We make our own beds,but only a few of us like you and me are forced to lie on them.

It's not the fault of journos or Murdoch or TV or radio - it's OUR fault. We have become so superficial and busy and eager for instant simplistic gratification - outrage, tears, anger, pity, love - that we have encouraged these dreadful patterns of behaviour like "tap Milly's phone" or "crucify JK".

That's what slightly nauseates me about the outrage, particularly from NofTW readers and their campaign to boycott it. The great British public fed the monster. A murdered schoolchild's mobile phone was hacked in order to feed their voracious and purient appetite for another juicy paedo story. In my opinion, anyone who buys the sunday sun when it replaces the NofTW is as wicked as somebody who downloads the most vile kind of child porn.

I remember a couple of years after Sarah Payne was murdered and paedohysteria was at its height, a little girl went missing in a seaside town and the News of the World (and all the other tabloids) were frothing at the mouth for all the paedos to be hanged. You could sense the dissapointment and let down when it turned out that she'd been swept away by the tide and not killed by a paedophile. It was as though the British public and the tabloids had come to demand a virgin sacrifice each summer, followed by a bout of 'hunt the paedos', as some kind of creepy post-christian pagan solstice ritual. I keep expecting the SUN to post one of their regular 'how little maddy would look now' photokits with a pair of page 3 breasts on her and the headline 'my, look at how she would have grown'.

Chris Morris satarised all of this at the time, of course, but I'm sure even he didn't imagine that the media were prepared to hack into a murdered kid's phone to satisfy the mob's lust.

Blackit wrote:
It's not the fault of journos or Murdoch or TV or radio - it's OUR fault. We have become so superficial and busy and eager for instant simplistic gratification - outrage, tears, anger, pity, love - that we have encouraged these dreadful patterns of behaviour like "tap Milly's phone" or "crucify JK".

That's what slightly nauseates me about the outrage, particularly from NofTW readers and their campaign to boycott it. The great British public fed the monster. A murdered schoolchild's mobile phone was hacked in order to feed their voracious and purient appetite for another juicy paedo story. In my opinion, anyone who buys the sunday sun when it replaces the NofTW is as wicked as somebody who downloads the most vile kind of child porn.

I remember a couple of years after Sarah Payne was murdered and paedohysteria was at its height, a little girl went missing in a seaside town and the News of the World (and all the other tabloids) were frothing at the mouth for all the paedos to be hanged. You could sense the dissapointment and let down when it turned out that she'd been swept away by the tide and not killed by a paedophile. It was as though the British public and the tabloids had come to demand a virgin sacrifice each summer, followed by a bout of 'hunt the paedos', as some kind of creepy post-christian pagan solstice ritual. I keep expecting the SUN to post one of their regular 'how little maddy would look now' photokits with a pair of page 3 breasts on her and the headline 'my, look at how she would have grown'.

Chris Morris satarised all of this at the time, of course, but I'm sure even he didn't imagine that the media were prepared to hack into a murdered kid's phone to satisfy the mob's lust.

Allegedly.

angel wrote:


Allegedly.

Wouldn't you be happier over at mumsnet or a susan boyle forum?

Locked Out wrote:
You're wasting your time, Angel. When I was inside I spent a lot of time talking to people who sounded very much like Blackit. I agree with so much of what he says. I have problems, though, with both the way he says it and how much of it is so utterly repetetive. I used to wish BR would change the record. But I'm prepared to coinceed he probably had more music in his collection than Blackit seems to have either an ear - or a mouth - for.

Oh stop bitching for christs sake, this place is truly becoming awful, and just when what we've been saying here for the last few years has become vindicated.

I don't even post here very regularly, and when I do, yes, it tends to be on the topics on which this forum is one of the few places on the net you can do so freely (and as a result only suffer mild bitching from people who actually agree with you, rather than accusations and the such like).

Locked Out wrote:
Who's bitching? I'm simply commenting on the fact that this is a subject you appear to be fascinated with. I would stand by - repeat, in fact - everything I have already said. You make valid points. But the way you go about making them makes you look more like an apologist than an analyst. I am, remember, a convicted sex offender myself. I know a little about the psychological workings of what are known to behavioural therapists as "cognitive distortions".
And it does the case you just presented here no good when you complain about "bitching" in one post having just done a little bitching of your own in your previous contribution.

Actually I don't remember anything about you sir. Your handle is as familiar to me as any of the other regular posters - Veritas, David, innocent accused etc - but unlike with them, I can't recall a single noteworthy comment you've ever made. You say you largely agree with me. I wouldn't know because nothing you have ever posted here sticks in the memory.

I have no idea what you have done to be put on the sex offender's register and therefore can't comment on whether your acceptance of your label and categorisation is simply the result of therapeutic brainwashing and breaking of the will, or a healthy lack of 'cognitive distortion'. I am not a sex offender, have no wish to be one, but am aware of legislative and social trends which lead me to be realistic and state that before long just about any man will be at risk of falling foul of these increasingly ridiculous feminist laws.

I am indeed fascinated by this issue and have no reason to be ashamed of this fact, and certainly not in the same week the individual who has done more than any other to create this child abuse hysteria has been associated with the hacking into a murdered kid's phones.

Whilst I want to end the back and forth bitching that has taken hold of this forum, I have to say you do strike me as a bit of a pitiful broken coward. You say that you agree with me, but at the same time take the moral high ground, as a sex offender, that I'm in some way an apologist because I actually have the balls to try to change things. I'll take comfort from the fact that you alledge that you 'talked with a lot of people in prison like me', because I'm sure as hell not sticking my neck out for cowards like you.

Locked Out wrote:
Who's bitching? I'm simply commenting on the fact that this is a subject you appear to be fascinated with. I would stand by - repeat, in fact - everything I have already said. You make valid points. But the way you go about making them makes you look more like an apologist than an analyst. I am, remember, a convicted sex offender myself. I know a little about the psychological workings of what are known to behavioural therapists as "cognitive distortions".
And it does the case you just presented here no good when you complain about "bitching" in one post having just done a little bitching of your own in your previous contribution.

I wrote a fair sized reply to you last night but it appears JK hasn't approved it, although he has approved you accusing me of being a paedophile or a sex offender, which I am not, for your information.

I just want to know if this 'cognitive dissonance' is the same as was found in those Soviet dissadents who were locked up in mental asylums for questioning any element of political and social orthodoxy? And is it the same cognitive dissonance found in homosexuals throughout the centuries it was illegal and declared by the psychological proffession to be a perversion? Or a woman in taliban controlled Afghanistan who believes girls have a right to education? Or somebody in the late 19th century who dared to suggest that telling teenage boys they would go blind, or go to hell, for masturbating, was a form of child abuse in itself?

If you ask me, it seems that you really have damaged another human being, and in order to build your self-esteem and sense of identity and worth, you've cleverly managed to convince yourself that you are a better human being than others, even than people who aren't sex offenders (such as myself).

It sounds like this process began in prison. You talked to other sex offenders (as you mentioned) who probably were either falsely accused, or jailed under ridiculous feminist zanulabor laws, and you felt bitter that they had the right to question their label as sex offenders and monsters, whereas you had to face up to the fact that you had indeed abused another human being. So to prevent your psyche crumbling alltogether, you perfomed the Nietzschean trick of 'resentiment'. You became the enlightened moral being because you accepted the label put upon you by authority and they didn't. In this way you restore some self-esteem and dignity (in your own mind), as well as keeping your probation officer happy.

And it seems this continues now to the point where you can point the finger at people who aren't even sex offenders, simply for questioning the media crucifying teenage boys as paedophile monsters.

Pretty creepy.

stay calm Blacklit.

On these boards passions can run riot (me included)..it's best to step back a minute and take a deep breathe.

easier said than done of course.

Intelligent points from both sides - just please avoid going personal; comment on the thoughts and opinions; not those making them. Who we don't know. One of the big problems of the Internet; we think we know people we've never met. So let's not fall in love with them - or hate them!

JK2006 wrote:
Intelligent points from both sides - just please avoid going personal; comment on the thoughts and opinions; not those making them. Who we don't know. One of the big problems of the Internet; we think we know people we've never met. So let's not fall in love with them - or hate them!

Sometimes things get taken out of context,then before we know it an argument has commenced that need never have happened.
There are bad guys,neither of these gentlemen belong in that context.Be nice to see both of them getting stuck into the more interesting debates we have here.
This is one of the few places we can actively debate the law and how sexual matters can relate to it.We will no doubt have different opinions,but providing we present our case in an adult and tolerant way then you won't find a more informative place to pass your net time.

Blackit wrote:

I wrote a fair sized reply to you last night but it appears JK hasn't approved it, although he has approved you accusing me of being a paedophile or a sex offender

And there's the problem. Some get everything approved, no matter how provocative they are and no matter whatwhat nasty little insults they hurl, and others don't - which, quite naturally, irritates them. Then JK comes on with his disingenuous 'dear oh dear, what's the problem with everyone?' Post everything or censor everyone the same way.

And if one of our several boardkeepers doesn't rapidly approve a post, some see it as a personal slight. It's not easy, is it?

Locked Out wrote:
A fair and generous post, IA. My apologies to Blackit, of whom it was not my intention to personally traduce, just his repetition of too many arguments I've already had with too many people. But it takes two, and I hold my hands up to being one of them. Beer, anyone?

Well said LO

Your personal experience of these matters makes your posts so much more informative.So keep up the debate,and save your real anger for those who fail to keep a civil tongue when they disagree with an argument.

Locked Out wrote:
Wow. You mean you managed to extrapolate all that from what I just wrote?
An interesting little outburst {or rather three little outbursts}... full of rage at what was, after all, a simple suggestion that the similarities in your arguments {which you compound with a further, ie the attempt to paint sex offenders as some kind of free-thinking rebels who have dared to challenge the system and who are simply the victims of an oppressive and somehow "feminist" legal agenda} with many of the expressed beliefs of several of those I conversed with during my own tenure at one of Her Majesty's Hotels were striking. It was clear from many talks I had with several of them {one of whom was especially proud of the ease with which he had decapitated his girlfriend, while another had - apparently without any regret whatsoever - terminated a toddler} that they were extremely resistant to the various "headbending" regimes in place, the same ones you blithely describe as "brainwashing". There really was no need for you to tell me that you have nothing in common with people like this, I'm happy to take your many denials at face value.
It's really not worth indulging in a point-by-point analysis of your postings, and I'm sure that were I to do so it would simply lead to more hysterics. So I'll confine the nub of my reply to this:
When you speak of "jailed under ridiculous feminist zanulabor laws" would you care to illustrate one or two of them? No need to go into the false accusations bit... just those laws which are "ridiculous", "feminist" or "zanulabour" and whose application is resulting in the unjust imprisoning of people. Which offenders would you free? Apart from the mentally ill, of course, in whose cause I am with you all the way.

I'm really glad that you're gracious enough to take on trust that I haven't decapitated my girlfriend, or terminated any toddlers. So why exactly where you comparing me with such people?

I'm not at all sure why you think I'm hysterical and ranting and you're not. Am I supposed to picture you sitting calmly accusing posters of being sex abusers like yourself on the basis that I'm outraged, like a lot of people, at the hacking into a murdered child's phone?

You accused me of having cognitive distortions and compared me to your sex offender cellmates (with an absurd tone of moral superiority) - simply because I argued that the News of the World's appalling behavioiur might be symptomatic of a wider unhealthy obsession with paedophilia in our society. I have to admit, I got rather angry JK appeared not to have approved my reply which pointed out your cowardice.

Is this supposed to be an analysis. Just a list of questions? Are you able to engage in any kind of intelligent debate?

"Jailed under ridiculous zanulabor laws" - raising the age of pornography to 18 when the age of consent is still 16, including with the definition even cartoon pictures of 'children' and defining possession of child pornography as merely clicking once on a porn tube video thumbnail. To give one example. Why on earth should I spend time debating with you when you've just said it's not worth YOUR time to do so?

These zanulabor laws are lobbyed for by child protection societies, above all the NSPCC, which is stuffed to the brim with hardcore radical feminists. They were then happilly taken up by feminists in the Labour party such as Harman and Jacqui Smith.

That's it. No more interacting with you or angel. You both need to learn that making appalling accusations against people, making a list of loaded questions, or giving assine one word replies, such as 'allegedly' (why don't you just fart next time?) isn't very intelligent or worth anybodys time.