Transcript, by IRONSIDE, from Operation Ore TC...SKY NEWS:
Reporter: It was almost three years ago that this woman’s life was changed forever by a knock at the door.
Totallyconfused (TC): I went downstairs to find a detective on my doorstep, to tell me they had a search warrant for my house and I when looked over his shoulder, all I could see was Police in full gear. Lots of Police vehicles, and that was the moment I found out. The children were just saying 'Daddy, where are they taking you? What’s going on? Daddy, where are you going?'
Reporter: Her husband was arrested on suspicion of downloading indecent images of children; it was part of Operation Ore, a huge investigation by British police to track down paedophiles and access child pornography sites in America. Over 7.000 names were supplied; so far there, have been almost 1.500 convictions in the U.K. Did you for any second think: “my husband could be a paedophile”?
TC: Regrettably, I have to say, yes I did, and the reason I have to say that is because there were media reports all over the place from the Police, saying these people are dangerous paedophiles and they knew what they had done. They had purposely accessed these sites on the Internet. I had Social Services telling me these things and I just didn’t know what to think, it just didn’t make any sense to me. I thought well, there the authorities, they, why would they make it up?
Reporter: How, how concerned were you for your children?
TC: I was terrified for my children. I was terrified, it was a second marriage and my first concern was 'Oh my God, what have I done to my children, what have I potentially exposed them to. Who is this person?'
Reporter: But, when she tried to find out exactly what her husband was accused of doing she says she was given no information.
TC: Was this children, small children or was it something idiotic like a Sam Fox picture from the 1980's? And no one would tell me.
Reporter: And have you since managed to find out, has anybody told you what these images were?
TC: Yes, I found out now, they were older teens 16, 17, 18 years old.
Reporter: Thing is, perhaps a lot of people would think a very different thing, than people who had viewed very small children.
TC: Yes, yes.
Reporter: Her husband was eventually charged with ten counts of possessing indecent images and was placed on the sex offenders register. But the methods used in Operation Ore are now being questioned. Those targeted are accused of having used their credit cards to pay for images. But there’s doubt over the reliability of the records of the site....and there’s a link between the operation and the current row facing the Education Secretary. Paul Reed the P.E. teacher who sparked the furor was placed on the sex offenders register as part of Operation Ore, he too was accused of accessing banned images on the Internet.
TC: In the case of the P.E. teacher I understand why he took a caution.
Reporter: Why would somebody take a caution if they weren’t guilty?
TC: Because that’s the way it worked, because if you didn’t plead guilty. If you said you were innocent you were in denial of your problem and if you plead guilty they said you could keep your children...if you refused...
Reporter: ...And that’s what your husband was told?
TC: We were told both of us, separately, if we did not plead guilty they were going to take our child. No ifs or buts... and I know we are not the only people that was said to, it was said to a lot of other families.
Reporter: So, what do you feel, when you see these different cases being shown in the media of these people affected at the moment?
TC: Witch-hunt, because people 1) don’t really understand what the sex offender register is and … 2) they don't understand what Operation Ore was.
Reporter: Her husband is appealing against his conviction, but the impact on his family has been extreme.
TC: We were asked to stop taking the children to Church Youth Clubs and I was asked to leave the PTA... People wouldn’t let their children come and play with my children. My children stopped being invited places. It was very isolating.
Reporter: And of course you weren’t implicated in anyway in what your husband was accused of?
TC: The attitude I got was, well, I must have known, that was what people were treating me as... surely this couldn’t have been happening in your house without you knowing?
Reporter: There now in hiding and her husband is still only allowed supervised access to his child.
TC: No picking up from school. No going to school plays. No Dad taking him to the beach on his own. No Dad taking him to the cinema or McDonalds, nothing like that is allowed.
Reporter: One of the hardest things to deal with has been the loss and recovery of possessions.
TC: We got back our Disney Videos, but unfortunately again the specter of Ore doesn’t just go away...because every time my son wants to watch one of his Disney Videos...as you pull it out of the case the first thing you see indelible BLACK PEN is a giant X with 'No offences found' written over Pinocchio’s face.
Reporter: And what about family photos?
TC: We didn’t get them back. How do I explain to him that there are hardly any pictures of him as a baby? Please don't misunderstand me. I think child abuse is horrendous and paedophilia is a horrible, horrible thing but I can't think of a single family that have been through this, where their children are better off afterwards. Its impacted on my children, scarred them, I have no doubt, for life. It’s decimated our family. Our family is torn apart, in pieces and will never be fully rebuilt and it’s just a shame that out of some MISTRUTHS and LIES, so many people have been destroyed.
Comment from IRONSIDE to TC:
Hello TC, I have to say this was hard to type. Hearing your interview was very different to reading the words, seeing them on paper is heart wrenching. I cannot make any sense of what has happened to you and many other families. I only hope that this Court case leads to Justice.
TC answer to IRONSIDE: T
hank you Iron. I have to say, reading my own words, which are verbatim what I said, is hard. I have just sent this email to someone:
Happy Sunday Friend...hope you and yours are well on (what is here) a sunny day. I will not be able to attend the High Court on the 27th and 28th. Conveniently, social services have decided to place Silent Me and myself on trial on those days.
While everything we have been accused of criminally was NFA'd/no evidence, in the family court it is 'balance of probability'. Therefore social services want a single judge to determine:
1) Did we put our son at risk of sexual harm by virtue of being members of particular websites and online MSN chatting to members of those particular sites?
2) Both parents have suffered emotional trauma due to Operation Ore/Father's conviction. Does this make the parents unable to meet the emotional needs of the child?
3) Was our son put at direct significant risk of sexual harm by allowing 'James Jordan' into the family home as he is an 'unregistered sex offender'? (the social services are of the belief 'fully being cleared and never charged in Operation Ore does not mean he is safe to be around children')
4) Given the parents clear links to individuals such as (names removed)- among others- are the parents able to teach the child to respect authority and work with appropriate authoritative child protection specialists?
5) Do the parents accept that on the date in question (Aug 27, 2009) they took the child on 'holiday' to London, within a 40 mile proximity of a paedophile whom they knew to be on the SOR and he requested to 'babysit' for them? Do parents accept that they never gave a definitive NO answer to this person and therefore by virtue put the child at significant risk of emotional, sexual, physical and mental harm?
6) Will mother accept that her attitudes towards Operation Ore, minimise the significance of child sexual abuse in the UK?
Welcome to the nightmare.
Regards TC and Silent