Why are CRIMINALS like Thomas O´Carroll allowed to share their views on innocent people? CARL TOM´S BOOK



  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com



The filthy book by Carl Tom (Tom O’Carroll) “MICHAEL JACKSON’S DANGEROUS LIAISONS” is to be released soon but is already found on the Internet: Michael Jackson´s Dangerous Liaisons

The comments on the book from ‘eminent’ professors at Amazon.com initially made me relax as to the possible dangers of its content:

“No less than five eminent scholars who have been asked to review the book have given it their glowing endorsements, e.g.:
• “The most engaging, informed, and generous-hearted book we have on the subject or are likely ever to have. I recommend this book strongly to anyone who feels our self-righteous egoism may have gotten in the way of our ability to see what is in front of our eyes and to act with some measure of justice and kindness.”

Professor James R Kincaid, University of Southern California

• “Shows that the only real ‘abuse’ of children that occurred was not from Michael’s bedroom horseplay, but parental manipulation of kids for financial gain. As such, this book gives us a profound cultural critique of received assumptions about childhood innocence, pedophilic ‘power’, and parental goodwill.”

Professor Thomas K Hubbard, University of Texas at Austin

• “A recommended read. Not just another book about ‘Wacko Jacko’. There won’t be anything written quite like it.”Richard Green, founding president, International Academy of Sex Research

• “His vivid and insightful commentary is a joy to read — DJ West, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Criminology.

I was terribly misguided by the comments of those “professors” thinking it could be some kind of a serious research. Now that we see for ourselves that the text is based on tabloid trash only and books like the one by Victor Gutierrez (who even had to flee the country not to answer for his murderous slander of Michael Jackson) I want to ask a question.

Where is the responsibility of all those ‘eminent’ scholars? If a serial killer writes a book about human behavior from his extremely valuable point of view will they give their ‘glowing endorsements’ to it too? Will anyone be interested in the twists of the killer’s perverse mind, unless they are specialists in criminology or psychiatry of course? Who in his right mind can consider the observations of a criminal so precious that they will admire and recommend them to others as if he were a highly acclaimed authority on the problem of human relations? WHO IS MAD here – the killer or the society which refers to a criminal mind for guidance on crucial human issues?

Is Thomas O’Carroll a criminal? Absolutely. He is a self-confessed pedophile who has been championing the rights of pedophiles and the legalization of sex between adults and children for about 40 years and who says about himself in his book “Paedophilia: the Radical Case” (1981):

“I am a paedophile, and have felt it necessary to crash through the barriers of societal disapproval by speaking out. The fact that I have been able to do so owes much to the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group with which I have been closely connected, which has been campaigning since its inception in 1974 for the open discussion of paedophilia, and for abolition of the laws against consensual sexual acts between children and adults.” Paedophilia - The radical case

Thomas O’Carroll was not only ‘connected’ with the PIE but became it chairman in 1977. Its aims included giving advice and counsel to pedophiles who wanted it. It held regular meetings in London and also had a ‘Contact Page’, which was a bulletin in which members placed advertisements, giving their membership number, general location, and brief details of their sexual and other interests. Replies were handled by PIE, as with a box number system, so that correspondents were unidentifiable until they chose to exchange their own details.

The idea behind their activity was to get the highest possible publicity for themselves. One of its first chairmen, Keith Hose wrote that ‘The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible…. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining P I E… was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization’s name and address and to make pedophilia a real public issue.’

MAKE IT A REAL PUBLIC ISSUE? Is it for championing their pedophilic cause that they need completely innocent but highly popular people like Michael Jackson? Those who cannot answer for themselves too as they are deceased and cannot dissociate themselves from all this filth?

Since the author evidently focuses on the 1993 case in Michael’s biography let me remind you that the 2005 which found him completely innocent looked NOT ONLY into the nonsense Arvizo case. Many forget that Michael Jackson’s acquittal in 2005 was covering ALL the allegations from earlier cases too. The prosecutor did a really fine job, brought all the evidence from the earlier times but the court found absolutely nothing to prove the allegations. And I am not even mentioning the numerous new facts of Michael’s innocence in the 1993 case which have been found lately by really serious researchers.

With the help of Michael’s innocent name this Tom O’Carroll guy is evidently hoping to breathe in new life into their pedophilic cause. The organization has had some setbacks lately. The PIE organization has long been defunct and in January 2006 the 61-year-old Thomas Victor O’Carroll was arrested for keeping and distributing child porn. Also detained was Michael Studdert, 67, a former Anglican minister and school chaplain from Surrey.

During the arrest, a search of Studdert’s extensive country home, and some 17 acres of grounds, uncovered two highly sophisticated hidden compartments. The ‘hides’ contained a massive hoard of indecent images of children, believed to be his lifetime’s collection, with images from the 1950's to modern day in a variety of formats.

The formats included videos, photographic slides, cine films, photographs, magazines and photographic negatives. In terms of formats it was the widest ranging personal collection of abusive material known to the Metropolitan Police Service ever attributed to one person.

Thomas O’Carroll, who had helped to run the library from his then home in Shildon, Co Durham, admitted two counts of distributing child porn images between January 1995 and 2005. The BBC reported that “Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured” Two jailed for child porn library

Michael Studdert was sentenced to four years. Thomas Victor O’Carroll was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment and was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.

And it is THIS author who is allowed to share his valuable views on Michael Jackson now and pay tribute to him by his hell-of-a-book just on the eve of the first year since Michael’s death? Are they commemorating him this way or what?

It is a PEDOPHILIC opus by this author which is being praised by eminent professors of several universities now? How is it possible that a convicted pedophile is getting so much attention now that even the academic community is enthusiastically applauding him?

Is it THIS that they are applauding?


“As a lover of boys, I find myself tending to write more about relationships between boys and men than other forms of paedophilic encounters, including the apparently far more numerous contacts between girls and men”….

“I find it irritating to write about ‘the penis’ and ‘the vagina’, about ‘masturbation’ and ‘sexual intercourse’. To use the four-letter equivalents of these words – providing it is not done in an aggressive, expletive way – enables one to de-medicalise sex, to talk about it in the enthusiastic way that healthy folk think about it. Such words, though robust and ‘earthy’, lie more easily with the softer, more tender, eroticism”…

“The key element in PIE’s proposals on the age of consent, as we have seen, is the assertion that children should have some say in what they do with their own bodies. They should be free to decide, as a matter of right, whether or not they want a sexual relationship”….

By the way the author of “Paedophilia” book received enormous help from certain scholars back in 1981 too:

“It remains for me to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who have helped me, especially Dr Kenneth Plummer, Lecturer in Sociology at Essex University, Ms Nettie Pollard of the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty), and D. J. West, Professor of Clinical Criminology at Cambridge University, each of whom read the whole text in draft and made many valuable suggestions”

(Incidentally Dr.West is the same “scholar” who is now praising new O’Carroll’s book about Michael Jackson).

Dr David Nias and Dr Glenn Wilson, both of the Institute of Psychiatry, London, proved to be my most ego-boosting consultants. Close on their heels, in this respect, was Mr David Watson, formerly Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University. Many others read, and commented upon, individual chapters….”

Why are these and other ‘scholars’ making positive comments on the views of a proven and self-confessed pedophile and are recommending us his new book?

Isn’t this pedophile supposed to stay silent, non-active and quiet as he is still on the Sex Offenders Register and will be there for some 8 years or so?

Why is Amazon.com offering this book for sale?

HAVE ALL OF THEM GONE MAD?

OR ARE ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS OKAY WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEMORY OF MICHAEL JACKSON?



Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!











TOP