egafd.com

Agree..think this sounds a bit creepy.There are five degrees of child porn..the most minor involves naked bodies provacatively posed.The most serious involves animals and torture and that ilk.The law is there to protect the children and punish those that abuse them.If you get arrested and deny the charges the facts will be given to a jury who make up their minds.Whats wrong with that?

Despite what the likes of Pete Townsend or that actor recently imprisoned say being curious and researching for a BBC sit com aint no excuse.I am delighted that peoples careers have been ruined for wanting to watch this stuff.They were all volunteers.

Chris Langham.

[quote]First let me deal with the Witch Hunt that is going on in The United Kingdom against “child pornography.”[/quote]

Well, then I am on the witches side.

[quote]You know full well that prohibition encourages production...[/quote]

Does it? The why do peado's fly to far flung corners of the globe, where these laws are more relaxed? I'd agree that prohibition leads to a bigger black market in the thing that's prohibited, but I do not agree that prohibition encourages more.

[quote]Is child pornography an image of a fourteen year old girl having sex with her boyfriend?[/quote]

Errrr, yes!

[quote]how can a fourteen year old boy be placed on the “sex offenders register” for looking at mages of girls of his own age?[/quote]

Can he? If this is true, then I'm actually with you on this one. Such images should be available, of course, but I would find it silly putting a 14 year old boy on a register, when caught looking at 14 year old girls. (And I suppose with most 14 year olds having camera phones these days, I guess lots of 'child pornography images' would be in such a format, taken by fellow children.)

What a weird post for Christmas day, Mike; whatever brought it on?

Sam Slater wrote:

> What a weird post for Christmas day, Mike; whatever brought it
> on?

Perhaps he was trying to be controversial and post on a day when he thought the forum would be quiet?

I thought the only people who thought of children in a sexual way, on Christmas morning were Catholic Priests?

Oh, Mr. Slater, you're a proper rascal.

I believe in free speech.

But there is the right to shout 'Fire' and the right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded cinema...

As Trumpy has said, I find this post creepy and a bit sickening. In short, it gives BGAFD a bad name..bullets for the puritans of this world to fire at us.

Sam Slater wrote:

[quote]Such images should be available, of course,[/quote]

EDIT: 'Such images should 'NOT' be available, of course,'

Jesus Christ. I think I better start proof reading more.....

I was getting very worried about you, Sam...

The 'boys' were getting ready to pop round and show you the error of your ways.....