73% of stats are made up on the spot.

Irony!!

I agree with Denise that there are different forms of abuse and that the issue is not at all black and white. If the main difference is that it is ok to show an image for news purposes, as opposed to for titillation, does that mean it would be ok to show a child porn image when reporting on the issue? I don't think so. Yet they show a dead child shot by a sniper, for the sake of the story. The child in the 'porn' image might only have been photographed naked in a decade when such photos were not even questioned, but the dead child is dead. Who suffered the most? I remember buying a book on photography from a high street store in 1992. The main cover photo was of a naked young boy jumping over a sandcastle. Nobody even raised an eyebrow back then, but now it is classed as an illegal image and anyone posessing it could be classified as a sex offender and barred from normal society. Black and white? Not at all. There is no clear line between what is and is not indecent. Most images referred to as pornographic are nothing of the kind. In fact the courts will only refer to them as indecent images, because that covers such a wide field. Julia Summerville was given a police caution for having a photograph of her own baby naked in the bath. My parents had a similar one of me. Today she would be on the sex offenders register and possibly lose custody of her child as a consequence. Was the photo porn, or even indecent? Most parents, including myself, would say not.

Before we leap to paranoid conclusions regarding people branded as having viewed indecent images, let's remember that almost any image of a child can be so classified. There was a very famous Whitby photographer called Frank Sutcliffe and his work included naked boys posing and playing on the sea front. they can be viewed in public libraries and bought in hard copy books. There is even a legal website containing these images, but if you are found to have downloaded them onto your computer you could face prosecution for a sex offence. So .. the image is legal but it is a crime to have it on your computer? Is that sanity? Is it sensible that people should campaign to have the owner of such images jailed or driven out of society?

It's often said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Many people read the headlines but do not get the full story; then they get fired up and join the angry mob to torch the houses of paediatricians. They send death threats to a man found in pocession of images of children in underwear, while looking at their own mail order catalogues containing similar images. These are the people we need to fear most.

Society has been scared by numerous stories designed to achieve that very reaction. TV cop shows repeatedly tell us that child molesters have the highest rate of re-offending, but statistics show that less than 5% re-offend. They tell us stories about strangers abducting children from outside schools. The reality is that the only children to be abducted from outside schools have been taken by parents in a custody battle. Fear helps to control the populace, but it also undermines the feeling of security within a community.

Intelligent people debate the issue and ask serious questions. We need to be rational and respond sensibly and without prejudice. Nothing is ever black and white, and labels can often be misleading.

I asked a barrister friend what legally qualifies as an indecent image. He said "Whatever the court decides." There is no set rule.

Black and white?

It is not about defending law breakers. It is about maintaining a balanced society where innocent people do not get branded wrongfully. It is about common sense and reason. It is also about allowing those who do break the law a chance to redeem themselves and be accepted back into society so that they have options other than a return to criminality.

I have a conviction for the possession of the sort of indecent material you describe. I am - in short - a sex offender. I raise my hat to you, sir. You have provided a balanced and fair resume of the unclear situation which at present stands as the letter of the law. My own crimes were admitted, regretted and will not be repeated. Yet so many believe that I am bound to re offend, simply because they're told that convicted sex offenders have the highest rate of recidivism. Having taken the Sex Offenders, Treatment Programme and having obtained a positive report rising from that presented to the relevent authorities, I'd have to be crazy not to realise that were I to lapse the book would be thrown at me all the harder and I'd have deserved it. Leopards never change their spots? Where's the leopard? Once again, R T Mason, thankyou for presenting a case that was a joy to read and maintained a thoughtful tone. These are indeed tough times. I look forward to a day when as a society we learn that one doesn't have to be inherently evil to do evil things. Some - and I'd say probably most - of the people I worked with in prison
will not be going back. Sex offenders are people. And people can change.

I wonder how many of you would display the same amount of sympathy if it was your kids who ended up as wank fodder for these sick bastards.

I'm totally with Godiver on this. Why are so many of you so keen to defend these fuckers?

**stops to think for a second**

Ah, now I get it...

Well Pete I've not seen any posts supporting or encouraging that kind of thing. Indeed they would not be welcome here.
Your point and Godiver's seems to be that we should repress abuse of children.
100% in agreement and so is every other poster.
But I cannot quite work out why that should mean we approve of miscarriages of justice.
Do you believe it is fine for innocent men and women to be convicted?
Do you think the police and judicial system always get it right and are always prompted by decent motives?
Do you both think the best way to challenge those asking questions about the safety of convictions is to say they are molesters?
Surely not.

Would you describe yourself as a peadophile, did you just view the material out of curiosity and to shock yourself in the way that motorists look at road accidents. You sound like quite a sensible person were you disgusted at the images that you saw? Also how did you get caught, did you use a credit card?

I should have been more specific.

No, of course I do not condone any kind of miscarriage of justice. Where did I say anything remotely like that....?

What I took real offence to was the entirely spurious linking of kiddy porn with news images of injured kids being caught up in battles etc.

That is utter bollocks and anyone who thinks the two are somehow the same, and that one justifies the other, is either a paedophile or just plain bonkers.

And to those who say that people who simply buy and wank over these images are not part of the real chain of abuse. Well, shame on you...

Fuckers!

Denise, that is one of the most moronic posts I have ever read on a messageboard.

I take it you are not a mother.

If you are, I feel really sorry for your kids because, with advice like that, they are going to grow up with one hell of a fucked-up world view.

Stupid, stupid girl...

Very brave of you to admit the truth about yourself.

The re-offending rate for "sex" crimes is pretty consistent throughout the western world ie : 5% and under-the lowest of all recidivism rates in crimes-and well below the re-offending rates of other crimes which are up around the 22-40% rate.

So the hysteria is false but driven by politicians and their "Tough On Crime" mantras ( when they are bereft of other policies) and driven by the media who happily indulge these fear mongers.

As a person who did law for 3 years ( but dropped out) I still have a fascination about the law and believe it's the only thing that prevents us becoming complete barbarians-I have a great respect for genuine law that protects society. Therefore I find the use of law for propaganda purposes ( and sex crimes are the ones used) quite abhorrent.

Of course all circumstances about this particular crime should be taken into context and robbiex is asking the right kind of questions..is it done out of curiosity etc etc.? or as in the 270,000 collection case-this man sounds like he is suffering from serious obsessional behaviour.

One aspect ignored is that many who are caught are often only in possesion of nudists pics of kids-and these were taken in a time and place where nudism doesn't carry the great prudery it does in the UK-East European countries, Germany, the Scanadavian. Parents snap their kids-magazines run the pics ( although not so much these days ) and even in the USA-these pictures are not illegal. So abuse doesn't come into it. However people may think otherwise.

There are also absolutely no studies to show these pictures do lasting harm-except anecdotal stories from individuals who only speak for themselves-and even then-no study has been done with these people about their entire life. For instance some claim it has driven them to drink and drugs-I find this highly improbable as a hundred factors can cause this-and alcoholism is a (usually inherited) disease.

Then there are horrific small groups that do abuse children, record the event and distribute the material amongst themselves. This is abhorrent and must be curtailed.

Few have pointed out that in Glitter's porn case-the material must not have been in the worst catergory hence the very light sentence 4 months ( doing only 2).

You broke the law,and were punished.That is how it should be.
What is important is how that punishment was delivered.Was it 'proportionate' to the facts involved? That was why I started this thread,not to defend such behaviour,but to alert people to a percieved inbalance in sentencing between crimes.

Pete Clarke wrote:
What I took real offence to was the entirely spurious linking of kiddy porn with news images of injured kids being caught up in battles etc.

That is utter bollocks and anyone who thinks the two are somehow the same, and that one justifies the other, is either a paedophile or just plain bonkers.



Well Pete, I haven't read any comments here supporting the viewing of child porn. I see people asking serious questions about a serious subject. I think that if someone purposely targets a child and murders it and then someone takes a photo of that dead child and publishes it to the world, it is different to a child just being caught up in a battle and, unless the photo specifically acts as a memorial to a named child, they are just using the dead child for effect. It may not be sexual but it is abusive. In fact there are people who get kicks from images of dead and mutilated children. So I agree with Denise and RT Mason. there is a much bigger picture which certain people refuse to consider.

I haven't seen anyone using one type of image to justify another. I think you are reading what you want to read.

Technically I have viewed indecent images. A few years ago in a chat room I got talking to someone and they sent me a link to their "personal profile". I clicked on it and found myself on a "child porn site". Obviously I looked at the images, otherwise I would have known what type of site I was on. I exited quickly and blocked that person who had sent me the link.

Enough to get me convicted? Prbably. The images were no doubt logged somewhere on my hard drive.

Now I'm very careful about clicking links.

It happens that easily.

I also never mentioned wrongful convictions and it cheapens the debate to suggest i did and use it against me. I have kids and subsequently have many pictures of them in the bath/running around naked in the garden etc that get shown to friends and family without any thought of anything sexual being extracted. I also find it just as ridiculous when the press react to peadophile non-stories with hypocritical vengeance.

However, my point (and i believe the point of Mr Clarke) is that when someone is found with pornographic (featuring the act of sex) material featuring young children, they should get punished and controlled via a register for the rest of their lives.

I know that JK will say that all the posters agree but i would not be so sure, some of the above posters state clearly that they liken child porn to news photos of abuse.

Someone above even asked what the difference is between showing a child war victim for news or a porn image to illustrate a child porn story! It is almost not worthy of a reply, but the difference is at the source, the person took the photo for news purposes or for the enjoyment of weirdos. Black and white.

There needs to be a balance.

We all should want children to be protected and safe from danger. Most danger comes from within the family unit - and there is also a small risk from Predatory Paedophiles ( and it is a very very small one statistically ! )

At the same time the "allegation" culture which has been adopted in the last few years in order to create compensation cases etc. and for some people to "settle scores" is now out of control.

Yesterday in the DAILY MAIL there was a shocking story of a Deputy Head of a special needs school who is now no longer able to work in Education because no one will employ him.......has he been charged or convicted of any crime ? NO !!! He has had three unsubstantiated allegations made via a weird social services type of interegation - ADDED to his CRB RECORD>

The ENHANCED CRB record which is now the normal check holds not only convictions - but a record of all allegations.

The result of this is as follows for people like Teachers etc.

1. If you discipline a class or fall out personally with a student they can make an allegation against you ( they can even withdraw it later )

2. If you work in a tough area some children need attention so they may well make allegations in order to be fussed over.

The result of this would be that NOW you would LOSE YOUR JOB even if the case never went anywhere, Not only that you would never work again because your CRB Check would record these unproven and unfounded allegations.

When CHINA went through the Cultural Revolution a big part was played by Children who made "allegations" against their parents. Many hundreds of thousands of parents were killed for not be proper Party Members - based on the testimony of their children. Kids WILL make up things in order to get things. That is part of being a kid.

Therefore our Government has intentionally set up a CRB system which could be extended to control who can and cant work. I can see the day when POLICE themselves start making allegations against people to be recorded on their CRB checks in order to prevent them from working - this could be for political reasons and so on.

Dont laugh - because if you read the MAIL yesterday you would see how easy the CRB system would be to corrupt by a Government/police in order to be another fascist layer of control over people.

I believe NO ALLEGATIONS should ever be on a CRB check. A CRB check should only include convictions where the allegation has been proved. The current checks are another example of a Witch Hunt against ordinary people by this government.

We are living in very dangerous times. I firmly believe ( with evidence and most Political Historians agree accross the Globe ) that we are facing a Big Brother stater which is being brought in by stealth. They are using TERRORISM and PAEDOPHILE scares to bring in legislation and laws and CRB checks which are already being used against ordinary people who are NOT terrorists or paedos. To use unproven allegations to stop people getting jobs is a frightening thing. It is now happening.

I think we've covered every aspect and hereby declare this thread CLOSED!

I would say that it would be highly unlikely that you would be convicted for just clicking on a link, most offenders have thousands of images on their pcs before they are convicted and usually they have paid for the images, hence that is how they are caught.

I would say that although it is wrong and unhealthy to view such images the real criminals are the ones committing the abuse and taking the pictures. If the mere viewing of a picture is a crime, then the vice squal are massive criminals.

well I'm a father and I've taken snaps of my kids when running about naked but it was 30 years ago !. I definitely wouldn't do it now for fear of being accused. We used some at my sons wedding and everybody laughed their heads off !

Again-you are trying to make a "black and white" case of something when this just isn't the case.

For example-nude photos of children taken from nudist websites are routinely classified as "child porn "in the UK and described in sensational police press release and subsequently newspapers as "the worst kind of abuse" when clearly no physical abuse is happening.

Nudist magazines were published carrying this content right up to the late 80's and parents often accompanied their children in these pictures. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that all nudists are therefore peadophiles because they partcipated in this activity ( which doesn't mean there weren't pedos amongst them..just as in every other walk of life)

And in the USA this type of photograph-nude children in no-sexual poses is not classified as child porn as it's protected under the Consitution. There has to be a "sexual" aspect to the photo for it to be classed as porn..but even then that is a difficult concept.

There are also several European countries where the subject is treated similarly. As for peadophiles lurking-what about Cap D'Age the completely nudist town in the South of France which I wandered into by chance when staying at a friends nearby house. I was totally unprepared and I admit-totally shocked but by the end of the day-it all appeared to be so normal. Who knows what peadophiles were there feasting on the visual image of so many children running about ? ( I've never been back as I'm scared of skin cancer !)

It is a legitimate to bring in the subject of other types of photgraphs or images to illustrate the differing beliefs in law.

For instance-the dreadful 9/11 events were guaranteed to garner maximum coverage for a cause.

Beheading videos were deliberately distributed for a cause. Watching them-as those who perpetuated those outrages knew many in the West would and did directly contributed to people dying.

Contrast that with vision of the WW2 Concentration camps which were specifically ordered by US Army commanders as they feared no-one would accept their stories as true.They were filmed for the right reasion and provide an enduring proof of the evil of the Nazis.

So debating this issue is necessary and the "sensational" element should be removed-as promoted by tabloids who take the "black and white" view and perpetuate myths.

The police also muddy the water and do routinely exagerate and cause mischief that leads to innocents being charged.

Overall-there is simply a driven hysteria about a subject there need not be.

I've seen no-one on here condone the abuse of children-I certainly don't and I even find the physical punishment of children abhorrent-I believe they are angels who should be allowed a care free childhood as long as possible.

But others use this subject for their own nefarious reasons and it's not always for the protection of children and I find that equally as abhorrent as real child abusers. These witch hunts invariably end up ensnaring innocent people.