TruthMovement an internet research-guide for students and scholars. Best viewed in Chrome Browser

Blog Search

Monday, July 7, 2014

The Damage Caused by False Accusations

The Damage Caused by False Accusations

The Damage to Society from False Accusations
A BUSINESSMAN is suing Surrey police for sending to a school information from the force computer that wrongly suggests he could be a danger to girls.
The policy of allowing the police and other government employees to spread, what are, effectively, nothing more than damaging rumours about someone, just because they happen to have suspicions about him (and, of course, the victims of such malicious suspicions are almost invariably males) is such an appalling corruption of any decent notion of justice that it has to be opposed vigorously.
Thomas Hamilton Dunblane
Thomas Hamilton
It might also be well worth reminding these arrogant and malevolent government employees that Thomas Hamilton, who eventually killed 16 children at Dunblane, was persecuted in just such a manner, and, further, he, himself, claimed that his murderous actions constituted nothing less than direct retribution for the way in which he had been victimised and harassed on account of persistent and unfounded malicious rumours about his intentions toward the children with whom he worked. 
Indeed, just prior to his infamous actions he had been protesting his innocence in writings to the press, to the police, to Members of Parliament and even to the Queen.
He was ignored.
The argument is, of course, that 'it is better to be safe than sorry' when it comes to the welfare of women and children and the possibility that they might be sexually interfered with, but this is almost always at the expense of innocent men.
However, this argument is completely false. 
For example, the result of treating adults with unwarranted suspicion whenever they have anything to do with children is that they withdraw from having much to do with them. 
James Bulger

James Bulger

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that, for example again, the two year old James Bulger was able to be led openly to his death by two young boys along a route that was actually being traversed by hundreds of adults.

Quite simply, if the two young boys who killed him had been at school that day, the shocking murder of James Bulger could never have happened. 

adults now turn away from the children in their midst

And it is only because adults now turn away from the children in their midst that these two boys were able to wander around the streets and the shopping centre for most of the day without anyone demanding why they were not at school, and doing something about it; such as reporting them.

There is no doubt that the rumour-mongers and those who espouse the view that 'stranger' adults are not to be trusted around children are the very ones who cause much of the child abuse that actually does take place in our society today.

To appreciate this, try to understand the following.

Imagine, for example, that there is only one potential child abuser throughout the ENTIRE country. 

Yes; just ONE.

Now, ask yourself this question.

How are the potential victims of this single potential abuser more likely to be protected?

1. By discouraging the general adult population from having anything to do with children?

2. By encouraging the general adult population to get involved with children and to keep their eyes on them?

Well, 1. would clearly be preposterous. After all, there is only one potential abuser in the entire country.

Would we really want to alienate the entire adult population from having anything to do with children

Would we really want to alienate the entire adult population from having anything to do with children when the chances of a child being abused is so unimaginably tiny? 

And think of the horrendous consequences of allowing all our children to do pretty much as they wish because the adults surrounding them are too fearful to intervene in their activities.

Further, of course, with all the adults generally 'looking the other way', it is much easier for our single potential abuser to target the children - just as the Bulger killers were allowed to do as they wandered aimlessly about the streets - completely unchecked - and then walked off - completely unchallenged - with the little boy.

And so, surely, with only one abuser in the entire nation, it would be far better for our society to have even its 'stranger' adults involved with the children - and keeping their eyes on them. After all, 99.99999% of them will have a good influence and, indeed, provide an amazing amount of protection against our single potential abuser. 

Now, imagine that the number of potential child abusers starts to increase dramatically. And the number reaches 500,000. There is now a potential child abuser, or two, in every shopping centre - every day.

Which option (1. or 2. above) would provide the greater protection now?

Well. It's the same one, isn't it?

Of course it is. There's no real difference. Just think of the Bulger scenario again.

If people are looking the other way, then there is a far greater likelihood of a child being abused, or, in this case, killed.

it is sheer madness to make people 'look the other way'

And if there are thousands of abusers around (rather than just one) it is sheer madness to make people 'look the other way'. 

Indeed, whatever kind of 'criminality' is under consideration, it is surely the case that the more of it that there is, the more policing that there needs to be! 

And this means that more people need to be involved in policing. Not fewer.

If you have any remaining doubts about this, just consider the situation where, for example, your very own children are being taken on a school trip for two weeks along with, say, 100 other children. Which would make you feel more comfortable; a situation where five of the school teachers were also on the trip, or where twenty such teachers accompanied the children?

The reality is that the more adults that there are to look after the welfare of the children, the safer it is for them.

But the hysteria-mongers, who keep flaming the issues around child abuse, and who keep successfully portraying normal adults as potential abusers, are achieving the exact opposite. They are frightening the millions of 'civilian police officers' into looking the other way.

And so it is that the argument that it is better for society to trip easily into making unjustifiable false allegations on the grounds that 'it is better to be safe than sorry' quickly backfires because the consequence is that millions of civilian police officers begin 'to look the other way' for fear that someone might just 'trip' into the belief that they are abusers themselves.

And, if this wasn't bad enough, the resulting increase in the anti-social behaviours of our children - that occur precisely because of the loss of so much adult policing - heaps horrendous additional burdens on to our society in terms of massively increased crime, poorer socialisation, lost education and, hence, even more abused children. 

It also creates a climate in which many more children end up being vulnerable to abuse.

Financially, these hysteria-creators cost the nation many billions of pounds annually. 

Socially, they tear up the very fabric of society and decrease significantly the well-being of the entire population.

they are a permanent and mighty curse on the nation's psyche

Psychologically, they are a permanent and mighty curse on the nation's psyche, as most of its citizens scurry around in constant fear of being abused, or of falsely being labelled as an abuser.

And, to top it all, they actually do far more harm to the very children that they claim to be so concerned about!

Fundamentally, the child-abuse hysteria causes nothing but misery both to adults and to children.

And the same occurs when the justice system knowingly and willingly foists injustice upon its citizens - by, for example, allowing the child-abuse hysterics to damage severely the lives of innocent others merely on the basis of their suspicions. 

The public realisation that there is, basically, an unjust, uncontrollable, hysterical witch-hunt being undertaken undermines nearly all our relationships - especially those with children - and it increases, therefore, the vulnerability of us all - and that particularly includes the children - to those who might, in fact, abuse us.

Indeed, with regard to child abuse itself, while such media hyperbole and deceit, together with the corruption of our justice system and its officials, might well, in the end, result in more severe punishments for genuine abusers who are actually caught, they do so by increasing enormously the amount and severity of child abuse that actually takes place within the country in the first place.

Finally, in order to ram the point home with a simple example, just imagine that your child was going on a school camping holiday next week with 20 other children. 

With regard to the specific issue of sexual abuse, which would make you feel safer? 

One teacher accompanying the children?

Two teachers accompanying the children?

Or ten teachers?

Surely, the children would be much safer from sexual abuse if there were ten teachers accompanying them.

The more teachers the better.

Well. The same is true for society as a whole.

But what the child-abuse hysterics are doing is to make the vast majority of adults (the teachers) look the other way.


Guilty - By Suspicion Alone

The child abuse industry has so successfully demonised the male gender, and the politicians have so perverted the justice system, that very few men are now prepared to risk their entire futures by working anywhere near children.

Indeed, it takes no valid evidence whatsoever to have such men roughly investigated, sacked from their jobs, publicly vilified, and even locked up.

All it takes is an accusation.

For example, here is the attitude of the social services as revealed on the BBC's programme Hypotheticals where professionals are asked how they would react in a hypothetical situation that is put to them, in this case, by the late Vincent Hannah.

The hypothetical scenario was about a 14 year old girl who had made two separate and distinct allegations of abuse against different men.

In the first instance, the allegation was about an incident with a male teacher. The professionals in the programme decided that the teacher must immediatelybe suspended from the school. 

Eventually, through lack of evidence, the teacher was re-instated. But his career was completely ruined. After all, who would take the risk of employing him should he seek another job within the profession?

And why is this completely innocent man's career ruined? 

Because for people like Yasmin Iyyaz, a social worker; Even when " ... there’s no witness and there’s no evidence, it doesn’t mean it did not happen, and from our point of view, we believe the child, if the child is making an allegation."

The second allegation made by the same 14 year old some time later was about an incident with the stepfather, where the mother and the stepfather both denied any impropriety, and when, further, the 14 year old herself was withdrawing the allegation.

Well, Ms Jean Jeffrey, a Director of Social Services, appeared rather annoyed that this hypothetical pupil had withdrawn the allegation. Her manner changed to one that could be best described as dictatorial; as was the fist-waving that accompanied her sometimes as she spoke. Also, at this point, she referred to children as ‘kids’, whereas throughout the rest of the programme she used the more endearing term ‘children’.

" ... because what you do is ... you MARCH along beside the kid, you KEEP TALKING to the kid, it’s not that black and white, you GET THROUGH to the kid then somehow ... ... Stick with it! Stick with it! ... It’s that concern to get through that REALLY carries you forward."

John Faulkner, a Detective Inspector in the Family Protection Unit, would have arrested the stepfather. 

No evidence. No witnesses. The 14 year old has withdrawn the allegation. But the stepfather is arrested. 

Another life possibly ruined.

Jean Jeffrey again - "... and whether it (the allegation) is accurate or not, we must be concerned what is going on for her (the 14 year old)."

But there was no concern expressed whatsoever for the innocent men who were falsely accused.

QUESTION: Exactly how many false allegations would this 14 year old girl have to make before society decided that people like John Faulkner, Jean Jeffrey and Yasmin Iyyaz should be booted out of their jobs?


Innocence Lost

Innocence Lost 
http://www.angryharry.com/esInnocenceLost.htm



Innocence Lost 

The film Innocence Lost was a documentary shown on BBC2 about Bob Kelly, a man sentenced in 1992 to twelve life sentences in prison for abusing children in, amongst other things, a spaceship. He, and most of his colleagues, and his wife, and the female cook, and some twenty other people, supposedly abused children in a nursery school called the Little Rascals in Edmonton, North Carolina, in the USA. 

There was no medical evidence for the enormous objects apparently inserted into the rectums of these four-year olds. There was no independent, unprompted complaint of abuse by any of the children. In fact, there didn’t seem to be anything wrong at all. It was an open nursery, with people, parents and staff, coming and going as they pleased; and none of the doors was ever locked. There was no opportunity for abuse. 


there had been sexual abuse on a spaceship 

One watched the film incredulously as one seven year old in court described how there had been sexual abuse on a spaceship. One listened in amazement as another child stated that indecent acts took place when they were all on a large boat surrounded by sharks, and that he, himself, (a four-year old at the time) had to dive into the sea despite the storm and the crashing waves, and rescue a little girl from the sharks and, having done so, was then sexually abused by Bob Kelly when he returned to the boat with the rescued girl. Bob Kelly then hoisted the sharks into his boat with a large machine and took them home to his swimming pool, where many still lived. 


And so the fantasies went on. 

In the end, despite the fact that many of the jurors stated that there was noevidence against Bob Kelly and that the whole thing was a malicious farce, they convicted him. Yes, they convicted him, because, you see, they had to reach a decision; and some members of the jury were so indoctrinated by the poisonous feminist lobbies and the propaganda from the child abuse industry that they refused to budge in their belief that a man who works with children could be so innocent. 


In fact, in the deliberation room, these jurors became the type of self-appointed experts that we have grown so accustomed to having to listen to. They went against the judge’s orders and, in breach of the law, together they read a single article in an anti-male book about child abusers (ostensibly to learn more about them) and, from this single piece of junk propaganda, they decided that Bob Kelly fitted the part. He was a man. He worked with children. And therefore he was a child abuser. 


Those jurors who knew that Bob Kelly was innocent of these ludicrous charges gave way eventually and decided to find him guilty 

Those jurors who knew that Bob Kelly was innocent of these ludicrous charges gave way eventually and decided to find him guilty, for they could no longer take the bullying and the intransigence from the newly self-appointed experts among them, and the deliberations were clearly going to last forever. They had to get back to their homes and to their jobs. And they were clearly going to get nowhere with their attempts to persuade the newly self-appointed experts that they were talking rubbish. 

There was nothing that they could do. 

They had lives to lead. 

And so they convicted Bob Kelly and went home. 

Bob Kelly had insulted one of the mothers 

So how did Bob Kelly get into this mess? Well, what is clear is that Bob Kelly had insulted one of the mothers of the children at his nursery, and she didn’t like him. He had told her that he would not apologise to her over some incident concerning her son’s behaviour in the nursery group. Thereafter, she started to make accusations. And so the Chinese-whispers and the hysteria spread to the other mothers as they were poisoned and alarmed by what was being said and rumoured, with hordes of them appointing so-called therapists to investigate possible abuse. 

The so-called therapists were delighted. They found abuse everywhere they looked. The smallest detail of something said, and more sessions had to be booked to investigate further. Session after session. Session after session. They pounded over and over again. They invaded and assaulted the four-year old minds with questions of the most vulgar nature and they smiled and cuddled the children warmly at every inflexion which could suggest a sexual encounter with Bob Kelly, or anybody else. 

It didn’t take long for the children to learn (subconsciously at first, no doubt) that words of a certain nature brought about positive reinforcement from the so-called therapists. "You poor child. You are so brave to tell us what happened." 

children were criticised when they denied abuse. 

In fact, children were criticised when they denied abuse. Sandra and Mike told how their son showed no signs of abuse until the so-called therapists had got hold of him - and when they did, he began, after many sessions, to implicate many others, including the chief of police and the mayor - whom they had never met. 


Many of the parents were told by the so-called therapists to do ‘homework’ with their children every night and not to give them their dessert after supper unless they confessed to abuse. 


Many parents were told by the so-called therapists to give daily readings in the evenings to encourage the children to disclose abuse. For example, children were to read a book which described adult animals abusing child animals. The stories would always end on a happy note, with everything being ‘better and all right’ only when, of course, the child animal disclosed the abuse. In other words, the children were not supposed to feel all right until they disclosed some form of abuse from somewhere and by someone. 


After weeks and weeks of such nightly readings and several so-called therapy sessions, the children would describe amazing accounts of abuse; spaceships - devil worship - human sacrifices and so on. 


a prominent FBI official admitted that he does not recommend videotaping child abuse investigation interviews because it creates evidence that the defence attorneys can use. 


In an attempt to hide the malicious and fraudulent activities of so-called therapists, prosecutors in the US have learned not to make video tapes of therapy sessions because they would show a jury just how coercive and brain-washing they are. In fact, on a nationally televised panel discussing ("When Children Testify," Frontline video 1991) a prominent FBI official admitted that he does not recommend videotaping child abuse investigation interviews because it creates evidence that the defence attorneys can use. 


In the Little Rascals case, police investigators and so-called therapists stated that they destroyed audio tapes of initial interviews because the children had, as yet, made no accusations. 


But why would they destroy them, eh? 

Quite clearly, to hide the truth. 


So, from absolutely nothing, came the entire gamut of sexual possibility. The so-called therapists’ fees earned them thousands and thousands of dollars and the gullible market paid more and more to hear their lurid fabrications. 


The status of the so-called therapists rocketed as they extracted ‘information’ about spaceships, sharks and impossible sexual encounters over months and months of interrogation. 


all this was supported by feminists who publicly applauded the bringing down of yet another male. 


And all this was supported by feminists who publicly applauded the bringing down of yet another male. They were delighted that there was yet more proof of sexual abuse by men and they applauded and cheered loudly when Bob Kelly was sent down; just as they did outside the courtroom following the sickening amputation of a male penis by Lorena Bobbit. 


Other people were horrified by the events surrounding Bob Kelly; but the feminists were too busily congratulating themselves on the demise of this innocent man’s freedom and the life sentences that he received. 


When it was found that women were also being tried and convicted of the same abuse together with Bob Kelly, the feminist mouths were closed; and the sisterhood focused their minds on other matters, leaving the sick delusions of satanic-type abuse to the so-called therapists 


The so-called therapists also 'discovered' that some twenty other individuals were involved in the abuse of these very same children. And the child-abuse section of the legal industry decided that all these people could be indicted simply on the basis of what these children had eventually said after hours and hours of brainwashing by the so-called therapists. 


And what was the evidence? 


Well, apart from the eventual ludicrous accounts from the children who had been bombarded daily by their parents and the so-called therapists ... 


No parent saw anything unusual at Little Rascals even when arriving in the middle of the day. 

The prosecution could produce no parents who had removed their children from the centre because they felt that they were unhappy there in any way; in spite of all the symptoms that some of the parents started to ‘remember’after the so-called therapists and some incompetent investigators handed out ‘symptom lists’. 


Several former Little Rascals’ teachers testified that they had never seen anyevidence of sexual abuse. 


The children’s allegations also included stories about the shooting and killing of babies in outer space. 


In all, the children eventually accused over 20 people of abusing them in some way - including the mayor and the chief of police; and some of these people had never even been to the Little Rascals nursery school. 


There were no medical findings whatsoever that were consistent with many of the allegations; in that, for example, the insertion of large objects (including knives and forks) into the orifices of children aged four, or the raping of them, would almost certainly have caused serious injuries, butnone was ever found, nor even complained of prior to the whole disgraceful fiasco. 


Despite the attempt of the prosecution to suggest that Bob Kelly was running a child pornography operation, not one single photograph was ever found even after a massive search by the state and the federal authorities. 


Even during the trial, and despite months of brainwashing by their parents and the so-called therapists, some of the children initially continued to deny that they had ever been abused when cross-examined. But, after forceful coaxing by the prosecutors who asked them repeatedly to remember what they had actually said months and years previously, some began to 'remember' again what they were supposed to remember. 


Despite the prosecution’s claim that the children’s accounts were consistent with each other, this was nothing less than pure nonsense as was clearly evidenced throughout the entire trial. 


Bob Kelly was convicted of 99 out of the 100 counts of sexual abuse 


So, in the end, Bob Kelly was convicted of 99 out of the 100 counts of sexual abuse with which he was charged, and he is now serving twelve consecutive life terms for these. 


On which count was he not found guilty - you might wonder. Well, despite the accusation that he had indulged in sexual behaviours with his wife, Betsy, in front of some of the children, the jury felt that she was such a nice woman and that she just would not have done such things. 


In other words, this single, particular implanted delusion, outlined by some of the children, was not believed by the jury because Bob Kelly's wife was seen to be a nice woman. Thus, in short, the fraudulent and ridiculous allegations against Bob Kelly resulted in his conviction, but the same accusers were not believed when it came to his wife Betsy. 


(In all of this, we must remember that many of the jurors convicted Bob Kelly, not because they believed him to be guilty but because they felt that they had no choice - and they have signed affidavits to this effect.) 


Betsy was later indicted by the prosecutors however, and she was convicted of 30 counts of sexual abuse in a separate trial where she pleaded ‘no contest’ in exchange for a seven year sentence instead of the many consecutive life sentences that she could have received. She knew that without bargaining in this manner she stood no chance of a fair trial because, by then, not only had Bob Kelly been convicted but so had Kathryn Dawn Wilson, the Little Rascals’ cook. A young woman at the time, she had also received a life sentence on the basis of the evidence adduced by the so-called therapists. 

Many people who saw the film Lost Innocence, sent away to the BBC for a factsheet on the film. It was heartening for them to know that there was a factsheet. The film was important. Many could see this. They felt, at last, that the world was seeing the injustices being done and how all too easy it was these days for any woman or child to make a false accusation and completely destroy people without evidence, without proof and certainly without justice. 



Even if children claimed to have been abused in a spaceship, they would be believed and someone would be sent down to prison for life. The film was clear on this. It was obvious to everybody now. No matter how ridiculous the allegations, no matter how clearly malicious the intent, no matter how much money the people involved stood to make, no matter how great the pressure to distort the facts or lie, if the accuser is a woman or a child, they will probably be believed. 


And the factsheet from the BBC about Innocence Lost? A bit of common sense at last? The film had shown the disgusting nature of the facts surrounding Bob Kelly’s case. It had demonstrated the complete incompetence of the judicial system, the preposterous nature of the evidence, the sheer stupidity of most of the so-called ‘professionals’ and the jury’s thorough failure to deliver a just verdict. Even if the film was later argued to be biased and one-sided, it was an important stepping stone in the right direction. My goodness, even if it was fiction, it was going to be an important film. 


And the BBC factsheet? 


It contained nothing more than a propaganda text by someone calling themselves ‘AD’ stating that children ought to be listened to more often! 


Can you believe it? 


The whole film was about the complete falsity and fabrication of children’s evidence following psychologically invasive therapy and the BBC factsheet for this film turns out to be a piece of feminist propaganda telling everyone the complete opposite. 


No advice lines for people like Bob Kelly. No help groups for men who have suffered, might suffer, or are suffering, from such false accusations. Oh no. The BBC’s factsheet told us all to continue to watch out for male abusers. It told us that when children lie it is to cover up abuse. 


(So, presumably, if a child alleges abuse in a spaceship, and is therefore demonstrably lying, this must be evidence that the child is covering up abuse!) 


Had the film been about homosexuality and mostly about how homosexuals are being unfairly treated in the courts, what kind of factsheet would make absolutely no mention of it? 


If the film had been about bias against black people, and about the false accusations made against them, what kind of factsheet would make absolutely no mention of it? 


If the film had been about a woman, falsely accused and imprisoned for life on the basis of totally unreliable evidence and via a corrupt and dishonest system, one would expect an accompanying factsheet to mention it at the very least! And one certainly would not expect a factsheet to further promote vile injustice. But the BBC’s factsheet did just this. There was no reference to the documentary at all! Nothing! Just more politically correct feminist propaganda to instill further in everyone a fear of all men. 


So, for all of you Brits who think that this couldn’t happen here, but only in America, think again. That grand old British institution, the BBC, is most definitely not the impartial organisation it purports to be. It is riddled with feminist dogma and it is clearly as anti-male as most of the media. 


For those of you who might still doubt this, one should perhaps ask why it is that, at 4 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon (October 7th 1995) a prime time for children’s viewing, children could watch a whole hour of Oprah Winfrey talking to a woman who ‘had written a book’ about child abuse. Here is how Ms Winfrey started the programme. 


"25% of men are abusers. They are not the dirty old men in trenchcoats who lurk outside schoolyards. They are young men who cook cheeseburgers on the outdoor grill. They’re patient men who fix broken bicycles and family men who love cutting up Thanksgiving turkey and watching baseball games in the summer. They are our husbands and our brothers, our fathers and our sons. ..." 


This is the BBC’s Saturday afternoon viewing material for our children in Britain.

Hyping Up The Figures Of Illicit Images

Hyping Up The Figures Of Illicit Images
from; 
http://www.angryharry.com/esHypingUpTheFigures.htm?note

(The different levels refer to the levels of 'seriousness' of the images.)

Hyping Up The Figures
However, as is typical, the media coverage concerning this finding is very misleading. And this is partly because the IWF report does not really make clear the distinction between 'websites', 'webpages', 'images' and 'URLs'. Neither does the report make any attempt to indicate how many images found at different URLs are simply duplicates of images. The consequence is that any real meaning behind its figures is somewhat obfuscated - which is not unusual when abuse figures are produced by organisations that need to justify their funding.
But the figures seem to boil down to this.
There were around 10,500 unacceptable images discovered by the IWF during 2006. How many of these were simply duplicates, we do not know. But given that hundreds of millions of images exist on the web - billions probably - this does not seem to be as great a problem as the media would have people believe.
Furthermore, these images were distributed across some 3000 websites - or 'webpages' - which really suggests that the offending images simply turned up on legitimate picture websites - individually or as pairs - within the context of numerous other images. But many in the media have twisted this finding to claim that there are 3000 websites containing child porn - which is very misleading indeed because it gives the impression that 3000 websites are devoted to such material - when, in fact, the average was about 3 images per website.
And so, for example, the suggestion that a site like YouTube is a website that 'hosts child porn' simply because an image uploaded by a member of the public remained on view for some time before being taken offline would be ridiculous. But this is the kind of claim being made. And it is simply designed to inflame more paedophile hysteria.
occasional 'illicit' images of youngsters posted on sites ... do not necessarily indicate that the posters are, themselves, paedophiles
Furthermore, occasional 'illicit' images of youngsters posted on sites by members of the public do not necessarily indicate that the posters are, themselves, paedophiles. One has to remember that many, many millions of people use the internet. And a significant number of them will not even be aware that certain (non-sexual) images of youngsters are classed as 'porn'.
For example, imagine an image of a group of toddlers playing naked in a paddling pool. Most normal people would not regard such an image as particularly sexual or pornographic. But the IWF would certainly regard it as such - particularly if this image ended up being copied and posted on to a pornographic site; hence all the hoohah about taking any photographs of children.
There is some kind of sense to this, but I cannot help thinking that the more removed are children from the consciousness of people the more alienated from them must they become. And the more alienated from each other do groups of people become, the more likely are they to treat each other badly or with indifference.
Indeed, while airbrushing away the visual aspects of children might well help to reduce temporarily the pleasures that can be obtained by the relatively small number of paedophiles who dwell amongst us, it also diminishes very greatly all the other positive emotions towards themselves that children inspire - and were designed to inspire - in the vast majority of ordinary people.
As such, hiding the children from all of us might cause everybody more harm than is caused by paedophiles drooling over various images.
the internet provides a relatively easy mechanism for shifting the context
The dilemma, of course, is that images of children can have different meanings in different contexts and in different minds. And given that the internet provides a relatively easy mechanism for shifting the context and for placing the images into different minds, it is extremely difficult indeed to find a solution that does not involve excluding almost all images of youngsters. 
For example, if the photograph above was a picture of my grandmother in her youth and I placed it on a family website, most people who turned up at the site would not view it as being sexual. But if it was copied and placed on a porn site, not only would it more likely be viewed as sexual, but it would also likely encourage connections in the minds of viewers between 'children' and 'sexuality'.
Similarly, the picture below is, I imagine, of three 12 or 13 year-olds fooling about with a camera ...
... but there were others in the 'series' that were slightly more revealing.
Once again, pictures such as these mean one thing when placed on one type of site (e.g. Myspace) but they can mean something else when placed on a porn site, or on a 'girlie' site.
Here is another example - this time of two brothers fooling around with their sister.
And there are many pictures on the internet that are far more 'unambiguous' than those above, but which are, nevertheless, decidedly non-sexual in one context, while being clearly sexual in another. 
adults with youthful features can often be made up to look like youngsters
An added problem is the fact that adults with youthful features can often be made up to look like youngsters, and so it will always be very difficult to draw any lines. Do we ban all potentially salacious images of all women who look under 18, or if they happen to look under 18 in certain postures and clothes? And even if we did, where would this lead us? After all, fifty years ago the following pictures would have been more than enough to incite extremely lusty thoughts!
    
It might be hard to believe, but I can assure you that the above images were more than enough for men to climax with relative ease.
And 100 years ago, the sight of a woman's ankle was good enough to incite the same thing!
And so, for example, should images of the following type be banned? After all, a paedophile can see an ankle - and almost a whole leg!
Where does it end?
Anyway. The media also seem to be highlighting the increase in the number ofreports made to the IWF about child images, but this number of reports correlates with the number of people visiting certain websites (pornographic or not) and it might say very little about the number of illicit images that exist.
For example, one illicit image on a website like YouTube is likely to give rise to many thousands of 'reports'. As such, an increasing number of reports does not, in and of itself, necessarily suggest an increase in the amount of illicit content. And yet, it is the increased number of reports about such images that most of the media seem to have been highlighting.
Well, as far as I can ascertain, the answer is obvious. The number of reports has increased quite dramatically in comparison to the increase in the number of images; and so the focus has been on the former rather than the latter. 
And there is nothing better than the suggestion of a 'dramatic' increase in something when somebody wants to fuel alarm.
But, surely, if anything, the number of images is far more relevant than the number of reports!
In conclusion, MRAs who are concerned about the way in which men are so often horribly demonised by the overblown exaggerations that emanate from those working in the 'abuse industry' need to pay very close attention to the evidence lying behind any claims and conclusions that they make. And if they look closely enough, they will usually find that these claims have far more to do with generating funding, growing empires and furthering agendas than they have to do with describing reality.
And it is particularly important to scrutinise the claims given that so many thousands of innocent western men every year have been, and are, horribly mistreated by systems of justice that have been corrupted through and through simply in order to gain convictions - and often when there is no valid evidence whatsoever standing against these men.
 in the case of the IWF report, there seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth
And in the case of the IWF report, there seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth in that, firstly, it attempts to highlight the number ofreports of illicit images and, secondly, it gives the impression that the 3000 'websites' that allegedly contained illicit images were porn websites when, in fact, they were mostly non-porn websites to which occasional images ended up being loaded; with some of these images being completely innocent - given the context both of the images and of the websites on which they appeared.

NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths

NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths