Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

A repeat offender who's crime is to look at fabricated situations rather than a real situation?

Yes. A man who has been convicted of a child sex offence, and, despite receiving treatment, has gone on to offend again. I think it very wise to prosecute him for this second crime.
 
That's like saying child abusers shouldn't be prosecuted because they haven't caught who snatched Maddie yet and that's much more serious. :facepalm:

Why don't you go call people critical of the police over that paedophiles too then?
 
A repeat offender who's crime is to look at fabricated situations rather than a real situation?

Which is a footprint indicating intent to encourage or involvement in offending. I wouldn't want the cunt near my kids. (And Southbank is pretty fucking close!)
 
Yes. A man who has been convicted of a child sex offence, and, despite receiving treatment, has gone on to offend again. I think it very wise to prosecute him for this second crime.

What?! He hasn't been prosecuted over kiddy fiddling.

He's been prosecuted twice for having cartoons.
 
Not attacking you...just a question...
Should someone be allowed to right racist comments, not aimed at any one, and get away with it.

It's a derail but I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech/expression.

People should be free to express their views, however abhorent, but a line should be drawn when that expression becomes incitement.

"I hate blacks" - Ok.

"Kill all blacks" - Not ok.
 
I was pointing out it was as logical to accuse you of that as it was you accusing others of having bomb making instructions to make a non point.

I didn't accuse anyone, I said there's probably one or two.... An accusation means that you would name someone.... Which you did in addressing me directly.
 
He's been prosecuted twice for having images of kids getting raped. He's never been prosecuted for having cartoons.

Seriously what are you smoking and can I have some?

Both articles we've been referring to say he has been prosecuted for cartoon porn involving depictions of children. Not videos of actual children getting raped?!

You're the one saying he's had footage of children getting raped, neither of the articles have said that and one even specifies that there were no images of actual children (the one you posted)
 
Which is more important to society.

Complete artistic freedom or child protection?

Child protection would imply that a child needs protecting.... He hasn't watched anything of actual children. A child may need protecting yes, but as it stands he's not caused the abuse of an actual existing child.
 
Seriously what are you smoking and can I have some?

Both articles we've been referring to say he has been prosecuted for cartoon porn involving depictions of children. Not videos of actual children getting raped?!

You're the one saying he's had footage of children getting raped, neither of the articles have said that and one even specifies that there were no images of actual children (the one you posted)
Could you point to his prosecutions for having cartoons please. I can point to his successfully being twice prosecuted for having images of kids being sexually abused.

You don't know what this is about do you?
 
an image is not necessarily a photograph or footage, sim.

I work with photographs all day, every day... Depictions of something are recreations of with interpretation.

A photograph is a record of something that has happened.

The point I've sustained through the entire thread is that what this guy has been prosecuted of is having interpretations of an encounter with a child, not a record of.
 
Seriously what are you smoking and can I have some?

Both articles we've been referring to say he has been prosecuted for cartoon porn involving depictions of children. Not videos of actual children getting raped?!

You're the one saying he's had footage of children getting raped, neither of the articles have said that and one even specifies that there were no images of actual children (the one you posted)
Can you point me out where i said footage rather the very careful use if images i have used since page 1?
 
Child protection would imply that a child needs protecting.... He hasn't watched anything of actual children. A child may need protecting yes, but as it stands he's not caused the abuse of an actual existing child.

Part of child protection is stopping those at the less serious end of the child sex offending from progressing to contact offences.
 
I work with photographs all day, every day... Depictions of something are recreations of with interpretation.

A photograph is a record of something that has happened.

The point I've sustained through the entire thread is that what this guy has been prosecuted of is having interpretations of an encounter with a child, not a record of.

No, he was convicted of possessing prohibited images of children. Twice.
 
Child protection would imply that a child needs protecting.... He hasn't watched anything of actual children. A child may need protecting yes, but as it stands he's not caused the abuse of an actual existing child.

Yet.

Has it not entered your mind that he makes these images because he has a lack of access to children but that might change the second he does?

You'd think he might have taken up stamp collecting after the first conviction.
 
This is Sweetie, the CGI Filipina who 1,000 men webcammed with asking her to perform sex acts. Would you say they've done nothing wrong really because no children were harmed and it's not real?

l-image-virtuelle-de-la-fillette-baptisee-sweetie-par-l-ong_359674_516x343.jpg

Assuming you don't think this is okay, how is this different?
 
Sure i can, just as i argued people who break the speed limit victimise society and should be punished for it.

All very well, but speeding is an accepted norm, with police being told to have a tolerance of plus 10% + 2 mph.... as discussed on here just the other day.
 
Back
Top Bottom