It was suggested that the fact vice squads around the world track down people looking at photos of children on the internet proves that the mere act of looking can harm the child.

As it seems that most of the "indecent" photos of children seen on the internet were taken years before they were ruled to be indecent, why are those people who are no longer children believed to be in danger from someone looking at said photos? Why are those men who watch Miss World, or look at Playboy, not considered to be a danger to the women who take part? Why are vice squads not devoting the efforts to tracking down the makers of new indecent images rather than wasting time chasing after the casual observer? Like with drugs, there will always be another customer. Having cannibis for personal use was decriminalised so that the police could focus more on the suppliers.

It takes police a long time to learn obvious lessons. Gun crime cannot be solved by criminalising all gun users, even in legitemate clubs. Criminals operate outside of the law, so a change in the law does not effect them. Also, widening the net does not help catch the serious gun gang members, it merely catches those who had been, up until that time, operating within the law, and it creates deceptive statistics. More arrests are being made, but the serious offenders are still on the loose, still posing a threat to the population.

If you cut weeds from above ground they just grow again. If you kill the roots they are gone forever.

The casual observer - as you put it - is the 'end-user' of the images; if these 'observers' did not exist, there would be no point (or profit) in making the images. Simple.

I've oftened pondered some of the statements made about child porn by authorities who do exagerate (but when did they not ever ?)

Only a week or so ago I watched a senior copper say words to the effect that"every time a person views a (child porn) pic it's a crime and that child is defiled all over again "

Well maybe yes and maybe no.

Where then, does this actually leave the cops themselves..or judges and juries and all those who enforce the law in police forces and the courts when they prosecute. Even the person charged would be able to view the evidence-the pics. So what happens ? Is the crime temporarily suspended ?

(and let alone the FBI who claim they have millions of these pics on file to 'identify the victims" which sounds pretty odd)

I've had this argument with a top Melbourne crime journalist who told me in no uncertain terms (he had busted a small crime child porn producing ring)who said to me "the victims of this crime tell me it destroys their lives etc etc".But my response was that. yes probably some are utterley shattered by this sort of activity but had he as a journalist spoken to every child/person who had appeared in a child porn pic-seeing there seems to be millions of them, so surely he is exagerating an unproven fact.

It also brings up the idea of the horrendous be-headings of captured British & US troops at the beginning of the Iraq invasion. These are filmed and distributed for obvious propaganda reasons and are media organisations encouraging the horrible behaviour be screening even part of the dreadful deed-thus giving those perpetuating it valuable propaganda airtime, knowing that at the cut-off point of the film on TV must leave the viewer with a horrible sense of dread.

This all comes under those mystery questions like the one I've often asked politicians but only received a look as though I'm as balmy as batshit (which could be true).

Under the laws of the age of consent-is a person from the UK a pedophile if they travel to Spain or Germany or Croatia or Japan where the age is lower and have sex with a legally aged person there and if so-why are they not back in the UK ?.

I haven't got a clue actually.But I put some of these statements in the filing drawer along with to the newspaper report I had to cut and keep from a trip to Thailand in 1989 when a female government minister gave a press conference stating young men should be 'taught'in classes the art of masturbation to curb the increasing incidents of pregnancies amongst young Thais. It was so wonderful to discover someone who had risen to such political heights with such lovely innocence.

I also pondered about the obvious rush of applicants applying to be teachers of this school subject

As, from what I hear, these images are available on the internet for free to those who know where to look, where is the profit? and how would eliminating the casual observer put an end to it? I imagine that the photos are taken by people who get kicks from taking them. These people are the real problem, not those who might see the results, by chance or intent, at some stage in the future.

The word "simple" is used far too often.

true- but a very simplified way of putting it that doesn't take into account the complexities and assumes that everything authorities say is true.

I won't go into details about the infamous Operation Ore case but authorities repeatedly fibbed about the actual events..this is now being tested in the courts and remember at least 33 people committed suicide(many with families and children of their own). In particular the FBI outright lied and ignored the fact that possibly thousands of stolen credit card details had been used and even claimed this wasn't possible. I've been the victim of internet credit card fraud at least 6 times and never ever use a card via the net now.

One could also assume that every single user of illicit drugs should be vigorously pursued and charged. The drug trade-the biggest criminal enterprise in the world and that has ever been is the cause of tens of thousands of deaths a year..not users but amongst those in the trade.

But the real problem here is that the entire truth is not told and police routinely exagerate or blatantly lie. The most reliable source of law enforcement-Interpol has always reported that the vast bulk of child porn..up to 90% is over 30 to 40 years old. Meaning there is a much smaller trade than authorities claim.

Then you get the creepy Alberto Gonzales, the former AG of the USA who claimed there were"a billion child porn sites on the internet". This is the same man who legalized torture and also agreed on a TV interview that the child of a suspected terrorist could have his testicles crushed if need be to get information out of a parent-or indeed raped if that was necessary.

By all means-real producers should be sought out and prosecuted but there is one glaring anonomly here. Most of the current child porn professionally produced (apart from amateur home-style stuff) comes from Eastern European countries.

Many of these countries-Russia, Bulgaria, Romania etc have begged..I mean literally begged forces like the FBI to assist either with funds or manpower to wipe out the trade because they don't have the recourses.

Yet they refuse. But they still find trillions$$ to blow up kids in Iraq and Afghanistan.

go figure..

Cat...its simple. If there was no demand (i.e. nobody watching these images), people would'nt bother making them. Many are free - but upgrades cost; thats how Ore got personal details, via credit cards! A great success.

Stupid Oscar; if greed didn't exist there would be no problem. But it does, Blanche, it does.

Making laws to stop the inevitable is a waste of time.

Men will continue to use hookers no matter what laws exist. I don't, you probably don't, but it will continue.

Yes, men will continue to use hookers - and, probably to abuse children.

However, as most of the latter is internet based, it is possible - by big brother style technology (like Ore) - to get a high percentage of these guys bang to rights. Or should we just ignore this awful business and do nothing ?

Most goverments are taking action and Ore caught teachers, judges, police etc; are they wrong to continue this difficult (but neccessary - in my view) fight ?

oh Constable Cat..please do your research. Comment on other cases by all means but the Operation Ore was as dodgy as they come and as for upgrades-well that is the very crux of the matter and why someone is appealing. Journalist Duncan Campbell exposed this myth a long time ago and has shown screens from the website concerned where people clicked a 'link' thinking it lead to adult porn and suddenly find themselves in a kiddie porn site.

And then you have committed a crime...just as if some malicious person posted you an email and you opened it up and were confronted by a child porn pic-you are as guilty as sin..no ifs or buts.

Viewing is the crime at present and how you got to view it is no defence which is part of the huge problem and the hysteria surrounding it doesn't help.

Anyone..absolutely anyone and that includes princes and kings, commmoners and cops is at risk if they are connected to the net by inadvertently committing a crime when they don't mean to.

But I don't the answer or the solution, except that a lot more professionals need to be involved and perhaps some gigantic conference involving law enforcements agencies world-wide, real IT experts ( as opposed to the phoney self proclaimed ones) real child experts and professionals ( as opposed to the hysterical self appointed fuckwits that see a pedo behind every bush) to really get to the nub of this crime-where innocents can be herded into being guilty (unlike almost any other crime I can think of).

It's simple?? So if there is nobody else looking at the images, the perosn who first took the photos to satisfy their own personal craving will stop taking them? I don't think so. I doubt that it's purely providing a service for others. More likely they do it because they love doing it. If other people look at the results afterwards, that's just a consequence.

Far from simple.

I think you'll find it was Oscar who mentioned operation ore, not The Cat.

well yes that is the problem..it's hugely complicated and does need attention.

But I think the nature of law enforcemnt at present is sweeping up many innocents.

Even just one aspect..the increasing incidents of sexting in the USA which is making life-long registered sex offendors of 2 teens who in some cases, go on to marry. Yet they are being treated as victims and offenders at the same time.

Fortunately several US states are now looking at this legislation that really isn't doing anything but cause harm

2 recent cases in Oz demonstrate this. The case of an errant kid who hosted a party in Melbourne where 1000 gatecrashers arrived, a dozen cop cars , helicopters and became world-wide news (with Max Markson/Clifford signing up the lad to his stable of "celebrities").

Only one kid was arrested in all the mayhem that resulted in damaged cars etc..a 15 year boy who had taken a topless photo of his 15 year old girlfriend on his mobile phone. Charged with the production of child porn but fortunately-the DPPP decided to drop charges on some technicality but I'm sure the lad and his family went through sheer hell.

And then a similar case 6 months ago of a 14 year old convent girl from the most genteel Catholic school sent a pic of herself in her bra to her same aged boyfriend in another school who did what teens do-showed it to his pals,

Word got around, headmaster involved and next thing the Child Protection Unit is raiding the Convent and hauling the 14 year old girl in for questioning.

Fortunately..every kid deleted the pic so there were no charges but does anyone really think this is the way to treat young teens?

As for confusing Cat with Oscar..it was a Freudian slip my cat(although female) is named Oscar and she's been driving me nuts all day with incessant demands which for a moggie saved from the gutter is just too much.