Child Trafficking

The following are links to a video called Traffic by Pete Middleton Pictures, which demonstrates the states child snatching part of the child trafficking industry, of which of course child sexual abuse is also part. I recommend you watch it .

7 mins

https://t.co/D0cugRvUeV

1hr52mins

 http://youtu.be/dNQzDVPn_eA

(I cannot work out why they will not show as a video frame – just click on the link)

It appears that this film has been taken down on the request of the copyright holder Pete Middleton films. If this is true then it is contrary to what some participants in the film were told. They gave their time free and were told they would be given sight of their footage free. However if true it appears as though the copyright holder was not interested in spreading the message that this child snatching was going on but was interested in making money.  The people that have had their children snatched have been disappointed again by someone who they thought to be on their side. I await Pete Middletons viewpoint with bated breath, until then I assume it is banned by Social services and banned by Pete Middleton. Shocking.

Film by Pete Middleton @PMiddy001

Thie following article [2]from the Independent is another part of the child snatching industry- abductions and kidnappings, as children are valuable commodities.

Child kidnappings and abductions could be four times higher than authorities admit, charities warn

Child abductions and kidnappings are on the increase, with almost 900 reported cases in the past year alone, as police fight to crack down on child exploitation in the wake of the Rotherham scandal.

Figures gathered from police forces by the charity Parents and Abducted Children Together (Pact), and seen exclusively by The Independent on Sunday, reveal that kidnappings and abductions of children under 18 rose by 13 per cent between 2012-13 and 2013-14 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Kidnappings alone increased faster still, with a rise of 18 per cent over the same period.

The abduction of children by people other than their parents – which could include a stranger luring a child into a car with sweets or a teenage girl being taken willingly by an older man – rose twice as fast as parental abductions (14 per cent, compared with 6 per cent).

Since the Rotherham scandal where widespread child sexual abuse took place against girls as young as 12 between 1997 and 2013, councils and police forces have come under greater scrutiny about the way in which they handle child abductions and kidnappings.

During 2013-14, 158 children were abducted by parents, 401 children were abducted by people other than their parents, and 321 children were kidnapped. Kidnappings, which are defined by the use of force or fraud to remove a child, include cases such as children taken in return for a ransom or young gang members held by rival factions. One-fifth of all kidnappings recorded by police involve a child victim.

The rest of the article is on this link [2]

Also check out Clare Wakemans story in her own words

Part 1 [3]

Part 2 [4]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The following are links for the UK .  The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C] and Havoca [D]. Useful post on triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.

Links

[1] Traffic Pete Middleton Pictures video  http://youtu.be/dNQzDVPn_eA

[2] 2015 Feb 22 Independent Child kidnappings and abductions could be four times higher than authorities admit, charities warn http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-kidnap-and-abduction-increase-as-crimes-come-under-greater-scrutiny-10062014.html?origin=internalSearch

[3] Cathyfoxblog Clare Wakeman Story Part 1 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/my-story-clare-wakeman-part-1/

[4] Cathyfoxblog Clare Wakeman Story Part 2 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/my-story-clare-wakeman-part-2/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/

[C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/

[D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

forced adoption

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email cathyfox@bigfoot.com.

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

Advertisements

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in #OpDeathEaters, Forced Adoption and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Child Trafficking

  1. Hello Cathy.
    I am responding to your comment.
    We have not banned Traffic, in fact it’s quite the contrary. We have been promoting Traffic 24/7 and doing quite well too. We have flyers being promoted, trailers that are at 18,000 plus views, like the one kindly uploaded by missing children on YT and the trailers added by Purple eye, both sought the rights to do so from Pete Middleton Pictures. Uploading Traffic to YouTube does nothing more than preach to the converted and hinder all that the team at Traffic are trying to achieve.
    I did find your comment highly offensive and I see only one person that took part in Traffic is bitter and causing quite the problem, that is now being dealt with, good how one person’s lies can pull in so many other’s. Traffic cost £13,000 to make and not once did we ask anyone for a penny to help. We are in the process of making the second Traffic with the little bit we are recouping from the first but thanks to illegal uploads this has hampered alot of companies from giving Traffic the exposure it needs.
    We can no longer submit to festivals for exposure as it’s been found on the net and can no longer offer exclusive rights to TV channels etc…Traffic is under a somewhat thrown together injunction so preventing distribution in the UK and we’re forced to sell from the US for a royalty of $1.92 (before tax). It would be nice not to end up totally bankrupt making the second as I am sure anyone whom works for a living would fully understand. It’s about respecting what we do and the fact that Traffic is our work and not someone else’s to use.Shame so many others want to hinder what we are trying to do.

  2. kaz says:

    I was promised viewing of the footage shot of me, not fulfilled.
    I was promised inclusion in the end credits, not fulfilled.
    It is not being dealt with at all.
    I told no lies during my interview, let’s face it, if I had, you wouldn’t of included it.
    I have done nothing to hinder the film. I only discovered it was available for purchase after it first appeared online, pirated.
    Think you may want to check your facts before you start accusing people of lying.

  3. cathyfox says:

    pmiddyproducer
    Thankyou for your comments. When i put the link up in my blog, i knew nothing of the controversy. In fact the video I watched said to buy the film from you. I presumed you were spreading the message as I do, for free, so that more people see the problem. That was the intent from this blog.
    I had not meant to upset you and if you tell me which parts of what I said I will consider changing them.
    Is there a public record of your plan with the video, so that people can understand what you wish to do and do not mess up your plans? I am sure that most would not realise that a video on YouTube would disqualify it from festivals. Why are festivals the route to go? What happened after that? How do you see the film changing the situation re forced adoption?
    Is it intended for the second film is to go online?
    Why do you say that an online film will just preach to the converted?. Even if some of the audience are the converted they still would like and deserve support do they not? Is it not advisable to use the tens of thousands of people who unfortunately have suffered forced adoption and want publicity about it.
    Part of the problem with child abuse is that it is a commercial industry, and part of the solution is to reduce the influence of the commercial aspect, which is at odds with the commercial way of marketing this film. I realise that everyone makes their own choices and compromises,for instance I choose use Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International copyright, as I feel that is the best way to achieve my aim. I note that you use some footage which was presumably this type of thing.
    You did not address the issue of agreements with participants, apart from to say it was being dealt with. This is denied by a comment on this blog, so I wonder what the situation is.
    You had a great good will of tens of thousands behind you to start with, but some of the converted appear to have deserted you, which is a shame, as keeping them onside and building on that would have ensured wide spread of the message.

  4. Hello Cath,
    I know as so many others assumed we were the ones whom uploaded Traffic to the internet. Quite the contrary as some people are doing it from malice and not to support all we are attempting to do. Having the film online does hamper film festivals and the reason we submit there is, Traffic is seen at some such as Cannes (which is now completely out of the question due to the acts of others) request the film not be shown online. Other smaller ones are a little more lenient but cannot offer the exposure it needs. After submitting to Festivals you are given the options of TV, online streaming and hosting on platforms that would be near on impossible for an indie film such as ours. We do still have a huge following crowd of support and from stat checks Traffic it topic of discussion in Australia, America and up and down the UK. John Hemming is pushing forward as much as he can, other campaigners are also. Only a select few want to sabotage the work done by all the team on Traffic. the second will commence in spring and hopefully we will cut deeper into their devious ways with a large amount if interest already gained. Again this production will be self-funded which is a huge expense in film making terms and the kind support of all our crew is quite moving. The reason we say online only preaches to the converted is, Traffic is been uploaded and not shared publicly but in small selected groups so how can that possibly be reaching a wider audience? I’m afraid it does not and when people clearly know they are doing wrong, we are attacked and abused. Clearly not the support we or anyone needs.

    We have information on the internet about how we need to proceed.
    FaceBook fan page
    http://www.facebook.com/traffic2015
    and our website
    http://mellisaking2014.wix.com/traffic

    Cathy, both the makers of Traffic have lost children to these people and know what exposure it needs but as film makers know how damaging saboteurs can be to a project.
    The footage added that you mention is released under licence for use in commercial projects in return for a credit. All other footage given upon signing a release form. We are not sure where we are going with the second one yet as it’s still in it’s infancy but hopefully we will have all that information shortly.
    There is plenty of promotional material online that can be shared such as Trailers and information flyers and so forth.
    If anyone wishes to support all we do they can contact us @ internationalpix@aol.co.uk

    Thank you for your response Cath. We wish you all the best in your continued work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s