egafd.com

Hey Magoo,
Similar to you, I have a demolition crew upstairs but they leave me in peace on Sunday so I can recover in peace.
Re Rule 43. For the non-ex cons out there (there must be one or two) This was for the benefit of anyone who felt threatened and he could apply for 43 for his own protection. HMP in their wisdom decided that the Segregation Wing would suffice for this purpose and I too have known of similar cases to the one you illustrate.
It is true that prisons have now changed from heir medievil (That's not a spelling mistake) past to something approaching civilisation - Since the Strangeways riots, every cell has a toilet!!
Cons, as in all society, have a pecking order but it is not this that colours their view of nonces, many of the guys have families too and con or not, to anyone of a normal sexual persuasion this form of filth is abhorrent. This isaggravated by the attitude of the Authorities and by the nonces themselves who believe they are ABOVE the lowly thief.
Life and transportation are not so extreme or impossible - they brought up a prison ship fairly recently and other places of incarceration for (mostly) reasons of dangerous overcrowding.
Were the most severe penalties imposed and highly publicised, perhaps even the pervs would get the message and think twice and if not at least they would be forevermore unable to wreck lives. You kill someone, you get life but at leasst the victim suffers no more - unlike the child in whom the agony will never go away.

There is more than one victim when someone is murdered.

The victims parents, siblings, partner, kids and close friends go on suffering for the rest of their natural lives.

Groovy. I can dig that. It's clear that you can see where I'm coming from even if you take a slightly different stance.

Regarding Einstein. It's true that he didn?t have much to say about mental health but he did have an awful lot to say about Relativity and as the crux of the argument seemed to revolve around the relative positions of the observer in determining whether a person was insane or not I took the liberty of drawing the father of Relativity into the argument to illustrate my point.

Officer Dibble - amateur physicist, psychologist, philosopher and er, porn baron.

Oh what a hornets nest has been stirred up here!

Of course, one can understand the knee-jerk reactions being expressed here, but it just serves to show how fractured our principles have become in this not-so-enlightened age. The only posts here that seem to make any philosophical sense are those of the good officer.
The real point, folks, is this: if state intervention is accepatable on one count, then there is no wonder that Big Brothers tentacles sre spreading into every corner of our lives. Under a smokescreen of "drugs", "terroism" (which, let's face is just politics with a different coat on anyway!) and "money-laundering" the grossest invasions of our privacy are sanctioned by those in power.
Child abuse/porn was used as an example because it is an emotive test of whether you want state intervention or not. The fact is that, whilst it is a problem in society AND I DON'T DOUBT THAT CHILDREN NEED OUR PROTECTION, it is not the massive problem it is reported to be. By constant negative media reporting, we are led to believe that crime is out-of-control, and the elimination of crime should be our number one priority. In believing this and agreeing it is so, we are expected to forego all rights of anonymity. We should all wish to be tracked, day and night, as society dictates we MIGHT POSSIBLY commit a crime. Thus, the state will gain complete control over all of us all the time, and we will have allowed it to happen.Once this has happened, who knows where the goalposts will move to? What will become unaceeptable once control is achieved over everyone?
Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if it is ILLEGAL to look at or recieve pictures then where do we stand if tastes that are acceptable today become unacceptable tomorrow? I may be on my own here, but I find it somewhat frightening that looking at a picture, however distasteful, is a crime. If looking at something is a crime, then where to next?
If someone causes an road accident because they are tired do make it illegal to yawn whilst driving?
We live in a society that is brain-washed into thinking that criminalising everything is the only way forward. Think about it, everytime there's a scandal or a hoo-ha someone inevitably creates another law. Another law that infringes out persoanl rights and liberty. This has been happening for years. Is crime down? Is society any better off? No it is not. All that happens here is those in politics and law (hey! many politicians are lawyers or barristers! Coincidence?) benefit!

I agree that children should protected from paedohilia but at what cost? It is a deep BIOLOGICAL and MENTAL problem paedo's have, and, like it or not, it will not go away by "locking 'em all up" or killing them. That will just drive it further underground, endangering more children in the process.
Knee-jerk reactions serve no-one well, personal power and privacy is the issue.
Do you want state intervention or not? You either do or you don't. You either want your post checking without your consent (and you will be on a database for this, porn is porn. Everything and evryone is logged) or you don't.

I think you will probably find you are on your own - in this case looking at a picture is not a crime as long as the picture is of someone (or something in the case of animals) who was able to give their consent to being in that picture.

Also don't forget the principle of supply and demand - the more people who want to look at kiddie porn the more demand there will be and the more kids will be abused and it recorded to satisfy the sick minds of pedophiles around the world.

Jason

Jason,
What you think happens in the cases we are discussing - they all go off and have a pint?
As for Chriswatsis and his priorities, I referred earlier to do-gooders and liberationists like him, they, whilst quite possibly well-meaning - are bloody dangerous.

Well, consider this scenario:

10 years down the line when ID cards are the norm, all cars have trackers, etc... There is an increase in women being raped (or rather more likely, an INCREASE in rapes REPORTED HYSTERICALLY BY THE MEDIA). The decision is then made (goalposts moved) to make much boy-girl porn illegal. As they have already made it a punishable offence to look at other forms of pornography, the change in law required is a mere adjustment to an exhisting law. "Public Opinion" is on their side, they just go ahead and do it. Thousands of people sudenly becaome criminals. Owning certain styles of porn, be it on hard-drive, magazine or DVD, etc suddenly becomes a punishable offence. Everybody who has purchased porn immediately becomes a criminal and suspected rapist. Where would you stand there?

Don't stick your head in the sand, it could quite feasably happen in the future. When we are all monitored constantly (and that will, unfortunately, happen) the papers will still want "news" and the good politicians will still require new issues.

I abhor child abuse and kiddie porn. I am not defending those that peddle it. There is a wider issue at stake here, and it's a shame most people can't see it.

Marcus
it is not a case of defending "nonces", it is a matter of personal privacy and liberty. If the goalposts change in the future, and, for whatever reason, boy-girl porn becomes unacceptable (and due to hysterical media reports and band-wagon jumping MP's the great public support this) we all become criminals for LOOKING AT SOMETHING, and you would certainly be guilty for actually producing the stuff!
You either want state intervention or not.
The "special case" for child porn will (more's the pity) be joined by styles of porn, as politicians search for issues and paper's seek headlines. It's the thin end of the wedge. If it's a crime to LOOK at something, then, when public opinion changes (as it will eventually, issues come and go...) they can adapt that law to something else.
That is the point I am making, I am not here to defend the depraved.

You put the highest qualification last.

.......I believe our resident legal eagles will confirm that English Law allows even a passer-by snapped in the street, say, to request destruction of said negatives if he/she feels their privacy has been invaded.