Posted on 08/03/2002 4:54:57 PM PDT by Pokey78
More than 7,000 British paedophiles have been snared in a sting operation by US authorities investigating two worldwide internet child pornography rings.
Detectives in Britain have been given the names and addresses of 7,272 Britons who used their credit cards to access pictures of under-age children, some as young as a few months old, engaged in sex acts.
Unbeknown to the paedophiles, the two sites which they were using had been seized last year by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. British police now plan a series of raids on the suspects in what will be the country's largest paedophile investigation.
The Telegraph has learned that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which co-ordinates use of intelligence against criminals in Britain, has already used the FBI information to organise the arrest of 36 paedophiles in May. Detectives now intend to swoop on many more offenders, all believed to be men, over the next few months.
Anyone who subscribed to the sites and viewed images faces a jail term of up to five years.
All of the paedophiles registered on the pay-per-view websites between May 1999 and September last year. Every customer had to provide an e-mail address and his credit card details: by return they were sent a username and password to enable them to log on to a paedophile site. In October, detectives in the US arrested the websites' owners and seized the database.
The FBI has raided hundreds of homes of subscribers in the US but has found difficulty in mounting prosecutions because the American definition of possessing indecent internet pornography is much laxer than that in British law.
Det Supt Peter Spindler of the National Crime Squad, who organised May's raid, confirmed that it would be the first of many in this country.
He said: "This is the first time we have targeted people who use the internet to buy images of children being sexually abused. We will continue these operations to protect children and show paedophiles that law enforcement agencies will find them, regardless of which area of the internet they use."
News of the investigation will heighten concerns about the levels of paedophile activity in Britain, highlighted by the murder in 1999 of eight-year-old Sarah Payne and the campaign for a "Sarah's Law", which would reveal the whereabouts of child abusers.
Carole Howlett, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who has led the campaign against child abuse on the internet, said that the investigation proved the extent of the problem.
"A lot more work needs to be done," she said. "There is no greater priority than the protection of children: it should become a ministerial priority and it should be a priority of every policing plan in the country. We have a fair way to go."
AGREED!
When you understand how so much of this stuff is mind poison, you have to wonder how many kids have been molested solely because the FBI planted the ideas into the perp's head.
Not to seem too gung-ho on the censorship thing, because I know that when you look at the numbers, the vast majority of people who have seen child porn do not molest anyone -- just as the vast majority of people who watch horror movies don't do anything like the recent vampyre killing in England. It's the few who do that were pushed to it by the FBI.
Anyway, causality of that sort is a moral issue, not a legal one, and although morals worry me more than laws, I have to wonder about the legality of what was done -- not just in the sense of the validity of convictions, but the potential criminal charges against FBI personnel who did this.
What would be said if the FBI sold heroin to tens of thousands of people, then arrested them all for simple possession? Surely some of the resulting addicts would never have become addicts were it not for the FBI???!!!
If someone could show that they developed a sexual problem as a direct result of the porn, or if could be shown that someone was molested in the immediate aftermath of government porn being viewed, there could be a huge lawsuit coming.
LE is getting away with too much, IMO, especially lately! I don't think the moral or legal line is at all vague in this example, it is difficult to believe that so many people (however many FBI personnel were involved in the operation) could cross it so clearly and not understand that they were wrong.
More likely some people thought they found a way to look at it without getting in trouble.
That's pretty sick. Isn't it?
Read my earlier post about how this Robles Perez was making kiddie porn in Puerto Rico.
He paid grandmothers, mothers and other relatives to bring their children to him to be raped and photographed.
The FBI now think that local school officials or teachers were involved in his porn ring.
But hey, the FBI should go to jail, too. Yeah, right.
Thank-you!
Like, "Last one to the plug is a rotten egg!"
Not the next day, week, year or minute!
The primary justification for abrogating our FIRST AMENDMENT(not 5th or 14th, but the very first) right regarding this kind of thing is that viewing it incites child-rape! I believe that is TRUE in a certain percentage of people. What was the FBI collectively thinking?
Hey, look at this :
---------->>>>> BABY RAPE <<<<<<--------
Now, you're under arrest!
Nyah, Nyah! Made ya look! (psyyyyyyyyych)
This is another example of going after the easy marks. LEO's inevitably go after the easiest and least threatening targets irregardless of the impact of the crime.
Bait.
Did they ask the parents of the molested children if they mind using pictures of them during their degradation as "bait?"
If my child had been molested, I would probably want to kill the perp. I would feel the same way about anyone who distributed pictures of that "special moment" over the internet.
If you want to donate pictures of your kids being molested to the internet for any reason, I would wonder...
Hey we could bust child slavery rings by kidnapping kids and selling them to rapists! We need some
"BAIT"
Who do you have in mind?
If you don't have any kids, I think you should name your firstborn Bait.
Hmmmm. I'll bet this means the feds are only using virtual kiddie porn, otherwise prosecuting wouldn't be a problem.
A "few months old, engaged in sex acts"?
UN-believable. What next? Fetus sex pictures?
Yeah, that's the first thing a sane person is going to wonder when they read this article. Sure.
Someone's got a great chance for winning a lawsuit against the FBI for planting the idea to go out and rape a child in their head.
I hope they roast these perverts.
I thought you might want to check this out...
Is this a war between nappers and authorities or what? (pedophiles don't take revenge on our kids for authorities actions do they?
You're kidding, right?
Avilla wasn't threatening?
Robles Perez wasn't threatening?
Ortega Rivera wasn't threatening?
Puerto Rico: Man may also face federal pornography charges
Child molesters are stupid, moronic lowlife.
The FBI did the whole world a favor by identifying these perverts.
I'm no socialist. But people who force little kids into sex acts for their perverted pleasures, and those who buy their wares, should be hunted down all over the Earth, and locked away for good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.