Can changing the law really protect our children?

17 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross
No WTF I did read it and it was rationalising the existence of the foul stuff as keeping 'em off the streets. That is poppycock!!
.

Quote by Peanut
And before the narrow-minded can comment. I am not proposing that paedos be fed a supply of kiddy porn, nor am I proposing that they shouldn't be punished if kiddy porn is found on their computers.

Quote by Peanut
And once again I can see a need for stating quite categorically that I revile kiddy porn, I revile the people who use it and I think any person proven to be a should be monitored for the rest of their lives.

In that case I suggest you make an appointment at SpecSavers at your earliest convenience. rolleyes

17 Sep 2008

Play nicely people - this little bird has had enough and is flying away.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut

No WTF I did read it and it was rationalising the existence of the foul stuff as keeping 'em off the streets. That is poppycock!!
.

Quote by Peanut
And before the narrow-minded can comment. I am not proposing that paedos be fed a supply of kiddy porn, nor am I proposing that they shouldn't be punished if kiddy porn is found on their computers.

Quote by Peanut
And once again I can see a need for stating quite categorically that I revile kiddy porn, I revile the people who use it and I think any person proven to be a should be monitored for the rest of their lives.

In that case I suggest you make an appointment at SpecSavers at your earliest convenience. rolleyes

And yes - all that qualification about not feeding the stuff follows your premise that it is acceptable to have it so that it keeps paedophiles off the street. I am saying that it is not acceptable for it to be in existence at all - (Yes I know you don't like it but in your opening remarks in that post you justified it's existence).
P'raps you might like to get a pair of specs that allows you to look in more than one direction! :roll: (Just so's we can get quits on the eyerolls).
.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross

No WTF I did read it and it was rationalising the existence of the foul stuff as keeping 'em off the streets. That is poppycock!!
.

Quote by Peanut
And before the narrow-minded can comment. I am not proposing that paedos be fed a supply of kiddy porn, nor am I proposing that they shouldn't be punished if kiddy porn is found on their computers.

Quote by Peanut
And once again I can see a need for stating quite categorically that I revile kiddy porn, I revile the people who use it and I think any person proven to be a should be monitored for the rest of their lives.

In that case I suggest you make an appointment at SpecSavers at your earliest convenience. rolleyes

And yes - all that qualification about not feeding the stuff follows your premise that it is acceptable to have it so that it keeps paedophiles off the street. I am saying that it is not acceptable for it to be in existence at all - (Yes I know you don't like it but in your opening remarks in that post you justified it's existence).

You do seem to like your absolutes don't you?
Where did I say that it's acceptable? I said that it's better than the real thing. I thought I'd made it quite clear in plain English that I do NOT find it acceptable.

P'raps you might like to get a pair of specs that allows you to look in more than one direction! :roll: (Just so's we can get quits on the eyerolls).
.

I don't appear to be the blinkered one in this sub-thread.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut
Where did I say that it's acceptable? I said that it's better than the real thing. I thought I'd made it quite clear in plain English that I do NOT find it acceptable.

So what is the real thing then? What evidence do you have for what would be the 'real' situation if paedophilic material was not available on the internet?
I can answer that one for you.
None!
You don't know whether it would be worse or not.
I think it would be better for it not to be available at all and I think that would starve this foul fire of fuel.
.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross

Where did I say that it's acceptable? I said that it's better than the real thing. I thought I'd made it quite clear in plain English that I do NOT find it acceptable.

So what is the real thing then?

I would have thought that was rather obvious, but I'll make it clearer. When I refer to the real thing I am referring to the physical act of a actually interfering with a real child.

What evidence do you have for what would be the 'real' situation if paedophilic material was not available on the internet?

Again I would have though that to be glaringly obvious. We would be swimming in paedos and the incidences would be far higher than they are now. At least the 'stranger' type of as opposed to the family member type.

I can answer that one for you.
None!
You don't know whether it would be worse or not.

And where did I say it was factual? You've even referred to my "belief" yourself, so how come that "belief" has now turned into a stated fact?
Is it because that lends creedence to your argument? Without that premise your accusations mean nothing.

I think it would be better for it not to be available at all and I think that would starve this foul fire of fuel.
.

I don't know how much clearer I can say this, I don't like kiddy porn, I don't like it being available BUT it IS available and it won't become unavailable just because you or I want it to be; and based on that conclusion I would prefer that the 's time is spent in front of the computer instead of in the park or the kids knickers.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is what I mean about you being blinkered. The genii will never be put back in the bottle in the same way that the 'drug war' will ever be won. One has to make the most of a bad situation instead of pie in the sky notions about there being a total cleansing any time soon.
It's called pragmatism.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird
Play nicely people - this little bird has had enough and is flying away.

Shall I fly away with you? lol

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut

Where did I say that it's acceptable? I said that it's better than the real thing. I thought I'd made it quite clear in plain English that I do NOT find it acceptable.

So what is the real thing then?

I would have thought that was rather obvious, but I'll make it clearer. When I refer to the real thing I am referring to the physical act of a actually interfering with a real child.

What evidence do you have for what would be the 'real' situation if paedophilic material was not available on the internet?

Again I would have though that to be glaringly obvious. We would be swimming in paedos and the incidences would be far higher than they are now. At least the 'stranger' type of as opposed to the family member type.

I can answer that one for you.
None!
You don't know whether it would be worse or not.

And where did I say it was factual? You've even referred to my "belief" yourself, so how come that "belief" has now turned into a stated fact?
Is it because that lends creedence to your argument? Without that premise your accusations mean nothing.

I think it would be better for it not to be available at all and I think that would starve this foul fire of fuel.
.

I don't know how much clearer I can say this, I don't like kiddy porn, I don't like it being available BUT it IS available and it won't become unavailable just because you or I want it to be; and based on that conclusion I would prefer that the 's time is spent in front of the computer instead of in the park or the kids knickers.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is what I mean about you being blinkered. The genii will never be put back in the bottle in the same way that the 'drug war' will ever be won. One has to make the most of a bad situation instead of pie in the sky notions about there being a total cleansing any time soon.
It's called pragmatism.
Well I plain just don't agree with you then. Pragmatism is what Chamberlain had in mind when he tried to negotiate with Hitler (Nazis!!!!!!!!!). If everybody wanted to be unavailable it would be unavailable.
Oh and I certainly haven't seen any genii on this thread. I've seen the odd argumentative soul try to pull a genie out of a bottle but it didn't work!
.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Play nicely people - this little bird has had enough and is flying away.

Shall I fly away with you? lol

Nah, not taking the arguing with me.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross
Well I plain just don't agree with you then. Pragmatism is what Chamberlain had in mind when he tried to negotiate with Hitler (Nazis!!!!!!!!!). If everybody wanted to be unavailable it would be unavailable.

And if the moon was made of green cheese we'd run out of crackers.

Oh and I certainly haven't seen any genii on this thread. I've seen the odd argumentative soul try to pull a genie out of a bottle but it didn't work!
.

Far be it from me to put a dent in your belief system, but the next time the Sun announces that another has committed an atrocity we'll now know it's because he ignored your desire for him to magically overnight cease to be a .
Whilst you're at it if you can find a cure for cancer I'm sure rather a lot of people will be in your debt. In the meantime they'll probably just carry on being treated in the real world.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut

Well I plain just don't agree with you then. Pragmatism is what Chamberlain had in mind when he tried to negotiate with Hitler (Nazis!!!!!!!!!). If everybody wanted to be unavailable it would be unavailable.

And if the moon was made of green cheese we'd run out of crackers.

Oh and I certainly haven't seen any genii on this thread. I've seen the odd argumentative soul try to pull a genie out of a bottle but it didn't work!
.

Far be it from me to put a dent in your belief system, but the next time the Sun announces that another has committed an atrocity we'll now know it's because he ignored your desire for him to magically overnight cease to be a .
Whilst you're at it if you can find a cure for cancer I'm sure rather a lot of people will be in your debt. In the meantime they'll probably just carry on being treated in the real world.
That doesn't mean that we've not to strive to eradicate it rather than accept it. Aim where I'm aiming and we'll end up in a better place than your aim would put us.
And I don't think references to cancer are appropriate at all.
.

17 Sep 2008

*puts fingers in her ears and starts humming to herself, rocking slightly back and forth*
Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?
Goodbye cruel forum...
:cry:

17 Sep 2008

Quote by noladreams30
Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?

Come into my PM box, we'll talk about Wigan :twisted:

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut
To be honest I would far prefer a got his jollies by looking at pics on his computer rather than going out and finding the real thing.

not much in life turns my stomach but this statement is probably the worst I have ever seen on here....word fail me.........

17 Sep 2008

Quote by markz

To be honest I would far prefer a got his jollies by looking at pics on his computer rather than going out and finding the real thing.

not much in life turns my stomach but this statement is probably the worst I have ever seen on here....word fail me.........
Apart from those 23 obviously.

17 Sep 2008

This thread has been close to being locked a number of times over the last few hours. It is the final time I will say it...
Stop the constant bickering !!! Play nicely or don't play at all confused

:? :?
Just to remind everyone once again what the topic is!

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I feel changing laws can not really protect our children.
You can give out stiffer sentences which then would keep one locked up, but there will always be many to step into their shoes.
I feel all we can do is arm our children with the knowledge of situations they may find themselves in and best ways to be able to deal with them.
To educate your children about the dangers in life is to help protect them. We all want to wrap them in cotton wool to shield them from danger, me included but I feel it isn’t the best for them.
So I have told my children about cases that have happened in the past and questioned them on what they would do if they found themselves in the same situation
We all want to protect our children from evil, but it is a fact that has always been around since the year dot.
To me to be forearmed is to be forewarned.
A shame but that has always been the way in society.
What are you views?

18 Sep 2008

Well again its one of those unfortunately constructed threads, which suggest there is a beast outside we should all be aware of.
Then people began looking for the beast inside themselves and found it. rolleyes

18 Sep 2008

Quote by anais
This thread has been close to being locked a number of times over the last few hours. It is the final time I will say it...
Stop the constant bickering !!! Play nicely or don't play at all :? :?
Just to remind everyone once again what the topic is!
I feel changing laws can not really protect our children.
You can give out stiffer sentences which then would keep one locked up, but there will always be many to step into their shoes.
I feel all we can do is arm our children with the knowledge of situations they may find themselves in and best ways to be able to deal with them.
To educate your children about the dangers in life is to help protect them. We all want to wrap them in cotton wool to shield them from danger, me included but I feel it isn’t the best for them.
So I have told my children about cases that have happened in the past and questioned them on what they would do if they found themselves in the same situation
We all want to protect our children from evil, but it is a fact that has always been around since the year dot.
To me to be forearmed is to be forewarned.
A shame but that has always been the way in society.
What are you views?

I bought up this thread up to cover all crimes against children and the Laws there that suppose to protect them
.
Laws will not protect my children against, being mugged, knife attack, being pushed drugs etc.
I didnt start the thread as a one dimensional look at the law, but to take all the laws into question, they don't protect our children.
We have to make them aware of the dangers, and to ignore this fact is putting them in danger.

18 Sep 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Play nicely people - this little bird has had enough and is flying away.

Shall I fly away with you? lol

You can both come and join me... I'm over here wave

observing and thinking sad

why??

18 Sep 2008

Quote by anais
This thread has been close to being locked a number of times over the last few hours. It is the final time I will say it...Stop the constant bickering !!! Play nicely or don't play at all :? :?
Just to remind everyone once again what the topic is!
I feel changing laws can not really protect our children.
You can give out stiffer sentences which then would keep one locked up, but there will always be many to step into their shoes.
I feel all we can do is arm our children with the knowledge of situations they may find themselves in and best ways to be able to deal with them.
To educate your children about the dangers in life is to help protect them. We all want to wrap them in cotton wool to shield them from danger, me included but I feel it isn’t the best for them.
So I have told my children about cases that have happened in the past and questioned them on what they would do if they found themselves in the same situation
We all want to protect our children from evil, but it is a fact that has always been around since the year dot.
To me to be forearmed is to be forewarned.
A shame but that has always been the way in society.
What are you views?

The trouble here anais is that this is a very strong and emotive subject. This kind of thing will always generate very strong views.
Bickering is one thing but blatant nastiness is another thing. I only see bickering and whilst I do not agree with some peoples arguements on this strong subject, I do not think any lines have been crossed...yet.
It is a forum for adults who have strong opposing views, how can people debate about these strong subjects without it getting heated? dunno

Of course we all know there are some who need the last word but cannot see too much wrong with that. I think that because there have been a few threads of late that have been very heated, the temptation is to lock the thread. Unless it gets to slagging each other off big time, then my opinion is it is wrong to lock it. If everytime it gets heated it gets locked, whats the point in having a forum?
Just my opinion of course, nothing personnel to anyone. Put the kettle on Mar. lol

18 Sep 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
We have to make them aware of the dangers, and to ignore this fact is putting them in danger.

You are quite that we do have to do this. The skill is knowing how and when. That is difficult to discuss because it will depend very much on the parent, the child and their relationship.
But even then there are no guarantees.
We have a case down here recently where a 21 year old schizophrenic, who was in a low security institution, was allowed to view porn and horror movies by the staff. He escaped, walked over the Severn Bridge, pulled a 14 year old girl off the street and her.
She and her family must be so traumatised it is barely imaginable. The law or some sort of regulation on access to such material may have avoided it - impossible to tell - but I really don't think the parents of that poor girl could have prepared her for that.
That was part of the reason why I was getting a bit hot under the collar last night.
I'm sorry it became unpleasant but it wasn't a hijack.
.

18 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross

We have to make them aware of the dangers, and to ignore this fact is putting them in danger.

You are quite that we do have to do this. The skill is knowing how and when. That is difficult to discuss because it will depend very much on the parent, the child and their relationship.
But even then there are no guarantees.
We have a case down here recently where a 21 year old schizophrenic, who was in a low security institution, was allowed to view porn and horror movies by the staff. He escaped, walked over the Severn Bridge, pulled a 14 year old girl off the street and her.
She and her family must be so traumatised it is barely imaginable. The law or some sort of regulation on access to such material may have avoided it - impossible to tell - but I really don't think the parents of that poor girl could have prepared her for that.
That was part of the reason why I was getting a bit hot under the collar last night.
I'm sorry it became unpleasant but it wasn't a hijack.
.
His own family have been torn apart by his actions as well. He killed his 6 mth old baby brother when he was 11 yrs old. In my personal opinion (and many others where I live) he shouldn't have been in a low security unit.
My thoughts were certainly with the young woman and her family when I heard...

18 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird

Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?

Come into my PM box, we'll talk about Wigan:twisted: :shock: Me? What have I done?
wink

18 Sep 2008

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple

Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?

Come into my PM box, we'll talk about Wigan:twisted: :shock: Me? What have I done?
wink

Shouldn't that be "what haven't I done?" lol

18 Sep 2008

Quote by winchwench
Shouldn't that be "what haven't I done?"

If it is what I haven't done, then there is a lot of scope for things to talk about wink

18 Sep 2008

Quote by winchwench

Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?

Come into my PM box, we'll talk about Wigan:twisted: :shock: Me? What have I done?
wink

Shouldn't that be "what haven't I done?" lol

Me :twisted:

18 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird

Where has all the fun gone? Wherefore art thou sexy chat and laughter?

Come into my PM box, we'll talk about Wigan:twisted: :shock: Me? What have I done?
wink

Shouldn't that be "what haven't I done?" lol

Me :twisted:
Me too redface