Operation Ore
subscriber list
more Q & A
What does it mean if a horrific image was found on a computer?
A horrific image was probably on the computer.
Surely if the image really involved child abuse, someone should pay for this crime?
If the child can be traced and the circumstances professionally assessed, then the best needs of that child have a chance of being met. If the image related to Landslide, it was likely to be an old image and the child now an adult; in most instances these people would not even wish to be confronted with their history on the Internet.
The best needs of that child are unlikely to be resolved by public anger and it must be remembered, criminal proceedings may not be in the best interests of the child.
But real child abusers were found in Operation Ore?
If one had the power to ignore the law and violate the rights of a few thousand people, all manner of crimes could be found and prosecuted for. It is quite likely in any such list to find a few isolated cases of real or suspected child abuse. Official information provided in this regard was found to be untrue. The Scottish arm of Operation Ore is complete, and not a single person was prosecuted for child abuse.
But over a thousand people were successfully prosecuted in Operation Ore?
Yes they were, and that was the result of a number of factors, for example:
- what was found, placed or thought to have been on their
computers
- because of complaints about that person arising from enquiries
- because the presumption of innocence was denied
- because of the lies that were told
- and many more factors
But by and large, these people were guilty weren't they?
No.
But if they were guilty, that was an absolutely horrific crime wasn't it?
No. The Internet by and large gave people the opportunity to see everything.
But if they wanted to see images of children, that meant they were child abusers?
No and the results of Operation Ore are a proof of that fact. The same answer was given in parliament.
|
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government (11/03/2004) What correlations have they found between individuals with access to child pornography and offences of sexual abuse of children, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas.[HL1675] Baroness Scotland of Asthal: People who sexually abuse children are often found to be in possession of indecent images of children. There is evidence to suggest that child pornography can be used in an attempt to legitimise their sexual activities with children and to "groom" or encourage compliance from their victims. However, we are not currently aware of any evidence to support a direct causal link between access to child pornography and the commission of sexual offences against children. (check) (an academic analysis of the issues, click here, here, or here)) |
But more than 100 children were saved?
The subscribers that were on the Ore list, were treated as if they were a risk to children. If a child was taken into care, it did not mean the child had been abused, was at risk or would be safe in care. Substantial numbers of children were severely damaged by Operation Ore. It has to be remembered, one of the worst things you can take from a family is money. The police and social services and child promotion groups made concerted attempts to split families, so children were taken into care. Outrageous but true.
So what could have been done to help children at risk?
If people had been encouraged and were allowed to safely report images of actual abuse, this would have provided the opportunity for the police to try to trace the victims. Living in a world without the climate of fear, is the best environment to protect against such crimes.
But child abuse is a horrific crime, at any cost, it is worth taking any steps to find abusers isn't it?
No, not at any cost and especially not if you really care about children. Whatever the problem, how it is addressed determines what society you have. When the law and civil rights are thrown to the wind, no one is protecting anyone.
But the police said 1 in 5 of these people were abusers, so it had to be done didn't it?
The police said many things, this was one of so many lies. You would not find 1 in 100 of the Ore list were abusers of children, it is a rare crime. You wouldn't find 1 in 100 of those charged of any threat to children either. What people looked at on the Internet, by and large, tells you what they looked at on the Internet and what is on people's computers tells you what they might have looked at.
In 2002, the US National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, of the 2.6 million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in America, 66% or 2/3 were unconfirmed or unsubstantiated. The same figures could be quoted as 1/3 were offenders. Looking at the raw government data for this year, 58.3% of the perpetrators were women and 41.7% men. The US figures varied by the day depending on who was stating them, but did not relate to imagery on adult sites on the Internet. A figure of 36% quoted by USPIS became folklore, simply because it was the highest figure quoted. It was simply, the largest lie.