Charlotte Ward, self-professed commercial child sex abuse viewer

Just in case anyone was in any doubt that Charlotte ‘Jacqui Farmer’ Ward is a paedophile in screechy blogger’s clothing, today’s posts on Hamster Research should confirm once and for all: she’s a consumer of commercial child sexual abuse images, AKA ‘kiddy porn’.

Oh, but she’s not doing it for the thrill of watching small children being sexually abused, no, no, NO!

Charlotte Ward child porn 1Apparently Charlotte was standing behind the door the day they handed out the brains.

And she’s also somehow missed the memo from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) that viewing commercial child sexual abuse ‘for research purposes’ is just as much a criminal act as viewing it for the sexual thrill. Hampstead child porn researcher

On the plus side, now that we have a name and address for Charlotte Ward and Jacco de Boer in Suriname, they can expect a knock on their door at any time. stop_child_abuse_fitted_hoodie


34 thoughts on “Charlotte Ward, self-professed commercial child sex abuse viewer

  1. She’s truly lost her mind.. common sense tells you that you can’t search for CSA online under the guise of “Research.”
    The more views these sites receive only tells the owner of the site that more images are required! Why the hell can’t she understand that? She’s perpetuating the abuse by doing what she’s doing.
    Does she even care about children????

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Like I said earlier, is she really seeing what she says she is? She is clearly unhinged so it would not surprise me at all if she is just viewing adult models or just making it all up as usual.

    The “child” having a tattoo on her arm was a curious comment and makes me think it wasn’t a child at all.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I think we might all be best advised to steer clear of her blog if she keeps on down this route. She has already posted a few cropped images.

        It reminds me of the evangelical preacher’s website which had a section titled something like “Madonna and Britney’s disgusting lesbian kiss – buy my DVD to see more”.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I agree–plus, the less traffic she gets, the more likely she is to see the writing on the wall….Wait, what am I saying? She’ll never see the futility of it. But we don’t have to participate in her hysteria.


    • she may well be looking at a bunch of old boilers dressed in school uniforms. With a dirty old man in a schoolmasters outfit caning the lasses. especially if they have tattoos!
      Even weirder, she’s urging others to join in her search, Clearly cracked. I still come back to one of her complaints that the cops go around pubs harassing dope smokers. I think that’s the nub of it.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Jacqui is probably too stupid to understand that the images she has viewed STILL EXIST on her digital device – whether that’s a ‘puter, a phone, an Ipad, what have you. “Oh, no, I set my browser to flush the history when I close it, so there’s nothing left on my device”, she might say. WRONG!
    I’m not going to go into detail, but unless she reformats her hard-drive everyday those images will remain – albeit invisible to her – and can be reconstructed by a forensic examination.
    She’s headed for prison, for possession of CSA images, as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks Coyote – I’m REALLY looking forward to it πŸ™‚
        A lot of people misunderstand how image viewing works on digital devices, and that doesn’t mean they are stupid of course…they may simply under-informed. Whenever you view an image on your computer, smartphone, etc., that means the image is on your hard-drive or equivalent file storage system. You could not see it, if it was not. Streaming seems more like tv broadcast reception, but the moving images are still downloaded in little bits to your drive, then “deleted”.
        When a file is deleted, that only means the “address” of its location on the drive has been removed – so you can’t find it – but it otherwise remains essentially as it was, on the drive. A person with the proper equipment can find it and restore it to visibility. Over time, parts of that image file may get over-written as the drive assigns new files pieces of the deleted images old address, but even then it can often be reconstructed. IT NEVER GOES AWAY.

        Liked by 1 person

    • She’s too stupid to realise that those sorts of images will effect even the most grounded and mentally healthy people.

      I’m not going to go into it. The people I’ve known. The shoulder I’ve offered. But once seen, never forgotten. It could sneak up. Unexpectedly.

      With me it’s not those sort of images, I’ve never seen them. But one thing for me, still effects me, at work, a dead baby, graying skin, a life lost so early, clothed in a onesie with a hood with ears, Winnie the fucking Pooh with a dead baby in. I’ve got tears in my eyes now.

      A few presents for a new baby were returned, even though this was many years later, I couldn’t bear the idea of using a onesie, with a hood, with ears 😦

      Foolish, foolish woman.

      For her own sanity she needs to stop.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think she’s got much of a conscience, Tracey. I know those images would do me in, and I’m so sorry that you have the image of the dead baby to carry with you…but judging from Charlotte’s behaviour, and what she’s revealed about herself, intentionally and otherwise, in her book–I’d say she’s at a point where her conscience is pretty much impermeable.


    • And if they don’t have an impact on her, well if she was doing it as a police officer, she’d get chucked off the team. Because not being affected, it’s not normal and it’s not the sign of a healthy psyche.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. This from a person who needed to be told to report the images she ‘found’ all those months ago.

    Then needed to be told where to report them.

    Then told several times more.

    She claimed her legal department were dealing with it.

    Why was she so reluctant?

    Why did she hang onto the information for months before clawing they were linked to RD?

    She makes crap up, I don’t believe a word she prints.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Perhaps it is time to appeal to one person she seemed to admire and who may have some sway over her: David Voas. I am sure someone with his reputation, (and the reputation of the various organisations he is attached to) he/they might consider the possible implications of promoting a child porn purveyor who encourages others to view such abuse images.

    This kind of thing could definitely be looked at under the ‘bringing the profession into disrepute’ in David Voas’s employment terms and conditions and could jeopardise his good standing and position with ISER/Essex Uni etc.

    ‘Professor David Voas
    Deputy Director and Professor of Population Studies

    David Voas
    01206 873904

    David is a quantitative social scientist with a background in demography. He serves on the executive committee of the European Values Study and is co-director of British Religion in Numbers (, an online centre for British data on religion that has received recognition as a British Academy Research Project. He serves on the editorial boards of the British Journal of Sociology and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion…. He is also Deputy Director of ISER.’

    As Charlotte Ward co-wrote her ‘Conspirituality’ paper with him, and this is still being endorsed on his page in his list of published academic work,

    ‘The emergence of conspirituality
    Charlotte Ward and David Voas
    Journal Article Journal of Contemporary Religion – 2011’


    (and this is an official Essex University webpage: (ISER’s about page describes its relationship to Essex University, it is part of it.,

    …this means Essex university is now promoting a child pornographer, ie Charlotte Ward.

    Someone needs to let their PR and legal dept know.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Oh, she now appears to be hosting a live link to, fuck knows what, but given the nature of her post I can only guess it is something very nasty.

    Maybe someone knows how to deal with that?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Charlotte Ward: How low can she go? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  8. Pingback: Did Charlotte jump or was she pushed? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Pingback: The tired old ‘child porn’ myth debunked…again | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.