Can changing the law really protect our children?

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
If there was no end user, there would be less demand for the abuser!

True. But the reality is, there is an end user. Pictures could mean less children abused if there's no reason for the to go out and find a child to physically abuse.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird
the laws that are put in place to protect us all often fall far short from what they are supposed to do.
however the laws surrounding children and child abuse are pathetic to say the least.
peanut, i read your post several times and maybe my experiences are what stop me from being able to read it objectively. when one person is found to have 150,000 pictures of children ranging from babies of a couple of days old how is that any better than the person who actually tortured those children he's wanking over?
i live in hope that there are some out there who can live all their lives without giving in to the temptation to abuse a child sexually by whatever means. but i seriously think that is highly unlikely.
someone mentioned children being killed at the end of the abuse to try and provent being found out. for some i'm not sure which is the worst because once you are dead the nightmare stops. but for the living it's something you have to cope with for the rest of your life, a living nightmare. it doesn't just effect one part of your life and can not always be left behind.
to try and protect your children and in such a way as to not take away all innosence is a mamoth task.
whips

But it's a task which many parents manage remarkably well.
I think Peanut's point (and he'll correct me if I'm mistaken) is that the pictures have already been made available - by wanking over them, the is not hurting that child, or any other, any further. It's not a good situation, but it's better than yet another child being abused, surely?
Thank you, yes, that's spot on. I really don't understand why people can't see that point.
The people with no sense of objectiveness on this topic cry that the child in the picture is being violated over and over again because their picture is being perved over. That's total bollocks. A person is violated when they know they are violated. What they really mean is that they, the righteous one, are being offended over and over.
As I said before if it's a choice of them wanking over pictures and wanking over a child they have genuinely violated then it's the pictures every time.
Now I'm the world's worst for seeing things in black and white due to my wiring, but even I can see that this isn't an ideal world and there will always be paedophiles in it. So isn't it better that they get their kicks in their head instead of the real world?
So a question for the pious, you take away their pics, then what? Have you taken away their lust too? Or have you just taken away their last threads of hesitance about going out there and offending?

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
the laws that are put in place to protect us all often fall far short from what they are supposed to do.
however the laws surrounding children and child abuse are pathetic to say the least.
peanut, i read your post several times and maybe my experiences are what stop me from being able to read it objectively. when one person is found to have 150,000 pictures of children ranging from babies of a couple of days old how is that any better than the person who actually tortured those children he's wanking over?
i live in hope that there are some out there who can live all their lives without giving in to the temptation to abuse a child sexually by whatever means. but i seriously think that is highly unlikely.
someone mentioned children being killed at the end of the abuse to try and provent being found out. for some i'm not sure which is the worst because once you are dead the nightmare stops. but for the living it's something you have to cope with for the rest of your life, a living nightmare. it doesn't just effect one part of your life and can not always be left behind.
to try and protect your children and in such a way as to not take away all innosence is a mamoth task.
whips

But it's a task which many parents manage remarkably well.
I think Peanut's point (and he'll correct me if I'm mistaken) is that the pictures have already been made available - by wanking over them, the is not hurting that child, or any other, any further. It's not a good situation, but it's better than yet another child being abused, surely?
If there was no end user, there would be less demand for the abuser!
Ah, so you're one of the "it's the pics that caused them to be a in the first place" are you?
I wonder what they did before the Internet? rolleyes

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Peanut, you are a proven antagonist, so you will no doubt be able to twist even that statement into something to suit your ends.

Your arguments were at least reasonable and well-presented before that comment - that just looks as if you have posted to antagonise Peanut.

17 Sep 2008

Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Don't insult my intelligence, they were already a before they viewd the pictures, that is why they obtained them, but it's generally only the start, very few (I would imagine) stay satisfied by pictures.

I think it is you trying to insult our group intelligence. You are the one who brought the "end user" to the table. The end user is someone who is already a , the pics had nothing to do with their personality disorder, therefore your argument is moot.

I wanked to porn mags before I the first time I had sex, I didn't find the porn satisfying enough!

Presumably, whilst being subject to the raging hormones of a young man you didn't go out and anyone? No doubt the porn helped in some small way as a vent for your desires.

Peanut, you are a proven antagonist, so you will no doubt be able to twist even that statement into something to suit your ends.

Proven by whom?
I can't twist statements that are valid, make sense and are factual.
If you wish to bolster your arguments by name calling rather than debating then that's up to you. Do not blame me for calling you on it.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

In theory yes, but the evil had to take place first.
An evil that may then help prevent numerous other evils from taking place.
That's what the expression the lesser of two evils means!
banghead

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

In theory yes, but the evil had to take place first.
If only there could be a "morphine" tyoe substitute for images, I'd rather not use the word pornography as I feel it's not a part of the genre, but of course, there never could be.
The give away is in the "two evils."

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

In theory yes, but the evil had to take place first.
If only there could be a "morphine" tyoe substitute for images, I'd rather not use the word pornography as I feel it's not a part of the genre, but of course, there never could be.
The give away is in the "two evils."
In edit- or two posts redface

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

In theory yes, but the evil had to take place first.
An evil that may then help prevent numerous other evils from taking place.
That's what the expression the lesser of two evils means!
banghead

You really are laughable, and I'm starting to wonder why you are justifying their production!
I'd be very careful if I were you should you choose to carry on in that direction.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
What direction might that be?

acting like a "cock" direction! rolleyes

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
Whether or not it works is one thing. However, in principle it's a clear cut lesser of the two evils scenario.

In theory yes, but the evil had to take place first.
An evil that may then help prevent numerous other evils from taking place.
That's what the expression the lesser of two evils means!
banghead

You really are laughable, and I'm starting to wonder why you are justifying their production!
Can you clarify what you mean please? Genuine question. The Peanut is justifying the production of what? Did I miss something? dunno

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
You really are laughable, and I'm starting to wonder why you are justifying their production!

He's not trying to justify it, and that comment could be construed as libellous.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
He is justifying to the point of advocating the production of indecent images of minors, saying it's better for a few to commit the abuse and share the images with other none active (physical) abusers, as it reduces the number of abusers...poppycock!

Sure fire way of going down the locked thread route, I think. You're overstepping the mark, Hibernian.

17 Sep 2008

Please guys lets keep to A DEBATE I for one am really getting pissed off with the petty tit fot tat that goes on here.
I am really thinking about pulling out of the forums altogether if this thread gets locked I am not going to bother anymore.
A debate of different opinions is a good one, but to have this time after time becomes bloody boring.
Rant over.

:banghead: :banghead:

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
i didn't say that i have no objectiveness, just that due to personal experience i can't see it objectively.

And the difference is? I'm sorry but to me it means the same thing.

that is me on a personal level and maybe a failing in your eyes. but then you don't have the same personal view point on the subject that i do.

You are making rather a few assumptions here and taking a lot for granted aren't you?
I really don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself considers herself to be so unique in these situations.

don't judge everyone who can not look at this in the same light as you are doing. it shows very little sight on your part to do so.
whips

Actually, it seems to be you displaying a particularly narrow sight, one based on very little evidence and an awful lot of supposition.

17 Sep 2008

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?

My overall view is that the laws presently in place in this country are sufficient.
The Sexual Offences Act (as ammended), together with other changes to legislation, make it pretty tough for a perpetrator to slip through the net once a complaint has been made AND/OR their actions are under scrutiny.
In the same way this Government has made it illegal to carry out a number of less serious activities... or get away with them. they took a look at the FACTS and duly altered the law.
They can use "traps" such as undercover police officers posing as children, a defendants previous convictions against the defendant, the defendants silence as an inference of guilt..........the list goes on!!!
They have also looked at sentencing and made that harsher can lock up people for indeterminate sentences.....
where do the present problems exist then .........
1) poor policing.
2) Weak prosecutors
3) victims failing to come forward when it matters
The systems are in place..... its the cogs in the wheel that dont fit properly.

17 Sep 2008

My take on this entire debate is the following:
Peanut the manner that you put your argument does have some logic yet is really touching the nerve of people.
I would come across as more understanding if people don't understand instead of being confrontational or 'Devil's Advocate'.
Really cutting-edge views will 'hurt' people as they are 'sharp'.
Hibernian you mentioned that when you where young you hated or disliked Gay Men. This was due to issues in your past, of which you have not mentioned.
I respect your privacy yet I can feel that this subject is very personal to you.
What is needed from you both is just understanding & being civil to each other.
I can see both sides, you both should do as well.
If you disagree then agree to this.
Read my previous post in this thread about the British mentality of being judegmental.
Come together not apart.
Yet thanks for the two of you in having such views & expressing them.
From,
Wunderhorse.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian

You really are laughable, and I'm starting to wonder why you are justifying their production!

He's not trying to justify it, and that comment could be construed as libellous.
Not libellous at all, I'm not accusing him of anything, it's my understanding of his own words.

You should read up a little on libel before jumping to conclusions like that.

He'll be telling us next he's an expert in the field, he's already implied he's "possibly" a forensic scientist" and last night that he is "possibly" a surgean/medical practitioner.

No I'm not a "forensic scientist" and no I'm not a "surgean/medical practitioner" (sic).

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird

Peanut, you are a proven antagonist, so you will no doubt be able to twist even that statement into something to suit your ends.

Your arguments were at least reasonable and well-presented before that comment - that just looks as if you have posted to antagonise Peanut.
Whats good for one is good for another... no? dunno

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut
No I'm not a "forensic scientist" and no I'm not a "surgean/medical practitioner" (sic).

Come on, Peanut.
Leave it out. You have said your point...
Sometimes it's best when you say NOTHING at all.
Am not saying you are wrong or have any basis in what you express. Just leave it & walk away.
As it's getting worse.
From,
Wunderhorse.

17 Sep 2008

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?

Just to remind you what the original post was, lets get back on track a bit eh? :smile:
Those who wish to carry on with the personal stuff - do so elsewhere!

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
A stated opinion can never be libellous, it only becomes libellous if you state it as fact!

Tell that to Laurence Godfrey

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Freckledbird
He is justifying to the point of advocating the production of indecent images of minors, saying it's better for a few to commit the abuse and share the images with other none active (physical) abusers, as it reduces the number of abusers...poppycock!

Sure fire way of going down the locked thread route, I think. You're overstepping the mark, Hibernian.
I hope not FB as this is a very interesting thread.
It is a subject that stirs peoples thoughts and anger. There are a few subjects that do that of late and this is one of them.
Lets see if we can all get along. lol

:lol:
With anais issueing a warning maybe now is the time to get back on track peeps, BEFORE it is locked.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by anais
Just to remind you what the original post was, lets get back on track a bit eh? :smile:
Those who wish to carry on with the personal stuff - do so elsewhere!

Thank you some logic has been told.
Normally, it's me being told off for my style in the Forum... biggrin

:shock:
Be good & let's keep this 'Train on the right tracks'.
From,
Wunderhorse.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs

i didn't say that i have no objectiveness, just that due to personal experience i can't see it objectively.

And the difference is? I'm sorry but to me it means the same thing.

that is me on a personal level and maybe a failing in your eyes. but then you don't have the same personal view point on the subject that i do.

You are making rather a few assumptions here and taking a lot for granted aren't you?
I really don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself considers herself to be so unique in these situations.

don't judge everyone who can not look at this in the same light as you are doing. it shows very little sight on your part to do so.
whips

Actually, it seems to be you displaying a particularly narrow sight, one based on very little evidence and an awful lot of supposition.
i only said that i can't look at what you have written objectively, it doesn't mean i can't be objective in other situations or different areas of the same subject. for me the person wanking over child abuse pictures is just as bad as the person who produced them in the first place. it may not be for you or for others, it just is for me.
i'm not taking anything for granted, nore i have i claimed to be 'unique'. all i said was that this was 'my' personal view point. others may think the same they may not. however, no two situations are the same and nore will they effect any two people the same. therefore this is only my personal view. i also don't think that my intelligence has anything to do with my views. if it did then the irrational way i react to certain triggers would not happen because my intelligence would tell me i'm no longer in that situation. sadly it doesn't stop it happening.
i'm not displaying a narrow sight at all, just asking to not be judged for having a different opinion that doesn't match yours. i haven't judged you for what you have written, i'm just saying that i can't look at it the same way you do. my personal situation won't let me.
if you want to pick this apart also feel free. it really doesn't matter. as usual we all have our own opinions on an emotive subject.
whips
Sounds very reasonable to me that whips.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs

i didn't say that i have no objectiveness, just that due to personal experience i can't see it objectively.

And the difference is? I'm sorry but to me it means the same thing.

that is me on a personal level and maybe a failing in your eyes. but then you don't have the same personal view point on the subject that i do.

You are making rather a few assumptions here and taking a lot for granted aren't you?
I really don't understand why an intelligent person like yourself considers herself to be so unique in these situations.

don't judge everyone who can not look at this in the same light as you are doing. it shows very little sight on your part to do so.
whips

Actually, it seems to be you displaying a particularly narrow sight, one based on very little evidence and an awful lot of supposition.
i only said that i can't look at what you have written objectively, it doesn't mean i can't be objective in other situations or different areas of the same subject. for me the person wanking over child abuse pictures is just as bad as the person who produced them in the first place. it may not be for you or for others, it just is for me.

My comment wasn't related to different situations which is why I was confused by your response. Now you've explained it I'm not.

i'm not taking anything for granted, nore i have i claimed to be 'unique'. all i said was that this was 'my' personal view point. others may think the same they may not. however, no two situations are the same and nore will they effect any two people the same. therefore this is only my personal view. i also don't think that my intelligence has anything to do with my views. if it did then the irrational way i react to certain triggers would not happen because my intelligence would tell me i'm no longer in that situation. sadly it doesn't stop it happening.

The thing is we aren't talking about any specific situations, we are only talking about general themes, but you did keep alluding to specific, but non-disclosed things as if they gave you a unique insight into the things that are being talked about. I'm pretty sure, whilst attempting to read between the lines, that there are several people in this thread who have personal experience of this topic, and as you say their responses are different.
Yes you have your own perspective on this, everyone does, but the impression I got from the way you wrote it was that your views were the right ones because of your own experiences. My comment wasn't to denigrate those experiences but to get across the fact that there are others with similar experiences who don't feel like you do, thereby making your view of uniqueness (as I was my understanding of what you wrote) quite erroneous.

i'm not displaying a narrow sight at all, just asking to not be judged for having a different opinion that doesn't match yours. i haven't judged you for what you have written, i'm just saying that i can't look at it the same way you do. my personal situation won't let me.

I don't judge you, never have done. My only point was that you weren't the only one in this thread with an insight into the topic matter.

if you want to pick this apart also feel free. it really doesn't matter. as usual we all have our own opinions on an emotive subject.
whips

I don't want to pick it apart, though I have tried to clarify some things that have been misunderstood by both of us.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Hibernian
He is justifying to the point of advocating the production of indecent images of minors, saying it's better for a few to commit the abuse and share the images with other none active (physical) abusers, as it reduces the number of abusers...poppycock!

Poppycock indeed! :thumbup:
That I think is a fair interpretation of what Peanut was saying, in a few more words.
It is absolute garbage to suggest that making things like that available on the internet will keep paedophiles - even temporarily - away from causing harm. It winds them up to a greater degree of twisted debauchery. It is rightly banned and should not be rationalised as Peanut was suggesting.
On Minxy's original question - the answer must be 'No'. You can't legislate for good parentage.
.

17 Sep 2008

Quote by westerross
He is justifying to the point of advocating the production of indecent images of minors, saying it's better for a few to commit the abuse and share the images with other none active (physical) abusers, as it reduces the number of abusers...poppycock!

Poppycock indeed! :thumbup:
That I think is a fair interpretation of what Peanut was saying, in a few more words.
It is absolute garbage to suggest that making things like that available on the internet will keep paedophiles - even temporarily - away from causing harm. It winds them up to a greater degree of twisted debauchery. It is rightly banned and should not be rationalised as Peanut was suggesting.
On Minxy's original question - the answer must be 'No'. You can't legislate for good parentage.
.
WTF don't people read things properly before spouting off?
Go read my original post again and you will see exactly what I think about kiddy porn and it has fuck all to do with justifying anything let alone the production and distribution of kiddy porn.
banghead

17 Sep 2008

Quote by Peanut
He is justifying to the point of advocating the production of indecent images of minors, saying it's better for a few to commit the abuse and share the images with other none active (physical) abusers, as it reduces the number of abusers...poppycock!

Poppycock indeed! :thumbup:
That I think is a fair interpretation of what Peanut was saying, in a few more words.
It is absolute garbage to suggest that making things like that available on the internet will keep paedophiles - even temporarily - away from causing harm. It winds them up to a greater degree of twisted debauchery. It is rightly banned and should not be rationalised as Peanut was suggesting.
On Minxy's original question - the answer must be 'No'. You can't legislate for good parentage.
.
WTF don't people read things properly before spouting off?
Go read my original post again and you will see exactly what I think about kiddy porn and it has fuck all to do with justifying anything let alone the production and distribution of kiddy porn.
banghead

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!!
.