Sunday, 27 November 2011

More on Soper

The Mail on Sunday has more revelations about Abbot Laurence Soper.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that after hiding in Montenegro on the Adriatic coast – where the European Arrest Warrant is not valid – he secretly returned to the Vatican to empty his account.

Fr Laurence, 68, who worked at Barclays Bank between 1960 and 1964 before becoming a monk, is said to have several thousand pounds in investment portfolios and also a ‘large inheritance’ from his parents.
I see that the reports of his age have been changed. The police originally stated that he was 81, and this was reported in various papers at the time. The Mail is now reporting that he is 68. I've independently been told that the original statement concerning his age was wrong. I wonder who could have told the police that he was 80 at the time he was interviewed by them in September last year? And I wonder why?


  1. Dear Mr West, i don't wish to appear sycophantic but i feel it is important to commend your work and to remind you of its importance. You are clearly a man of great virtue and it is an honour for me to read your blog. Many thanks on behalf of all those who seek justice.

  2. From my memory of FL at St B's where I was a pupil, 68 yrs old is plausible, not over 80.

    The Mail article, although deliberately given two by-lines, is dubious - unsourced and probably unproven, and the first (and so main) journalist, Nick Pisa, has a reputation for scandalous and untrue stories, including on Amanda Knox.

    Having said that, L Soper is almost certainly on the run in some area where there is no reach from an European arrest warrant still now - and has taken what money he has. The man is no fool.

    My question is, how constrained were the police in trusting him to come back from Rome? Are they really looking at him.

    I will be very surprised if they ever bring back Father LS to justice alive.

  3. He's probably caught a flight now to Rio with all the cash he's withdrawn!! Did the Vatican know nothing about his return to withdraw funds??

  4. Born to run!

    But he'll be found. It's just a delay of the inevitable.

  5. The police would have verified his age when he was first interviewed. No one else would have been asked his age by police. It looks like an error in a police press statement.

  6. Still at home in your beloved I-Wonder-Land, Jonathan? What I WONDER, however, is why there has been no mention on your blog of Lord Carlile's excellent and thoughtful CATHOLIC HERALD article of 18th November? Didn't provoke enough 'I-wonderment', I suppose? Now, given your ‘fine’ editorial sense, you’ll doubtless not publish this comment, Jonathan, but perhaps you could answer the question? I’m not, I assure you, alone in wondering what the answer might be?

  7. 17:15 The answer to that is very simple. I hadn't seen it.

    Now I know it is there I will look it up, and if he says anything which is not already in the report, then I will review it. You might notice that I am writing a detailed review of the Carlile report itself.

  8. There is extradition from Montenegro to the UK, so maybe Rio is more likely. Wherever he is, I am sure he will end up facing a judge and jury. Very few can cope with being on the run indefinitely. Ronnie Biggs, the Hartlepool canoeist, just to mention a couple.

  9. you will find out in due course that Laurence
    Soper's age is closer to 81yrs than 68yrs. In fact he is now almost 82 yrs.

  10. The career paedophile's default plea at bar which claims that as a result of the passage of time the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, is gradually being consigned to the bullshit heap where it always belonged.

    Soper is well within range of prosecution as the link article makes clear.

    Welcome to the new dawn.

    You may now appreciate why he decided to go walkabout.

  11. Ah - but 82 is the new 62 as this clerical Alan Wicker is demonstrating.

  12. Jim Barley OP 1951-196128 November 2011 at 05:56

    @ anonymous 1900: As I was in the same form and set as Fr Laurence (ne Andrew) when we were at St Benedict's, I can confirm that his true age is 68, as I informed Mr West by email at the time.

  13. 17.15 - would you please provide a link to the alleged article. If it is behind a paywall please provide another means of reading the piece.

    This is the least you can do if you wish anyone to take any notice of your posting.

  14. Benedictine and Westminster Yearbooks for 2012 no longer list David Pearce and Laurence Soper as members of the community, neither in Ealing nor "resident elsewhere" (p. 123-124) and "other priests in the diocese" (p. 214-215) respectively. Westminster Yearbook 2011 already omitted David Pearce (p. 207).

  15. Come on 17.15 - where is Carlile's CH article? I am not a subscriber to the paper - it is no good you not providing it given you are seeking comment.

    I would be happy to comment, and I am sure there is every possibility that Mr West could be persuaded to engage - after all the CH article is only a spin off from the report.

    Unfortunately Carlile has very little grip on the complex subject of safeguarding, as his report demonstrates. He will not be able to suddenly acquire this expertise for the CH article. So it will be interesting to understand what the article does not tell us, or even what it does given the audience he is addressing. Who knows? We certainly don't becasue you are not making the the piece available.

    Carlile has made one headline grabbing proposal (with which I agree) - and completely missed the rest of his terms of reference. Paragraph 54 of his report is a car crash.

    So please - let's have the article without further ado.

  16. Oh dear, 18:55. You're utterly sure that the CH article will tell you nothing you don't already know, that it 'is only a spin off from the report' and that Lord Carlile 'has very little grip on the complex subject of safeguarding'! And yet you seem desperately keen to see the article (CH p.8, Nov.18th)! May I suggest, 'without further ado', you take the trouble to look for it?

  17. 19.38 - as you can see, throughout this site people kindly provide either links or extracts of what they want others to read. Its courtesy.

    If you provide the article I will comment upon it, if you don't then please don't waste your time further. It is after all a subject you raised, I frankly don't care if you provide the information or not for the reasons I posted at 18.55.

  18. The information, 20:36, is out there, beyond the confines of this blog, in the public domain.

  19. 22.11 It is behind a pay wall, so if it is available elsewhere as you appear to suggest, please either provide the link or cut and paste the article to a post.

    Thank you.

  20. Paragraph 54.

    A demonstration of what the author does not know.

    He may not know what he does not know, which is even more alarming given the subject.

  21. @ Paragraph 54 - he definately does not know what he doesn't know.

    But the majority of the readers of the report will see nothing wrong with it either, and that includes the administration of St Benedict's.

    A true case of the blind leading..........!

    Had they realised then they would have known they'd paid for a sexton blake in safeguarding terms to author the report. But then that's why he ran from the subject in the document. He blatantly subcontracted responsibility for the safeguarding policy, wrongly believing that the DfE and the ISI 'approved' policies.

    They didn't Alex, and they never have 'approved' policies and never will. That is part of the problem with this slippery subject!

  22. 22:25 where do you see any suggestion that Lord Carlile's article is available anywhere other than in the publication it was written for? If you, or indeed anyone, wishes to get hold of this article it's a relatiely easy matter to locate a paper published just 11 days ago!

  23. 20:36 - Yer man @ 10.49 is an Abbeyvista and therefore has the following characteristics:

    n. A member of the St Benedict's cohort, indoctrinated in the belief that attack is the best form of defence, bereft of an ability to listen, petulant, sarcastic, never wrong, unable to learn, myopic, and prone to suicide crash attacks especially when anyone criticises the decades of child abuse that is evidenced at the school.

    Planks possess more understanding, and certainly have more uses.

  24. A couple of hours after listening to Lord Carlile, flanked by Cleugh and his deputy headmaster, at the press conference and then watching the BBC interview M'Lud for the Inside Out programme, the BBC cameraman almost run over on a public pavement by the school's security goon filmed said goon trying to intimidate and then goad a survivor of abuse at the school. Cleugh said he would look into this and respond but, of course, he didn't.

  25. Let's not forget that St Benedict's failed to find years of abuse that was even known to many of the pupils.

    So why would Cleugh suddenly be capable of finding out about an incident involving a member of staff, especially as the incident allegedly happened in the dark?

    The sum total of any investigation would likely be -'did you do this?' 'No.'

    A full and thorough investigation the 'St Benedict's way' then.

  26. I think the "goon" was seny back to Rusia or was it France?

  27. Show the goon on you tube and perhaps someone will identify him and Cleugh will be unable to keep his identity a secret !

    So, Mr West, you are it seems yourself the author - as several people suspected - of such postings as that @11:18?

  29. You may not have the temerity to author them, Mr West but you certainly subscribe to them and do your best to eliminate any response or criticism of them.

  30. Fr LS was a brilliant maths teacher and in many ways a kind person.
    Why is it that the most personable, charismatic leaders are always implicated? Fr David in another example.
    Absolute power corrupts - give opportunity to indulge.
    But the dangerous thing is that the best teachers, the most intelligent, of which Fr LS, believe me, was one, are the ones with the most opportunity.

  31. @11.18

    "A member of the St Benedict's cohort, indoctrinated in the belief that attack is the best form of defence....prone to suicide crash attacks especially when anyone criticises the decades of child abuse that is evidenced at the school. "

    Ah well, you can't blame them for that. Even the Pope is now coming out [if you'll pardon the Freudian slip] and saying child abuse is a.o.k and actually perfectly normal.

    **In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered "normal" by society.

    "In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the Pope said.

    What a load of Papal Bull. Paedophilia is not *normal*. Nor is it accepted by society as *just another fetish*. But this is the stinking attitude at the top, and it explains the attitude of institution as a whole - the widespread and vile abuse of children throughout the church and the subsequent cover-ups that have been going on, as standard.

    So no wonder the Benedictine Paedo Club are acting like babies who've just had their candy stolen and can't figure out how we even DARE accuse them of any wrong doing. What a bunch of misguided, sociopathic perverts.


    Source of the Pope's "kiddy perving is normal" quote:

    Edit: The *capcha* word for submitting this post was *nonsi*. How appropriate, give the term "nonce" stands for "Not of Normal Criminal Element". You see Popey; it's not NORMAL or acceptable to sexually abuse children entrusted to your care.

  32. Wonderful posts from 11:06 - with classic Abbeyvista traits.

    "You (West)are the author" (of the post@11.18). And "others agree" or so you claim! Clearly there is a nightly mothers union meeting in Ealing - its comical stuff! He (West) didn't write it, I did.

    Clearly unsuccessful with this nonsense, and just like brownian motion, he vibrates away in another random direction for yet another pop with Bugsy Malone's manure gun:

    He (guess who? - you got it WEST!) had the "temerity" (no less) to publish it (the post @11:18)!

    It's Lady Chatterly2 dear reader!

    Except it is not because all it is is unoffensive free speech in action. Throughout this site, especially in 2010, the only agenda you Abbeyvistas' had was to whinge, whine, and attempt to discredit West quite often in most abusive and libellous terms. Its all there to revisit to remind yourselves.

    None of it worked.

    Wake up and look at what's happened to your morally wayward god bothering Abbey and school. They are the only organisations, apart from the building industry, that think ETHICS is located north east of London.

  33. Sorry Mr West if anyone has confused you with the guy @19:17. But, who in your circle has decided that 'abbeyvista' is the worst term of abuse in the English language? As soon as it appears one knows exactly what to expect; it's a ready warning that a rant is in the offing.

  34. Well said 19:17.

    The 12:45 blog today surely is a joke - YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS......... or was it from Soper himself????

  35. Clearly there are very different assessments of what is and what is not 'well said' on this blog!

  36. To the individual recommending Lord Carlile's "excellent and thoughtful" article published in the Catholic Herald on 18th of November:

    The article contains little that wasn't in his his original report, I know that even if you don't because I took the trouble to read it.

    The only "new" element is that Lord Carlile claims that his recomendations provide a model for the govenance of other schools. Even this isn't particularly new as this claim has already been reported in the media.

  37. I too read the CH article, 14:05. What is clear is that Lord Carlile felt quite free to express his findings to a Catholic audience in a Catholic arena and that the Catholic Herald does not fight shy of the issue, in fact the problem was raised in two or three other articles in the very same edition. Furthermore, Lord Carlile places the ‘painful’ problems of Ealing in a much wider perspective, something that doesn't often happen on this site.

  38. @ 30 Nov 2011 18:24

    For the complete text in English translation of the Pope's speech delivered on 20 December 2010 see:

  39. I sincerely doubt that Soper is anywhere other than safely cloistered in the Vatican City. Where is the best place to hide something? Right under your very nose. It's not in the interests of the church that he be found and prosecuted for his *alleged* crimes. The Vatican City has no extradition agreement with us. No one can go marching in there and look for him; it has it's own services/army. It's has places Joe Public can never wander. It even has it's own hospital. Why let him fend for himself in the world and risk him being caught? No way. They have far too much to lose on this one.


  40. Thank you 1/12/11 @ 21.20. I have read it and do consider "Papa" Benny's proclamations to be a crass and obscene attempt at whitewashing. He tells us what he really thinks half-way down the page, right after that big ol' "BUT".

    I've always said that an apology swiftly followed by an accompanying *BUT...* is not an apology, merely an excuse [at best]. In this case, it's not even an apology. It is however accompanied by excuses that would only be acceptable to a paedophile - firstly the claim that child pornography was normal in the 1970's. Really? On what planet?! And the further claim that it is even more increasingly acceptable in mainstream society today. Hardly.

    As stated at the end of my post, paedophilia is not even acceptable to criminals, hence the term HM Prison uses to describe paedophiles: "NONCE", the acronym of "Not of Normal Criminal Element".

    And on the subject of apologies: Shipperlee has repeatedly claimed on TV and in the newspapers recently that "he can't say sorry enough". I know some of the victims of abuse at St Benedict's and they have never received an apology from anyone connected with the school/abbey and as such, find this repeated claim from Shipperlee deeply offensive and antagonistic.

    Damn right he can't say *sorry* enough - because he's never said it at all to any of those who deserve to hear it. They're not sorry for the victims, they're just sorry they got caught. They don't admit to anything, just deny. They try to brand the victims liars, rater than ever admit the crimes they've committed. I have a letter of apology right here from someone who was coerced into writing a plea of mitigation for one of the abbey scumbags when he went to trial. The meeting where he states that he was HEAVILY COERCED with LIES into writing the mitigation plea took place at Ealing Abbey, with their lawyer Tony Nelson. The letter is a full and candid expression of the claims I make here and the man concerned further expresses his deep sorrow at having been duped by these con men. P.R., P.R., P.R. all the way, hey Shipperlee?


  41. Has anyone suggested to the abbot about putting up a reward for information leading to laurence Sopers arrest. That would really send a message to victims and critics that he and the community wish to see this man appearing before the courts.

    There was plenty of cash to defend Father David so come on Father Martin get ahead of the game speak to crime stoppers and put up a substantial reward.

    Also what about some photographs in the news letter that come out each week in the parish and a wanted poster in the entrance to the church.

  42. G,

    No doubt West will not post this comment as it either "promotes paedophilia" or "intimidates victims". Firstly, I want to go on record to express my sorrow and shame (assuming that you are a victim) for the harm which you suffered, I can't even begin to imagine the damage and suffering which you have gone through. These horrendous abuses bring shame upon everyone connected with the church, including those who had nothing to do with it directly and were unaware of it at the time. Our thoughts and prayers are with you, I can assure you. Inadequate though that may seem, I hope that it may bring you some comfort and healing.

    Unfortunately, the Holy Father is correct in saying that what we now class, quite correctly as paedophilia, was openly being promoted in the 1970s. I suggest that you search for the Paedophile Information Exchange as one example. This was a mainstream pro-paedophile group in the 1970s associated with Gay Rights groups and Equality groups, including one which was headed up by Patricia Hewitt, a former health minister in the previous Labour Government. In addition to this, activists, such as Peter Tatchell were openly advocating reducing the age of consent to 12. All of these activities are morally abhorent but were part of the mainstream in the 1970s.

    The final commenter has an excellent suggestion regarding putting up a reward for information which may lead to Abbot Laurence's arrest. I will suggest this to Abbot Martin. However, photos and posters in the Abbey are a waste of time as parishioners know who Abbot Laurence is and what he looks like as well as the situation. In any case, it is highly unlikely that he is in the UK, let along in Ealing...

  43. The suggestion that the Abbot ought to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest of Soper is excellent. A "wanted poster" could be displayed on the websites of Ealing Abbey, St Benedict's School, the Diocese of Westminster and the English Benedictine Congregation.

  44. I know.....lets get the goons to look for him we can even send out swivl-eyes himself, he can look everywhere.

  45. @ 10.31

    It's of great concern that the pope and yourself consider paedophilia mainstream - because this is a view so very at odds with the genuine mainstream of society.

    A gang of paedophiles does not make paedophilia "mainstream", no matter how much you insist it does or wish it to. Of course, if you are surrounded only by fellows who hold the same *special interest* view, then you can come to believe it is the mainstream view. When you have no alternative views to counter your beliefs and receive only positive affirmation of them from those who surround you, then no matter how wrong those views may be, you can come to believe your views are the norm. Anyone who considers paedophilia *mainstream* should change the company they keep - and stay well away from children.

    I dug around on the *special interest group* that you claim is so mainstream - the "Paedophile Information Exchange" [PIE]. The whole lot of them have been in and out of jail since at least the 70's for raping and abusing children - including sexually sadistic acts - and the making and sharing of obscene images depicting these crimes.

    On sentencing David Joy [No.2 honcho of PIE - and a former teacher], the judge, Michael Pert QC, said "It's clear that you hold firmly to a set of beliefs involving sexual activity with adults and children. Those beliefs are wholly in variance to the views held by most members of society, views that most of society would find abhorrent." ±

    How can you be made to understand? Society does not hold your view that paedophilia is o.k. Society is not "on the fence" about it either. SOCIETY FINDS YOUR VIEW ABHORRENT. Do you understand yet?

    I don't think you do. And I don't think you ever will. Paedophiles show serverely psychopathic traits. They view other PEOPLE as objects for their use, abuse and gratification. They are incapable of empathy. They are emotionally stunted. They often enjoy causing pain to others. They enjoy taking what they have no right to. Ruining people's entire lives.

    And, you state that you consider PIE's views were "mainstream"; that "children are sexual beings in their own right". I say: what of the matter of CONSENT? Rape and sexual molestation are crimes in themselves, even when committed against adults. Not only did the children sexually molested at St Benedict's not consent, they were BOYS, forcibly molested by dirty, old men. Their first sexual experiences should have been years later - most likely a shy kiss with a pretty girl of their own age. Not some weird, nasty, old man forcing himself onto them. THE CHILDREN ABUSED AT ST BENEDICT'S DID NOT CONSENT TO THIS. They were terrified. Though clearly that is a big part of the thrill. The deliberate destruction of these childrens' innocence, and the replacement of it with fear, mistrust and shame/self-loathing. And let's not forget; these were children for whom you were paid to care, not to sexually abuse. There was no confusion about that in the terms of agreement, so don't give me this line that paedophilia was "all the rage in the 70's". No one is buying that. Well, not outside of the priesthood anyway.


  46. ...continued.

    If you had read my post properly, you would see I stated that I know some of your victims, not that I am one. I'm actually female. I was attacked a few years ago however, in an attempted rape. A man grabbed me and dragged me off the street, into a car park. I struggled and fought him, so he proceeded to smash my head off a wall repeatedly, to knock me out. I came to on the ground, with the bastard on top of me. He had me properly pinned but was struggling to get my jeans unzipped. I could not free my arms nor legs, so I took the last resort open to me and bit him in the throat. Not quite what he'd been after. When I walked out of that car park, he was the one left on the ground, screaming. And do you know what he was screaming? The word *why*, over and over. Clearly he didn't understand why I had retaliated. Clearly, he viewed what he had done to me and what he had been attempting to do as perfectly o.k. It was beyond his comprehension that you can not forcibly drag a complete stranger off the street, knock her out when she struggles and then attempt to rape her. And clearly he still didn't get it as I staggered away from that nasty scene.

    You see, that's the problem with people who force themselves sexually onto others: You think it's OK because you are twisted. You have skewed views. The basic premise of your thought is: you think that because you desire something, it must desire you back. [I use the term *it* because I am stating your perspective here and the fact is that you view us - other people - as objects.] Yet, even when it is made clear, via their use of the word *no*, or their struggle, or their blatant fear, or their crying, or however any victim of your unwanted attention responds, you ignore that and carry on regardless - still acting as if what you're doing is OK. It is as difficult, even impossible, for genuinely mainstream people [i.e. those with a healthy, normal emotional range] to understand you, as it is for you to understand us.

    Another of the *mainstream** paedophile activists so beloved of the pope spoke out at a conference on the *legalisation of paedophilia":

    Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.


    His demands are echoed in the same demands, actions and sentiments of your group, PIE and clearly show the psychopathic mindset of the paedophile; he doesn't think as others think. He lacks empathy and emotional range. He either projects his desires onto others, as if they want what he wants - or he doesn't care what they want and he can not fathom why their needs should be of any consideration whatsoever. The psychopathic brain physically operates differently to a healthy brain. Amongst other things, a lazy amygdala seriously impairs moral function and prohibits empathy. Psychopaths are often extremely bright, logical and articulate. Gifted at manipulation and deception. But their minds are fractured and compartmentalised in a way that is not normal. There are differences in the brain at a fundamental level and there is no cure. They should not be anywhere near children, let alone retained within the school/abbey. And I would not send my child within a mile of a place that considers paedophiles to be **mainstream**.

  47. Addendum to poster @ 10.31

    It's not a lot of use that attendees at Ealing Abbey know what Lawrence Soper looks like; he's not IN Ealing, is he? The rest of the world only has the ridiculously hazy, shoddy photographic image of him published in the Press to go by.

    If you are at all sincere in your claim that you wish for Soper to be found, then show it by supplying large, clear photographs of him on the school website.


  48. G, you make an excellent point. We may just see him shopping in Boots and quite fail to recognise him.

  49. G,

    Thanks for your response and I apologise that I had unintentionally assumed that you were a direct victim of abuse. However, you also incorrectly assume that I have the power to make amendments to the school website. I do not. As it happens, I agree with your suggestion regarding clear photos of Laurence Soper. Perhaps the best forum for this would be in a Press Release to announce the suggested reward for information, certainly a good idea.

    I would also like to clarify my comments, which seem to have been slightly miscontrued by yourself. I do not consider paedophilia to be part of the mainstream in current society in any way. However, in the 1970s, Paedophile activist groups such as PIE were accepted by the Mainsteam in Society.

    PIE was a member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, a group which has now evolved into Liberty. This allowed PIE to have a forum for its views and support in allowing campaigning for the "liberties" which it was looking for. In fact, NCCL went so far as to defend the rights of PIE and other such groups to campaign for the removal of the age of consent.

    NCCL also defended PIE against treatment which they received in the tabloid press and itself suggested reducing the age of consent. The General Secretary of NCCL at the time was Patricia Hewitt, future Health Secretary in the Blair government. Like it or not she was a mainstream political figure supporting paedophile activism. So, yes that did mean that sadly paedophile activism was part of the mainstream in the 1970s.

    Further support for PIE was given by Harriet Harman, Labour Deputy Leader, who in her capacity as legal advisor to NCCL fought against the strengthening of child pornography laws in so far as she only wanted it to be classified as an offence if it contained images showing children engaged in sexual acts.

    As for the rest of your posting, I too remain shocked and horrified at the thoughts and behaviours of those who promote paedophilia.

    Now, lets see what excuse West uses to not post this comment as I can't see that I am "promoting paedophilia" here...

  50. @14.00

    Your sarcasm is misplaced, septic abbeyvista. The world is a very small place now and we all have friends abroad. PIE, et al are not the only ones who can disseminate images widely.

    Anyway, it's not going to happen. The Abbey will not supply a clear image of Soper because they don't want him to be caught. And so the cover-up continues.

  51. 14:22
    As I've mentioned before, if you wish to query any refusal on my part to post a comment, you are welcome to email me and ask for the reason in that specific case.

  52. I think Jonathan the posting @14:00 was actually intended to be a joke!

  53. The viewpoint from someone who has had to live with a paedophile "attack". "Attack" is best word I can phrase it as, because that was exactly what is was.

    This appears to be a decent medium to try to explain what abuse does to children to those who have not encountered it. I naturally can only inform you of this from my own point of view; I'm sure people vary a little on their 'backlook'.

    Having read the last couple of days 'blogs' some people may need more clarification of exactly what a paedophile contributes to society.

    I was abused at the ripe old age of 11 years old (very nearly a young man but not quite). The paedophile that sexually attacked me has thankfully had part of his comeuppance (he was jailed for several years).

    The mere thought that "paedophilia" was entertained in the 70's by some groups as OK, is completely repugnant to me and should be to any human being.

    The victim of a paedophile at first does not know how to understand what has happened. In their head is a multitude of thoughts:

    - why did this have to happen to me?
    - what did I do to deserve this?
    - I can't tell anyone because it's so embarrassing
    - what a complete "C**T" the guy is, but I'm helpless
    - I'm helpless

    One then trys to put it right back to the depths of their mind, but it can't ever be erased. The paedophile has "scarred" your mind, thoughts and behaviour for a very long time.

    The victim can get some relief and closure on the past by seeing the paedophiles locked up and shamed. Obviously adulthood, time and a further understanding of people and life alleviates the trauma they suffered.

    "Go well victims"

    "Burn in hell" you FEEBLE paedophiles. You are the scum of the human race...........

  54. further to my last post 19:54

    What may be interesting, is for one of you paedophiles out there to post some thoughts on what you think you are accomplishing by your activities or why you do what you do!!

    I personally have no comprehension of what is in your head.....

  55. 20:26
    It won't happen, and in accordance with the policy I have described on the sidebar on the right, it is very unlikely I would publish it even if somebody did.

  56. 19:54, many thanks for your posting as it gives a considered insight into the impact of paedophile activity on victims, which those of us who have not been abused. I can only imagine the horror which you have had to suffer and sincerely hope that you are able to find some healing and peace in your life despite what these monsters have done to you.

    Similarly, we can only speculate what goes through the minds of paedophiles who commit these attacks, as it is so far from the imagination of the normal civilised human being. My only guess can be that it is about self-gratification and power although I imagine that some of them consider that they genuinely "love" the victim and are expressing that love. Again, this is pure speculation as only a paedophile will really know what is going on up there.

  57. in response to 21:35

    You're completely right Jonathan. The feeble little parasites (paedo's) shouldn't be given a Forum at all.

    I just hope they may refrain from their activites knowing the damage that they cause.

    Any news on Soper??

  58. repost to 11:03......... to quote,
    'genuinely "love" the victim and are expressing that love'

    You must be having a weak moment. There is absolutely NO love in an ATTACK on anyone, let alone a child. Does the paedophile go back and check that the chld is OK? Does the paedophile ensure that the child's welfare is looked after. NO, NO , NO. There is 'SFA' love involved. Just some sick trip they're on.........