Reply to bedfordshire police

I found a blogpost by bedfordshire police entitled “the paedophiles and the hunters” as you might expect it’s full of the most vile and reprehensible ideology – that there is nothing wrong with cracking down on not only normal male sexuality but just about any free speech. So I decided to post a reply with my blunt and honest critique of their actions. We’ll see if they publish it, but if not, I’m republishing it here so you can all read what I have to say to them and then you’ll know that the police deliberately censor political speech (speech that most reasonable people – if they didn’t have a politically correct gun to their heads – would agree with).

[UPDATE] The PIGS haven’t published it and I don’t think they will. A blog run by a tax-payer funded entity should always publish dissenting opinions. If you have the time please also comment on their blog so they know that many people find their paedohysteria apologia despicable.


To be against them, we would be seen to be supporting paedophiles

That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? You’re a bunch of wimps. Instead of upholding rule of law you’re just doing whatever the feminazis tell you to. Lynching, kidnapping, assaulting and even murdering men who have committed entirely victimless sex crimes.

While you are busily jailing men for thought crimes like viewing images, talking to children or writing politically incorrect posts like mine you totally ignore burglaries or serious violent offences (and senior police officers have admitted this). It seems to me you lot are such a bunch of cowards you’d rather go and beat up the weak non-violent man fapping off to images on his computer than to confront real violent criminals. Pathetic and reprehensibly disgusting.

To me, it defies logic that this man would genuinely believe a 14-year-old girl would want to meet and have sex with him.

Well you’re obviously an idiot then. Have you read any research on the subject? Perhaps you should try looking at these sites:

“Positive Memories” a book by T. Rivas which is a collection of testimonials of positive underage sexual experiences: https://www.ipce.info/host/rivas/positive_memories.htm

Consenting Juveniles – a website which seeks to expose the fact that many minors have consented and are themselves victimised by the criminal justice system when their older lovers are jailed: http://www.consentingjuveniles.com/About_the_Research

Rind Study ‘A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples‘ which found that intense & pervasive harm is rare. It even found in many cases ‘children’ felt positively about their ‘sexual abuse’ experiences (with ‘sexual abuse’ being defined using the dogmatic contempory legal definition where consent is irrelevant): https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm

And those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to research against your reprehensible feminist ideology. Let’s not even mention the fact that the age of consent used to be 12 in this country before 1861 and was even lower in other countries. Perhaps you’d like to consider the fact that what apparently “defies logic” to you made perfect sense to just about everyone in the entire world over a century ago?

He is an adult and there could have been a genuine child victim at the heart of this case – for me that’s what makes him a danger to society.

You told me that it “defies logic that this man would genuinely believe a 14-year-old girl would want to meet and have sex with him”. If that is the case then how can there possibly ever be a genuine child “victim” at the heart of the case as – according to you – no 14 year-old-girl would ever want to meet him and thus the meeting would never have happened (as she would have said no)?

What you are doing is manufacturing crime. It’s entrapment and should come with severe criminal penalties for police officers caught doing it (i.e. life imprisonment)

There is also an onus on the sites themselves, as well as government and us law enforcers, to better police the use of these networks so that children can’t fall into the grips of groomers.

Yes, we know, you want to get rid of free speech all together so you can arrest anyone who speaks out against the police. Well to that I say: FUCK YOU!

As a father of twin boys, this does worry me.

As a father of twin boys I’d be more worried about them being jailed under some feminist rape law but of course as a cop that’s not a worry for you, is it? If they get accused of “rape” you can just tell your chums to drop the charges. Much like as was the case with Mark Lunsford who advocated for America’s Megan’s Law but then his own son got arrested under the same laws he advocated! Lo and behold though his son was released in the end without charge. Police corruption at its finest!

Having open and honest conversations with your children about their internet use, and understanding the risks yourself, is perhaps one of the most important lessons to be learned in the face of this type of crime.

The only thing dangerous about the internet is the police. Otherwise there is no safer pastime than the internet.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Reply to bedfordshire police

  1. Alan Vaughn says:

    Fantastic reply, but if the filthy scum Pigs ever publish it I’ll eat my dick! (Sorry I can’t afford to bet money, nor eat my dick, but at least I HAVE a dick). I just checked and so far there are no responses to this vile, paedocritical post. Paedocrite Sergeant Tom Hamm looks a lot more like the stereotype of a ‘paedo’ than the harmless ‘sex-offender’ whose life he just took great delight and satisfaction in DESTROYING: Christopher Aylward, who hadn’t actually committed any offence, but was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence, (of a THOUGHT crime), after being lured by a group of lawless vigilantes; who are most probably all very nervous and guilty paedocrites themselves. To my way of thinking it begs the question: Why else would anyone (especially MEN), be so interested and hell-bent on identifying, apprehending and of course, publicly naming and shaming: so-called (feminist defined), paedophiles? (‘Paedophiles’ who are in fact, just sexually normal men)?
    Personally, I am not in the least interested in the sexual preferences of others, so why should those scum-bags be?

    If someone ever actually harmed any of my loved ones, regardless of whether sex was involved or not, I would probably want to kill that person. Otherwise I am not interested in whatever sexual act or orientation ‘rocks their boat’. That’s their private business, not mine, so why should it be of any concern to the police? Especially when NO COMPLAINT was even made to them?
    You were right to point out how reprehensibly disgusting they are to arrest people for totally victimless crimes. Why are the police persecuting mere thought criminals? You cannot get any more cowardly and gutless than that…

    The most vile of Hamm’s comments I think, was this one where he endorsed vigilantism:

    I honestly do believe they do it for all the right reasons, because let’s face it, it’s not paying their mortgage.

    Fucking Hell’s bells, is he serious? The most obvious “right reasons” they do it is because they are paedocrites: pathetically trying to hide there own sexual interests in nubile young teenage girls. (Girls, who less than a century ago would have had their own young children and were legally married to the fathers of such children). These paedocritical vigilantes feel guilty because prolonged exposure to destructive, feminist propaganda has made them (WRONGLY) believe that being sexually normal, i.e. being attracted to nubile young teenage girls, is ‘perverted’ or ‘sick’!
    For a senior police officer to even think like that, let alone make a comment like that one publicly, is unbelievable and frightening, as it will inevitably lead to a state of anarchy, while he’s also admitting that he and his fellow PIGS are all incompetent and fucking USELESS wimps!
    Hope he rots in hell…

    • holocaust21 says:

      Quite.

      I honestly do believe they do it for all the right reasons, because let’s face it, it’s not paying their mortgage.

      Another point on this is that I get the impression anti-paedo vigilantes generally come from the “underclass” and thus would probably never have a mortgage. They are essentially a bunch of individuals with no wish to ever be economically productive citizens. Their only means of earning an income is to become paedophile vigilantes and get revenue from advertising, donations and selling feminazi memorabilia on the internet.

      It’s worth noting that Luton – despite being near the economically strong south of England – is probably the most shite, downtrodden, cesspit of a shithole there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s