UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[Spymaster]

So what there's no difference betweena photographic and a drawing.... they're both realistic representations of an image/person/situatino?

In this situation there is no difference in what they are being used for.

 

[Athos]

Of child rape?

I can't think of a single reason why someone caught in possession of a wank-bank of child rape pictures shouldn't be prosecuted.

I can think of none I find persuasive, but there are sensible and informed people within the sphere of child protection who argue that such pseudo -images can be used as the least harmful outlet for such urges.

 

[sim667]

In this situation there is no difference in what they are being used for.

But they are different.

 

[Athos]

Is this about winning?

Not in your case, no.

 

[andysays]

You're a disingenuous cunt.

FWIW, I don't think they are.

I think they are struggling with their apparent complete inability to understand what many people on this thread are saying, or even to understand the implications and complexities of what they are saying and/or trying to say.

 

[killer b]

Regardless of all this bullshit sim, someone with a hard drive full of even pseudo-images of child rape isn't safe to be round kids and should be on the register. The only way to do that is to prosecute them.

 

[Spymaster]

Because the state's reach ends somewhere?

Thankfully, not there.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

I didn't say it was.... butchers did.

Pretty sure about that?
Cos the thread seems to revolve around your view that a guy prosecuted for having cgi child sex images was treated unfairly.

 

[andysays]

I have so won this thread now.

I'm not sure that in this case it's about you winning, more about the OP losing, and that happened way back on the first page.

You and others have been very patient in attempting to tease out the issues and explain how they're very confused, but I don't think you're actually going to get anywhere.

 

[sim667]

Regardless of all this bullshit sim, someone with a hard drive full of even pseudo-images of child rape isn't safe to be round kids and should be on the register. The only way to do that is to prosecute them.

fair do's

I think he should have been treated with mental health support personally.... But the state doesn't seem to allow for that.

My point always has been and remains that I wanted to discuss the further reaching implications of rulings like this.... I.e. does a terrorism stroy equate to someone maybe causing harm to others in a terrorist attack etc.

I unwittingly bought a magazine thinking it had wicked drawings and then discovered it was produced and published by some very fucking weird christians.... in turn does that mean if these weird christians were ever of concern to the government and I was found to have this magazine, could I be considered a part of that group?

Thats all the thread was ever going to be about, before I got accused of being a nonce and then being told I was going to be drowned.

 

[Citizen66]

FWIW, I don't think they are.

I think they are struggling with their apparent complete inability to understand what many people on this thread are saying, or even to understand the implications and complexities of what they are saying and/or trying to say.

You could be right. He appears to not see nuances in text and interprets everything literally.

 

[butchersapron]

Regardless of all this bullshit sim, someone with a hard drive full of even pseudo-images of child rape isn't safe to be round kids and should be on the register. The only way to do that is to prosecute them.

I agree - which is what makes this so annoying. The need to defend wider freedoms being reduced to this is not good. Like Louis said right back at page one i think, the aim is laudable, the instinct worthy but fucking hell, you're making a mess of it sim667 and calling all those who may be the best defence against these things stuff that you shouldn't.

 

[Citizen66]

Thankfully, not there.

Thankfully for the perpetrator. Because the alternative is vigilantism.

 

[Spymaster]

My point always has been and remains that I wanted to discuss the further reaching implications of rulings like this.... I.e. does a terrorism stroy equate to someone maybe causing harm to others in a terrorist attack etc.

I unwittingly bought a magazine thinking it had wicked drawings and then discovered it was produced and published by some very fucking weird christians.... in turn does that mean if these weird christians were ever of concern to the government and I was found to have this magazine, could I be considered a part of that group?

Intent.

 

[sim667]

Pretty sure about that?
Cos the thread seems to revolve around your view that a guy prosecuted for having cgi child sex images was treated unfairly.

Manga images.

We're talking about two stories at the same time. the original article refers to manga images, those are the ones that im saying are an unrealistic depiction, and I'm unsure as to the further reaching consequences of something we all know very well isn't real.

Butchers ison about an aussie who solicited a cgi girl who is designed to look very real into having sex over webcam, and despite thinking the man with manga images should have the book thrown at him, doesn't think that that the australian man with the webcam should have any consequnece of trying to solicit online sex with a child on webcam as the child is not real and there was no victim.

 

[Citizen66]

Did he download the images or create them? If the former then how can we be sure it's a victimless crime?

 

[sim667]

I agree - which is what makes this so annoying. The need to defend wider freedoms being reduced to this is not good. Like Louis said right back at page one i think, the aim is laudable, the instinct worthy but fucking hell, you're making a mess of it sim667 and calling all those who may be the best defence against these things stuff that you shouldn't.

I haven't called anyone anything?!

Citizen66 accused me of having pedophile imagery on my computer. Afaik that's the only name calling that's gone on?!

 

[sim667]

Did he download the images or create them? If the former then how can we be sure it's a victimless crime?

You can't.

But in the context of just him, as it is only him on trial there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[butchersapron]

I haven't called anyone anything?!

Citizen66 accused me of having pedophile imagery on my computer. Afaik that's the only name calling that's gone on?!

Your last half hour is something that you may want to review.

 

[8115]

Regardless of all this bullshit sim, someone with a hard drive full of even pseudo-images of child rape isn't safe to be round kids and should be on the register. The only way to do that is to prosecute them.

That is fair enough and I had not thought of that.

But nevertheless 99.9% of what makes child pornography wrong is what has actually happened to an actual person in the making of it in my view.

 

[sim667]

Your last half hour is something that you may want to review.

What your total u-turn?

 

[butchersapron]

What your total u-turn?

Don't do this.

 

[sim667]

That is fair enough and I had not thought of that.

But nevertheless 99.9% of what makes child pornography wrong is what has actually happened to an actual person in the making of it in my view.

Exactly mine too.

I don't think people wake up in the morning and think "oh yeah I'm going to be a nonce and hurt kids" it's a sexual compulsion and is medically recognised as such

 

[sim667]

Don't do this.

Can you please explain.

 

[Citizen66]

I haven't called anyone anything?!

Citizen66 accused me of having pedophile imagery on my computer. Afaik that's the only name calling that's gone on?!

Well you're defending it.

 

[Spymaster]

I had not thought of that.

Really?

 

[8115]

Exactly mine too.

I don't think people wake up in the morning and think "oh yeah I'm going to be a nonce and hurt kids" it's a sexual compulsion and is medically recognised as such

I'm don't necessarily agree with that. I partially agree with you about a specific point about fictional vs factual images.

 

[Citizen66]

You can't.

But in the context of just him, as it is only him on trial there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

The cgi images could depict actual rape scenes. No different than taking a photo of it.

 

[Athos]

But in the context of just him, as it is only him on trial there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

But the context isn't just him; the context is of him within society, and the risk he poses to the most vulnerable people in that society. Yes, there's some sensible (if unconvincing) arguments against prosecution for pseudo-images (both in terms of the state imposing standards of morality in the absence of specific harm, and form a harm reduction perspective), but you've really not covered yourself in glory on this thread.

 

[Citizen66]

Exactly mine too.

I don't think people wake up in the morning and think "oh yeah I'm going to be a nonce and hurt kids" it's a sexual compulsion and is medically recognised as such

This is liberal shit.