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: Green light given to kill suspected pedos
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Blackit |
It isn't clear at all, is it Veritas? I realise that perhaps there are certain people who have a compulsive and all-consuming need for attention and will say anything, as may have happened in this case, but 'need for attention' would cover 90% of our pop idol generation.
Furthermore, he was convicted with somebody else, athough it is unclear what relationship the two had with each other.
I think the phrase 'convicted paedophile' is used so much because it implies that every person in the land is under suspicion, just haven't been convicted yet. Orwellian.
By the way, I did post this reply yesterday but JK the meanie, or whoever is the mod, chose not to approve it. 
Great point DR2 about the distinction between viewing and doing. I think I read that 50 million Americans viewed the Nick Berg Iraqi beheading - therefore 50 million Americans are murderers. |
|
JC |
I suspect that child porn sites could only exist if they had some other "front", i.e. were disguised as something else. Otherwise they would probably be snuffed out very quickly. I also suspect that there are very few online now, but rather those who like to share such images do so within limited private circles. The police would do better to try and infiltrate such forums rather than focus on the rather dodgy area of credit card use. |
|
veritas |
I try to use paypal and similar services now. |
|
DR2 |
The subject of theft of credit card account numbers is something that worries me. I only use my credit card for buying DVD's and such online from big companies like amazon and HMV. But the fact that someone who is very clever with computers could hack into one of these supposedly secure sites and steal my credit card details and use them to pay online for child porn is like a sword of damocles hanging over the heads of everyone who uses a credit card this way. It could happen to any one of us at any time and it's very worrying. In fact, I read in the paper about four years ago of this actually happening to a doctor at my local hospital. He was arrested and his computer seized, but the police could find nothing incriminating on it and no evidence that he had ever visited the site in question, so he was never charged. It was obvious that someone, somehow, had gotten access to his credit card details and it could have been anyone, anywhere in the world.
In the early days of the Internet, there were numerous child porn websites, but I reckon the only ones out there now are entrapment sites run by the FBI and the police and anyone daft enough to pay for pictures on these sites with their credit card will soon hear a knock on the door. |
|
Emma Bee |
A couple of points come to mind from your post, Hugh.
I don't think it is only paedophiles who view child porn. There are many way that it can get on your computer (e.g. a particularly nasty trojan), or how you can stray onto a website. As Veritas points out, the main website at the centre of Operation Ore was one which claimed to show legal adult porn, and users would not know it contained child porn until they'd accessed it. Some people send a link claiming it is their personal profile, or something equally harmless, but it turns out to contain child porn.
Another thing is the unclear definition of an indecent image. Child, or Kiddie, porn is just media terminology. A photo of a child in swimwear on your computer can result in charges of posessing or viewing indecent images, even though such images are legally viewable in mail order catalogues or holiday brochures.
I think that there should be a clear distinction between nakedness (or even semi nakedness) and sex. In many cases there is absolutely no sexual content of allegedly indecent images. If sex is involved then I agree that it is indecent.
Would we call Julia Sommerville a paedophile because she was given a police caution for having a photo of her own baby in a bath? If so, then the majority of parents since the invention of the camera should also be branded paedophiles. It's nonsense of course.
There are so many grey areas, it's easy to see how there are also so many wrongful convictions. As a parent the paranoia concerns me more than the reality, because paranoia throughout history has led to such things as the famous witch hunts where many innocents were hung for nothing, and the McCartney enquiries in the USA. We came close to it with the News of the World fiasco a short while back. The thing that scared me then was how a mob intent on harming a paedophile (although it turned out he wasn't) threw a brick through his window just narrowly missing a small child sitting within. Will people never learn? |
|
|
|
|
