watching a news story about a businessman jailed for child exploitation photos. He had his sentence reduced ans is due for parole in a couple of weeks due to serious illness.

Some of the pics were girls in swimming costumes (illegal?)..anyway the point is an arresting detective was not pleased and made a statement.."every time someone looks at this photos the child is abused all over the again..the material was shocking "

Quite so, probably very shocking as he must have seen them to know. But does that mean he abused "all over again" by looking at the pictures?

And the prosecutor,the judge?

I don't know the answer.

It's a bit like differing ages of consent in say, UK, Germany, Italy, all over Europe. Is someone a pedo in one country but not another?

He is just making the point that people who download, view, trade and so perpetuate the abuse of real children for sexual gratification are complicit in the rape and abuse of the children. Clearly this is not what the reviewing Police officer is doing when he or she views the images. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Wyot wrote:
He is just making the point that people who download, view, trade and so perpetuate the abuse of real children for sexual gratification are complicit in the rape and abuse of the children. Clearly this is not what the reviewing Police officer is doing when he or she views the images. Quite the opposite, in fact.

yes point taken but I have heard judges, coppers say it so many times: words to the effect of "every time someone looks at these pictures the victim is abused all over again".

You can't just say something so definitive but then temporarily suspend that abuse of "looking" just on the word of the authorities.

## and let's not ignore the fact that in the British police there are most likely plenty of pervs, if not murderers

What does this say about a genuine victim who really does feel they are being abused when someone looks at their abuse photo?.."oh it's OK..he's just a copper looking at them as part of his job".

Really?

On the other hand I do have a friend who is now in his 60s that did some porno photos and video when he was 16 in Amsterdam as he needed the money. While I've never seen the film or photos and nor has he for decades he laughs about it as he says "It would be impossible to think of that person as me now as I would not be recognizable as that 16 year old these days".. And I often think similarly when I look at old family photos of me as a (gorgeous) child and wonder "is it really me?" (probably being 97 doesn't help )

No, this is one of the conundrums that are so often trotted out and which are totally meaningless as it makes a grand sweeping statement about every victim in the world when the person making it could not possibly know.

Exactly Hedda; another example of simplification and generalisation which I used to think was laziness but now feel it is a definite indicator of a species causing its own demise. Thank God we won't be around to see it.

Well, it is one of the reasons why some people don't report crimes. It cant be helped that some people will have to see photos and videos of exploitation, but they could keep it to the minimum needed and not let any Tom Dick or "TV detective" view them.

hedda wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


No, this is one of the conundrums that are so often trotted out and which are totally meaningless as it makes a grand sweeping statement about every victim in the world when the person making it could not possibly know.

Well yes point taken too Hedda. It is too wide and sweeping a statement; too easy and superficial. The point could be expressed a lot better.

As an aside to all this though I can't help feeling for the officers who do have to look at some utterly vile material that might involve toddlers & babies. That can't be an easy thing to live with once seen.

We should be thankful some people are willing to do this for everyone else.

Wyot wrote:
[quote]hedda wrote:
Wyot wrote:


No, this is one of the conundrums that are so often trotted out and which are totally meaningless as it makes a grand sweeping statement about every victim in the world when the person making it could not possibly know.

Well yes point taken too Hedda. It is too wide and sweeping a statement; too easy and superficial. The point could be expressed a lot better.

As an aside to all this though I can't help feeling for the officers who do have to look at some utterly vile material that might involve toddlers & babies. That can't be an easy thing to live with once seen.

We should be thankful some people are willing to do this for everyone else.

I think there is a burnt out rate and I believe they are regularly moved on for that reason.