What the hell is going on in the world?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

Disgraceful post.

You make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but think it's a reasoned argument?

Grisham seems to be saying one minute you're a red blooded male looking at photos of big breasted women over 18, but after a few drinks you suddenly start looking for child porn. Absolute bullshit!

Wanting to look at photos of kids is inside you whether you are sober or pissed - and people who look for pics of child porn are as much a part of the problem as the people who create the stuff. If no one was looking for child porn there wouldn't be a demand for it.

I demand an apology from John Grisham and Reebok Trotter.

I am glad that Wander has grasped the thrust of my point. Let's look at the facts. Are we saying that every man who looks at indecent images is a kiddy fiddler? By that logic every man who looks at porn is a rapist.
Are you actually aware of the sentencing guidelines in the UK for offences of viewing on-line child pornography? The images are classified on a depravity scale of one to three. Also taken into account is the background and occupation of the offender. Teacher, Lawyer, Doctor, Copper, Nurse, etc etc. Does the offender work with or have access to under age children? Has the offender got any previous convictions or cautions for kindred offences?
People with no previous convictions are rarely sent to prison in the UK. The vast majority are given suspended prison sentences together with some form of rehabilitation order and they are also required to sign the sex offenders register which is for life.
Personally, I find the thought of viewing images of children being abused as totally abhorrent but that doesn't mean all debate on the subject should be stifled because of the nature of the crime.

We were discussing this the other night while we were watching 24 Hours in Police Custody.

That bloke in Eccles whose trial I was involved in last year got 13 years for human trafficking, unlawful detention and repeated rape of a minor.

The bloke in the programme who hadn't laid a finger on anybody got (I think) ten years for downloading images.

Surely what the first wanker did was more than 1.3 times worse than the second bloke's offence, but the sentencing doesn't reflect this.

Time for a re-think?

Exactly.

Neither activity is palatable but they are definitely different things. Rape has a victim. It can be argued that people viewed in images are victims too but what they experience and feel are world's apart.

It worries me that the overreaction and misdirection in the media stifle any chance of a sensible debate and I think it's wrong to fuel mass hysteria.

That said, the British public do like a good old-fashioned witch hunt so why waste time on the truth and justice?

Breadman wrote:We were discussing this the other night while we were watching 24 Hours in Police Custody.

That bloke in Eccles whose trial I was involved in last year got 13 years for human trafficking, unlawful detention and repeated rape of a minor.

The bloke in the programme who hadn't laid a finger on anybody got (I think) ten years for downloading images.

Surely what the first wanker did was more than 1.3 times worse than the second bloke's offence, but the sentencing doesn't reflect this.

Time for a re-think?

I agree the 10 year sentence seemed disproportionate compared to the other case you mention but he did apparently indecently assault a 12 year old according to the programme. He also had loads of scale 5 images on his computer and some of the kids involved were 3 years old.

[Scale 4 is penetrative sex of a minor and scale 5 is sadistic or bestial sex with a minor.]

Fair comment.

If he has sexually assaulted a child then he deserves to go to prison.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

Disgraceful post.

You make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but think it's a reasoned argument?

Grisham seems to be saying one minute you're a red blooded male looking at photos of big breasted women over 18, but after a few drinks you suddenly start looking for child porn. Absolute bullshit!

Wanting to look at photos of kids is inside you whether you are sober or pissed - and people who look for pics of child porn are as much a part of the problem as the people who create the stuff. If no one was looking for child porn there wouldn't be a demand for it.

I demand an apology from John Grisham and Reebok Trotter.

I am glad that Wander has grasped the thrust of my point. Let's look at the facts. Are we saying that every man who looks at indecent images is a kiddy fiddler? By that logic every man who looks at porn is a rapist.

This is not strictly true is it because if you are looking at videos of child porn then this means that you are turned on and get sexual gratification from watching a child get raped, which is by no means legal or consensual with a young child not having a say in what is happening to them. Adult porn is between consenting adults who are being paid to perform in front of a camera for the sexual gratification of others and the adults performing in these videos know this. It is also normal and also legal for adults to be turned on by other adults. For example I could watch porn without feeling disgusted but I could not watch someone get raped and find it acceptable

So let me get this straight, RT and Wanderlust are saying it's ok to view child porn so long as you don't progress to actually touching/abusing a child?

Natasha Whittam wrote:So let me get this straight, RT and Wanderlust are saying it's ok to view child porn so long as you don't progress to actually touching/abusing a child?

think it may be time to lock this thread before it gets out of hand

No, we're going to have a discussion.

I am genuinely interested in this subject, I'm amazed the majority don't share my views. I thought a peedo was a peedo.

nobody would dispute that fact and paedophiles are scum of the earth whether they pay for their images or are the people actually in the images. I'm all for a debate but this kind of subject matter can get out of hand very quickly and turn ugly.

Natasha Whittam wrote:No, we're going to have a discussion.

I am genuinely interested in this subject, I'm amazed the majority don't share my views. I thought a peedo was a peedo.

Peedo is what my mate's swimming trunks said after his missus had unpicked some of the lettering.

I presume you know it's spelt paedo?

What you are implying is that any child sex related offence should be treated exactly the same regardless of whether or not there are any children present when the offence took place?

If you fail to get the distinction between having sex and thinking about having sex you are one very mixed up person.

Clearly both are thinking along similar lines, but to my knowledge it's not yet an offence to think about murdering someone or to think about having sex with someone you don't know. The prison service would be overloaded if thinking about committing a crime was itself a crime.

Norpig wrote:nobody would dispute that fact and paedophiles are scum of the earth whether they pay for their images or are the people actually in the images. I'm all for a debate but this kind of subject matter can get out of hand very quickly and turn ugly.

I am confident that the contributors to this forum are mature enough to have a sensible discussion.

wanderlust wrote:

What you are implying is that any child sex related offence should be treated exactly the same regardless of whether or not there are any children present when the offence took place?

No, but the OG post and subsequent replies have suggested there is little wrong with looking at kiddie porn.

I accept that the vast majority of peedos will simply look at the images and leave it at that, but some will go on to abuse children themselves. So for that reason every dirty peedo should be thrown in prison.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

I accept that the vast majority of peedos will simply look at the images and leave it at that, but some will go on to abuse children themselves. So for that reason every dirty peedo should be thrown off a cliff.

fixed that for you

Natasha Whittam wrote:So let me get this straight, RT and Wanderlust are saying it's ok to view child porn so long as you don't progress to actually touching/abusing a child?

Absolutely not. Of course people who view child porn should be punished. It is totally abhorrent and unacceptable. However the statistics show that most of the people who watch these disgusting images have never committed a crime in their lives or physically harmed anyone. Capiche?

So because they've never committed a crime in their life (apart from downloading kiddie porn!) they should be left alone?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

What you are implying is that any child sex related offence should be treated exactly the same regardless of whether or not there are any children present when the offence took place?

No, but the OG post and subsequent replies have suggested there is little wrong with looking at kiddie porn.

I accept that the vast majority of peedos will simply look at the images and leave it at that, but some will go on to abuse children themselves. So for that reason every dirty peedo should be thrown in prison.

You accept that the offences should not be treated the same in your first sentence.

Then you say they should in your final sentence.

Consequently I'm not quite sure where you are coming from as you contradict yourself.

RT and I are simply saying that rape and voyeurism are not the same even if the object of desire of both is the same. 

Also you make a (false) assumption that there is a natural progression from porn to rape. Whilst it's probably true that a high %age of rapists have viewed porn it doesn't follow that a high %age of porn viewers are rapists. A bit like "all cabbages are vegetables but not all vegetables are cabbages".

i hate cabbage!