Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Exposing Child Abuse

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-02-2013, 01:44 PM   #21
sueperb
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 834
Likes: 48 (31 Posts)
Default

All paedophiles have been checked against press and court records before they are named and all the infomation on that site is in the public domain and can be accessed by anyone anyway, all the site owner is doing is putting it all in on place.
He is breaking no law in what he is doing.
sueperb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 01:59 PM   #22
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Are you saying that because of the over-zealous actions of one strange man, all paedophiles should then enjoy anonymity? Mistakes of identity appear to be a common occurrence, for example the recent case of the teenager who was stabbed repeatedly when he opened the door to two thugs who got the wrong address. What would be the solution in the latter case? Close down Google maps, everyone refuse to ever open their front doors, or for all knives to be chipped and the user's mental state to be tracked at all times with the knife self-destructing if the user feels angry?

We are faced with a nation besieged with the actions of insane paedophiles and psychopaths, many of whom are running the country, and hiding their crimes. They would like nothing better than to make it law that paedophiles are never named. How they would ensure that parents never ever discuss who they think is a paedophile, and where they think they live, I'm not sure. If anything, that would make the chance of mistaken identity or address even greater?




Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Go in to this with an open mind, I think you'll see I'm being fair.

The Story of CHRIS: A Critique of Naming and Shaming Paedophiles



Full Article:
http://wideshut.co.uk/the-story-of-c...g-paedophiles/
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:03 PM   #23
voxvot
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Repeat all you want, I am not part of some "multilevel intellectual response to this issue".

I've never said naming and shaming is wrong...I'm saying GET IT RIGHT, prove you're better than the Government.

CHRIS has not done this.

Is he above criticisms in your eyes. Is everyone who goes about naming and shaming "valiantly trying to fill a protection vacuum created by the Government's negligence?"

Are the Government even being negligent on this issue? If you have a kid you can phone the police today and they will tell you who's in your area.
You say that you have, "never said naming and shaming is wrong"...and yet your post is titled, "An argument AGAINST naming and shaming paedophiles", excuse me?
voxvot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:31 PM   #24
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tildatod View Post
Are you saying that because of the over-zealous actions of one strange man, all paedophiles should then enjoy anonymity?
Don't project that on me...if you read the article the answer is clearly no. And they don't enjoy anonymity anyway, the Government provide info to parents and guardians should they ask for it.

And it goes far beyond him being an over-zealous strange man.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!

Last edited by bobbydiva; 13-02-2013 at 02:37 PM.
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:36 PM   #25
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxvot View Post
You say that you have, "never said naming and shaming is wrong"...and yet your post is titled, "An argument AGAINST naming and shaming paedophiles", excuse me?
I admitted my title of the THREAD was perhaps misleading, but since I wrote the article and you've read the article (I hope) you'll know my position. As re-stated in this thread, I think that if we as a society or group of people are to say the Government is wrong or failing in it's current system, then we need to do BETTER than they are. CHRIS is not, for the reasons outlined in the article, such as outdated info, naming innocent people due to personal grudges, calling people pedos that medically and legally are not etc

And if we're going to be pedantic, one can put forth an argument or critique, without necessarily holding it as a belief. The whole point of my article is to spark debate about how to best approach naming and shaming.

I think if done professionally and meticulously it could be a good thing.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:40 PM   #26
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sueperb View Post
All paedophiles have been checked against press and court records before they are named and all the infomation on that site is in the public domain and can be accessed by anyone anyway, all the site owner is doing is putting it all in on place.
He is breaking no law in what he is doing.
There's a big difference between an article being accurate at the time of print in a newspaper, and that same info being cut and worked in to a supposed up to date database.

Used as an example in my article was the case where a home was attacked because a child abuser used to live there. When one of them brought this up to Wittwer he blackmailed them and even put the photo of one of them on the site.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:42 PM   #27
brucel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

don't u.k police keep a sexual predator registration........ here in the u.s. they do.
i think parents have a right to know when peados rent/move-in the neighborhood
brucel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 02:46 PM   #28
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucel View Post
don't u.k police keep a sexual predator registration........ here in the u.s. they do.
i think parents have a right to know when peados rent/move-in the neighborhood
Yes they do, parents and guardians can check for abusers in their vicinity. But some citizens prefer to name and shame them publicly on websites, facebook etc.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:00 PM   #29
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Don't project that on me...if you read the article the answer is clearly no. And they don't enjoy anonymity anyway, the Government provide info to parents and guardians should they ask for it.

And it goes far beyond him being an over-zealous strange man.
The 'article' is a load of nonsense. It has unsubstantiated information which it hopes to use as a factual case against someone it argues is using incorrect information. The 'article' comes across as a slightly more sophisticated flame war retort.

Here's a choice example:

Quote:
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”.



If this man is committing a crime, I suggest that those who feel wronged approach the plod. We are well aware of just how slimey our law enforcement is, so I'm quite sure they will find a way to stop him.
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:00 PM   #30
voxvot
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Yes they do, parents and guardians can check for abusers in their vicinity. But some citizens prefer to name and shame them publicly on websites, facebook etc.
In the US the information is available and accessible on line. In the UK it's available but not really accessible. Lip service is the best you get in the UK.
voxvot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:05 PM   #31
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tildatod View Post
The 'article' is a load of nonsense. It has unsubstantiated information which it hopes to use as a factual case against someone it argues is using incorrect information. The 'article' comes across as a slightly more sophisticated flame war retort.

Here's a choice example:






If this man is committing a crime, I suggest that those who feel wronged approach the plod. We are well aware of just how slimey our law enforcement is, so I'm quite sure they will find a way to stop him.
It's not about committing a crime it's about his character. A pedo exposer, knowing somebody is a pedo but ignoring it, suggests he's insincere to me.

And it's not unsubstantiated. I have his correspondence, that's why it's in quotes. Several people have come forward to corroborate.

By your logic, Jimmy Savile's crimes are unsubstantiated. It's not like most of it has been empirically proven.

There's a body of allegations. As there is here.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:08 PM   #32
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
It's not about committing a crime it's about his character. A pedo exposer, knowing somebody is a pedo but ignoring it, suggests he's insincere to me.

And it's not unsubstantiated. I have his correspondence, that's why it's in quotes. Several people have come forward to corroborate.

By your logic, Jimmy Savile's crimes are unsubstantiated. It's not like most of it has been empirically proven.

There's a body of allegations. As there is here.
So you wrote the 'article'? If the article was to disclose proof, and I mean valid proof, that this man is protecting paedophiles, then it would be worth discussing this further.

As it stands, you seem to expect people to agree with the article, which is very short on facts. I like the idea that even non-parents can check if a paedophile is in their area. The government should allow all people to have this information. Surely people with children are MORE likely to be overly angry, whilst simple neighbours would like to know if there was a serious pervert in the hood. If I knew someone was a paedophile, I would make sure I ostracised them in every way possible, and I would discuss it with my neighbours and friends. Same as when we discuss local burglaries and so on.

Last edited by tildatod; 13-02-2013 at 03:09 PM.
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:15 PM   #33
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
It's not about committing a crime it's about his character. A pedo exposer, knowing somebody is a pedo but ignoring it, suggests he's insincere to me.

And it's not unsubstantiated. I have his correspondence, that's why it's in quotes. Several people have come forward to corroborate.

By your logic, Jimmy Savile's crimes are unsubstantiated. It's not like most of it has been empirically proven.

There's a body of allegations. As there is here.
Quite a leap of logic you have there. A man who documents paedophiles and allegedly protects them (?) is being compared to Jimmy Saville, the fixer paedophile.

YOU give me the creeps with your thinking. You now turn it around and say "it's not like most of it has been empirically proven" regarding Saville. LOL, apart from the testimony of his victims, no there's no proof. What proof were you expecting? A sex tape from the kids he molested? Which cases do you have concerns over? Let's hear it.

I have huge problems with someone who is looking for 'empirical proof' that someone is a paedo, whilst giving zero proof that someone is guilty of wrongdoing but expecting people to fall in line with such unbalanced thinking.
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:25 PM   #34
brucel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Yes they do, parents and guardians can check for abusers in their vicinity. But some citizens prefer to name and shame them publicly on websites, facebook etc.
well, you should expect such reaction when kids are involved.
you too will react the same when you're a parent or an older sibling looking out after the little ones
safety - children safety overrule peados constitutional rights.

to me, they forfeit all implied protection under the law once they attack/prey on innocent children !

that being said, im no fan of police 'PEADO ENTRAPMENT' to catch a predator

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7y6E-k3uKI


www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL_R-lSewHA


Last edited by brucel; 13-02-2013 at 03:35 PM.
brucel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 03:31 PM   #35
jake_ball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 10,021
Likes: 3,174 (1,628 Posts)
Default

Ok let's name ALL sexual deviants on the internet. Let's list names and addresses of everyone's internet activities including porn and all photos of themselves and others that have somehow found their way on to the internet. We need to protect the children! Some of you will fit into the profile of a POTENTIAL pedophile.

Fear of pedophiles (and fear of "terrorists") is gonna be our downfall.

Expose GENUINE pedophiles IN COURT (ok most judges are probably pedophiles unfortunately but expose them too as long as it's TRUE).

I thought that the Jimmy Saville thread turned into a witch-hunt at times, but on other occasions it had some excellent posts and info.

Turning it into a witch-hunt wont help, because if the masses start to believe that exposing pedos is just one big witch-hunt, then it is gonna undermime the genuine investigators/victims.
__________________
The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself. ||| The words that I type onto this forum are NOT my opinions, nor are they my beliefs, they are simply just words and letters on a screen ||| Any thread that I start is not really meant as a debate, it's really just a friendly discussion
jake_ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 04:04 PM   #36
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tildatod View Post
Quite a leap of logic you have there. A man who documents paedophiles and allegedly protects them (?) is being compared to Jimmy Saville, the fixer paedophile.

YOU give me the creeps with your thinking. You now turn it around and say "it's not like most of it has been empirically proven" regarding Saville. LOL, apart from the testimony of his victims, no there's no proof. What proof were you expecting? A sex tape from the kids he molested? Which cases do you have concerns over? Let's hear it.

I have huge problems with someone who is looking for 'empirical proof' that someone is a paedo, whilst giving zero proof that someone is guilty of wrongdoing but expecting people to fall in line with such unbalanced thinking.
Noooo YOUR logic is being compared to the logic used against Jimmy Saville.

Let me explain it for you.

You said I have no proof for some of the claims against Chris Wittwer.

I say yes I do, I have many people with corroborative allegations and some direct messages from him.

So I compared this to the Jimmy Saville case. While a lot of the Savile case hasn't been empirically proven, there is a general body of allegations.

Get it?

I think you did the first time, but you want to keep projecting things on to me.

I really don't want to get in to these silly back and forths. Back to the article...what are your core arguments, criticisms etc, and maybe I can address them and explain my position if you do not understand it or think it's wrong?

In a nutshell...I think naming and shaming websites could be a good thing as long as they are done accurately and professionally, by people with good character, and who do not let personal squabbles interfere with the content. That's really the main point. If these sites are to exist, they at least need to go above and beyond what the Government are already doing, without harming innocent people in the process.
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!

Last edited by bobbydiva; 13-02-2013 at 04:11 PM.
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 04:43 PM   #37
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Quote:
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.

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.
So how is the government's solution any less 'dangerous' than CHRIS? Both can allegedly give rise to vigilantism. How do we know that parents who find out where a paedophile lives, aren't telling all the people they know which could potentially, possibly, perhaps, maybe lead to vigilantism? Surely the actual problem is not about mistaken paedophile identity (as it allegedly happened on CHRIS' website), but rather that someone(paedophile or mistaken paedophile) is abused?

Quote:
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.
I hope we never live in a world where people don't hate paedophiles. That would be a paedophile haven.

Quote:
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.
Like David Icke then? He's regularly naming and shaming paedophiles. Better get this site closed too. We have no "empirical proof" that some of the people linked to paedophilia by him are actually paedophiles, so we best stop David Icke and whoever else is naming and shaming them.

Quote:
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?
A convicted football hooligan perhaps, but I'll have his company any day over that of the Jimmy Savile's of the world.


Quote:
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.
Is she listed on his website? No idea what the relevance of this snippet is to this 'article'.

Quote:
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.
Is this listed on his website? The law may not recognise a 17 year old as a child, but I would most certainly not dismiss Howden as a non-paedophile. I won't live my life according to what a bunch of white coats decide, but rather by common sense. A man molests TWO 17 year old girls. Was it on their 17th birthdays? Did they look like schoolgirls, or did they look like Ann Widdecombe? I would have to go and find the details of the case and decide for myself what I think of the cretin. If I had a 17 year old daughter, I would not say "well dear, at least you're over the age of consent, chin up dear!".

Quote:
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.
Are they listed on his website? At best he needs to retitle his website to include all sexual deviants, not just paedophiles who keep to molesting those under the age of 16.

Quote:
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 unlike David Icke and others even on this forum who use news reports, Google maps and every other online source to piece together information about others. Not unlike what we all do these days. He's taken a lot of information and put it all in one place to be accessed by the public.

Quote:
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?
A lot of modality in that paragraph. No facts. COULD give rise to, no telling how many, most, understandably....

Quote:
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!
No evidence of who these people are, and whether their story is true. A nice exclamation of THIS IS BLACKMAIL. If you're going to take this man down, at least give the audience some real facts. He said and she said aren't really going to convince a population of paedophile-loathers that these allegations are true.

How was the information that he lived there false? You just said he lived there. At best the information is outdated. ??

Quote:
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.
No proof. I'll just believe you, because you told me to.

Quote:
The police were not cooperative with the ladies in question.
Why was that? No information for us to glean on why their story was dismissed? Shouldn't they be coming public personally and pursuing justice?

Quote:
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.
Excellent news for Wideshut, but means nothing to me.

Quote:
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.
I've not seen evidence of this. I've seen that he had details of a paedo on there but the paedo moved out. His information was outdated, I did not see it written that he knew the paedo's real address but chose to mislead with an incorrect address.??



Quote:
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.”
How do you or the readers know who he is talking about? We would have to know who it was he was referring to when he wrote that. Whoever has been gunning for him has had their name "redacted". LOL, I can't find much to go on here.


Quote:
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 suqabbling. 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!
WHAT? That was a lot of playground tattle-telling. NO proof. Why are we expected to believe and act on this childish stuff?

Quote:
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.
Sigh. Who are these former supporters who now criticise the site? Who threatened who with exposure? CHRIS appears to be the target of this article. He accepted money? I suggest you call the police mate. Not complain about it a la flame war style on the David Icke forum.

Quote:
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?”
Go to the cops. Please. You're asking us to bark up a tree but we can't even see the tree.

Quote:
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.
This is the juiciest nugget in your flame war article. Proof, and then we will all descend on him with pitchforks, as soon as we sharpen them.

Quote:
Chris Wittwer the Football Hooligan

You 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.”
Mate he's served his time. You wondered if we will ever live in a world where people don't hate paedophiles. I wonder if we will live in a world where we won't keep on targeting lesser criminals who have already served their time. He threw a punch and got ten months, according to your copy/paste. He may not be someone I would care to be friends with, but then again I loathe Mark Zuckerberg who does a lot of white collar pleasantries and enjoys a lot of global support.

Quote:
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.
This is actually quite damning and should have been put at the top of your article. However, is there proof that he is an EDL member? If you want a way to tar and feather him, this is the way. The EDL is disgusting. I have to say that I don't mind if a racist tackles the paedos and the menace they are in our society. I'm not choosy when it comes to who rids the planet of scum, seeing as we are rather short on white knights.

WHY did you need to talk about them being bald or beer drinkers? That's taking profiling to a whole new level of stupidity.

Quote:
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.
Really? Says who? Citizens can't make mistakes or fall foul of morality at any stage? Do you think that you have fallen foul of morality with your hit piece that targets this person, but yet you have given no proof? We could get very tangled up with what is morality, and whose morality we take as our collective morality. As far as I see it, he needs to update his website, and remove old information.

Quote:
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.
ARE THOSE CLAIMS TRUE? PROOF?


Quote:
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.
Potentially? Personal grudges against who? YOU?


Quote:
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
In what ways is it more efficient than a website that houses all paedo information on one website? If he removed the outdated information, would his site be acceptable to you? If someone else took it over, and they were not convicted of any crimes nor someone who got involved in flame wars (as this all sounds to me), would you then be okay with the site? Is the ultimate problem that a citizen is giving out paedo information freely available from the papers, or that Wittwer is the one doing this? Is it the site, or the man that is the real problem?
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 04:46 PM   #38
tildatod
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: A sunless world
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 3,220 (1,898 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbydiva View Post
Noooo YOUR logic is being compared to the logic used against Jimmy Saville.

Let me explain it for you.

You said I have no proof for some of the claims against Chris Wittwer.

I say yes I do, I have many people with corroborative allegations and some direct messages from him.

So I compared this to the Jimmy Saville case. While a lot of the Savile case hasn't been empirically proven, there is a general body of allegations.

Get it?

I think you did the first time, but you want to keep projecting things on to me.

I really don't want to get in to these silly back and forths. Back to the article...what are your core arguments, criticisms etc, and maybe I can address them and explain my position if you do not understand it or think it's wrong?

In a nutshell...I think naming and shaming websites could be a good thing as long as they are done accurately and professionally, by people with good character, and who do not let personal squabbles interfere with the content. That's really the main point. If these sites are to exist, they at least need to go above and beyond what the Government are already doing, without harming innocent people in the process.
I've analysed your hit piece. It lacks proof or evidence. You've got some issue with the guy, but you're holding back on the proof. Instead you're just wailing about he did, he said, he wrote, he threatened. Proof. You like proof for Jimmy Savile, I like proof for Wittwer or whoever I'm suppose to hate on your behalf. I sure as hell won't stop hating paedophiles. I'm on the D.I. site, not the Jimmy Savile website.
tildatod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 04:51 PM   #39
couchtripper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 587
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Good on you for starting this topic, bobbydiva. Sad to say, a logical approach based on the notion that it's never acceptable to blame someone for a crime like this without absolute proof won't work here though.

One person even brushed over the problems you raised using the same notion as 'collateral damage'. And they accuse others of being sick and twisted...
couchtripper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-02-2013, 05:32 PM   #40
bobbydiva
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
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.

So how is the government's solution any less 'dangerous' than CHRIS? Both can allegedly give rise to vigilantism. How do we know that parents who find out where a paedophile lives, aren't telling all the people they know which could potentially, possibly, perhaps, maybe lead to vigilantism? Surely the actual problem is not about mistaken paedophile identity (as it allegedly happened on CHRIS' website), but rather that someone(paedophile or mistaken paedophile) is abused?
Well for one the local police have direct access to records. CHRIS is using old newspaper snippets. Both can give rise to vigilantism, but surely you can see that a public list with second hand data is more likely to cause problems, than a private list available only to parents guardians, that is pulled directly from the police?

Quote:
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.

I hope we never live in a world where people don't hate paedophiles. That would be a paedophile haven.
I personally can envisage a world where we're advanced enough to remove the threat and pity them for being broken human beings.

Quote:
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.

Like David Icke then? He's regularly naming and shaming paedophiles. Better get this site closed too. We have no "empirical proof" that some of the people linked to paedophilia by him are actually paedophiles, so we best stop David Icke and whoever else is naming and shaming them.
Is David Icke acting immorally? Are his actions verging on criminality? Is he a convicted football hooligan?

Why bring him in to this, other than to find some emotive way to argue your point? I'm still not clear if you actually have one though.

Quote:
A convicted football hooligan perhaps, but I'll have his company any day over that of the Jimmy Savile's of the world.
Me too.

Quote:
Is this listed on his website?
Yes all these stories are from his website.

Quote:
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 unlike David Icke and others even on this forum who use news reports, Google maps and every other online source to piece together information about others. Not unlike what we all do these days. He's taken a lot of information and put it all in one place to be accessed by the public.
Jeeez this is not the same thing! CHRIS is listing locations of convicted paedophiles that are years out of date.

Quote:
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?

A lot of modality in that paragraph. No facts. COULD give rise to, no telling how many, most, understandably....
Well done you can quote a paragraph while ignoring the very next paragraph that goes in to more detail

Quote:
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!

No evidence of who these people are, and whether their story is true. A nice exclamation of THIS IS BLACKMAIL. If you're going to take this man down, at least give the audience some real facts. He said and she said aren't really going to convince a population of paedophile-loathers that these allegations are true.
So I'm supposed to name innocent people to please YOU? They've been through enough with this guy. I have my documentation should libel become an issue.

How was the information that he lived there false? You just said he lived there. At best the information is outdated. ??

Quote:
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.

No proof. I'll just believe you, because you told me to.
Want their address?

Quote:
The police were not cooperative with the ladies in question.

Why was that? No information for us to glean on why their story was dismissed? Shouldn't they be coming public personally and pursuing justice?
Perhaps they just want to get on with their lives, and do not want to be dragged through the dirt some more, to placate a David Icke forum user?

Quote:
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.

Excellent news for Wideshut, but means nothing to me.
These are online elsewhere if you're astute at googling or using archive.org - I can put you in contact with people that have the info as well if you like? I prefer not to re-name and shame innocent people though.

Most of your other points hang on this same issue. You need to understand that a lot of this information is sensitive and personal, and I made the decision not to publish it unless some kind of legal problems occurred.

You don't have to believe me (David Icke phrase for you), but I think my own track record speaks for itself.

Here's one site with a lot of documentation that was passed to me after I'd done the article - http://thetruthaboutchris.weebly.com/
__________________
My Website:
http://wideshut.co.uk/ - alternative news and blogs

Latest Article:
Why the Virginia Shooting ISN'T a Hoax!
bobbydiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.