Rather worrying.... (95)

http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer

Edited 8 Dec 08, 5:39 PM by missuslovett

I agree, but I'd also suggest the Rule of Law follows a well rehearsed centuries old process by which laws are enacted by the elected representatives of the people in open debate and then enforced fairly by public officials in courts of law before judges and juries. Open debate and challenge are built into the process at every stage.

I see nothing resembling that in the situation we have here.

I've been told I don't suffer fools gladly - but I don't particularly dislike them. It's the malicious sociopaths I can't stand.

Edited 8 Dec 08, 6:01 PM by The_Vicar

I do get very cross when people get on a soap box like this.

Yes, I believe it when it's said the image is distasteful. I don't want to see it, own it, publish it. I'd prefer that our world were ideal and nobody distributed it.

I am not naive, I've brought up two families. I've helped put two serial paedophiles who targeted them into prison - in one instance facing down credible threats of lethal violence to do so.

So please don't get on a high horse and claim you're holier than anybody else. You may have more experience and knowledge in particular areas than me, or may not, we'll never know.

But you're just completely missing the point, that the same mad 'logic' is being applied in child porn cases as in violent pornography.

It goes, "We don't like the image. We find it disturbing."

"We can't see any reason why anybody but a paedophile (or sexual torturer) would want to possess an image like that."

"Therefore anybody who possesses an image like that is almost certainly a paedophile (or sexual torturer)."

"So we should treat anybody who possesses an image like that precisely as we would a paedophile (or sexual torturer)."

"We pass a law that allows no defence for possession of such an image and impose the same penalties on those we catch, as we would for those who are actually proven to be an abusive and actual paedophile (or sexual torturer)."

Can't you stand aside and see the flaws in that logic?

There is a huge grey area between what is acceptable and unacceptable. This image is within that grey area.

I doubt that very many fans of this kind of heavy metal band are any more, or any less, likely to be a paedophile.

Any more than any of you who have viewed the image today are more, or any less, likely to be a paedophile.

Before or after you viewed the image. So why treat everybody who possesses the image as a paedophile?

If somebody had a collection of album covers, or images of album covers, that only or mainly featured young girls they should be considered as more likely to be a predatory paedophile, than someone who had hundreds of albums of which only one or two had such images.

Courts should have discretion to distinguish between light and dark grey in the particular instance in front of them.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality, fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.academywear.com for retro adult school and maid uniform guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100 [pi

Edited 8 Dec 08, 6:27 PM by sirguym

I've got the HTC which uses internet explorer which should open any site. I'll give the Opera mini browser a try but it seems they have blocked these sites for "safety reasons"

This post is brought to you by the evil empire.
Dissenters will be hunted down and soundly thrashed.