It is absolutely right that someone should be jailed for downloading child pornography, of course it is. To say there is no crime in just viewing is strange and disturbing. A child is abused and scarred for life in order to produce the image/clip you view and by viewing you are complicit. To compare child porn and terrorist sites is idiotic. I could conceive a situation where i may decide to view a website linked to terrorism (in fact i'm sure all children of a certain age have seen the anarchists cookbook which details bomb making techniques, but nothing could ever make me want to view child abuse and anyone who would view this type of thing is dangerous and disturbed.

So you disagree with the Judges Godiver - downloading is enough; intent need not be proven; but, in that case, the law as it WAS should stand in both cases.

Unless you feel voyeurs are worse criminals than potential killers.

And of course your "victims" point is fair. All those abused virtual graphic images must be so distressed.

I'm trying to make a clear distinction between viewing child pornography and terrorism sites and if a judge ever decreed that viewing child porn was ok then you are damn right i would disagree with them.

A voyeur of child porn is just as bad as the abuser in my opinion.

You seem to be comfortable dismissing all child porn as victimless which is wrong and to mock the valid point i make about the child victims of the real abuse which features in much of the online child porn is innapropriate in my mind.

Don't muddy the waters by comparing apples to oranges, my point is that child porn sites are very different to online terrorism sites.

Ah no Godiver - that is the point... we're not here considering the "victims" depicted in sites, whether they be real or graphics, children, holocaust victims, terror victims or whatever... we're simply saying does thinking about something or considering it or viewing it warrant being a crime.

This verdict brings into question the entire area of THOUGHT crime.

Nobody wants to get into a discussion as to whether the deeds of murder or abuse or voyeurism are better or worse.

It's where you draw the line of criminal activity. And I simply question whether that line has been drawn in the right place.

The ultimate conclusion is - lock up readers of Agatha Christie, for they may encourage murder.

In my opinion, looking at child porn is no different than standing gawping at the victims of a serious road accident. However, if you pay to look at it, then you are financing those who take the pictures and are, therefore, complicit. Merely looking out of curiosity, while fairly sad, should not be considered a crime. If the police are devoting so much time to rounding up those who merely look, then they are spending less time on finding the people who commit the actual abuse. It's a bit like trying to stop drug abuse by arresting all small time users. This is why personal use of cannibis was decriminalised, because a) there will always be other customers, and b) the suppliers and pushers are the major targets.

The current laws are made to help reach targets and to create headlines to make people think that something effective is being done. But while the onlookers are prosecuted and put on a register, children continue to be abused for profit, and the real criminals remain at large.

I am fully aware of the point.

Viewing child porn is a crime in my opinion (as i have been trying to state over the last two posts) and anyone with images depicting child pornography on their pc's should be punished. This is not a thought crime, there is a clear (in my mind anyway but seemingly ignored every time i mention it) distinction between viewing child porn and all the other comparisons being made. To say that miss marple fans are employing the same degree of voyeurism as viewers of child porn is ridiculous.

Anyway, my point is constantly ignored so i'm going to stop making it.

No Godiver your point is NOT ignored.
Viewing child porn IS a crime and as such must be punished.
Our discussion is whether, after this Lords decision on downloading terrorist literature, it is now decriminalised by the precedent set.

Another discussion is whether or not it SHOULD be a crime and where the law should draw the line between watching such things as rape sequences or murder scenes, knowing what is real and what is not, and prosecuting people for being interested in it but not doing it.

And one of the key arguments there has just been made - shouldn't more energy, effort and resources be devoted to finding and stopping those who DO crimes and isn't the easy panacea of chasing clients not perpetrators a very dangerous escape route for those we wish to protect us?

Why on earth would you want to afford leniency to someone who consistently views child abuse? It's not 'sad' it's wrong and dangerous.

Legal precedent is not set that generally in this country although the ruling will aid future muslims who look at both sides to form a reasoned opinion.

I'm more confused by statements like:

'In my opinion, looking at child porn is no different than standing gawping at the victims of a serious road accident.'

Which are completely beyond my understanding, is he serious?

I think the distinction I would make is bomb-makers-handbook has a potential victim.

Child porn has an actual victim.

(This would mean that a computer generated child-porn image fits the former, which is an interesting idea.)

An equivalent would be someone fencing stolen goods, they themselves didn't steal anything, they didn't make anyone one go out an burgle anyone but it isn't reasonable to say that person is entirely blameless.

Ultimately it is not the "thought" it is being complicit with a deed.

Well this is turning away from thye origional topic,and as such deserves a post of its own.
Very stimulating debate,and I've enjoyed my participation,and reading the thoughts of others...but again,time for a new thread if it must continue.

I'll throw my farthing worth into the debate and raise the question of what is classified as child porn. Most assume it means sexual images of children, or of acts of sexual abuse. In fact, people have been prosecuted for having non sexual black images of naked children which date to the 19th centure. One well known new reader was given a caution - a which is still a criminal record - for having a photo of her toddler in the bath. Even images of children semi naked can now be classed as porn, although this seems to be only when they are on a computer while it's still legal to posess them in a mail order catalogue.

The whole issue of what is "child porn" is very clouded. This adds to the burden of the police who must fill out paper work on all of these psuedo cases rather than go after the real abusers.

This is probably the main problem.

Al wrote:
I'll throw my farthing worth into the debate and raise the question of what is classified as child porn. Most assume it means sexual images of children, or of acts of sexual abuse. In fact, people have been prosecuted for having non sexual black images of naked children which date to the 19th centure. One well known new reader was given a caution - a which is still a criminal record - for having a photo of her toddler in the bath. Even images of children semi naked can now be classed as porn, although this seems to be only when they are on a computer while it's still legal to posess them in a mail order catalogue.

The whole issue of what is "child porn" is very clouded. This adds to the burden of the police who must fill out paper work on all of these psuedo cases rather than go after the real abusers.

This is probably the main problem.

Very good points, Al.

A "child" is defined (under the Protection of Children Act) as someone under the age of 16, and with the equalisation of the age of consent we are now in the utterly bizarre situation where it is perfectly lawful to have consenting sex with a 16 year old (either male or female) but you commit a criminal offence if you photograph a 16 year old (or anyone under the age of 18) nude !

With so much confusing and doubt - is there any wonder there is a wealth of room for the police to operate "trawling" campaigns?

The very idea that the police would "go after" the perpetrators is quite laughable really ... can anyone actually remember the last case where this happened?

The police continue to prosecute (and harass) people who have COPIES of images - not people who made the originals.

Al wrote:
I'll throw my farthing worth into the debate and raise the question of what is classified as child porn. Most assume it means sexual images of children, or of acts of sexual abuse. In fact, people have been prosecuted for having non sexual black images of naked children which date to the 19th centure. One well known new reader was given a caution - a which is still a criminal record - for having a photo of her toddler in the bath. Even images of children semi naked can now be classed as porn, although this seems to be only when they are on a computer while it's still legal to posess them in a mail order catalogue.

The whole issue of what is "child porn" is very clouded. This adds to the burden of the police who must fill out paper work on all of these psuedo cases rather than go after the real abusers.

This is probably the main problem.

You're right - the law is so ambiguous it's hard to decide if that picture of a 7 year old being fucked up the arse is cool or not.

Anyway looking at the picture is perfectly harmless, isn't it.

It's all the fault of law because it's not black and white. You can always find something that's difficult to decide which just shows how stupid all these laws are.

I don't know... it's all sooooo confusing I don't why we bother with any laws at all!! All laws are pseudo-fascist mind control anyway and how dare anyone try to tell someone else what to do.

What right do politicians have to say what we - the right thinking people - should do or not do?

You and ITK are rare examples of people not being controlled by the lizard overlords - keep it up - OUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE!!

Now Zooloo, my post wasn't to do with pictures of anyone being "fucked up the arse", and wasn't in any way saying we should not have laws. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll realise that laws should be clear in meaning. Do you really think that a loving mother should be criminalised for photographing her baby in the bath? Do you really think that is as bad as someone committing actual harmful abuse? My point is that the law does not distinguish between these two extremes. It blurs the lines, so that even the police are not clear about it. I know this because I've spoken to a couple who work in child protection.

Your response was quite baffling.

Well, zooloo, I could have sent your post, only without any of the irony, so I suppose I am another rare example.

I have chosen to log onto this site tonight, but so what if I'd decided instead to have a gander at an Islamist terrorist, Child porn, snuff movie or any other sort of distasteful site? I'd still wake up tomorrow the same person, and go about my business without hurting anyone.

The idea of jailing someone for typing a few letters into a browser and looking at pictures, or reading something is more abhorrent and frightening to me than the people who do it could ever be.

Remember the Cold War? The evils of communism, how we were taught to believe those poor citizens were being spied on night and day and sent away for not conforming. Whether that was true or not, that's where WE are heading now.

And how long before all of us are persecuted for posting on a site owned by a convicted (albeit wrongfully, but what difference would that make?) sex offender? That's the slippery slope we could be on.

Meanwhile, yobbos, vandals and low-lifes are getting off virtually scot free for causing terror and misery in inner city areas and run down estates. If I'd lit up a fag in a pub and refused to pay the fine, or stumbled upon some website the government doesn't like, I'd no doubt be sent down in shame. This country is insane.

Anthony wrote:

And how long before all of us are persecuted for posting on a site owned by a convicted (albeit wrongfully, but what difference would that make?) sex offender? That's the slippery slope we could be on.

I can see The Sun headline now ! Paedo associates advocate child porn !

Meanwhile, yobbos, vandals and low-lifes are getting off virtually scot free for causing terror and misery in inner city areas and run down estates. If I'd lit up a fag in a pub and refused to pay the fine, or stumbled upon some website the government doesn't like, I'd no doubt be sent down in shame. This country is insane.

Yes it is - and WE are to blame, for allowing our freedoms to be hijacked.

Al wrote:
Do you really think that a loving mother should be criminalised for photographing her baby in the bath? Do you really think that is as bad as someone committing actual harmful abuse? My point is that the law does not distinguish between these two extremes. It blurs the lines, so that even the police are not clear about it. I know this because I've spoken to a couple who work in child protection.

Your response was quite baffling.

I know that most photo processors are "onto" this now - and fearful of breaking the law will alert the police to ANYTHING they feel may be risque.

A few years ago no one had ever heard the word "paedophile", and now everyone is looking for them 24/7 ! I'm sure the percentage of weirdos is no different now than it was years ago ... but if you go out deliberately looking for something - you usually find it !!

In The Know wrote:
I'm sure the percentage of weirdos is no different now than it was years ago
Indeed, and probably far lower than it was in Victorian Britain when there were thousands of child prostitutes, but people have now been led to believe there is a monster on every street corner, waiting to abuse their child. We have also been planted with the idea that we are riddled with Islamic terrorists, plotting night and day to blow us all into next week.

Such people exist, of course, but we have been given such a disproportionate fear, that we are now willing to sign all our rights away under the pretext of our own protection. THAT is the worst kind of terror threat we are under, yet so few can see it.

Spot On Anthony.

It was always part of the Neo-Con handbook to "invent" a bogeyman and then offer to protect people from him (providing of course that they gave up all their freedpoms first !)

It also helps to "justify" the dodgy dossiers and all the other lies that we are / were being told ... and helps to "legitimize" torture and abuse etc as acceptable practises.

Would any of the posters who can see nothing wrong with someone viewing child abuse sites let this same someone look after their children for the night? No, i didn't think so!! you are all talking absolute rubbish.