Trigger warning: This post deals with child abuse and may be triggering for some readers.
An Australian man has been convicted following an online sting that identified 1,000 paedophiles.
Charity workers from European organisation Terre Des Hommes went undercover, posing as a 10-year-old Filipina girl called “Sweetie” — in reality, a realistic-looking computer model — to catch out child sex offenders.
The BBC reports the programme involved four workers posing as Sweetie over 10 weeks in June and July last year — and it tracked down and identified 1,000 paedophiles, including a reported 46 Australian men, in that short time.
In November, the paedophiles’ information was passed on to Interpol and local police in 71 countries — and now, 37-year-old Brisbane man Scott Robert Hansen has pleaded guilty to three charges in Brisbane District Court.
This video explains the Sweetie avatar — and how she caught hundreds of men out. Story continues below:
The Daily Mail reports Hansen’s charges were using a carriage service to transmit indecent communications to a child under 16, failure to comply with a sex offenders order, and possession of child pornography.
He is believed to be the first person to have been convicted as the result of the undercover sting, the BBC reports.
Hansen is a registered sex offender who was first convicted for wilful exposure in 1995 for repeatedly flashing young girls on a school bus.
He was again convicted in 1999 for flashing young girls, and in 2009 was sentenced to 18 months in jail for flashing — and attempting to abduct — an eight-year-old schoolgirl, news.com.au reports.
Top Comments
I knew this ages ago! Why so late mama mia?
Anyway, that still disturbs me :(
Wait so why do these children do it anyway? Are they forced to by their parents or caregivers? Could someone please explain thanks
It's an avatar which means a computer made human run by a human.. no children are involved sweetie is a avatar..
For the love of God, read the article before you comment!
No wonder you are 'Confused' - you read a title and maybe, (but unlikely) scanned the piece without attempting to understand what the article was actually about. Did you really think some actual parent exposed their child to 1,000 online predators?
I think 'Confused' meant the actual real children who do this, not Sweetie. It is a legitimate question. What terrible set of circumstances would lead to a child doing this? Not only would they have to be the poorest of the poor, but then they'd also need access to a computer with internet - not a combination many would assume in common. In developed countries, internet is something we get if we can afford it, not something that we assume is pervasive across the world. Obviously the internet has a wider reach than any of us realised, leading to the exponential and unstopped growth in children webcam crimes.
The same poverty that means poor people in developing countries hand their children over to wealthy Australians.