http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/operation_ore/
I really must challenge this statement: "In the majority of instances, where police seized computers from individuals in the UK, an amount of child abuse material was found – ranging from a few images to collections of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of images." According to whom? Gamble&Co? I expect better from El Reg.
Firstly, the "Porn Police" will classify anything involving children and nudity as "abusive" - including naturist beach pictures and even pictures from your own family album. And let us not forget that some people undoubtedly capitulated and admitted "guilt" for images that may have been considered "indecent" based only on the prosecution's "opinion". Secondly, there are vast numbers of scans of old magazines (and newspapers), that would now be considered "illegal", floating around cyberspace; in other words, not "hidden" away on secretive, nod-and-a-wink-members-only sites. Thirdly, since not everyone on the "list" was investigated (and I don't just mean the infamous 'protected names' - it would seem that a couple of thousand "ordinary" people have never been "visited" either) and a significant number of those who were investigated were NFA'd or cautioned/prosecuted solely for "incitement", I consider it wholly unprofessional to make such misleading statements.
It would also seem that most people are still oblivious to the fact that the majority of Landslide's participating sites were legal (or content unknown), and that therefore some people's details would have appeared on the database legitimately and for legal sites.
HOWEVER, there is absolutely no certainty that even legitimate transactions were recorded accurately. And even if they were recorded accurately at the time of the transaction, given the scale of hacking and fraudulently activity, how can anyone be sure that they weren't "accidentally" modified at a later time? As evidence of "joining an illegal site", the Landslide database is worthless and any convictions resulting from it are unsafe.
Now for something that I really enjoy.....a spot of gratuitous, but highly justifiable, personal abuse.
The chief fuckwit himself added: "“These allegations are unfounded and sought only to undermine an investigation which led to the safeguarding of more than 154 children. UK policing, and formerly the National Crime Squad, has been unable until now to refute these theories publicly due to a desire not to unduly influence pending prosecutions. “Whilst convicted offenders understandably wish to disassociate themselves from this type of offence in any way possible, the devastating impact of child abuse on its victims must never be forgotten.”" Ignoring his utterly predictable and hollow "but think of the children" spiel; 154 children rescued (the number varies).....so assuming that's one child "rescued" per perpetrator (unlikely in every case), that's 154 "hands-on" abusers out of 4000+ people investigated? Hmmm, not many considering the initial screaming media headlines and "horror" stories: "Over 7200 british perverts paid to join a global child abuse ring". Of course, SS, NPS etc were not in any way influenced by Gamble&Co's dangerous disinformation.....Basically, just do a little digging and you will see for yourselves what a load of crap he talks. The Americans stitched up Thomas Reedy for political gain (why do think that they only investigated a couple of hundred people out of a list of 35000 alleged subscribers. It's certainly not because of "limits of statute" - America is one of the most paedo-hysterical countries around.....do you really believe that they would have ignored thousands of kudos-increasing "kiddie-fiddler" busts? Well do you....?) and Gamble&Co saw an opportunity to 'raise their profiles' and promote their 'cause'. Hypocritical, dangerous, false scumbags.....the lot of 'em. So there
