UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[sim667]

Where do you stand on the laws regarding incitement of racial hatred? o you think they're a bit daft because there's no actual victim? It's just words and thoughts? Words and thoughts don't hurt people?

You can't stop people from being racist if they choose to be... But you can stop them sharing and spreading that and encouraging others.

I can't imagine someone with noncey intentions will actively seek out someone else with noncey intentions that often in quite the same way.....

 

[comrade spurski]

Racist and homophobic graffiti are just words.
Monkey noises at football matches are just noises
So should these not be illegal?

 

[sim667]

Bomb making instructions are just literature too.

Indeed they are..... I wonder how many urbs have got a copy of the anarchist cookbook and could be considered a terrorist of the basis of that... I bet theres at least one or tow.

 

[butchersapron]

I can't imagine someone with noncey intentions will actively seek out someone else with noncey intentions that often in quite the same way.....

Ah, it's a joke thread.

 

[Citizen66]

Indeed they are..... I wonder how many urbs have got a copy of the anarchist cookbook and could be considered a terrorist of the basis of that... I bet theres at least one or tow.

You think people on here have bomb making instructions under their pillow?

Just because it has 'anarchist' in the title doesn't make it Proudhon or Bakunin.

 

[sim667]

Racist and homophobic graffiti are just words.
Monkey noises at football matches are just noises
So should these not be illegal?

They're targeted at someone.

If you really want to dress up a doll and shout racist slander at it in your own home, its not going to damage a individual...

 

[comrade spurski]

So no possession offences then?

It's ok if I keep some grenades and handguns under the bed?

Not attacking you...just a question...
Should someone be allowed to right racist comments, not aimed at any one, and get away with it.

 

[sim667]

Ah, it's a joke thread.

Seeing as you know everything there is to know about pedophiles then why don't you expand rather than just making snide comments and making stuff up

 

[butchersapron]

sim667 you are one very confused poster. I gave you the total benefit of the doubt earlier, but you don't even get what this debate is about. It's not about censoring art - it's about society. I've done my best for your thread but..fucking hell.

 

[comrade spurski]

So racist grafitti, not aimed at a person, is ok?

 

[sim667]

You think people on here have bomb making instructions under their pillow?

Just because it has 'anarchist' in the title doesn't make it Proudhon or Bakunin.

I bet one or two people have a pdf of it knocking about on a hard drive.... There's a lot of people on here..

 

[butchersapron]

Seeing as you know everything there is to know about pedophiles then why don't you expand rather than just making snide comments and making stuff up

And bang on time. This is really bad stuff.

 

[butchersapron]

Seeing as you know everything there is to know about pedophiles then why don't you expand rather than just making snide comments and making stuff up

I've gone out out my way to engage in your thread from the start - i've not been abusive or snide. I've answered every question and post you and others put to me. To see this is now reduced to you thinking that rejecting your inability to argue your own case is just me being snide is pretty poor. Pretty snide in fact. Maybe you should make sure only people who agree with you post on your threads somehow?

 

[Citizen66]

I bet one or two people have a pdf of it knocking about on a hard drive.... There's a lot of people on here..

So you must have paedo art hence your defence of it. Its no less likely than saying people on here have bomb making instructions.

 

[sim667]

sim667 you are one very confused poster. I gave you the total benefit of the doubt earlier, but you don't even get what this debate is about. It's not about censoring art - it's about society. I've done my best for your thread but..fucking hell.

i have said its about censoring art.

I've said its about criminalising people for things that haven't happend. I used the art bit to explain why it hasn't happened. This isn't about whether the bloke likes kids or not, he clearly does. But its about the difference between things that have an havent happened.

He hasn't abused a child.
He hasn't created photographs of a child.
He has been prosecuted for victimising someone who doesn't exist.
Thousands of others have created photographs of children and have victimised people who do exist, yet the police say they will not be prosecuted.

Where is the justice in that clusterfuck?

 

[sim667]

I've gone out out my way to engage in your thread from the start - i've not been abusive or snide. I've answered every question and post you and others put to me. To see this is now reduced to you thinking that rejecting your inability to argue your own case is just me being snide is pretty poor. Pretty snide in fact. Maybe you should make sure only people who agree with you post on your threads somehow?

Well the comment I was replying to was snide.

you claimed he'd been prosecuted for actual photographs of children, to try and skew the argument. In the link you posted after claiming that, it clearly said he hadn't. Thats not just snide, thats a downright lie.

 

[butchersapron]

You say lots of things - you never provide any argument for them. You never providing anything at beyond - it's not a photograph.any discussion of why this doesn't matter, what it means is ignored in favour of saying yet again, it's not a photograph.

Engage in the debate - don't just repeat your position over and over and accuse people who don't agree of not getting your cutting edge point.

 

[butchersapron]

Well the comment I was replying to was snide.

you claimed he'd been prosecuted for actual photographs of children, to try and skew the argument. In the link you posted after claiming that, it clearly said he hadn't. Thats not just snide, thats a downright lie.

I claimed no such thing. What on earth is wrong with you?

 

[comrade spurski]

i have said its about censoring art.

I've said its about criminalising people for things that haven't happend. I used the art bit to explain why it hasn't happened. This isn't about whether the bloke likes kids or not, he clearly does. But its about the difference between things that have an havent happened.

He hasn't abused a child.
He hasn't created photographs of a child.
He has been prosecuted for victimising someone who doesn't exist.
Thousands of others have created photographs of children and have victimised people who do exist, yet the police say they will not be prosecuted.

Where is the justice in that clusterfuck?

The police being wrong about not prosecuting some people does not make this wrong.
My understanding is they made the decision not to chase up certain men with images sometime after they decided to prosecute this one. Personally I am pleased they prosecuted him, and hope they are forced to change their decision to prosecute the others

 

[captainmission]

He has been prosecuted for victimising someone who doesn't exist.

I think this is the stumbling block for you. See some of us actually believe society exists.

 

[sim667]

So you must have paedo art hence your defence of it. Its no less likely than saying people on here have bomb making instructions.

And again its no less likely than saying there may be one or two people on here who have got paedo art that aren't me.... I don't think your doing yourself any favours by resorting to accusing me of being a paedophile though.

Infact there was even a comment that someone off her was done for cartoon porn apparently (lisa and bart simpson?!)

 

[Spymaster]

Ignore thousands of people who have helped cause psycholgocial damage to hundreds of kids, but its ok, because this guy like likes cartoon porn we'll have him incase he does something .

Don't be fucking stupid.

 

[sim667]

I think this is the stumbling block for you. See some of us actually believe society exists.

You can't claim that one man watching what is essentially a cartoon (regardless of how fucked upit is) is victimising society.

Letting thousands of people with child porn walk free.... yeah thats victimising society.

 

[sim667]

Don't be fucking stupid.

What's stupid of being critical of letting an amount of people do far more widespread damage than a 39 year old loner living with his mum wanking off over a cartoon.

If there weren't different risks of pedophiles there wouldn't be different sentences for the risk they carry

 

[Citizen66]

And again its no less likely than saying there may be one or two people on here who have got paedo art that aren't me.... I don't think your doing yourself any favours by resorting to accusing me of being a paedophile though.

You've proven my point. Why resort to stating 'at least a couple of people' on here must have bomb making instructions based on zero evidence to add some weight to your argument? It's pure speculation.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

i have said its about censoring art.

I've said its about criminalising people for things that haven't happend. I used the art bit to explain why it hasn't happened. This isn't about whether the bloke likes kids or not, he clearly does. But its about the difference between things that have an havent happened.

He hasn't abused a child.
He hasn't created photographs of a child.
He has been prosecuted for victimising someone who doesn't exist.
Thousands of others have created photographs of children and have victimised people who do exist, yet the police say they will not be prosecuted.

Where is the justice in that clusterfuck?

He HAS created pseudo-photographs of children... at least a Jury thought so.

 

[Athos]

He has been prosecuted for victimising someone who doesn't exist.

Society exists.

Thousands of others have created photographs of children and have victimised people who do exist, yet the police say they will not be prosecuted.

Because they have to prioritise. I see nothing wrong with prioritising a repeat sex offender.

 

[Citizen66]

What's stupid of being critical of letting an amount of people do far more widespread damage than a 39 year old loner living with his mum wanking off over a cartoon.

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.

 

[sim667]

Society exists.




Because they have to prioritise. I see nothing wrong with prioritising a repeat sex offender.

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

 

[butchersapron]

Well the comment I was replying to was snide.

you claimed he'd been prosecuted for actual photographs of children, to try and skew the argument. In the link you posted after claiming that, it clearly said he hadn't. Thats not just snide, thats a downright lie.

No it wasn't - it was openly laughing at your previous post.

To suggest i've 'just' posted snide comments on this thread is what is a lie. I've gone out of my way to pout the case against your black and white nonsense. Just get things right like this and you'll have a more credible wider argument.