Sunday, 21 January 2018

You Cannot, Fight, The Feeling




Google Assists - CARE !!!


https://www.google.co.uk/landing/protectchildren/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs_3J3dHp2AIVE5IYCh3e3Qx7EAAYASAAEgKGzfD_BwE


The Mentality of Self-Hating Blue Knights (Paedocrites)

*****
 

2.12 Million (2012 population figures) - self-reported.


 5.3 Million (2012 population figures)





You Do Not Find Kids Sexy? ... How Abnormal - The OSC

There Are, At The Very Least, 372 Million People, Sexually-Attracted
To 'Kids', In The World - Are You One Of 'Them'? - The OSC

Had George Orwell Written “1984” Today, 
He Would’ve Been Called a Pedophile and Linked to Pizzagate 

Teenagers are Slitting their Wrists and Shooting their Brains Out
 Because of Pedohysteria

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/?s=pedo

*****
(Embedded Tweets - click date)

*****

29 comments:

  1. Do you think it is wise to encourage people to image search the phrase "sweet and sexy kids"????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      Encouraging nothing. Cannot be anything, knowingly or deliberately, illegal, on Google ... right? See their warning and procedures.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
  2. No but if someone clicks that link and the moronic reactionary police ever analysed their device then they would no doubt be done for searching for child porn.

    That shop front is unbelievable. Where is that shop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      One, cannot, be 'done for searching for child porn', in our jurisdiction.

      If anyone should feel, insecure, do not click on the link. Goes for any link !!!

      Regarding the shop ... safe link (as they all are), as provided ...

      http://rebrn.com/re/sexy-kids-2730845

      All devices, should be wiped, correctly, at regular intervals.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    2. You can wipe your devices but the content is still traceable by police

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous,

      Incorrect, when done, correctly, to 99.9% possibility (or more, device-dependent).

      Do not, believe, the myths.

      One should avoid the issue, by keeping legal, and doing, all one can, to maintain clean equipment.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    4. How does one erase computers and laptops, forensically? I thought the police could access things that have been deleted. Please could you share your knowledge on this topic, with sources, if possible. Thank you.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous,

      Would not wish, to be accused, incorrectly, again, of being "The site also advises paedophiles on how to download child porn without being caught." :)

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
  3. Yes it is a myth that stuff is stored forever. How can it be? You would need an infinite hard drive. If you wipe regularly with a gutmann method cleaner and also fill your hard drive regularly then previous stuff will be gone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What I would also add is that a PC or laptop doesn't even need a hard drive. If you really want to be sure then physically remove the hard drive and then browse the internet using a Linux Live CD operating in a ramdisk. Nothing whatsoever can be stored as there is nothing to store it on. And if you want anonymity then buy a mobile wifi dongle with lots of preloaded data and pay cash for it.

    Job done.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have followed this blog for a while. What you have published here is very confusing. Are you saying that Dr Oldfield is a paedophile? Because that is the way your narrative reads.

    I had always envisaged that Dr Oldfield was just unfortunate in what happened to him, a victim of an over-zealous and ignorant police force and media manipulation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I understand this blog entry is a lesson in 'Paedocrites' and wasn't originally going to comment, but I do agree with the poster above. I have seen articles on this blog before that show a 'different point of view' to what most of society would consider 'morally acceptable,' but never anything as graphic as this.

    I post here because I do not agree we should have vigilantes doing the work of police (unless regulated and trained to do it properly). Although there is no evidence that people posting where would in any way condone sex with children, I'm sure the OSC must understand that 'society' will look at it that way - despite their views being ill-founded.

    I actually clicked that first link as I didn't know what it was actually going to be, and was shocked with what I saw. I'm no prude and understand that children can be seen in swimming costumes on beaches etc...but it made me very unfomfortable seeing such young girls in those 'poses.'

    I am sure the OSC knows the reputation he has already so I am a little dissapointed to see something like this as paedophillia is a highly emotive subject and you only prove your haters to be right.

    I would urge the OSC to consider removing this type of content but ultimately it is their call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      We are not guided, by the moral posturing, of others; particularly, foolish, ill-informed and ignorant haters; they will, always, exist.

      The 'Hunter' issue, is the one in vogue, presently, here - it will pass.

      We cover many aspects, of human sexuality, medicine, law, science, philosophy and other areas.

      Understanding, exploring and explaining, is not condoning, recommending nor advising.

      The day 'Paedophilia', is not an emotive subject, is the day, when minors (and adults) will be safer and happier.

      Such an article, is also, a refreshing and healthy change, from having to read, or listen to, the inane and saddening ramblings, of 'Hunters' and their followers; an intelligent group of people, can only stand, so much, in one week !!!

      As for your Google experience, you may need, to take it up, with them !!!

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    2. It is Google not the OSC you need to take that up with.

      Delete
    3. Google didn't post an image link to children in skimpy attire in the above blog, this page did, so it's not something to 'take up with Google' as you have just rather stupidly suggested.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous,

      Your points are noted.

      A warning (which, was not, required), was provided.

      The point, is, a 'sexy kid', is in the eye, of the beholder !!!

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    5. The OSC only put post links that already available to the public.

      Delete
    6. Dear OSC,

      I understand your explanation regarding the need for content other than that which pertains to 'vigilantes,' but what I am actually concerned about, and questioning the neccessity of, is this link.

      https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&biw=1151&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=sNRkWtnfEcTSkwW2nJeoBw&q=sexy+kids&oq=sexy+kid

      Dr Oldfield has been the subject of much hatred due to his past conviction, far more so than say, Pete Townsend, of The Who rock band fame. The same society that condems Oldfield (and states that he deserves to die), probably own albums by The Who, despite the fact that the famous guitarist was formerly in trouble for the exact same offence.

      We already know there is a lack of intelligent reasoning from those that cause hysteria, but I do think you are helping to perpetuate their view that Dr Oldfield is a 'monster.'

      Due to that link alone, I feel that this blog entry will help those of a 'paedophiles cannot be cured' mindset believe that they are vindicated, and although I am not connected to any related crimes myself, the simple act of posting there will have most people think that I advocate pre-teen model posed child images in the link above.

      Dr Oldfield has previously expressed that he was in a dark perioid of his life when he commited the offence. I understand and sympathise with that as I have been in a deep depression myself, but I simply cannot continue to post here as a regular contributor with content such as that on this site.

      Like the other poster above stated, it makes it looks like Dr Oldfield may still have a sexual interest in children.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous,

      'Paedophiles', cannot be 'cured'; there is, no illness.

      'Monsters', do not, exist; only unacceptable acts.

      Peter, could have done, so much good, but, he sold out; totally understandable.

      Obviously, you have made your point, and no one, can accuse you, of what you claim, they would say, about you !!!

      Dr Oldfield, does, have 'a sexual interest in children', just like, almost, every man, which is the main thrust, of the piece.

      If you feel 'guilt by false association', then, we thank you, for your input, and we wish you, all the best, for the future, and say goodbye.

      We will not cease, carrying out, legal and relevant postings; until they close us down !!!

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    8. In response to the Real OSC's statement "Dr Oldfield, does, have 'a sexual interest in children', just like, almost, every man", please could you post up links to scientific/psychiatric research that proves this statement, that almost every man has a sexual interest in children. Please would you post up your source to this statement. Thank you.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous,

      Sure ... http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Tromovitch and therein.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
    10. Thank you for responding. I will have a read of your links and come back to you. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond fully, as I did not think you would. You are certainly opening my mind. The one thing I will say is that whatever you did in the past, you do not deserve to be hounded for it the way you have. The hunters' actions towards you is unforgivable and abhorrent.

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous,

      N.B. A 'Child', being, 17.9999 down, here.

      TY, we will pass it on.

      Always remember, it is very easy, to entrap a man, who is 'battling' with a normal and natural sexuality, but, is taboo or illegal, in these days.

      The consequences, of entrapment, are much worse, than the sexuality.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
  7. Dr Oldfield is not a paedophile he was stitched up almost 20yrs ago. What he is saying on this post is to report things like that disgusting shop front because it sends out the wrong message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      Dr Oldfield, is not a Paedophile, officially :) If he was, he would embrace it, as he has always said, it would make his life, a lot easier, for a number of reasons.

      However, there was no 'stitch-up', he did commit 20 image offences, he has served his time and his offences are now 'spent'.

      TY

      The OSC

      Delete
  8. Dear OSC
    Thank you for putting me straight about the stitch up. I dont know the "ins" and "outs" of Dr Oldfield's past but what i do know about him is he is a man of intellect and integrity. His convictions are now spent some 19yrs ago. As you say and i already knew he is not a paedophile. Im am sick of people constantly dragging up his past. I wish they would leave him alone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It really annoys me when people accuse Dr Oldfield of teaching people stuff what a load of BS.
    Everything Dr Oldfield does is legal and above board. As for his now long 'spent' conviction i dont believe he should of even been jailed for it even though he himself does believe that was the right thing at time. I disagree 20 images hardly crime of the century. Many people have done far worse and don't get jailed. And before i get jumped on im not a paedophile i just don't like the hate Dr Oldfield gets he doesn't deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Readers,

    We should like, to bring the discussion, on 'the link', to a close.

    So, please be brief and final.

    TY

    The OSC

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear OSC
    I know you want end this discussion now but before you do i just want to say i don't believe Dr Oldfield is a paedophile he has a partner who is a fully grown adult im sure he would not be in a relationship if that were the case.

    ReplyDelete