IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Imprisoned for importing a doll
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Randall wrote:
This is an interesting case. I tend towards the position of PaulB and robbiex and away from Jo and Honey.
The key question here is whether the law is a means to disincentivise causing harm or loss to others OR a means of describing and enforcing a moral standard. I strongly believe the former. Morals are a private matter for each man's individual conscience, not something to be imposed by the state.
It's not possible to harm someone by looking at a picture of them. Harm - if any - is caused by the events that were photographed. The events may have been perfectly legal in the jurisdiction of origin, of course. It's not correct to assume that viewing creates demand unless there is evidence of payment, requests or trading. Much of this type of material is open source and free, like everything else on the internet. I've little doubt that the material was heavily talked up as usual, and I think punishing someone for private viewing is pointless, but it is currently illegal so there it is.
I've much more of a problem with the doll charge. Possession of the doll isn't illegal so the man should be allowed to indulge his preferences privately: it can't possibly be argued that he's harming anyone by doing anything with his doll. Also, it's not correct to assume that he will necessarily progress to child kidnap/abuse. We wouldn't assume the adult equivalent of the owner of an adult-style sex doll.
As robbiex mentioned, it's problematic to designate a child-style doll as obscene. What exactly is it that makes it obscene? The quality of lifelikeness or the presence of a model vagina perhaps. But this is just anatomical accuracy. Robbiex has already pointed out that this makes children obscene too. Or is it the apparent age of the doll? Presumably it is legal to import adult-style sex dolls, so there are now unwritten, unlegislated stylistic parameters for obscenity of sex dolls. So what if the manufacturer makes dolls with a toy-style flat groin, and then separately supplies a vagina unit the user can fit themselves? That would be legal right? This feels an awful lot like persecuting a man for having the wrong sexuality. The rationale is I don't like it, so you can't do it.
Loss of privacy and dignity is still a loss.
I cant imagine most adults would want people watching their own brutal rape ? Would you?
It has always seemed to me to be more harmful to have a blank space on (ordinary) toy dolls. What message is that sending to children?
I remember some neighbours were disgusted when relatives sent over some anatomically correct dolls for my friends and me in 1969. Mine was (worryingly) called Paul McCartney and I still have him.  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
hedda wrote:
Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
...As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.
The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported….
"He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."
This seems rather different from the images of adults apparently found on Rolf Harris's computer. And Rolf Harris didn't go to the lengths of obtaining a life-size doll from Hong Kong that looked like a 4-6-year-old.
still puzzled by the fact the doll is legal but importing it is not. There is zilch proof of what he was going to use it for..absolutely zilch but of course we can all have suspicions but that is how today's law works- they can twist anything to mean what they want..as they did with Rolf Harris where you have oddly ignored the fact police claimed he had child porn on his computer which seems like a deliberate attempt to demonize Harris in the eyes of the public and it worked as a 1000 bloggers now believe.
# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage and they were not downloaded by Harris but a visiting young teen relative which is why the matter was quietly dropped after the damage was done. Facts, inconvenient facts.
Anyone can go to a toy shop and buy a fairly lifelike doll..some are even anatomically correct.
Perhaps they need to have a Pedo watch Brigade at all the UK toy shops.
Maybe boot sales as well.. pedos snapping up old dolls.
Do you remember how it was implied that Michael Jackson was doing something unspeakable with his perfectly ordinary china dolls?
It said more about the journalists minds than Jackson's, I think. |
|
Jo |
hedda wrote:
# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage
"Harris’s legal team told Mr Justice Sweeney in previously unreportable legal argument that the models in the photographs were over 18, according to their identity documents provided by website bosses in the Ukraine."
www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/rolf-ha...ual-images-1.1855473 |
|
Randall |
This is an interesting case. I tend towards the position of PaulB and robbiex and away from Jo and Honey.
The key question here is whether the law is a means to disincentivise causing harm or loss to others OR a means of describing and enforcing a moral standard. I strongly believe the former. Morals are a private matter for each man's individual conscience, not something to be imposed by the state.
It's not possible to harm someone by looking at a picture of them. Harm - if any - is caused by the events that were photographed. The events may have been perfectly legal in the jurisdiction of origin, of course. It's not correct to assume that viewing creates demand unless there is evidence of payment, requests or trading. Much of this type of material is open source and free, like everything else on the internet. I've little doubt that the material was heavily talked up as usual, and I think punishing someone for private viewing is pointless, but it is currently illegal so there it is.
I've much more of a problem with the doll charge. Possession of the doll isn't illegal so the man should be allowed to indulge his preferences privately: it can't possibly be argued that he's harming anyone by doing anything with his doll. Also, it's not correct to assume that he will necessarily progress to child kidnap/abuse. We wouldn't assume the adult equivalent of the owner of an adult-style sex doll.
As robbiex mentioned, it's problematic to designate a child-style doll as obscene. What exactly is it that makes it obscene? The quality of lifelikeness or the presence of a model vagina perhaps. But this is just anatomical accuracy. Robbiex has already pointed out that this makes children obscene too. Or is it the apparent age of the doll? Presumably it is legal to import adult-style sex dolls, so there are now unwritten, unlegislated stylistic parameters for obscenity of sex dolls. So what if the manufacturer makes dolls with a toy-style flat groin, and then separately supplies a vagina unit the user can fit themselves? That would be legal right? This feels an awful lot like persecuting a man for having the wrong sexuality. The rationale is I don't like it, so you can't do it. |
|
hedda |
Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
...As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.
The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported….
"He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."
This seems rather different from the images of adults apparently found on Rolf Harris's computer. And Rolf Harris didn't go to the lengths of obtaining a life-size doll from Hong Kong that looked like a 4-6-year-old.
still puzzled by the fact the doll is legal but importing it is not. There is zilch proof of what he was going to use it for..absolutely zilch but of course we can all have suspicions but that is how today's law works- they can twist anything to mean what they want..as they did with Rolf Harris where you have oddly ignored the fact police claimed he had child porn on his computer which seems like a deliberate attempt to demonize Harris in the eyes of the public and it worked as a 1000 bloggers now believe.
# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage and they were not downloaded by Harris but a visiting young teen relative which is why the matter was quietly dropped after the damage was done. Facts, inconvenient facts.
Anyone can go to a toy shop and buy a fairly lifelike doll..some are even anatomically correct.
Perhaps they need to have a Pedo watch Brigade at all the UK toy shops.
Maybe boot sales as well.. pedos snapping up old dolls. |
|
|
|
|
