
>
> No poster wants to be ignored and kill-filed so it makes no sense for
> intemperate pricks to post the sort of shit they sometimes do. No one
> will see it.
>
> And, I think, most people who generally fit that profile are still
> likely to be nice, kind folk face-to-face, which seems strange. So it
> really makes no sense to indulge in the usenet equivalent of road-rage.
>
> Please think again before taking the attitude you did. You'll feel
> better for it.
Nah, you've got it all wrong there miss manners. If you want civilized
discourse get yourself a blog and then, when somebody posts something
you don't like, you can ban them. This is usenet, the last bastion of
free speech on the internet, and I'll be damned if some little pissant
like yourself is going to make rules for me. Go fuck yourself and learn
to use your killfiles. Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Problem is the Gnosi's I am looking at don't leave you alone, they steal
identities, post you to Spam Bots, and are responsible for about 80 percent
of "ALL" Virus Attacks on the Net!
�
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> though.
>
> :)
That's a problem of a different sort
>
>> This is usenet, the last bastion of
>> free speech on the internet, and I'll be damned if some little pissant
>> like yourself is going to make rules for me.
>
> For this degenerate Usenet is a vehicle to encourage parents to have
> sex with their small children.
That's his prerogative. He isn't going to win many friends doing that,
but what makes free speech free is that not everybody agrees with you
and you can still do it.
>
>
>> Go fuck yourself and learn
>> to use your killfiles.
>
> I am afraid he prefers to fuck children.
Do you have any proof of that? Because if you do you certainly need to
alert his local LE.
>
>
>> Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
>> your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
>
> As he should be, preferably in solitary confinement for life.
Perhaps if he gets convicted of a serious crime, but not simply because
he disagrees with you.
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:08:45 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> however.
>
No, it's not. But that's not what you said previously. And whether or
not it is in fact child pornography is really up to the courts and not
individuals. That's why we have a court system and we don't just
arbitrarily stone people for behaviors we don't like.
>>>
>>>> Go fuck yourself and learn
>>>> to use your killfiles.
>>> I am afraid he prefers to fuck children.
>> Do you have any proof of that? Because if you do you certainly need to
>> alert his local LE.
>
> He has sang the praises of child pornography on too many occasions in
> pedophile and other monitored groups ,that have trafficked in it ,not
> to be on the radar, despite lame attempts to suggest he only used it
> when it was supposedly legal.
Again, that is free speech. If he is actually collecting and
disseminating child porn that is a matter for LE and the courts.
>
> http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/support/girl-lovers/4a34ee5c0273bb4e3ad8newscenecom.html
>
> "High Priest" <...@snotmail.com...
>
> Accepted. I try to be accurate, I've been studying the subject since
> 1995,reading articles and the various laws. I saw what was on sale
> when cp was legal and it was a drop in the bucket.
I honestly don't see in that where he is extolling the virtues of child
porn. Not to say that maybe a different quote may reveal it, but there
is nothing there to even remotely suggest he is collecting and
disseminating child porn.
>
>
>>>> Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
>>>> your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
>>> As he should be, preferably in solitary confinement for life.
>> Perhaps if he gets convicted of a serious crime, but not simply because
>> he disagrees with you.
>
>
> This is the crux of the matter.
>
> It is no longer acceptable to wait until a known threat to children
> has raped a child before intervening-hence the concept of PDP.
So why don't we just lock everybody up without their day in court.
Sounds constitutionally sound to me.
>
>
> As much as child molesters like to babble about "thought crime" as a
> distraction,being a PDP isn't a question of disagreeing with anyone.
Many people babble about thought crime, that does not make them a child
molester. In fact, making the leap from somebody being in favor of child
porn to them being a child molester is probably quite spurious.
>
>
> Self-admitted users of child pornography,such as High Priest pose a
> threat to the welfare of any child they come into contact with,
> whether they have been caught at it and incarcerated yet or not.
Define "users of child pornography" If they have been incarcerated for
"using child pornography" how can they be a threat to children?
>
> Research shows that of those involved in child pornography who /have /
> been convicted,85% or more confessed to hands on sexual assaults of
> numerous children.
Cite please. It does not sound reasonable that someone convicted of
possessing child porn would then go on to confess to a far more serious
crime. To suggest that 85% of those so convicted does not make any sense
at all. It's like saying 85% of those who were convicted of simple
assault also went on to confess to murder.
>
>
> 3.2. The ACPO guidance provided the following definition for a
> Potentially Dangerous Person (PDP):
>
> A person has not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence
> placing them into one of the three MAPPA Categories but whose
> behavior gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
> present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will
> cause serious harm.
Lets lock everybody up then. You could then lock up somebody who gets
drunk all the time under the presumption that at some point he may
drive. Better yet, you could do it without those pesky courts. Kind of
like Guantanamo Bay, only for law abiding citizens who don't conform to
certain standards of behavior defined arbitrarily by some body of do
gooders.
>
> 3.3. Serious harm is defined in the Home Office (2002) Offender
> Assessment (OASys) User Manual as ‘…a risk which is life-threatening
> and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or
> psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.’
>
>
We can all cause serious harm if we felt so inclined.
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:47:17 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> went to prison for 25 years to life.
>
> Google "Yardbird" if you are interested,
>
> One got that sentence for simply posting the word "thanks" on a
> newsgroup.
>
Provide a link for this there are 340,000 results for yardbird i'm not
going to sift through them. If this is in fact true, that person's
rights have been severely violated.
>>
>>>>>> Go fuck yourself and learn
>>>>>> to use your killfiles.
>>>>> I am afraid he prefers to fuck children.
>>>> Do you have any proof of that? Because if you do you certainly need to
>>>> alert his local LE.
>>> He has sang the praises of child pornography on too many occasions in
>>> pedophile and other monitored groups ,that have trafficked in it ,not
>>> to be on the radar, despite lame attempts to suggest he only used it
>>> when it was supposedly legal.
>> Again, that is free speech. If he is actually collecting and
>> disseminating child porn that is a matter for LE and the courts.
>
>
>
>>> http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/support/girl-lovers/4a34ee5c0273bb4e3ad8newscenecom.html
>>>
>>> "High Priest" <...@snotmail.com...
>>>
>>> Accepted. I try to be accurate, I've been studying the subject since
>>> 1995,reading articles and the various laws. I saw what was on sale
>>> when cp was legal and it was a drop in the bucket.
>> I honestly don't see in that where he is extolling the virtues of child
>> porn. Not to say that maybe a different quote may reveal it, but there
>> is nothing there to even remotely suggest he is collecting and
>> disseminating child porn.
>
> His years of posting to child porn and pedophile groups
> and defending the practice might give most people a clue.
>
You can't just make stuff up and expect people to believe you just
because you said so. There is no proof in what you posted which even
remotely connects that person with CP. Nothing at all.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>> Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
>>>>>> your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
>>>>> As he should be, preferably in solitary confinement for life.
>>>> Perhaps if he gets convicted of a serious crime, but not simply because
>>>> he disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> This is the crux of the matter.
>>>
>>> It is no longer acceptable to wait until a known threat to children
>>> has raped a child before intervening-hence the concept of PDP.
>> So why don't we just lock everybody up without their day in court.
>> Sounds constitutionally sound to me.
>
>
> PDPs are not necessarily locked up but they are closely monitored.
So we will eventually need a policeman for every person and another
policeman for every policeman and so on so every member of society can
be monitored in case they may pose a danger to someone. That's an absurd
proposition even in countries where the government has tight control
over it's populace.
>
>>> As much as child molesters like to babble about "thought crime" as a
>>> distraction,being a PDP isn't a question of disagreeing with anyone.
>> Many people babble about thought crime, that does not make them a child
>> molester.
>
> Of course not.
>
> But pedophiles routinely make the leap, as you put it , from being
> monitored because of their behavior to being punished for their
> thoughts.
Which is a ridiculous way to dispense justice.
>
>> In fact, making the leap from somebody being in favor of child
>> porn to them being a child molester is probably quite spurious.
>
> Research and forensic experience suggest otherwise.
Again, try posting at least some kind of evidence that this is true.
>
>
>>> Self-admitted users of child pornography,such as High Priest pose a
>>> threat to the welfare of any child they come into contact with,
>>> whether they have been caught at it and incarcerated yet or not.
>> Define "users of child pornography"
>
> Those in possession of visual records of child rape in this instance.
>
>> If they have been incarcerated for
>> "using child pornography" how can they be a threat to children?
>
> The ones incarcerated are not until they are foolishly released.
>
>
>
>>> Research shows that of those involved in child pornography who /have /
>>> been convicted,85% or more confessed to hands on sexual assaults of
>>> numerous children.
>> Cite please.
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/c313832g17rt2850/?p=452f458b0c2c45729401a99f4f832c80&pi=0
>
That was merely an abstract where it did not mention 85% of anything. If
you have to make a point by exaggerating the evidence you don't have a
point at all and you are in fact trying to hide a flaw in your argument.
Either present the evidence in it's entirety or drop the point.
>> It does not sound reasonable that someone convicted of
>> possessing child porn would then go on to confess to a far more serious
>> crime.
>
> Nevertheless they did.
You have not shown any evidence that they did. I am aware and I could
probably site sources (but you have to work to prove your point I won't
do it for you) that child molesters are often found to possess child
porn, but from that it does not follow that persons who possess child
porn are child molesters.
>
>
>
>> To suggest that 85% of those so convicted does not make any sense
>> at all.
>
> It makes perfect sense when you realize they do not simply passively
> view videos of others raping children but often video their own sex
> crimes against children.
You are now making stuff up. That does not show that 85% of those who
have viewed child porn are child molesters. There is absolutely no
evidence (that you have presented) to suggest it.
>
>> It's like saying 85% of those who were convicted of simple
>> assault also went on to confess to murder.
>
> No it's not.
Yes it is and until you provide evidence of your assertion we can
consider that a dead point.
>
> The ‘Butner Study’ Redux: A Report of the Incidence
> of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography
> Offenders
>
> Michael L. Bourke & Andres E. Hernandez
>
> Abstract
>
> This study compared two groups of child
> pornography offenders participating in a voluntary treatment
> program: men whose known sexual offense history at
> the time of judicial sentencing involved the possession,
> receipt, or distribution of child abuse images, but did not
> include any “hands-on” sexual abuse; and men convicted of
> similar offenses who had documented histories of hands-on
> sexual offending against at least one child victim.
>
> The goal was to determine whether the former group of offenders
> were “merely” collectors of child pornography at little risk
> for engaging in hands-on sexual offenses, or if they were
> contact sex offenders whose criminal sexual behavior
> involving children, with the exception of Internet crimes,
> went undetected.
>
> Our findings show that the Internet offenders in our sample were
> significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child via
> a hands-on act.
>
> They also indicate that the offenders who abused children
> were likely to have offended against multiple victims, and
> that the incidence of “crossover” by gender and age is high.
How high is high? I don't see 85% mentioned anywhere, I don't see their
methodology presented in detail or their statistical treatment of the
data. It's only an abstract. How many subjects did hey have in each
group? Who funded the study? (ie. was it the maker of monitoring
bracelets?, a private prison? government?)
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:31:29 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
No, when you assert something stupid and expect me to believe it, you
really should provide a link.Otherwise it makes you look like you are
making it up.
>
> The group has now been dropped from Google
> but here's some background to the case.
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march08/innocentimages_030608.html
>
> Special Agent Arnold Bell, who heads the FBI's Innocent Images
> National Initiative
>
> “Mala is to die for in those pigtails,” read one message.
>
> “I have a few 5yo [year old] Taras that you do not have,” read
> another.
>
> “Just dropping in for a hot minute … to help out the dry spell, and to
> give everyone something to do for an afternoon,” said still one more.
>
> They’re hard comments to read—when you know that they were posted in a
> massive secret child pornography newsgroup on the web.
Sigh. Unless the images are posted/traded etc. there, no crime has
occurred for which there is evidence. Obviously the FBI et. al. has
collected evidence, but no convictions apparently.
>
> That sordid network was exposed this week, thanks to a global law
> enforcement operation spanning five countries, three continents, and
> 11 U.S. states. As part of the continuing investigation, a total of 22
> men have been arrested, including 14 in America, four in Germany, and
> two each in Australia and the U.K.
>
> Even more satisfying: over the course of the international operation,
> about 20 victims have been rescued. Investigative efforts to identify
> and rescue more victims are continuing.
>
>
>
>
>> If this is in fact true, that person's
>> rights have been severely violated.
>
> Not at all. The words were explicit acknowledgement of receipt of
> child pornography.The only things violated were the children raped and
> tortured for their sick pleasures.
>
> According to their plea agreements, members of the illegal
> organization used Internet newsgroups - large file-sharing networks
> where text, software, pictures and videos can be traded
> and shared - to traffic in illegal images and videos depicting
> prepubescent children, including toddlers, engaged in various sexual
> and sadistic acts.
>
>
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2181361.htm
There is nothing in that link about plea agreements or convictions. Why
did you post it?
> obviously you
Obviously I what?
>
> Only his own posts, and his admission that he has possessed it and
> he has been "studying" it since 1995 and his overt support for
> pedophile activists I guess.
You only read that into the statement. He said nothing about pedophile
activities.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
>>>>>>>> your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
>>>>>>> As he should be, preferably in solitary confinement for life.
>>>>>> Perhaps if he gets convicted of a serious crime, but not simply because
>>>>>> he disagrees with you.
>>>>> This is the crux of the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is no longer acceptable to wait until a known threat to children
>>>>> has raped a child before intervening-hence the concept of PDP.
>>>> So why don't we just lock everybody up without their day in court.
>>>> Sounds constitutionally sound to me.
>>>
>>> PDPs are not necessarily locked up but they are closely monitored.
>> So we will eventually need a policeman for every person and another
>> policeman for every policeman and so on so every member of society can
>> be monitored in case they may pose a danger to someone.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Modern GPS and computerized tracking devices are quite sufficient .
> Serious consideration is being given to implants.
More human rights abuse.
>
> And they are monitored by doctors, probation officers,and of course
> their neighbors since community notification.
This I agree with while they are on probation. And it should be STRICTLY
enforced. Miss an appointment, or violate probabtion in any way, it's
back to prison.
>
>
>
>> That's an absurd
>> proposition even in countries where the government has tight control
>> over it's populace.
>
> It's not a proposition. it has been in effect in the UK for years now.
Remind me never to move there. It sounds like a shitty country that
revels in human rights abuse as a way to blame the failures of their
parole system on everyone but those administering it.
>
> I believe several billion dollars has been earmarked as part of the
> Stimulus Package to develop new ways to continually monitor track and
> control them.
It's no secret that the government continuously looks for ways to
circumvent the constitution, and as a taxpayer I am appalled. If the
government was seriously concerned about the welfare of children they
would make sure every child in the country gets a hot meal, a good
education and health care, not use tax money to infringe on the rights
of individuals in order to curb the behavior of a tiny minority of persons.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>> As much as child molesters like to babble about "thought crime" as a
>>>>> distraction,being a PDP isn't a question of disagreeing with anyone.
>>>> Many people babble about thought crime, that does not make them a child
>>>> molester.
>>> Of course not.
>>>
>>> But pedophiles routinely make the leap, as you put it , from being
>>> monitored because of their behavior to being punished for their
>>> thoughts.
>> Which is a ridiculous way to dispense justice.
>
>
> You think a pedophile whose doctor or parole officer deems to be on
> the verge of raping or abducting a child should just roam free?
No. But thoughts should not be illegal. Actions yes, thoughts no.
>
>>>> In fact, making the leap from somebody being in favor of child
>>>> porn to them being a child molester is probably quite spurious.
>>> Research and forensic experience suggest otherwise.
>> Again, try posting at least some kind of evidence that this is true.
>
> see below
>
Still no article.
>>>
>>>>> Self-admitted users of child pornography,such as High Priest pose a
>>>>> threat to the welfare of any child they come into contact with,
>>>>> whether they have been caught at it and incarcerated yet or not.
>>>> Define "users of child pornography"
>>> Those in possession of visual records of child rape in this instance.
>>>
>>>> If they have been incarcerated for
>>>> "using child pornography" how can they be a threat to children?
>>> The ones incarcerated are not until they are foolishly released.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Research shows that of those involved in child pornography who /have /
>>>>> been convicted,85% or more confessed to hands on sexual assaults of
>>>>> numerous children.
>>>> Cite please.
>>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/c313832g17rt2850/?p=452f458b0c2c45729401a99f4f832c80&pi=0
>>>
>> That was merely an abstract where it did not mention 85% of anything. If
>> you have to make a point by exaggerating the evidence you don't have a
>> point at all and you are in fact trying to hide a flaw in your argument.
>> Either present the evidence in it's entirety or drop the point.
>
> You can either take it on trust ,google the authors for another source
> or pay the fee.
No, I won't take anything on trust from someone with an agenda.
>
> You asked for the cite, or rather rudely demanded it ,and you have
> been given it.
No, I was given a few sentences of an abstract which provided no
evidence to back up what you said.
>
>
>>>> It does not sound reasonable that someone convicted of
>>>> possessing child porn would then go on to confess to a far more serious
>>>> crime.
>>> Nevertheless they did.
>> You have not shown any evidence that they did. I am aware and I could
>> probably site sources (but you have to work to prove your point I won't
>> do it for you) that child molesters are often found to possess child
>> porn, but from that it does not follow that persons who possess child
>> porn are child molesters.
>
> Something about,
>
> "Our findings show that the Internet offenders in our sample were
> significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child
> via a hands-on act.
>
> They also indicate that the offenders who abused children
> were likely to have offended against multiple victims"
>
> That you don't understand?
It was not in what you posted, or at least the actual evidence for their
assertions was not available. If you are that dumb, that you would not
examine the basis of those statements and then go ahead and support the
kooky thought police causes you are supporting you should be locked up.
>
>>>
>>>> To suggest that 85% of those so convicted does not make any sense
>>>> at all.
>>> It makes perfect sense when you realize they do not simply passively
>>> view videos of others raping children but often video their own sex
>>> crimes against children.
>> You are now making stuff up. That does not show that 85% of those who
>> have viewed child porn are child molesters. There is absolutely no
>> evidence (that you have presented) to suggest it.
>>>> It's like saying 85% of those who were convicted of simple
>>>> assault also went on to confess to murder.
>>> No it's not.
>> Yes it is and until you provide evidence of your assertion we can
>> consider that a dead point.
>
> No it's not-
>
> You've been given the cite. For whatever reason you don't want to
> believe it.
Because I have not had a chance to examine the evidence they present.
>
> http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
>
> The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal
> sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent
> admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26
> percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at
> sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims:
> 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the
> men were sentenced.
> Dr. Hernandez
>
>
LOL. OK so some say the study is "flawed" or can be misinterpreted, yet
you are presenting it as fact. In fact, the very point you are trying to
use it to prove is in fact the major flaw and center of controversy in
the paper.
>
>
> http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
>
> Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download
> explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government
> study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be
> startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed
> acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to
> rape.
Even the bureau of prisons found the paper to be flawed.
> The Government.
>
> Perhaps you are going to put your hand in your pocket then and pay to
> download it.
>
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071615.html
No, I would rather see you try to explain it without revealing it's
basis. You have of course heard the expression "don't put all your eggs
in one basket", I would suggest you find a few more baskets.
>
>
> The Butner study, as it turns out, found that criminal sex offenders
> tend to hide the extent of their crimes," she observed. "Although 40
> of 155 men (26 percent) arrested 'just' for child pornography admitted
> to being child molesters, later 132 of these men (85 percent)
> confessed to sexually abusing children. In fact the 132 molesters
> admitted to 1,777 young victims."
>
> A 2004 Canadian study of 724 sex offenders validated the US Butner
> report. In "Jail Programs had Little Effect on Whether Freed Inmates
> Re-offended," roughly 22 percent of 724 treated and untreated sex
> offenders had been reconvicted of sex crimes within 12 years. Dr.
> Reisman observed that "these data reflect only those predators caught
> for another sex crime within 12 years of release. Even this high rate
> of recidivism wildly understates re-offenses, since child molesters
> are commonly undetected despite assaulting scores of children for
> years."
We aren't talking about recidivism which I know to be high for *child
molesters*, we are talking viewing child porn and it following that
viewers of such material are also by necessity, child molesters, which
is simply not true despite the 1 flawed study you cite.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 3.2. The ACPO guidance provided the following definition for a
>>>>> Potentially Dangerous Person (PDP):
>>>>>
>>>>> A person has not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence
>>>>> placing them into one of the three MAPPA Categories but whose
>>>>> behavior gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
>>>>> present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will
>>>>> cause serious harm.
>>>> Lets lock everybody up then. You could then lock up somebody who gets
>>>> drunk all the time under the presumption that at some point he may
>>>> drive. Better yet, you could do it without those pesky courts. Kind of
>>>> like Guantanamo Bay, only for law abiding citizens who don't conform to
>>>> certain standards of behavior defined arbitrarily by some body of do
>>>> gooders.
>>>>> 3.3. Serious harm is defined in the Home Office (2002) Offender
>>>>> Assessment (OASys) User Manual as ‘…a risk which is life-threatening
>>>>> and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or
>>>>> psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.’
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> We can all cause serious harm if we felt so inclined.
>
> We are talking of predators who experts have judge to indeed feel so
> inclined .
>
> That's the whole point, to stop them BEFORE they abduct,rape or murder
> a child.
If it means giving up my right of free speech, I would prefer to catch
them afterwards.
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:58:07 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>
> Preventing perfectly foreseeable and predictable raped and murdered
> children trumps your abstract right to "free speech"
No, frankly it doesn't. Parents are responsible for their own children.
If they allow them to become prey to predators it's their fault not
mine. It's not my responsibility to protect your children. That's yor
job. I'll help you out if you want, god knows I pay enough taxes which
go towards raising other peoples kids. That is where my responsibility ends.
>
> I haven't the patience to even begin to comprehend your private agenda
> that causes you to distort and twist everything you read.
No, it is you who are providing incomplete information.
>
> Even worse is your seemingly endless ability to demand cites then
> pretend they have not been given.
You have not provided a single complete credible cite. Those you have
provided have not supported anything you have said.
>
> For example your ludicrous statement that there were no convictions
> when you have been presented with full details of them.
No I was not presented with ANY evidence of convictions. Please show me
anywhere in that page you supplied where the word "conviction" is even
mentioned.
>
> The only end product is to make yourself appear totally foolish to
> people aware of the facts.
Which facts? no credible facts have been presented. Not one single fact,
no evidence has been made available other than your assertion that they
have.
>
> You are entitled to your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to your
> own facts.
I agree, and neither are you. You can't just make stuff up and you can't
just say "the facts exist somewhere but I am not going to present them"
>
> Before blundering into to pedophile groups you might care to do a
> minimum of research instead of immediately aligning yourself with
> them.
I'm not aligning myself with them you dumb stupid fuck. I hate
pedophiles, I hate them becase what they do causes people like you to
demand that MY rights be abridged because you can't protect your own god
damned children. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids, but
realize that as a society we need to protect our future generations from
god knows what. I pay enough in taxes to support a damned third world
country and my payback is assholes like you who think your kids are more
important than my rights. Fuck you.
>
> Ciao
>
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:08:45 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
> >Ultima Thule wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:25:08 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> >> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> High Priest wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <00289696-0ffc-45f5...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Rusty Trombone <rustytr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Two things, one, please don't feed the trolls, and two, if you do,
> >>>>>>> please don't cross post it.
> >>>>> one more thing. who made you the warden?
Black Water, and the Hessien Airforce!!!!!!!
True Gnosi's!
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
> Ultima Thule wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:08:45 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> > <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Ultima Thule wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:25:08 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
> >>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> High Priest wrote:
>
> >>> :)
> >> That's a problem of a different sort
> >>>> This is usenet, the last bastion of
> >>>> free speech on the internet, and I'll be damned if some little pissant
> >>>> like yourself is going to make rules for me.
> >>> For this degenerate Usenet is a vehicle to encourage parents to have
> >>> sex with their small children.
> >> That's his prerogative. He isn't going to win many friends doing that,
> >> but what makes free speech free is that not everybody agrees with you
> >> and you can still do it.
> >
> > Requesting and uploading of child pornography is not free speech
> > however.
> >
>
> No, it's not. But that's not what you said previously. And whether or
> not it is in fact child pornography is really up to the courts and not
> individuals. That's why we have a court system and we don't just
> arbitrarily stone people for behaviors we don't like.
Black Water Gnosi's do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:47:17 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
<turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
I guess you are unfamiliar with the recent crop of Usenet posters who
went to prison for 25 years to life.
Google "Yardbird" if you are interested,
One got that sentence for simply posting the word "thanks" on a
newsgroup.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> Go fuck yourself and learn
>>>>> to use your killfiles.
>>>> I am afraid he prefers to fuck children.
>>> Do you have any proof of that? Because if you do you certainly need to
>>> alert his local LE.
>>
>> He has sang the praises of child pornography on too many occasions in
>> pedophile and other monitored groups ,that have trafficked in it ,not
>> to be on the radar, despite lame attempts to suggest he only used it
>> when it was supposedly legal.
>
>Again, that is free speech. If he is actually collecting and
>disseminating child porn that is a matter for LE and the courts.
>>
>> http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/support/girl-lovers/4a34ee5c0273bb4e3ad8newscenecom.html
>>
>> "High Priest" <...@snotmail.com...
>>
>> Accepted. I try to be accurate, I've been studying the subject since
>> 1995,reading articles and the various laws. I saw what was on sale
>> when cp was legal and it was a drop in the bucket.
>
>I honestly don't see in that where he is extolling the virtues of child
>porn. Not to say that maybe a different quote may reveal it, but there
>is nothing there to even remotely suggest he is collecting and
>disseminating child porn.
His years of posting to child porn and pedophile groups
and defending the practice might give most people a clue.
YMMV
>>
>>
>>>>> Go ahead kill file me and everybody that hurts
>>>>> your sensibilities. A word of caution though; soon you will be all alone.
>>>> As he should be, preferably in solitary confinement for life.
>>> Perhaps if he gets convicted of a serious crime, but not simply because
>>> he disagrees with you.
>>
>>
>> This is the crux of the matter.
>>
>> It is no longer acceptable to wait until a known threat to children
>> has raped a child before intervening-hence the concept of PDP.
>
>So why don't we just lock everybody up without their day in court.
>Sounds constitutionally sound to me.
PDPs are not necessarily locked up but they are closely monitored.
>> As much as child molesters like to babble about "thought crime" as a
>> distraction,being a PDP isn't a question of disagreeing with anyone.
>
>Many people babble about thought crime, that does not make them a child
>molester.
Of course not.
But pedophiles routinely make the leap, as you put it , from being
monitored because of their behavior to being punished for their
thoughts.
> In fact, making the leap from somebody being in favor of child
>porn to them being a child molester is probably quite spurious.
Research and forensic experience suggest otherwise.
>>
>> Self-admitted users of child pornography,such as High Priest pose a
>> threat to the welfare of any child they come into contact with,
>> whether they have been caught at it and incarcerated yet or not.
>
>Define "users of child pornography"
Those in possession of visual records of child rape in this instance.
>If they have been incarcerated for
>"using child pornography" how can they be a threat to children?
The ones incarcerated are not until they are foolishly released.
>>
>> Research shows that of those involved in child pornography who /have /
>> been convicted,85% or more confessed to hands on sexual assaults of
>> numerous children.
>
>Cite please.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c313832g17rt2850/?p=452f458b0c2c45729401a99f4f832c80&pi=0
> It does not sound reasonable that someone convicted of
>possessing child porn would then go on to confess to a far more serious
>crime.
Nevertheless they did.
>To suggest that 85% of those so convicted does not make any sense
>at all.
It makes perfect sense when you realize they do not simply passively
view videos of others raping children but often video their own sex
crimes against children.
>It's like saying 85% of those who were convicted of simple
>assault also went on to confess to murder.
No it's not.
Abstract
>>
>>
>> 3.2. The ACPO guidance provided the following definition for a
>> Potentially Dangerous Person (PDP):
>>
>> A person has not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any offence
>> placing them into one of the three MAPPA Categories but whose
>> behavior gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
>> present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will
>> cause serious harm.
>
>Lets lock everybody up then. You could then lock up somebody who gets
>drunk all the time under the presumption that at some point he may
>drive. Better yet, you could do it without those pesky courts. Kind of
>like Guantanamo Bay, only for law abiding citizens who don't conform to
>certain standards of behavior defined arbitrarily by some body of do
>gooders.
>>
>> 3.3. Serious harm is defined in the Home Office (2002) Offender
>> Assessment (OASys) User Manual as ��a risk which is life-threatening
>> and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or
>> psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible.�
>>
>>
>We can all cause serious harm if we felt so inclined.
Homeland Security, is Home Base of the "Christian Right, White Slave
Pedophile Ring"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Suffer the Little Children", it's a Christian THANG don'tcha Know!
%
i'm glad you are south of where i live
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
> Ultima Thule wrote:
>
>> �
>> >We can all cause serious harm if we felt so inclined.
>
Ain't dat da Thuth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
> i'm glad you are south of where i live
Most are "South of Me!
I live almost along side Mt. Olympus, a Sea Mt. which does "Control the
Weather", and guess what, I am a Storm Geate!
Makes for some fun times, especially when my ID goes off on a Tantrum.
I want my Check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ��
�
�
Rev Turd Frederıcks
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:07:01 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
I'm not defending pedophiles you ignoramus. Where did I defend
pedophiles or pedophilia. I'm defending myself self against alarmists
like yourself who want to take away my rights of free speech because of
a VAST MINORITY of individuals who collect child pornography and/or
molest children. There are already laws in place to send these people to
prison, we don't need more, and we don't need more and more vague LE
powers to bring them to justice.
>
>> I hate pedophiles, I hate them becase what they do causes people like you to
>> demand that MY rights be abridged because you can't protect your own god
>> damned children. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids, but
>> realize that as a society we need to protect our future generations from
>> god knows what. I pay enough in taxes to support a damned third world
>> country and my payback is assholes like you who think your kids are more
>> important than my rights. Fuck you.
>
> In other words you don't haste pedophiles at all, but like them hate
> child protection agencies
Hardly. If they did their job properly, no child would go hungry, no
child would lack for an education and no child would be without
healthcare. But since they fail at their primary job, they try to focus
our attention on the VAST MINORITY of cases of child sexual abuse.
Here's a link of my own, child poverty in the US:
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm
-$60 billion cut in aid to poor families 1996
-About 15 million children -- one out of every four -- live below the
official poverty line.
-22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are
hungry or at the risk of being hungry.
-Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty; 27 die because of it.
-Children and families are the fastest growing group in the homeless
population, representing 40%.
Yet they waste billions on stupid spying programs to jail 20 individuals
for trading child porn on the internet. How many children can that feed?
The government can save MORE children through adequate anti-poverty
funding without abridging my rights one bit.
>
> Sorry about your luck.
What luck dumbo? Why didn't you post that to begin with?
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crm-039.html
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Wednesday, January 14, 2009
> WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRM
> (202) 514-2007
> TDD (202) 514-1888
>
> Seven Defendants Convicted for Participation in International Child
> Exploitation Enterprise
> WASHINGTON AND PENSACOLA, Fla. – Seven U.S. defendants charged for
> their activity in a global child pornography trafficking enterprise
> were convicted today in the Northern District of Florida following a
> six-day jury trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Lacey A. Collier,
> Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal
> Division, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Florida
> Thomas F. Kirwin and FBI Executive Assistant Director J. Stephen
> Tidwell announced.
>
> The federal jury convicted the defendants of multiple charges,
> including: engaging in a child exploitation enterprise; conspiracy to
> advertise, transport, ship, receive and possess child pornography;
> advertising child pornography, transporting child pornography,
> receiving child pornography and obstruction of justice.
>
> "This was a wide-scale, high volume, international trafficking
> enterprise that used sophisticated computer encryption technology and
> file-sharing techniques," said Acting Assistant Attorney General
> Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal Division. "Those who operate such
> enterprises can expect law enforcement, not only here but abroad, to
> react swiftly and aggressively, as we have done here."
>
> The defendants convicted at trial were: James Freeman of Santa Rosa
> Beach, Fla.; Gary Lakey of Anderson, Ind.; Marvin Lambert of
> Indianapolis; Neville McGarity of Medina, Texas; Warren Mumpower of
> Spokane, Wash.; Daniel Castleman of Lubbock, Texas; and Ronald White
> of Burlington, N.C.
>
> Seven additional U.S. defendants, also indicted in the case,
> previously pleaded guilty to offenses related to the child pornography
> enterprise. Members of the highly-sophisticated international network
> were charged in a 40-count superseding indictment on March 19, 2008.
>
> Evidence presented at trial, including approximately 50 witnesses and
> 500 exhibits, established that the defendants participated in a
> well-organized criminal enterprise whose purpose was to proliferate
> child sex abuse images to its membership during a two-year period.
> According to trial testimony, members of the illegal organization used
> Internet newsgroups - large file-sharing networks where text,
> software, pictures and videos can be traded and shared - to traffic in
> illegal images and videos depicting prepubescent children, including
> toddlers, engaged in various sexual and sadistic acts. Specifically,
> an Australian constable who infiltrated the group in August 2006
> testified about how group members employed a complex system of
> pseudonyms, screening tests for new members and sophisticated
> encryption methods to avoid detection. He also testified that the
> group traded more than 400,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse
> before it was dismantled by law enforcement.
>
> Each defendant convicted at trial faces a minimum prison sentence of
> 20 years and a maximum of life in prison, in addition to statutory
> fines and the possibility of a lifetime period of supervised release
> following completion of any prison sentence. Sentencing is set April
> 14, 2009, for all defendants convicted today.
>
> On the return of the guilty verdicts, Acting U.S. Attorney Kirwin
> said, "This jury verdict signals, once again, the community’s
> reprehension for the culture of abuse and torture that is child
> pornography. I am as proud as I can be of our investigative and trial
> team for the hard work and countless hours they devoted to the
> investigation and successful prosecution of this scourge. This was
> truly a team effort by U.S. and foreign law enforcers and by
> prosecutors from our office and the Criminal Division’s Child
> Exploitation and Obscenity Section. I want to specifically commend the
> dedication and superlative efforts of Assistant U.S. Attorney David L.
> Goldberg, CEOS Trial Attorney LisaMarie Freitas, Appellate Assistant
> U.S. Attorney Robert G. Davies, and Queensland, Australia Constable
> Brenden Power, and the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
>
> This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide
> initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation
> and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by
> U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation
> and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal,
> state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute
> individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to
> identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe
> Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
>
> The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David Goldberg
> of the Northern District of Florida and Trial Attorney LisaMarie
> Freitas of CEOS. The case is being investigated by the Innocent Images
> Unit of the FBI and the Queensland, Australia, Police Service, with
> the assistance of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) Child Pornography Unit
> in Germany and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre in
> the United Kingdom.
>
How much food could we buy with the unnecessary project safe childhood
money ($4 million in funding)? It basically amounts to a domestic spying
program which, as you indicate above resulted in the conviction of 7
individuals. This is a TOTAL WASTE OF TAX MONEY.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2008/psc08-999.htm
(link is to provide evidence of funding for the domestic spying program
project safe child)
I do not disagree with the additional $2.5 million for the public
awareness program which is actually a real attempt at warning children
and parents against dangers to children. I do highly object to domestic
spying operations which abridge my rights as an individual to
communicate with my fellow citizens under the guise of "protecting
children".
>
> As I said I haven't the patience to try to even begin deconstructing
> your miserable ,misanthropic agenda .
>
> If you are not a PDP or a sex predator deemed likely to attack again
> your rights are not being infringed upon. Quite what you hope to gain
> by joining in the child molesters cat's chorus of howls is best known
> to yourself.
What do I have to gain? Like I say, there are already laws in place to
prosecute a) child pornographers and those who disseminate child
pornography in any form and b) there are already laws in place to
prosecute child molesters. We do not need more laws, and we certainly
don't need DA's threatening telecommunications companies to drop usenet
or else. (See Andrew Cuomo
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html) Curbing child porn,
while a worthy cause, is not worth penalizing the majority to punish the
minority.
>
> You have no right whatsoever to down load or upload scenes of rape and
> torture of children or support sex predators right to do so.
OK fuckhead, point out where I said I had the right to download scenes
of child rape and torture of children. Don't play this game or you will
certainly lose. You don't have the intellectual capacity to even
compete, and any further suggestion of the above will result in severe
consequences to you. And I mean it.
As far as my "having the right to support sex predators rights" I
certainly can. I have the right to free speech, and just as I can say I
don't support their right to download etc. etc. I also have the right to
support them. I do not however support anyone either producing or
disseminating child porn. In fact, they have no such right. Collecting,
distributing, and producing child porn, as appropriately defined by the
courts, is illegal.
>
> and that you see it as the parents fault if their child is abducted
> ,raped and murdered is a measure of how badly your humanity seems to
> have shriveled on the vine.
Parents are responsible for protecting and appropriately supervising
their children. Child abduction is ALWAYS the fault of the abductor, but
it is up to parents to keep their children out of situations where they
may be abducted or sexually abused.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20001001killings3.asp
Furthermore, the vast majority (91%)of child sexual assaults/crimes
against children are perpetrated on children by family members and
acquaintances. Hardly a situation which involves the internet. These are
entirely preventable by effective parenting. Statistics below.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_6_4/page5.html
>
> You give a classic example of how love of money is indeed the root of
> all evil.
And you arrived at that conclusion because? Are you saying I am evil? I
don't feel I should be robbed of my money in order to abridge my rights.
>
> If you had bothered to read Mr Tidwell's report you would have seen
> that it was the parents themselves,in many cases,producing and
> uploading videos of these horrific assaults to usenet.
And that is my problem because? Maybe we should require that people get
a license before they are allowed to procreate. In all honesty, that is
not my problem. I already pay my taxes and LE has all the tools they
need to bust people for abusing children. They don't need more powers,
and they don't need to infringe on my or anyone else's right to free
speech to do their job.
>
> Kinda blows your myopic, inhuman and heartless lack of concern out of
> the water.
>
Hardly. What is heartless is that any child goes to bed tonight with an
empty stomach. And those that do can blame the waste of government
resources which go towards $4 million in law enforcement effort to bust
7 people.
>
> The only redeeming feature in your child hating diatribe
> is that at least you are ,of course, a genetic dead end.
It's funny that you call me a child hater, since you would rather
provide lazy officials more powers to abuse our rights than money to
feed hungry children.
The Daring Dufas
Rev, I've been skimming through some of these long posts
which appear that some folks have succumbed to the total
hysteria surrounding protection of children. I've always
been disturbed by this notion that people claim ownership
of all children regardless of kinship or that a government
has the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of every
child within it's borders. A good example of this nonsense
can be illustrated by this story:
I haven't been able to find a reference to it but I remember
seeing a quote attributed to A. Hitler that said something
to the effect that people are willing to endure any loss of
freedom and liberty if it is presented in such a way that it
is necessary to protect "The Children". I have found one very
interesting Hitler quote.
"Give me the children, I will give you a nation." "When an opponent
declares 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'your child
belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants,
however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know
nothing else but this new community." — Adolph Hitler (1939)
Another from the great father of Communism:
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will
never be uprooted.” -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Funny thing about Lenin That I didn't know, he was a lawyer.
Interesting thing about all these folks who get into public
office and decide they're going to take over the country,
most of them are lawyers.
Well, I'm off to find some children to victimize. I love kids,
they're great with barbecue sauce and the toes are the crunchy
part. Yummmmm!
TDD
The Daring Dufas
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:44:35 -0500, The Daring Dufas
> <the-dari...@stinky.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �I have a few 5yo [year old] Taras that you do not have,� read
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> �Just dropping in for a hot minute � to help out the dry spell,
>>>>>>>> and to
>>>>>>>> give everyone something to do for an afternoon,� said still one more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They�re hard comments to read�when you know that they were posted
>>>>>>>> sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent
>>>>>>>> admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26
>>>>>>>> sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims:
>>>>>>>> 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the
>>>>>>>> men were sentenced.
>>>>>>>> Dr. Hernandez
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL. OK so some say the study is "flawed" or can be misinterpreted,
>>>>>>> yet you are presenting it as fact. In fact, the very point you are
>>>>>>> trying to use it to prove is in fact the major flaw and center of
>>>>>>> controversy in the paper.
>>>>>>>> http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download
>>>>>>>> explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government
>>>>>>>> study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be
>>>>>>>> startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed
>>>>>>>> acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to
>>>>>>>> rape.
>>>>>>> Even the bureau of prisons found the paper to be flawed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography
>>>>>>>>>> Offenders
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael L. Bourke & Andres E. Hernandez
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>>>>> This study compared two groups of child
>>>>>>>>>> pornography offenders participating in a voluntary treatment
>>>>>>>>>> program: men whose known sexual offense history at
>>>>>>>>>> the time of judicial sentencing involved the possession,
>>>>>>>>>> receipt, or distribution of child abuse images, but did not
>>>>>>>>>> similar offenses who had documented histories of hands-on
>>>>>>>>>> sexual offending against at least one child victim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The goal was to determine whether the former group of offenders
>>>>>>>>>> for engaging in hands-on sexual offenses, or if they were
>>>>>>>>>> contact sex offenders whose criminal sexual behavior
>>>>>>>>>> involving children, with the exception of Internet crimes,
>>>>>>>>>> went undetected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our findings show that the Internet offenders in our sample were
>>>>>>>>>> significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a
>>>>>>>>>> child via
>>>>>>>>>> a hands-on act.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They also indicate that the offenders who abused children
>>>>>>>>>> were likely to have offended against multiple victims, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or
>>>> reprehension for the culture of abuse and torture that is child
>>>> pornography. I am as proud as I can be of our investigative and trial
>>>> team for the hard work and countless hours they devoted to the
>>>> investigation and successful prosecution of this scourge. This was
>>>> truly a team effort by U.S. and foreign law enforcers and by
>>>> Exploitation and Obscenity Section. I want to specifically commend the
>>>> dedication and superlative efforts of Assistant U.S. Attorney David L.
>>>> Goldberg, CEOS Trial Attorney LisaMarie Freitas, Appellate Assistant
>>>> U.S. Attorney Robert G. Davies, and Queensland, Australia Constable
>>>> Brenden Power, and the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
>>>>
>>>> This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide
>>>> initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation
>>>> and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by
> pornography and deny all chances of rescue to those
> children being raped and tortured on demand.
>
>
>
>> I haven't been able to find a reference to it but I remember
>> seeing a quote attributed to A. Hitler that said something
>> to the effect that people are willing to endure any loss of
>> freedom and liberty if it is presented in such a way that it
>> is necessary to protect "The Children". I have found one very
>> interesting Hitler quote.
>>
>> "Give me the children, I will give you a nation." "When an opponent
>> declares 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'your child
>> belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants,
>> however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know
>>
>> Another from the great father of Communism:
>>
>> never be uprooted.� -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
>
> You forgot the Jesuits
>
>> Funny thing about Lenin That I didn't know, he was a lawyer.
>> Interesting thing about all these folks who get into public
>> office and decide they're going to take over the country,
>> most of them are lawyers.
>>
>> Well, I'm off to find some children to victimize. I love kids,
>> they're great with barbecue sauce and the toes are the crunchy
>> part. Yummmmm!
>>
>> TDD
>
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm
>
> Innocent Images National Initiative
>
> Online Child Pornography/Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations
>
> The Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI), a component of FBI's
> Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive,
> multi-agency investigative operation to combat the proliferation of
> child pornography/child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) facilitated by an
> online computer. The IINI provides centralized coordination and
> analysis of case information that by its very nature is national and
> international in scope, requiring unprecedented coordination with
> state, local, and international governments and among FBI field
> offices and Legal Attach�s.
>
> Today, computer telecommunications have become one of the most
> prevalent techniques used by pedophiles to share illegal photographic
> images of minors and to lure children into illicit sexual
> relationships. The Internet has dramatically increased the access of
> the preferential sex offenders to the population they seek to
> victimize and provides them greater access to a community of people
> who validate their sexual preferences.
>
> The mission of the IINI is to reduce the vulnerability of children to
> acts of sexual exploitation and abuse which are facilitated through
> the use of computers; to identify and rescue child victims; to
> investigate and prosecute sexual predators who use the Internet and
> other online services to sexually exploit children for personal or
> financial gain; and to strengthen the capabilities of federal, state,
> local, and international law enforcement through training programs and
> investigative assistance.
>
> The History of the Innocent Images National Initiative
>
> While investigating the disappearance of a juvenile in May 1993, FBI
> special agents and Prince George�s County, Maryland, police detectives
> identified two suspects who had sexually exploited numerous juveniles
> over a 25-year period. Investigation into these activities determined
> that adults were routinely utilizing computers to transmit sexually
> explicit images to minors and in some instances to lure minors into
> engaging in illicit sexual activity.
>
> Further investigation and discussions with experts, both within the
> FBI and in the private sector, revealed that the utilization of
> computer telecommunications was rapidly becoming one of the most
> prevalent techniques by which some sex offenders shared pornographic
> images of minors and identified and recruited children into sexually
> illicit relationships. In 1995, based on information developed during
> this investigation, the Innocent Images National Initiative was
> started to address the illicit activities conducted by users of
> commercial and private online services and the Internet.
>
> The IINI is managed by the Innocent Images Unit within the FBI�s Cyber
> Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC. Innocent Images field
> supervisors and investigative personnel work closely with the Innocent
> Images Unit regarding all IINI investigative, administrative, policy,
> and training matters. The IINI provides a coordinated FBI response to
> this nationwide crime problem by collating and analyzing information
> obtained from all available sources.
>
> Today the FBI�s Innocent Images National Initiative focuses on:
>
> Online organizations, enterprises, and communities that exploit
> children for profit or personal gain.
>
> Major distributors of child pornography, such as those who appear to
> have transmitted a large volume of child pornography via an online
> computer on several occasions to several other people.
>
> Producers of child pornography.
> Individuals who travel, or indicate a willingness to travel, for the
> purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a minor.
>
> Possessors of child pornography.
>
> The FBI and the Department of Justice review all files and select the
> most egregious subjects for prosecution. In addition, the IINI works
> to identify child victims and obtain appropriate services/assistance
> for them and to establish a law enforcement presence on the Internet
> that will act as a deterrent to those who seek to sexually exploit
> children.
>
> The Growth of the Innocent Images National Initiative
>
> Over the last several years, the FBI, local and state law enforcement,
> and the public have developed an increased awareness of the CP/CSE
> crime problem, and more incidents of online CP/CSE are being
> identified for investigation than ever before. In fact, more personnel
> resources are currently expended towards violations worked under the
> IINI than any other program within the FBI's Cyber Division. Between
> fiscal years 1996 and 2007, there was a 2062 percent increase in the
> number of IINI cases opened (113 to 2443) throughout the FBI. It is
> anticipated that the number of cases opened and the resources utilized
> to address the crime problem will continue to rise.
>
> The increase in Innocent Images investigations demonstrated the need
> for a mechanism to track subject transactions and to correlate the
> seemingly unrelated activities of thousands of subjects in a
> cyberspace environment. As a result, the Innocent Images case
> management system was developed and has proven to be an effective
> system to archive and retrieve the information necessary to identify
> and target priority subjects. All relevant data obtained during an
> undercover session is loaded into the Innocent Images case management
> system where it is updated, reviewed, and analyzed on a daily basis to
> identify priority subjects.
>
> Innocent Images National Initiative Investigations
>
> IINI undercover operations are being conducted in many FBI field
> offices by task forces that combine the resources of the FBI with
> other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Each of the
> FBI's 56 field offices has worked investigations developed by the
> IINI. International investigations are coordinated through the FBI's
> Legal Attach� program, which coordinates investigations with the
> appropriate foreign law enforcement. IINI investigations are also
> coordinated with Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces,
> which are funded by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, IINI
> training is provided to all law enforcement involved in these
> investigations, including federal, state, local, and foreign law
> enforcement agencies.
>
> During the early stages of Innocent Images, a substantial amount of
> time was spent conducting investigations on commercial online service
> providers that provide numerous easily accessible �chat rooms� in
> which teenagers and pre-teens can meet and converse with each other.
> By using chat rooms, children can chat for hours with unknown
> individuals, often without the knowledge or approval of their parents.
> Investigation revealed that computer-sex offenders utilized the chat
> rooms to contact children, since children do not know whether they are
> chatting with a 14-year-old or a 40-year-old. Chat rooms offer the
> advantage of immediate communication around the world and provide the
> pedophile with an anonymous means of identifying and recruiting
> children into sexually illicit relationships.
>
> Innocent Images has expanded to include investigations involving all
> areas of the Internet and online services including:
>
> Internet websites that post child pornography
>
> Internet News Groups
>
> Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Channels
>
> File Servers (�FServes�)
>
> Online Groups and Organizations (eGroups)
>
> Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing programs
>
> Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) and other online forums
>
> FBI agents and task force officers go online undercover into
> predicated locations utilizing fictitious screen names and engaging in
> real-time chat or e-mail conversations with subjects to obtain
> evidence of criminal activity.
>
> Investigation of specific online locations can be initiated through:
>
> A citizen complaint
>
> A complaint by an online service provider
>
> A referral from a law enforcement agency
>
> The name of the online location (such as a chat room), which can
> suggest illicit activity
>
> The Innocent Images International Task Force became operational on
> October 6, 2004 and includes law enforcement officers from the
> following countries: United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, Ukraine,
> Belarus, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, Croatia, Latvia,
> Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Fiji, Cyprus,
> Iceland, Denmark, Panama, and Europol. To date, more than 47
> international officers have traveled to the United States and have
> worked side-by-side with special agents of the FBI at the Innocent
> Images Unit. The task force allows for the real-time transfer of
> information from and to the FBI and between task-force members and
> their countries. Task Force officers stay in the United States for
> several months and remain an integral part of the task force once they
> return to their home countries. The FBI�s Innocent Images
> International Task Force successfully brings together law enforcement
> from around the world to address the global crime problem of online
> child exploitation.
>
> The most common crimes investigated under the IINI are in violation of
> Title 18 United States Code (USC):
>
> � 1462. Importation or Transportation of Obscene Matters
> � 1465. Transportation of Obscene Matters for Sale or Distribution
> � 1466. Engaging in the Business of Selling or Transferring Obscene
> Matter
> � 1467. Criminal Forfeiture
> � 1470. Transfer of Obscene Material to Minors
> � 2241(a)(b)(c). Aggravated Sexual Abuse
> � 2251(a)(b)(c). Sexual Exploitation of Children
> � 2251A(a)(b). Selling or Buying of Children
> � 2252. Certain Activities Relating to Material Involving the Sexual
> Exploitation of Minors
> � 2252A. Certain Activities Relating to Material Constituting or
> Containing Child Pornography
> � 2253. Criminal Forfeiture
> � 2254. Civil Forfeiture
> � 2257. Record Keeping Requirements
> � 2260(a)(b). Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor
> for Importation into the US
> � 2421. Transportation Generally
> � 2422. Coercion and Enticement
> � 2423(a). Transportation of Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal
> Sexual Activity
> � 2423(b). Interstate or Foreign Travel with Intent to Engage in a
> Sexual Act with a Juvenile
> � 2425. Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information about a
> Minor
> � 13032. Reporting of Child Pornography by Electronic Communication
> Service Providers
>
> The FBI has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the Innocent
> Images National Initiative remains viable and productive through the
> use of new technology and sophisticated investigative techniques,
> coordination of the national investigative strategy, and a national
> liaison initiative with a significant number of commercial and
> independent online service providers.
>
> The Innocent Images National Initiative has been highly successful.
> It has proven to be a logical, efficient, and effective method to
> identify and investigate individuals who are using the Internet for
> the sole purpose of sexually exploiting children.
Ultima Thule dear, it is not necessary to quote a whole web
page when a short paragraph and a link to the page will do.
TDD
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>I guess you are unfamiliar with the recent crop of Usenet posters who
>went to prison for 25 years to life.
>
>Google "Yardbird" if you are interested,
>
>One got that sentence for simply posting the word "thanks" on a
>newsgroup.
ZOMG PEOPLE WENTS TO JAIL FOR POSTINGS ON TEH INTERWEBS?!?!
LOL, seriously, you are one deranged little fruit loop. *nods*
I guess every time anyone gets tired of your crazy and they start
ignoring you that's them "going to jail", huh?
>>I honestly don't see in that where he is extolling the virtues of child
>>porn. Not to say that maybe a different quote may reveal it, but there
>>is nothing there to even remotely suggest he is collecting and
>>disseminating child porn.
>His years of posting to child porn and pedophile groups
>and defending the practice might give most people a clue.
You won't actually post any relevant links to that stuff though, what
with how it likely doesn't exist. I think most everybody has you
figured out, you basically work liak this:
Poster A says something you don't like or disagree with.
You present your fuckwitted retardation of a counter argument.
They disagree with you.
You then accuse them of being a pedophile for not agreeing.
*nods*
Seems that's about all there is to "you"...yer not exactly a real
complex box of crayons.
>>So why don't we just lock everybody up without their day in court.
>>Sounds constitutionally sound to me.
>PDPs are not necessarily locked up but they are closely monitored.
Said monitoring which doesn't actually work...*AT ALL*...the recent
case of that idiot Garrido is blatant proof that said monitoring
doesn't work...*AT ALL*.
>Research and forensic experience suggest otherwise.
IE shit you pulled out of your ass.
Anyone who has done any *REAL* research online knows that the level of
child pornography being actively distributed is quite colossal to say
the very least. If child pornography led to child molestation we
would quite literally be seeing *MILLIONS* of cases just in the US
alone of child molestation. Also, the rate at which child pornography
has been distributed has been continuing to grow at an EXPONENTIAL
RATE over the past 20 years, and yet, huh, we haven't seen any
exponential rate increases of the number of child molesters, now have
we?
Child pornography does not indicate a likelihood to molest real
children, I'm sorry, I know that hurts you because you were molested
as a child and you deeply hate everything even remotely connected to
what happened to you, but the facts are plainly clear...child
pornography does not equate to child molestation...PERIOD.
>>> Self-admitted users of child pornography,such as High Priest pose a
>>> threat to the welfare of any child they come into contact with,
>>> whether they have been caught at it and incarcerated yet or not.
>>
>>Define "users of child pornography"
>Those in possession of visual records of child rape in this instance.
If simply "being in possession" of such material made you a pedophile
then that would mean our entire judicial system and law enforcement
agencies are comprised entirely of pedophiles.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Having child pornography doesn't
make you a pedophile any more than standing in a garage makes you a
car.
>>> Research shows that of those involved in child pornography who /have /
>>> been convicted,85% or more confessed to hands on sexual assaults of
>>> numerous children.
A biased sample fallacy. You're only looking at those who were
convicted, rather than looking at the actual numbers. Just because
the majority of sexual predators were in possession of child
pornography doesn't mean that child pornography caused them to be
sexual predators. It's as if you're trying to say that 90% of those
who commit crimes wear clothing, therefore wearing clothing causes
crime. Yes, yes you really are *THAT* fuckin stupid.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.uncensored-inter.net
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Never do to anyone online what you wouldn't want done to yourself."
"Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"Never use your own limitations as the basis of measuring a technology's worth."
"I don't make mistakes, I have other people to make mistakes for me."
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Usenet Filters/Blinders - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
Says the complete retard who just quoted a THOUSAND FUCKIN LINE USENET
THREAD, quite needlessly.
STUPIDITY!
Boy, there's no shortage of it around here!
Onideus Mad Hatter
You're hardly one to be nitpicking about such things when you yourself
have cited obviously biased SURVEYS in the past (whilst attempting to
pass them off as hard facts).
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Not at all.
>
>Modern GPS and computerized tracking devices are quite sufficient .
>Serious consideration is being given to implants.
>
>And they are monitored by doctors, probation officers,and of course
>their neighbors since community notification.
And boy *THAT* sure works well!
: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/years_of_kidnap_hell_7WdbAPmKH17KH2PZf7sCUO/1
...LOL!
There goes your argument...right down the fuckin shitter.
>>Which is a ridiculous way to dispense justice.
>You think a pedophile whose doctor or parole officer deems to be on
>the verge of raping or abducting a child should just roam free?
How exactly do they "deem" that? Are they psychic parole officers and
doctors? *nods*
>>That was merely an abstract where it did not mention 85% of anything. If
>>you have to make a point by exaggerating the evidence you don't have a
>>point at all and you are in fact trying to hide a flaw in your argument.
>>Either present the evidence in it's entirety or drop the point.
>You can either take it on trust ,google the authors for another source
>or pay the fee.
>
>You asked for the cite, or rather rudely demanded it ,and you have
>been given it.
Backpedal, uh oh...LOOK OUT! LOL
>Something about,
>
>"Our findings show that the Internet offenders in our sample were
> significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child
>via a hands-on act.
>
> They also indicate that the offenders who abused children
> were likely to have offended against multiple victims"
>
>That you don't understand?
What part of WHAT THE FUCK WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR "SAMPLE" don't *YOU*
understand, you doofy fuckin retard. LOL
I mean if your "sample" only includes five hand picked, preselected,
prestudied offenders, well now, one might say that's a lil, oh I
dunno...BIASED maybe. *snicker*
>>Yes it is and until you provide evidence of your assertion we can
>>consider that a dead point.
>No it's not-
>
>You've been given the cite. For whatever reason you don't want to
>believe it.
>
>http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
Whatever reason of course being the fact that it's an obviously biased
sample since no information at all is given about it.
>The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal
>sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent
>admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26
>percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at
>sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims:
>1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the
>men were sentenced.
>Dr. Hernandez
And does Dr. Hernandez have anything to disclose? Where's his "full
disclosure" page? Where's the detailed information regarding the
samples and data, along with specific names and case histories? If
such information isn't publicly available...yeah...it's BULLSHIT. But
hey, don't feel too bad about it, most of the "studies" done these
days are "bullshit studies", obviously biased, poorly put together,
and not forthcoming at all about where they got their data.
>http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
>
>Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download
>explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government
>study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be
>startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed
>acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to
>rape.
Inappropriate touching all the way to RAPE!? WOW! Boy that sure is a
WIIIIIIIIDE fuckin field there!
So let's see, something tells me the study went something liak this:
Doctor: "So, have you ever committed any acts of sexual abuse against
a minor?"
Inmate: "Uh...no, I don't think so."
Doctor: "Really? Are you sure? I mean...you never even tried to give
a child a hug...or maybe tried to hold a child's hand..."
Inmate: "Does that count?"
Doctor: "Well, since you're a pedophile, of course, even holding a
child's hand could be considered ~almost~ rape."
Inmate: "Well I'm not really su-"
Doctor: "Of course ADMITTING that you have a problem could go a long
way at your next parole hearing..."
Inmate: "...um...well...I guess maybe I gave my niece a hug one
time..."
Doctor: "Ah ha! Yes, that's what I figured. You definitely committed
acts of sexual abuse against minors. No doubt about it."
Inmate: "..."
>We are talking of predators who experts have judge to indeed feel so
>inclined .
>
>That's the whole point, to stop them BEFORE they abduct,rape or murder
>a child.
Yes, we should TOTALLY lock people up just because we might *THINK*
that they could ~POSSIBLY~ commit a real crime...never mind of course
that they haven't actually done it, we *THINK* that they're going to.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>> http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Hernandez%20et%20al%20-%20NY%20Times%20Article%20about.pdf
>LOL. OK so some say the study is "flawed" or can be misinterpreted, yet
>you are presenting it as fact. In fact, the very point you are trying to
>use it to prove is in fact the major flaw and center of controversy in
>the paper.
This was my favorite part:
"The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement
debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison
officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or
interpreted."
LOL
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>>No, I won't take anything on trust from someone with an agenda.
>I haven't the patience to even begin to comprehend your private agenda
>that causes you to distort and twist everything you read.
...wow....project much?
LOL
>Even worse is your seemingly endless ability to demand cites then
>pretend they have not been given.
You claimed a bunch of shit, citations were asked for, you gave some,
they got ripped the fuck all apart for being biased and/or not having
fuck all to do with the retardation that you're trying to
claim...pretty cut and dry, Sunshine.
>The only end product is to make yourself appear totally foolish to
>people aware of the facts.
Um, Sparkles, every last one of your "facts" has been completely and
totally ripped all the fuck apart eight ways to last week...or haven't
you been paying attention?
>You are entitled to your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to your
>own facts.
LOL, and yet even MOAR projection!
>Before blundering into to pedophile groups you might care to do a
>minimum of research instead of immediately aligning yourself with
>them.
*snicker*
Liak I said before, this bitch is *REAL* predictable, she follows the
line of you're either with her...or you're with the pedophiles. There
is no middle ground. She's right, you're wrong, you're a pedophile.
LOL Pretty funny stuff. It's very likely she was molested as a
child, which is where all this blind hatred of pedos and senseless
accusations is coming from. I bet she sees pedos everywhere she looks
these days. She's obviously completely the fuck out of her head.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Obviously if you had your way the 20 children would not have been
>rescued and their rape their on demand rape and torture would be
>continuing unabated.
MILLIONS of underage kids all over the world are raped, beaten,
molested, starving, being prostituted (many willingly) and living in
poverty...99.9% of all those cases are a direct result of idiot
parents, parents who shouldn't have had children and so forth.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but blowing MILLIONS of dollars
just to save 20 kids when the same money could have be spent to save
THOUSANDS of kids...yeah, pretty fuckin inane. You can pat yourself
on the back all you like, but at the end of the day all you really
managed to do was let a whole slew of kids die because you didn't know
how to manage your money moar effectively. A raped child is better
than a dead child. That's a fact. Which would you rather do, save 20
kids from being raped...or save a thousand kids from getting killed,
or starving to death?
>>I do not disagree with the additional $2.5 million for the public
>>awareness program which is actually a real attempt at warning children
>>and parents against dangers to children. I do highly object to domestic
>>spying operations which abridge my rights as an individual to
>>communicate with my fellow citizens under the guise of "protecting
>>children".
>There is no right to rape and torture children and post videos of it
>to Usenet for pedophiles to masturbate to.
>
>The authorities would be failing in their job if they were not
>monitoring such activities and breaking them up.
And yet ironically much of that material is coming from countries
where it's actually LEGAL. LOL Pretty ironic really.
>Nineteenth century laws are not the tools needed to combat
>twenty-first century technology utilized by these creatures.
At yet as stupid as you are you don't comprehend that said technology
can be easily used to create false accusations, fake evidence and the
like. Do you have any idea how easy it'd be for someone like me to
plant child pornography in your computer and then pass off an
anonymous tip to the FBI? *snicker* The fact is, most of the people
posting their supposedly real nymes in that child lover froup...yeah,
10 to 1 says they're just victims of Internet identity thieves looking
to slander their names and using the stupidity of idiots liak you to
do it. Retards liak yourself will believe almost *ANYTHING* you see
and read online.
>> We do not need more laws,
>You are quite wrong.
Yeah we should have a law against retards posting to Usenet, then we
could get rid of you and your idiocy! ^__^
>That major ISPS prefer to drop Usenet rather than act as a conduit for
>child pornography is their own decision to avoid liability for
>enabling trafficking.
And if you weren't so incredibly fuckin stupid you would know that
most major ISPs prefer to use that idiocy as a convenient excuse to
save themselves a fuck ton of money by not offering Usenet service. It
really has nothing to do at all with "protecting the children".
Although as stupid as you are I can easily see you making that
ASSumption.
>You really would like sex predators roaming free raping and torturing
>and posting videos to Usenet don't you?
>
>You will blame anyone but the perpetrators.
Interesting, in that no such material is actually being posted to any
binary Usenet froup. Most of the places where you can find shit liak
that are Russian and other foreign run image servers, liak nyah:
http://imgsrc.ru/
Of course keep in mind that the laws in Russia are a lil bit different
than the ones in the US and UK.
>>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html) Curbing child porn,
>>while a worthy cause, is not worth penalizing the majority to punish the
>>minority.
>Not your call thank goodness.
...wow...do you even realize what you just agreed to? LOL Your
dumbass would actually willingly penalize the majority of a nations
citizens just to try and curb a small minority from dealing in kiddy
porn...*snicker*...that's liak cutting off your nose to try and spite
your face you doofy little idiot.
>>They don't need more powers,
>That is your opinion, not one shared by those doing the job.
...and their opinion in the matter would be completely biased, you
doofy little idiot. LOL, you really do seem to have a lot of trouble
with that...bias, full disclosure, etc, etc. You'll believe pretty
much anything as long as it suits your meandering little views and
NONpinions about how the world ought to work.
>>and they don't need to infringe on my or anyone else's right to free
>>speech to do their job.
>You are very naive if you think that.
>
>Do you ever glance at the news?
So you believe that free speech should be violated in order to try and
catch ~potential~ child molesters...interesting. It's a good thing
idiots liak you aren't in charge of making the rules and laws of the
land, huh?
With as fuckin stupid as you are, you'd probably agree to locking up
every single person on the planet and putting them all in a tight
little cell just for the sake of "protecting the children". I mean
you would actually WILLINGLY give up all your freedom and
rights...just to try and protect a few kids from ~almost~ rape?
*snicker* You really are out of your mind, aren't you?
>And the evidence that the FBI is lazy is?
LOL...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/years_of_kidnap_hell_7WdbAPmKH17KH2PZf7sCUO/1
Boy that just doesn't ever stop being funny! ^__^
The Daring Dufas
>>
>> Ultima Thule dear, it is not necessary to quote a whole web
>> page when a short paragraph and a link to the page will do.
>>
>> TDD
>
Well, he did it so I'm gonna do it too! neener neener neener
FLNF
TDD
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:40:09 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
><use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:08:55 -0700, Ultima Thule <PYT...@THULE.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously if you had your way the 20 children would not have been
>>>rescued and their rape their on demand rape and torture would be
>>>continuing unabated.
>>
>>MILLIONS of underage kids all over the world are raped, beaten,
>>molested, starving, being prostituted (many willingly) and living in
>>poverty...99.9% of all those cases are a direct result of idiot
>>parents, parents who shouldn't have had children and so forth.
>
>
>Any cite for this ludicrous assertion?
...are you serious? ...are you really *THAT* clueless and
disassociated with reality? I mean, fuck all, what are you living
with yer head up yer ass all the time or what?
Here's a fun thing for you to do, go fire up Google and search for
"Darfur" and "children", or better yet, search for "child
prostitution". LOL Go on and educate your dumbass.
You'll find all sorts of ~fun~ articles liak this one:
: Report: Children In Darfur Tortured, Raped
: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/world/main2704000.shtml
You really are an ignorant fuckin idiot though if you weren't already
aware of this shit. I mean it's not liak it's new news or anything.
Of course your whole little life is so completely obsessed over one
little Usenet froup that doesn't even involve any active trading of
child pornography, that I could see how you might have missed, ya
know, *REAL* problems in the world. LOL
>cue crickets:
>
>>I don't mean to sound insensitive, but blowing MILLIONS of dollars
>>just to save 20 kids when the same money could have be spent to save
>>THOUSANDS of kids...yeah, pretty fuckin inane. You can pat yourself
>>on the back all you like, but at the end of the day all you really
>>managed to do was let a whole slew of kids die because you didn't know
>>how to manage your money moar effectively. A raped child is better
>>than a dead child. That's a fact. Which would you rather do, save 20
>>kids from being raped...or save a thousand kids from getting killed,
>>or starving to death?
>How do you arrive at the brainless idea the two are mutually
>exclusive?
So in your fucked up little head you think a child getting raped is
the exact same thing as a child getting killed, eh? LOL, there are
*LOTS* of kids who have suffered, will suffer and are suffering from
child abuse, all over the world, in many different forms, from sexual
abuse, to neglect, to physical abuse, psychological abuse, etc,
etc...but the vast majority of all those cases never involve the death
of a child.
But this all goes back to your biased sample fallacies and how you
frequently look at studies ass backwards. Basically you likely read
somewhere that the majority of child murderers also sexually assaulted
the child...so in your mind you twisted that around to mean that any
sexually abused child is likely going to be killed.
Sorry kiddo, but it doesn't work that way. There are *FAR* more
children being sexually assaulted and then growing up to live
semi-normal lives than there are children who are sexually assaulted
and then murdered.
Again though, that's common fuckin sense, and something you would know
if you didn't have such an unhealthy fixation on a single Usenet
froup.
>>Interesting, in that no such material is actually being posted to any
>>binary Usenet froup.
>That would be news both to the FBI, Interpol, the international LEAs
>monitoring it and those rotting in prison and awaiting trial for
>doing precisely that.
Uh huh, you can keep playing pretend all you liak, Kiddo...but you
can't cite any sources. Teh pedos don't have any active binary
froups...at least none that are carried by the majority of USPs.
TALKING about their sick little interests is considered free speech,
and as such their NON BINARY froup is allowed to exist...but not
beyond that. Trading in kiddy pix with sexual poses is very much
illegal in the United States and it's the reason why there aren't
binary pedo froups. And if any such material was posted, every USP
would remove it as quickly as possible if they were alerted to it.
Basically, trying to trade kiddy pix on Usenet wouldn't really work
very well...at all. And again, there are *LOTS* of "alternatives"
that are for moar reliable and effectively "hidden" from teh FBI and
such: http://imgsrc.ru/
>>So you believe that free speech should be violated in order to try and
>>catch ~potential~ child molesters...interesting. It's a good thing
>>idiots liak you aren't in charge of making the rules and laws of the
>>land, huh?
>>
>>With as fuckin stupid as you are, you'd probably agree to locking up
>>every single person on the planet and putting them all in a tight
>>little cell just for the sake of "protecting the children". I mean
>>you would actually WILLINGLY give up all your freedom and
>>rights...just to try and protect a few kids from ~almost~ rape?
>>*snicker* You really are out of your mind, aren't you?
>I used to wonder exactly why you were featured so prominently
>in Rikjo's war against NAMBLA blog-thank you for clearing that up so
>succinctly.
Uh huh, and this is just moar of your, "either you agree with me, or
you're a pedophile" bullshit. You really are a predictable little
asshat, not very intelligent or interesting at all really.
>>>And the evidence that the FBI is lazy is?
>>
>>LOL...
>>
>>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/years_of_kidnap_hell_7WdbAPmKH17KH2PZf7sCUO/1
>>
>>Boy that just doesn't ever stop being funny! ^__^
>Perhaps when you recover from your bout of psychopathological mirth at
>this tragic story you can show your evidence that the FBI is lazy?
You have some *SERIOUS* sequencing problems, don't you? I mean, you
honestly can't connect the dots with that particular story to see how
teh FBI and every other law enforcement agency is completely inept and
lazy beyond belief. You really are *THAT* detached from reality,
aren't you? Free cl00, retardo, that guy was a CONVICTED SEX
OFFENDER, he was WEARING A TRACKING ANKLET, he was MONITORED REGULARLY
by various law enforcement agencies...and yet, despite *ALL
THAT*...yeah, he managed to kidnap a little girl, rape her, sexually
assault her, impregnate her, and spawn a couple of fucked up kids to
boot. *snicker* That's really about as fuckin hilarious as it gets
when it comes to the inane circus that is the "tracking system" which
you obsess over so much and tout as the ~perfect~ method of catching
sexual predators. LOL, irony...not just a fun word to say slowly and
feel yer fat ass lips jiggle, you stupid retard.
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
Which by the way has proven over the last few years to be the Alarmist Christian Right, who want to "Protect
the Children"!
How by fucking them to death?????????????????????????
> There are already laws in place to send these people to
> prison, we don't need more, and we don't need more and more vague LE
> powers to bring them to justice.
> >
> >> I hate pedophiles, I hate them becase what they do causes people like you to
> >> demand that MY rights be abridged because you can't protect your own god
> >> damned children. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids, but
> >> realize that as a society we need to protect our future generations from
> >> god knows what. I pay enough in taxes to support a damned third world
> >> country and my payback is assholes like you who think your kids are more
> >> important than my rights. Fuck you.
> >
> > In other words you don't haste pedophiles at all, but like them hate
> > child protection agencies
>
> Hardly. If they did their job properly, no child would go hungry, no
> child would lack for an education and no child would be without
> healthcare. But since they fail at their primary job, they try to focus
> our attention on the VAST MINORITY of cases of child sexual abuse.
Which is in fact sponsored and funded by them, the very people you trust to protect the children.
While I must pay Taxes to support your "FORCING" the little Children, as you assault me for being a Fagot
Pedophile.
�
%
message news:mIydnbq-EeZ_Qy_X...@posted.gcicommunications...
so
Lamey the Cable Guy
news:EuKdnbBEFrnGQi_X...@giganews.com:
> "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole" <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org>
> wrote in message
> news:mIydnbq-EeZ_Qy_X...@posted.gcicommunications...
>> Rev Turd Frederıcks wrote:
>>
>>> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:07:01 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> > <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:58:07 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> >>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:31:29 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> >>>>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:47:17 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> >>>>>>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:08:45 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> >>>>>>>>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ultima Thule wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:25:08 -0400, Rev Turd Freder?cks
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> High Priest wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <00289696-0ffc-45f5-b3aa-
3e02cf...@t11g2000prh.googl
That was a long walk to get here.
Hi
--
%
news:4ab2...@news.x-privat.org...
> "%" <per...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:EuKdnbBEFrnGQi_X...@giganews.com:
>
>> "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole" <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org>
>> wrote in message
>> news:mIydnbq-EeZ_Qy_X...@posted.gcicommunications...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> “I have a few 5yo [year old] Taras that you do not have,â€
>>>> >>>>> read another.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> “Just dropping in for a hot minute … to help out the dry
>>>> >>>>> spell, and to
>>>> >>>>> give everyone something to do for an afternoon,†said still
>>>> >>>>> one more.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> They’re hard comments to read—when you know that they were
>>>> >>>>> criminal
>>>> >>>>> sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85
>>>> >>>>> percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found,
>>>> >>>>> compared with 26
>>>> >>>>>>> of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography
>>>> >>>>>>> Offenders
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Michael L. Bourke & Andres E. Hernandez
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Abstract
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> This study compared two groups of child
>>>> >>>>>>> pornography offenders participating in a voluntary treatment
>>>> >>>>>>> program: men whose known sexual offense history at
>>>> >>>>>>> the time of judicial sentencing involved the possession,
>>>> >>>>>>> receipt, or distribution of child abuse images, but did not
>>>> >>>>>>> of similar offenses who had documented histories of hands-on
>>>> >>>>>>> sexual offending against at least one child victim.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> The goal was to determine whether the former group of
>>>> >>>>>>> at little risk for engaging in hands-on sexual offenses, or
>>>> >>>>>>> if they were contact sex offenders whose criminal sexual
>>>> >>>>>>> behavior involving children, with the exception of Internet
>>>> >>>>>>> crimes, went undetected.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Our findings show that the Internet offenders in our sample
>>>> >>>>>>> were significantly more likely than not to have sexually
>>>> >>>>>>> abused a child via
>>>> >>>>>>> a hands-on act.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> They also indicate that the offenders who abused children
>>>> >>>>>>> were likely to have offended against multiple victims, and
>>>> >>>>>>>>> which is life-threatening
>>>> >>>>>>>>> and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether
>>>> >>>>>>>>> physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult
scroll wheel mouse
Baal
Hash: SHA512
4s00th wrote in alt.support.boy-lovers on Sat August 22 2009 22:02 in
Message-ID: <e48195l7uncu2g8uu...@4ax.com>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:47:24 -0400, Beavis <christ...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
[snip]
> Beavis, there is a distinct difference between protecting children and
> profiling.
One is led to wonder whether the authorities know this, and are using this
as a stalking-horse to further their fascist agendas, or whether they
actually /believe/ this shit? As I.F. Stone so eloquently put it:
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries
whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out."
> I happen to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty -- not
> that people are guilty just because someone thinks that they are
> LIKELY to commit an offense.
Precisely.
> They talk of monitoring people whom they have evidence that links them
> to a crime -- not that they have been convicted of having committed.
> They talk of monitoring people who fit certain alleged profiles for
> people who commit sexual or violent offenses -- despite the fact
> that they've never committed such offenses in the past. Under these
> criteria, the bo0b clearly meets the definition of a PDP since he has,
> once again, stated he would love to kill me -- see his reply earlier
> in this thread. That's about as violent as you get. Do you think
> police should be monitoring him too?
Yep. That would be just desserts.
> You can't protect anyone at the expense of basic civil liberties. No
> matter how much I want to protect children -- and I do -- you can't do
> it at the expense of basic human rights and in direct violation of the
> principles upon which our country was founded and our Justice System
> is based.
EXACTLY. 4s00th, the sad thing is that these people are like the WCTU, the
Women's Christian Temperance Union, the primary movers behind Prohibition.
They were good, well-meaning people, but the damage they caused to your
society was nothing less than immense. Organized crime as we know it today
would most likely not have come into existence without the rivers of cash
provided by bootlegging, which would not have existed without Prohibition.
To get at their targets, these well-meaning zealots would, if they could,
gut every legal protection which has been established over the last few
centuries.
I am reminded of the following exchange from Robert Bolt's play
"A Man For All Seasons" (turned into an Academy award-winning film of the
same name by Fred Zinnemann):
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through
the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil
turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all
being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast
to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and
you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil
benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --
Bob&Carole threatens to 'out' me -- I challenge him to do so....
Thu, 30 Jul 2009: Tomba is next, you'll have to wait in line.
Thu, 17 Sep 2009: 49 days and counting... *STILL* *NOTHING*
http://tinyurl.com/bob-carole-lies-again
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJKsnreAAoJEAjjY4weksDot7gIAJ8rH4tVoAnanfJxgMHzIu31
DjsnYJ58n8GEQtpOMe1a+XqFeVpXEMZXEgTrJCbqT1S1OLAKG7WsQ+43yzLRRptY
ZMKBaXPj7LIISffaYSepxKfWCkq8a588U/OUNl8lB9a+dMgEtZ+j4BFtBf47Gnqb
bjqYGt4Y82bPrl6rtRBncB1lbLv5Hii0iJeZ3UcXZ/yoXDelFbgo/izTk2HLiHFM
c4szW6gqtBYWkVfY9ysZrgnFmSW5O2Z1ltLy1jZf7VnQryoAgT6t/GJCQUIVgPj8
ap0wW1+dSs0qB4XzhvB/ekY8IWbAEGgP+gNsuqcoEQFx6jtq817xiHkEeScraNk=
=/1UK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baal
Hash: SHA512
4s00th wrote in alt.support.boy-lovers on Sat August 22 2009 01:04 in
Message-ID: <rsuu85heki3u73c2d...@4ax.com>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:28:18 -0400, Beavis <christ...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>>> Spotting crime danger
>>> By Fiona Thompson
[snip]
>>> The Association of Chief Police Officers defines a PDP as "a person
>>> who has not been convicted, or cautioned for, an offence but whose
>>> behaviour gives reasonable grounds for believing that there is a
>>> present likelihood of them committing an offence or offences that will
>>> cause serious harm".
>>
>> Thanks for the info, CR. Sounds good to me. :-)
>
> Sounds an awful lot like the "thought police" to me.
Tell me about it.
> And since you and the bo0b have both talked about committing violence
> against other people, that prolly means you both qualify as PDP's! Well,
> the bo0b definitely does! I can't actually recall you talking that much
> about violence, but he has on many occasions said that he thinks I
> deserve a bullet and that he'd love to be the one to pull the trigger.
> I would > say that qualifies as "behaviour [giving] reasonable grounds for
> believing that there is a present likelihood of them committing an
> offence or offences that will cause serious harm."
B&C has also talked about slitting pedophile throats; James Riske has said
that he'd like all pedophiles to be hung.... Same thing, eh?
Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --
Bob&Carole threatens to 'out' me -- I challenge him to do so....
Thu, 30 Jul 2009: Tomba is next, you'll have to wait in line.
Thu, 17 Sep 2009: 49 days and counting... *STILL* *NOTHING*
http://tinyurl.com/bob-carole-lies-again
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJKsnnYAAoJEAjjY4weksDoK60H/RFowFwkBbPWgV2GQ/DBXoLu
BTYrWpvsAoG2qNVxLXP7FVcVCV9eK0q0UPcjYQd2OCbJWRi+GMemsDYposK5f/GO
mO5n26iynZMdIcAhOWcKqDv4uh0MvO7xQEicsItREfad1i3so5pbYUor4Wv+3vjZ
wRx9r70OsvfsAewxzAj3jMPqsGgcYb0pslgy4XYrB2xojGkS/RFGzqTMx389kuBH
Og+szpwXM8/QtSR7uBmaLQSdlof/0uG01MYHYfrrJniUjZitmhgyjUe/AHH8AX1U
Sd0yIv3XtCVENiK5p2w6q7oDxmsBtWWwRmaGp21Hk0kI31aPxLsFoLUKmTwdhQs=
=CH7K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Baal
Hash: SHA512
The Daring Dufas wrote in alt.support.boy-lovers on Wed September 16 2009
11:44 in Message-ID: <h8r14s$39s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
[snip]
> Rev, I've been skimming through some of these long posts
> which appear that some folks have succumbed to the total
> hysteria surrounding protection of children.
No kidding. These people are the modern-day equivalent to the WCTU, the
Womens' Christian Temperance Union, the prime movers behind Prohibition.
(We all know just how well /that/ social experiment turned out...)
> I've always been disturbed by this notion that people claim ownership
> of all children regardless of kinship or that a government has the
> ultimate responsibility for the welfare of every child within it's
> borders. A good example of this nonsense can be illustrated by this
> story:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9mql9h
We've had a similar case in Canada, where a child had a swastika drawn on
her arm. Apparently one of her teachers noticed, and the kids ended up
being taken into care by the Childrens' Aid Society.
> I haven't been able to find a reference to it but I remember
> seeing a quote attributed to A. Hitler that said something
> to the effect that people are willing to endure any loss of
> freedom and liberty if it is presented in such a way that it
> is necessary to protect "The Children". I have found one very
> interesting Hitler quote.
I think you're referring to this quote:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the
people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit
of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of
liberty and almost any deprivation." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
He got /that/ right.
In a more modern idiom, as some anonymous wag put it:
"Child porn is the root password to the Constitution."
> "Give me the children, I will give you a nation." "When an opponent
> declares 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'your child
> belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants,
> however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know
> nothing else but this new community." -- Adolph Hitler (1939)
Great! Added to my quotes file. This is yet another prescient quote.
I think that /if/ the kids of today realize just how much they have lost,
in the way of privacy and civil liberties, given-up in the name of their
ostensible protection, they won't thank us for it. Unfortunately, they're
all too likely to regard living in a surveillance state as the norm.
> Another from the great father of Communism:
>
> "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will
> never be uprooted." -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Also added to the quote file.
> Funny thing about Lenin That I didn't know, he was a lawyer.
> Interesting thing about all these folks who get into public
> office and decide they're going to take over the country,
> most of them are lawyers.
It's been that way, pretty well forever.
> Well, I'm off to find some children to victimize. I love kids,
> they're great with barbecue sauce and the toes are the crunchy
> part. Yummmmm!
Bon Appetit!
> TDD
Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --
Bob&Carole threatens to 'out' me -- I challenge him to do so....
Thu, 30 Jul 2009: Tomba is next, you'll have to wait in line.
Mon, 21 Sep 2009: 53 days and counting... *STILL* *NOTHING*
http://tinyurl.com/bob-carole-lies-again
Bob&Carole is also quite the hypocrite, as well as a liar -- after some
poster threatens to expose him, bob responds with:
... FIND ME, FAGGOT...that's all you have to do to save face...
Prove yourself. Show usenet that you can do what you claim
to be able to do.
Bob&Carole in alt.politics.homosexuality 2007-06-04 01:08
Message-ID: <1180963151....@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
http://tinyurl.com/bobandcarole-hypocrite
When confronted over his failure to do to me what he claimed _he_ would do,
all Bob&Carole does is to demand proof that he ever said he would do what
he promised in the first place. What a lying hypocrite!
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJKuAZCAAoJEAjjY4weksDoHQQH/jp7tjiyUfonDwnpW0DBJm53
UAyEAEoUdad0p1TM4AIpusH9xv2QkeTkLZDpPvZREV4th9PavExFIZxzKAGVbCkk
uaQgMH3Ht+wBp+9mWNbc8+Olx0kEusS82DFdbX7F97mSO7zXCQFyhjeon94NFbx6
ptBlmnaNMupoG/rQRPJX1Aquhur1+0SuxzETJkJZ0isFnbtR+2EJ9pJ4PRekdi2R
JZaLEsKgSXgaP1hOMttIfsHyuUPcMnWoD72spxW2EwqjnlxqgXVEaLzUt2jeq6xp
XPExiNQgs1G/TmettgfSPYhA/TSBOgv2tPaBuHYBqzcXL0PJlI4KbjrG/WLGmTY=
=KmrA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----