Critiquing A Paedophile Name and Shame Website

Chris Wittwer, self-styled Paedophile Shamer

Child abuse is and always will be one of the worst crimes imaginable. It causes universal outrage and the very thought that abuse could be going on in your town, your street, or that convicted sex offenders are living among us, is enough to spur some people in to action.

sarah payneOn top of employment background checks, it can be reasonably argued that parents should be made aware of predators in their area who pose a potential risk to their children. As of 2010 there is now an official mechanism under UK law that allows parents, guardians and close relatives of children to formally ask their local police force for information on child sex offenders. This was in response to the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne in 2000, by convicted sex offender Roy Whiting.

Like a lot of society’s problems, how we deal with child abusers is not a perfected science. In an ideal world they would be cured of their interest in children and the continued threat would be completely removed. Until then the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (CSODS) seems mostly to be about putting people’s minds at ease rather than having any measurable impact on protecting children. In practise the so called ‘Sarah’s law’ probably would not have protected Sarah. Whiting abducted her several miles away from where he lived, while she was out playing by herself near her grandparents home. As a convicted child sex offender he was in fact questioned within 24 hours of her going missing.

Unless known child abusers have their movements permanently restricted, perhaps the only way to truly protect children is by not letting them out of sight. Would having every convicted child sex offender in the world on a database make a difference during a crime of opportunity?

It has also been argued that the CSOD scheme could give rise to vigilantism – a scenario where people use the information disclosed to pro-actively target child sex offenders, even when no further crime has been committed. The police response to having only granted one in six applications is a fear of vigilantism. But if applications aren’t being granted, is the scheme fit for purpose?

If there’s a void, those who create their own name and shame websites and Facebook groups are trying to fill it. They don’t employ the same restrictions as the government, which raises a few questions.

What Is C.H.R.I.S?

The UK & Ireland Database (formerly Children Have Rights In Society – CHRIS), is a website operated by convicted football hooligan Chris Wittwer. On the face of it he is not the best poster child for vigilantism, but he is a survivor of abuse himself and one can see the motivation.

The site includes the core website that boasts millions of web hits, and the Facebook page UK database for sex offences against children, which has over 100,000 likes. The man himself has had a modest amount of mainstream media exposure including inflammatory coverage by the Sun’s talk radio show, where infamous sex offender Nigel Oldfield was allowed on the air to debate. Wittwer also liaises with reporters on related stories.

At the time of writing (2013) the database claims to have named and shamed over 17,000 paedophiles/child abusers in the UK and Ireland, who can all be searched on the website. Several statistical claims are also made.

A paragraph from the homepage reads…

The 43 police forces in England and Wales recorded 23,097 child sex offences in 2011 and is equivalent to 444 attacks a week — or one child abused every 20 minutes, and the abuse is getting worse with paedophile rings being set up in almost every county in the UK.

While there have been 23,097 recorded child sex offences in the UK between 2010 and 2011 according to a Freedom of Information request by the NSPCC [3], fewer than 10% resulted in a conviction and this statistic also includes 16 and 17 year olds, which is beyond the scope of paedophilia and child abuse. The statistics have been thoroughly analysed by and are misleading in several areas.

A paedophile is somebody that is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, which biologically means those roughly 11 years old and under. A child abuser is somebody who acts on their perverted sexual preference towards children or carries out sexual and/or violent abuse for other reasons. Technically a paedophile is not always a child abuser and a child abuser is not always a paedophile. A convicted child sex offender is somebody convicted of sexually abusing children. Under UK law the age of consent is 16.

This lack of defined criteria is also found in the database itself. For example the 1997 case of Conservative councillor Michael Howden who was convicted of raping and molesting two 17 year old girls, while a sickening crime, was not child abuse or paedophilia as they were not children.

Likewise the 2009 story of Hull City councillor Steven Bayes and his 17 year old boyfriend, strictly speaking has nothing to do with child abuse or paedophilia. Not only was the young man his consenting partner, but was not a child. Northern Irish law has now been amended to reflect 16 as the age of homosexual consent.

Stockport councillor Neil Derbyshire who was convicted in 2002 for sexually assaulting a 16 year old boy cannot psychologically or legally be recognized as a paedophile or child abuser either, based on this crime.

Yes some of these cases are obviously disturbing, but using them to bolster the risk to children is misleading, as are the statistics used. If this was a government operated database they would certainly be called on to clarify the purpose of overstating the figures or naming and shaming people like those listed above. The CSOD scheme for example aims to only divulge information when the sex offender is deemed a current threat to children.

If one is to take on such a position in society as exposing paedophiles and child abusers, accuracy and clarity is important.

Vigilantism In Action

One of the reasons why the government do not publish a public list of child abusers and their locations is because of the potential for vigilante justice. Concerned parents can contact the police for information under certain criteria, but Joe Blogs cannot just go online and find a list of addresses or locales. CHRIS does not follow the same logic. The website allows you to select a county and then it lists short snippets of information about the convict (often taken from newspaper articles at the time of the arrest and trial). These often include street names.

There’s no telling how much of the information is outdated. Most sex offenders understandably move on from the area they were convicted and many cases listed on the CHRIS site go back years. So what happens when outdated information is used for retaliation?

WideShut has learned the story of one lady who claims to have been left traumatized after the CHRIS website displayed information about a paedophile on her street. While this man did indeed live with the lady and their daughter, he never returned to the family home following his conviction and was promptly divorced. Despite this they say some time later the property and a vehicle were attacked and vandalized by misinformed vigilantes. While we’ll never know if this was directly related to the CHRIS profile (it could have been local chatter), it highlights how misinformation can lead to more crime.

The lady in question has since moved on herself, leaving a completely unrelated resident at risk if the exact address has been exposed.

This type of vigilantism is actually quite rare, however online sting operations seem to be growing in popularity. This is when ‘hunters’ pose as underage girls (though sometimes boys) and use social media and dating sites to go fishing for potential groomers. Anyone that shows interest (especially wanting to meet) after being informed of the potential victim’s age, is pursued and exposed. Unfortunately sometimes there are grey areas and it can go terribly wrong as explored by the Guardian. Do targets always truly believe the person they are chatting with is underage? Are innocent people sometimes completely set-up? It’s not like there is any oversight, and even when it does go wrong there hasn’t been any repercussions.

Wittwer himself does not take part in public stings of this nature.


As is often the case with online communities, squabbles and infighting can end up published for all to see. Shouldn’t somebody like Chris Wittwer keep his website clean and professional considering the subject matter at hand? WideShut is in possession of web-cache links and forwarded messages that show in 2011 he was posting names and photos of people he claimed to be disrupting the CHRIS campaign.

Regardless of whether some of the accused may have had fallings out with Mr. Wittwer, were critical of the website and/or may have even actively been trying to disrupt it, one can’t ignore the immorality of publishing information about people who are not known paedophiles on a website that exposes paedophiles. At the very least he suggested they were paedophile supporters.

“Over the past 3 years I’ve been attacked by paedophiles on various forums, on facebook and even on the street,” claims Witter. “Yet over the past 6 months, a new campaign run by someone called (redacted) has been set up…”

The person he listed as being behind the anti-CHRIS campaign is not a convicted paedophile.

In one message Wittwer appears to threaten somebody with being named as part of the ‘hate campaign’ if they didn’t divulge the personal information of somebody else. “All I will do is show your picture as I have done with the others,” says Wittwer. “The courts won’t touch me because I have not accused you of anything except being against the campaign!”

Is this how the police would respond to criticism or trolling of their database scheme?

Chris Wittwer the Football Hooligan

Chris WitterThe website for the local Exeter Newspaper reported in June 2011 about how CCTV captured the moment a group of football hooligans launched into a violent fight with rival supporters [4].

“The images were used to help convict seven Exeter City followers who were involved in a city centre brawl.”

The newspaper goes on to name Mr. Wittwer for his role in the mindless violence…

“In one CCTV image, football hooligan Christopher Wittwer is seen to throw a punch towards a rival fan. The 35-year-old, of Oakmead, Aylesbeare, who set up a controversial anti-paedophile website last summer, was jailed for 10 months after admitting affray.”

Does It Work?

Of course people make mistakes. Being involved in a brawl doesn’t necessarily mean Wittwer is any less equipped for the job, but what that job is and whether he is good at it, is open to interpretation.

One has to consider what naming and shaming actually is in practical terms. The Jimmy Savile scandal has certainly taught us that we cannot always rely on the police, government or media organisations to protect our children. Yet if private individuals are to replace state systems with their own, don’t they need to meet a higher practical standard?

How does the database protect children when it is based on often outdated news snippets? There’s no way of knowing if a paedophile is still in the area or a different one has moved in. There doesn’t appear to be any ongoing tracking of these sex offenders. In fact that would be virtually impossible on a mass scale. Whether the CSOD scheme is fit for purpose or not, the CHRIS database has arguably not been able to replace it with anything better.

So what other function does it serve? Wittwer tells me that a large portion of his followers are former victims of abuse. Seeing their abuser shamed on the internet likely brings a certain amount of satisfaction. It’s called naming and shaming for a reason, as it shames the target for life.

It’s not all about the database either. Wittwer is a campaigner that helps empower victims and spread awareness of child abuse issues. Who can find fault in that?

Follow WideShut



  • Angie Cash

    is this is a true site then l cant think of anything better to name and shame and abolish sexual abuse to children

    • Keelan Balderson

      Perhaps one that does it accurately and without branching off in to personal disputes?


      Since the CHRIS went live nearly 2 plus years ago,exactly how many peados or wrongly accused people have been attacked?


      • think of the consequences

        Not peadofiles but and innocent woman and child where. It says in the report. If my child was to be hurt as a result of the name and shame websites how’s that protecting children? How many people have had windows put through as a result of vigilantes attacking what they thought was a marked house? This could result in children being hurt or killed. That is just negative, protecting children by potentially harming them. Get a grip of what’s going to possibly happen due to misguided hate!!!

  • virped

    Totally misplaced criticism. Your criticism seems based on the idea that what they do might be right, if done correctly, but the many mistakes doomed the project. But you seem to accept the basic premise of persecuting people for having a different sexual orientation.

    Let me put it in another way: Would you be OK about a website that names and shames gays or lesbians? Why should people who have a different sexual orientation be persecuted just for not being straight?

    This is blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is persecuting people just for having a different sexual orientation. It is not against the law to be pedophile, gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, etcetera.

    “If one is to take on such a position in society as exposing paedophiles, accuracy and clarity is paramount.”

    So, you support the idea of exposing sexual minorities? Of exposing innocent people whose only crime was being born with a different sexual orientation?

    How would you feel if you were a 13, 14 year old child who was a pedophile and discriminated and hated just for being different?

    No one chooses his/her sexual orientation and NO ONE should be persecuted for being different. Not being straight does not mean straight people can violate your privacy.

    “one can’t ignore the immorality of publishing private information about people who are not paedophiles on a website that claims to expose paedophiles”

    So, publishing the private information of ACTUAL pedophiles is not inmoral? What kind of fucked-up logic is that? Would you be OK of publishing the private information of heterosexual people?

    • Keelan Balderson

      Whether you believe a paedophile is a sexual orientation or not, when one rapes or abuses a child this is a crime. Generally children do not consent, and when they do it’s reasonable to assume there was coercion as a child does not have the faculties to make an informed decision. That’s why we also don’t let children drink or drive or get married.

    • Marie

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuality and hetrosexuality of a legal nature involve consenting adults and paedophillia is a recognised psychological disorder which IS illegal if practised because by definition it cannot be a consentual act (paediactrics being below the legal age of consent by many years). It is not seen as a sexual orientation but a compulsion. However, I am totally against naming and shaming under any format, although I do believe in a parents right to know if a person in close contact with their child is a risk to said child, which is why I support CSODS.

  • peado slayer

    Firstly being a practicing pedophile is against the law and to be honest its a disgrace to link it with any other type of sexual orientation and to be frank

    Virped or virtual pedophile should have the top of his head taken clean off with a machete

    AS FOR

    ” Chris Wittwer lets some Paedos off?
    One of the more troubling allegations made about Chris Wittwer is that he was knowingly corresponding with a paedophile and chose not to list them on the website. Several people have come forward to claim that Wittwer even allowed this man to photograph an anti-Child Abuse rally. Although we have not been able to verify this, we can confirm through various messages that Wittwer is aware of the man in question and believed him to be a “3 x convicted pedophile”.

    Whether the man in question really is a paedophile, as of yet cannot be confirmed, but Wittwer seemed to think he was (or claimed he was) and does not list him on the website. Why? Is Chris just a liar, or was he knowingly protecting a paedophile? Either way it doesn’t say much about his character.”


    Pure speculation ,you seem to be doing you best to destroy the fight against pedophiles between this and the holly greg case,one has to wonder why

    When did you first expose Jimmy saville by the by?

    • Keelan Balderson

      I have the messages, no speculation at all. However unlike CHRIS I won’t publish confidential information on this website. It’s out there though if you can use Google, so go prove it for yourself. I doubt you will.

      “you seem to be doing you best to destroy the fight against pedophiles between this and the holly greg case,one has to wonder why”

      So by exposing frauds and careless morons I’m destroying the fight against pedophiles?
      You need to go to a quiet room and have a long think.

      • peado slayer

        you are begining to believe your own press reports son,you have made your self judge jury and executioner for CHRIS did you EVER contact him Robert Green or Anne Greg for comments ?

        Poor reporting ,you need a rethink

        • Keelan Balderson

          Of course I believe them, I researched and wrote them! I trust myself, do you?

          No I’ve not contacted CHRIS, but that does not automatically negate my criticisms does it? Stop trying to win arguments by setting imaginary goal posts.

          You don’t have to agree with my opinions but don’t pretend rational criticisms equate to “destroying the fight against pedophiles”

          And to be quite frank with statements like Pedos “should have the top of their heads taken clean off with a machete”

          I can tell I’m not dealing with a rational person in the first place.

          And to your last line, give me a break. For years the only side of the story anybody heard ad-nauseam was Anne & Robert’s. I actually went and go the other side of the story…I’d say that’s much fairer than most.

          And for the record many people have tried to have discussions with the Brian Gerrish/Robert Green et al and they always refuse.

          You found that quiet room to have a think yet?

    • Truthfinder

      The man who was asked to take pictures at the “Anti-child abuse rally” by the CHRIS campaign leaders is easy to find if you google these terms.

      “A NEWQUAY man has pleaded not guilty to two breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) allegedly committed in December last year.”

      He was listed on the website when the completely innocent people were listed and then he was taken off. He was taken off after he did a deal.

      • Truthfinder

        If you want further verification of all of this check the date this story was written. Feb 12 2013 and check when it appears on the name and shame site 19 March 2013. He was listed in March of 2011 and removed 2 days, where’s he been all this time.

  • peado slayer

    this is that peado web site ,personally I dont debate I merely act to knife these bastards

  • peado slayer

    By the way I was at the rally it was a public place chris had no control over who took photos and I met a few of the photographers and they were all spot on ,some of them survivors,you sound like you are on a fantasy witch hunt against those of us opposed to pedophiles

    Whats the problem approving my comments? yet you publish the peados?

  • Jonathan

    Ok so the guy who runs the paedophile name and shame web site is a convicted football hooligan, that’s the way it is. My opinion is most non-convicted folk shall we say probably don’t have the requirements or outlooks or the balls to do something like he has. Thousands of hours in locating this info and putting it out there to alert and warn people/parents of just who and what is out there!
    Personally I too am a convicted criminal. I fight bad men and drug dealers because they tend to get away with so many crimes and I have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and violence erupts. Call me a vigilante if you want but I don’t care.
    But that doesn’t mean if I want to run a similar website or if I want to back Chris that I am not suitable!
    In my opinion stop slagging the bloke off and leave him alone or are you against his plight for another secretive reason?
    I don’t know, but try and put your effort and time into something more creative to help stop the the plague of paedophilia and its gross supporters from spreading their disease.

    • Keelan Balderson

      You pretty much ignored most of the article. It’s not about him being a convicted football hooligan, it’s about him doing a bad job.

  • Observer

    There are no ‘upstanding citizens’ running ‘naming and shaming’ websites. Upstanding citizens don’t do that sort of thing. They don’t do it because generally speaking they know ‘naming and shaming’ is done for the greater glorification of the ‘namer and shamer’ and not to protect society. Once upon a time the authorities would have come down hard on activities like this. Today they barely say a word, as the indifference of the police to the family in question readily demonstrates – a disgraceful abdication of responsibility. The country is disintegrating. Policing is steadily being withdrawn. Soon anarchy and vendetta will reign once more, as it did before we were law-governed. That should give the foolish and the insufferably self-righteous plenty of time to ponder how it can be right for any unaccountable source to wield the sort of power this moron obviously wants, let alone a convicted criminal.

    Can we not at least think before endorsing this sort of activity? Has anyone stopped to assess the likely consequences? Pastor Martin Neimoller’s famous lament [‘First they came for the socialists, but I wasn’t a socialist….’] carries weight here, but if the implications of even this don’t penetrate maybe the words of Thomas More in ‘A Man for All Seasons’ would do the trick. In the best-known scene More’s pious son-in-law, Master Roper, complains of his Father-in-Law’s willingness to give the ‘benefit of law’ to even the Devil himself. Roper, by contrast, would cut down every law in England to get at the Devil. More’s reply is worth thinking about: “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

    ‘Aye,’ concludes More. ‘I give the Devil benefit of law – for my own safety’s sake’. Safety is in short supply on the internet. It just takes an argument, a brief exchange of hostilities, any perceived slight, and someone’s life can be ruined by power-hungry nonentities the rest of us are afraid to confront. None of these self-appointed moral arbiters care a damn about child welfare please note. Like government, it’s control they want. Sex is the easiest way to get it because it’s a sensitive subject that generates a quick consensus few will wish to be seen to oppose. The dangerous state of affairs is developing in England is one of rule by Chinese whispers that will end in flash mobs, lynch-mobs, increased repression from a state apparatus all ready keen to introduce secret arrests and a life of misery for untold thousands of innocent people. People might enjoy that, until it’s their turn. That’s why we have law. Without law, there is only chaos.

  • david cameron

    im not in favour of football hooligans but the fact that he was orn is one isnt relevant, just possible he is trying to atone for his hooliganism by doing good.

    there need to be more courageous people like him becaus ei believe child abus eis far more ramppant than we realise and i believe the death penalty should be restored for pedos especially thos ewho kill children.

    those that were protecte dnby high ranking officials or politicians then tahts shameful too

    • Jo

      There is something seriously weird about this Chris Wittwer and his supporters who have flocked here to reply. Just what is their bizarre obsession with child abuse?. It goes beyond vigilantism and reeks of a sick obsession that I think a shrink should look at.
      It’s not unlike those who seek out and attack gay people who have a deep seated hatred of gays because they really are closets themselves.
      Freud would have had a field day looking into the Wittwers of the world.

      Now I’m not saying it’s true but put it this way : I would allow Wittwer to be near any child of mine and I’d recommend others think likewise. That goes for the thugs that support him as well.

      • Lloyd Kennedy

        I couldn’t agree more . What is this sick and prurient obsession all about ? All parents are concerned for the safety of their children but the chances of child abuse happening are still statistically fairly unlikely . I also question the intelligence of some of these people who , incapable of distinguishing the minutiae of these cases , would be a liability if they had to do jury service .

  • Truthfinder

    There is the question of the hits he claims to have had on the website, according to the author there have been over 6.4 million people clicking onto the website. It has been operational for 257 days which is over 36 weeks. so if the numbers were right there would be roughly 25,196 hits per day every day. The highest number I can find over all of the sites is 1636 which is a total of 420452 hits on the website.

  • Keelan Balderson


  • Keelan Balderson


  • concerned uk citizen

    if a registered sex offender or in any case any convicted person of a criminal act has been deemed to be rehabilitated and dose not reoffend should tha person remain on such websites, if they do not reoffend do they not deserve a chance of moving on in there lives, while i agree that the public needs to be aware of what sex offenders have done i also feel that the uk public as a whole do not know what goes on with those that have moved on from wrong choices made in their lives. i know a convicted sex offender who has not reoffended has done all he can to move on, he has seeked his own medical advice for depression, completed a sex offenders course run by probation services with qualified practitioners, has complied with every detail of registration and has a new partner and a new life and even attends a long term support group on a vouluntry basis, however he still can not get a job society as a whole will not let him even though he has done all he can to make sure he is no longer a threat to the society he lives in.

    also a individual who commits an act that requires them to be registered is not automatically a bad person for life or from the day they were born, people make the wrong decisions in life and go down the wrong paths some because certain factors in their lives had a helping hand in the wrong decision they unltimatly made, i do not condone these offences or in fact any criminal offences but i do believe that the uk popualtion as a whole needs to understand that what they see in the media and in these vigilante websites is not the actual truth. yes some offenders are just evil bad people but dose that mean they all are and all will be for the rest of their lives, if that is the case then dose that mean because Mr Wittwer is a convicted football hooligan he will be for life and he will do that for life, funnny how he can class himself as rehabilitaed and realize the damage he has done to society and move on but no-one else can.

  • Concerned mum

    We contacted CHRIS about a peadophile and his details were posted on their site, then they were taken down. We asked why and were told there were legal issues. Basically the peadophile had mis spelled his name in court and then used that as a basis to threaten CHRIS with a defamation suit. CHRIS found out that the peadophile had lied, not only about his name on the court details but also about him owning and working in a clinic where children were treated. He creates at least two fictitious names to conceal this fact. We contacted the police but they were not interested and eventually we put an official complaint in to the police. CHRIS exposed this evil cockroach and he had to close his business which offered hypnotherapy for children in Winchester. Following that, the Sunday Mirror caught on to the story and it went national. So these guys saved the day where the police failed to protect the vulnerable!

    • ted clarke

      And amazingly CHRIS pretended that HE did the work to clear up this story when indeed it was NOTHING to do with him, but instead it was ME and I am confident that the author of this post now knows who is Ted and that I am indeed telling the truth

  • Colin Duggan

    Although this discussion is dated, it appears that none of you know anything about the person who is mentioned below as photographing a CHRIS rally even though he is a convicted sex offender.
    Well let me bring you up to speed on a few facts (I’ll withhold the persons name, as it has been withheld already).
    The person in question is known to me by way of a blog which he himself ran and to which I was a regular contributor. Yes, he has convictions, and these were outlined by him in the first article he wrote, but his case is not as clear cut as we are led to believe. Indeed, what we see in the media, and indeed Chris’ name and shame site, which is taken from the media, also states is the offences and convictions. What we are not always told however, is the reasons or circumstances surrounding them.
    The person in question was working with groups on the internet way before anyone currently online, and had numerous sites and forums closed. He decided to go it alone and set up bogus forums with which to entrap people, because the websites and forums he and others were involved in reporting led to no arrests and were soon either active again, or relocated.
    He got himself into trouble due to his use of ‘child model’ images he used as bait to lure paedophiles with, a practice known as a Honey Trap’. Although he found the images inappropriate, and indeed believed they should have been classed as indecent/unlawful, he wasnt aware at the time they ‘were’ unlawful as there were so many sites carrying them and the law, as he understood it at the time, was that for an image to be indecent, it needed to show an element of nudity, which the images he used didnt.
    It wasnt so much the images that led to his downfall, but his outspoken views that the police, the courts, social services and anyone involved in protecting children, were utterly pathetic, failing to do their job, and that he had seen evidence that key figures such as police and even judges were involved in child abuse based on comments hed read in forums and user groups. He even posted several portions of court transcripts (Scans) where he had called both prosecution and judges pedos and had been forcefully removed from court on several occasions. Even the probation service acknowledged his role as a vigilante (Again a scanned portion of a report) but chose to class him as the highest risk because he refused to be labeled as a pedo and attend a treatment program.
    After his release following his first offence, in which to use his own words he got his ‘arse well and truly kicked’ by the system, he was recalled on licence as he had continued to work with others to user forums, a fact acknowledged again by the probation service, even though it wasnt against any law to do so. The police claimed hed downloaded several hunderd images of kids, but an independant party prove this not to be the case. However, despite making a statement of his denial of the charges of downloading indecent images,his statement in relation to the previous offence was presented to the judge, in which he had accepted downloading images as well as stating why he had done so. The judge was led to believe this was an admission in the current case, and he was sentenced on the basis that he had committed the same offences, for the same reasons, while on licence from prison.
    He later appealed this, but it was refused, even though the dates showed the statement had been taken in relation to the previous, and first, case, not the second.
    His third offence arose from his attempts to report a modelling site which he believed could be linked to several of the children believed missing/abducted/trafficked following the Indonesian tsunami of 2004. Although the girls featured on the site were clothed, he hadnt been aware that the sex offenders act 2003 had been changed to include any inappropriate image as being indecent. His belief that such images should be made illegal had actually been changed to reflect just that, but due to the time involved in the previous cases, as well as his time in prison, he hadnt been aware of the change.

    He moved away from reporting in the manner he had been previously, and following this change, he has had two major websites closed with over 120+ arrests (Operation Elm here in the UK and gatekeeper in Queensland, if I recall correctly) and he also had two people arrested from the very house where he lives.

    So, pedo or not? Personally, i think not, and I dont think anyone who frequented his blog doubted his motives, and it was clear that he was dedicated to tackling the problem without a shadow of doubt. There were a few people who said he should just lay off pedos as it wasnt their choice, but they didnt last long and were soon removed or blocked.

    In retrospect, I think its a shame that this person was treated the way he was. He certainly knew his stuff and he certainly knew how to tackle the problem and, on a few occasions, even spoke with people who had never spoken about their abuse.
    He also continued to be scathing of the police and everyone who is supposed to protect children and it was this that prompted me to write this. This last year or so, we have seen stories of politicians and police being involved in child sexual abuse, and attempting to hide and cover it up……..and this is exactly what he was quoted as saying by the probation service over ten years ago. He was way ahead of the game back then, and Ive no doubt it was his vocalising this that led the injustice system, as he calls it, to come down on him like a ton of bricks and damage him to the extent where he would be seen as the enemy rather than an ally. After all, if he can be made to look like a pedo, who will listen to him? Nobody. Its called dirtying ones character, something we see in politics all the time. He fights the system, the system puts him down, big time.

    As for what hes doing now, I dont know. He closed the blog a few years back as it was becoming too complicated to run and he wanted to look at doing a website rather than a forum. I have no doubt he will have a website one day because despite everything thats happened over the years, hes stubborn as an ox and determined to show his doubters what he really is, as well as show the system up for being as corrupt as it is.
    Personally, its not the sort of road Id like to tread as he anticipated objections from both sides, but I wished him the best of luck, and I still do.

  • Hello

    Colin Duggan, you seem to live in a dream land. Also this blog is based on the submissions of paedophiles and child abusing symphasizers.

    The person who put this blog together is not a real journalist, if he was then he would of investigated and sought the truth

    The database has now had over 19.7 MILLION hits and has named over 30,000 CONVICTED uk & Irish child abusers.

    Make your own mind up if it is a success or not.

    Do not be easily fooled by morons with nothing better to do, than to attack and troll others.

  • Sammy Sam

    Hi how cam I get hold of chris

  • WTF

    Why would you have a problem with someone exposing Paedos? YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR COMPUTER CHECKED!

  • quaz

    David John Baker of 20 Kilnsey Grove, The Woodlows, Warwick, CV34 5YE.
    telephone number 07881664418 besides being off the paedophile register,
    he was prosecuted for downloading images of children in 2008, but due to
    a judgement call he was only on the register for 5 years, he is still a
    danger to children and young adults, share (publicly) to warn others of
    this sick man.

  • nuggy

    the database is a total con 20 year old newspaper clips that anyone could find if they looked.

  • Laurie

    I have submitted to this site. It doesn’t just use newspaper clippings, he asks for evidence and legal documentation before putting anyone up there. Whoever wrote this article obviously has something to hide and would rather see some poor kid’s life ruined than allow this great resource to run and protect children. I am a victim, I am severely mentally ill 15 years after it started as a result whilst the perpetrator got off with a few years community service and walks around with over £1 million in property with access to children!

    • http://ouspenskyfallexo.blogspot/ ouspenskyfallexo.blogspot

      this idiot keelan is one of the Biggest Paid mouthpieces on the net.
      Comes across as an alternative voice,
      Jimmy Savile may be a paedophile supported by the BBC and Queen
      always , BUT,
      Making excuses for them.