BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Dismay as International Paedophile Probe fails

 
 
Peach Pie
14:54 / 24.08.03
Dismay as international paedophile probe fails

MARCELLO MEGA


THE massive internet child pornography investigation Operation Ore has ended in Scotland without anybody being charged with sex abuse, senior police officers have revealed.

Police chiefs are dismayed that no one found to have accessed child pornography on the web is being prosecuted for abuse despite officers having "grave doubts" about the safety of children living with them.

According to the senior officers, the 16-month operation, costing millions of pounds and involving all eight Scottish police forces, failed to gather the necessary evidence.

The Scottish arm of Operation Ore was wound up three weeks ago after investigating some 350 people north of the Border, about 200 of whom were in Strathclyde and 70 in Lothian and Borders.

One member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) who was involved in planning and pursuing the investigation north of the Border and asked not to be named said: "On many occasions I heard that officers had experienced grave doubts about the safety of certain children, but nobody reported anything to us so we could not press charges. This means that after expending a massive chunk of our resources on this inquiry, not a single person will be convicted of ‘hands-on’ abuse.

"That would not trouble us if we thought that all the men who were looking at child porn on their computer were just sad creeps who did not pose a risk to the children in their lives, but that is not the conclusion that was drawn from every raid."

The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) was given a list of more than 7,200 UK suspects by the FBI after American investigators took over a website in 1998 used by 75,000 subscribers worldwide accessing hundreds of illegal pay-to-view sites by credit card.

It is understood that NCIS decided some 2,000 UK subscribers out of more than 7,200 suspects should be pursued.

Computer equipment and other items have been removed and examined for evidence linking the owners to paid-for child porn sites. The operation has been a massive drain on resources, partly due to the rigorous standards of evidence-gathering. Each computer seized can take experts many months to examine at an estimated average cost of £2,000.

Celebrities, lawyers, police officers, teachers and clergymen have been among those arrested under Operation Ore.

Last week, Detective Constable Brian Stevens, a family liaison officer in the Soham double-murder inquiry, was cleared of charges of having illegal images on his computer and of sexually assaulting two girls. He is just one of some 50 police officers in the UK who have become entangled in Operation Ore’s web.
However, British forces were overwhelmed by the scale of the operation and, as the months passed, tough decisions had to be made to dispose of some cases with a warning. Some of those who have been caught, including the rock star Pete Townshend - who said he accessed the sites for research purposes - have been cautioned and added to the sex offenders’ register.

The Scottish courts are now experiencing a steady trickle of cases linked to the inquiry and experts estimate it will be another two years before every case is concluded.

Under current legislation, people convicted of possessing child pornography face a maximum sentence of five years, distribution carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. The maximum sentence for child abuse is life.

Expressing his disappointment that no sex abuse charges have been brought, the senior member of ACPOS said: "When we received our lists from the FBI, there were so many names that we had to prioritise. We had to go first of all to those who had access to children, either through their jobs or in the home."

Last night, Anne Houston, director of the helpline Childline Scotland, said: "We hear from hundreds of children every year who tell us they have been sexually abused. Every image of child abuse on the internet is a crime scene.

"If Operation Ore is to be wound down, we very much hope police take child abuse on the internet seriously and continue to put resources into catching the perpetrators."

SNP MSP Nicola Sturgeon, the shadow justice minister, said she understood the senior officers’ frustration: "It’s worrying if the police have suspicions that people are involved in child abuse and nobody is going to be convicted."
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
05:55 / 25.08.03
Lovely. So people will be 'suspected' but will never get charged so will never have their opportunity to defend themselves in court and The News of the World will get to write editorials about how the criminal system is failing our children and start publishing their inaccurate lists of paedophiles again.

I don't suppose there's any chance of people involved looking to see whether the danger had been blown out of all proportion to the amount of abuse out there perchance?
 
 
Peach Pie
15:56 / 25.08.03
I would imagine that there's much *more* exists than is reported.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
20:13 / 25.08.03
Aah, with an imagination like that, who needs 'facts' or 'proof'?
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:32 / 25.08.03
This really is one of those stories that appears to be a scandalous failure of justice but, with a second reading, isn't. In summary -- some police officers were given a list of 350 people who are suspected of the crime of possessing pornographic pictures of children. They were then frustrated that they were not able to prosecute any of them for the separate and more serious crime of actual abuse, even though some of the subjects looked a bit shifty. What a surprise.
 
 
Peach Pie
09:37 / 26.08.03
why is 'why don't' patronising me? why is recognising that the police were obviously frustrated in their efforts at some level proof of some sort of 'imagination'?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:15 / 26.08.03
Well, I'd hazard that "I *imagine* that there's much more..." was taken as a pretty good sign that imagination was being used. I don't think Why Don't is being terribly controversial in suggesting that this is your imagination at work, since you just said that it was.

Perhaps the point is that if the police were frustrated in their desire to convict because of a lack of evidence, that may not actually be because these people are getting away with it (all their lives....getting away with it).

It may, conversely, be that the evidence is not available because the evidence to obtain a conviction does not exist. If the police get to start saying what is and is not an acceptable level of evidence to bang somebody up, then the legal system becomes a bit pointless and we're back to psychic noncequisitors.

On the lynch mobs, I was interested to read an account over the weekend from one of the people mistaken for a paedophile named by the News of the World (because he had a neck brace, despite being called something entirely different and living some 40 miles away). Apparently, the police came round to assure the baying mob that he was not in fact a paedophile, and the crowd refused to believe them.

Is this a failure of reason brought on by fear, or is it a reflection of the principle that, in general, people would rather believe that others *were* paedophiles than that they weren't?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:16 / 26.08.03
Because you're assuming they're guilty when there is no proof that they have ever so much as looked at a child in a noncey way whereas I'm taking the view that if someone is not charged with a crime then they should be treated as innocent of such a crime. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient but there you go.

Now, if this is the point in the discussion where you'd like to tell the group that you have magical paedophile smelling powers then please go ahead. I'm not intending to patronise you, merely questioning your assumption that there's a huge international conspiracy of nonces who have escaped justice.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
21:11 / 26.08.03
Oh. See, I read goldfish's post as saying that there's probably more abuse out there than gets reported. Nothing particularly controversial or unexpected in that...
 
 
Peach Pie
12:33 / 27.08.03
Precisely, Jack.
 
 
Peach Pie
12:39 / 27.08.03
P.S. 'why don't' and 'haus', in addition to being filled with some sort of ego-trippy need to condescend, ironically appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I'm assuming you haven't realised that a cover up has taken place here?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
13:13 / 27.08.03
I'm assuming you haven't realised that a cover up has taken place here?

... Fairly standard Barbelith practice then: where's your evidence? Whether prefaced with, "I imagine that..." or not, I don't think it's unfair to dismiss assertions without anything solid with which to back them up as "imagination"...
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:24 / 27.08.03
Sorry, I'm not clear on this. All I can see is journo-histrionics. How does this cover-up work? And what's being covered up?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:23 / 27.08.03
The article that you've quoted doesn't suggest any cover up. It notes that the 16-month operation, costing millions of pounds and involving all eight Scottish police forces, failed to gather the necessary evidence and that nobody reported anything to [the police] so [they] could not press charges.

Basically the police failed to get any evidence that suggested actual abuse. No one suggested there was any abuse going on in the first place, the evidence was all linked to Internet sites, thus no cover up. If anyone's at fault it's the people who decided this information was solid enough to convict people off the back of.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:15 / 27.08.03
Sec- Please feel free to give your proof that I don't know what I talk about, I'm fairly sure I do not what I'm talking about, it being my head and all that, but then I might be in need of psychiatric assistance so it could be that indeed I don't know what I'm talking about. And some proof of this cover up you've suddenly plucked from the air would be nice too.
 
 
Peach Pie
16:34 / 27.08.03
what on earth is this 'why don't' - some testosterone fuelled surge to 'beat' other people on what they say?

you're so smart - the evidence is out there. i suggest you find it. i cannot be bothered with your rudeness any more.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:30 / 27.08.03
Well, gosh. We got to Mornington Crescent unbelievably quickly there. Not even a sniff of the international white Turkish Jewish conspiracy...

So, the proof of your beliefs exists, but you are not prepared to share it, because we have not accepted your opinion as the truth to start with, in which case we would not need proof. Perfectly circular, perfectly unhelpful.

If you have anything to demonstrate that the Police were stopped from prosecuting by a conspiracy, rather than, for example, a lack of evidence or resources as a result of having poured money and time into a dodgy tip-off, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, one might just as well decide that the honest coppers involved were distracted into investigating innocents in order to allow the real noncerators to continue their work unmolested by sinister masonic forces beyond their ken...

This sounds to me like bad logistics, bad planning and a lack of funding being offset by rather constructive policing - arrest somebody on sketchy grounds, get their names into the papers, then release them without having to put your evidence against theirs in a trial, ensuring that they have been delivered of a good beating with the paedo brush without actually having to prove that accusation in court. 3-D, anyone?

Some of those not prosecuted may well have been guilty, others prosecuted may well have been innocent, but we need a bit more than "they were arrested" to prove their culpability. Thankfully, you have that bit more, unless you are, of course, attempting to conceal the skimpiness of your argument by storming off in a huff, which seems highly improbable.
 
 
Peach Pie
18:46 / 27.08.03
Whatever.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:00 / 27.08.03
Goldfish- Presuming you aren't her already, I suggest you try and get in contact with Laila (Chrome can probably help you there), she bleeds and cries for every nonced child in the world you know.

But in the hopes that we can actually salvage something useful from this thread, wasn't an operation of this size always at risk of being doomed from the get go? I mean, look at the numbers, 75,000 worldwide subscribers, 7,200 UK subscribers, Each computer seized can take experts many months to examine at an estimated average cost of £2,000, and it looks like the 2000 cases the NCIS decided to follow up were probably based on cost. Plus this all coincided with various Anti-terrorist shenanigans in the UK post Sept. 11th. Does the UK police have the resources for long-winded, open-ended hunts where there's very little proof of actual wrongdoing?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:31 / 27.08.03
Another question is how you *do* police against paedophiles exchanging pictures or associating through the Internet. Possibly, like terrorism, a problem here is lack of human intelligence - too much depending on surveillance. I'd suggest that the best combo might be a number of embedded investigators (problematic in itself for all sorts of personal and legal reasons), a clear benefit for whistle-blowers (amnesty, or possibly reduced sentences), and a clear, established threat of capture...
 
 
Peach Pie
09:48 / 28.08.03
'Why don't' -

the best you can do, being on the wrong side of this argument, is to suggest that I was nonced? Isn't this rather moronic? And an insult to all those people who actually *were* nonced?

Let me guess - you *still* find the fact that people don't want to listen to you mysterious, right?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:04 / 28.08.03
Hang on- okay Secret Goldfish, you assumed that this was a case that went wrong at first, a perfectly reasonable assumption and unfortunately you were confronted by the sardonic twins. It seems to me that all of you have since read far too much in to each others words. You are after all quite clearly allowed to imagine that there is more abuse going on then there's proof for, as long as you recognise that you don't actually know for sure, something that everyone's been trying to point out and not particularly subtly.

Secret Goldfish, why do you think there's a conspiracy here rather than blatant police incompetence? You're getting on your uppity horse when all anyone's asking for is an explanation, even if the twins are asking in a bastarding way that doesn't make the question any less valid, they are not the people coming across as morons. If you will take it upon youself to defend people who have been abused you might wish to use slightly more careful language than the word 'nonced'.

This is a very emotive issue but not a particularly emotive article... all it tells us is that the police are screwing up and where's the surprise with that? Can this not descend in to a pathetic argument about who's right, who's wrong, who's offensive and who's a moron?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:35 / 28.08.03
Secret Goldfish- I made no such claim at all, as with the rest of this thread it's YOU that have decided to misinterpret what's been written and it's YOU that seems to be getting in the way of us discussing the original article. It would also help if you were able to distinguish between someone disagreeing with your argument (which is what I've been trying to do from the start) and attacking you personally (which I'm just about managing to resist thus far). So perhaps you could either join in the discussion in hand or say 'Whatever' again in that charming way of yours?

I thought Scotland Yard DID have teams of officers dedicated to child abuse and paedophiles, but equally I might be remembering some TV show with David Suchet in it.

As for what Anna DeL said, I don't think this IS police incompetence, but a lack of resources, so is this a matter for the Government to increase the money to the police, or do they need to move their priorities?

But the direct implication from Secret Goldfish is that every trader in child porn caught by Operation Ore has kids at home. Is there proof for this, I seem to remember the same argument being used against the grown-up type of porn, but most people who use it DON'T go out and rape someone, so although the existence of child porn is not good in itself, is there an argument that it's possibly allowing some would-be molesters to get their rocks off without finding another kid to molest to do it instead?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:04 / 28.08.03
Well, that's one of the big questions, isn't it - does porn in general lead to more sexual attacks or fewer? With child porn, I think it's a bit of a non-argument - if somewhere, at some point, a child was sexually abused for the creation of that piece of pornography then by creating and perpetuating a market for that pornography the consumer needs to be pursued by the law, and the vendor and originator pursued far more zealously by the law.

Secret Goldfish - Lady did not suggest that you were nonced. I must ask you to read more carefully before hitting the "flame" button. Ze suggested that you talk to Laila, who usually starts these threads and responds to any criticism in the same way - by personal attacks and a refusal to provide any proof to substantiate her claims. There was also the implication that by "owning" the idea that noncery is bad you are trying to shut down any dissent. These are valid criticisms,a nd I would suggest that you either take them on board or cease to trivialise a very serious issue by insulting anybody who dares to disagree with you. As far as I can tell, the only person who does not want to listen to hir is you, as evinced by your decision to make personal attacks rather than contribute to the thread.

Lady - it was rather cheeky to take "imagine" to mean "imagine" rather than "suppose/believe/assume", but I can see the argument. Ultimately, the best way to make sure that other see as JtB sees, however, is to explain your thinking, SG, with proof where possible. Further attempts on any side to turn this into another demonstration of why Barbelith should not be troubled with tricky questions will probably be moved for deletion, in which spirit I will move to remove my dig, born of frustration as it may have been.

So, if we assume (as I do) that being involved in any value chain, for want of a better term, with an abused child at its end is criminal and to be prosecuted, the question does become one of resource allocation. The problem of Ore, it seems, is that bad planning (which may be a 'cover-up', but again I would like to know of what by whom before procession along that path) makes it more likely that the people at the top of the value chain will think it is safe to continue producing and profiting, and those at the bottom to consume. This is bad policing.

However, this does not necessarily mean that those who were not convicted were guilty. English law remains that one is innocent until proven etc, and thus the idea of the "official warning" as an instrument of policy by a cash-strapped force smacks of a hope for subsequent vigilante action on unsafe grounds. This is also bad policing.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:15 / 28.08.03
Not to pick straws but I include planning outside available means under the umbrella of police incompetence. To launch a huge operation like this with eight different forces you really do need to use your money wisely, it just appears that they took too much on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:39 / 28.08.03
Absolutely - but perhaps one problem with tracing Internet-based crime is that it spirals outwards almost perforce - if you are doing your job successfully, you are likely to uncover an exponentially increasing number of possible suspects - which is where human intelligence may come in handy; tackling the problem from the top down is likely to use resources more effectively, altohugh it will also take longer, which is an issue in itself (the delay means more criminal acts will be committed in the interim, including the abuse of children - a horribly difficult call to make).

The other question is the question of mass. The more people there are, the more people exist at the top of and along the value chain, presumably, and the less impact single prosecutions at any stage may have. This is one of those problems that we always have. How many proper, according-to-hoyle producers/consumers are there? I don;t have afigure, and I don't think anyone can really construct one with any certainty (except Laila, natch), and that must have an impact on how you police it...
 
  
Add Your Reply