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.