Child Protection Conference

[Archibald]

The family are not accused of anything. The CPC has been called because
ante-natal care was not attended prior to the hospital birth of a child, the
family home educate, and they do not answer the door due to a long history
of being bullied by neighbours. In short, they do not fit the picture of
being a 'normal' family

You say they are not being accused of anything. You then give two
things that are considered by Social Services to constitute serious
child neglect and something that would be seen as highly suspicious .
You are being naive to believe that there is no accusation.
There would not have been a conference called unless the social
believe that the parents are treating the children incorrectly and are
seeking to make changes.
Your trusting nature will make you a pushover at the conference.
Expect to see your words used out of context in a report in a month or
so as evidence that drastic intervention is required.

I know of a case on Dorset where the minutes of the CPC were fabricated
and bore virtually no resemblence to what was said and what went on.

The chairman of the CPC was a person by the name of Peter Thomas who is
currently serving a long prison sentence for child abuse offences
against children in care.

Peter Thomas was quietly kicked out of Dorset Social Services by his
employers Dorset County Council and found a position in Gloucestershire
after his antics were exposed by David Husband and other members of the
three families. If Dorset police had made an investigation of Peter
Thomas when they were asked to, instead of doing nothing, Thomas's other
offending might have come to light earlier.

Some press reports on Peter Thomas are here:
http:\\www.2yards.com\archives\peter-thomas\

Archie

[paul nutteing]

Post by Archibald

The family are not accused of anything. The CPC has been called because
ante-natal care was not attended prior to the hospital birth of a child, the
family home educate, and they do not answer the door due to a long history
of being bullied by neighbours. In short, they do not fit the picture of
being a 'normal' family

You say they are not being accused of anything. You then give two
things that are considered by Social Services to constitute serious
child neglect and something that would be seen as highly suspicious .
You are being naive to believe that there is no accusation.
There would not have been a conference called unless the social
believe that the parents are treating the children incorrectly and are
seeking to make changes.
Your trusting nature will make you a pushover at the conference.
Expect to see your words used out of context in a report in a month or
so as evidence that drastic intervention is required.

I know of a case on Dorset where the minutes of the CPC were fabricated
and bore virtually no resemblence to what was said and what went on.
The chairman of the CPC was a person by the name of Peter Thomas who is
currently serving a long prison sentence for child abuse offences
against children in care.
Peter Thomas was quietly kicked out of Dorset Social Services by his
employers Dorset County Council and found a position in Gloucestershire
after his antics were exposed by David Husband and other members of the
three families. If Dorset police had made an investigation of Peter
Thomas when they were asked to, instead of doing nothing, Thomas's other
offending might have come to light earlier.
http:\\www.2yards.com\archives\peter-thomas\
Archie

Sounds par for the course - they all look
after their kind in corrupt a fashion as possible

The 3 families site is still on
http://www.dorset.cc
despite attacks from their nest of
corrupt bastards


Exposing corrupt Wilts social workers and others
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
or nutteing3 in a search engine
nutteing2 for the evidence
nutteing1 for the preliminaries
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[Mike Drew]

Post by Archibald

The family are not accused of anything. The CPC has been called because
ante-natal care was not attended prior to the hospital birth of a

child, the

Post by Archibald

family home educate, and they do not answer the door due to a long

history

Post by Archibald

of being bullied by neighbours. In short, they do not fit the picture

of

Post by Archibald

being a 'normal' family

You say they are not being accused of anything. You then give two
things that are considered by Social Services to constitute serious
child neglect and something that would be seen as highly suspicious .
You are being naive to believe that there is no accusation.
There would not have been a conference called unless the social
believe that the parents are treating the children incorrectly and are
seeking to make changes.
Your trusting nature will make you a pushover at the conference.
Expect to see your words used out of context in a report in a month or
so as evidence that drastic intervention is required.

I know of a case on Dorset where the minutes of the CPC were fabricated
and bore virtually no resemblence to what was said and what went on.
The chairman of the CPC was a person by the name of Peter Thomas who is
currently serving a long prison sentence for child abuse offences
against children in care.
Peter Thomas was quietly kicked out of Dorset Social Services by his
employers Dorset County Council and found a position in Gloucestershire
after his antics were exposed by David Husband and other members of the
three families. If Dorset police had made an investigation of Peter
Thomas when they were asked to, instead of doing nothing, Thomas's other
offending might have come to light earlier.
http:\\www.2yards.com\archives\peter-thomas\
Archie

Sounds par for the course - they all look
after their kind in corrupt a fashion as possible

Who is looking after whom?

I sat on an Employees' appeal panel where a number of care workers appealed
against their dismissal. While the Authority had no overwhelming evidence that
the employees had done anything illegal - we on the panel were highly concerned.
We felt that the Authority had enough evidence that they were not competent at
their job. A couple of the people involved either appellents or witnesses were
suspicious enough for us to recommend that they should not be employed in
connection with children. At least one of them had fostered many boys and we
felt that he should not be allowed to do so in future.

The Director of Social Services was very pleased that we had upheld his decision
to dismiss them. He was worried that Employee appeal panels tend to pay more
attention to the sob stories of the appellents than the case of the management.

The 3 families site is still on
http://www.dorset.cc
despite attacks from their nest of
corrupt bastards
Exposing corrupt Wilts social workers and others
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
or nutteing3 in a search engine
nutteing2 for the evidence
nutteing1 for the preliminaries
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England
--
Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com
Accès par Nnrp ou Web

--
Mike Drew
Yate/Sodbury and Dodington Liberal Democrats
Lib Dem Councillor since 1983

[Paul Nutteing]

Post by Mike Drew
Who is looking after whom?
I sat on an Employees' appeal panel where a number of care workers appealed
against their dismissal. While the Authority had no overwhelming evidence that
the employees had done anything illegal - we on the panel were highly concerned.
We felt that the Authority had enough evidence that they were not competent at
their job. A couple of the people involved either appellents or witnesses were
suspicious enough for us to recommend that they should not be employed in
connection with children. At least one of them had fostered many boys and we
felt that he should not be allowed to do so in future.
The Director of Social Services was very pleased that we had upheld his decision
to dismiss them. He was worried that Employee appeal panels tend to pay more
attention to the sob stories of the appellents than the case of the management.

I am always amazed when i read those reports
in local papers of yet another scoutmaster or
choirmaster or whatever prosecuted for offences
against children. The people around them are always
surprised they had such a person in their midst.
But its bloody obvious such people gravitate towards
teaching,youth groups,relevent areas of social work
,'care' homes and the like.


http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
or nutteing3 in a search engine
or nutteing2 for the evidence
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[Mike Pellatt]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:50:02 -0000, Paul Nutteing

Post by Mike Drew

Post by Mike Drew
Who is looking after whom?
I sat on an Employees' appeal panel where a number of care workers

appealed

Post by Mike Drew
against their dismissal. While the Authority had no overwhelming evidence

that

Post by Mike Drew
the employees had done anything illegal - we on the panel were highly

concerned.

Post by Mike Drew
We felt that the Authority had enough evidence that they were not

competent at

Post by Mike Drew
their job. A couple of the people involved either appellents or witnesses

were

Post by Mike Drew
suspicious enough for us to recommend that they should not be employed in
connection with children. At least one of them had fostered many boys and

we

Post by Mike Drew
felt that he should not be allowed to do so in future.
The Director of Social Services was very pleased that we had upheld his

decision

Post by Mike Drew
to dismiss them. He was worried that Employee appeal panels tend to pay

more

Post by Mike Drew
attention to the sob stories of the appellents than the case of the

management.
I am always amazed when i read those reports
in local papers of yet another scoutmaster or
choirmaster or whatever prosecuted for offences
against children. The people around them are always
surprised they had such a person in their midst.
But its bloody obvious such people gravitate towards
teaching,youth groups,relevent areas of social work
,'care' homes and the like.

No, it's the papers that always express surprise. Those with the best
interests of children at heart working in those organisations know
exactly what you say, which is why they are ever vigilant.

It's also why the new CRB disclosure system may well be putting
children at greater risk - there is a tendency to think "everyone's
been CRB checked so it's OK" and thus be less vigilant for the
tell-tale signs of a potential abuser, when of course all the CRB
check tells you is that someone hasn't been caught. And given
the difficulty of successfully catching let alone prosecuting an
abuser, that is quite likely.

Any CRB training for workers in the field needs to underscore that
it doesn't replace the need for being constantly alert for the
signs.

In defence of the CRB system, at least the decision of the authority
that the workers mentioned above should never work with children
would be recorded on the DoH list (I presume), so CRB checks would
throw that up, unlike the old police checks.

And abusers have all sorts of excuses up their sleeves - sob stories
are but the beginning. I heard yesterday of one (a real serial abuser
within his family - which is of course where 90% of it happens
anyway) who was also an exposer, and claimed to be "sorting out his
hernia" when questioned. Someone else had a mouthful of tea
when they heard that.......

[Russell]

Post by Mike Drew

Post by Mike Drew
Who is looking after whom?
I sat on an Employees' appeal panel where a number of care workers

appealed

Post by Mike Drew
against their dismissal. While the Authority had no overwhelming evidence

that

Post by Mike Drew
the employees had done anything illegal - we on the panel were highly

concerned.

Post by Mike Drew
We felt that the Authority had enough evidence that they were not

competent at

Post by Mike Drew
their job. A couple of the people involved either appellents or witnesses

were

Post by Mike Drew
suspicious enough for us to recommend that they should not be employed in
connection with children. At least one of them had fostered many boys and

we

Post by Mike Drew
felt that he should not be allowed to do so in future.
The Director of Social Services was very pleased that we had upheld his

decision

Post by Mike Drew
to dismiss them. He was worried that Employee appeal panels tend to pay

more

Post by Mike Drew
attention to the sob stories of the appellents than the case of the

management.
I am always amazed when i read those reports
in local papers of yet another scoutmaster or
choirmaster or whatever prosecuted for offences
against children. The people around them are always
surprised they had such a person in their midst.
But its bloody obvious such people gravitate towards
teaching,youth groups,relevent areas of social work
,'care' homes and the like.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
or nutteing3 in a search engine
or nutteing2 for the evidence
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England

Your point that paedophiles "gravitate" towards children's work is arguably
possible. However, you must concede that it's very different to assume that
some scoutmasters/choirmasters are paedophiles than it is to assume that good
old Bob, who you've known all your life, is one.
Do you have any friends who work in teaching/social work/scouts/police/kids
voluntary work etc. etc.? Are you really saying that it "wouldn't surprise you"
if they turned out to be a danger to children by virtue of the job they do?
Would you rather that these roles in society were all carried out by women, or
just that the men who carry them out should always be the object of suspicion,
which in the vast majority of cases is unfounded?

I also don't see how your post follows on from the previous one.

Russell

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Russell
Your point that paedophiles "gravitate" towards children's work is arguably
possible.

If you had had any involvement or training on this subject then you
would know that of course "paedos" try to work with children, never
mind "arguably possible".

Post by Russell
However, you must concede that it's very different to assume that
some scoutmasters/choirmasters are paedophiles than it is to assume that good
old Bob, who you've known all your life, is one.

Of course some scoutmasters / choirmasters are paedophiles, people
like this come from all walks of life, including policemen,
politicians , priests etc, and yes good old Bob who lives down the
street, is 75 years old, and is in a wheelchair, could still be a
practising paedo.

Post by Russell
Do you have any friends who work in teaching/social work/scouts/police/kids
voluntary work etc. etc.? Are you really saying that it "wouldn't surprise you"

It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has
worked in the field of protecting and looking after children,
paedophiles are everywhere, theyre sly, cunning, and will spend months
or even years grooming their victims.

Post by Russell
if they turned out to be a danger to children by virtue of the job they do?
Would you rather that these roles in society were all carried out by women, or
just that the men who carry them out should always be the object of suspicion,
which in the vast majority of cases is unfounded?

Women abuse as well you know, and where do you get your information
saying that the vast majority of cases are unfounded ?, please post
references and percentages here.


Finally being trained in child protection, and having had to deal with
the after effects of abuse, your posting which may well be totally
innocent, is just ever so slightly leaning towards defending paedos,
or maybe trying to say that they are a rarity, something has already
stirred in the back of my brain, and i am just wondering about you.

Absolutley nothing against you at all, but working in my field we
suspect evryone, and look for the tell tale signs, even when not
actually working.

[Anon.]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Finally being trained in child protection, and having had to deal with
the after effects of abuse, your posting which may well be totally
innocent, is just ever so slightly leaning towards defending paedos,
or maybe trying to say that they are a rarity, something has already
stirred in the back of my brain, and i am just wondering about you.

You really are despicable, aren't you? In your sick twisted mind, anyone who
points out (correctly) that paedophiles are a rarity, ought to come under
suspicion. Medieval witch trials come to mind here......

(What drew you towards working with children, btw? A bit suspicious, to my
mind. Why would any normal person want to spend that much time with other
peoples' children?)

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Anon.
You really are despicable, aren't you? In your sick twisted mind, anyone who
points out (correctly) that paedophiles are a rarity, ought to come under
suspicion. Medieval witch trials come to mind here......

Dont be such a total fucking moron, paedophiles ARE NOT a rarity.

Unfortunatley there are thousands of abused children in this country
alone who prove otherwise.

Post by Anon.
(What drew you towards working with children, btw? A bit suspicious, to my
mind. Why would any normal person want to spend that much time with other
peoples' children?)

Because i want to try and help children who have been abused, to grow
up to enjoy life.

And i am very good at my job, i make a difference in some cases.

[Tony Morgan]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Anon.
You really are despicable, aren't you? In your sick twisted mind, anyone who
points out (correctly) that paedophiles are a rarity, ought to come under
suspicion. Medieval witch trials come to mind here......

Dont be such a total fucking moron, paedophiles ARE NOT a rarity.
Unfortunatley there are thousands of abused children in this country
alone who prove otherwise.

Quite right. Last year over 8,000 children rang ChildLine complaining
about sexual abuse and a further 12,000 rang about physical abuse.

And that's just one agency.

[PeteM]

anonnymis

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Anon.
You really are despicable, aren't you? In your sick twisted mind, anyone

who

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Anon.
points out (correctly) that paedophiles are a rarity, ought to come under
suspicion. Medieval witch trials come to mind here......

Dont be such a total fucking moron, paedophiles ARE NOT a rarity.
Unfortunatley there are thousands of abused children in this country
alone who prove otherwise.

Quite right. Last year over 8,000 children rang ChildLine complaining
about sexual abuse

How would you go about translating this number into an estimate of the
number of active paedophiles? For example, how many individuals were
convicted of sexual offences against children last year as a result of
Childline calls? How many calls were hoaxes or malicious accusations?

and a further 12,000 rang about physical abuse.

Irrelevant.

[Tony Morgan]

In message <f0SzsWAQTip$***@rockall.net>, PeteM <***@rockall.net>
writes

Post by PeteM

Post by Tony Morgan
Quite right. Last year over 8,000 children rang ChildLine complaining
about sexual abuse

How would you go about translating this number into an estimate of the
number of active paedophiles?

I wouldn't. You are clearly stupid if you want to get me to guess how
many children each pedophile sexually abuses at a time.

Post by PeteM
For example, how many individuals were convicted of sexual offences
against children last year as a result of Childline calls?

You are obviously clueless about what Childline is about. Try reading
their website at http://www.childline.org.uk so that you don't continue
asking stupid questions.

Post by PeteM
How many calls were hoaxes or malicious accusations?

Again, find out something about Childline before you ask stupid
questions.

You are worryingly clueless to be engaging in this discussion aren't
you? What's really concerning though is the way in which you dismiss
child-abuse - thank God there aren't too many of your opinion about.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:53:05 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by PeteM
How many calls were hoaxes or malicious accusations?

Again, find out something about Childline before you ask stupid
questions.

WTF are you on about? Of *course* some of those calls would have been
malicious or attention-seeking.

Post by Tony Morgan
You are worryingly clueless to be engaging in this discussion aren't
you? What's really concerning though is the way in which you dismiss
child-abuse - thank God there aren't too many of your opinion about.

The problem with many people in the child protection industry is that
they treat the whole thing like some sort of crusade. Which your
posts tend to confirm.

[Tony Morgan]

Post by Cynic
The problem with many people in the child protection industry is that
they treat the whole thing like some sort of crusade. Which your posts
tend to confirm.

Once again you're talking through your backside. I have no connection
whatsoever with any agency of the "child protection industry".

Just a member of the public who is very uneasy about people like you who
choose to dismiss the issues - and by doing so condone them.

[Anon.]

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by Cynic
The problem with many people in the child protection industry is that
they treat the whole thing like some sort of crusade. Which your posts
tend to confirm.

Once again you're talking through your backside. I have no connection
whatsoever with any agency of the "child protection industry".
Just a member of the public who is very uneasy about people like you who
choose to dismiss the issues - and by doing so condone them.

I don't think Cynic was dismissing the issues, nor condoning them. He was
just making the fair point that there is not great "epidemic" of paedophilia
out there, and that we need to get these things in perspective.

Abuse of a child - sexual or otherwise - is despicable and those who are
guilty of it deserve punishment. However, the present hysteria runs the risk
of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and may actually increase the
danger to those children who are actually at risk, because we're all so busy
chasing after the wrong targets.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:24:46 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by Cynic
The problem with many people in the child protection industry is that
they treat the whole thing like some sort of crusade. Which your posts
tend to confirm.

Once again you're talking through your backside. I have no connection
whatsoever with any agency of the "child protection industry".

Nor did I say that you did. Your information comes from that industry
however, which has obviously succeeded in relaying its attitude.

Post by Tony Morgan
Just a member of the public who is very uneasy about people like you who
choose to dismiss the issues - and by doing so condone them.

Which "issues" are you referring to? I am extremely concerned with
people getting incorrectly accused of child abuse on slim evidence
that is not properly examined. I am extremely concerned with children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults that it
could lead to an allegation. I am extremely concerned with
authorities who pursue OTT "investigations" and impose draconian
restrictions that destroy families in which no abuse was taking place.
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Cynic
Which "issues" are you referring to? I am extremely concerned with
people getting incorrectly accused of child abuse on slim evidence
that is not properly examined. I am extremely concerned with children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults that it
could lead to an allegation. I am extremely concerned with
authorities who pursue OTT "investigations" and impose draconian
restrictions that destroy families in which no abuse was taking place.

We are all concerned about false allegations, they do happen, however
the evidence is examined meticulously, and the accused only ends up in
court when there is overwhelming evidence and a conviction is likeley.

If you practise safe caring, and keep accurate records, you minimise
the risks.

There has been some cases of OTT investigations by one or two local
authorities, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule,
lessons are learnt, we move on.

Post by Cynic
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

Please explain how you know that something that is being hidden is
there ?


Dont you realise that paedophiles come out with similar stuff to what
you are spouting, your statement "I am extremely concerned with
children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults" is a
classic.


You appear to be saying, im not worried about paedophiles getting hold
of kids, but i am worried that barriers are put in front of males to
stop them being around kids.

Would you pass a CRB check to work with kids ?, i doubt it.

[Mike Pellatt]

On 3 Nov 2003 16:23:47 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
Which "issues" are you referring to? I am extremely concerned with
people getting incorrectly accused of child abuse on slim evidence
that is not properly examined. I am extremely concerned with children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults that it
could lead to an allegation. I am extremely concerned with
authorities who pursue OTT "investigations" and impose draconian
restrictions that destroy families in which no abuse was taking place.

We are all concerned about false allegations, they do happen, however
the evidence is examined meticulously, and the accused only ends up in
court when there is overwhelming evidence and a conviction is likeley.

Huge, huge damage can be done without a case ever getting to court.

On the other hand, research suggests that a very, very small proportion
of abuse cases result in a successful prosecution.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
If you practise safe caring, and keep accurate records, you minimise
the risks.

Tell that to many foster carers. And teachers, for that matter.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
There has been some cases of OTT investigations by one or two local
authorities, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule,
lessons are learnt, we move on.

In my experience, lessons are learnt far too slowly.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

Please explain how you know that something that is being hidden is
there ?
Dont you realise that paedophiles come out with similar stuff to what
you are spouting, your statement "I am extremely concerned with
children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults" is a
classic.

Research is showing that the lack of male role models in primary schools
is causing problems for our young men. That lack of male teachers is
precisely because males entering that sector of the profession feel
that they are being immediately branded as potential child abusers.

A bit like the uni in the US where pictures of all the guys were
plastered round the campus with "rapist" on them....

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
You appear to be saying, im not worried about paedophiles getting hold
of kids, but i am worried that barriers are put in front of males to
stop them being around kids.
Would you pass a CRB check to work with kids ?, i doubt it.

Unless he:

i) has a criminal record
ii) is on the DoH list
iii) is on the DFeS list

then, yes. he would.

Which is why the CRB check is next to useles.......

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Mike Pellatt
Tell that to many foster carers. And teachers, for that matter.

I know of dozens of carers and teachers, and while allegations do
happen, accurate record keeping, and practising safe caring can help
to minimise risk, and be one way of adding to proof of innocence.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
There has been some cases of OTT investigations by one or two local
authorities, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule,
lessons are learnt, we move on.

In my experience, lessons are learnt far too slowly.

I agree, but at least we progress and improve, naturally I am always
open to constructive and creative suggestions, so please explain how
you think we can improve in this area.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

Please explain how you know that something that is being hidden is
there ?

You still havent explained this, please explain, and if you have made
a mistake, just admit it, and we will forget about it.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont you realise that paedophiles come out with similar stuff to what
you are spouting, your statement "I am extremely concerned with
children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults" is a
classic.

Research is showing that the lack of male role models in primary schools
is causing problems for our young men. That lack of male teachers is
precisely because males entering that sector of the profession feel
that they are being immediately branded as potential child abusers.

What research ?, please give us details, and if possible URLS to
visit, research papers to read etc.

I have many friends who are both Male and Teachers, they are not too
concerned about false allegations, but all do take sensible measures
to minimise the risk from such allegations.

Post by Mike Pellatt
A bit like the uni in the US where pictures of all the guys were
plastered round the campus with "rapist" on them....

Sorry, never heard of this, anyway, this is the UK we are concerned
with, not the US.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
You appear to be saying, im not worried about paedophiles getting hold
of kids, but i am worried that barriers are put in front of males to
stop them being around kids.

You seem to have sidestepped this.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Would you pass a CRB check to work with kids ?, i doubt it.

i) has a criminal record
ii) is on the DoH list
iii) is on the DFeS list
then, yes. he would.

I asked him that question, not you, and only he can truthfully answer.

Post by Mike Pellatt
Which is why the CRB check is next to useles.......

Please explain to us all why the CRB check is useless, and what you
would do instead of the CRB check.

Another way to read your last statement could be to the suspicious
mind, "I know he shouldnt pass a CRB check, but know he would".

[Cynic]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Mike Pellatt
Tell that to many foster carers. And teachers, for that matter.

I know of dozens of carers and teachers, and while allegations do
happen, accurate record keeping, and practising safe caring can help
to minimise risk, and be one way of adding to proof of innocence.

Very telling. So IYO the onus is upon the accused to prove that they
are innocent. Hmmm.

[Mike Pellatt]

On 4 Nov 2003 08:20:11 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Mike Pellatt
Tell that to many foster carers. And teachers, for that matter.

I know of dozens of carers and teachers, and while allegations do
happen, accurate record keeping, and practising safe caring can help
to minimise risk, and be one way of adding to proof of innocence.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
There has been some cases of OTT investigations by one or two local
authorities, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule,
lessons are learnt, we move on.

In my experience, lessons are learnt far too slowly.

I agree, but at least we progress and improve, naturally I am always
open to constructive and creative suggestions, so please explain how
you think we can improve in this area.

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

Please explain how you know that something that is being hidden is
there ?

You still havent explained this, please explain, and if you have made
a mistake, just admit it, and we will forget about it.

Err, I didn't say that. You've deleted the original attributions (which
I maintained) and all context has been lost. So I won't be replying to
this or the rest of your post. Since I didn't say it, I can't admit to
having made a mistake.

[Cynic]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:48:55 -0000, Mike Pellatt

Post by Mike Pellatt

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
You still havent explained this, please explain, and if you have made
a mistake, just admit it, and we will forget about it.

Err, I didn't say that. You've deleted the original attributions (which
I maintained) and all context has been lost. So I won't be replying to
this or the rest of your post. Since I didn't say it, I can't admit to
having made a mistake.

Yes, she does seem to get mixed up as to who said what. I wrote the
part she was demanding a reply to, and I had also replied to it
earlier, though my reply had possibly not propagated to her server.

[Cynic]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
Which "issues" are you referring to? I am extremely concerned with
people getting incorrectly accused of child abuse on slim evidence
that is not properly examined. I am extremely concerned with children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults that it
could lead to an allegation. I am extremely concerned with
authorities who pursue OTT "investigations" and impose draconian
restrictions that destroy families in which no abuse was taking place.

We are all concerned about false allegations, they do happen, however
the evidence is examined meticulously, and the accused only ends up in
court when there is overwhelming evidence and a conviction is likeley.

The majority of damage done by false allegations is caused without a
case ever *getting* to criminal court. When it does, a "not guilty"
verdict does nothing to stop the damage. Ask Lilly and Reed what
damage was caused to them by totally false allegations.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
If you practise safe caring, and keep accurate records, you minimise
the risks.

I am not speaking only about professional carers. Are you saying that
a paedophile who is able to keep the paperwork looking good would be
relatively safe? If so, I suspect that you may well be correct.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
There has been some cases of OTT investigations by one or two local
authorities, these tend to be the exception rather than the rule,
lessons are learnt, we move on.

"Lessons are learnt"? LOL! The *same* mistakes are made over and
over and over again. About the only "lessons" learnt is to do with
damage limitation after the event. Damage limitation to the
authorities that is, not their victims. You do know that the doctors
who were responsible for mis-diagnosing sexual abuse in children and
as a result caused huge amounts of damage are *still* used for such
diagnoses and have made the same mistakes in subsequent cases?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
I am also extremely concerned at the level of child abuse that takes
place and is successfully hidden because the real problems occur while
the public are being misdirected to look in a single direction and
area.

Please explain how you know that something that is being hidden is
there ?

Hidden was perhaps not quite the correct word. "Downplayed" or
"ignored" would have been better words to have used. Plenty of
high-profile cases to illustrate what I mean. They only come out into
the open when it gets *really* serious and a child is maimed or
killed. Would you like to supply the figures on how many children are
killed by parents each year in cases where there is *no* sexual
motive?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont you realise that paedophiles come out with similar stuff to what
you are spouting, your statement "I am extremely concerned with
children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults" is a
classic.

And that is somehow supposed to make it an untrue statement? I expect
most paedophiles put on their trousers one leg at a time also, just as
I do. There are several studies by leading professionals that show
that my concern is by no means unfounded or spurious.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
You appear to be saying, im not worried about paedophiles getting hold
of kids, but i am worried that barriers are put in front of males to
stop them being around kids.

Whilst perhaps you are saying that you are not worried how much damage
is being done to children by being denied male role-models and
support, so long as it lowers the risk of them being sexually
assaulted.

In fact, what is happening is bad on both counts. Not only are
children suffering from the lack of adult male interaction, but the
hysteria actually *increases* access for paedophiles. Consider that a
non-paedophile man is unlikely to have as strong a motivation to be
with children as a paedophile. So as the bad public perception and
risks of false allegations to a man involved in child-oriented
activities increases (scout masters, sports coach, teachers and
ordinary people in everyday situations), the only men who remain
sufficiently motivated to take on such tasks are the undetected
paedophiles. All the time a good mix exists, the paedophile is
working with non-paedophiles and so subjected to scutiny. There is a
good chance that the paedophile will not be able to risk offending as
the risk of a non-paedophile in the group noticing something amiss is
too great to risk. So whilst he may well be looking for every
opportunity he can, he is unable to risk anything overtly sexual.

If however he is alone with the children for much of the time, or if
the other adults in the group are also paedophiles, he can openly
indulge in sexual play and other "grooming" activities without having
eyebrows raised.

It is in fact in the interest of the paedophile to discourage
non-paedophile adults from being involved with the group of children
he is with.

The greatest child-abuse cases have occurred in places where the only
male carers of a group of children have *all* been paedophiles. And
you want to create an atmosphere likely to deter non-paedophile men
from working in such areas?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Would you pass a CRB check to work with kids ?, i doubt it.

The CRB check, as you well know, will not exclude any paedophile who
has not been detected. Which is likely to be the majority.

Seeing that you are chucking allegations around, I could also point
out that a recent study has shown that the most vociferous homophobic
men are likely to be closet gays, who use their outspoken denigration
of homosexuals as camoflage so that they won't be suspected of being
homosexual themselves. It would seem logical that the same would hold
true regarding paedophilia.

[PeteM]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont you realise that paedophiles come out with similar stuff to what
you are spouting, your statement "I am extremely concerned with
children
being denied male emotional support due to fears by adults" is a
classic.

So, if a poster makes a comment that paedophiles (in your opinion)
sometimes say, then you suspect him of being paedophile.

Don't you see how daft that is? What about statements like "Day return
to London Waterloo please", which presumably paedophiles also say as
often as anyone else? How do they fit into your theory?

[paul nutteing]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has
worked in the field of protecting and looking after children,
paedophiles are everywhere, theyre sly, cunning, and will spend months
or even years grooming their victims.

Post by Russell
if they turned out to be a danger to children by virtue of the job they do?
Would you rather that these roles in society were all carried out by women, or
just that the men who carry them out should always be the object of suspicion,
which in the vast majority of cases is unfounded?

Women abuse as well you know, and where do you get your information
saying that the vast majority of cases are unfounded ?, please post
references and percentages here.

You say about female abusers - I have to wonder what
this one is into these days in the Salisbury area.
I've no idea what this social worker is into now but this was her in
mid 1970s and she has now managed to get her area manager
a John Barton Stoddart to act corruptly for her.
How did Stella Maria Constant ever be allowed to be a social worker ? .
She has an extended criminal record but for what i don't know.
She named her daughter after her bisexual lover Naomi - - who was
into witchcraft and child
abuse . The male partner of this older Naomi (full name and address
known to the writer) was a - - -(full details known). This man killed
himself and their son - - - (known details) on
or before 11 March,1978 . He was facing prosecution for the most serious
and
gross sexual abuses against children. The identity of someone who witnessed
some of this child sex abuse is known to me. But of course no court case
as the perpetrator killed himself. I won't go into details ,as too
disgusting ,
but he not only CO gassed himself and
his kid but also his dog which he had trained-up for his purposes.
SMC has then and since shown the behaviour that contributed to
her father being emergency sectioned for a schizophrenic
type contition. But of course no one in Witshire Social
Services is concerned about such behaviour , so up to
me to publicise it until someone does something.
If they were concerned they would have requested
the evidence I have - but of course no such request
even after communication with the so-called directors
of Wilts social services.
Hampshire SS won't do anything, Local Government
ombudsman won't do anything about the nest of very
dangerous social workers in the Salisbury area still
allowed to deal with other people's kids in C&F section.
Why did J B Stoddart believe he could get away with
submitting a forged letter to prosecute me?
Why did Roger Norman Thomas Jones ,Head of Wiltshire Crown
Prosecution Service strenuously try to get my solicitor to get me to plead
guilty to all their perjurous tosh when he knew from
the start it could never be presented in court.
Why did the then director of Wilts SS, Dr Raymond
Lawrence JONES expect the head
of Wilts CPS to do his bidding. ?
I can only speculate what else ties these corrupt
bastards together.
They all wanted to prosecute me so they could get an
injunction stopping me publicising their corrupt behaviour.

I have only seen such deep seated ,multi-level , corruption
in social services ,before, in a fictional drama .

http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
The Russian based site to stymie the corrupt bastards
in Wiltshire and also Special Branch from pulling it
down unilaterally.
or nutteing3 in a search engine
or nutteing2 for the evidence

Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[Paul]

Nutteing? You fucking idiot. Piss off

Post by Russell

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has
worked in the field of protecting and looking after children,
paedophiles are everywhere, theyre sly, cunning, and will spend months
or even years grooming their victims.

Post by Russell
if they turned out to be a danger to children by virtue of the job

they

Post by Russell
do?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
Would you rather that these roles in society were all carried out by

women, or

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
just that the men who carry them out should always be the object of

suspicion,

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
which in the vast majority of cases is unfounded?

Women abuse as well you know, and where do you get your information
saying that the vast majority of cases are unfounded ?, please post
references and percentages here.

You say about female abusers - I have to wonder what
this one is into these days in the Salisbury area.
I've no idea what this social worker is into now but this was her in
mid 1970s and she has now managed to get her area manager
a John Barton Stoddart to act corruptly for her.
How did Stella Maria Constant ever be allowed to be a social worker ? .
She has an extended criminal record but for what i don't know.
She named her daughter after her bisexual lover Naomi - - who was
into witchcraft and child
abuse . The male partner of this older Naomi (full name and address
known to the writer) was a - - -(full details known). This man killed
himself and their son - - - (known details) on
or before 11 March,1978 . He was facing prosecution for the most serious
and
gross sexual abuses against children. The identity of someone who witnessed
some of this child sex abuse is known to me. But of course no court case
as the perpetrator killed himself. I won't go into details ,as too
disgusting ,
but he not only CO gassed himself and
his kid but also his dog which he had trained-up for his purposes.
SMC has then and since shown the behaviour that contributed to
her father being emergency sectioned for a schizophrenic
type contition. But of course no one in Witshire Social
Services is concerned about such behaviour , so up to
me to publicise it until someone does something.
If they were concerned they would have requested
the evidence I have - but of course no such request
even after communication with the so-called directors
of Wilts social services.
Hampshire SS won't do anything, Local Government
ombudsman won't do anything about the nest of very
dangerous social workers in the Salisbury area still
allowed to deal with other people's kids in C&F section.
Why did J B Stoddart believe he could get away with
submitting a forged letter to prosecute me?
Why did Roger Norman Thomas Jones ,Head of Wiltshire Crown
Prosecution Service strenuously try to get my solicitor to get me to

plead

Post by Russell
guilty to all their perjurous tosh when he knew from
the start it could never be presented in court.
Why did the then director of Wilts SS, Dr Raymond
Lawrence JONES expect the head
of Wilts CPS to do his bidding. ?
I can only speculate what else ties these corrupt
bastards together.
They all wanted to prosecute me so they could get an
injunction stopping me publicising their corrupt behaviour.
I have only seen such deep seated ,multi-level , corruption
in social services ,before, in a fictional drama .
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
The Russian based site to stymie the corrupt bastards
in Wiltshire and also Special Branch from pulling it
down unilaterally.
or nutteing3 in a search engine
or nutteing2 for the evidence
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England
--
Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com
Accès par Nnrp ou Web

[paul nutteing]

Post by Paul
Nutteing? You fucking idiot. Piss off

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has
worked in the field of protecting and looking after children,

This collection
John Barton Stoddart -corrupt social worker
Stella Maria Constant - corrupt social worker
Roger Norman Thomas Jones ,Head of Wiltshire Crown Prosecution Service
Dr Raymond Lawrence JONES ,ex- director of Wilts SS
some-time director of Wilts SS - Annie Hudson
F . J . Mason,Detective Inspector,MoD police,CID,HMNB,Portsmouth
anonymous Special Branch character and 4 local CID - at least
all the others identified themselves
John Yorke Denham ,MP
Professor C . G . J Morse,Head of the School of Law,King's College London
Prof. Economides,Law Faculty,Exeter University

have not managed to make me FOAD so what chance you ?


http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm full story
The Russian based site to stymie the corrupt bastards
in Wiltshire and also Special Branch from pulling it
down unilaterally.
or nutteing3 in a search engine
or nutteing2 for the evidence

Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[Briar_X]

Post by Paul
Nutteing? You fucking idiot. Piss off

Well said!!!
--
Briar x
___
.=" "=._.---.
." c ' Y'`p
/ , `. w_/
| '-. / /
_,..._\ )_-\ \_=.\
`-....-'`------)))`=-'"`'"
http://jaynair.blogspot.com

[Paul Nutteing]

Post by Briar_X

Post by Paul
Nutteing? You fucking idiot. Piss off

Well said!!!

2 more left off the roll of dishonour
Dr Peter E Cage ex-head of Birmingham Forensic 'Science' service
Stephen Purser local government ombudsman

What you didn't know about DNA profiling
and what they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Russell

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has
worked in the field of protecting and looking after children,
paedophiles are everywhere, theyre sly, cunning, and will spend months
or even years grooming their victims.

Post by Russell
if they turned out to be a danger to children by virtue of the job they

do?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
Would you rather that these roles in society were all carried out by

women, or

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
just that the men who carry them out should always be the object of

suspicion,

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Russell
which in the vast majority of cases is unfounded?

Women abuse as well you know, and where do you get your information
saying that the vast majority of cases are unfounded ?, please post
references and percentages here.

You say about female abusers - I have to wonder what etc etc etc.

Maybe it is time you moved on, in the past I have visited your
website, but found that you drivelled on far too much, but i have the
gist of your complaint, you will only alienate people if you keep
going on, and on, and on.

I think your time will be much better spent concentrationg on the
future, not dwelling on the past.

[PeteM]

It certainly wouldnt surprise me, nor i suspect anyone else who has worked in
the field of
protecting and looking after children, paedophiles are everywhere, theyre sly,
cunning, and will
spend months or even years grooming their victims.

Of course they're everywhere. Everywhere, I tell you.

I opened my fridge the other day to get the marge out - and there was a
paedophile in there. He tried to pretend he was just a carton of milk -
but he couldn't fool me.

I'm cunning too, you see. I can recognise them. Everywhere I go I can
see them. Hiding in the garden shed. In the linen cupboard. Watching me.
Hiding. Watching all the time.

But I know them. All of them. They have one infallible devil's-mark.
that shows them for what they are. You know what it is? They pretend to
be fond of children and like being with them. Dead giveway. They can't
help it, you see. They try to hide their perversion, but it shows
through every time.

There's only one way to deal with it. As soon as you see someone being
kind to a child - phone the police. Can't take any risks. Got to be
stopped.

Finally being trained in child protection, and having had to deal with the after
effects of abuse,
your posting which may well be totally innocent, is just ever so slightly leaning
towards
defending paedos, or maybe trying to say that they are a rarity, something has
already stirred in
the back of my brain,
and i am just wondering about you.

Of course. It's a given that anyone who suggest that the entire world
might possibly not be crawling with millions of paedophiles, must
*himself* be a paedophile. It's obvious, when you think about it.

Absolutley nothing against you at all, but working in my field we suspect
evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working.

Absolutely. We must never relax our vigilance for an instant. Otherwise
the giant global paedophile conspiracy could finally succeed in its goal
of enslaving the world.

It's only dedicated, selfless heroes like you and I who stand between
the paedos and their evil aim. The humble people of Britain owe us
their everlasting gratitude. Good luck and good hunting, brother.

[Tony Morgan]

In message <WZIhHgA4XPp$***@rockall.net>, PeteM <***@rockall.net>
writes

Post by PeteM
Of course they're everywhere. Everywhere, I tell you.
I opened my fridge the other day to get the marge out - and there was a
paedophile in there. He tried to pretend he was just a carton of milk -
but he couldn't fool me.
I'm cunning too, you see. I can recognise them. Everywhere I go I can
see them. Hiding in the garden shed. In the linen cupboard. Watching
me. Hiding. Watching all the time.
But I know them. All of them. They have one infallible devil's-mark.
that shows them for what they are. You know what it is? They pretend to
be fond of children and like being with them. Dead giveway. They can't
help it, you see. They try to hide their perversion, but it shows
through every time.
There's only one way to deal with it. As soon as you see someone being
kind to a child - phone the police. Can't take any risks. Got to be
stopped.

ROFL... Excellent :-)

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by PeteM
Of course. It's a given that anyone who suggest that the entire world
might possibly not be crawling with millions of paedophiles, must
*himself* be a paedophile. It's obvious, when you think about it.

Absolutley nothing against you at all, but working in my field we suspect
evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working.

Absolutely. We must never relax our vigilance for an instant. Otherwise
the giant global paedophile conspiracy could finally succeed in its goal
of enslaving the world.

TOSSER, look at operation ore, 7,272 people in the UK are being
investigated, that fugure will continue to grow, and it is global.

Post by PeteM
It's only dedicated, selfless heroes like you and I who stand between
the paedos and their evil aim. The humble people of Britain owe us
their everlasting gratitude. Good luck and good hunting, brother.

Only a total moron or more likeley a paedo would try to minimise the
risks.

Only a total moron or paedo would try to turn this into a joking
matter,

Where did i say millions ?, almost certainly every town has at least
one, probably most villages as well.

Yes, im dedicated, some people are you know.

Good Hunting ?, i dont go looking for paedos, i have to try and help
the kids they abuse.

I am no brother of yours.

[PeteM]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
Of course. It's a given that anyone who suggest that the entire world
might possibly not be crawling with millions of paedophiles, must
*himself* be a paedophile. It's obvious, when you think about it.

Absolutley nothing against you at all, but working in my field we suspect
evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working.

Absolutely. We must never relax our vigilance for an instant. Otherwise
the giant global paedophile conspiracy could finally succeed in its goal
of enslaving the world.

TOSSER, look at operation ore, 7,272 people in the UK are being
investigated, that fugure will continue to grow, and it is global.

How would you go about translating that figure into an estimate of the
number of active paedophiles? How many people investigated in Ore were
convicted of sexual offences against children as a result of the
investigation? (I only know the figure for Scotland: it is zero.)

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
It's only dedicated, selfless heroes like you and I who stand between
the paedos and their evil aim. The humble people of Britain owe us
their everlasting gratitude. Good luck and good hunting, brother.

Only a total moron or more likeley a paedo would try to minimise the
risks.

Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.

Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Good Hunting ?, i dont go looking for paedos, i have to try and help
the kids they abuse.

I quote "... but working in my field we suspect evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working."

[Tony Morgan]

In message <Z04yM0A4dip$***@rockall.net>, PeteM <***@rockall.net>
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

I wonder what the reaction of your family and friends would be is they
knew your dismissive views that you're coming across with here.

[n***@likely.com]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:58:33 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

No he's not. He's coming across as someone who doesn't believe the
hysterical bullshit that is circulated by the mass media and the
people who stand to gain from it.

[Archibald]

Post by n***@likely.com
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:58:33 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

No he's not. He's coming across as someone who doesn't believe the
hysterical bullshit that is circulated by the mass media and the
people who stand to gain from it.

Here, here

Archie

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Archibald
Here, here
Archie

You have only used 2 words, but have easily expressed your
intelligence, it should have been HEAR HEAR, not Here here.

[Francis Burton]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Archibald
Here, here
Archie

You have only used 2 words, but have easily expressed your
intelligence, it should have been HEAR HEAR, not Here here.

There there, never mind.

Francis

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Francis Burton

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Archibald
Here, here
Archie

You have only used 2 words, but have easily expressed your
intelligence, it should have been HEAR HEAR, not Here here.

There there, never mind.
Francis

Youve proven to be twice as intelligent, used four words, and no
spelling mistakes, well done.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by n***@likely.com

Post by Tony Morgan
Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

No he's not. He's coming across as someone who doesn't believe the
hysterical bullshit that is circulated by the mass media and the
people who stand to gain from it.

Ask yourself this, who exactly stands to gain from things like this
NOT being in the press or the national news.

Please explain who exactly stands to gain from this "hysterical
bullshit".

[Mike Pellatt]

On 3 Nov 2003 10:56:18 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by n***@likely.com

Post by Tony Morgan
Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

No he's not. He's coming across as someone who doesn't believe the
hysterical bullshit that is circulated by the mass media and the
people who stand to gain from it.

Ask yourself this, who exactly stands to gain from things like this
NOT being in the press or the national news.
Please explain who exactly stands to gain from this "hysterical
bullshit".

Many, many abusers are those who stand to gain. Because it
diverts people from recognising abusers.

[Mike Pellatt]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:58:33 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

I do have sympathy with paedophiles, in that they have, in many ways,
become the witches of the late 20th and early 21st century.

I do, however, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with their actions,
and want to see everything possible done to prevent abuse of children -
be that physical, emotional or sexual.

However, the current "witch-hunt" approach does little to alert
people to where the majority of child sexual abuses come from -
family members or close family friends.

Additionally, this "witch-hunt" approach has also led to the apparently
permanent closure of a very successful treatment unit running under
the auspices of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. To say nothing of
a paediatrician being driven out of their home.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by n***@likely.com
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:58:33 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

I do have sympathy with paedophiles, in that they have, in many ways,
become the witches of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Unbelievable !!!.

Post by n***@likely.com
I do, however, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with their actions,
and want to see everything possible done to prevent abuse of children -
be that physical, emotional or sexual.

Everything apart from apparently a witch hunt as you call it.

Post by n***@likely.com
However, the current "witch-hunt" approach does little to alert
people to where the majority of child sexual abuses come from -
family members or close family friends.

Well, we do need more education on the subject, i can agree with that,
however you yourself seem to be in need of it as much as anyone.

Post by n***@likely.com
Additionally, this "witch-hunt" approach has also led to the apparently
permanent closure of a very successful treatment unit running under
the auspices of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. To say nothing of
a paediatrician being driven out of their home.

I dont believe that treatment can be successful, save maybe
castrastion to take away the urges, that is just a personal belief by
the way.

How would you suggest we tackle the situation then, and would you
please enlighten us on what you mean by a witch hunt?, personally i
dont care how we uncover them, as long as we do.

[Mike Pellatt]

On 3 Nov 2003 10:51:10 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by n***@likely.com
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:58:33 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

I do have sympathy with paedophiles, in that they have, in many ways,
become the witches of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Unbelievable !!!.

Please expand...

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by n***@likely.com
I do, however, have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever with their actions,
and want to see everything possible done to prevent abuse of children -
be that physical, emotional or sexual.

Everything apart from apparently a witch hunt as you call it.

No, not a "witch hunt as I call it", but "a witch hunt" - think
exactly what that means. Ascribing behaviours to people that they
have not carried out. Some paedophiles do not present the risks
to the broader community that they assume to be present (and, yes,
some do - but there are different offending patterns. So a blanket
response is inappropriate)

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by n***@likely.com
However, the current "witch-hunt" approach does little to alert
people to where the majority of child sexual abuses come from -
family members or close family friends.

Well, we do need more education on the subject, i can agree with that,
however you yourself seem to be in need of it as much as anyone.

Please expand.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by n***@likely.com
Additionally, this "witch-hunt" approach has also led to the apparently
permanent closure of a very successful treatment unit running under
the auspices of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. To say nothing of
a paediatrician being driven out of their home.

I dont believe that treatment can be successful, save maybe
castrastion to take away the urges, that is just a personal belief by
the way.

"treatment" was perhaps not the best word to use. I believe a lot of
their work involved assisting offenders to develop strategies to avoid
re-offending - recognising that once the inhibitors that prevent that
sort of behaviour are removed and the boundaries have been crossed,
it is, as you say, a very hard situation to manage.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
How would you suggest we tackle the situation then, and would you
please enlighten us on what you mean by a witch hunt?, personally i
dont care how we uncover them, as long as we do.

Well, by a "witch hunt" I meant the sort of hysteria that leads, as
I think I said in my original posting, to paediatricians being driven out
of their homes. And a response to individual paedophiles that is
almost certainly disproportionate to the risk to the community from
that individual.

Let me re-iterate that I am no supporter of paedophiles or their
behaviours, (and I have seen and had to try to ameliorate the damage
caused by child sexual, and other abuse, abuse many, many times - and
am an abuse survivor myself) but am trying to express my view that the
current approach that we seem to be taking may well be increasing rather
than decreasing the risk to our vulnerable children.

[PeteM]

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM

Post by Tony Morgan
Quite right. Last year over 8,000 children rang ChildLine complaining
about sexual abuse

How would you go about translating this number into an estimate of the
number of active paedophiles?

I wouldn't

What exactly do you think this datum is worth to the current thread,
then?

Post by Tony Morgan
. You are clearly stupid if you want to get me to guess how
many children each pedophile sexually abuses at a time.

Post by PeteM
For example, how many individuals were convicted of sexual offences
against children last year as a result of Childline calls?

You are obviously clueless about what Childline is about. Try reading
their website at http://www.childline.org.uk so that you don't continue
asking stupid questions.

Post by PeteM
How many calls were hoaxes or malicious accusations?

Again, find out something about Childline before you ask stupid
questions.

I know about Childline. What I want is to assess the significance and
validity of the datum you quoted.

If you don't think these are reasonable questions to ask, you can always
explain why. Just calling me stupid doesn't really help to advance
matters.

Post by Tony Morgan
You are worryingly clueless to be engaging in this discussion aren't
you? What's really concerning though is the way in which you dismiss
child-abuse - thank God there aren't too many of your opinion about.

and then

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.

I see. You too. Is this debating technique something they teach in
social work training courses? Maybe it was adopted by the social workers
in the recent Shieldfield case? If so, that would explain why their
employers ended up paying several million pounds in libel damages.

Post by Tony Morgan
I wonder what the reaction of your family and friends would be is they
knew your dismissive views that you're coming across with here.

Extraordinary. You think that anyone who questions your opinions must be
a social pariah?

[Tony Morgan]

In message <qiPe5VAlmkp$***@rockall.net>, PeteM <***@rockall.net>
writes

Post by PeteM
I see. You too. Is this debating technique something they teach in
social work training courses?

There you go again - making assumptions and innuendoes (which you
clearly did before, but then adopted a "cop-out" attitude in denying
it).

I have absolutely no connection with social work, never have had, nor
have I had any social work training.

Post by PeteM
Maybe it was adopted by the social workers in the recent Shieldfield
case? If so, that would explain why their employers ended up paying
several million pounds in libel damages.

Post by Tony Morgan
I wonder what the reaction of your family and friends would be is they
knew your dismissive views that you're coming across with here.

Extraordinary. You think that anyone who questions your opinions must
be a social pariah?

Certainly not. Only those like yourself who dismiss the extent of
child-abuse that is endemic in our society today.

In case you've had your head in the sand, you might notice that there
have been as many cases of mis-carriage of justice in areas other than
child abuse, as in child-abuse cases. And perhaps I should remind you
that there are reporting restrictions in child-abuse cases.

And I leave the thought with you that perhaps the reason that so many
offenders are able to simply resign and move on to another past is that
there is a reluctance by both social service managers and the police to
pursue matters simply because they don't want to be seen as engaging in
a witch-hunt.

[PeteM]

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Extraordinary. You think that anyone who questions your opinions must
be a social pariah?

Certainly not. Only those like yourself who dismiss the extent of
child-abuse that is endemic in our society today.

This seems to mean "Those who question _my opinion_ of the extent of
child abuse in our society today should be social pariahs".

Did you ever hear of a bloke called JS Mill?

Post by Tony Morgan
In case you've had your head in the sand, you might notice that there
have been as many cases of mis-carriage of justice in areas other than
child abuse, as in child-abuse cases.

That's a bad sign, as there are thousands of times more prosecutions of
"other" offences than there are for child sex offences.

However that's a bit off track. What I'm interested in is whether the
claims made on this thread - about the ubiquity of active, offending
paedophiles - have any evidential basis.

Post by Tony Morgan
And perhaps I should remind you
that there are reporting restrictions in child-abuse cases.

The only restrictions relate to the identity of the alleged victim.
Presumably statistical data on accusations, charges, prosecutions and
convictions is available.

Mind you some people seem to regard mere accusations - or even calls to
Childline - as an infallible proxy for prevalence. I do not know what
research has been done on this problem, though I would have thought it
would be a useful thing to know.

Post by Tony Morgan
And I leave the thought with you that perhaps the reason that so many
offenders are able to simply resign
and move on to another past

How many?

Post by Tony Morgan
is that
there is a reluctance by both social service managers and the police to
pursue matters simply because they don't want to be seen as engaging in
a witch-hunt.

Is there? If so, why was so much time and money devoted to the Operation
Ore witch-hunt? Why is there a constant stream of media stories - placed
by the police - about how more resources are desperately needed to
investigate these cases?

[Tony Morgan]

In message <IOqWiIAzDop$***@rockall.net>, PeteM <***@rockall.net>
writes

Post by PeteM
This seems to mean "Those who question _my opinion_ of the extent of
child abuse in our society today should be social pariahs".

The only one who's pontificating *their* opinion is you. The more I
hear from you the more I wonder if you have some agenda in suppressing
publicity concerning pedophilia.

Anyway, it's clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that pedophilia should not be publicised, so I'll
bow out.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:46:05 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
Anyway, it's clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that pedophilia should not be publicised, so I'll
bow out.

It is clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that all men should be castrated.

[Tony Morgan]

Post by Cynic
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:46:05 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
Anyway, it's clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that pedophilia should not be publicised, so I'll
bow out.

It is clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that all men should be castrated.

You trying to put words I never uttered into my mouth?

Or are you one of these sad sad folks who keep hearing voices? - you
ought to see someone about that.

Perhaps you one of those they've let out under "care in the community"?
MIND have a lot to answer for.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:59:57 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by Cynic
It is clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from your
entrenched position that all men should be castrated.

You trying to put words I never uttered into my mouth?

Yes. Just thought I'd do the same to you as you did to PeteM when you
put words into *his* mouth.

Post by Tony Morgan
Or are you one of these sad sad folks who keep hearing voices? - you
ought to see someone about that.

Well, I did so very deliberately to provoke a reaction from you.
What's your excuse?

Post by Tony Morgan
Perhaps you one of those they've let out under "care in the community"?
MIND have a lot to answer for.

I don't know anything about that. Are you speaking from experience?

[Tony Morgan]

Post by Cynic
Yes. Just thought I'd do the same to you as you did to PeteM when you
put words into *his* mouth.

Care to quote? At no time have I misquoted PeteM. Only thing you can
quote are the strange voices you seem to keep hearing.

At least I can see where PeteM is coming from (though I don't agree with
hiding the dangers of pedophilia in or out of the press) - but you're
just worryingly confused. And of course the things you make up.

The only thing that you're able to contribute to the discussion is
vitriolic bullshit (and those voices you seem to keep hearing).

[Cynic]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:59:09 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by Cynic
Yes. Just thought I'd do the same to you as you did to PeteM when you
put words into *his* mouth.

Care to quote? At no time have I misquoted PeteM. Only thing you can
quote are the strange voices you seem to keep hearing.

Here's the bit where you mis-stated PeteM's views:

"
Anyway, it's clear that no amount of discussion will shift you from
your entrenched position that pedophilia should not be publicised, so
I'll bow out.
"

Nowhere have I ever seen anything from PeteM to indicate that he would
not want to see "paedophilia publicised" (whatever that means,
exactly). He, like myself, is concerned that the dangers are being
grossly exaggerated.

I also see that you have *not* "bowed out"

[Cynic]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:39:58 +0000, Tony Morgan

Post by Tony Morgan
Certainly not. Only those like yourself who dismiss the extent of
child-abuse that is endemic in our society today.

Endemic? Bullshit. Care to attempt to prove your statement? I do
indeed dismiss the level of abuse that people such as yourself want us
to believe is happening. What's the latest scare figure that is doing
the rounds? One figure that was being quoted a while back was that 1
in 4 children will suffer sexual abuse before the age of 16. Yeah,
right. I'd like to know what definition of "sexual abuse" was used to
produce *that* figure.

Post by Tony Morgan
In case you've had your head in the sand, you might notice that there
have been as many cases of mis-carriage of justice in areas other than
child abuse, as in child-abuse cases. And perhaps I should remind you
that there are reporting restrictions in child-abuse cases.

I know of no cases where investigations into alleged acts that *did
not happen* have involved such a wide scale. Could you please give me
a single case that does not involve child abuse that comes close to
the situation that occurred in Cleveland? And that cannot even be
said to be an abberant and isolated event of its kind. How about
citing a civil case where the level of libel against a person came
close to that of the Lilly/Reed case, and involved so many "experts"
giving credence to the false and malicious lies with *no basis* that
were spread to ruin those two people's lives? Not to mention the
child abuse carried out by the authorities on the children who were
claimed to have been victims of Reed and Lilly, or the adults who are
still recovering from the abuse they suffered as children at the hands
of the authorities in Cleveland.

Post by Tony Morgan
And I leave the thought with you that perhaps the reason that so many
offenders are able to simply resign and move on to another past is that
there is a reluctance by both social service managers and the police to
pursue matters simply because they don't want to be seen as engaging in
a witch-hunt.

This is another bit of misrepresentation. Look up the statistics of
the re-offending rate of child sex-offenders, and you'll see that it
has almost the *lowest* re-offending rate than any other type of
offence.

[Anon.]

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
I see. You too. Is this debating technique something they teach in
social work training courses?

There you go again - making assumptions and innuendoes (which you
clearly did before, but then adopted a "cop-out" attitude in denying
it).
I have absolutely no connection with social work, never have had, nor
have I had any social work training.

Post by PeteM
Maybe it was adopted by the social workers in the recent Shieldfield
case? If so, that would explain why their employers ended up paying
several million pounds in libel damages.

Post by Tony Morgan
I wonder what the reaction of your family and friends would be is they
knew your dismissive views that you're coming across with here.

Extraordinary. You think that anyone who questions your opinions must
be a social pariah?

Certainly not. Only those like yourself who dismiss the extent of
child-abuse that is endemic in our society today.

Do you have any proof that it is "endemic"? I don't believe it is. The only
figures I can recall seeing show that the number of child murders (the
ultimate form of abuse) has been static since the 1950's, despite a growing
population.

I suspect that other forms of child abuse are similarly static, but I'd be
interested to see any figures which prove that it is "endemic."

And before you start hurling innuendo and accusations in my direction, I'll
make it clear that I consider any forms of child abuse to be despicable. But
that doesn't mean that we have to consider every man to be an abuser, or
wrap every child in cotton wool, or divert all our child protection
resources into sex abuse, when other forms of abuse are just as serious and
much more common.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Tony Morgan
writes

Post by PeteM
Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

Actually Peter, you are coming across as someone who could have
sympathies with pedophiles in the way you dismiss the problem out of
hand here.
I wonder what the reaction of your family and friends would be is they
knew your dismissive views that you're coming across with here.

I couldnt agree more, well put.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
Of course. It's a given that anyone who suggest that the entire world
might possibly not be crawling with millions of paedophiles, must
*himself* be a paedophile. It's obvious, when you think about it.

Absolutley nothing against you at all, but working in my field we suspect
evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working.

Absolutely. We must never relax our vigilance for an instant. Otherwise
the giant global paedophile conspiracy could finally succeed in its goal
of enslaving the world.

TOSSER, look at operation ore, 7,272 people in the UK are being
investigated, that fugure will continue to grow, and it is global.

How would you go about translating that figure into an estimate of the
number of active paedophiles? How many people investigated in Ore were
convicted of sexual offences against children as a result of the
investigation? (I only know the figure for Scotland: it is zero.)

I wouldn't, not my job, and it is still an ongoing investigation and
operation, it will be at a minimum months, more likely years before
final figures are known. As you are so interested in the Scottish
figures, i presume you live there.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
It's only dedicated, selfless heroes like you and I who stand between
the paedos and their evil aim. The humble people of Britain owe us
their everlasting gratitude. Good luck and good hunting, brother.

Only a total moron or more likeley a paedo would try to minimise the
risks.

Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.

I dont want a medal, and i hadn't realised i had uncovered anyone, can
you please explain why you think i have. I also fail to understand how
any normal person can make a joke of such a serious and damaging
subject, would you please explain to everyone who may read this post,
why you deem it neccessary to say "now im one too", i presume you were
joking or being sarcastic here.

Post by PeteM
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

No, i dont, but i do suspect people who show sympathies with them.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Good Hunting ?, i dont go looking for paedos, i have to try and help
the kids they abuse.

I quote "... but working in my field we suspect evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working."

SUSPECT(look it up in a dictionary), we have to or are you not
intelligent enough to understand the reasons why ?.

Would you please explain where you have undertaken training on this
subject ?, where you gained your experience ?.

Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

[Cynic]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

This is indeed the way the witch-hunter claims its victim.

Why not list the "indicators" while you are about it?

Those readers who are not either horrified or pissing themselves
laughing will no doubt join your crusade.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

This is indeed the way the witch-hunter claims its victim.
Why not list the "indicators" while you are about it?
Those readers who are not either horrified or pissing themselves
laughing will no doubt join your crusade.

You cant see the indicators without me having to point them out, yet
seem to be of the impression that you are so knowledgable on the
subject ?.

Attempting to DEFEND paedophiles is in your opinion OK ?.

All people in my position want to do is to stop adults who abuse
children, you think we shouldn't ?, or should go easy on people who
abuse?.

I dont have a crusade, but if i did then i cant think of a more worthy
cause, keeping kids safe is quite important i think.

Let me make 2 statements and see if you agree or not.

Paedophiles are the lowest of the low, we should use all of our
resources and attempt to catch these evil people and put them in
prison for a very long time.

Agree, YES or NO.

The majority of the population of the UK is against paedophiles, and
are sickened and horrified by their actions, and would on the whole
agree with my first statement.

Agree, YES or NO.

[Cynic]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
Why not list the "indicators" while you are about it?
Those readers who are not either horrified or pissing themselves
laughing will no doubt join your crusade.

You cant see the indicators without me having to point them out, yet
seem to be of the impression that you are so knowledgable on the
subject ?.

I know of several lists of "indicators". Some more worrying than
others. I just wondered what list *you* might come up with.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Attempting to DEFEND paedophiles is in your opinion OK ?.

I have never defended anyone who has abused a child, and I would want
to see such a person punished.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
All people in my position want to do is to stop adults who abuse
children, you think we shouldn't ?, or should go easy on people who
abuse?.

I believe that your methods are totally wrong and counter-productive.
I believe that your methods cause more harm to children than they
prevent, and I therefore see *you* as being an abuser.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
I dont have a crusade, but if i did then i cant think of a more worthy
cause, keeping kids safe is quite important i think.

Your posts indicate that you *do* have a crusade. If I were to keep a
child locked up in a padded room 24/7, would you accept that I was
doing the right thing because "keeping kids safe is important"?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Let me make 2 statements and see if you agree or not.
Paedophiles are the lowest of the low, we should use all of our
resources and attempt to catch these evil people and put them in
prison for a very long time.
Agree, YES or NO.

No. A paedophile is neither evil, nor the "lowest of the low". A
person who harms child OTOH has done something that IMO is very bad,
and should indeed be severely punished. I do not consider harm that
results from a sexually motivated act to be better or worse than
similar harm that results from some other motivation, such as greed or
anger.

Each crime should be punished according to its severity. A man who
breaks the arm of a child to steal her mobile phone is IMO deserving
of a more severe punishment than a paedophile who is convicted of
indecent assault because he patted the girl briefly on her bottom.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
The majority of the population of the UK is against paedophiles, and
are sickened and horrified by their actions, and would on the whole
agree with my first statement.
Agree, YES or NO.

Yes, I would agree with you there. I would go a stage further and say
that the majority are unable to separate the condition from the act,
and most people even believe that paedophilia is of itself illegal,
even though the majority do not understand what paedophilia actually
is.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by Cynic
Why not list the "indicators" while you are about it?
Those readers who are not either horrified or pissing themselves
laughing will no doubt join your crusade.

You cant see the indicators without me having to point them out, yet
seem to be of the impression that you are so knowledgable on the
subject ?.

I know of several lists of "indicators". Some more worrying than
others. I just wondered what list *you* might come up with.

I dont believe you, i think you wanted me to point out some signs we
look for, then you could make sure you did not display these signs,
you could of learnt something new.

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Attempting to DEFEND paedophiles is in your opinion OK ?.

I have never defended anyone who has abused a child, and I would want
to see such a person punished.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
All people in my position want to do is to stop adults who abuse
children, you think we shouldn't ?, or should go easy on people who
abuse?.

I believe that your methods are totally wrong and counter-productive.
I believe that your methods cause more harm to children than they
prevent, and I therefore see *you* as being an abuser.

I help children come to terms with what has happened to them, make
them see it was not their fault, and if possible see if i can help the
perpetrators end up in prison for their crimes, please explain how
that makes me an abuser.

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
I dont have a crusade, but if i did then i cant think of a more worthy
cause, keeping kids safe is quite important i think.

Your posts indicate that you *do* have a crusade. If I were to keep a
child locked up in a padded room 24/7, would you accept that I was
doing the right thing because "keeping kids safe is important"?

I dont, but would gladly join one. I really would like to do more to
help bring abusers to court, and if there was a campaign to make
punishment more severe, then i would gladly join that also.

Keeping a child locked up in a padded room 24/7 is child abuse you
moron, i guess you fantasize over something like that every night.

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Let me make 2 statements and see if you agree or not.
Paedophiles are the lowest of the low, we should use all of our
resources and attempt to catch these evil people and put them in
prison for a very long time.
Agree, YES or NO.

No. A paedophile is neither evil, nor the "lowest of the low". A
person who harms child OTOH has done something that IMO is very bad,
and should indeed be severely punished. I do not consider harm that
results from a sexually motivated act to be better or worse than
similar harm that results from some other motivation, such as greed or
anger.
Each crime should be punished according to its severity. A man who
breaks the arm of a child to steal her mobile phone is IMO deserving
of a more severe punishment than a paedophile who is convicted of
indecent assault because he patted the girl briefly on her bottom.

Strange how you manage to introduce your fantasies into your posts, is
this a conscious thing. Just for others reading, a paedo is unlikely
to stop at patting a girl on her bottom (unless he's caught), this is
a paedos way of trying to minimise what he is doing, he knows deep
down it is wrong, and is trying to convince himself it isnt.

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
The majority of the population of the UK is against paedophiles, and
are sickened and horrified by their actions, and would on the whole
agree with my first statement.
Agree, YES or NO.

Yes, I would agree with you there. I would go a stage further and say
that the majority are unable to separate the condition from the act,
and most people even believe that paedophilia is of itself illegal,
even though the majority do not understand what paedophilia actually
is.

SO, you agree that the majority of the population agree with my first
statement, however you disagree with it, so are in a minority group.

Please enlighten us on your version of paedaphilia.

[f***@mordor.com]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
SO, you agree that the majority of the population agree with my first
statement, however you disagree with it, so are in a minority group.
Please enlighten us on your version of paedaphilia.

Everyone please ignore this obvious troll.

[Alan Hope]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Strange how you manage to introduce your fantasies into your posts, is
this a conscious thing.

One might ask you the same question. Let's see: you deal with the
victims of abuse, but you can't spell paedophilia the same way twice
running. You're training to become a social worker, so you can make 30
percent of your current salary. And you're in tight with all the right
people to snoop into the affairs of a certain number of posters who
have annoyed you.

I'd have to hazard a guess that your profession is fuckwit. You're a
Registered Usenet Fuckwit with a degree in pulling shaggy-dog stories
out of your arse , and I claim my five pounds.

[Anon.]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Let me make 2 statements and see if you agree or not.
Paedophiles are the lowest of the low, we should use all of our
resources and attempt to catch these evil people and put them in
prison for a very long time.
Agree, YES or NO.

NO, I disagree. Those who sexually abuse children are guilty of very serious
crimes and ought to be punished. But being a paedophile is not a crime. And,
whilst not wanting to minimise the seriousness of sex abuse, there are worse
crimes. Murder, for example.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
The majority of the population of the UK is against paedophiles, and
are sickened and horrified by their actions, and would on the whole
agree with my first statement.
Agree, YES or NO.

YES, but largely because they haven't thought through the question and would
be responding based on their instincts, rather than common sense.

[Anon.]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

[PeteM]

@rockall.net>...

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Only a total moron or more likeley a paedo would try to minimise the
risks.

Hey - now I'm one too! That's *two* you've uncovered on this thread
alone, within a matter of days! At this rate you'll get a medal.

I dont want a medal, and i hadn't realised i had uncovered anyone, can
you please explain why you think i have. I also fail to understand how
any normal person can make a joke of such a serious and damaging
subject, would you please explain to everyone who may read this post,
why you deem it neccessary to say "now im one too"

Look above. "Only a total moron or more likely a paedo would try to
minimise the risks". *You* wrote that, referring to me. Therefore you
are saying I am "more likely" a paedophile.

Don't worry. I'm not going to sue. It's enough that you wrote what you
did.

Post by PeteM
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

No, i dont, but i do suspect people who show sympathies with them.

I see. My brother-in-law, a social worker, spent much of last Sunday
afternoon explaining why he sympathises with his heroin-addicted
clients. Presumably, then, he is himself a heroin addict.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Good Hunting ?, i dont go looking for paedos, i have to try and help
the kids they abuse.

I quote "... but working in my field we suspect evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working."

SUSPECT(look it up in a dictionary), we have to or are you not
intelligent enough to understand the reasons why ?.

I don't know. But I am intelligent enough to recognise that the
sentences "I don't go looking for paedos" and "We suspect everyone and
look for the tell-tale signs even when not working" are not consistent
with one another, and that anyone who simultaneously asserts both is
clearly incapable of rational thought.

Would you please explain where you have undertaken training on this
subject ?, where you gained your experience ?.

My experience is that neither I nor my rather large family circle have
ever encountered any form of paedophilia whatsoever. Nor AFAIK has it
ever occurred in my very wide social circle, which comprises thousands
of people over a period of forty-odd years.

This suggests to me that either I am a uniquely privileged person, or
the incidence of paedophilia is not as high as commonly alleged. Or
perhaps that everybody I know, including myself, is "in denial".

TBH I don't know for sure. I am waiting for some evidence either way.
Although how one could ever test the third theory I do not know.

Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so sad that people can still think like this..

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by PeteM
Look above. "Only a total moron or more likely a paedo would try to
minimise the risks". *You* wrote that, referring to me. Therefore you
are saying I am "more likely" a paedophile.
Don't worry. I'm not going to sue. It's enough that you wrote what you
did.

I have absolutley no worries whatsoever, and doubt that you would be
brave enough to actually reveal yourself to the general public at
large.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
Do you accuse *everyone* with whom you disagree of being a paedophile?
If so, there must be a somewhat strained atmosphere at your child
protection conferences.

No, i dont, but i do suspect people who show sympathies with them.

I see. My brother-in-law, a social worker, spent much of last Sunday
afternoon explaining why he sympathises with his heroin-addicted
clients. Presumably, then, he is himself a heroin addict.

Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

You on the other hand, have stated that you have sympathies with a
paedophile, who is the perpetrator, using the addict above as an
example, i suppose then that you would have sympathies with the drug
pushers and the drug barons then ?.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Good Hunting ?, i dont go looking for paedos, i have to try and help
the kids they abuse.

I quote "... but working in my field we suspect evryone, and look for
the tell tale signs, even when not actually working."

SUSPECT(look it up in a dictionary), we have to or are you not
intelligent enough to understand the reasons why ?.

I don't know. But I am intelligent enough to recognise that the
sentences "I don't go looking for paedos" and "We suspect everyone and
look for the tell-tale signs even when not working" are not consistent
with one another, and that anyone who simultaneously asserts both is
clearly incapable of rational thought.

Let me try and put this in a plain and simple way that even you can
understand :- Hunting is the act of deliberatley going out to trap an
animal (or human).

Suspecting everyone is a little bit different, i am not hunting them,
I look for tell tale signs when dealing with people who have been
accused of an action, and in a sense they are already caught. You
have misinterpereted my meaning.

Let me put it another way, if a crime has been committed, let say a
breakin at a house, the police will go hunting for the burglar.

However during the course of a normal working day, the police will no
doubt come into contact with lots of different people, and i am sure
use all of their experience to "weigh up" these people.

You seem to not have the capability to spot the difference between
hunting and suspicion.

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Would you please explain where you have undertaken training on this
subject ?, where you gained your experience ?.

My experience is that neither I nor my rather large family circle have
ever encountered any form of paedophilia whatsoever. Nor AFAIK has it
ever occurred in my very wide social circle, which comprises thousands
of people over a period of forty-odd years.

So you have no experience at all then, yet think that you know more on
the subject than trained and experienced people.

Post by PeteM
This suggests to me that either I am a uniquely privileged person, or
the incidence of paedophilia is not as high as commonly alleged. Or
perhaps that everybody I know, including myself, is "in denial".

I doubt if you made your views publicly known that you would have such
a large circle of friends.

The chances of you knowing a peadophile is remarkably high, the fact
that you seem to wish to bury the subject is worrying.

Just because something has never happenned to you doesn't mean it
doesnt happen to others, lets give an example that even you can
understand, you have never died, but it happens on a regular basis to
other people, unless of course those figures are exaggerated also.

What exactly do you base your "commonly alleged" thesis on, where do
you get your figures ?, explain please.

Post by PeteM
TBH I don't know for sure. I am waiting for some evidence either way.
Although how one could ever test the third theory I do not know.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so sad that people can still think like this..

Please tell me where in history people thought "like this", the
subject of paedophilia was always buried in the past, not talked
about, only over the last few years has it started to become openly
discussed.

There are thousands of children in this country that we know have been
abused, probably thousands more that we dont know about, how can you
justify minimising what has happenned to these children ?.

Will you also please explain what you think we should do, you dont
agree with the way things are going at the moment, then what is your
solution to the problem.

Also please explain what you believe the incidence of child abuse to
be, please explain how you came to this conclusion.

[Cynic]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

So tell me how a paedophile has "got into that situation"?

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

So tell me how a paedophile has "got into that situation"?

I make the same offer to you as i have to PeteM.

[Mike]

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

So tell me how a paedophile has "got into that situation"?

PMFJI but it seems that this "expert" doesn't know the difference
between a paedophile and a child abuser.

[Anon.]

Post by Mike

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

So tell me how a paedophile has "got into that situation"?

PMFJI but it seems that this "expert" doesn't know the difference
between a paedophile and a child abuser.

That's because he or she is a troll. At least, I hope for the sake of
society that it's a troll and not a real social worker......

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Anon.
That's because he or she is a troll. At least, I hope for the sake of
society that it's a troll and not a real social worker......

Im a he, and a big he at that, tall and broad, and lets say that on
first meeting me people generally think "he looks a big hard bastard",
i wont divulge any more.

I never claimed to be a social worker, im not, however i holding down
a full time job, and training to be one at the same time.

Society has nothing to fear from me, but they do from you i believe.

[Cynic]

Post by Mike

Post by Cynic

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Dont be such an arsehole, a heroin addict has got into this situation
because of maybe a weakness or manipulation by stronger people, and
are also victims in a sense. I also am able to sympathise to a degree
with a heroin addict, or anyone with a drug or alchohol problem.

So tell me how a paedophile has "got into that situation"?

PMFJI but it seems that this "expert" doesn't know the difference
between a paedophile and a child abuser.

They seldom do.

[PeteM]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM
Look above. "Only a total moron or more likely a paedo would try to
minimise the risks". *You* wrote that, referring to me. Therefore you
are saying I am "more likely" a paedophile.
Don't worry. I'm not going to sue. It's enough that you wrote what you
did.

I have absolutley no worries whatsoever, and doubt that you would be
brave enough to actually reveal yourself to the general public at
large.

Er ... is this meant to be ironic, Miss Anonnymis?

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Would you please explain where you have undertaken training on this
subject ?, where you gained your experience ?.

My experience is that neither I nor my rather large family circle have
ever encountered any form of paedophilia whatsoever. Nor AFAIK has it
ever occurred in my very wide social circle, which comprises thousands
of people over a period of forty-odd years.

So you have no experience at all then, yet think that you know more on
the subject than trained and experienced people.

All I have done on this thread - after my original parody - is to pose
questions and ask for evidence. If you are so very expert then you will
be able to supply it easily. In fact I suspect you have no idea.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Just because something has never happenned to you doesn't mean it
doesnt happen to others, lets give an example that even you can
understand, you have never died, but it happens on a regular basis to
other people, unless of course those figures are exaggerated also.

Read what I wrote again: Not only has sexual abuse never happened to me
personally,. but unlike death it has never happened to *anybody* I know,
AFAIK.

I am not claiming that sexual offending against children doesn't occur.
It does. I am just pointing out that the popular view - that huge
numbers of people are doing it - is not well supported by my experience.
Perhaps there is other evidence to support it, and if so I'd like to see
it.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
What exactly do you base your "commonly alleged" thesis on, where do
you get your figures ?, explain please.

You started this sub-thread by claiming that "paedophiles are
everywhere" (your post of Sun, 2 Nov 2003 00:49:53).

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Currently i am suspicious of you or your motives, and am beginning to
question where you get your views, i am wondering not only if you may
yourself be an abuser, but if you may be a victim yourself. Maybe you
are in denial.

I'd laugh, if it wasn't so sad that people can still think like this..

Please tell me where in history people thought "like this",

I mean your idea that those who challenge your own views on child abuse
must be paedophiles.

It was a very common thought-process in the witch-hunts of the 16th and
17th centuries, and the US communist hunts of the 1940s and 50s. Try
reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible".

[snip]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Will you also please explain what you think we should do, you dont
agree with the way things are going at the moment, then what is your
solution to the problem.

A good start would be a return to the presumption of innocence, an end
to the culture of treating all adult males as automatically suspect.

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Also please explain what you believe the incidence of child abuse to
be, please explain how you came to this conclusion.

I don't know. Nor, apparently, do you. My experience, and the apparent
absence of any other objective evidence, suggests it is a hell of a lot
less common than the social care community believes.

[Paul]

As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to actually
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place to
protect children from them. It is a well known fact that attack is the best
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any less
effective in my work.

I have worked with many excellent and dedicated children and families social
workers throughout the years and to accuse them of entering the profession
to be nearer kids is naive in the extreme. Posters here have obviously not
seen the absolute terror, hurt and injury inflicted on children, by adults
who justify their own distorted and warped actions on defenseless minors.
Critisism is healthy, but character asasination of a profession is pointless
and distateful.

I understand this post will fall on deaf ears, be pulled to pieces by
"aggieved individuals" who feel they have been hard done to ( or caught ),
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.

Paul

[Serf]

Post by Paul
As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.
Paul

Um, Paul, I am puzzled by your promise.

According to the NSPCC, 1 child in 4 is sexually abused.
So, how many millions of successful prosecutions for sexual child abuse were
there last year?

Is it completely wrong to attempt to establish a balanced and scientific
basis for safeguarding the welfare of children, rather than to be propelled
by mob hysteria?

serf

[Jon Thomas]

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to actually
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place to
protect children from them. It is a well known fact that attack is the best
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any less
effective in my work.
I have worked with many excellent and dedicated children and families social
workers throughout the years and to accuse them of entering the profession
to be nearer kids is naive in the extreme. Posters here have obviously not
seen the absolute terror, hurt and injury inflicted on children, by adults
who justify their own distorted and warped actions on defenseless minors.
Critisism is healthy, but character asasination of a profession is pointless
and distateful.

I'm sure that the families in the Broxstowe, Cleveland, Orkney and Shieldfield
cases would be willing to argue the point.

Post by Paul
I understand this post will fall on deaf ears, be pulled to pieces by
"aggieved individuals" who feel they have been hard done to ( or caught ),
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.
Paul

Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling mistakes are
similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social worker", whatever that is,
receive training in identifying paedophiles on Usenet, too, and in threatening
them?

[Paul]

For the ignorant, an approved social worker is a social worker "approved" by
their local authority to undertake mental health act 1983 work. In other
words, we assess and detain people under the mental health act 1983, if
deemed necesary. Interestingly enough, we do get training in identifying
paedophiles and no, Tony Morgan is not a name I know, or use. Apologies for
the spelling mistakes, but tiring day spent identifying paedophiles and not
detaining them under the mental health act 1983. Had a rather productive
result today by diverting someone into custody for child offences. Very
satisfying to tell someone they are barking up the wrong tree by playing the
"im mentally ill" ploy and confront them with their repulsive actions.

It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense. Something that is
obviously lacking in some of the previous posts


Keep defending your corner, believe me, your not paranoid, you really are
being watched.

Paul ( Not Tony Morgan )

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to actually
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place to
protect children from them. It is a well known fact that attack is the best
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any less
effective in my work.
I have worked with many excellent and dedicated children and families social
workers throughout the years and to accuse them of entering the profession
to be nearer kids is naive in the extreme. Posters here have obviously not
seen the absolute terror, hurt and injury inflicted on children, by adults
who justify their own distorted and warped actions on defenseless minors.
Critisism is healthy, but character asasination of a profession is pointless
and distateful.

I'm sure that the families in the Broxstowe, Cleveland, Orkney and Shieldfield
cases would be willing to argue the point.

Post by Paul
I understand this post will fall on deaf ears, be pulled to pieces by
"aggieved individuals" who feel they have been hard done to ( or caught ),
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.
Paul

Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling mistakes are
similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social worker", whatever that is,
receive training in identifying paedophiles on Usenet, too, and in threatening
them?

[PeteM]

Post by Paul
For the ignorant, an approved social worker is a social worker "approved" by
their local authority to undertake mental health act 1983 work. In other
words, we assess and detain people under the mental health act 1983, if
deemed necesary.

Congratulations. You are a very important person indeed.

Post by Paul
Interestingly enough, we do get training in identifying
paedophiles and no, Tony Morgan is not a name I know, or use. Apologies for
the spelling mistakes, but tiring day spent identifying paedophiles and not
detaining them under the mental health act 1983. Had a rather productive
result today by diverting someone into custody for child offences. Very
satisfying to tell someone they are barking up the wrong tree by playing the
"im mentally ill" ploy and confront them with their repulsive actions.

I suppose you have to get your satisfaction where you can, now that you
are no longer a policeman.

Post by Paul
It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense.

Tell me something. When you identify a paedophile on Usenet, how do you
go about verifying the identification?

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by PeteM

Post by Paul
It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense.

Tell me something. When you identify a paedophile on Usenet, how do you
go about verifying the identification?

You are traceable, even behind a firewall or Natted, it is still
possible.

Some people assume that if they make posts from work then they are
safe, what they fail to realise is that the servers at work also
monitor each individual connection, (ISP's logs are similar) and it is
quite easy to show which site people logged onto at any given time,
this combined with information from usenet / google / whoever you post
through, makes for quite a bit of information.

The Police are now employing experts in this field, and in the future
i think we can expect to see evidence like this being used to secure
convictions.

This is still a relativeley new field for the police / CPS /
prosecution, and mistakes have been made (the officer in the Soham
inquiry being one i believe), but the wonderful thing about this is,
that some of this information (log files, data etc) is often held for
months, even years, ( go onto google and see how far back some of the
posts are dated) even in a couple of years from now, activities done
today on computers, can be discovered.


Hope this worries you.

[PeteM]

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by PeteM

Post by Paul
It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense.

Tell me something. When you identify a paedophile on Usenet, how do you
go about verifying the identification?

You are traceable, even behind a firewall or Natted, it is still
possible.

That's not the issue. Of course it is often possible to trace a poster's
real identity. What I meant was - when you diagnose a Usenet poster as a
paedophile, how could you ever know whether such a diagnosis is right or
wrong?

The answer is, you couldn't. So your "diagnosis" is worth nothing at
all. It is a pure, wild, unsubstantiated guess. Just like every
assertion you have posted to this thread, in fact.

[Jon Thomas]

For the ignorant, an approved social worker is a social worker . In other
words, we assess and detain people under the mental health act 1983, if
deemed necesary. Interestingly enough, we do get training in identifying
paedophiles and no, Tony Morgan is not a name I know, or use. Apologies for
the spelling mistakes, but tiring day spent identifying paedophiles and not
detaining them under the mental health act 1983. Had a rather productive
result today by diverting someone into custody for child offences. Very
satisfying to tell someone they are barking up the wrong tree by playing the
"im mentally ill" ploy and confront them with their repulsive actions.

You are approved and trained in confronting people, too? I'm afraid you
sound implausible to me.

It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense. Something that is
obviously lacking in some of the previous posts

Indeed so.

I'm intrigued: how do you identify paedophiles on Usenet?

Keep defending your corner, believe me, your not paranoid,

What corner do you think I'm defending? Your readiness to assess paranoia
in someone completely unknown to you apart from a couple of Usenet posts
doesn't give much confidence in your training or judgement nor, I may say,
in those who 'approved' you.

you really are being watched.

Am I? That's the second time in successive posts that you've made a
menacing statement. Perhaps you *were* a cop at one time. I do hope
that your claim to be a social worker - especially one with influence upon
the identification and disposition alleged paedophiles - is nothing more
than a fantasy.

[Paul Nutteing]

Post by Paul
For the ignorant, an approved social worker is a social worker "approved" by
their local authority to undertake mental health act 1983 work. In other
words, we assess and detain people under the mental health act 1983, if
deemed necesary. Interestingly enough, we do get training in identifying
paedophiles and no, Tony Morgan is not a name I know, or use. Apologies for
the spelling mistakes, but tiring day spent identifying paedophiles and not
detaining them under the mental health act 1983. Had a rather productive
result today by diverting someone into custody for child offences. Very
satisfying to tell someone they are barking up the wrong tree by playing the
"im mentally ill" ploy and confront them with their repulsive actions.
It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense. Something that is
obviously lacking in some of the previous posts
Keep defending your corner, believe me, your not paranoid, you really are
being watched.
Paul ( Not Tony Morgan )

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to

actually

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in

place

Post by Paul
to

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
protect children from them. It is a well known fact that attack is the

best

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any

less

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
effective in my work.
I have worked with many excellent and dedicated children and families

social

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
workers throughout the years and to accuse them of entering the

profession

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
to be nearer kids is naive in the extreme. Posters here have obviously

not

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
seen the absolute terror, hurt and injury inflicted on children, by

adults

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
who justify their own distorted and warped actions on defenseless minors.
Critisism is healthy, but character asasination of a profession is

pointless

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
and distateful.

I'm sure that the families in the Broxstowe, Cleveland, Orkney and

Shieldfield

Post by Jon Thomas
cases would be willing to argue the point.

Post by Paul
I understand this post will fall on deaf ears, be pulled to pieces by
"aggieved individuals" who feel they have been hard done to ( or

caught ),

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.
Paul

Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling mistakes

are

Post by Jon Thomas
similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social worker", whatever

that

Post by Paul
is,

Post by Jon Thomas
receive training in identifying paedophiles on Usenet, too, and in

threatening

Post by Jon Thomas
them?

As you are expert at identifying paedos
from minimal evidence - cast your eyes over the
following article titles. Obviously the work
of an obsessive.
Troublesome Girls,Feminity and the State

Malestream training? Women,feminism and social work education

The child sexual abuse "industry" and gender relations in social work

Feminism and social work - resistance or dialogue

Changing perspectives - feminism ,gender and social work

Towards an effective policy for delinquent girls

Women , oppression and social work

The Welfare State and adolescent feminity

"No Man is Safe" - The Welfare State,Social Work and Adolescent Girls .

In your opinion does this preoccupation with
young girls match the profile of a paedo.

What you didn't know about DNA profiling
and what they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

e mail ***@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Paul
For the ignorant, an approved social worker is a social worker "approved" by
their local authority to undertake mental health act 1983 work. In other
words, we assess and detain people under the mental health act 1983, if
deemed necesary. Interestingly enough, we do get training in identifying
paedophiles and no, Tony Morgan is not a name I know, or use. Apologies for
the spelling mistakes, but tiring day spent identifying paedophiles and not
detaining them under the mental health act 1983. Had a rather productive
result today by diverting someone into custody for child offences. Very
satisfying to tell someone they are barking up the wrong tree by playing the
"im mentally ill" ploy and confront them with their repulsive actions.
It is not rocket science to identify paedophiles on usenet, just very good
training in the subject, a background in police work ( yes, I was a police
officer before a social worker ) and common sense. Something that is
obviously lacking in some of the previous posts
Keep defending your corner, believe me, your not paranoid, you really are
being watched.
Paul ( Not Tony Morgan )

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to

actually

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place

to

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
protect children from them. It is a well known fact that attack is the

best

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any

less

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
effective in my work.
I have worked with many excellent and dedicated children and families

social

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
workers throughout the years and to accuse them of entering the

profession

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
to be nearer kids is naive in the extreme. Posters here have obviously

not

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
seen the absolute terror, hurt and injury inflicted on children, by

adults

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
who justify their own distorted and warped actions on defenseless minors.
Critisism is healthy, but character asasination of a profession is

pointless

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
and distateful.

I'm sure that the families in the Broxstowe, Cleveland, Orkney and

Shieldfield

Post by Jon Thomas
cases would be willing to argue the point.

Post by Paul
I understand this post will fall on deaf ears, be pulled to pieces by
"aggieved individuals" who feel they have been hard done to ( or

caught ),

Post by Jon Thomas

Post by Paul
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.
Paul

Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling mistakes

are

Post by Jon Thomas
similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social worker", whatever that

is,

Post by Jon Thomas
receive training in identifying paedophiles on Usenet, too, and in

threatening

Post by Jon Thomas
them?

Well done Paul two very good posts. I really would like to take a
more proactive role in tracking down sickos like these.

[Jon Thomas]

On 5th November 2003, "anonnymis - and illliterrit" wrote:
(cut)

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
Well done Paul two very good posts.

They were not and were disturbing coming from someone who claims
to have been trained in and approved for social work..

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit
I really would like to take a more proactive role in tracking down sickos
like these.

...just as have been all of yours. However, I think that you're just a noisy
fantasist. You have no skill in argument, resorting to bombast and insult
when challenged.

[Tony Morgan]

Post by Jon Thomas
Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling
mistakes are similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social
worker", whatever that is, receive training in identifying paedophiles
on Usenet, too, and in threatening them?

I am me - no one else. I don't use aliases. And you might note that I
use a real address and don't hide behind an anonymous hotmail (or
whatever) account (or an e-mail address like Jon Thomas).

Insofar as spelling mistakes are concerned, I'd suggest you have a read
of RFC1855 so you don't continue to come across as a cluebie.

[Jon Thomas]

Post by Tony Morgan

Post by Jon Thomas
Weren't you 'Tony Morgan' just a short time ago? The spelling
mistakes are similar, as is the tone. Does an "approved social
worker", whatever that is, receive training in identifying paedophiles
on Usenet, too, and in threatening them?

I am me - no one else. I don't use aliases.

He sounds like you, writes like you, and appears to share a preoccupation, so
the question was not unreasonable.

Post by Tony Morgan
And you might note that I use a real address and don't hide behind an
anonymous hotmail (or whatever) account (or an e-mail address like Jon Thomas).

For all you know it's the name my parents gave me. It's a perfectly respectable
name. Would it make me any more overt and you any you less suspicious if I
called myself just 'Jon'. How about 'Paul'?

Post by Tony Morgan
Insofar as spelling mistakes are concerned, I'd suggest you have a read
of RFC1855

"Don't...post messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing" is
the only reference in that document. His and your tendency to make spelling
mistakes was germane to my suggestion that you might be one and the same.

Post by Tony Morgan
so you don't continue to come across as a cluebie.

Hmm...is that what's known as a 'lame flame'?

You quoted my server so "anonymous hotmail (or whatever) account " doesn't
make you look too clued-up.

[PeteM]

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to actually
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place to
protect children from them.

You "welcome debate" while simultaneously denouncing your opponents as
paedophiles. I assume this is meant ironically?

Post by Paul
It is a well known fact that attack is the best
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any less
effective in my work.

Try it sometime. Chlorpromazine might improve your cognitive faculties.

Post by Paul
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.

Come now. That's laying the irony on a bit too thick.

[Paul]

We are out of date a little here yeah? Chlorpromazine is one of the oldest
antipsychotics on the market and if you are prescribed them, please be
careful while in the sun as it will make you extremely photosensitive. Try
one of the newer atypicals like clozapine. Much more effective, less dirty
and with far fewer side effects.

Good luck.

Paul

Post by PeteM

Post by Paul
As an approved social worker I have to say how refreshing it is to actually
get some debate on this newsgroup for a change, allbeit by narrow minded
paedophiles who justify their existance by rubbishing the system in place to
protect children from them.

You "welcome debate" while simultaneously denouncing your opponents as
paedophiles. I assume this is meant ironically?

Post by Paul
It is a well known fact that attack is the best
form of defence and has been clearly displayed by several posters to this
discussion. I deal with mentally ill people day in, day out, have never
experienced a severe psychotic breakdown, but that doesnt make me any less
effective in my work.

Try it sometime. Chlorpromazine might improve your cognitive faculties.

Post by Paul
but have no fear. As long as social services, police and other caring
organisations continue in their fine work, you will be caught. Thats a
promise.

Come now. That's laying the irony on a bit too thick.
--
PeteM

[plr]

I have been interested in the discussion over the past few weeks. I wonder
whether this dry boring response will be of interest (or bing sane, if it
will be ignored?)



"Paedophile": Definition

Lord Robertson of Oakridge asked Her Majesty's Government:


What is the legal definition of the term "paedophile", and which Acts
define offences committed by paedophiles.


Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no legal definition of the term
"paedophile". The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition:
"a person with paedophilia, i.e. an abnormal especially sexual love of
children". The main sexual offences against children are listed below:

(i) offences under the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956:





(a) Section 1 (rape)




(b) Section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13)




(c) Section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16)




(d) Section 10 (incest by a man)




(e) Section 12 (buggery)




(f) Section 13 (indecency between men)




(g) Section 14 (indecent assault on a woman)




(h) Section 15 (indecent assault on a man)




(i) Section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery)




(j) Section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with,
or indecent assault on, a girl under 16)

(ii) an offence under Section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960
(indecent conduct towards young child)

(iii) an offence under Section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting a
girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse)

(iv) an offence under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978
(indecent photographs of children)

(v) an offence under Section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods
prohibited to be imported under Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act
1876 (prohibitions and restrictions); and

(vi) an offence under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
(possession of indecent photographs of children).

[Guy Fawkes]

Post by plr
I have been interested in the discussion over the past few weeks. I wonder
whether this dry boring response will be of interest (or bing sane, if it
will be ignored?)
"Paedophile": Definition
What is the legal definition of the term "paedophile", and which Acts
define offences committed by paedophiles.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no legal definition of the term
"paedophile". The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following
definition: "a person with paedophilia, i.e. an abnormal especially sexual
love of children". The main sexual offences against children are listed

there is however a well known, totally understood, and totally ignored by
the media definition, which is someone who expresses (sexual) love
(desires) for PRE_PUBESCENT AND ANDROGYNOUS children.

a man who looks at a well developed 13 year old girl and entertains the odd
sexual thought such as "I wish I was back at school" but takes no action is
by definition NOT a paedophile.

[plr]

Guy Fawkes said,
" there is however a well known, totally understood, and totally ignored by
the media definition, which is someone who expresses (sexual) love (desires)
for PRE_PUBESCENT AND ANDROGYNOUS children."



OK, but a person (male or female) who has sexual desires for children
prepubescent/ adolescent and/or androgenous and takes no action is still a
paedophile. This person may not be a criminal, but is still a paedophile.

Paedophiles are not fully represented in the figures because of a number of
factors:
1. They haven't been caught
2. They haven't been convicted
3. They have not committed a crime (eg getting off on looking at
catalogue pictures of children/ looking at kids at school etc then
masturbating later)
4. They commit crimes out of this country

Paedophiles are represented in every profession, but have 'naturally' been
drawn to the 'caring' professions as these allow access to the vulnerable
children.

Makes me sad and yes, extra vigilant when I am interviewing for staff.

plr

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by plr
Paedophiles are not fully represented in the figures because of a number of
1. They haven't been caught
2. They haven't been convicted
3. They have not committed a crime (eg getting off on looking at
catalogue pictures of children/ looking at kids at school etc then
masturbating later)
4. They commit crimes out of this country
Paedophiles are represented in every profession, but have 'naturally' been
drawn to the 'caring' professions as these allow access to the vulnerable
children.
Makes me sad and yes, extra vigilant when I am interviewing for staff.
plr

Thank god for some sanity, i was beginning to think that me and some
of the other posters in the original thread were in a minority.

Your "extra vigilant" statement is refreshing, and backs up my
"suspect everyone" angle in the earlier post, extra vigilant is a much
better way of expressing what i meant.

[Mike Pellatt]

On 6 Nov 2003 12:43:01 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit
<***@rock.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by plr
Paedophiles are represented in every profession, but have 'naturally' been
drawn to the 'caring' professions as these allow access to the vulnerable
children.
Makes me sad and yes, extra vigilant when I am interviewing for staff.

Thank god for some sanity, i was beginning to think that me and some
of the other posters in the original thread were in a minority.
Your "extra vigilant" statement is refreshing, and backs up my
"suspect everyone" angle in the earlier post, extra vigilant is a much
better way of expressing what i meant.

It's not just a "better way of expressing what you meant", it's
an entirely different approach. His approach is right, yours is
unhelpful. Which is why it has generated so much heat.

[Anon.]

Post by Mike Pellatt
On 6 Nov 2003 12:43:01 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit
<snip>

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by plr
Paedophiles are represented in every profession, but have 'naturally' been
drawn to the 'caring' professions as these allow access to the vulnerable
children.
Makes me sad and yes, extra vigilant when I am interviewing for staff.

Thank god for some sanity, i was beginning to think that me and some
of the other posters in the original thread were in a minority.
Your "extra vigilant" statement is refreshing, and backs up my
"suspect everyone" angle in the earlier post, extra vigilant is a much
better way of expressing what i meant.

It's not just a "better way of expressing what you meant", it's
an entirely different approach. His approach is right, yours is
unhelpful. Which is why it has generated so much heat.

Well said. No-one objects to a sensible and proportionate level of
vigilence. It's the hysterical "every man is a potential paedo" approach
that so many of us object to.

[Big_Kev]

Post by Mike Pellatt
On 6 Nov 2003 12:43:01 -0800, anonnymis - and illliterrit
<snip>

Post by anonnymis - and illliterrit

Post by plr
Paedophiles are represented in every profession, but have 'naturally' been
drawn to the 'caring' professions as these allow access to the vulnerable
children.
Makes me sad and yes, extra vigilant when I am interviewing for staff.

Thank god for some sanity, i was beginning to think that me and some
of the other posters in the original thread were in a minority.
Your "extra vigilant" statement is refreshing, and backs up my
"suspect everyone" angle in the earlier post, extra vigilant is a much
better way of expressing what i meant.

It's not just a "better way of expressing what you meant", it's
an entirely different approach. His approach is right, yours is
unhelpful. Which is why it has generated so much heat.

Ever considered that this guy may have deliberatley made statements to
inflame, certainly seems to have had the effect of bringing some
cockroaches out of the woodwork.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by Mike Pellatt
It's not just a "better way of expressing what you meant", it's
an entirely different approach. His approach is right, yours is
unhelpful. Which is why it has generated so much heat.

Here are the meanings of the words used.

Vigilant :- On the alert; watchful
extra- Outside; beyond




Suspect :- To have doubts about; distrust:

Slightly different, not entirley different.

This man is "beyond being watchful" about people he interviews, i on
the otherhand would have doubts about them.

Seems pretty similar to me.

[anonnymis - and illliterrit]

Post by plr
I have been interested in the discussion over the past few weeks. I wonder
whether this dry boring response will be of interest (or bing sane, if it
will be ignored?)
"Paedophile": Definition
What is the legal definition of the term "paedophile", and which Acts
define offences committed by paedophiles.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no legal definition of the term
"a person with paedophilia, i.e. an abnormal especially sexual love of
(a) Section 1 (rape)
(b) Section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13)
(c) Section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16)
(d) Section 10 (incest by a man)
(e) Section 12 (buggery)
(f) Section 13 (indecency between men)
(g) Section 14 (indecent assault on a woman)
(h) Section 15 (indecent assault on a man)
(i) Section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery)
(j) Section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with,
or indecent assault on, a girl under 16)
(ii) an offence under Section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960
(indecent conduct towards young child)
(iii) an offence under Section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting a
girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse)
(iv) an offence under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978
(indecent photographs of children)
(v) an offence under Section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods
prohibited to be imported under Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act
1876 (prohibitions and restrictions); and
(vi) an offence under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
(possession of indecent photographs of children).

We also have the new "grooming" law that will come into effect, as
well as changes to current laws most of this has become neccessary
because the law is currently not up to date with technology.

Another change is the incest law this is to be extended.

[Serf]

I have been asked to support a family at a Child Protection Conference.

I

note that this is an informal discussion to identify areas giving

concern

regarding the welfare of children.
How important is it for the family to instruct a solicitor? Are there

any

pitfalls which they should be aware of in advance?
Regards,
serf

Serf -
I am a teacher who has been involved in social service proceedings as a

third

party.
1. As other posters have said, everyone in the meeting will have an

agenda -

the welfare of the children. The parents, or the social workers, may be

the

ones who are misguided about what is best for the children.
2. Be aware that there may be background the family haven't told you. Your
later post leaves a few questions unanswered. I know plenty of families

much

stranger than the one you describe, who haven't merited social services'
attention. Where did the initial referral come from? Case conference is

not

automatic - someone, somewhere outside of social services (a GP or

hospital?)

have both raised a concern and providing at least some evidence to support
that concern during the initial investigation.
3. A case conference will have an agenda. It may be that the social

services

have decided that the children are at risk through other avenues of
investigation - GP, family visit, etc. and the case conference is about

how

to manage that risk. For the benefit of previous posters, a case

conference

is not usually called in order to find out the level of risk - that is
achieved through statements/interviews from GP, hospital, school, the
referrer, the family themselves. A case conference is often to decide what
the best course of action is given that a level of risk has been

determined

(rightly or wrongly), or to review progress from a previous case

conference.

Clarify from the very beginning what the case conference is about - it

could

be anything from terminating the investigation and tying up loose ends; to
identifying where the children will be placed because ss have already

decided

they will go into care (extremely unlikely to the nth degree if what you

have

posted is all that ss have).
4. Your post doesn't make it clear how well you know the family, or if

they

have contacted you in your professional/voluntary capacity. I'm not saying

to

be suspicious of the family, but be professional by clarifying your role

from

the beginning. Your brief should be to clarify any issues regarding home
schooling; possibly offer professional judgement regarding the standard of
the children's education if you can back this up with evidence; possibly

to

be a third party present to ensure that the family aren't

bullied/intimidated

(although a solicitor would clearly be better for this). Don't offer any

view

you are not 100% sure of - the family's say-so should not be good enough

to

make you 100% sure.
5. A solicitor may be useful in advising the family on their legal rights
(although not particularly common). Compare the conference to informally
speaking with a suspicious police officer. Anything said may be

incriminating

or may influence the outcome.
6. Be aware that ss cases are often complicated, emotive and messy. Ensure
that the family and ss know what your role is and stick to it. Be very

wary

of comebacks for yourself and your organisation, both from the family and
from ss.
Russell

Thank you very much Russell. I shall take this and all other advice given
to heart.

Regards,
serf