Buyer wants smelly shoes ... For children

Errata

alykatz wrote: »

Unfortuately these days they are that limited.

That's utter nonsense.

Tiddlywinks

quidsy wrote: »

Report what? No crime has been committed & no suggestion that one will be committed. Some of the hysteria on this thread disturbs me no end.

The official term would be "indicative behaviour".

Specifically requesting that a child's clothing be "smelly" in order for it to be worthy of buying IS indicative of behaviour of an unusual interest in children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_erotica

alykatz wrote: »

People dont gravitate to being a pedophile in the same way say a shop lifter gravitates to being a bank robber, they either are or are not.
Pedophiles are attracted to children, its not a habit that can be broken, controled or cured it just is [no one knows why this happens exactly , some do espouse the theory its just how they were born]

I hope you don't work in this field as you are so wrong.

The Internet / chat rooms etc feed and normalise some behaviours... the more you surround yourself with objects / like minded people etc, the more normal it feels and the more involved you might become...Like any other interest in life.

alykatz wrote: »

Resources are very limited so surely better to concentrate on those reports they can act on, rsther than those they file in the bin.

NO intel reports will be 'binned', they will ALL be evaluated and recorded as appropriate - if you KNOW otherwise then report it as that goes against every MOPI requirement.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/information/2010/201004INFMOPI01.pdf#page3

alykatz

porto_bello wrote: »

You seem to have great issues with involving the police. No doubt there are lots of people who worked in the BBC and the Irish Catholic church in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, who bitterly regret not going to the police with information and suspicions they had. Their 'do nothing ' approach has seriously damaged, if not destroyed many lives.

Thing is there were people who went to the police over both specific issues you mentioned and what happened?
Reports were duly noted,investigated and found wanting in terms of evidence with which to prosecute.
If the police cannot do anything with concrete evidence and statements from victims what are they going to do with if`s,buts and maybes.
And we seem to be encompassing chat rooms ect which strays somewhat .

The Internet / chat rooms etc feed and normalise some behaviours... the more you surround yourself with objects / like minded people etc, the more normal it feels and the more involved you might become...Like any other interest in life.

Do agree like minded people gravitate to each other which makes me wonder who else that was associated with saville and hall may be doing the same as them.But im not sure i would catergorise pedophilia as an interest tbh its just there its the way they are hardwired. there are those who profess their love for kids as perfectly normal like the nambla assocciation, i personally think they should all be hung but the law doesnt allow for that.

NO intel reports will be 'binned', they will ALL be evaluated and recorded as appropriate - if you KNOW otherwise then report it as that goes against every MOPI requirement.

Well i was speaking metaphorically as in report taken and filed away never to be looked at again which is as good as binned.

Clearly there are some who are both. And clearly you are in no position to offer an accurate diagnosis on the basis of the limited details on this thread.

Maybe you are right but with the limited details we have in this thread there is nothing to suggest anything either way other than its possibly a fetishist.
I never tried to give an accurate diagnosis,i merely stated my opinion based on what i have found out read about on this topic over the years which is the same as you yourself and others doing surely?

Tiddlywinks

Alykate - Your need to answer every post - by adding more and more of very little substance - is bordering on obsession now.

Intelligence / information is added to a searchable database... That is NOT the same as binning it... please stop spouting about things you clearly have little knowledge of.

alykatz

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Alykate - Your need to answer every post - by adding more and more of very little substance - is bordering on obsession now.

Intelligence / information is added to a searchable database... That is NOT the same as binning it... please stop spouting about things you clearly have little knowledge of.

And there we have it ,a debate ,because surely that is what this is, is people answering and asking questions but once people desend into name calling and personal attacks i think clearly signals the time for normal people to leave..

porto_bello

alykatz wrote: »

In an ideal world you are right but alas we dont live in an ideal world.
Resources are very limited so surely better to concentrate on those reports they can act on, rsther than those they file in the bin.

alykatz wrote: »

Unfortuately these days they are that limited.

alykatz wrote: »

Thing is there were people who went to the police over both specific issues you mentioned and what happened?
Reports were duly noted,investigated and found wanting in terms of evidence with which to prosecute.
If the police cannot do anything with concrete evidence and statements from victims what are they going to do with if`s,buts and maybes.

Your position seems to have moved from defending inappropriate messages displaying inappropriate interest in a six year-old to claiming the police don't have the resources to deal with reports of crimes involving child victims.

So what's Operation Yewtree all about? And what are Child Protection Units set up for? Significant funding clearly is being deployed to deal with these horrific crimes against children.

And now you claim that on the basis of such crimes being insufficiently invested 30 or 40 years ago, information relating to similar crimes should never reach the police today!

I can't believe you seriously believe your own comments. I suspect you know you made the wrong call, early on in this thread and are now grasping at anything - rather than admit you got it badly wrong.

alykatz

Oh for goodness sakes, i will answer you as at least you have the decency to not spiral into name calling.

I never defended anyone, all i said was it was not illegal so not reportable.. see#44

Child crimes are anything involving an actual child not their shoes..
Of course theres money for protecting children thats as it should be.
What i said was that reporting legal activities you find nasty was a waste and a burden on an already overloaded system.

Operation yewtree was set up to investigate the montrous failing of many areas of our society, from the BBC to the police, many many people know what was going on.some tried to report it to no avail.
What was happening was a systematic abuse of children that run unfettered for generations.


I do not believe i got it wrong anymore than you do, i gave my opinion you gave yours thats what mature adult debate is isnt it?

I think Stumpypumpy said it far more eloquently that i ever could.

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

My point is and always will be that there is a world of difference between images of child abuse and all of the above. Everyone has different quirks and tolerances to behaviour particularly when sex is involved, so how do you decide what to report? My answer is you draw the line where the law draws the line, a lot of people here seem to think it is anything they find a bit dodgy.


Any child abuse is too much child abuse, but a sense of proportion and a considered response will go a lot further than a knee-jerk reaction. This is just as much "doing your part" as reporting all and sundry that does nothing other than use up valuable resources that could be better deployed elsewhere.

SP

Tiddlywinks

alykatz wrote: »

And there we have it ,a debate ,because surely that is what this is, is people answering and asking questions but once people desend into name calling and personal attacks i think clearly signals the time for normal people to leave..

Where is the name calling? Personal attack?

I have pointed out that you seem to feel the need to answer absolutely every post... have you seen how many posts you've made on this thread?

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Alykate - Your need to answer every post - by adding more and more of very little substance - is bordering on obsession now.

Intelligence / information is added to a searchable database... That is NOT the same as binning it... please stop spouting about things you clearly have little knowledge of.

You clearly don't know enough about this subject to give an informed opinion. Plus, you seem to ignore anything that legitimately challenges your throw away remarks.

Back on subject... buying a child's smelly shoe is not illegal, owning it is also not illegal... asking to buy a child's shoe ONLY if it is smelly may be a behaviour indicative of an alternative interest in children and is worthy of reporting.

It is the same as, say, owning a tarnished / burnt spoon is not illegal nor is owning a syringe... however, these items may be INDICATIVE of drug use and would be considered worthy of further enquiry.

OP - please report it and mention that you believe this to be indicative behaviour / material which causes you concern.

alykatz

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Where is the name calling? Personal attack?

I have pointed out that you seem to feel the need to answer absolutely every post... have you seen how many posts you've made on this thread?



You clearly don't know enough about this subject to give an informed opinion. Plus, you seem to ignore anything that legitimately challenges your throw away remarks.

Back on subject... buying a child's smelly shoe is not illegal, owning it is also not illegal... asking to buy a child's shoe ONLY if it is smelly may be a behaviour indicative of an alternative interest in children and is worthy of reporting.

It is the same as, say, owning a tarnished / burnt spoon is not illegal nor is owning a syringe... however, these items may be INDICATIVE of drug use and would be considered worthy of further enquiry.

OP - please report it and mention that you believe this to be indicative behaviour / material which causes you concern.

Im sorry but you know absolutely nothing about who i am or what experiences i have to make a judgement call on what i do know.Plus im not sure who made you judge and jury to be able to discern whos point or opinions are valid or maybe what you really meant to say was you dint agree with me so therefore your point is invalid as it does not match mine.

Whilst we may differ on opinions each is valid in as much we are entitled to think or view things differently.
You have not presented any legitimate challenge to what i believe merely given your opinion which is as valid as mine.Just because we have opposing views does not entitle either of us to be dismissive of each others views. Its called being grown ups.

The fact you called me bordering on obsessive is what exactly? if not a put down as you intended.

If someone answers a post the you reply simple really its called conversation, it usually tends to be 2 sided, more so on this type media.
I think we can all agree that we have opposing views .
I dont think its reportable you do .

poet123

The point is that you are a layman, if it is reported by the OP it will be looked at by those with the professional capacity to make an informed judgement. That is the correct course of action, thereby erring on the side of caution, I can't understand anyone not seeing that. The risk benefit calculation is clear.