King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Pru wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]JK2006 wrote:[/b]
[quote]Sadly the Times review is behind a firewall but it was damning![/quote]

It's not that difficult, JK.

[quote]It was, I initially thought, to the credit of Mark Williams-Thomas that he did not begin his Exposure documentary on British paedophiles up to no good in Cambodia by boasting that a year ago he had made the multiple award-winning Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile. Then I realised why. It simply did not merit mentioning in the same breath.

In this programme the former cop did enough to persuade us that, with the heat on them at home, paedophiles were meeting their needs increasingly in countries where poverty met tourist-wealth amid corrupt and half-hearted law enforcement. He also made a strong case that once convicted of such an offence, offenders should be prevented from returning to similar territories, and that too few are. For this the documentary heavily relied on other organisations’ investigations and, indeed, their film footage. Where, however, was the original reporting?

The nearest this Exposure came to a gotcha moment was when Williams-Thomas cornered in Devon one Reginald Blakeley, who had served a year in a Cambodian jail for abusing five boys between 7 and 14. Blakeley protested his innocence — or rather that he could see nothing wrong in what he had done — and confirmed that he had not been issued with a travel order. But then there was no indication that he was planning to return to Cambodia in any case.

Williams-Thomas told us he had two weeks in Cambodia in which to complete his inquiries. That may well explain why the two alleged sex traffickers he met were then not arrested in a sting and why the girls they said they could offer him were not rescued. He said he could “only imagine the terrible childhoods they were enduring”. Of course he could only imagine them: he never made the trip “across the river” to the areas whence they came.

Let’s hope the police, to whom he handed his “evidence” (“I have no doubt in my mind the people I am dealing with are sex traffickers”) were less corrupt and inefficient than they had been initially painted. But two weeks? Was this a format? Had Williams-Thomas a pressing commitment back home? Or was ITV simply too mean to fund his exposé?
[/quote][/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Crippling review for Exposure last night
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
JK2006	God forbid, Hedda, that a small girl might make allegations against MWT whilst he was there, leading to his extradition to face very serious charges over there. If she did, imagine the money on offer from media organisations to her and her family for exclusive rights to the story!
hedda	Authorities in Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand despise the likes of MWT and these type of shows. It's also one reason why the well known stringer in Thailand has lost his press accreditation and is trying to move back to the UK but since the collapse of his News of the World meal ticket finances have become a problem (also cannot go back to Cambodia or Vietnam after his online boasts about bribing local police in the case of the well known glittery pop star). These shows are highly insulting to Asia even though slavery of women and children for work or sex is a huge problem. The West simply cannot get it's head around the concept that exposure like this is hugely embarrassing to them. they do nothing to help the problem- mainly because it's run by highly organised Asian gangs.
Pru	JK2006 wrote: Sadly the Times review is behind a firewall but it was damning! It's not that difficult, JK. It was, I initially thought, to the credit of Mark Williams-Thomas that he did not begin his Exposure documentary on British paedophiles up to no good in Cambodia by boasting that a year ago he had made the multiple award-winning Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile. Then I realised why. It simply did not merit mentioning in the same breath. In this programme the former cop did enough to persuade us that, with the heat on them at home, paedophiles were meeting their needs increasingly in countries where poverty met tourist-wealth amid corrupt and half-hearted law enforcement. He also made a strong case that once convicted of such an offence, offenders should be prevented from returning to similar territories, and that too few are. For this the documentary heavily relied on other organisations’ investigations and, indeed, their film footage. Where, however, was the original reporting? The nearest this Exposure came to a gotcha moment was when Williams-Thomas cornered in Devon one Reginald Blakeley, who had served a year in a Cambodian jail for abusing five boys between 7 and 14. Blakeley protested his innocence — or rather that he could see nothing wrong in what he had done — and confirmed that he had not been issued with a travel order. But then there was no indication that he was planning to return to Cambodia in any case. Williams-Thomas told us he had two weeks in Cambodia in which to complete his inquiries. That may well explain why the two alleged sex traffickers he met were then not arrested in a sting and why the girls they said they could offer him were not rescued. He said he could “only imagine the terrible childhoods they were enduring”. Of course he could only imagine them: he never made the trip “across the river” to the areas whence they came. Let’s hope the police, to whom he handed his “evidence” (“I have no doubt in my mind the people I am dealing with are sex traffickers”) were less corrupt and inefficient than they had been initially painted. But two weeks? Was this a format? Had Williams-Thomas a pressing commitment back home? Or was ITV simply too mean to fund his exposé?
JK2006	Sadly the Times review is behind a firewall but it was damning!
hedda	links...links