Putting Paedophilia in Perspective [Archive]

Kermit

12-10-2003, 07:48 PM

Paedophilia is a horrible crime, and can have serious effects on the victim for many years to come. That is not is dispute.

What is in dispute is just what a huge amount of media time is given over to this type of crime, and the according amount of worry parents give to it. Thousands of children are killed each year by speeding drivers and by drink-drivers, yet the media and parents dont believe that speeding is a serious offence. Drink driving has only very very recently become socially unacceptable, but tens of thousands of people still do it each year.

Hundreds of children die each year through domestic fire, yet there is no media campaign to get everyone to have smoke alarms. Many homes STILL DO NOT HAVE WORKING SMOKE ALARMS, yet I will bet my bottom dollar that these parents tell their children to not talk to strangers, but dont buy something that is substantially more likely to save their childrens' lives.

Many people on here seem to believe that paedos are everywhere, and that children are not safe because there are a few perverts knocking about, yet those same people are against speed-detection cameras, and do not buy smoke alarms. Some paedos are deeply deeply sick people, and anyone who hurts children should be punished severely. but most paedophilic crimes are little more than some pathetic old man putting his hand inside some little girl's knickers for a few moments.

I just can't help but feel that people have got the wrong idea about their childs safety. Because, at the end of the day, I doubt that theres many parents who believe that having their daughter touched inappropriately by their lecherous uncle is worse than seeing their daughter getting mown down in the street by a drunk-driver or by a driver doing 35mph down a residtential street.

Talk about getting your priorities wrong.

xxauroraxx

12-10-2003, 09:48 PM

Strangely, I agree. I think you have managed to say everything I have wanted to say on the matter.
Stats show that children are hurt and abused by members of their own family more often than by a complete stranger and yet the media would have us believe that "they" are everywhere.

I think it gives parents an excuse not to allow their children any freedom at all.

morrocan roll

12-10-2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
Paedophilia is a horrible crime,

but most paedophilic crimes are little more than some pathetic old man putting his hand inside some little girl's knickers for a few moments.

Talk about getting your priorities wrong. yes lets talk about getting our priorities wrong.
i'm getting old ...so if i just put my hands in your little girs nickers for a 'few moments' ...thats ok? to compare it with road accidents etc shows you have no understanding whatsoever of the subject.
you have no comprehension of being the parent of a child who's nickers were infiltrated for ...a short while. fuck off your sick.

Dear Wendy

12-10-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by xxauroraxx
Strangely, I agree. I think you have managed to say everything I have wanted to say on the matter.
Stats show that children are hurt and abused by members of their own family more often than by a complete stranger and yet the media would have us believe that "they" are everywhere.

I think it gives parents an excuse not to allow their children any freedom at all.

Exactly they are everywhere. Even within circles of people who you trust the most. It has been a tabu for years, and I definitely think it is wrong to say it has been emphasised too much. It isn't. The more people become aware, the more people realise that it is wrong and that shutting one's mouth for the sake of the family won't help anyone, the better.

Parents are not evil creatures. When they restrict in freedom they do it as protection. Sometimes it's exagerated protection, but you can't blame a parent for caring for their child.

morrocan roll

12-10-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Exactly they are everywhere. Even within circles of people who you trust the most. It has been a tabu for years, and I definitely think it is wrong to say it has been emphasised too much. It isn't. The more people become aware, the more people realise that it is wrong and that shutting one's mouth for the sake of the family won't help anyone, the better.

Parents are not evil creatures. When they restrict in freedom they do it as protection. Sometimes it's exagerated protection, but you can't blame a parent for caring for their child. jacq ...i know its not often we agree but ...a parent puts fences and boundries up around a child to protect them from what they don't know or understand. even that is becoming socialy unacceptable in this ...'modern' ...age.

BeckyBoo

12-10-2003, 11:43 PM

Kermit I honestly used to regard you as a sensible poster, what you are saying about peadophiles is so bloody stupid !!!

Peados ARE everywhere only the police dont tell you that you have a peado or someone on the sex register living next door to you.

As a parent I have to say this is one of the worst crimes ever imaginable, to be honest it repluses me more than murder, for the fact that someone actually gets high on the fact that they are touching, looking at a child, its sick.
The sooner animals who do this are imprisoned for life then thats got to be a good thing.
I understand totally how Mr Roll is feeling at this moment and i dread to think what I would do to someone who touched my Daughter.
Peadophiles need to be taken away from society and locked up and throw away the key. They are scum and they deserve all they get !!!!!!!

Also for the people who have not got children/toddlers come back when you have and tell me your view then, I guarantee you view will have dramatically changed !!

Edited to add :
Rather a sensitive time for you to post something of this nature.

Charlie'dAngel

13-10-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Kermit
Paedophilia is a horrible crime, and can have serious effects on the victim for many years to come. That is not is dispute.

What is in dispute is just what a huge amount of media time is given over to this type of crime, and the according amount of worry parents give to it. Thousands of children are killed each year by speeding drivers and by drink-drivers, yet the media and parents dont believe that speeding is a serious offence. Drink driving has only very very recently become socially unacceptable, but tens of thousands of people still do it each year.

Hundreds of children die each year through domestic fire, yet there is no media campaign to get everyone to have smoke alarms. Many homes STILL DO NOT HAVE WORKING SMOKE ALARMS, yet I will bet my bottom dollar that these parents tell their children to not talk to strangers, but dont buy something that is substantially more likely to save their childrens' lives.

Many people on here seem to believe that paedos are everywhere, and that children are not safe because there are a few perverts knocking about, yet those same people are against speed-detection cameras, and do not buy smoke alarms. Some paedos are deeply deeply sick people, and anyone who hurts children should be punished severely. but most paedophilic crimes are little more than some pathetic old man putting his hand inside some little girl's knickers for a few moments.

I just can't help but feel that people have got the wrong idea about their childs safety. Because, at the end of the day, I doubt that theres many parents who believe that having their daughter touched inappropriately by their lecherous uncle is worse than seeing their daughter getting mown down in the street by a drunk-driver or by a driver doing 35mph down a residtential street.

Talk about getting your priorities wrong.

:mad:
What the hell are you talking about?! The comparisons you make in this post are ridiculous. For one thing they are completely different crimes from each other, all of which are wrong.! Also I think that there is alot of media attention given to drink driving and to the safety of smoke alarms. Anyway I don't see how you can dispute the amount of media time given to this, i mean it's not a question of hogging the limelight is it, it's a fact, there are that many paedos out there, and lets face it... 1 sick fucking perv is 1 too many - 1 child at risk is 1 too many! So i don't think you can question the concern of the parents. And for your information there is no degree of abuse that is ok. Judging by what you say, it's ok for a dirty old perv to be touching a child, because in your eyes that's not a proper paedo.

Your stupid comments are very infuriating... actually you don't even have a point.

In fact everytime i read it again, i'm more inclined to think you have just written this shit to stir some shit.

Either that...............or you're just a fucking idiot :mad:

Miffy

13-10-2003, 09:49 AM

I`d really like to know one thing Kermit. Do you really imagine that a "pathetic old man" who sticks his hands down a little girl`s knickers just does this completely out of the blue one day on a mad whim and it`s an isolated incident ??????

No.

Like the "pathetic old man" who stuck his hands down my knickers when I was a little girl - a family member I might add. I had the wit to tell him to get lost, but when he did it to my little sister too, then the family had to be involved. And that`s when the enormity of everything he`d actually done (that we know of, anyway) came out. Let`s just say he didn`t suddenly decide to do this one day and then leave it at that.

You`re seriously off the mark with this comment, sorry.

JCB

13-10-2003, 10:03 AM

xxauroraxx

13-10-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Peados ARE everywhere only the police dont tell you that you have a peado or someone on the sex register living next door to you.

No, they aren't though, that is the point he is trying to make. There are far greater threats to children in the world that people don't make a song and dance about.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Kermit's last sentence but I agree with what he is basically saying. Does this mean I am condoning paedophilia? Of course it doesn't. It means that I believe that there are far greater dangers facing children in the world.

Dear Wendy

13-10-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by xxauroraxx
No, they aren't though, that is the point he is trying to make. There are far greater threats to children in the world that people don't make a song and dance about.

Thing is, in car accidents, no one was planning or knew that they would be driving into you, and killing your child or whatever. It is indeed sad, and tragic. And I won't start imagining the loss of a child. I have enough problems comprehending the death of adults.

With paedophilia, you have a grown up person, who's supposed to be better-knowing and know right from wrong, who intentionally sexually abuses a child.

Often intent makes all the difference, if you ask me.

Kermit

13-10-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
Paedophilia is a horrible crime, and can have serious effects on the victim for many years to come. That is not is dispute.

Interesting to note how many of you actually read this sentence, before deciding Im some sort of paedo sympathiser. Very interesting indeed.

But before recommencing the flaming just consider a few things.

Around 80 people a week die on the roads, many as a result of speeding or driving under the influence of drink or drugs. A reasonable proportion of these are children.

There are about 20,000 names on the Sex Offenders' Register, (in this Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,350554,00.html) the figure is 12,000, but its slightly out of date) and lets triple it to generously account for those never caught. Thats 100,000 sex offenders. Not all of these are paedophiles. Lets assume two thirds of them are, to be generous. That is about 67,000 paedophiles in the UK. There are 60 million people in the UK. This means that 0.1116667% of the population are paedophiles. Still care to argue that
Orginally posted by BeckyBoo
Peados ARE everywhere only the police dont tell you that you have a peado or someone on the sex register living next door to you.?

Originally posted by Miffy
Like the "pathetic old man" who stuck his hands down my knickers when I was a little girl - a family member I might add. I had the wit to tell him to get lost, but when he did it to my little sister too, then the family had to be involved. And that`s when the enormity of everything he`d actually done (that we know of, anyway) came out. Let`s just say he didn`t suddenly decide to do this one day and then leave it at that.

I never said paedophilia was anything other than a deeply disgusting crime, that has the ability to cause serious damage. I never said it wasnt serious for the victims. I never said paedos suddenly decided to abuse children out of the blue- often paedos were abused themselves, for starters. But what I AM saying is that there are other things which are more harmful to more people- not that victims of paedophiles dont deserve justice and help and everything, before more flaming commences- but that in the mania of paedophilia the important things are forgotten. Peoples houses are burned down because they happened to once be occupied by paedos, yet children are not taught the Green Cross Code in school any more. People go on the rampage for "Sarahs Law" yet they demand that speed cameras are torn down because they "victimise" speeding drivers. Interesting to note that most drink-drivers are not first-time offenders either, so that argument is ridiculous.

I expected this flaming, and Im almost pleased it came. Proves everything that Brass Eye said to be true...

Kermit

13-10-2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Often intent makes all the difference, if you ask me.

tell that to the family of a five-year-old girl in Ashington who was killed by a banned driver doing 50mpgh thorugh a red light. Im sure he didnt intend for there to be a car there, but the girl is still dead and the younger sister is still seriously brain damaged.

For every victim of paedophilia there are at least 30 victims of drink-driving or speeding.

Aladdin

13-10-2003, 12:45 PM

I personally agree with the point Kermit was trying to make. Far too much emphasis is being put by the media if not by the parents. It's their favourite word in the world and they're happy to plaster it all over the front pages at any given chance. Not much mention of anything else.

They're positively creating an atmosphere of fear and recrimination, where a parent cannot take a photo of their child naked in the bath without some clueless tosser at the processing lab calling the police; where stopping to watch children play football in a school playground would be suicide; or where the automatic reaction by many when hearing of an eccentric but clearly harmless man who likes to ramble in the nude is that ''it mustn't be allowed, what if he attacks children?''

We really must get a grip on the situation ffs, and don't let certain right-wing tabloids who love exploiting this particular crime but have little time for anything else run the agenda.

I don't see any News of the World-sponsored lynch mobs hounding drunk drivers out of their homes. I wonder why...

Kermit

13-10-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin
I don't see any News of the World-sponsored lynch mobs hounding drunk drivers out of their homes. I wonder why...

Quite the opposite in fact.

At 20mph nearly all children would survive being hit by a car. At 30mph about half would. At 35mph about a third would. At 40mph few would.

Yet the right-wing tabloid media are out campaigning for the REMOVAL of traffic-calming measures such as speed humps and chicanes, and the REMOVAL of speed-prevention cameras. Quite hypocritical I have to say...

LadyJade

13-10-2003, 12:58 PM

There is a certain amount of hysteria about it though, and emotion runs very high, just look at this thread!

I do find it strange that this topic makes otherwise rational and compassionate people, (who are generally staunch supporters of everyones right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty etc,) willing to decry people at the merest hint of pedophilia, proven or not, and turning into a lynch mob and demanding dicks on sticks.

How many people believe that this kind of behavior is a mental illness, and how many of you believe it is the act of someone inherently evil?

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo

Edited to add :
Rather a sensitive time for you to post something of this nature.

Kermit......no comment I see :rolleyes:

Adults are there to protect children NOT abuse them, how the fuck can you compare a sick peado touching children, which is planned and thought out, to someone having a car accident......the two are total opposites and cannot be compared.

If you wanted to talk about car accidents then you should have started a thread about car accidents, not bringing peadophiles into the equasion.

LadyJade

13-10-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Kermit......no comment I see :rolleyes:

If this issue is important BeckyBoo, and I know you believe it is, then it is important to talk about it. I know what you are getting at, but who was the discussion started by in the first instance?

Kermit

13-10-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Kermit......no comment I see :rolleyes:

Ill say what I want when I want. For some people any time will be a sensitive time :rolleyes:

Adults are there to protect children NOT abuse them, how the fuck can you compare a sick peado touching children, which is planned and thought out, to someone having a car accident......the two are total opposites and cannot be compared.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Thats exactly what I mean! Its not having a car accident, its getting into a car when you are unfit to drive it, its driving too fast down a side street, its ignoring red lights. Many people plan it and think it through, or at the very least dont actually care enough about the consequences- Id love you to tell the family of that little girl in Ashington that it was "just an accident".

How are the two total opposites though? A child is dead, another child is seriously injured- its the same end result. You dont seemt o be able to quite grasp the fact that I am NOT agreeing with paedophilia when I denounce media hysteria. Do you not understand how you can be critical of one situation without tolerating the other? Or are you so clouded with emotion that you dont actually LISTEN to what I am saying?

If you wanted to talk about car accidents then you should have started a thread about car accidents, not bringing peadophiles into the equasion.

The point of this thread was that there are many more dangerous situations regarding children, situations that can be AVOIDED, that dont get the media attention and the parental HYSTERIA. Its not about car acciodents, its not about house fires, its about people getting some Goddamn PERSPECTIVE about dangers and threats. And before that is lazily used as an argument against me, Im NOT saying that the victims of paedophilia should just grow up, or that paedophilia isnt seriously wrong. Its just not a huge problem in this country, unless you think 0.11167% of the population is huge.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by LadyJade
If this issue is important BeckyBoo, and I know you believe it is, then it is important to talk about it.

Ok, yes I find it hard to comprehend someone starting a thread at even trying to discuss peadophillia at this level when we have a well known member from these forums going through this nightmare of having a peado in the family.
I dont think kermit actually thought about what Mr Roll would feel like at having this discussion/debate right now, he could have waited for the dust to settle before starting a topic of this nature.

Mr roll wanted to talk to people, release some of that anger I suppose, I dont think he thought for one minuite that he would come here and see a thread like this made.

I think it was very insensitive to post this thread at this particular time.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
Ill say what I want when I want.

Without thinking that you could be upsetting someone who is going through a tuff time at that moment ?

Very nice I must say :rolleyes:

Kermit

13-10-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Without thinking that you could be upsetting someone who is going through a tuff time at that moment ?

Very nice I must say :rolleyes:

You gonna stop to think for one minute why I started a new thread about it? Or not?

It was obvious from the title what it was going to be about, anyone who is gonna be offended has no need to read it.

When would you suggest I post it then? 2078?

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
When would you suggest I post it then? 2078?

No need to be sarcastic, a few days would have been a lot better. But there again as you have already stated you will post what you want when you want so pointless debating that eh.

Kermit

13-10-2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
No need to be sarcastic, a few days would have been a lot better. But there again as you have already stated you will post what you want when you want so pointless debating that eh.

If something needs to be said, it needs to be said. If you cant get the jist of this thread from the title then youre not really paying attention, and Im not going to pussy-foot around just so that no-one anywhere gets offended ever. Because thats not how debating works.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
If something needs to be said, it needs to be said.

and this was very important to you and you had to get it of your chest immediately didnt you.

*yawn*

Whatever !!!!

Kermit

13-10-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
and this was very important to you and you had to get it of your chest immediately didnt you.

Now that you mention it, yes I did.

Skive

13-10-2003, 01:54 PM

Topics about peadophillia are flying all about the place at the moment and it was Mr Roll that brought it to the boards. He may be having a tough time at the moment, but if you bring a subject like that here you are going to have to accept that people are going to want to discuss it and they are going to have different opinions.

I totally agree with the point Kermit is making here - there are far higher risks to children than perverts that often get ingnored because of the hysteria over peadophillia. Drink drivers and speeders are much 'real' threats than peadophillia, but from the impression the media gives us there's peado on every street. I'm not saying parents shouldn't be cautious about the threat of perverts but it's important not to get carried away.

Becky I know it's not really a fair question but I'm gong to ask it anyway ...who would you feel more angry towards - a pervert who's molested your child or a drink driver who's runover and killed your child?

Personally I would be more devestated by the drink driver situation but then I'm not a parent yet.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Skive
Becky I know it's not really a fair question but I'm gong to ask it anyway ...who would you feel more angry towards - a pervert who's molested your child or a drink driver who's runover and killed your child?

Ask me when I have been in that position, until I have been there then I cannot make comment. Either one id be a *woman possesed* and Id make the person suffer like they made my Daughter.

Kermit

13-10-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Ask me when I have been in that position, until I have been there then I cannot make comment. Either one id be a *woman possesed* and Id make the person suffer like they made my Daughter.

In a random tangent, and again its asked in the same spirit as Skive's question:

What is preferable? seeing your child molested or seeing your child killed by a speeding driver? And that questions to everyone, really.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
In a random tangent, and again its asked in the same spirit as Skive's question:

What is preferable? seeing your child molested or seeing your child killed by a speeding driver? And that questions to everyone, really.

Your not listening are you, im not prepared to make comment on something like this which has never happened to me.
Whichever crime then the perpetrator would probably have me on their back till I went to my grave.

Toadborg

13-10-2003, 02:47 PM

Kermit: I agree with you

Good posting.............

Toadborg

13-10-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Charlie'dAngel
[B 1 child at risk is 1 too many! [/B]

Then you will support a ban on all traffic then? That is the only way kids are a 100% safe fcrom being knocked ocer..............

Dear Wendy

13-10-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Aladdin

We really must get a grip on the situation ffs, and don't let certain right-wing tabloids who love exploiting this particular crime but have little time for anything else run the agenda.

I am sorry, but political affiliation has nothing to do with this. Look at the people who seem most passionate about this topic, and noticve that they've often made their stance known as left-winged.
Everything which is right-winged isn't evil, and everything which is evil isn't right-winged. Same goes for the left. Pretty easy to lose perspective when not keeping that in mind.

Now, I will agree that people have totally misunderstood Kermit's post, which I think just states that maybe the UK doesn't emphasise speed/drink/drug driving enough. Personally in Denmark they start new campaigns every second year or so. And just started a new one, which has the slogan "Speed makes bad, worse" (directly translated from Danish. It plays on a common phrase we use here).
U just don't think it's fair to say that Paedophilia, gets highlighted too much. Maybe in the wrong way, on that I can agree.

BeckyBoo, when Moroccan Roll, let us all into this, I think he expected a reaction. Shows that we're not all apathetic creatures. But that a lot of us, who don't have this problem in our nearest circle, will actually take time out to discuss it, and think it through. I think that's the best reception this subject could get. And as Kermit never stated that he agrees with paedophilia, didn't even hint out that people should be sympathetic with paedophiles, then I don't get were the frustration and anger comes from.
You've been told that by himself, so it really makes no sense that you keep discussing it as if he was supporting paedophilia, or whatever idea you have.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
BeckyBoo, when Moroccan Roll, let us all into this, I think he expected a reaction.

I dont know, we will have to let him answer that. I personally feel that he needed to speak to someone apart from the family, just to get some of the anger out of his system. Im not saying he wanted us to sit here saying "everything will be fine" but at times when you are down like that then a few nice wods are a comfort.

Im not angry, Jacq really if I was angry then I would have let my mouth go much more than I have. I am just standing up for something that I feel very strong about, what kind of upset me was the fact that as I think ive made clear is that this thread could have been left for a few days just till Mr roll got over his shock. Its all about timing and to me on this kermits timing was wrong.

Id love to get into a full blown debate about peadophiles but because of certain events lately im not prepared to, Id rather leave it till the dust does settle a bit. Its called being compassionate as I can well imagine how Mr Roll is feeling so why make him feel any worse and start debating this now ?

Dear Wendy

13-10-2003, 04:26 PM

When he has started a discussion concerning this himself, but raise some other points, then how would this be inconciderate?
Obviously he was ready to let us into this to some degree, and he knows that our opinions (especially on this board) clash, so I don't really see where that argument is leading to.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
and he knows that our opinions (especially on this board) clash, so I don't really see where that argument is leading to.

There is no argument.......merely opinion, which my happens to be different from other peoples.

VinylVicky

13-10-2003, 04:55 PM

I agree vaguely with what Kermit has said. However a child is murdered is not a good thing, ever. I dont think there is enough coverage of perverts though. There is more drink driving and smoke alrm ads than nspcc. More people are killed by road accidents and fire accidents than by perverts. However most people drive a car or cool in their kitchen, so there are bound to be more.
peodophillia (sp) has to be a mental illness! The others re not, they are in very different leagues and should not be looked on as the same. It is madness to think such! Maybe we should look at making more awareness for safety of every aspect not bitching and saying one gets more than the other.

Skive

13-10-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
I agree vaguely with what Kermit has said. However a child is murdered is not a good thing, ever. I dont think there is enough coverage of perverts though. There is more drink driving and smoke alrm ads than nspcc. More people are killed by road accidents and fire accidents than by perverts.

The point was that there are many greater dangers to children than peadophiles. The media has whipped up a hysteria amongst the population leaving them to believe that a peadophille llive on every street, when in actual fact the risk from peadophilles is small in comparrison to that of say drink drivers.

This hysteria has gone too far and has resulted in lynch mobs terrorising innocent people.

However most people drive a car or cool in their kitchen, so there are bound to be more.

What difference does that make. The risk from drink drivers is still greater yet it get no where as much attention as peadophillia.

I can understand why poeple get so worked up about peadophilles - it's the nature of the crime and it disgusts people. Yet I still believe it's strange that people seem to be much more concerened about there child getting molested than their child getting killed or seriously injured in a road accident.

LadyJade

13-10-2003, 05:42 PM

I think it is important to distinguish that we are talking about the wider issue in this thread, and not someone's harrowing personal experience. As we don't know all the circumstances we can't presume to have an opinion on that.

Also, some of us don't have children and don't have the overwhelming desire to protect them at all costs.

People are giving their OPINION about the wider issue here, lets not get these things confused.

VinylVicky

13-10-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Skive
The point was that there are many greater dangers to children than peadophiles. The media has whipped up a hysteria amongst the population leaving them to believe that a peadophille llive on every street, when in actual fact the risk from peadophilles is small in comparrison to that of say drink drivers.

This hysteria has gone too far and has resulted in lynch mobs terrorising innocent people.

What difference does that make. The risk from drink drivers is still greater yet it get no where as much attention as peadophillia.

I can understand why poeple get so worked up about peadophilles - it's the nature of the crime and it disgusts people. Yet I still believe it's strange that people seem to be much more concerened about there child getting molested than their child getting killed or seriously injured in a road accident.

I know what the point was.
I dont understand why we are comparing the different kinds of harm that can come to a child. To me there is far more coverage on protecting kids fromon fires and motoring accidents than there is against perverts. The media coverage is probably because were far more aware of peodophiles than we ever have been, probably becasue of the internet and if its not stopped now it will spiral out of control.

People who are wreckless drivers or who drink should be punished severely. Lots of accidents happen whilst driving though, a kid being molested is NEVER an accident.

People are terrorising innocent people because the laws today are just not tough enough against perverts!

Aladdin

13-10-2003, 06:06 PM

There are many horrible intentional crimes that don't receive even 10% of the coverage paedophiles get. How often do we hear of fathers or mothers who gas themselves and their four kids in their cars just to fuck up their partner? To me that is a thousand trillion times worse than a kiddie fiddler. But don't expect anyone to make much comment other than the obligatory front page the day after the atrocity is committed.

I am sure the general perception is that dozens and dozens of kids, if not hundreds, are abused and killed by evil paedophiles every year. The figure is in fact 10, and although that's certainly 10 horrible deaths too many, we must put things into perspective a bit.

I myself consider the crime of a gang of youths beating a young teenager half to death, be for bullying or racist motives actually worse than a paedophile touching up the same young teenager. Other people might think different, but still it doesn't justify the national hysteria regarding the latter compared with the near apathy regarding the former.

And then there is one more issue, and issue so taboo that people refuse or is afraid of speaking of. And that is that many- but of course not all- paedophiles are indeed mentally ill people and not the super-evil-straight-out-of-hell sub-human monsters some people like to claim. That doesn't justify their crimes, but certainly should change the approach towards the prevention of future cases and the treatment of current offenders.

It is also changes the perspective on "which crime is the most evil" competition so many see the whole issue as. At the end of the day an intentional racist beating/murder or some selfish scum who drives home pissed every night and one day runs down a kid has to be more evil than someone who has committed an equally atrocious act through irresistible impulses prompted by mental illness.

Skive

13-10-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
I know what the point was.
I dont understand why we are comparing the different kinds of harm that can come to a child. To me there is far more coverage on protecting kids fromon fires and motoring accidents than there is against perverts. The media coverage is probably because were far more aware of peodophiles than we ever have been, probably becasue of the internet and if its not stopped now it will spiral out of control.

As you said it's our awareness about peadophilles that has changed but I doubt the actual number of peadophilles has changed much in the last hundred years so I very much doubt the problem is going 'spiral out of control'.

If anything's spiralling out of control it's this view that peadophilles are everywhere. We've got innocent people being through irresponsible reporting in the papers - we have parents that arn't allowed to video the school play - something isn't right!

Originally posted by VinylVicky
People who are wreckless drivers or who drink should be punished severely. Lots of accidents happen whilst driving though, a kid being molested is NEVER an accident.

Death through dangerous/drink driving is not more than just an accident, it's almost murder. A driver doesn't accidentally drive after too many drinks or accidedntly go too fast - they [b]intent[b]ionally get in that car!

It doesn't mean I think peadophiles are harmless, and it doesn't mean that I think they should recieve light punishments. All I'm doing is trying to put a perspective on things.

VinylVicky

13-10-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Skive
As you said it's our awareness about peadophilles that has changed but I doubt the actual number of peadophilles has changed much in the last hundred years so I very much doubt the problem is going 'spiral out of control'.

If anything's spiralling out of control it's this view that peadophilles are everywhere. We've got innocent people being through irresponsible reporting in the papers - we have parents that arn't allowed to video the school play - something isn't right!

Death through dangerous/drink driving is not more than just an accident, it's almost murder. A driver doesn't accidentally drive after too many drinks or accidedntly go too fast - they [b]intent[b]ionally get in that car!

It doesn't mean I think peadophiles are harmless, and it doesn't mean that I think they should recieve light punishments. All I'm doing is trying to put a perspective on things.

you will never know how many people are abused or how many peodophiles there are! Look across the world in places like thailand. All those child brothels! I watched a program about Romania the other day and the amount of child prostitutes, mainly boys, is vast! Its everywhere, it is spiralling out of control, its just more acceptable to talk about traffic accidents!

Oh I didnt mean to say drink driving was an accident, im saying not all traffic accidents are accidents.

Pervert cases are on the up very much so.
It doesn't mean I think peadophiles are harmless, and it doesn't mean that I think they should recieve light punishments. All I'm doing is trying to put a perspective on things.

I think the same, we just have different perspectives.

I think there should be more coverage for all things that harm a child. At the end of the day wether your running a child brothel or driving home drunk and running a kid down you have still done a terrible thing.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Skive

Death through dangerous/drink driving is not more than just an accident, it's almost murder. A driver doesn't accidentally drive after too many drinks or accidedntly go too fast - they [b]intent[b]ionally get in that car!

It IS murder, not almost. They go out basically with a lethal weapon when they have been drinking and decide to get in the car, So treat them like murderers.

BeckyBoo

13-10-2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
you will never know how many people are abused or how many peodophiles there are!

Im glad to see someone with some common sense. These people who seem to know how many peadophiles are about cease to amaze me.
How many peados are gonna hold their hand up and say "hey im a peado", they sometimes do not get found out till maybe 10/20 years down the track.
All you have are the figures for convicted peados, how many unconvicted ones are on the loose ?

morrocan roll

13-10-2003, 08:53 PM

having invited the old bill round to take a look at this guys computor ...he's my son in law of 3months aged 25 ...i am now getting an education about downloading child porn and why iy is not just illegal but considered very serious.
there are children as young as 6months old. there are pre teens and so on. the stuff that is being downloaded and wanked over is absolutely disgusting. some people think it shouldn't be a crime to download the stuff and just view these images and videos, after all, why should someone be thrown into jail for just thinking about a crime?
the reason it is highly illegal is becuase organised gangs are kidnapping and using these children ...some are never seen again or are found dead and mutilated. some go through mass sexual abuse for years and are physicaly and mentaly destroyed.
this does not equate to an accident but adult criminals organising this mass abuse, torture whatever you want to call it. it doesn't equate to some dirty old man.
how many people support amnesty international to stop the imprisonment and torture of adults, their only crime being a p[olitical or religous viewpoint?
those same people i see have not a fucking clue whats going on in the world of child porn/abuse.

VinylVicky

13-10-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by morrocan roll
having invited the old bill round to take a look at this guys computor ...he's my son in law of 3months aged 25 ...i am now getting an education about downloading child porn and why iy is not just illegal but considered very serious.
there are children as young as 6months old. there are pre teens and so on. the stuff that is being downloaded and wanked over is absolutely disgusting. some people think it shouldn't be a crime to download the stuff and just view these images and videos, after all, why should someone be thrown into jail for just thinking about a crime?
the reason it is highly illegal is becuase organised gangs are kidnapping and using these children ...some are never seen again or are found dead and mutilated. some go through mass sexual abuse for years and are physicaly and mentaly destroyed.
this does not equate to an accident but adult criminals organising this mass abuse, torture whatever you want to call it. it doesn't equate to some dirty old man.
how many people support amnesty international to stop the imprisonment and torture of adults, their only crime being a p[olitical or religous viewpoint?
those same people i see have not a fucking clue whats going on in the world of child porn/abuse.

If its illegal to download it why do people get charged with it?

To think its not a crime to download it, is sick. Downloading these images, images of real children that this has been done to, npt pretended to do it, actual sick acts, is as bad as doing it.

morrocan roll

13-10-2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
If its illegal to download it why do people get charged with it?

. vicky that bit didn't make sense!
i hope my post above does put peadophilla ..."in perspective".

Skive

14-10-2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
It IS murder, not almost. They go out basically with a lethal weapon when they have been drinking and decide to get in the car, So treat them like murderers.

Do you not think it's important to distinguish between manslaughter and murder?

Murder is taking someones life with intent. However stupid death by dangerous driving is - I still don't think it equates to murder.

BeckyBoo

14-10-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Skive
Do you not think it's important to distinguish between manslaughter and murder?

Murder is taking someones life with intent. However stupid death by dangerous driving is - I still don't think it equates to murder.

Read my post again !!!

Im saying they should be treated like murderers.

VinylVicky

14-10-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by morrocan roll
vicky that bit didn't make sense!
i hope my post above does put peadophilla ..."in perspective".
Sorry! I'll try again!

I always thoguht it was illegal to download child porn, you said it isnt, im saying am I wrong in thinking people get arrested for it etc??

morrocan roll

14-10-2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
Sorry! I'll try again!

I always thoguht it was illegal to download child porn, you said it isnt, im saying am I wrong in thinking people get arrested for it etc?? please re read ...

;Originally posted by morrocan roll
having invited the old bill round to take a look at this guys computor ...he's my son in law of 3months aged 25 ...i am now getting an education about downloading child porn and why it is not just illegal but considered very serious.
there are children as young as 6months old. there are pre teens and so on. the stuff that is being downloaded and wanked over is absolutely disgusting. some people think it shouldn't be a crime to download the stuff and just view these images and videos, after all, why should someone be thrown into jail for just thinking about a crime?
the reason it is highly illegal is becuase organised gangs are kidnapping and using these children ...some are never seen again or are found dead and mutilated. some go through mass sexual abuse for years and are physicaly and mentaly destroyed.
this does not equate to an accident but adult criminals organising this mass abuse, torture whatever you want to call it. it doesn't equate to some dirty old man.
how many people support amnesty international to stop the imprisonment and torture of adults, their only crime being a p[olitical or religous viewpoint?
those same people i see have not a fucking clue whats going on in the world of child porn/abuse.

please note ...highly illegal. some people think it shouln't be.

VinylVicky

14-10-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by morrocan roll
please re read ...

;Originally posted by morrocan roll
having invited the old bill round to take a look at this guys computor ...he's my son in law of 3months aged 25 ...i am now getting an education about downloading child porn and why it is not just illegal but considered very serious.
there are children as young as 6months old. there are pre teens and so on. the stuff that is being downloaded and wanked over is absolutely disgusting. some people think it shouldn't be a crime to download the stuff and just view these images and videos, after all, why should someone be thrown into jail for just thinking about a crime?
the reason it is highly illegal is becuase organised gangs are kidnapping and using these children ...some are never seen again or are found dead and mutilated. some go through mass sexual abuse for years and are physicaly and mentaly destroyed.
this does not equate to an accident but adult criminals organising this mass abuse, torture whatever you want to call it. it doesn't equate to some dirty old man.
how many people support amnesty international to stop the imprisonment and torture of adults, their only crime being a p[olitical or religous viewpoint?
those same people i see have not a fucking clue whats going on in the world of child porn/abuse.

please note ...highly illegal. some people think it shouln't be.
Rolley dear, sorry, I miss read you about 20 times! :blush:

Kermit

14-10-2003, 01:51 PM

Jesus Christ, its enough to make me despair.

how many people support amnesty international to stop the imprisonment and torture of adults, their only crime being a p[olitical or religous viewpoint? those same people i see have not a fucking clue whats going on in the world of child porn/abuse.

Are you actually gonna LISTEN before spouting your mouth off, or not? Please point to me EXACTLY WHERE I have said paedophilia is anything other than a horrible crime, that deserves to be punished with the full weight of the law if it is merited. Where?

People are terrorising innocent people because the laws today are just not tough enough against perverts!

Yes they are, rape of a minor is punishable by life imprisonment, as is indecent assault, if the case merits it. The death penalty is an abomination, so what else do you suggest the maximum tariff should be? And before you witter on about all perverts being let out after six weeeks or something stupid, two words: Rosemary West.

But, as with any other case, the facts of the case need to be taken into account when a punishment tariff is handed down. Or would you suggest life imprisonment for the 13-year-old boy from Teesside who accidentally downloaded a bundle of child porn because he wanted to see what girls his age looked like naked?

Im glad to see someone with some common sense. These people who seem to know how many peadophiles are about cease to amaze me. How many peados are gonna hold their hand up and say "hey im a peado", they sometimes do not get found out till maybe 10/20 years down the track. All you have are the figures for convicted peados, how many unconvicted ones are on the loose ?

OK then, say my figures are 20 times out. Lets say there are one million paedophiles in this country. Thats, ooh, 1/60th of the population. Or, if you prefer, 0.017%. Quick, kill them all, theyre EVERYWHERE! :rolleyes:

People who are wreckless drivers or who drink should be punished severely. Lots of accidents happen whilst driving though, a kid being molested is NEVER an accident.

And getting into a car after eight pints and mowing down two klids on the way home is pure coincidence? Or is doing 90mph down the motorway, and crashing into another car, killing two children coincidence too?

It IS murder, not almost. They go out basically with a lethal weapon when they have been drinking and decide to get in the car, So treat them like murderers.

Oh dear. Manslaughter anyone?

please note ...highly illegal. some people think it shouln't be.

No-one I know thinks downloading child pornography should be legal, especially given the tendency for those who join child-porn rings to have to provide "fresh material" before they can see everyone elses pictures. Unless you think the MBLA is an organisation a sane person should listen to...

BeckyBoo

14-10-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Kermit

Oh dear. Manslaughter anyone?

Oh dear. Another one who should re-read my post.

I shall repeat again. I think they should be treated like murderers. If a person drives after drinking then I feel they are going out armed with a lethal weapon, I think if they kill someone whilst under the influence of alcohol then they should be treated like a murderer.

Ok :rolleyes:

morrocan roll

14-10-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
Jesus Christ, its enough to make me despair.

why don't you climb down off your fucking high horse ...you just wanted to rant and rave at people is the truth. notice i deleted the other thread ...where you could easily have ranted ...i didn't see the point in two on the same subject.
so stop throwing your toys out of the pram.
in perspective ...two years a group of legal people got to gether with the intentions of bringing a test case to the human rights court, to stop the arrest and imprisonment of downloaders.
there argument is you shouldn't be done for looking at images and merely thinking of commiting a crime against a child. i have merely put the reasons why ...i'm, wasting my fucking breath talking to someone like you .....................

Simbelyne

14-10-2003, 03:59 PM

Skive

14-10-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Oh dear. Another one who should re-read my post.

I shall repeat again. I think they should be treated like murderers. If a person drives after drinking then I feel they are going out armed with a lethal weapon, I think if they kill someone whilst under the influence of alcohol then they should be treated like a murderer.

Ok :rolleyes:

I think Kermit and I understood the first time. :rolleyes:

Surely people should be treated and punished for the crimes they commit? I really can't see your logic!

Next we'll be treating people who smoke weed like crack dealers and :shocking: all peadophilles like murderers.

BeckyBoo

14-10-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Skive
I think Kermit and I understood the first time. :rolleyes:

Well why question me then, I cant really see the logic in that neither :rolleyes:

On a lighter note, how the hell do I make my italic writing bold black like yours :p

girl with sharp teeth

14-10-2003, 05:21 PM

BeckyBoo

14-10-2003, 05:26 PM

ok so im a dummy :lol:

VinylVicky

14-10-2003, 10:54 PM

Some of you here have some very very strange thoughts and views! Its strange what one person makes sense of, another doesnt :confused:

Uncle Joe

15-10-2003, 04:14 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kermit
In a random tangent, and again its asked in the same spirit as Skive's question:

What is preferable? seeing your child molested or seeing your child killed by a speeding driver? And that questions to everyone, really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Your not listening are you, im not prepared to make comment on something like this which has never happened to me.
Whichever crime then the perpetrator would probably have me on their back till I went to my grave. Put it another way. What if a parent allowed their toddler to wander out on the street in his nappy (as I have seen happening in Southmead, Bristol, when visiting my wife's folks) and that child was run down and killed as they ambled out from behind a parked car? Would you think it reasonable for the parent concerned to blame the driver, and 'be on their back' till they die? Would the fact that the parent had very strong views about separating paedophiles from their testacles (or otherwise) excuse that parent from failing to protect his/her child from another avoidable danger?

Perspective = perversion, I guess :rolleyes:

Uncle Joe

15-10-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by VinylVicky

Oh I didnt mean to say drink driving was an accident, im saying not all traffic accidents are accidents. Thanks for clearing that one up then, Vicky...

Originally posted by VinylVicky
I think the same, we just have different perspectives.

I think there should be more coverage for all things that harm a child. At the end of the day wether your running a child brothel or driving home drunk and running a kid down you have still done a terrible thing. Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure everyone will) but the point of this thread is that parents tend to obsess about the relatively remote threat of 'stranger danger', while not taking steps to safeguard their kith and kin from more immediate, potentially fatal, threats. And then, in the very remote instance that their kids are molested, it happens practically under their nose, and almost invariably not at the hands of a stranger at all.

Uncle Joe

15-10-2003, 04:39 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skive
Do you not think it's important to distinguish between manslaughter and murder?

Murder is taking someones life with intent. However stupid death by dangerous driving is - I still don't think it equates to murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Read my post again !!!

Im saying they should be treated like murderers. I think 99% of us read your post right first time, Becky.

You seem to have a real problem with disagreement.

Uncle Joe

15-10-2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by VinylVicky
Some of you here have some very very strange thoughts and views! Its strange what one person makes sense of, another doesnt :confused: Ain't it just?

VinylVicky

15-10-2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Thanks for clearing that one up then, Vicky...

Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure everyone will) but the point of this thread is that parents tend to obsess about the relatively remote threat of 'stranger danger', while not taking steps to safeguard their kith and kin from more immediate, potentially fatal, threats. And then, in the very remote instance that their kids are molested, it happens practically under their nose, and almost invariably not at the hands of a stranger at all.
I cant be bothered to correct you or anyone. I hate dragging my point out, when i've already made it clear how I stand.
:)

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe

Put it another way. What if a parent allowed their toddler to wander out on the street in his nappy (as I have seen happening in Southmead, Bristol, when visiting my wife's folks) and that child was run down and killed as they ambled out from behind a parked car?

Well come on you know thats a totally different kettle of fish, of course the parent is to blame :rolleyes:
We are not actually debating the subject of toddlers roaming, but if you would care to start a topic of that nature then im sure we would have the same opinion on that.

[QUOTE]

No not at all I have my opinion just like any of you here, we just disagree on a few things here. If i had not replied to what was put to me I would have still been in the wrong.....wouldnt I, being accused of ignoring stuff put to me etc.

If people stopped quoting me on almost everything I put and instead tried to change my reasoning then just maybe you [I]could change my view.

Uncle Joe

15-10-2003, 10:27 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Uncle Joe

Put it another way. What if a parent allowed their toddler to wander out on the street in his nappy (as I have seen happening in Southmead, Bristol, when visiting my wife's folks) and that child was run down and killed as they ambled out from behind a parked car?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Well come on you know thats a totally different kettle of fish, of course the parent is to blame :rolleyes:
We are not actually debating the subject of toddlers roaming, but if you would care to start a topic of that nature then im sure we would have the same opinion on that. Not so much a different kettle of fish as a different way of looking at the way parents view threats to their children. We certainly can't assume that parents who allow their kids to roam the streets are as concerned about the risk from paedophiles as you are, but if asked, they would probably say they are, and tell you in graphic detail about what should be done to nonces. But if you asked them if they worried about traffic, which is a much bigger threat to wandering tykes, you would probably go away with a flea in your ear, if not a bleeding nose.

[I think 99% of us read your post right first time, Becky.

You seem to have a real problem with disagreement./QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BeckyBoo No not at all I have my opinion just like any of you here, we just disagree on a few things here. If i had not replied to what was put to me I would have still been in the wrong.....wouldnt I, being accused of ignoring stuff put to me etc.

If people stopped quoting me on almost everything I put and instead tried to change my reasoning then just maybe you could change my view. Quoting is important in debate, as it saves people the trouble of having to go back to review exactly what they said (unscrupulous types will sometimes leave out bits of an argument that they have no answer to, or even precis an opponent's previous post with a twist, so they can respond to an argument that wasn't made; the straw dog technique. Arguments can also be skewed without any deliberate attempt to deceive. This thread was never about belittling the crime of paedophilia, for instance).

LadyJade

15-10-2003, 10:53 AM

Again I think this is just a matter of perspective. You may know exactly what you are talking about, but someone else may not fully understand where you are coming from as they don't have all the background info in your head that leads you to a particular conclusion.

I think sometimes some of you get defensive when all you are being asked to do is clarify your argument for someone or make a point more, well, pointed.

It's not just repetition for the sake of it, and its not because you are not making sense, it is just to stop unneccesary misunderstandings.

Not everyone wants to shoot your argument down in flames, sometimes people are just interested to hear more of what you have to say.................

girl with sharp teeth

15-10-2003, 11:02 AM

Kermit

15-10-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by morrocan roll

there argument is you shouldn't be done for looking at images and merely thinking of commiting a crime against a child. i have merely put the reasons why

Please show me where I disagreed. Please, itd make for interesting reading. Just because I think that paedophilia is given too much hysterical attention for the amount of victims that there are doesnt mean that I think paedophilia is good.

And I read the thread in Anything Goes. Never have I read such verbal excrement. Maybe if someone could show me WHY 0.017% of the population needs so much attention given to them when 30 times as many children are harmed by parental negligence and by other avoidable dangers I might change my tune a bit.

i'm, wasting my fucking breath talking to someone like you .....................

Well you are if all you are going to do is repeat to me how horrible paedophilia is. Being blown up in a nuclear explosion is quite quite terrible too, it doesnt mean thats its rational to build a nuclear bunker to protect your kids then let not bother buying a smoke alarm to protect them from domestic fires. Or to campaign for the removal of speed-prevention cameras or traffic-calming measures (speed is one of the biggest killers of children) whilst demanding the death penalty for a tiny number of offenders who attack children.

Kermit

15-10-2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
We are not actually debating the subject of toddlers roaming

We arent, but thats not the point. We are just as equally not debating how awful padeophilic crimes can be for the victim, yet both you and Morroccan Roll seem determined to keep raising this irrelevant point over and over again. Paedophilia can be devastating for the victim and his or her family, thats not in question. Understand that and stop telling me how awful paedophilia can be.

What the debate is about is whether or not the HYSTERIA regarding paedophilia is warranted or not. Do you think it is reasonable for the media to be campaigning that theres a pedo on every street corner when at the very most 0.017% of the population is a pedo or has pedo tendencies? Do you think that the media attention for 0.017% is merited when the very same media is campaigning for the removal of speed cameras and traffic-calming measures, devices which have been proven to save hundreds of childrens lives and livelihoods each year?

Do you think it is reasonable to ban a parent taking naked baby pictures of their child because someone, somewhere, might find it sexually attractive? Do you think it reasonable to stop primary school nativity plays being filmed, to stop a perv wanking over it? Do you think this is reasonable when train safety and the Green Cross Code is barely taught in school any more, depsite the fact 10 children have been killed or injured on the railways this year alone, and probably a hundred more been killed or injured by speeding drivers or failing to cross the road properly?

Do you think pedos are a bigger danger than house fires; so much so that all parents are scared about perverts yet only about 45% of homes have working smoke detectors- something that costs £7 to buy, and can save lives? So much so that parents are scared about perverts yet only about 30% of homes with young children have stair-gates and electrical socket covers? So much so that parents are scared about perverts yet bottles of bleach and medicine are still left in reach of children?

At the very most 10 children are killed each YEAR either by or because of perverts. 10 children a WEEK are injured or killed by speeding drivers or drunk drivers. 10 children a WEEK are admitted to Casualty after eating or drinking bleach, cleaning fluid and prescription medicine left in their reach?

Are you seriously telling me that 10 children warrant all the attention, yet 1040 children warrant none? Thats the persepctive I mean, its not an argument about how horrific paedophilia can be because there isnt anyone on these boards who doesnt find paedophilia disgusting and horrific.

I look forward to your replies.

NinjaMaster

15-10-2003, 01:15 PM

Gotta to kinda agree with Kermit on this one. I wouldn't say that there is too much emphasis on paedophilia as it is a horrible crime and a real threat to children, but there is not enough warnings, training and campaigning for some of the other points that Kermit has raised.

In the small village/town I live in just outside Aberdeen they have lowered the speed limits to 20mph between 8:15am till 9:15am and again at 2:30pm till 4pm. This is to enable a safty-zone for kids walking to and from school. What worries me is the number of people who ignore this temp speed limit and hurtle past at 30, 40 and sometimes higher.

Infact a couple of months back some lady was stopped in her BMW doing 58mph. Her excuse. The kids were late for school!!

At my Son's school they are taught about stranger danger and I would like to think that Ryan is smart enough to know the dangers. He is also taught about road danger, dangers in the house and stuff but that doesn't come from the school. That is "in-house training".

I remember when I was a kid there was always ads on the TV for Raod Safety (The Green Cross Code, Tufty Club), Stranger Danger (Charlie Says........), danger of fire and others including swimming in rivers, flying kites beside pylons and climbing into electrical sub-stations to get your footie back. Where have all these adverts gone? We are constantly being told that children these days are watching more and more TV so surely this is the medium to get these safety points across.

Kermit

15-10-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by NinjaMaster
I wouldn't say that there is too much emphasis on paedophilia as it is a horrible crime and a real threat to children, but there is not enough warnings, training and campaigning for some of the other points that Kermit has raised.

Its a real threat in that its a threat that actually exists, but its a threat that too much emphasis IS placed on. As Ive said, even if there were ONE MILLION pedos in this country, this represents only about 0.017% (1/60th) of the population. Its a threat, sure, but not one that should hog the limelight in the way that it does. To read the newspapers and listen to the views of some on here, youd think 50 kids a week were being killed in this country by some mad child-rapist, when in fact in the last two years I can think of only two deaths off the top of my head- Sarah Payne and a 27-year-old woman who killed herself because of the abuse she had suffered. Two deaths that shouldnt have happened, but still only two deaths. Though obviously more will have happened.

NinjaMaster

15-10-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
Its a real threat in that its a threat that actually exists, but its a threat that too much emphasis IS placed on.

That's were I disagree with you. Where is the problem in over-emphasising the danger? The problem, as you have rightly raised, is the under-ephasis on the other dangers.

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Kermit

I look forward to your replies.

LOL here goes ;)

I think yes the hysteria against peadophilia is warranted. Im not gonna go over the same road as its horrible etc, but as far as any crime goes rape/sexual offences be it woman/man/child is one of the worst ones to live with, thats why I feel so strongly on this subject.
As far as traffic calming etc then yes I have to agree its stupidity to not have them, speed cameras etc. They can and I presume DO save lives, so if they save any life then why get rid ? Stupidity in my opinion.
I think a lot more needs to be done like teaching in schools of green cross code etc, also having more adverts on T.V re fires, I also think we should have T.V adverts showing horrific car accidents (like they do in some other countries) because its not till you actually see a crash scene does it actually hit home.......that could save a life. But again im not talking just children this could affect adult or child, where as peadophilia is a crime against children.
One more thing you have given me many examples here which yes I agree with what you are saying but one thing I would like to repeat when a peadophile gets his/her pleasure it is NOT an accident, many things you have said are and could happen to anyone be they 2 years old or 100 years old.

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe

Arguments can also be skewed without any deliberate attempt to deceive.

Im not arguing, why do people think I am. Im not brilliant at getting my point across and you lot are taking me the wrong way. Im not sat here calling you a *cough, cough* , really im not :D

Going back to safety in the streets I think some parents need a lot more education. Children should not be allowed to roam the street as you say there are many dangers in the outside world.
Im quite strict with my Daughter, I have certain rules and regulations which she must stick to otherwise she is for the high jump, but at the end of the day its her welfare that concerns me.

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by LadyJade
You may know exactly what you are talking about, but someone else may not fully understand where you are coming from as they don't have all the background info in your head that leads you to a particular conclusion.

Is that for my benefit ;)

hehe

Toadborg

15-10-2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Kermit
. As Ive said, even if there were ONE MILLION pedos in this country, this represents only about 0.017% (1/60th) of the population.

0.017 as a fraction or 1.7% to be accurate.........

LadyJade

15-10-2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Is that for my benefit ;)

hehe

Paranoid!! You should give yourself more credit BeckyBoo. No, I think it happens to all of us, especially when we are passionate about what we are saying and get swept along by it.......

Skive

15-10-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by NinjaMaster
That's were I disagree with you. Where is the problem in over-emphasising the danger? The problem, as you have rightly raised, is the under-ephasis on the other dangers.

So why do we have such situations where parents can't film school plays anymore?

morrocan roll

15-10-2003, 08:32 PM

a road accident isn't done with intent. a paedophilic act is.
what angers people so much is that these people are planning and plotting their next move, wether it be lust or proffit.

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Skive
So why do we have such situations where parents can't film school plays anymore?
Ive not heard that one before, our school allows us to tape, take photos etc ?

girl with sharp teeth

15-10-2003, 09:32 PM

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
completely ridiculous.

It's pathetic aint it.

girl with sharp teeth

15-10-2003, 09:40 PM

BeckyBoo

15-10-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
yup.

but that's the kind of thing that david's getting at - people are massively overreacting to the threat of paedophilia.

What harm can come of videoing a child at a nativity play ? They are fully clothed, ludicrous.
I know we have taken videos of most big events at school, basically anything our Becks is performing in we video. Its a keepsake for when she is older and also great videoing kids because if they make a boo boo it might get shown on you been framed ;)

Kermit

15-10-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
What harm can come of videoing a child at a nativity play ? They are fully clothed, ludicrous.

And thats the point Ive been getting at for two days.

And its the same situation with Julia Somerville's fiance, who took pictures of his stepdaughter playing in the bath (admittedly not *his* but still) and was then banged up in a police station for 24 hoursd before they realised that a two-year-old in the bath WASNT pornography.

Purely out of interest, what is your take on the use of child models in clothing catalogues, in particluar when modelling nightwear and swimwear? Should it be banned because paedophiles get off on it- one extremely dangerous pedo, in particular, had subscriptions to all the catalogues when he was arrested, and was in the process of cutting out the pictures and putting them in a scrapbook.

BeckyBoo

16-10-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Kermit
And thats the point Ive been getting at for two days.

:lol: :lol:

I feel if anyone is getting off at looking at children in catalogues then they should stop children from modelling in them....full stop. Maybe its the parents responsibility to not allow their child to do modelling ? Im not sure really.
You say this guy is extremely dangerous so I dont think the pictures these type of people want should be available. Having said that, I suppose if they cant get it in catalogues they will get it from somewhere.

Kermit

16-10-2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I feel if anyone is getting off at looking at children in catalogues then they should stop children from modelling in them....full stop.

Some pedos go to swimming pools and watch children swimming, and get off by looking at them. Care to ban swimming too?

You say this guy is extremely dangerous so I dont think the pictures these type of people want should be available. Having said that, I suppose if they cant get it in catalogues they will get it from somewhere.

He raped several young girls, I think, sometimes with violence, and hes serving life with no possibility of parole. Because hes an evil sick fuck.

But pedophilia is being sexually attracted to children- it need not be naked children, though it obviously helps. From what Ive read, them seeing a pretty eight-year-old walking down the street would arouse them in the same way a normal straight man seeing Keira Knightley in the high street would be aroused.

BeckyBoo

16-10-2003, 12:17 AM

I did say maybe its the parents reponsibility though, but when you put it like that I see what you mean.

Why didnt you put all this stuff three pages ago :p

morrocan roll

16-10-2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth

but that's the kind of thing that david's getting at - people are massively overreacting to the threat of paedophilia. which people are massively over reacting to it? i have discovered my son in law is a paedo. it's destroyed my daughters marriage.
i posted a thread stating ...paedophile in my family ...what would you do?
someone else started a new thread imediately about putting it in perspective. it could have been discussed in the thread i started where i was asking ...what would you do?
but no ...a complete rant and rave that he still clings to ...
who is over reacting here?

and now kermit kermit ...who proudly titles himself ...
Neo-fascist Hitler pervert scumbag ...has started a third thread about paedos! says it all i think.

Kermit

16-10-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by morrocan roll
which people are massively over reacting to it? i have discovered my son in law is a paedo. it's destroyed my daughters marriage.

relevance being?

someone else started a new thread imediately about putting it in perspective. it could have been discussed in the thread i started where i was asking ...what would you do?
but no ...a complete rant and rave that he still clings to ...

BeckyBoo criticises me for starting a new thread, you think I should have stuck to the old one. What is a man to do?

For your information I started a new thread because your thread about your family was not the appropriate place to have this discussion. Or would you have preferred me to say it right underneath where you said about the ending of your daughters marriage?

and now kermit kermit ...who proudly titles himself ...
Neo-fascist Hitler pervert scumbag ...has started a third thread about paedos! says it all i think.

Im deciding whether or not I can be arsed to explain the joke behind my title, which was given to me by Dom. On balance, Ive decided that I cant.

But get a sense of humour, Becky for instance says her location is in the confessional box, and that shes a *norty nun*. Do you ACTUALLY think thats where she is?

Kermit

16-10-2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Why didnt you put all this stuff three pages ago :p

I did try:p

morrocan roll

16-10-2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Kermit
For your information I started a new thread because your thread about your family was not the appropriate place to have this discussion. Or would you have preferred me to say it right underneath where you said about the ending of your daughters marriage?

that was the general idea yes!

Skive

16-10-2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by morrocan roll
which people are massively over reacting to it? i have discovered my son in law is a paedo. it's destroyed my daughters marriage.

I don't beleive that Kermit by started this thread, was implying that 'you' over reacted - you have had a personal experience involving a peadophille and it is quite understandable the way you have reacted.

I think he was trying to point out that in general people over react to the 'threat' of peadophilles when in fact they have a very small chance of getting into a situation like yours.

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i posted a thread stating ...paedophile in my family ...what would you do?
someone else started a new thread imediately about putting it in perspective. it could have been discussed in the thread i started where i was asking ...what would you do?

But surely this is a different discussion?

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Why didnt you put all this stuff three pages ago

We did! :p

BeckyBoo

16-10-2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Kermit

BeckyBoo criticises me for starting a new thread, you think I should have stuck to the old one. What is a man to do?

I dont know wether I managed to explain myself on this bit but I will try again anyway.

When Mr roll first posted about his problem you have to understand it was a tough time for him, you did kind of start another thread straight away. My feelings were for Mr Roll as I knew exactly how he would be feeling.
My main concern was him and I just felt discussing peadophiles and comparing them with crashes etc would be more or less saying his problem was nothing major.
It was all to do with the timing of the thread.

hope that clears that up :)

Finlay

16-10-2003, 10:49 AM

Hi, I'm an opinionated newbie gimp. :) You may remember me from such threads as 'Design or evolution' and... that's about it really.

First off, I'd like to say that sexually abusing children is vile and unforgivable. Totally unacceptable. I sympathise deeply for MR and the suffering it has caused to his family.

But, I don't think people should be punished for getting turned on by looking at pictures of children, even sexually explicit ones. So yes, I am saying that I think looking at child porn should be legal. Or at least, not illegal. My point is that by simply looking at the picture you are not hurting anyone. If you paid a subscription to a child porn site, that would be another matter, as then you would be an accessory to child abuse.

I don't think it's right to punish someone for their thoughts, no matter how disgusting we may find them. As long as no-one is getting hurt, I believe people should be allowed to say, do and think whatever they like. If that includes masturbating while looking at Mothercare catalogues, so be it.

To put this in perspective, consider homosexuality. A lot of people used to think that this practise was disgusting (many still do), and it should therefore be illegal. But I hope most of us will agree that as long as it takes place between consenting adults, it would be wrong to punish the participants. Now, obviously children cannot be consenting, so having sex with a child is always wrong. But if we are talking about a person getting turned on by images of children, nobody is getting hurt.

Suppose, through no fault of your own, you start having sexual feelings about children one day. Not being a paedophile myself, I don't know if that's how it happens. But I don't imagine that anyone chooses to be a pervert, I think it's probably just they way they're wired up. What should you then do? Turn yourself into the police for your thoughtcrimes?

Indulge me in a little thought experiment. Suppose child porn could be made using computer animation, so no children were ever actually harmed. Would this be wrong? I'm inclined to think not, although it would surely be disgusting to most well-adjusted people. Before you answer, consider this: I think we can all agree murder is wrong. Yet we watch countless simulations of murder in movies and on TV, for entertainment. Just how different is this?

I'm not 100% sure about all this; it sort of worries me that these are the conclusions I've come to through being as logical as I can. I guess I'm kinda playing devil's advocate. So I'd be interested to hear others' views.

LadyJade

16-10-2003, 10:53 AM

I don't believe anyone is trying to belittle such a horrendous experience as Mr Roll is undergoing at the mo, but I do believe it is important to have this discussion.

This thread was triggered by, but is not about a personal experience, because as I said before we cannot presume to know.

No one is trying to belittle the seriousness of this crime, just discuss its context and implications to society as a whole. If we cannot talk about something that so many people take very seriously then we do have a problem.

LadyJade

16-10-2003, 10:57 AM

In response to Finlay, I think we have to make a very mportant distinction between looking at a catalogue with child models, who are being paid for advertising, and looking at child porn which is not a victimless crime. The means of getting the images cannot be seperated from the viewing of them IMO.

Kermit

16-10-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Finlay
But, I don't think people should be punished for getting turned on by looking at pictures of children, even sexually explicit ones. So yes, I am saying that I think looking at child porn should be legal. Or at least, not illegal. My point is that by simply looking at the picture you are not hurting anyone. If you paid a subscription to a child porn site, that would be another matter, as then you would be an accessory to child abuse.

Being turned on by looking at children swimming or playing in the school playground or modelling clothes in a catalogue is distasteful, but I think most steps that could be taken to prevent it are actually worse than the original "crime". Like not being allowed to film a school nativity play or a school sports day, or not being allowed to take pictures of your own daughter in the bath.

Sexually explicit pictures are different though. Pictures of nude children would excite pedos, sure, but, really, I doubt much harm does come of it. It is when children are forced to commit acts, either to each other or with an adult, that a child does not have the mental or physical capacity to commit, that the problems start. Especially given how much of the child porn industry is controlled by the Mafia in Eastern Europe or SE Asia, and that children are kidnapped to either become "stars" of some horrific pornography, or to become prostitutes in places like Thailand and Cambodia. To say child porn is victimless is plain wrong, IMHO.

I don't think it's right to punish someone for their thoughts, no matter how disgusting we may find them. As long as no-one is getting hurt, I believe people should be allowed to say, do and think whatever they like. If that includes masturbating while looking at Mothercare catalogues, so be it.

I think thats pretty reasonable really, many people denounced as pedos would do little more than this. When downloading sexually explicit pictures of children the lines become more blurred, as they are, in a way, an accessory to the abuse of children; but if you just like wanking over the swimwear models in the Littlewoods catalogue then its distasteful but nothing more. So long as thats all it is.

Suppose child porn could be made using computer animation, so no children were ever actually harmed. Would this be wrong?

The Japanese have a whole cartoon-porn culture called Hentai, and this does sometimes depict young teenagers and pre-teens committing sexual acts because the Japanese, as a culture, seem obsessed by youth.

it sort of worries me that these are the conclusions I've come to through being as logical as I can.

The trouble is that if you DARE say that the threat of paedophilia is overrated, then you get flamed by all and sundry, with statements that verge on the libellous being put on this discussion and certainly on the flamewar that was started on Anything Goes against me for DARING to ask a perfectly reasonable question.

Kermit

16-10-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Skive
I don't beleive that Kermit by started this thread, was implying that 'you' over reacted - you have had a personal experience involving a peadophille and it is quite understandable the way you have reacted.

I think he was trying to point out that in general people over react to the 'threat' of peadophilles when in fact they have a very small chance of getting into a situation like yours.

Im glad someone understands.

SuzyCreamcheese

16-10-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
:lol: :lol:

I feel if anyone is getting off at looking at children in catalogues then they should stop children from modelling in them....full stop. Maybe its the parents responsibility to not allow their child to do modelling ? Im not sure really.
.
I completely disagree, that smacks to me of blaming the victim and penalising the victim for what an occasional pervert may be thinking.
I think the whole `stranger danger` paranoia is possibly more harmful than anything else as statistically, the biggest risk from paedophiles is from members of your own family or family friends. The stranger danger mentality can make children scared of completely harmless people whilst thinking its normal that granddad does things they dont like.

BeckyBoo

16-10-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by rainbow brite
I completely disagree, that smacks to me of blaming the victim and penalising the victim for what an occasional pervert may be thinking.

No quite the opposite, im thinking about the victim. I certainly would not put a child in a catalogue if I knew that someone, somewhere was getting off seeing her in knickers and vest. Its down to the parents of the child and how they feel tbh.

As I also said if they didnt get it out of catalogues they would find it somewhere else anyway.

SuzyCreamcheese

16-10-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
No quite the opposite, im thinking about the victim. I certainly would not put a child in a catalogue if I knew that someone, somewhere was getting off seeing her in knickers and vest.

but how is that hurting the child? just curious. A child is not being sexually abused by the possibility some unknown imaginary person is thinking about them.

Aladdin

16-10-2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I certainly would not put a child in a catalogue if I knew that someone, somewhere was getting off seeing her in knickers and vest.

I'm afraid you might have to end up wrapping your daughter in a blanket before leaving the house, or simply don't allow her out at all. For there is always going to be the chance that a paedophile will see her, be on the street, playing in the park, on a beach or anywhere else, and masturbate over her later that night.

That is why the decision to ban parents from filming children in a nativity play was the most stupid one in the history of mankind. We now only need someone to be caught wanking over a children's catalogue for them to be discontinued. Or a pervert wanking over photos of children playing on a beach for children to be banned from attending beaches.

Actually, that's not such bad thing...
;)

BeckyBoo

16-10-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by rainbow brite
but how is that hurting the child? just curious.

Of course it is not hurting her. The problem arises when someone is caught like this fella kermit was talking about and the police land at the door telling us a perv was getting off at seeing her half clothed or whatever.
She is not physically harmed, its *me* who would feel bad about it because she would know nothing about it.

morrocan roll

16-10-2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Finlay

As long as no-one is getting hurt, I believe people should be allowed to say, do and think whatever they like. and the trouble is that's the kind of place our society is becoming.
everyone believing they can do anything they want! we are above animals surely? human societies have been built on rules.
if i can do anything i want as long as it hurts nobody ...then i can drive through red lights ...drive the wrong way down the motorway ...scream racist words ...until someone gets hurt? if i believe i can pull these things off without hurting anyone then it's my right to try?

Kermit

17-10-2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
She is not physically harmed, its *me* who would feel bad about it because she would know nothing about it.

And I suppose thats the crux of the whole debate. Paedophilia is awful, and it is rightly seen as awful, so parents will believe all the hysteria and make stranger danger seem like a huge huge threat in order to protect their children from this awfulness.

And then they dont buy a smoke alarm *shrug*

I know what you mean Becky, I personally wouldnt want my child to be the wanking object of some pedo, and not allowing them to be a model is one simple way of preventing it. Though the cotton wool mentality can go too far because of this well-meaning attitude- a pedo is just as likely to get off on seeing a girl do a handstand wearing a skirt, but you shouldnt stop children playing outside, and a lot of the obesity problems in this country are caused by children not playing outside anymore.

I suppose what I mean is that as a parent I wouldnt intentionally put my child in a position to be the object of pedo desires, but I wouldnt rise to the hysteria and wrap them up in cotton wool and never let them outside. Many parents seem to lap up the hysteria, when really they dont need to be anything other than cautious.

Uncle Joe

17-10-2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Im not arguing, why do people think I am. Im not brilliant at getting my point across and you lot are taking me the wrong way. Im not sat here calling you a *cough, cough* , really im not :D

Going back to safety in the streets I think some parents need a lot more education. Children should not be allowed to roam the street as you say there are many dangers in the outside world.
Im quite strict with my Daughter, I have certain rules and regulations which she must stick to otherwise she is for the high jump, but at the end of the day its her welfare that concerns me. Undoubtedly some parents do need more education. The problem I see, and it relates to the subject of this thread, is that these kinds of parents only seem to have room in their head for worrying about paedophilia, and appear to believe that if they can register their disgust strongly enough, it will create a magic shield around their children to protect them from less personal dangers like traffic. I'm not kidding here, it's the same kind of 'logic' that leads to people not getting the MMR jabs for their kids, thereby precipitating another measles outbreak, sooner or later.

By the way, you are arguing, but I've got nothing against that, because I am too. 'Argument', as a noun, just means viewpoint (probably something to do with Argus, the many eyed mythical figure) and you're entitled to your own views, as am I. When we engage in argument, though, the possibility of a shift in viewpoint arises, on both sides. No bad thing, that :)

Uncle Joe

17-10-2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Of course it is not hurting her. The problem arises when someone is caught like this fella kermit was talking about and the police land at the door telling us a perv was getting off at seeing her half clothed or whatever.
She is not physically harmed, its *me* who would feel bad about it because she would know nothing about it. Yeah but, realistically, would the police ever do that? Many convicted child abusers probably glop off looking at catalogue pictures, but are the police going to track down the parents of those child models in order to inform them of the fact? Probably not. The problem wouldn't therefore arise that way, it'd be down to whether the parent sees a problem in the first place.

Not a key point, just something I though I'd mention :chin:

BeckyBoo

17-10-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Yeah but, realistically, would the police ever do that?

I think so, wouldn't they ?
mmm I dunno now, I thought if they found stuff out like that then they let the parents know. Slightly different but a doctor from where I live was recently accused of indecent behaviour to a few of his patients but everyone who may have seen him were sent a letter explaining that he was being looked into.

SuzyCreamcheese

17-10-2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I think so, wouldn't they ?
mmm I dunno now, I thought if they found stuff out like that then they let the parents know. Slightly different but a doctor from where I live was recently accused of indecent behaviour to a few of his patients but everyone who may have seen him were sent a letter explaining that he was being looked into.
But indecent behaviour towards his patients is more serious than a man wanking over a catalogue. A man having proper child porn is also a completely different kettle of fish to someone wanking over a catalogue. The difference is that in real abuse or pictures of abuse then a child has been harmed (mentally or physically) but in a picture in a catalogue, no child has been harmed. Just because someone might get off on it, doesnt make it pornography.

Kermit

17-10-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
I think so, wouldn't they ?
mmm I dunno now, I thought if they found stuff out like that then they let the parents know. Slightly different but a doctor from where I live was recently accused of indecent behaviour to a few of his patients but everyone who may have seen him were sent a letter explaining that he was being looked into.

Whats the doctor got to do with the price of fish?

Wanking off over a catalogue is not a criminal offence Becky, so the police wouldnt do anything unless the guy knocking one out was doing more than that. Viewing pictures of children, even naked ones, and being aroused by it is not illegal, nor is creating these pictures, unless the child is engaged in a sexual act.

And that is the way it should stay.

It would be for the parent to decide whether or not that the child's pictures should be released for public consumption or not, and to be aware of any possible consequences. But what, really, is the difference between a kid in a catalogue wearing a cossie and a kid at the beach wearing a cossie?

Paedophilia is not a crime, sexually abusing children is. Please try to understand that.