WideShut

The Story of CHRIS: Critique of A Paedophile Name and Shame Website


Keelan BaldersonFebruary 12th, 2013UK Politics28 Comments »

Child abuse is and always will be one of the worst possible crimes that can be committed. It causes universal outrage and the very thought that abuse could be going on in your town, maybe even your street; or worse, the idea that convicted paedophiles are living amongst us, is enough to spur some people in to action.

sarah payne It is generally accepted and can be reasonably argued that parents should be made aware of convicted child abusers in their area. As of 2010 there is now an official mechanism in the UK that allows parents, carers and guardians of children to formally ask their local police force for information on convicted sex offenders, who are in the vicinity of their children. This was in response to the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne in 2000.

While the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (CSODS) has been criticized because there is nothing quantifiable to prove that it reduces a child’s risk [1] (It’s not clear exactly how that would even be measured anyway), the most pertinent argument against it, is that it can give rise to vigilantism, citizens who then wish to go outside of the law to deliver hate, threats and violence towards convicted paedophiles.

Like a lot of society’s problems how we deal with sex offenders is not a perfected science. In an ideal world they would be cured and the continued threat would be completely removed. Until then the CSODS is at least putting parents’ minds at ease, and for now paedophiles will just have to deal with the hate. I doubt we’ll ever live in a world where people don’t hate paedophiles.

One issue that is of concern however is the misdirected hate stemming from vigilantism of a different kind. There exists a number of proactive citizens who are not content with leaving the naming and shaming to the Government. They create their own public websites and Facebook groups and do the finger pointing themselves. One would be naïve to think the Government don’t make errors and cannot be outperformed by private individuals, but some of these vigilantes are getting it wrong, and some of their own actions are immoral and verging on criminality.

This is the story of C.H.R.I.S. (Children Have Rights In Society) – a website run by a convicted football hooligan who couldn’t be a worse poster child for the do-it-yourself, name and shame concept.

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

Children Have Rights In Society is run by a man named Chris Wittwer. It includes the core website UKpaedos-Exposed.com, which boasts over 2 million web hits so far, and the Facebook page UK database for sex offences against children, which has nearly 3,000 members. The man himself has had a modest amount of mainstream media coverage, including an inflammatory appearance on the Sun’s talk radio show, where an apparent paedophile was allowed on the air, drumming up some controversy [2].

The CHRIS database has named and shamed over 17,000 people in the UK and Ireland, who can all be searched on the website, which also makes several statistical claims.

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, 17 and 18 year olds, which is beyond the scope of pedophilia.

A paedophile is somebody that is sexually attracted to children. That is prepubescent children, which biologically speaking means those from about 11 years old and under. There are of course gray areas and an ongoing debate about this definition, but the sexual abuse of children is obviously to do with “children”. UK law admittedly uses a broader definition, with 16 years old being the age of consent.

While Chris Wittwer is free to do what he likes with his website, several of his pages fall outside the accepted definition and dilute his mission statement of “Naming & Shaming UK Convicted Paedophiles and Child Abusers”. The 2002 story of former Tory Councillor Louise Burrows, who attacked three children with a whip after they broke her window cannot be considered the act of a paedophile.

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, 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. Not only was the young man his consenting partner, but was not a child, and Northern Irish law has now been amended to reflect 16 as the age of homosexual consent.

Furthermore Stockport councillor Neil Derbyshire who was convicted in 2002 for sexually assaulting a 16 year old boy cannot psychologically or legally be recognised as a paedophile either.

Yes some of these crimes are obviously disturbing, but to use them to bolster an image of paedophile rings snatching young children off the street is misleading. If this was a Government operated database they would certainly be called on to clarify the purpose of naming and shaming people like those listed above.

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

Misdirected Hate

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 repercussions. 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 this same logic. The website allows you to select a county and then it lists short snippets of information about the paedophile (likely taken from newspaper articles at the time of the conviction). These often include street names.

Not only could this give rise to vigilantism, but there’s no telling how many of these street names are outdated. Most paedophiles understandably move on from the area they were convicted and many cases listed on the CHRIS site go back years. So what happens when people’s hate is misdirected because of false information?

WideShut has learned the story of one mother and daughter who claim to have been left traumatized after the CHRIS website falsely listed their location as the residence of a paedophile. While this man did live there with the ladies in question (he was the husband and father), he never returned to the family home following his conviction and was promptly divorced. Despite this they say the property has been attacked, with the car outside vandalised and the windows broken. What’s worse is that despite pleading with Chris Wittwer to remove the page, they claim he played a manipulative game, saying he would only take down the information if they provided an up to date address. This is blackmail!

Though we will not name names here, the page listing the wrong location is still profiled on the CHRIS website. The wife of the man in question has since moved on herself, leaving a completely unrelated resident at risk of misdirected hate.

The police were not cooperative with the ladies in question.

Questionable Actions

As is often the case with Internet communities, squabbles and infighting can end up published online for all to see. Although this can be overlooked by users of video gaming forums or other entertainment hangouts, you’d think somebody like Chris Wittwer would keep his website clean and professional, considering the subject matter at hand. Unfortunately this isn’t the case. WideShut is in possession of multiple screen captures that show in 2011 he was posting names and photos of people he claimed to be disrupting the CHRIS campaign on to the website. After his web-hosting company received complaints they removed the information.

Regardless of whether some of the accused may have had fallings out with Mr. Wittwer, were critical of the website, or may have even actively been trying to disrupt it, one can’t ignore the immorality of publishing private information about people who are not paedophiles on a website that claims to expose paedophiles. In fact he went as far as to insinuate that they were paedophiles on one of his pages.

“Over the past 3 years ive 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, nor is anybody else he named and shamed during this period of squabbling. In fact the majority of people listed were victims of child abuse and subsequently became fighters against it. Perhaps Wittwer saw them as his competition? He even displayed a photo of the daughter from the story above. It seems publishing an incorrect location is not enough distress for the family.

Wittwer goes on to make numerous allegations about people, in a bizarre tirade detailing how his paedophile naming skills are better and how he has the moral high-ground over the techniques of other groups. WideShut has even seen messages where Wittwer threatens somebody with being listed on the CHRIS website if they don’t divulge a personal telephone number of somebody else. Again this is blackmail!

It is understandable why former supporters have now become the website’s main critics. To threaten people with exposure over an internet squabble is despicable behavior by somebody who holds themselves in such a moral position. Also one would assume Wittwer is not in this for fame or notoriety, so quite why he would let his ego filter on to a paedophile database website is extremely troubling. He has however accepted money over the years.

CHRIS is not a registered charity and Mr. Wittwer has not provided accounts for the donations made through the website or the various charity fund-raisers undertaken in support of CHRIS. WideShut is aware of a number allegations about irregularities surrounding Wittwer’s donation policy. One Facebook page simply asks in the header…“Where Did Our Donations Go Chris?”

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 paedophile”.

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.

Chris Wittwer the Football Hooligan

Chris WitterYou would think that the person behind a naming and shaming website would be an upstanding member of society, perhaps somebody who could be a role model for the children they work to protect. Yet on top of some of the questionable actions mentioned above, Chris Wittwer is a convicted football hooligan!

The 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.”

Ironically the newspaper goes on to name and shame Mr. Wittwer for his mindless crime…

“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.”

It might also be worth mentioning that Wittwer is an associate of the English Defense League, an apparent anti-immigration and anti-Islamic extremist political protest group, that more often than not devolves in to blatant racism and hooliganism, confirming the leftist stereotyping against its many bald, beer drinking, football hooligan members.

Conclusion

The Jimmy Savile scandal has taught us that we cannot always rely on our Government and trusted British institutions to protect our children, but if private individuals are to replace state systems with their own, they need to meet a higher moral and practical standard.

Chris Wittwer does not do this, and if claims about people being out to get his campaign are true, maybe there was a good reason. His website is carelessly outdated potentially giving rise to misdirected vigilantism, it mixes irrelevant crimes with crimes of paedophiles diluting his mission statement, he ruined its credibility by naming and shaming innocent people alongside paedophiles because of ego-based personal grudges, and he’s proven himself to be a mindless thug.

The Government’s Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme will always be open to criticism, but it’s without question more efficient than the shambles that is CHRIS.



_____________________________________________

Latest Video - Scotland Vote NO ... Because TERRORISM

Home | UK Politics     

RSS Facebook Twitter Youtube

Recent Posts ...


  • 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?

    • PEADOSLAYER

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

      NONE

  • http://www.virped.org 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.”

    YOU HAVE A BLOODY CHEEK !

    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

    virped.org

    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

    test

  • Keelan Balderson

    testing

  • 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.