Snapped Up #2


Charity worker framed as child molester

Daily Mail shockingly reports about a “Paedophile private school teacher ‘as bad as Savile’: He abused thousands of Kenyan boys over four decades”. The tabloid summarizes his case as such:

  • SH (anonymized by Destroyer) “abused teenagers at school in Devon before moving to Africa”
  • “He then set up a charity which worked with local schools in Kenya”
  • “Court heard he picked up street children before abusing them at his home “
  • “He was today convicted of eight offences against children as young as 10”
  • “Video of police interview shows moment he admitted bathing boys”
  • “Detectives say ‘very dangerous offender’ may have ‘many more victims'”
  • “One man who testified is believed to have taken his own life during the trial”

Even though we can’t know for sure, one has to assume that in this kind of cases, no real abuse has taken place. Instead, one has to assume that this is a person who made the world a better place, who helped street kids that no one else cared about. Read between the lines, people! Newspapers like Daily Mail usually twist the truth or use downright lies to destroy the reputation of decent men. It’s a witch-hunt which unfortunately is strongly supported by ordinary people.

The story puts the motives behind charity to the test. We usually don’t question what personal and maybe egotistical motives may lie behind charity:

  • Does a rich person give to charity in order to sooth a guilty conscience?
  • Does an old lady become a pater for an African child in order to pretend she has a cute little grandchild?

Of course! Those are the kind of feelings that most charities play on in their advertisement. And it shouldn’t matter what personal motives lie behind charity, because the result is the same: People are helped. The world becomes better. But if a man who likes boys – has “the personal motive” of feeling good by helping them – sets up a charity that saves hundreds of street kids from poverty, then it’s all of a sudden of huge significance that his will to help wasn’t as “pure” as other helpers’ is assumed to be (despite it’s not).

Oh, and he was giving the street boys a bath. That must have been really terrible for them…

GCHQ to tackle young Twitter users

BBC reports what UK prime minister David Cameron said at a summit:

The prime minister said a joint GCHQ and National Crime Agency unit would hunt online paedophiles with the same “effort” used to track terrorists.

Mr Cameron said the new unit was part of a drive to remove millions of “sickening and depraved” images from the internet.

He also said that “online child exploitation” existed on an “almost industrial scale”.

Many memes to pick here! We only miss the millions of billions of moneys that this “industry” makes.

But to comment more seriously: The article talks about “child abuse images”, which is the new word for what until recently was called “child pornography”, which in turn can mean virtually anything, like for example a screenshot from the Spanish feature film 800 Bullets. (Yes, it’s true, I know of a UK case where this movie was considered child porn and along with similar images sent a man to prison. It’s not a myth – I have the court papers.)

Nowadays, though, “child pornography” is to a large extent produced by the kids themselves. Kids and teenagers photograph their stiffies (or pussies for that matter) and share them on Twitter and Facebook. It’s “the new child porn” if you want! Or sorry, the new “child abuse images”. I guess the teenagers are abusing themselves in the same way as it was a “sin” for them to masturbate in the middle ages, a sin that also was considered “sickening and depraved”.

Following the logic of the UK prime minister’s statements, the GCHQ and the National Crime Agency will now use terrorist laws to persecute underage Twitter users, many of them LGBT youth. Way to go, UK!

One thought on “Snapped Up #2

  1. They have described child naked genital explicit naked-nesses sent, in this case as photos, from one child to another child as (1) child pornography and (2) child pornography DISTRIBUTION, and (3) such, by way of electronic means, as abuse of electronic communications. Such active-as-such children are subject to the same laws as any adult. This is, in this state, Pennsylvania, USA, classed as ‘Child Abuse’. Children are now child-pornographers by way of shared self-fies. As soon as I can, I’ll send the info, as they, the Pennsylvania state-attorneys, are still debating the issues. I just heard it on the radio.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *