>Police from 28 countries worked on the case

>92 people from 19 countries arrested

So that makes 9 countries where the police either tipped off the perps before they were arrested or just couldn't be bothered to follow up. Any chance of naming and shaming the guilty forces?

2408 others that didnt get arrested?

don't get me wrong even just one sicko out the loop is good but if they've identified 2500 how comes they're still on the loose?

If that's what you seriously think then either

1. I want some of what you are taking, or maybe you're not taking what you should be.

2. You'r entitled to your opinion but you're wrong

or

3. I have 50 million dollars in a bank in Nigeria that I need help getting out of the country, please help me.

Slightly sad that you hijack a story on child abuse to push your anti-copyright agenda, but what the hell...

>if the MPAA is to be believed... have done irreparable damage

I think the MPAA generally try to claim "damages" that cover the damage done, so it's quite clearly repairable.

I hope you've remembered to renew your Daily Mail subscription...

According to UNICEF:

"Every year, more than 10 million children under the age of five die totally preventable deaths. Some are directly caused by illness such as pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. Others are caused by indirect causes including conflict and HIV/AIDS. Malnutrition, poor hygiene and lack of access to safe water and adequate sanitation contribute to more than half of these deaths."

But hey, its far more important that our resources are used to tackle this "global child porn network" consisting of allegations against 92 people. Excellent priorities.

WTF?

Are you seriously suggesting that Child Porn rings should be allowed to operate and grow unchecked. Are you suggesting that police forces across the globe should set aside investigations into child porn, murder, extortion and other voilent crime and concentrate their efforts on preventing those needless deaths.Your arguments for this should make for entertaining reading.

Your either a troll or an idiot. Personally I think your both

Sorry mate, but I really think you should get your facts - and your thoughts - right before posting.

Kids dying in the 3rd world are a very serious problem, I agree with you there. But they are a very different problem from the one discussed here - which is child abuse, and which is very serious in its own right. Both Problems are being addressed (more or less effectively - and usually rather more than less, I agree there). But they are necessarily addressed by different means - sorry, but malnutrition, illness and suchlike are not crimes. And as such they are not an issue for police investigation. Child abuse certainly is.

I'd like to see all the 2500 customers getting more attention too...

Re: @Fozzy

Since you (think you) are so smart, Graham Marsden, how exactly do you interpret what Ulm Schulbaum wrote, and why? "Excellent priorities" is supposed to mean what, eh?

> Since you (think you) are so smart, Graham Marsden, how exactly do you interpret what Ulm Schulbaum wrote, and why? "Excellent priorities" is supposed to mean what, eh?

How many politicians do you hear campaigning on a platform of "there are millions of starving children in this world, we should spend more money to help them" and how many go for the much more media-headline and voter friendly "let's put lots of money into chasing and locking up suspected kiddie fiddlers"?

Is your argument "starving children in other countries aren't our problem"?

> I find it hard to accept that anybody educated enough to know what a 'straw man' argument is would accept Ulm's logic as sound...But life's full of surprises.

Yes, like the "surprise" that people on here are willing to skip the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and jump straight to demanding "castrate them with no anaesthetic" and similar sentiments...

> Ulm's argument only makes sense if the two priorities compete for the same resources.

They do. It's called *money*.

> Can you imagine a world where everybody waited for the most important problem to be solved before anybody could work on the second most important problem? Hardly a model of efficiency.

Who said anything about "waiting for the most important problem to be solved"? Those are your words, not mine or Ulm's.

Should we *ignore* the most important problem of millions of children dying because it's happening somewhere else?

"They do. It's called *money*."

That's a little better, but there's still two problems with it. 1) You have to prove that fighting pedophilia and and UNICEF compete for the same funding, and 2) Making that argument is hypocritical unless each penny you spend is spent on something more important than starving/diseased children. How much have you donated to UNICEF this year, and how much has gone into upgrading your computer and eating out?

"Who said anything about "waiting for the most important problem to be solved"? Those are your words, not mine or Ulm's."

Ulm argued that we should not spend resources on pedophiles because preventable deaths of children is a more important problem. My version is simply more generalized to demonstrate the implications of his flawed reasoning.

"Yes, like the "surprise" that people on here are willing to skip the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and jump straight to demanding "castrate them with no anaesthetic" and similar sentiments..."

You're correct, my mistake...I should have specified that I desire the castration to happen with a splintery wooden spoon *after* being proven guilty. Not before.

"Should we *ignore* the most important problem of millions of children dying because it's happening somewhere else?"

Speaking of straw man arguments...

> You have to prove that fighting pedophilia and and UNICEF compete for the same funding

UNICEF is financed through donations from Governments which come from money raised by taxation. Police forces are financed from Government, money which comes from taxation. There is only a limited amount of money available from the Government's coffers. To spend more in one area means spending less in another. QED.

> Making that argument is hypocritical unless each penny you spend is spent on something more important than starving/diseased children. How much have you donated to UNICEF this year, and how much has gone into upgrading your computer and eating out?

As I've already said, UNICEF is funded by National Governments. I have contributed to them via my taxes just as everyone else who pays taxes has.

Your subsequent statement is an Appeal to Pity fallacy.

> Ulm argued that we should not spend resources on pedophiles because preventable deaths of children is a more important problem.

He did *not* say we "should not spend resources on paedophiles" he simply questioned the priorities under which the amounts of funding are allocated. You are using a Straw Man argument to misrepresent what he said.

Oh and...

> Speaking of straw man arguments...

No, that was *irony*.

"To spend more in one area means spending less in another."

Yes, but *which* other. If we're going to start re-allocating money to help save children around the world, there are an awful lot of necks on the chopping block before we start taking funds out of the 'stop pedophilia' coffer. You've got a long way to go to prove that UNICEF and "police" compete for the *same* government funding (particularly since this article makes no mention of which police organizations were involved). unQED

"As I've already said, UNICEF is funded by National Governments. I have contributed to them via my taxes just as everyone else who pays taxes has. Your subsequent statement is an Appeal to Pity fallacy."

You're evading my point. You cannot claim that the governments' priorities are skewed and yours are not when both you and the governments choose to spend money on things less important than starving and diseased children.

"He did *not* say we "should not spend resources on paedophiles" he simply questioned the priorities under which the amounts of funding are allocated."

That's quite a stretch, particularly for a response to an article that said nothing about how much this operation cost the taxpayers. How about you and Ulm tell us how much you think the government ought to have spent trying to find a father who rapes his own daughters. Then find out how much this little roundup cost, and maybe we'll have nothing to debate.

Jared:

You asked me to "prove that fighting pedophilia and and UNICEF compete for the same funding". I did.

Rephrasing your Appeal to Pity fallacy doesn't make it any less a fallacy.

I demonstrated that your claim about what Ulm said was wrong.

You now seem to be intent on moving the goalposts because you don't like losing however I do not have inclination to waste any more time on this.

Please feel free to have the last word.

utterly believing about these big busts. I don't have any evidence any of this real, yes I know your government would have to really cynical and evil to set people up, or to fake a big child porn ring, and yet I don't trust any more I want to see convictions soon not three years later with only a few of people who haven't killed themselves in the mean time.