egafd.com

But if you're unable or unwilling to draw a clear line between the 'rights' of paedophiles and safety of chidren, then you're in a bit of a cleft stick, surely?
And all for the sake of Principles..............

That argument won't wash: like tougher sentencing policies for armed robbers, the stakes are thereby raised with the result that the perpetrator feels he has nothing to lose, and much to gain, by ensuring that no living witnesses are around to testify.

JJ, That is something of a fallacy. It is either in someone to kill or not and I'm sure you are aware that the vast majority of violent crime is totally drug-related (Another bunch of fucking animals).

....and does it allow that passer-by to have cctv footage of him destroyed too?


Point to everyone here _
I am not defending child abuse whatsoever, but the point is this: there is no longer any such thing as true privacy just as there is no longer justice in the legal system. Our rights have been given away willingly by US under the pretext of cutting crime, saving children etc. Is the world any better off? Can we leave our front doors open like in the "good old days"? NO

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH SOCIETY IS THAT FOLK LEAVE IT TO "BIG BROTHER" TO DECIDE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG, INSTEAD OF HAVING THEIR OWN PRICIPLES AND MORALS.
We wouldn't need such high levels of incarceration if society and the people in it knew right from wrong in it's truest sense. Politicians lie, papers lie, lawyers lie therefore people lie. The rot starts at the top, and works down. True intellectual honesty is rare due to people being spoonfed opinions and "beliefs" rather than taking the trouble to think for themselves.

I am not "for" child porn, I am not "against" anyone contributing on this board.

Society IS rotten to the core. This is BECAUSE of the state, it will not be remedied by state intervention.
For instance, cancer is curable. (see www.credence.org). Why isn't this widely known? Because the state has no interest in people knowing. They want a cancer cure they (and the drug companies) can PROFIT from. Utterly, and completely immoral. And yet, the real issues in this country... banning "bloodsports", invading Iraq and... creating more laws in which to control us.

Don't ever think the state cares about people, children or otherwise. "It" cares only about control.

All the points Chrispornstar has made seem pretty rational and objective to me.

Officer Dibble - throwing his two penethworth in.

Hear hear! Spot on dude!

Officer Dibble.

.......apart from all that domestic violence, you mean?
Anyone is capable of killing, given the right (or wrong) circumstances.
There is one simple answer to drug-related crime: legalise it, tax it, and use a portion of the revenue to treat the addicts, who need help and not criminalisation. Remove the profit-motive, and you remove the crime.

JJ, been saying that for years. Someone wants to be a junkie, fine by me, in fact its none of my business. If they have to rob and hurt to get it.............
We all have the right to go to hell in our own basket, providing no-one else gets hurt.

I may be prefectly happy in some cases to leave it to big brother to decide what is right and what is wrong for me but if believe it is not right for me I will ignore it and do something about it.

Take Hard core porn, for example. Before the advent of R18 videos I still bought and watched hardcore porn even though it was illegal and the government thought it would corrupt me. Has it corrupted me? I dont think so but then thats for others to decide.

I do have my own morals and principles but in this case my morals and principles agree wholeheartedly with those put forward by the government regarding child porn - they say it is illegal to partake in and to view and I agree.

Re the comment about possibly making hardcore porn illegal in the future - so what? I will still buy it because I enjoy it, I don't believe it harms anyone directly AND, referring to my argument above, because those participating have given their consent (and are of an age where they can make a decision of that magnitude) to be in that film so irrespective of what a court or the government says there is nothing wrong with that. If I was taken to court for such an offence (viewing hardcore BG) then I would hope that common sense would prevail in the same way it has with the downgrading of cannabis.

I agree that we should stand up for what we believe in - even though I have a great deal of respect for the police and other government agencies I still would be prepared to fight for what I believed in as this is supposed to be a democracy we live in.

However, having said that there is no defence for child porn - to use the argument that porn which is legal today could be made illegal tomorrow is not a justification for someone using child porn.

Jason

Your post is well thought out and reasoned, officer, in my opinion. I can also relate to Magoo's analysis of the 'cases' put forward so far, and the merits and such each has.

However, I don't subscribe to the mob hysteria theory you support - I personally don't require The News of The World to tell me that paedophilia is wrong - it just is.

I can understand your reasoning that case offenders are part of a natural deviation, but I believe that you cannot discount that some individuals are in fact 'evil'. Actually, I'd be interested to know if you believe that it is possible for a person to be of an evil nature, or whether you reason that all acts by a person can be accounted for by the natural deviation theory you described previously.
For the record, I think that anyone who knowingly commits any act which adversely affects or hurts another person has made that choice on a personal level. The discussions regarding animal behaviour, specifically relating to the point about the 'offended' party not being able to give its consent must be tempered by pointing out that the 'offender'is, as far as we know, devoid of a sense of right or wrong as well, which does not apply to the deviants within our society.

As for Chrispornstar's opinions, I'm not so sure they are so balanced and well thought out; Chrispornstar, if you truly believe that looking at pictures relating to paedophilia is harmless, you are giving the person who originally produced them further reason to continue. Your obsession with the 'big brother is watching you' is as hysterical and inbalanced as any journalistic matter I have ever read which you vehemently oppose.

With reference to Chrispornstar's later comment on the topic of cctv recordings, again you are invoking your CONTROL STATE PREACHINGS, albeit incorrectly. JJ referred to 'passers by' taking photographs, not controlled and legal state policing(the cctv). The cctv recordings you oppose may yet lead to a breakthrough in the latest revolting case which has occurred here in Britain, and I fully support their controlled use.

In summing up, I am of the opinion that perpetrators of crimes such as paedophilia, including their accesories to the crime - including those who view and distribute their material - should be removed from our society. I'm not convinced that anyone can gauge whether convicted offenders will or will not re-offend having been 'treated' and I believe that persons who commit crimes, such as paedophilia should not be afforded the opportunity to re-offend again.