Monthly Archives: September, 2015

QotD: “To abolish gender does not mean to erase distinction and difference”

To abolish gender does not mean to erase distinction and difference in expression and embodiment, it means to remove those differences from a coercive framework of self policing, and from a system that delineates material benefit based on arbitrary distinctions in those differences.

Genderkills (original no longer available), found at NYG

QotD: “Florida man disemboweled girlfriend”

TRIGGER WARNING for disturbing content

A south Florida man charged with murdering his girlfriend admitted to disemboweling her with his bare hands after she twice cried out her ex-husband’s name during sex, police said.

Self-admitted “monster” Fidel Lopez, 24, said he flew into a drunken rage after she cried out the other man’s name during rough sex inside of their Sunrise apartment’s closet early Sunday morning, according to a police report obtained by the Sun Sentinel.

In extremely disturbing details, police say Lopez admitted to shattering a sliding glass door, punching holes into a wall and ripping a closet door off its hinges.

He then returned to 31-year-old Maria Nemeth, who was lying unconscious on the floor, and proceeded to sexually mutilate her — first with various objects, then by inserting his arm into her, up to his elbow.

Once inside he said he proceeded to rip out part of her intestines.

Neighbors said they heard a man yelling and loud noises for about two hours coming from the apartment, which the couple had shared for about a week.

Before calling 911 just after 3:30 a.m., Lopez said he carried her body to the bathroom and splashed water on her face in an attempt to revive her. He then washed his hands, had a cigarette break outside and called cops to say his lover was not breathing.

When police arrived at the home, they found him crying for help next to her naked body. Blood and bodily tissue covered the floor and walls. A bottle of tequila and sliced limes were seen in the kitchen.

Lopez initially blamed her death on rough sex. During a court appearance Monday he told a judge, through an interpreter, that he’d been drunk.

He was charged with first-degree murder and ordered held without bond.

As people in the comments section are pointing out, there is no verifiable evidence that she did call out her ex-husband’s name – not that that is any kind of excuse, but he may try to use it as a mitigating factor, a so-called ‘crime of passion’.


QotD: “Notes From a Chicago Escort”

By the time I was 17, my dad concluded he had failed to humiliate, beat and torture me out of being gay. So he kicked me out of the house. Within two hours of leaving home, I had been targeted by a pimp and was being raped by his customers.

I was marketed as a high-price call-boy for the majority of my years in the sex-trafficking world. My pimps styled me as a “North Shore Boy,” using my upper-middle-class background to attract johns looking to pay for sex with a boy who looked like their neighbors. There was a lot of demand for boys like me, and both my pimps and my johns went to great lengths to psychologically and physically prevent me from leaving.

One of the mainstream myths about the world of escorting is that the industry functions as a legitimate business and does not count as sex trafficking, a.k.a. prostitution. When people do recognize escorting as prostitution, they believe it’s somehow safer than street level prostitution. It isn’t. Far from it. My pimp told me he would cut me open like a fish and throw me in the lake like human garbage. The following day was my first meeting with a “political john.” I took the Metro to the pimp. He blindfolded me and had me hide in the car en route to the hotel. Once we pulled into the parking lot, I was instructed to take the blindfold off and put the seat back. We were met by security at the back of the hotel, and I was delivered to the politician.

My johns were successful, sometimes famous men who had a lot at stake when it came to exploiting me: careers, reputations and marriages. It’s hard to underestimate how much they worried, if I snitched and the lengths they would go to protect themselves. Some of the johns were bitter divorcés; others claimed to be happily married. The common thread between all of the men who paid for sex with me was the way they flaunted their power. These wealthy johns literally enjoyed torturing those they purchased.

One of those political johns took me on a stalking mission in front of the former home he had with his wife. He went off about the divorce and how she took everything from him. After we had a drink in his new living room, he took me to the bedroom he had set aside for his son. He tied me to the bed and proceeded to rape me. I remember him calling me Robby. I looked over at the pictures of his son on the wall and had an anxiety attack. It was a combination of being tied down, him calling me his son’s name, his psychotic behavior and the stalking of his ex-wife. Right before I blacked out, my life was flashing before my eyes. I was sure he was going to murder me. After he finished, he saw my fear and the tears rolling down my face. He apologized and said it wouldn’t happen again.

These years were filled with psychological warfare, mind control and terror. Money and power drove the game. It wasn’t about sex. It was about control over another human being. By the end, I knew a john would either kill me or I would end up killing one of them.

I escaped that life, but the exiting was hard. There are zero programs to help young men get out of prostitution. I pray someday there will be.

Nikolaos Al-Khadra, 2013 (found via Sex-positive-anti-porn)

QotD: “Feminist porn is not a solution to anything”

Even if feminist porn was even slightly empowering for women, there is still the issue that there is virtually no demand for it. What this means is that the only people who participate in it are those who will still feel stable even if the material produces little to no money, and those are not the people who represent most women in the industry.

So basically, the big “solution” to misogyny in the mainstream porn industry is not only not in demand, but it completely excludes the majority of women in porn, i.e. those doing it only for money. Women who don’t have to worry about money as much can freely choose between the degrading, violent mainstream porn and the “female-friendly” porn. The majority do not have that choice.


QotD: “What ‘playbook’ are these guys following?”

Of course porn isn’t the only reason men assault women, but when you hear the same stories over and over again, from being choked till they almost pass out (and many of the women I interviewed have indeed passed out) to being verbally assaulted during the attack, then, as a sociologist, I have to ask: What “playbook” are these guys following?

Gail Dines

(Found at the Bewilderness)

QotD: “If pain, humiliation, and physical injury made us happy, we would be ecstatic”

If pain, humiliation, and physical injury made us happy, we would be ecstatic. If being sold on street corners were a good time, women would jam street corners the way men jam football matches. If forced sex were what we craved, even we would be satisfied already. If being dominated by men made us happy we would smile all the time. Women resist male domination because we do not like it.

Andrea Dworkin, Violence Against Women: It Breaks the Heart, Also the Bones, 1984

(Found at the Bewilderness)

Porn performers who sued pornographers

In the comment thread under this post I said: “I’m not aware of a single case of a woman who felt she was abused on a porn set getting any legal redress”, well, I’ve done some googling (up to page 11 for the search engine term “porn star sues pornographer”), and below are the only cases I could find that even came close (none of them are specifically and directly about the conditions of making pornography, except, perhaps, for the case of syphilis exposure).

There were lots of results for ‘revenge porn’, and for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation who had recordings made of their abuse, but very few (credible) cases of a porn performer being able to sue the porn company that had exploited them.

Married Porn Star Sues BangBros Citing Florida’s Antiquated Law Against Adultery

Isabella’s Turn is the rarest of things: a porno with a truly unexpected ending.

It begins normally enough. A busty brunette named Isabella walks into an all-white office room. A sleazy dude with hand tattoos says, “So what brings you here today? You want to be in a pornography movie?”

“Yep, because I like to have sex,” Isabella answers. “You know, making a little money off of it isn’t so bad either. So why not give it a shot?” Sleazy dude takes photos. The two get naked. Yadda yadda yadda. You know the rest.

It’s only when the cameras stop rolling that shit starts to get weird.

The skin flick was shot in a warehouse near Miami International Airport on February 13, 2008, and released Valentine’s Day (because nothing says romance like anonymous sex). Six years later, it is now at the center of one of the strangest legal battles Miami has ever seen.

This past April 30, the Puerto Rican porn star filed an anonymous, 11-page lawsuit against, the film studio Venetian Productions, and a half-dozen adult film affiliates.

Simply put, Isabella Unknown v. Venetian Productions and et al. is one of the most ingenious legal maneuvers we’ve ever seen. It’s the Miami porn industry’s Marbury v. Madison: a lawsuit so devilishly simple it threatens to undermine a multibillion-dollar business.

In her suit, Isabella claims her contract with BangBros is “illegal and unenforceable because the consideration given by Isabella to the Defendants was sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which violates the public policy of the State of Florida.” Without a valid contract, the porn — which is still available online to this day — is “an invasion of her privacy” for which Isabella is due “restitution.”

Translated from legalese: Isabella’s contract with BangBros was bogus. Why? Because she was married when she boned for $1,000.

Florida is one of 21 states that still legally prohibit adultery. In the Sunshine State, Statute 798 prescribes up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine for “any man or woman, married or unmarried, [who] engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior,” although it is almost never enforced.

For the past three years, Florida legislators have proposed overturning the antiquated legislation. In January, Rep. Ritch Workman (R-Melbourne) asked his fellow politicians to “have the intestinal fortitude to repeal what is a ridiculous law.”

They didn’t. And so Statute 798 remained on the books. Then this April — a year after the statute of limitations for the lewd and lascivious act expired — the porn star filed her complaint. Included in the lawsuit is a copy of her contract. Under “description of services,” it says simply: “B/G Facial.”

Isabella’s Turn begins normally enough, but ends with a thorny lawsuit Lawrence Metsch, Isabella’s attorney, tells New Times he has gone to great lengths to conceal his client’s true identity. He says he can’t discuss the case because of a confidentiality agreement.

County records show Metsch voluntarily withdrew the suit hours after it was filed, suggesting Isabella received a settlement. Lawyers for BangBros and Venetian Productions did not return requests for comment.

Whether or not Isabella’s shrewd legal reach-around paid off, the lawsuit poses problems for Florida’s porn industry. As long as adultery remains illegal, what’s to stop other porn stars from flashing their wedding rings in court and asking for cash?

Nothing, says UM associate law professor Andrew B. Dawson. In fact, Isabella’s lawsuit could open a pandora’s box of problems for Florida’s porn industry.

“If this were to apply to all adult films, this would not make adult films illegal but would make contracts in this field void,” he says. “This would allow the actor to later bring the sort of invasion of privacy allegations as Isabella sought here, since the actor’s consent to use of his image for distribution would likewise be void.

“Effectively, it would give the actor the right to seek to stop the film from being distributed (perhaps just to get his image off the internet) or to ask for more money, especially when the video was more profitable than the actor had anticipated,” Dawson says.

The adult film industry phrase “money shot” just took on a whole new meaning.

The above is hardly a victory for women’s collective human rights (even though it would be great if an antiquated law was used to bankrupt pornographers, but it is a law that was obviously used to hurt women back when it was enforced).

The next example I found was of a porn performer being thrown off a roof into a swimming pool during a photo shoot for Hustler magazine, causing her to break her foot. When the woman tried to sue the man who had thrown her, his lawyer argued that she had signed a contract to be thrown from the roof (with no stunt training or safety precautions), so she had no grounds to sue.

It shows facts your client always omits: she was under contract to Hustler and agreed with Hustler’s request that she be photographed while being thrown off the roof. I always thought that this kind of thing was Photoshopped instead. Perhaps Hustler’s editorial standards would not permit it. Perhaps she insists on doing all her own stunts. I really do not know.

In all events, she agreed. Very few people I know would make that choice. But there it is. And chronologically, she’s an adult competent to make it. Hustler and your client asked Mr. Bilzerian to be the thrower, and we can all agree that was the better end of the deal.

Like your client, the facts of the claim won’t, quite, fly.

The lawyers letter was mocking and sarcastic, as is the report I found. The message is clear, she’s a dumb whore who knew what she was getting herself into.

It seems very unlikely that a similar argument would hold on a professional film set; there is no other area where it is considered possible for people to ‘choose’ a dangerous work environment without adequate safety precautions.

I was pleased to be able to find one case of a female porn performer successfully suing both the porn company and the male porn performer who exposed her to syphilis:

An adult film actress and a production company settled a lawsuit she filed after she allegedly became exposed to syphilis while shooting a video.

Heather DeAngelo, known in the porn industry as Lylith Lavey, sued BangBros in February 2014 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Her attorneys filed court papers March 13 with Judge Teresa Beaudet stating that the case was resolved. No details were divulged.

The suit alleged the company should have known that actor Marcus Spencer had the communicable disease.

DeAngelo suffered emotional distress as well as castigation from others in her field as a result of the incident, the suit states. She did not contract the disease.

“Plaintiff completed the scene with Mr. Marcus and subsequently found out that (he) had syphilis,” the suit stated.

The county issued a temporary moratorium on pornographic filming after the incident and implemented stricter requirements to ensure that pornographic producers ensure the safety of the actors, according to the complaint.

DeAngelo previously filed a lawsuit against Spencer over being exposed syphilis, alleging fraud, negligence, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She obtained a $129,360 default judgment against him last June.

‘Mr Marcus’ was previously sentenced to 30 days in jail, 36 months’ probation and 15 days of community labor for altering a test result and exposing at least two women to syphilis during porn production.

The only other result I found was this one:

A Bay Area adult film performer and director is suing her former studio, stating she was fired for reporting the company’s co-owner to the FBI for having an alleged sexual relationship with a minor. Elise Graves, identified here by her stage name, claims she faced retaliation from Intersec Interactive for acting as a whistleblower, in violation of California labor law. Graves and another former Intersec star, whose stage name is Cyd Black, also allege that the BDSM porn production company further violated the law by misclassifying them as contractors, withholding wages and violating agreements on consent during porn shoots.

In a climate where BDSM is often marginalized, and practitioners frequently find themselves on the defense against bigotry and threats from hostile forces seeking to censor their artistic and sexual expression, this lawsuit turns a spotlight on the internal practices of an influential and controversial porn company credited with pioneering BDSM live shows online. Intersec Interactive operates a studio in Oakland, while a website it previously ran,, regularly featured performers who are now affiliated with, the Bay Area’s most recognizable producer of BDSM content.

The case also highlights the risks that whistleblowers take in approaching the authorities with claims of wrongdoing — lost wages, and lost friends. Whether the authorities find merit in the claims made by Graves or not, her right to raise them and be protected in her actions is an important cornerstone to effective whistleblower protection.

The article, is, obviously, pro sex industry, and pro BDSM, read this post, “Graphic Sexual Horror” for a more balanced account.

QotD: “When sex is coerced, we have a word for it: rape”

All work is coerced under capitalism.

When sex is coerced, we have a word for it: rape.

Could you maybe see how being raped for a living is a little bit different from being coerced in to standing behind a cash register?


Notes on the BBC3 documentary ‘Prostitution: What’s the Harm?’

This is not a very good documentary, it’s hard to make a claim towards unbiased journalism when you only give one side of the argument, and only interview a carefully selected set of subjects, and never ask them any difficult questions. This documentary doesn’t even hint at the existence of the Nordic model/Abolitionist approach to prostitution (where the prostitute her/him self is decriminalised, while the pimps, brothel-keepers and johns are criminalised), and there’s also no mention of the need for, or (lack of) existence of, exit services. It’s all about harm reduction and those magical choosy-choices that make all the problems go away, when it’s not being a blatant tutorial for pimping.

I watched it the first time it was show last year, and wanted to write some brief notes then, as it does reveal a few unpleasant truths about prostitution, especially it’s relationship to pornography consumption, and it’s normalisation among young people. I didn’t get round to it last time, and I’ve only just made it this time – it’s available to watch on BBC iPlayer until 2am on Friday (GMT).

First up after the intro/preview, the presenter Billie Porter talks to Chris Dangerfield who lives in Soho, and does a ‘comedy routine’ about being a john, and talkes about how it filled a void, after coming out of drug rehab. His take on it is completely predictable, and I’m not going to bother typing it out.

The documentary then moves to Prague, which is a popular stag-night destination, the flights, hotels and drink are cheep, and there is a thriving sex industry, Porter only describes the legal situation as ‘tolerant’.

According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, in the Czech Republic, while selling sex itself is legal, brothels and pimping is illegal. The Czech Republic is also a source, transit, and destination country for women and children trafficked from across the world, and it also has a problem with the commercial sexual exploitation of children, particularly children from the marginalised Roma population.

Porter then talks to a bunch of drunk English men who mostly talk about ‘value for money’. Porter then goes to talk to someone she describes as a ‘main player’ in Prague’s sex industry, who gives her a tour of his night club/brothel, and gets some free publicity in the process – there is no attempt at investigative journalism here, Porter is just shown round and her commentary is inane.

The tables in the bar have touch-screen computers where women can be picked from a menu, and even ‘modified’ with a choice of costume (nothing dehumanising going on there!). They also have a bar with a naked woman (she is from Brazil, which has worrying implications to me – this is not a specialist, well paid job; only poor women do this kind of work, so how did this woman come all the way from Brazil to do it?) laid out with cut fruit on her for johns to eat. The brothel-keeper offers Porter the chance to try being laid out naked herself; Porter declines, looking uncomfortable.

We are then shown a room big enough for group sex, with two naked women sitting in the adjacent hot tub, ready for the film crew.

Porter does interview one of the women, Laura, who works there, set up for her by the brothel-keeper of course, although he does at least leave the room for the interview. She says she ‘sees’ between 3-5 men a night, and that English men get too drunk to do anything. Porter asks if it’s difficult to enjoy it when she has to spend time with a guy she thinks is really nasty (this is a ridiculous question, as it implies that selling sex on it’s own, would be naturally enjoyable!). Laura says she cannot enjoy it, and has to be a good actor, and she does it for the money. She also says she has a son, who is 13, and doesn’t know, and she is worried he may come into the brothel one day and see her there. Laura also says that once she leaves work she switches off and gets on with her life.

Porter admits in voice over that the work ‘has its difficulties’, but she thinks Laura is ‘brave’ for ‘doing what it takes’ to ‘make a good living’.

Back in London Porter talks to four students in their early twenties, two male, two female. One of the women says that two of her friends paid for sex on a holiday to Portugal, and one of the men says he first paid for sex in Amsterdam, then again in London; the first woman asks him if he thinks they were enjoying it, and he says that in London, she was enjoying it more than he was, and described the two women he paid for (at the same time) in Amsterdam as ‘fake’ and ‘standard sex’. The first man asks the second man if he has ever paid for sex, he says no, when asked if he ever would, he says yes. The second woman is not shown clearly saying anything.

The documentary then moves to Cheshire, where she interviews two men (aged 22 and 23) who are regular sex buyers. One of them was in a relationship with a woman who told him a few months into the relationship that she was an ‘escort’, he says he was bothered at first, but he liked her having money. The relationship lasted 6 months, and after that, the first time he paid for sex was with someone he had met through his then girlfriend.

The men say that they pay for sex every 3-4 months, when they have the money. They use brothels and ‘escorts’ – they consider escorts safer, because they came to your house, and ‘anything’ could happen in a brothel.

One of the men says he would be put off by escorts that offered unprotected sex.

Buying sex was described as like “having a wank, but you’re paying for it to come out of your lap-top and onto your sofa”.

Porter asks if buying sex was something people were becoming less ashamed off, and the man says yes, and that “porn’s got a big part to play in it. You watch a porno, you’re not going to get that down the town […] you’re not going to get a woman that’s going to do that sort of stuff.”

The men admit that their use of prostitutes has affected their relationships, a mixture of worried that they are putting pressure on their girlfriends to ‘perform’ and, at the same time, resentment that their girlfriends don’t ‘perform’ like a porn performer or prostitute.

Porter then interviews 27-year-old Charlotte, who started in the sex industry stripping part-time at 18. At 22 she discovered web-camming; she moved onto ‘escorting’ though the same website she used for web-camming (it’s the same website the previous men use to find prostitutes, and it gets more than one name check, but I don’t suppose it really needs the free advertising), she has been selling sex for a year. Charlotte says she limits herself to 3 or 4 bookings (a week, I’m assuming), because she doesn’t want to look tired or burn herself out – but she knows other women who do 10x 15-30min bookings a day. Charlotte says that in a good month she makes £1000/week web-camming, and £2000/month escorting (if she is doing 16 bookings a month then she is making, on average, £125 per booking).

Charlotte also goes ‘on the road’ booking hotels and apartments around the country for bookings. She charges £300/hr for a ‘porn star experience’ – it’s more expensive because there is more sex. Charlotte says she prefers “older guys” because they are “nicer” and “more respectful”, while younger guys will “want to treat you like you’re a whore”; she has written on her profile that men will not be able to spend the whole hour ‘ploughing through’ her, and she says she is a human, not a machine.

When asked by Porter, she says it is not for everyone, because not everyone can “deal with it mentally”.

Charlotte has a legitimate business, employs an accountant and pays taxes, a total of £89,068.90 is shown on the screen, which is the total from web-camming for the past two years.

Next there’s a segment on prostitution laws, with a ‘pub quiz’ format. It’s so boring I skipped through it last time, and I’m skipping through it again.

Next, Porter meets ‘Madam Becky Adams’, who shows Porter what’s ‘really involved’ in running a brothel. Porter hires a serviced apartment, which is a cross between an apartment and a hotel room, and has the advantage of short contracts.

This segment is all very light-hearted, and very ‘English’ (that nudge-nudge, wink-wink, aren’t we naughty attitude that is actually deathly dull and conservative). It’s all bubble-baths, tea and biscuits, and euphemisms like ‘hunt the soap’ and ‘front massages’. But also lots of towels, baby-wipes and condoms.

Adams says that there are ‘unwritten rules’ “no drugs, no underage girls, no alcohol, no coercion,” and as long as national insurance and tax was paid, the police turned a blind eye (but she had been raided and closed down by the police – without ever being prosecuted – six times).

Adam’s said that she thought she wasn’t doing anything wrong, just helping ‘girls’ stay safe – nothing about the fat percentage she must have been taking for providing this service, she was obviously only doing it out of the kindness of her heart – she also campaigns for brothels to be decriminalised, calling current laws ridiculous.

At the end of this segment Porter says she feels “properly equipped to run a brothel now.”

Next the documentary moves on to street-based prostitution, and finally becomes hard-hitting, admitting that ‘many’ start before 18. Porter joins Shelly, an NHS out-reach worker in Liverpool; she hands out condoms and needles, as most are dealing with addiction. Shelly says that they often interrupt attacks on street workers – men throwing eggs or stones, or johns getting violent when they can’t “follow through on the act”.

140 street workers have been murdered in Britain since 1990. They visit one of the main areas used by street workers, which is also the site of a murder in 2005.

Porter next talks to Liz, who was a street worker driven by drug and alcohol addiction. She is interviewed at the Amistead Centre in Liverpool, an NHS service described on its website as “a free and confidential sexual health promotion service for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) people and for male and female sex workers.” It is a massive problem conflating homosexuality with prostitution, but that is beyond the scope of this particular blog post. Another thing to note is that both Porter, during the Liverpool filming, and Liz, wear red umbrella laminated pins, the red umbrella is the symbol of sex industry advocates, so it shows the bias in this programme.

Liz describes her experience of prostitution as a nightmare and something that caused her a huge amount of harm; and the men, which she calls punters, as violating her. She suffered gang sexual assault, and another man kicked all her teeth out and left her for dead (she calls this man a punter too, not a ‘fake client’). She describes another punter as holder her captive for eight hours, repeatedly raping and beating her – both these men were arrested, charged, found guilty, but only got three years.

I cannot understand why a woman who has had such a set of experiences, would be aligning herself with sex industry advocates who describe her violation as ‘work’ and call the men who abused her ‘fake clients’.

After this interview, Porter, talking to camera, says she now realises that both the ‘high class escorts’ and the ‘drug addicted prostitutes on the street’ both “put them selves at risk in the same areas.” Which is a bit odd, as the rest of the programme has been about showing how great ‘sex work’ is.

Porter then says in voice over: “if brothels can provide greater safety but remain illegal, what should the police do?”

This does not all add up, ~Madam Becky~ earlier in the programme already said that ‘safe’ brothels didn’t do drugs, alcohol, or underage girls, so legalising/decriminalising brothels isn’t going to help an underage drug addict engaging in transactional sex.

Illegal brothels already exist, and that hasn’t prevented on-street prostitution; when women’s lives are so chaotic and precarious that they can’t prostitute even in illegal brothels, why would a legal one take them in?

Porter next goes to Merseyside Police Headquarters to talk to Chris Armitt, the Assistant Chief Constable. He says they will raid brothels if there is fear of abuse, but that most women are ‘working there of their own choice’. He also says that Australia and New Zealand have “regulated and licensed” brothels and that the ‘early signs’ are that they are reducing problems – funny, the prime minister of New Zealand said that decriminalising the sex industry had done nothing to reduce either on street prostitution or the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Then it’s back to Charlotte, on tour, and a wrap-up where Porter mentions “long-term emotional health”, and that, thankfully, is that.

“Paedophile ring jailed for ‘terrifying depravity'”

Seven paedophiles who preyed on a baby and young children acted “beyond human instinct” and were guilty of “terrifying depravity”, a judge said.

Jailing them, Judge Julian Lambert said the men had engaged in “the most grossly deviant behaviour imaginable”.

He said what they had done made some feel “physically sick”.

The prison sentences issued to the gang members, who streamed some attacks on the internet, range from two years to 24 years.

The court was told the men would drive hundreds of miles for a chance to rape or abuse a child.

The group, who lived at addresses across England, raped and assaulted three children – a baby, a toddler and a young child – between 2013 and 2014.

Bristol Crown Court heard the men groomed families to get to children, in one case targeting a pregnant woman in order to abuse her baby after its birth.

They would stream and watch attacks live online, providing encouragement to those carrying out abuse. They also shared advice over online chat logs about how to drug young victims.

The judge said: “In the worst nightmare, from the very deepest recesses of the mind, at the darkest hour of the night, few can have imagined the terrifying depravity which you men admit.”

He said the depths they sank to were “shocking to all decent people”, “provokes tears in many and makes others feel physically sick”.

“What you did is contrary to all nature and humanity and you each appear to have a chilling tendency to centre the world on yourselves and your depraved desires without regard for the innocent and vulnerable.”


Ian Glover, who headed up the National Crime Agency investigation, described them as “by far the worst paedophile group I have ever investigated”.

He said they had treated children “as a commodity, to be passed on to others, to be filmed, to be abused and that abuse shown to other paedophiles as a form of currency, so they can get other material back”.

Mr Glover said the most important factor had been protecting the children involved, both in this court case and the wider operation, and as a result more than 200 “packages” – intelligence gathered during the inquiry – had been sent to other forces, mostly overseas. Further convictions are expected in the UK and abroad, he said.

The investigation identified three victims but police have put measures in place to protect another 21 children found to be at risk.