Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[kenny g]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

explains why the law is actually pretty reasonable when judging what is legal and not.

And no, a married couple taking photos of each other for personal use would not be done for being paedos. If they were selling the photos to paedos they might get in trouble, which seems reasonable to me.

 

[Jonti]

Kenny, you have no say in who gets prosecuted.

What matters is the words of the statute.

When push comes to shove, that's what matters.

 

[Jonti]

This bit is interesting.

It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.

It is often said that child pornography is child abuse. But, no, it's not, not always. There may be no child involved at all.

 

[Jonti]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

explains why the law is actually pretty reasonable when judging what is legal and not.

And no, a married couple taking photos of each other for personal use would not be done for being paedos. If they were selling the photos to paedos they might get in trouble, which seems reasonable to me.

If a married couple, both aged 17 do take "indecent" photos of each other, they may be prosecuted for "making child pornography".

Yes, if they sold those images, they could also be prosecuted for distributing the material -- but only because those images fall foul of the law in the first place.

 

[Jonti]

You know these days loads of kids have mobile phones with built in cameras, right? Imagine how many kids take naughty pics of themselves and share them with a few friends.

Those kids can be prosecuted and put on the sex-offenders register. As makers and distributors of child pornography.

This isn't child protection. It is child abuse.

 

[kenny g]

You know these days loads of kids have mobile phones with built in cameras, right? Imagine how many kids take naughty pics of themselves and share them with a few friends.

Those kids can be prosecuted and put on the sex-offenders register. As makers and distributors of child pornography.

This isn't child protection. It is child abuse.

Have you read the fucking link? Do you actually understand how the decision to prosecute is made? Stop talking utter shite based on reading the law like a twat.

How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones? I am not talking about children who have been found with piles of paedo distribution and are part of pervert networks but "innocent" stuff like you refer to.

Do you think children who distribute pornographic pictures of class mates to adults they know are using them for sexual purposes should not be dealt with?

 

[kenny g]

I love the way you feel able to lecture me in your patronising arsehole way about how the CPS makes its decisions. Idiot.

 

[dylans]

pervert networks

LOL you really have swallowed it all haven;t you?

I bet you say things like "Traffickers" and "groomers" and "internet predators" don't you? That's when you aren't ranting about "beasts" and filth" and "scum." Your entire vocabulary is written by the daily mail and the sun

 

[kenny g]

Would you prefer puppy lovers? The mind boggles.

 

[tbaldwin]

Dylansisms

What is the Dylanist position on race attacks? Is it that as Black people are more likely to be murdered by other Black people that people concerned about Black people being killed in racist attacks are all knee jerk media inspired bad people? And perhaps gay people are far more likely to be attacked by other gay people,so maybe the whole thingf of hate crimes needs to be reviewed.
And more Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iraqis etc etc...

Could you expand on the dylanist philosophy....

 

[Jonti]

How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones?

How many children know they could be?

What do you think?

 

[Jonti]

I love the way you feel able to lecture me in your patronising arsehole way about how the CPS makes its decisions. Idiot.

If you calm down and read what I wrote (instead of imagining what I meant) you will discover I did no such thing

 

[Jonti]

Would you prefer puppy lovers? The mind boggles.

Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called. Not to be confused with furries. You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more

 

[kenny g]

Kenny, you have no say in who gets prosecuted.

What matters is the words of the statute.

When push comes to shove, that's what matters.

Is what I am talking about.

Complete ignorance of the prosecution code used by the CPS. A completely ignorant literal reading of the law.

And no, your knowledge of internet sick internet chatrooms does not impress, nor is it surprising.

 

[_angel_]

The question is, how it is actually being applied and used, and what abuses it could lead to. How you or I think it should be used is immaterial.

Actually what "you or I think" isn't immaterial. What the problem with this argument is putting words in my mouth, 'if you want x you have to have y and z with it', well, we don't do we?
This is a discussion about what we think should happen, surely?

 

[Jonti]

Do you think children who distribute pornographic pictures of class mates to adults they know are using them for sexual purposes should not be dealt with?

This is contrived; it would be easier for a child with that intent to use images of his or herself.

But you make an interesting point. Should child pornography produced by children be treated the same way as material obtained by coercive adults? Thinking about it, that hardly seems justifiable.

 

[dylans]

What is the Dylanist position on race attacks? Is it that as Black people are more likely to be murdered by other Black people that people concerned about Black people being killed in racist attacks are all knee jerk media inspired bad people? And perhaps gay people are far more likely to be attacked by other gay people,so maybe the whole thingf of hate crimes needs to be reviewed.
And more Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iraqis etc etc...

Could you expand on the dylanist philosophy....

No. I see no moral panics over racist or homophobic hate crimes, not surprising given that these crimes, by their nature, affect, minority groups. Minority groups that are often the target of tabloid stereotyping and scapegoating themselves.

In fact given that most of our press is pretty racist and homophobic, the only examples of moral panics I can think of over race or sexuality have been racist and homophobic in nature.

For example the panic over muggings in the 1970s or anti gay moral panics inspired by the early days of HIV and media led "gay plague"stories.These could be considered moral panics but TBH this is off the top of my head and I haven't researched the subject.

In the early 80s there was a bit of a scare about "gay lifestyles" been taught in schools. That led to the Tories introducing the dreadful section 28 law. I guess they could be considered moral panics and in the case of section 28 led directly to reactionary legislation.

In those cases racial and sexual minority groups were the victims of moral panics. Perhaps you refer to them?
Or perhaps you refer to the "muslim =terrorist smear that is so popular in the press these days? These have some of the characteristics of tabloid led moral panics IMO. Although as I say this is not a subject I have really researched.

 

[Jonti]

Actually what "you or I think" isn't immaterial. What the problem with this argument is putting words in my mouth, 'if you want x you have to have y and z with it', well, we don't do we?
This is a discussion about what we think should happen, surely?

It would be good to have a discussion about what we think should happen, at least in terms of decriminalising normal teenage sexual activity.

It's absurd to have such laws on the statute book!

 

[dylans]

nd no, your knowledge of internet sick internet chatrooms does not impress, nor is it surprising.

Now now. Play nice Kenny. This has been a good thread with some good humoured debate, don't drag it into the gutter please

 

[kenny g]

It would be good to have a discussion about what we think should happen, at least in terms of decriminalising normal teenage sexual activity.

It's absurd to have such laws on the statute book!

Start a thread about it if you want. Why the desperate need to get away from a completely reasonable proposal to publish the details of local paedo beasts for the reasons previously outlined?

 

[existentialist]

Start a thread about it if you want. Why the desperate need to get away from a completely reasonable proposal to publish the details of local paedo beasts for the reasons previously outlined?

Comprehension fail.

 

[kenny g]

Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called. Not to be confused with furries. You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more

Took us into the gutter.

 

[Jonti]

How many children in the UK have been prosecuted for taking photographs of each other with mobile phones?

How many children know they could be?

What do you think?

 

[Jonti]

Took us into the gutter.

I take it you are angry that some people have sex with their pet dogs?

kenny, people are weird; but it's not so weird to want to check out just how weird they are. The really weird thing is, how, well, just how ordinary they are. Nice, even. It's a funny old world, alright.

 

[kenny g]

I take it you are angry that some people have sex with their pet dogs?

kenny, people are weird; but it's not so weird to want to check out just how weird they are. The really weird thing is, how, well, just how ordinary they are. Nice, even. It's a funny old world, alright.

I will let their victims be the judge of that.

 

[Jonti]

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

Oh, the dogs don't mind.

 

[dylans]

Are you and your mate on some kind of competition for the most condescending attitude in one post?

Who won?

 

[existentialist]

Who won?

It's no challenge, really. I wasn't even trying to be condescending, and _angel_ seems to have felt condescended to. Maybe today I'll have a competition with someone to see whether I can breathe at someone more than them.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Animal lovers, I believe they like to be called. Not to be confused with furries. You'll be able to find a chatroom somewhere where you can talk to them and find out more

there should be a register for furries

*shakes fist*

 

[dylans]

It's no challenge, really. I wasn't even trying to be condescending, and _angel_ seems to have felt condescended to. Maybe today I'll have a competition with someone to see whether I can breathe at someone more than them.

some people are just ...erm....insecure about their intellectual abilities.