Saatchi Gallery - Art or Child Porn
Fishfood
Gallery following complaints about a display of indecent photographs of
children.
The 'chattering classes' claim that the material is art, whilst others seem
to take a more cynical view. I'm on the side of the latter.
A well balanced and unbiased report can be seen @
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4187318
(I know, but it's not bad for The Screws)
Fishfood
Aunt Sally
Anne
"Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98jh1i$o61$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
John O
Aunt Sally <au...@sally.com> wrote in message
news:a5dr6.19909$t1.20...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Jesus that is sick.
What is?
The NoW distortion? Or the exhibition itself?
Dave Benson
wrote:
>Met Police Clubs & Vice Unit seem set to take action against the Saatchi
>Gallery following complaints about a display of indecent photographs of
>children.
So if they genuinely believed these images to be obscene then why did
they not remove them on there, ahem, visit...? They could of easily
obtained a warrant had that been the case instead they choose to enter
into a pathetic and public posturing game with the gallery by setting
a deadline for removal?!... that in its self is bollocks and
suspect...
>
>The 'chattering classes' claim that the material is art, whilst others seem
>to take a more cynical view. I'm on the side of the latter.
So I take it you have been to the exhibition..? BTW do you not think
it is strange that the papers and news programs have also showed
these pictures uncensored should they infact be classed as indecent
material...?
>
>A well balanced and unbiased report can be seen @
>http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4187318
LOL... that report is only "even well balanced and unbiased" if you
happen to be brain-dead...??
>
>(I know, but it's not bad for The Screws)
Do I feel the faint wiff of hypocrisy wafting over...?
>
>Fishfood
>
Happy trolling..
--
Davey B
Whose newsposts are only partially
supplied by BTi :-(
http://www.psds.co.uk
ICQ 84335849
Cynic
>Met Police Clubs & Vice Unit seem set to take action against the
Saatchi
>Gallery following complaints about a display of indecent photographs
of
>children.
>
>The 'chattering classes' claim that the material is art, whilst
others seem
>to take a more cynical view. I'm on the side of the latter.
>
>A well balanced and unbiased report can be seen @
>http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4187318
"Well balanced"??? "Unbiased"???
Compare and contrast with reports of the same exhibition in the
Guardian and the Telegraph.
--
Cynic
Richard Miller
<none@none.?> writes
I've seen the photos as printed in the Guardian. Nice tactic by them and
the Independent - if the pictures are indecent, then about a million
people have now bought indecent photos of children and can be
prosecuted, and as the picture was on the cover of the Guardian, it
would be hard to argue that you didn't know the picture was there.
For what it's worth, I did find the pictures mildly troubling. There is
nothing indecent in them, the taking of them did not, IMO, involve any
criminal offence, but I do find the pictures of the boy peeing rather
tasteless. I think the displaying of snaps of your children in this way
is morally suspect, but there is nothing in them that is in any way
indecent or that should trouble the law.
And for those who argue "Yes but think what paedophiles would make of
them", all I can say is, all those Janet Kay catalogues in which
children model children's underwear and swim wear must then also be
banned on the same argument.
--
Richard Miller
Charles Bryant
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
... Tierney Gearon's photos at the Saatchi gallery ..
>I've seen the photos as printed in the Guardian. Nice tactic by them and
>the Independent - if the pictures are indecent, then about a million
>people have now bought indecent photos of children and can be
>prosecuted, and as the picture was on the cover of the Guardian, it
>would be hard to argue that you didn't know the picture was there.
I think it also shows just how corrupting censorship is. I expect
that the vast majority of people who want child porn to be banned would
be surprised to discover that this sort of material is covered. When
censorship means a total ban on something it also prevents public
scrutiny of its operation, allowing ever broader interpretation of
what it covers, with no guarantee that the public are aware of what is
being done in their name.
--
Eppur si muove
John O
Richard Miller <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F6WLzUAU...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
In part, I suspect this is to do with your being a lawyer rather than a
photographer. First thing photographers learn is how to take a 'good'
photo - iin other words, they internalise rules for composition, colour
contrasts, tone painting, etc. that people find attractive. Then they go
and look at works that have been successful - and discover that whilst some
photographers follow the rules scrupulously, others make a career out of
transgressing.....off-centre composition, distortion, etc.
Some do it technically to the photograph, in a deliberate attempt to
undermine our preconceptions about a photo....
Some do it with the subject matter.
Meanwhile, I wonder at what you mean by 'morally suspect': what issue are
you prodding at here?
Cynic
>I've seen the photos as printed in the Guardian. Nice tactic by them
and
>the Independent - if the pictures are indecent, then about a million
>people have now bought indecent photos of children and can be
>prosecuted, and as the picture was on the cover of the Guardian, it
>would be hard to argue that you didn't know the picture was there.
Though many criminal cases have shown that the same photographs become
indecent if downloaded from the Internet. Apparently it is all to do
with context.
>For what it's worth, I did find the pictures mildly troubling. There
is
>nothing indecent in them, the taking of them did not, IMO, involve
any
>criminal offence, but I do find the pictures of the boy peeing rather
>tasteless. I think the displaying of snaps of your children in this
way
>is morally suspect, but there is nothing in them that is in any way
>indecent or that should trouble the law.
I'm of the same opinion. There is quite a bit of art that I think the
same about though. Diana's face made from thousands of small crumpled
cars, for instance. If I don't like it, I don't have to look at it.
>And for those who argue "Yes but think what paedophiles would make of
>them", all I can say is, all those Janet Kay catalogues in which
>children model children's underwear and swim wear must then also be
>banned on the same argument.
Quite. I don't believe that context *should* play a role in
determining whether or not a picture is indecent. The nonsense about
being permitted to show the sex act on an "educational" video but not
if it is advertised for the purpose of pornography is IMO stupid. Any
picture should be judged purely on the picture itself. Whether it was
purchased in an art book or downloaded from a pornographic newsgroup
should make no difference to whether or not a crime has been
committed.
wrt the legality of a picture, IMO the only question to be asked
should be whether anyone was harmed. If not, then IMO it makes no
difference what anyone might think about the type of person who likes
looking at such photographs, it should not be illegal.
--
Cynic
Richard Miller
<none@none.?> writes
>wrt the legality of a picture, IMO the only question to be asked
>should be whether anyone was harmed. If not, then IMO it makes no
>difference what anyone might think about the type of person who likes
>looking at such photographs, it should not be illegal.
How are you defining harm?
There are two separate questions:
Does the picture depict something harmful happening to a child?
Does displaying the picture cause harm to the child?
With these photos, I do not think that anything in the taking of the
photos harmed the children, but the displaying of them potentially could
be as it breaches the children's right to privacy.
The danger is that it is quite possible to devise a scenario of a
picture of a young child that is deliberately posed by the photographer
to be pornographic but that causes no harm to the child if they are too
young to understand the concept, and nothing other than the
photographing of them in that pose is done to them. So you run into
further difficulties with definitions as to what should be banned and
what should not.
Perhaps there is no better way than the current vague "indecent"
definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<aud...@hotmail.com> writes
>In part, I suspect this is to do with your being a lawyer rather than a
>photographer. First thing photographers learn is how to take a 'good'
>photo - iin other words, they internalise rules for composition, colour
>contrasts, tone painting, etc. that people find attractive. Then they go
>and look at works that have been successful - and discover that whilst some
>photographers follow the rules scrupulously, others make a career out of
>transgressing.....off-centre composition, distortion, etc.
>
>Some do it technically to the photograph, in a deliberate attempt to
>undermine our preconceptions about a photo....
>
>Some do it with the subject matter.
Indeed.
>
>Meanwhile, I wonder at what you mean by 'morally suspect': what issue are
>you prodding at here?
I see nothing wrong in having photos of this sort as part of your own
family record of treasured moments. It may be something to be shared
with close friends too. But it seems to me to be a breach of trust to
publish such photos to all the world. Not in terms of them being
"indecent" or "pornographic", but just in terms of being in breach of
the children's rights to privacy. And, as I said, I find the picture of
the boy peeing to be tasteless and unpleasant. But that is a matter of
personal preference.
--
Richard Miller
John O
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message
news:984574399.8795.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Can't remember where I recently came across an observation by a member of HM
Customs & Excise that Fetish and Kinky stuff was becoming increasingly
difficult to classify.
Not thinking, necessarily, of mainstream stuff, but of the myriad little
perversions and obsessions that the net makes rather more possible (because
they ARE such minority pursuits).
An obvious one is the true 'pedophile' (foot fetishists!). For such a
person, a video showing rows of feet clad in slightly tasteless footwear
could be a turn on of mega-erotic proportion. In fact, almost any old shoe
catalogue would do....
Then there are some of the more tasteful fetishes that Graham Norton
highlights....'plushies', for instance, who could probably get off on a
'Magical World of Disney' video.
And....I just took a look at the listing for Yahoo 'Adult Clubs'.....there
appear to be nearly 80,000 of them!
They range from the utterly perverse, to the truly laughable....Vampire
role-playing.....hypno fetishes....oh....just go and take a look....
At a serious level, I think this creates a problem, which is actually the
Saatchi problem removed to the nth degree. Somewhere in the world (yahoo is
proof of it) there are people who get turned on by almost anything. Shoes,
Gloves, wearing hats.....dressing up as nurses.....etc., etc.
If we started banning images on the basis that they depict things that
arouse people 'abnormally' (i.e., in a way that is statistically not
average), then we would have to ban almost all images.
And we don't do that, at least in part because we do not define obscenity
according to the whims of the perverse.......
Yet, oddly, when it comes to these Saatchi pictures, we (or at least, the
NoW) is prepared to do just that: if paedophiles find it titillating, it is
obscene/pornographic and should be banned. Bizarre.
>
> --
> Cynic
>
>
>
David Husband
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <98roe4$ime$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
><fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>> Perhaps there is no better way than the current vague "indecent"
>>> definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
>>> authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
>>> --
>>> Richard Miller
>>
>>the photographs were not removed, all the police did was submit the
>>catalogue to the CPS for their opinion because, as you say, the definition
>>of 'indecent' is rather vague.
>
>Which is why I find it highly amusing that the CPS decision is that
>there is "not enough evidence" to secure a conviction. The picture
>itself *is* the beginning, the middle and the end of the evidence. The
>doubt is over the legal interpretation of the word "indecent".
>
>>
>>The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
>>displayed or who is in possession of it. Thousands of people will have
>>similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong with
>>that. What about a situation however where a male primary school teacher
>>downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger). Surely
>>something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
>>
>
>Ah. Our old friend, "Something must be done". Only in an even worse
>context than usual, because it is discussing a hypothetical situation,
>not a real one. If a picture is considered not indecent, then why should
>possessing it be a crime merely if you have some different intent behind
>possessing it from that which is held by others possessing the same
>photo? By your thinking, the same teacher possessing a load of Janet Kay
>catalogues with pages of children modelling underwear would be
>committing a crime. In which case, how could you not prosecute Janet Kay
>for distributing the material so shamelessly?
It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that some people would
like to see the existence of "thought-crimes" where everyday innocent
things become accessories to the "thought-criminal".
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset.
Marshall Rice
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>Unfortunately (in my opinion), the CPS have decided not to take action in
>this case as they deem that there is the unlikelihood of a succesful
>prosecution. As other's have pointed out, having pictures of ones own
>children, in similar poses, should surely not be an offence. The problem I
>have is with Paedophiles having massive collections of this type of
>material.
Why? Better that they satisfy their urges that way than by actually
preying on children, surely?
Mens Rea (guilty mind) is already an essential ingredient of most
(though not all) offences, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the
concept being extended to criminalising mere possession of images, not
on their content (which is bad enough) but on the basis of the number
held, or the nature and extent of their appeal to the possessor.
--
Marshall Rice
Dave Benson
wrote:
> I was unaware that some papers had
>published the photographs uncensored,
They were shown on Newsnight also...
--
Davey B
Whose BTi newsgroups don't propagate very well
but may do by the summer :-( Thanxs tech support.
http://www.psds.co.uk
ICQ 84335849
Cynic
>There are two separate questions:
>Does the picture depict something harmful happening to a child?
>Does displaying the picture cause harm to the child?
I agree. I also left out the word "significant". To be declared
illegal I believe that the picture should be shown to have caused
*significant* harm to the child. I also believe that whatever is
being claimed it should have to be proven, not merely speculative.
Either the prosecution need to prove that the photograph itself could
not have been taken without the child being harmed (e.g. the
photograph depicts an assault), or they should have to prove that the
child in question *has* suffered the emotional harm claimed. I'd add
a rider that the photograph should not depict any overtly sexual acts
taking place, on the grounds that the child would almost certainly
have had to have been encouraged to perform a sexual act for the
camera, and such encouragement is in itself illegal and abusive.
>With these photos, I do not think that anything in the taking of the
>photos harmed the children, but the displaying of them potentially
could
>be as it breaches the children's right to privacy.
A breach of the right to privacy does not necessarily cause harm, nor,
as you are aware, is it a crime. The harm that is possible (but far
from inevitable) would be emotional harm. The child may well go
through life completely unaffected, or even flattered by the
photographs. Or the child may be merely mildly embarrassed. Or the
child may suffer severe trauma. The same could be said about a parent
showing family photographs to their child's friends. It is impossible
to quantify in advance because much depends upon the disposition of
the individual and that individual's perception of the reaction the
photographs receive.
To put it into perspective, I think you would need to judge how you
would feel if the subject of the photographs in question was *you* as
a child of that age. Would it cause you significant harm? I note
that the Times is currently running some letters regarding children
being made to attend fancy-dress parties in all sorts of outlandish
outfits. ISTM that the harm done by such embarrassing photographs
could quite easily equal or exceeed the harm done by the photographs
in question. So do we ban *all* photographs of children because they
*might* cause emotional harm to the child in the future?
>The danger is that it is quite possible to devise a scenario of a
>picture of a young child that is deliberately posed by the
photographer
>to be pornographic but that causes no harm to the child if they are
too
>young to understand the concept, and nothing other than the
>photographing of them in that pose is done to them.
Define a "pornographic" pose. If there is no assault, criminal or
sexual act being depicted, I stand by what I have said.
>So you run into
>further difficulties with definitions as to what should be banned and
>what should not.
>Perhaps there is no better way than the current vague "indecent"
>definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
>authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
What is and what is not "indecent" is at present something that can
*only* be determined by a magistrate or a jury in the specific case.
I have several problems with that "definition". Firstly it means that
nobody can know for sure whether a particular photograph is legal or
not unless they are charged with a crime in relation to it. That IMO
is a completely unacceptable situation. Secondly it means that the
verdict will depend entirely on the personal views of the magistrates
or the jury, which are certain to vary widely from person to person
(as can be clearly seen in this thread alone). Thirdly, the subject
having been made such a media focus in recent years, such views are
bound to be influenced to a very great degree by current events and
media spin. Lastly, and hand in hand with the last point, general
attitudes over the treatment of people accused of such crimes has been
changing quite rapidly, and seems to be in a state of oscillation.
The same jury that might overwhelmingly condemn a picture as indecent
today might well have a totally different view next year.
This last point is also a consideration if you want to argue that the
child will be harmed in the future. If attitudes become more relaxed,
such harm is unlikely to come to pass. If attitudes become more
puritanical, the harm may be more likely.
--
Cynic
Alan Hope
John O took the opportunity to write:
>At a serious level, I think this creates a problem, which is actually the
>Saatchi problem removed to the nth degree. Somewhere in the world (yahoo is
>proof of it) there are people who get turned on by almost anything. Shoes,
>Gloves, wearing hats.....dressing up as nurses.....etc., etc.
>If we started banning images on the basis that they depict things that
>arouse people 'abnormally' (i.e., in a way that is statistically not
>average), then we would have to ban almost all images.
But society doesn't take upon itself the role and the duty of
protecting the welfare of shoes. The question which needs to be
addressed in relation to photographs of children is, as Cynic points
out, the implications for the child's welfare. The fact that a
hypothetical person somewhere *may* find the image arousing should be
of no consequence. That, essentially, is a thought-crime.
--
AH
Fishfood
Unfortunately (in my opinion), the CPS have decided not to take action in
this case as they deem that there is the unlikelihood of a succesful
prosecution. As other's have pointed out, having pictures of ones own
children, in similar poses, should surely not be an offence. The problem I
have is with Paedophiles having massive collections of this type of
material. I would like to have seen a test case so that some sort of clarity
could be found.
Fishfood
Actually I don't think they overstepped the mark. No-one was arrested and
the photographs were not removed, all the police did was submit the
catalogue to the CPS for their opinion because, as you say, the definition
of 'indecent' is rather vague.
The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
Fishfood
"Dave Benson" <the.l...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9j8ratcigb1fshgnj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:02:26 -0000, "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Met Police Clubs & Vice Unit seem set to take action against the Saatchi
> >Gallery following complaints about a display of indecent photographs of
> >children.
>
> So if they genuinely believed these images to be obscene then why did
> they not remove them on there, ahem, visit...? They could of easily
> obtained a warrant had that been the case instead they choose to enter
> into a pathetic and public posturing game with the gallery by setting
> a deadline for removal?!... that in its self is bollocks and
> suspect...
The Police did not remove the pictures and did not arrest anyone. All they
did was purchase a catalogue, warn the gallery, and consult the CPS. Surely
that is their duty, especially when a complaint has been received. The
pictures are obviously borderline and the concern is that the 'border' will
start to move in the wrong direction
> >The 'chattering classes' claim that the material is art, whilst others
seem
> >to take a more cynical view. I'm on the side of the latter.
>
> So I take it you have been to the exhibition..? BTW do you not think
> it is strange that the papers and news programs have also showed
> these pictures uncensored should they infact be classed as indecent
> material...?
I have not been to the exhibition but saw the pictures in the News reports.
That is surely enough to form an opinion. I was unaware that some papers had
published the photographs uncensored, though I believe that the display was
sponsored by The Independant (Janet Street-Porter being one of the
Chattering Classes).
Adam
Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>How does the possession of the photographs harm children, or put
>children into greater danger?
Because if people possessing them are sent to prison, it acts as a
deterrent to possessing them, Deterring people from possessing them
prevents the need for them to be taken, preventing the need for them
to be taken prevents a child being put in a potentially harmful
situation.
Cynic
>The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
>displayed or who is in possession of it.
Unfortunately no, that is not the case. The current test includes
"context".
>Thousands of people will have
>similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong
with
>that. What about a situation however where a male primary school
teacher
>downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
Surely
>something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
Why? In what way would the man's act of downloading the pictures
cause harm to any child?
--
Cynic
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>I have not been to the exhibition but saw the pictures in the News reports.
>That is surely enough to form an opinion. I was unaware that some papers had
>published the photographs uncensored, though I believe that the display was
>sponsored by The Independant (Janet Street-Porter being one of the
>Chattering Classes).
The mere fact that your opinions are based on reports from newspapers
that felt the pictures needed to be censored tells us all we need to
know about where you are coming from.:-)
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>> definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
>> authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
>> --
>> Richard Miller
>
>Actually I don't think they overstepped the mark. No-one was arrested and
>the photographs were not removed, all the police did was submit the
>catalogue to the CPS for their opinion because, as you say, the definition
>of 'indecent' is rather vague.
Which is why I find it highly amusing that the CPS decision is that
there is "not enough evidence" to secure a conviction. The picture
itself *is* the beginning, the middle and the end of the evidence. The
doubt is over the legal interpretation of the word "indecent".
>
>The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
>displayed or who is in possession of it. Thousands of people will have
>similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong with
>that. What about a situation however where a male primary school teacher
>downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger). Surely
>something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
>
Ah. Our old friend, "Something must be done". Only in an even worse
context than usual, because it is discussing a hypothetical situation,
not a real one. If a picture is considered not indecent, then why should
possessing it be a crime merely if you have some different intent behind
possessing it from that which is held by others possessing the same
photo? By your thinking, the same teacher possessing a load of Janet Kay
catalogues with pages of children modelling underwear would be
committing a crime. In which case, how could you not prosecute Janet Kay
for distributing the material so shamelessly?
If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
--
Richard Miller
Cynic
>Unfortunately (in my opinion), the CPS have decided not to take
action in
>this case as they deem that there is the unlikelihood of a succesful
>prosecution. As other's have pointed out, having pictures of ones own
>children, in similar poses, should surely not be an offence. The
problem I
>have is with Paedophiles having massive collections of this type of
>material. I would like to have seen a test case so that some sort of
clarity
>could be found.
A person who is sexually interested in children will have such an
interest regardless of how many photographs he does or does not have.
How does the possession of the photographs harm children, or put
children into greater danger?
--
Cynic
Adam
Saatchi Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>Mens Rea (guilty mind) is already an essential ingredient of most
>(though not all) offences,
Marshall, sorry to go OT, but I thought Mens Rea and Actus Reus were
an essential ingredient of all offences.
What offence can you commit without the guilty mind & act?
Therion Ware
wrote in uk.legal:
While it might be tricky to commit an offence without the guilty act,
presumably mens rea plays no part in any strict liability offence, or
in something like, say (in some instances) manslaughter.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>
Live Video? <http://www.video2cd.co.uk/livetv-01.html>
- there is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Richard Miller
<ome...@mailandnews.co.uk> writes
So Janet Kay catalogues with children modelling underwear involve
children being put into a harmful situation do they? Why hasn't the
organisation been prosecuted for all this child abuse then?
--
Richard Miller
Adam
Saatchi Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>So Janet Kay catalogues with children modelling underwear involve
>children being put into a harmful situation do they? Why hasn't the
>organisation been prosecuted for all this child abuse then?
Valid point, but obviously this is a controlled environment, of non
naked children. I was replying about the possession of naked photos
putting children into greater danger.
I am very much in two minds about the display myself, not so much from
the point of nudity, more as an abuse of trust by the parent(s).
Fishfood
No, my opinions are based on the pictures, not on the reports
Fishfood
Fishfood
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
Because it may be indicative that he has an unhealthy sexual interest in
children. A Teacher has ready access to children, and if he had these
tendencies it is only the fear of being apprehended that would stop him from
indecently assaulting them.
Fishfood.
Fishfood
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
Because it would feed his fantasies
Fishfood
Fishfood
If only it were hypothetical. I don't know if you've come accross many Paeds
but this is quite a common occurence. I have also dealt with numerous
Scoutmasters & members of the cloth in similar situations. The point is that
I am unhappy about children being taught by a teacher who has a collection
of photographs of naked children. It is also common for them to have
scrapbooks full of clippings of children modelling underwear. Whilst not an
offence it is indicative of an unhealthy interest, and surely some cause for
concern.
>
> If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
> indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
> are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
touched, or worse.
Fishfood.
John O
Adam <ome...@mailandnews.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7946btc94vafsr5b2...@4ax.com...
Any offence deemed to be strict liability.
Marshall Rice
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
Is it only fear of apprehension that prevents you from indecently
assaulting anyone else you may have a sexual interest in? If so, perhaps
you'd better go and get some therapy. If not, why should paedophiles be
any different in that respect?
--
Marshall Rice
John O
er, yes: it is cause for concern. But if it is not against the law,
well....it is not against the law.
You are wriggling and failing to answer the basic question posed by
Richard...... Should we, as a society, set a standard that fits the vast
majority of individuals in society....or should we adopt a standard that is
set for us by our fears of an abnormal minority?
If you take the latter view - as you seem to - how do you distinguish
between this exhibition and clothing catalogues? Why ban this exhibition
and not the vastly more private (and therefore, presumably, more dangerous)
distribution of catalogues.
If you can't/won't answer that, I don't really understand what your point is
about the exhibition.
> >
> > If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
> > indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
> > are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
>
> See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
> touched, or worse.
Sure is. So why are you such a hypocrite and obsessed with porn, rather
than out there campaigning to ban all cars from areas around schools?
>
> Fishfood.
>
>
John O
>
> "Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> news:984753042.18124.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Fishfood wrote
> >
> > >The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
> > >displayed or who is in possession of it.
> >
> > Unfortunately no, that is not the case. The current test includes
> > "context".
> >
> > >Thousands of people will have
> > >similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong
> > with
> > >that. What about a situation however where a male primary school
> > teacher
> > >downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
> > Surely
> > >something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
> >
> > Why? In what way would the man's act of downloading the pictures
> > cause harm to any child?
>
> Because it may be indicative that he has an unhealthy sexual interest in
> children.
an indication of an unhealthy sexual interest is NOT "harm". It may precede
harm, but it is not harm. Cynic asked a straight question: I note you
choose not to answer, but prefer to take shelter in evasions instead.
Again: what HARM does a collection of pictures do to children?
> A Teacher has ready access to children, and if he had these
> tendencies it is only the fear of being apprehended that would stop him
from
> indecently assaulting them.
In other words: you have some idealised view of the 'monster paedophile',
whose tendencies are only held in check by fear of apprehension. True, I
suspect, for some.....but not all.
After all, what is it that holds back heteros from raping everyone in sight?
Surely not simply fear of apprehension?
But you still miss the point. I think I would consider it worrying if
someone with such interests were teaching young children. Therefore, I
would seek not to employ such persons and, if they were employed, I would
seek to remove them from employment.
Why? For the danger they might pose to the children. NOT for the
possession of pictures.
>
> Fishfood.
>
>
John O
Then you don't know - or haven't bothereed to think - about how
organisations work. The police had two options: a quiet word with the CPS
to discover what their views on the subject were, and whether there might be
any point in proceeding....or to go in, hobnails flying, making a hugely
public fuss and also making demands that they could not legally make of the
gallery organisers.
Either THEY weren't thinking, or some bright spark in their PR department
thought this would be good for them - when, in fact, the opposite turns out
to be the case, since such a public rebuff is NOT good for law in this area
on the whole.
>
> The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
> displayed or who is in possession of it. Thousands of people will have
> similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong with
> that. What about a situation however where a male primary school teacher
> downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
Surely
> something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
Why?
Actually, I think the Law is utterly schizophrenic in this area: it
potentially criminalises almost every parent in the country, whilst CHOSING
to go after the primary school teacher. Why, BTW, do you assume that it
must be a MALE teacher? Are you sexist as well as intellectually challenged
in the legal area?
But please address the first question: something prob'ly needs to be done
because....well, the law says that something needs to be done.
However, the law is predicated on a theory and, if that theory is wrong, the
end result is likely to mean MORE - not less - damage to children. The
theory? That there is a natural progression from 'urges' to 'use of porn'
to actual abuse. Same sort of argument tends to be applied to drug control
and doesn't seem to work there.
If that argument holds, then yes, we should be a lot more careful about
images of children: but if the opposite, then no....we are actually
diverting resources away from areas where some real good can be done into
witch hunts.
>
>
John O
actually closet paedophiles? If you allow that it is context that makes the
images pornographic or not, then you are placing the crime in the mind of
the (ab)user, rather than in the image itself.
There is a logic to that, because it then allows us to say that the same
image, in a family album, and in a collection of paedophile porn is, or is
not, obscene.
So: apply that same test to a well-known Art Gallery. If the obscenity does
not reside in the image, it must be in the context. Are you suggesting that
hordes of paedophiles congregate at that Gallery? That, actually, rather
than download the Argos underwear catalogue, they all make a highly
expensive trip to London in order to get off on two faintly arousing images?
Or are you prepared to acknowledge that the vast majority of visitors will
see nothing erotic in the slightest?
John O
That is a theory. Or rather, what you have left unstated is a theory. I
have read material on both sides of the fence.
Some people claim that there is a natural progression/slippery slope from
fantasy to porn to actual abuse.
Some others maintain the opposite: that the ability to access porn provides,
for some individuals, an outlet that allows them to sublimate the act.
I suspect it is not straightforward and that each is true for some
individuals. If the proportion for which the latter is true is greater than
the proportion for whom the former is true, then guiess what: your
self-righteous indignation misght be contributing to greater harm to
children.
Using true Anne Robinson logic, that would make YOU a child abuser.....go to
jail, do not pass Go, etc.
How truly confident are you that you have all the answers?
>
> Fishfood
>
>
John O
Either you are being a tad thick, or coming to this debate late. The basic
point is that, apart from obviously posed/created erotic images, the world
is absolutely FULL of images that could be used for erotic purposes if the
observer so wishes.
For instance, yesterday I passed a well-known florists, advertising their
services for Mothers' Day. They were prominently displaying a poster that
included a rather nubile 'Mum' together with a semi-naked young boy. I
would guess that the intent of the photographer was playful. I would also
suggest that the image is perfectly capable of being eroticised by anyone
who so wished.
So, what is your solution? Ban the taking of ANY image that could take ANY
erotic interpretation?
Goodbye to most fashion catalogues for starters.
The debate is about _ordinary_ photos....not ones that put children in any
danger, being eroticised in the eyes of certain beholders. Do you really
wish to make society as a whole conform to the views of what is erotic held
by a small (abnormal) minority?
John O
Hmmm. Perhaps you'd be better off in the US: a guy there has just got leave
to sue the Hospital that circumcised him when he was a baby for loss of
'pleasure' in later life (though how would he KNOW?).
Your original posts were about the content of the pictures. Now you shift
your ground toward abuse of trust by parents.
Are you now suggesting that parents should be prosecuted for telling
children that there is a Santa Claus?
This trust argument appears to lean on the rather odd belief that children
can be perfectly autonomous, legally. They are not.
It is up to parents to make CHOICES for them.
I have recently had an interesting conversation with someone who, at age 40,
claims their WHOLE life has been ruined because their parents were the way
they are, and never helped them to be a better person. Actually, nothing
especially bad has happened to this person: they have had triumphs and
failures, like everyone else - and by most standards, have done fairly well.
But this is a true 'I could have been a contender' whinge.
I, too, could have done better from life, as measured in certain terms: but
then, I wouldn't be me. And who knows whether 'better' would have meant
'happier'.
If you could ask Macauley Culkin....do you think his parents should not have
allowed him/encouraged him to become a star?
What about Michael Portillo?
Should no parents allow their children into ANY TV ads, on the off-chance
that the children will be embarrassed later?
John O
You were very keen to send us to the newspaper link when first you posted.
Are you telling us that you went to the Gallery, saw the pictures, then
posted?
Or you are an Indie reader or Guardian reader, and you saw the pictures
posted there, early this week?
Or you read the article in the NoW, which was about as disgraceful a piece
of biased and illiberal reporting as you could imagine, replete with
innuendo and distortion?
If the latter, I am curious as to when you might actually have seen the
photos, since the NoW didn't publish them whole.
You are telling the truth, aren't you? You have seen the photos in full and
uncut?
Before you started this thread?
>
> Fishfood
>
>
John O
source of info was anything much more balanced than the NoW. For those who
haven't seen it, the original text is attached. Its long:
CHILD PORN THEY CALL ART
UPPER-CRUST 'art lovers' are paying £5 a head to ogle degrading snaps of
naked children plastered across the walls of one of Britain's most exclusive
galleries.
The images are being touted as serious works by two photographers.
Many of the pictures in the exhibition, titled I Am A Camera, are in full
colour and spare no details.
One has a very young naked girl, her lower body fully exposed to the camera
lens lying between the open legs of a standing, semi-clothed older girl and
placed to look straight upwards.
Another shows a boy of about four or five, naked and urinating.
A third is of an adult inspecting an undressed child.
A fourth features a youngster with his head directly on a level with a
standing youth?s private parts in a bath. The standing boy is being held by
an adult hand.
There are many more explicit pictures in the gallery than we have shown
here.
There are also POSTCARDS featuring the naked children on sale so visitors
can send out the images to like-minded 'art lovers' throughout the world. In
the foyer there are even exhibition T-SHIRTS on offer.
Fuel
One of the photographers is the MOTHER of the children in the pictures.
Though she has allowed herself to be named in other newspapers, the News of
the World will not do so to protect the children.
The other is Nan Goldin, whose young subjects are family friends. Her
previous work includes a shot of an Aids victim dead in her coffin.
This week, acting on complaints from concerned members of the public, police
from Scotland Yard's Vice Squad raided the Saatchi Gallery, run by
multi-millionaire and politicians' friend Charles Saatchi.
Inspector Brian Ward ordered Saatchi to take down the offending pictures or
he'd be back within days to seize them.
The police have also warned Edward Booth-Clibborn, an international fine art
publisher, to strip £38 books of the exhibition from his shelves or face
prosecution too.
A police source told the News of the World: "These pictures could fuel the
sick fantasies of paedophiles. Soon they could end up on the internet.
"We've all taken pictures of our children naked but would you want the rest
of the world, including perverts seeing them?
"It's time someone decided what is art and what is porn and looked after the
interests of the children who have been photographed."
But Inspector Ward's swift action has brought a torrent of outrage from
critics and gallery visitors.
"This is exactly what you'd expect," said Michael Hames, former head of the
Obscene Publications Squad.
"The chattering classes will believe they have an absolute right to peer at
nude youngsters' genitals in the comfortable surroundings of St John's Wood.
I expect them to make a concerted publicity effort to get their way."
The exhibition is sponsored by the Independent on Sunday newspaper.
One of their art critics, Fiona Rattray, described some of the images as
"exhilarating portraits of family life."
The paper even offered readers two tickets for the price of one.
Yesterday, the ultra-liberal Guardian newspaper joined the fray and said
Metropolitan police commissioner Sir John Stevens "has a duty not to waste
police time."
Yet on a report right next to this outburst, the paper's critic Mark Lawson
admits the images might appeal to the most bestial monsters in Britain.
"The animal masks in some of the pictures might quicken the step of any
gallery-visitor who happened to be into kids-and-pets porn," he says.
It is these animal mask shots that are printed on the special I Am A Camera
T-Shirts. Lawson dismisses the national outrage over predatory paedophiles
as "the contemporary hysteria over child abuse."
But even he is forced to add: "There's no doubt that anyone who sent a roll
of such images to Boots for processing would find a copper standing next to
the sales assistant when they went in to collect them."
Charles Saatchi himself is known as art's 'Mr Cool'. He and his brother
Maurice set up the famous Saatchi & Saatchi ad agency and are worth £160
million between them.
The pictures in the I Am A Camera exhibition are from Charles' personal
collection.
Journalist Ian Hislop of TV's Have I Got News For You slammed the exhibition
as "deeply creepy".
"There is something peculiar about the pictures," he said.
"They are the sort that get downloaded from the net."
Labour MP Fraser Kemp said: "I support the police's action in consulting the
Crown Prosecution Service in this matter.
"There's no need for a paedophile to download these sorts of images from the
internet when they can walk into a respectable art gallery and see the same
thing."
Labour MP Phil Woolas added: "Exhibitions like this are grossly
irresponsible."
Creepy
Ordinary parents also reacted angrily to the photographs when we showed them
copies.
Charity worker Toby Dodson, a father of two, said: "There is nothing sweet
or childlike about these photographs."
Marketing consultant Karen Falk shuddered as she looked at the pictures of
two naked young girls wearing cartoon masks.
"That just looks frightening because their identities have been taken away
from them," said the young mum.
"There is something sinister about it."
Independent on Sunday editor in chief Simon Kelner would only say yesterday:
"This is an acclaimed art show that has been running for eight weeks at a
privately-owned gallery and the Independent is proud of its tradition of
sponsoring important exhibitions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
PICS MAKE ME FEEL GOOD
THE photographer who took pictures of her own children was last night
"shocked" and "confused" that somebody could have complained about her work.
The former underwear model who is American but lives in a £1 million mews
house in west London, said: "Sometimes people in interviews will ask me how
I feel about paedophilia, and I have no comment. It doesn't even apply to
me.
"This is my form of art and these pictures make me feel good."
She added: "I think the British are more inhibited. People have a choice
whether or not to go to the gallery."
Nan Goldin, whose work includes the picture of the small girl lying in her
back between an older girl's legs, insisted this weekend: "I think pictures
of a child's genitalia are beautiful."
Speaking from her home in Sag Harbor, Long Island, New York, she insisted
that if she is prosecuted for child pornography she will fly to London and
defend herself with highly-paid lawyers.
When our reporter asked her if she felt her picture might give pleasure to a
paedophile, she replied after a long pause: "I'm not a damned paedophile,
OK, let's get that straight, and I'm not a child pornographer. Anyone who is
either is sick.
"But, OK, if my picture unwittingly gave pleasure to some sick person, then
I'd regret that."
Permission
The children are from Berlin and Goldin, 48, admitted: "Clearly the younger
one, lying down, can't know what's going on or give permission or know if
she's enjoying it or not, but the older one is in agreement with it, and
understands that photographs are being taken, and she?s having a great time.
"It's not about sex. I've known these children all their lives."
Besides her shot of a dead Aids victim, Goldin's previous works also
includes people sitting on the lavatory, and a portrait of herself in
leather sitting astride a girlfriend.
After viewing the photographs, TV presenter and children's campaigner Carol
Vorderman told the News of the World: "Obviously these are not photographs
of abuse, but they are still images that paedophiles will find sexual.
"You can argue the art argument all you want, but the very real and sad
truth is that paedophiles will get sexual gratification from these types of
images."
Carol added: "It?s about time we looked at everything to do with child abuse
and erred on the side of caution rather than the side of liberalism.
"I know of at least one site which caters for paedophiles and informs them
about where they can get such photos.
"They quote art critics and openly laugh at them. So as you can see this is
a massive grey area and unfortunately this sort of exhibition muddies the
waters."
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Deconstruction follows
Adam
Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>Either you are being a tad thick, or coming to this debate late.
I'll go for the second choice :)
Interesting points you make in your posts, I wasn't particularly being
thick, although you may think otherwise, just thinking out loud to
prompt alternative opinions, such as yours.
Usenet is the only place I know where a debate ends in people being
personally insulted, flamed, run out of town etc.
Fishfood
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21Is6.218961$Dd3.3...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>
> Fishfood <fish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:98uhe4$cus$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:QjRSzRBp...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <98rnmi$ee9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> > > <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> > > >I have not been to the exhibition but saw the pictures in the News
> > reports.
> > > >That is surely enough to form an opinion. I was unaware that some
> papers
> > had
> > > >published the photographs uncensored, though I believe that the
> display
> > was
> > > >sponsored by The Independant (Janet Street-Porter being one of the
> > > >Chattering Classes).
> > >
> > > The mere fact that your opinions are based on reports from newspapers
> > > that felt the pictures needed to be censored tells us all we need to
> > > know about where you are coming from.:-)
> >
> > No, my opinions are based on the pictures, not on the reports
>
> You were very keen to send us to the newspaper link when first you posted.
>
> Are you telling us that you went to the Gallery, saw the pictures, then
> posted?
No
> Or you are an Indie reader or Guardian reader, and you saw the pictures
> posted there, early this week?
No
Or you read the article in the NoW, which was about as disgraceful a piece
> of biased and illiberal reporting as you could imagine, replete with
> innuendo and distortion?
Yes, well the Website anyway. I've just read it again, please point out how
it is biased and illiberal (and surely the Independant on Sunday is also
biased, seeing how they sponsored the exhibition).
> If the latter, I am curious as to when you might actually have seen the
> photos, since the NoW didn't publish them whole.
Saw them in the NoW, which blanked out faces & genitalia. Why did I need to
see them whole to be able to form an opinion?
> You are telling the truth, aren't you? You have seen the photos in full
and
> uncut? Before you started this thread?
See above
Fishfood
Fishfood
No I am not wriggling at all. My basic point is that these photographs were
borderline, and it was up to the Legal system to decide if they had
oversteped the mark. The standard has already been set by the Protection of
Children Act 1978, it is the definition of *Indecent* that is the sticking
point.
> If you take the latter view - as you seem to - how do you distinguish
> between this exhibition and clothing catalogues? Why ban this exhibition
> and not the vastly more private (and therefore, presumably, more
dangerous)
> distribution of catalogues.
Because there is a vast difference between the two. No way could anyone
possibly define the clothing pictures as indecent, even though they provide
titillation for obsessive Paedophiles. Unlike 'Art', they actually perform a
useful purpose.
> If you can't/won't answer that, I don't really understand what your point
is
> about the exhibition.
>
> > >
> > > If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
> > > indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then
you
> > > are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for
me.
> >
> > See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
> > touched, or worse.
>
> Sure is. So why are you such a hypocrite and obsessed with porn, rather
> than out there campaigning to ban all cars from areas around schools?
Now that is uncalled for. Obsessed with Porn? My work involves the
investigation and apprehension of Paedophiles and Paedophilia. I am not for
one minute accusing anyone who has similar pictures of their own family. I
do not have 'all the answers' either.
Fishfood
"Marshall Rice" <Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rZnT7BAM...@msrice.demon.co.uk...
Because their victims are children and need more protection than adults.
Paedophiles have many grooming techniques, such as fear & blackmail, which
would not work on an adult. In fact children may not even realise, until
later in life, that what is being done to them is wrong.
Fishfood
I stand by my reply, but will add to it - "Because it may be indicative that
he has an unhealthy sexual interest in children AND WOULD FUEL HIS FANTASIES
AND INCREASE THE LIKLIHOOD OF HIM OFFENDING.
> > A Teacher has ready access to children, and if he had these
> > tendencies it is only the fear of being apprehended that would stop him
> from
> > indecently assaulting them.
>
> In other words: you have some idealised view of the 'monster paedophile',
> whose tendencies are only held in check by fear of apprehension. True, I
> suspect, for some.....but not all.
Not 'Idealised view', but personal knowledge. You are right however when you
say "True, I
suspect, for some.....but not all". Some of them do not manage to keep their
tendencies in check
> After all, what is it that holds back heteros from raping everyone in
sight?
> Surely not simply fear of apprehension?
>
> But you still miss the point. I think I would consider it worrying if
> someone with such interests were teaching young children. Therefore, I
> would seek not to employ such persons and, if they were employed, I would
> seek to remove them from employment.
>
> Why? For the danger they might pose to the children. NOT for the
> possession of pictures.
So who is being hypocritical now? I thought you said there was nothing wrong
with these pictures. On what grounds would you wish to remove such a person
from their employment? Are you now agreeing that possession may be
indicative of an unhealthy interest? Please clarify.
Fishfood
> > > Perhaps there is no better way than the current vague "indecent"
> > > definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
> > > authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
> > > --
> > > Richard Miller
> >
> > Actually I don't think they overstepped the mark. No-one was arrested
and
> > the photographs were not removed, all the police did was submit the
> > catalogue to the CPS for their opinion because, as you say, the
definition
> > of 'indecent' is rather vague.
>
> Then you don't know - or haven't bothereed to think - about how
> organisations work. The police had two options: a quiet word with the CPS
> to discover what their views on the subject were, and whether there might
be
> any point in proceeding....or to go in, hobnails flying, making a hugely
> public fuss and also making demands that they could not legally make of
the
> gallery organisers.
I do know how the system works in cases like this, and the options
available. I'm afraid that a 'Quiet word with the CPS is not one of them'.
To gain a CPS decision an advice file has to be submitted, on paper, so
there is a record of the complaint and decision made. In this case it would
have had to include the photographs in question which were displayed in the
Gallery's catalogue. The file would be viewed by a number of CPS Lawyers,
going right to the top no doubt, with a case conference to examine the
'evidence'.
"or to go in, hobnails flying, making a hugely public fuss" - An example of
the biased reporting and fixed views you allude to in earlier postings? The
facts were that complaints had been received which the Police were duty
bound to investigate. There is a disciplinary offence of 'Lack of
Investigation'. The fuss was partly the fault of the Gallery itself, no
doubt seeking free publicity.
If you think this was an example of the Police going in heavy, then you
haven't lived.
> Either THEY weren't thinking, or some bright spark in their PR department
> thought this would be good for them - when, in fact, the opposite turns
out
> to be the case, since such a public rebuff is NOT good for law in this
area
> on the whole.
>
> >
> > The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
> > displayed or who is in possession of it. Thousands of people will have
> > similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong
with
> > that. What about a situation however where a male primary school teacher
> > downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
> Surely
> > something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
>
> Why?
>
> Actually, I think the Law is utterly schizophrenic in this area: it
> potentially criminalises almost every parent in the country, whilst
CHOSING
> to go after the primary school teacher. Why, BTW, do you assume that it
> must be a MALE teacher?
In theory it could be a Teacher of either sex of course, only speaking from
personal knowledge - I have yet to meet a female Paedophile.
Are you sexist as well as intellectually challenged in the legal area?
Are you this rude when you are face to face with someone with an opposing
view?
> But please address the first question: something prob'ly needs to be done
> because....well, the law says that something needs to be done.
I've already answered it in another posting, earlier today.
Fishfood
Of course I don't have all the answers, but it is important to remember that
Child Pornography, and I don't mean the Saatchi stuff, is a permanant record
of a child being abused, a crime scene. It is the job of the Police to find
both the perpertrator(s) and victims of these hrrendos crimes. Again I put
forward the view that if people fantasise over such material, it is the case
that 'some' will carry onand offend against kids if they get the chance.
These people need to be brought to justice as there is no way of knowing if
they will offend or not until it is to late.
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>> If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
>> indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
>> are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
>
>See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
>touched, or worse.
There you go again, wanting to lock people up for the crimes they might
commit, instead of ones they have committed.
Well I think you are taking an all-too unhealthy interest in this
subject on this thread. I think there is a danger that you might abuse
children, and I want you locked up. How are you going to convince me
that you shouldn't be locked up?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>So who is being hypocritical now? I thought you said there was nothing wrong
>with these pictures. On what grounds would you wish to remove such a person
>from their employment? Are you now agreeing that possession may be
>indicative of an unhealthy interest? Please clarify.
That's easy. It is the difference between taking proper steps under the
civil law to ensure that children are protected, and not imposing
criminal penalties on someone for something that is not a crime.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
Now this gets even more interesting. You do not think that Janet Kay
catalogues are indecent or that their possession should be punished,
despite the fact that some paedophiles do get off on them.
You don't think that anyone possessing pictures like Tierney Gearon's of
their own children should be accused of a crime, and therefore by
definition you do not see the pictures as indecent, as possession of an
indecent picture even of your own children is still a crime - otherwise
fathers possessing pornographic pictures of their own children would
have a totally unwarranted defence.
Yet you wanted to see the Saatchi gallery prosecuted because "there is a
vast difference" between the two, that difference being that "no way
could anyone define the clothing pictures as indecent", thus stating by
implication that you do consider Tierney Gearon's pictures to be
indecent.
So you simultaneously do and do not consider Tierney Gearon's pictures
indecent.
Very interesting.
Actually, I suspect at root, what this reflects is that you share my
discomfort at a parent *displaying* such pictures of their children, as
opposed to just having them as private reminders of happy times with
their children. But the law looks at the pictures which either are or
are not indecent. And if they aren't, displaying them in a gallery
should not bring the law into the matter.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<aud...@hotmail.com> writes
>Creepy
>Ordinary parents also reacted angrily to the photographs when we showed them
>copies.
>
>Charity worker Toby Dodson, a father of two, said: "There is nothing sweet
>or childlike about these photographs."
>
>Marketing consultant Karen Falk shuddered as she looked at the pictures of
>two naked young girls wearing cartoon masks.
>
>"That just looks frightening because their identities have been taken away
>from them," said the young mum.
>
>"There is something sinister about it."
Is that talking about the picture I think it refers to? The picture the
Guardian printed on its front page?
Because if so, it was a picture of one boy and one girl. So if that is
the picture they were referring to, it just goes to show how little you
can see in the picture!!!
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>> In article <98rnmi$ee9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
>> <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >I have not been to the exhibition but saw the pictures in the News
>reports.
>> >That is surely enough to form an opinion. I was unaware that some papers
>had
>> >published the photographs uncensored, though I believe that the display
>was
>> >sponsored by The Independant (Janet Street-Porter being one of the
>> >Chattering Classes).
>>
>> The mere fact that your opinions are based on reports from newspapers
>> that felt the pictures needed to be censored tells us all we need to
>> know about where you are coming from.:-)
>
>No, my opinions are based on the pictures, not on the reports
>
>
>
If you haven't seen the pictures uncensored, how can your opinions be
valid?
--
Richard Miller
Fishfood
Errrrrr, because I presume that behind the blacked out area between the top
of the legs and the abdomen lies the genital area, and behind the black box
at the top of the shoulders lies the child's face.
Fishfood
"Alan G" <alan.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5g77btcbn8q83cpr5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:16:36 -0000, "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:QjRSzRBp...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <98rnmi$ee9$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> >> <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >I have not been to the exhibition but saw the pictures in the News
> >reports.
> >> >That is surely enough to form an opinion. I was unaware that some
papers
> >had
> >> >published the photographs uncensored, though I believe that the
display
> >was
> >> >sponsored by The Independant (Janet Street-Porter being one of the
> >> >Chattering Classes).
> >>
> >> The mere fact that your opinions are based on reports from newspapers
> >> that felt the pictures needed to be censored tells us all we need to
> >> know about where you are coming from.:-)
> >
> >No, my opinions are based on the pictures, not on the reports
> >
>
> someone molesting them.
> --
> Alan Goss
No. My work involves me dealing with the actual molesters. Real, not
imaginary.
Simon
snip
> > If you take the latter view - as you seem to - how do you distinguish
> > between this exhibition and clothing catalogues? Why ban this
exhibition
> > and not the vastly more private (and therefore, presumably, more
> dangerous)
> > distribution of catalogues.
>
> Because there is a vast difference between the two. No way could anyone
> possibly define the clothing pictures as indecent, even though they
provide
> titillation for obsessive Paedophiles. Unlike 'Art', they actually perform
a
> useful purpose.
As does art (along with many other seemingly useless pursuits)
Simon
Fishfood
To repeat myself one more time, I have stated that I believe the pictures
were 'borderline' (I think you have also agreed that they are in bad taste,
or words to that effect). I still believe that the gallery & photographer
should be prosecuted, if only for the one picture where the naked baby is on
the floor looking up at the older girl. Reasoning behind this is that I
believe some sort of stated case is needed when it comes to adults being in
possession of these types of pictures, and are *not* the parents or other
family members.
> Actually, I suspect at root, what this reflects is that you share my
> discomfort at a parent *displaying* such pictures of their children, as
> opposed to just having them as private reminders of happy times with
> their children. But the law looks at the pictures which either are or
> are not indecent. And if they aren't, displaying them in a gallery
> should not bring the law into the matter.
> --
> Richard Miller
First part of the above is true. Now laws can always be changed. R v Graham
Kerr (I have the exact reference at work), deals with the TAKING of indecent
photographs of children. It deals with what was in the photographers mind
when taking the picture, and whether he had indecent intentions or not.
Fishfood
Fishfood
> In article <98ui6c$dd5$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
> >> indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
> >> are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
> >
> >See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
> >touched, or worse.
>
> There you go again, wanting to lock people up for the crimes they might
> commit, instead of ones they have committed.
It's called crime prevention. If I saw someone about to walk into a pub,
brandishing a Machete, might I be right in presuming he was possibly going
to assault someone? What do you propose we do with such a Teacher? Nothing?
Or are you OK with it until it's one of your kid's Teacher's?
> Well I think you are taking an all-too unhealthy interest in this
> subject on this thread. I think there is a danger that you might abuse
> children, and I want you locked up. How are you going to convince me
> that you shouldn't be locked up?
So are you Richard - see you in Jail.
Fishfood
I don't know much about Civil Law, so what would those proper steps be?
(Genuine question). If the Teacher could be dismissed he could easily walk
into a new post, it has happened many times. All he would need to do is hand
in a false CV, saying that his previous post involved working through an
agency abroad. At least when someone is convicted these days they go on the
Sex Offenders register. I am advocating a change in the Law, to deal with
possession of such photographs when they are *not* of family members.
Remember that prior to 1978 it was not illegal to take or distribute *ANY*
indecent photographs of children, and again not an offence to possess them
until 1988.
Fishfood
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:36:11 -0000, "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> >> Fishfood wrote
> >>
> >> >The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
> >> >displayed or who is in possession of it.
> >>
> >> "context".
> >>
> >> >similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong
> >> with
> >> teacher
> >> >downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
> >> Surely
> >> >something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
> >>
> >> cause harm to any child?
> >
> >Because it may be indicative that he has an unhealthy sexual interest in
> >tendencies it is only the fear of being apprehended that would stop him
from
> >indecently assaulting them.
> >
>
> You really ought to seek help.
> --
> Alan Goss
And how do you come to that conclusion? Are you really so naive?
Fishfood
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:37:54 -0000, "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> >> Fishfood wrote
> >>
> >> >Unfortunately (in my opinion), the CPS have decided not to take
> >> action in
> >> >this case as they deem that there is the unlikelihood of a succesful
> >> >prosecution. As other's have pointed out, having pictures of ones own
> >> >children, in similar poses, should surely not be an offence. The
> >> problem I
> >> >have is with Paedophiles having massive collections of this type of
> >> >material. I would like to have seen a test case so that some sort of
> >> clarity
> >> >could be found.
> >>
> >> A person who is sexually interested in children will have such an
> >> interest regardless of how many photographs he does or does not have.
> >> How does the possession of the photographs harm children, or put
> >> children into greater danger?
> >
> >Because it would feed his fantasies
> >
>
> You seem to be a very sick person.
> --
> Alan Goss
That's it Brainbox - turn to insults when you're losing the arguement.
Fishfood
Simon
snip
> > How truly confident are you that you have all the answers?
>
> Of course I don't have all the answers, but it is important to remember
that
> Child Pornography, and I don't mean the Saatchi stuff, is a permanant
record
> of a child being abused, a crime scene. It is the job of the Police to
find
> both the perpertrator(s) and victims of these hrrendos crimes. Again I put
> forward the view that if people fantasise over such material, it is the
case
> that 'some' will carry onand offend against kids if they get the chance.
> These people need to be brought to justice as there is no way of knowing
if
> they will offend or not until it is to late.
So at what age is a child abused and suffer permanent harm do children in
countries with lower age's of consent not suffer this harm or do we harm
more people than those counties with a higher age of consent?
Fishfood
does
> not reside in the image, it must be in the context. Are you suggesting
that
> hordes of paedophiles congregate at that Gallery? That, actually, rather
> than download the Argos underwear catalogue, they all make a highly
> expensive trip to London in order to get off on two faintly arousing
images?
>
> Or are you prepared to acknowledge that the vast majority of visitors will
> see nothing erotic in the slightest?
Absolutely. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Many posters have
agreed that they find the fact that these pictures were displayed
'disturbing', although not indecent. So in your, and other contributers
opinion, when *does* such a photo become indecent.
For the benefit of everyone else who has flamed me, insulted me and
basically alleged that I get some perverse pleasure out of this, perhaps I
should explain that along with colleagues I regularly arrest Paedophiles who
download and distribute indecent material from the net. Also those who
actually carry out physical abuse as well. My only pleasure is putting these
people behind bars.
Fishfood
"Simon" <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:990nqa$goi$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
The Law of this country says under the age of 16. Someone else can answer
the rest of your question.
John O
What would that 'useful purpose' be? You mean that the selling of
'fashionable' clothes is somehow utilitarian? Or that there is no artifice,
no interpretation, no creation of an image within a clothes catalogue?
John O
Oh. So now you KNOW how paedophilia works. Nice to see your expert posts
appearing on the same day as a post detailing a court award of $5 million in
compensation against a family that similarly suffered from experts who KNEW.
In that case, we are talking about False/Recovered Memory Syndrome. But I
suspect that similar principles hold here.
I claim no such omniscience about the aetiology of paedophilia, but from my
own related study, suspect that it is probably not singular, as you imply,
and therefore, unless you are privy to some super-knowledge denied the rest
of us, you are forcing all individuals into one model in spite of the lack
of evidence in the field.
You appear to be proposing the criminalising of the possession of certain
(types of) pictures. Yet apart from your own personal insights into this
area, all you would be doing is criminalising a whole range of people who
had done nothing.
My view - Richard expressed it rather better, actually - is that you
criminalise the acts and, where other factors may lead one to suspect the
motives of an individual who has regular contact with children, then that
may be grounds for removing them from employment.
Simple, really, in legal terms. Action. Possession of pictures.
Criminal Law. Employment policy. Very separate.
>
>
John O
In which case, on the basis of what you have posted so far, I would suggest
that you are wholly unqualified to be anywhere near such a sensitive area.
Let me see. First, you cite the NoW as a balanced view of the field. Next,
you seem to be having all sorts of problems with some of the legal niceties
which actually make all the difference in this area....and finally you can't
or won't answer some of the basic questions posed by individuals far less
rude than myself on here.
The point is that you ARE, by implication, creating a climate of fear for
ALL of society....because your obsession seems to be with the standards of
pornography set by paedophiles.
The basic divide seems to me to be whether we, as a society, allow a wide
range of images, and condemn those whose perversion twists the meaning of
those images: or we buy into the interpretations placed on those images by
perverts, and force the whole of society to be ruled by that
iinterpretation.
As for your 'credentials'? I am sure that Witchfinders could always claim
plenty of experience of the telltale signs of Witchcraft. Didn't make them
any better or smarter. Often, in fact, blinded them to more rational ways
of thinking.
>
John O
You're ducking the issue again. Richard is perfectly aware of such a
possibility, which is one reason why he adheres to the rather well-tried
axiom of innocent until proven guilty. You are the one who doesn't appear
to believe in it....therefore the onus should be on you to demonstrate why
this would not happen.
>
>
John O
No its not. First, the Law was widened with the recent legislation to
include pseudo-images. Second, as the whole debate about Saatchi and
related subjects shows, we appear to have reached the point where the Police
now feel able to terrorise individuals in this debate by classifying images
as potentially pornographic on the basis of how they may be used....not
simply their content.
(Discussed this, in the last couple of days, with an individual who had
herself been abused a very long time ago: REAL abuse, as in a court case and
a person went to prison as a result...... Her take on the recent events was
that the Police action made her very angry and, that if anyone was being
abusive in this context, it was the Police themselves.....because by
creating such a fearful climate, it made families fearful of doing things
that were once 100% natural).
If the porn consists of a pseudo-image, then no-one was touched at all by
the creation of the image: if its an everyday photo eroticised by use or
context, then again, no harm has actually been done.
>It is the job of the Police to find
> both the perpertrator(s) and victims of these hrrendos crimes. Again I put
> forward the view that if people fantasise over such material, it is the
case
> that 'some' will carry onand offend against kids if they get the chance.
> These people need to be brought to justice as there is no way of knowing
if
> they will offend or not until it is to late.
>
Seems like you and Jack Straw are good company. Just run that sentence by
me again. You want to see people 'brought to justice' for things they
haven't actually done - and may, in fact, never do - in case they do them.
I worked, a long time ago, with a respected Professor in Psychology, whose
work in Criminal Behaviour meant he was able to predict the likelihood that
someone would offend at greater than chance....not perfect....we are talking
about getting it wrong in, say, 90% of cases.....but a lot better than
random locking up.
He was based in Indonesia for a while....but left in a hurry. Because the
Government heard about his work and wanted him to adapt it in much the same
way your thought process is tending....to lock up people before they have a
chance to commit a crime.
The idea was barbaric then - and its barbaric now.
John O
>
> "Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:FHXbsMCO...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <98vvfv$sm6$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> > <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >So who is being hypocritical now? I thought you said there was nothing
> wrong
> > >with these pictures. On what grounds would you wish to remove such a
> person
> > >from their employment? Are you now agreeing that possession may be
> > >indicative of an unhealthy interest? Please clarify.
> >
> > That's easy. It is the difference between taking proper steps under the
> > civil law to ensure that children are protected, and not imposing
> > criminal penalties on someone for something that is not a crime.
> > --
> > Richard Miller
>
> I don't know much about Civil Law, so what would those proper steps be?
> (Genuine question). If the Teacher could be dismissed he could easily walk
> into a new post, it has happened many times. All he would need to do is
hand
> in a false CV, saying that his previous post involved working through an
> agency abroad.
Duh. Yes, of course. Of course, all that someone on the Sex Offender's
Register would need is a false passport and a fake CV. Pretty easy to sort
out the former and the latter is just a word processor away.
Oh. I forgot. For the sake of the children, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. So,
maybe this would help: compulsory Personal ID cards, issued by the State and
validated at regular intervals? Perhaps everyone having to report to a
Police Station once every two years, to prove that they were using their
card and had not amended or forged one?
Might go some way to eliminating a lot of unsavoury practises.
You are shifting ground again. The point is that anyone determined to evade
State check-ups can do so pretty easily in the UK. We have neither the
culture nor the bureaucracy to prevent this. So because we don't have
that - you are correct - you would like to impose further and further
restrictions on civil liberties elsewhere to compensate?
>At least when someone is convicted these days they go on the
> Sex Offenders register. I am advocating a change in the Law, to deal with
> possession of such photographs when they are *not* of family members.
> Remember that prior to 1978 it was not illegal to take or distribute *ANY*
> indecent photographs of children, and again not an offence to possess them
> until 1988.
The difficulty is that, as for definitions of abuse, you are starting to
widen the definition to the point where it will lose all meaning and/or lose
public confidence.
Like most people, I suspect I would start by defining an indecent photo of a
child one which depicted a child in a clearly sexual/erotic
context....either being abused by an adult, or mimicking adult erotic
activity.
But with the recent moral panic on this front, people (such as yourself)
appear to be turning this argument around: if it can give pleasure to a
paedophile, it must be indecent.....ergo, almost anything that one snaps
regarding children can be indecent.
>
>
John O
Alan G <alan.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:km77bt8qhmkotm70r...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:37:54 -0000, "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:984753301.18227.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> Fishfood wrote
> >>
> >> >Unfortunately (in my opinion), the CPS have decided not to take
> >> action in
> >> >this case as they deem that there is the unlikelihood of a succesful
> >> >prosecution. As other's have pointed out, having pictures of ones own
> >> >children, in similar poses, should surely not be an offence. The
> >> problem I
> >> >have is with Paedophiles having massive collections of this type of
> >> >material. I would like to have seen a test case so that some sort of
> >> clarity
> >> >could be found.
> >>
> >> A person who is sexually interested in children will have such an
> >> interest regardless of how many photographs he does or does not have.
> >> How does the possession of the photographs harm children, or put
> >> children into greater danger?
> >
> >Because it would feed his fantasies
> >
>
> You seem to be a very sick person.
He's a modern Witchfinder. Nuff said.
> --
> Alan Goss
>
> The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
> of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
> the law which governs other citizens or from the
> jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
> (Dicey)
John O
>
> > > > Perhaps there is no better way than the current vague "indecent"
> > > > definition, combined with the occasional outcry like this to let the
> > > > authorities know when they have overstepped the mark.
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Miller
> > >
> > > Actually I don't think they overstepped the mark. No-one was arrested
> and
> > > the photographs were not removed, all the police did was submit the
> > > catalogue to the CPS for their opinion because, as you say, the
> definition
> > > of 'indecent' is rather vague.
> >
> > Then you don't know - or haven't bothereed to think - about how
> > organisations work. The police had two options: a quiet word with the
CPS
> > to discover what their views on the subject were, and whether there
might
> be
> > any point in proceeding....or to go in, hobnails flying, making a hugely
> > public fuss and also making demands that they could not legally make of
> the
> > gallery organisers.
>
> I do know how the system works in cases like this, and the options
> available. I'm afraid that a 'Quiet word with the CPS is not one of them'.
> To gain a CPS decision
True....but there are ways of gaining an opinion without getting a decision.
>an advice file has to be submitted, on paper, so
> there is a record of the complaint and decision made. In this case it
would
> have had to include the photographs in question which were displayed in
the
> Gallery's catalogue. The file would be viewed by a number of CPS Lawyers,
> going right to the top no doubt, with a case conference to examine the
> 'evidence'.
>
> "or to go in, hobnails flying, making a hugely public fuss" - An example
of
> the biased reporting and fixed views you allude to in earlier postings?
The
> facts were that complaints had been received which the Police were duty
> bound to investigate.
The request that the pictures be removed.
>There is a disciplinary offence of 'Lack of
> Investigation'. The fuss was partly the fault of the Gallery itself, no
> doubt seeking free publicity.
Ah. So the Police hadn't thought that one through? As to the disciplinary
offence....what nonsense: the Police investigate what they feel like
investigating, albeit justifying their choice of investigation with
high-sounding appeals to resource levels, Operational Strategy, etc.
You take the view that this is a serious matter, and therefore deserving of
resource. A lot of people might feel that their recent burglary was a more
serious matter, and that this was purely high-profile policing gone wrong.
Yet the Police do NOT investigate every potential crime that passes over
their desks.
>
> If you think this was an example of the Police going in heavy, then you
> haven't lived.
There is heavy and heavy. Given the sensitivity of the subject, this was
heavy.
Partly, of course, because it is something that in some politically correct
areas isn't meant to exist at all. Or is explained away - as some feminist
apologists for Rosemary West do - by claiming that she was co-erced by a
dominant male partner.
>
> Are you sexist as well as intellectually challenged in the legal area?
>
> Are you this rude when you are face to face with someone with an opposing
> view?
Ask Richard: I'd say this is restrained - and whilst I post regularly on
uk.legal, I also pick up a bit stylistically from a number of US groups on
which I post and on which, I have to say, I am probably regarded as a total
pussycat.
It would have helped if you hadn't started by your eulogy for the reporting
style of the NoW. (Last Sunday I read both the Indie coverage and the NoW
original coverage of this story, and have to say that I thought the NoW
coverage stank to high heaven).
Simon
>
> "Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nH1TM0BG...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <98ui6c$dd5$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> > <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >> If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
> > >> indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then
you
> > >> are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for
me.
> > >
> > >See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
> > >touched, or worse.
> >
> > There you go again, wanting to lock people up for the crimes they might
> > commit, instead of ones they have committed.
>
> It's called crime prevention. If I saw someone about to walk into a pub,
> brandishing a Machete, might I be right in presuming he was possibly going
> to assault someone? What do you propose we do with such a Teacher?
Nothing?
> Or are you OK with it until it's one of your kid's Teacher's?
And its that attiude that destroy's careers and wrecks lives all for a
simple allegation it also leads to major plc's banning men from sitting near
children!
Simon
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>Of course I don't have all the answers, but it is important to remember that
>Child Pornography, and I don't mean the Saatchi stuff, is a permanant record
>both the perpertrator(s) and victims of these hrrendos crimes.
And what was the crime scene in the Saatchi pictures? Oh, yes, you say
that you don't mean the Saatchi pictures. So what were the police, who
have too much real child porn to deal with, doing wasting their time at
the gallery? How many mutually contradictory views can you hold at any
one time?
> Again I put
>forward the view that if people fantasise over such material, it is the case
>that 'some' will carry onand offend against kids if they get the chance.
>These people need to be brought to justice as there is no way of knowing if
>they will offend or not until it is to late.
They need to be brought to justice before they offend. Thank you, at
least we know where you are coming from. And it ain't from any
definition of "justice" that I have ever heard of.
--
Richard Miller
John O
Well, on the whole, I'd rather that a teacher did not take a machete into
class when teaching my daughter.
Though I have heard that, in some parts of Birmingham, such weaponry a de
rigueur item of fashion .
> Simon
>
>
Simon
>
> Simon <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:991ak4$o1j$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > And its that attiude that destroy's careers and wrecks lives all for a
> > simple allegation it also leads to major plc's banning men from sitting
> near
> > children!
>
> Well, on the whole, I'd rather that a teacher did not take a machete into
> class when teaching my daughter.
>
> Though I have heard that, in some parts of Birmingham, such weaponry a de
> rigueur item of fashion .
Unless of course he took it in to show how it was used, Even if he had a
legitimate reason today's hysteria wouldn't give him a second chance
Simon
Simon
>
> "Simon" <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:990nqa$goi$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Fishfood" <fish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9905bq$qt9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
snip
> > So at what age is a child abused and suffer permanent harm do children
in
> > countries with lower age's of consent not suffer this harm or do we
harm
> > more people than those counties with a higher age of consent?
>
> The Law of this country says under the age of 16. Someone else can answer
> the rest of your question.
why can't you think of an answer..BTW its 18 if you want to appear in
pornographic pictures not 16
Simon
Adam
Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>BTW its 18 if you want to appear in
>pornographic pictures not 16
Possession of indecent photographs of children is 16
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>I don't know much about Civil Law, so what would those proper steps be?
>(Genuine question). If the Teacher could be dismissed he could easily walk
>into a new post, it has happened many times. All he would need to do is hand
>in a false CV, saying that his previous post involved working through an
>agency abroad. At least when someone is convicted these days they go on the
>Sex Offenders register.
But they don't need a conviction to go on the Protection of Children Act
register.
If you work with paedophiles, how the hell can you not know that?
> I am advocating a change in the Law, to deal with
>possession of such photographs when they are *not* of family members.
I possess such photos of my mother, my grandmother, my aunt, and my
cousin. I inherited a whole batch of family photos going back to the
late 1800s when my father died. What degree of kinship would I need
before my possession of these photos ceased to be a crime? What about a
photo that showed a family members and a toddler friend of said family
member?
Sorry, Fishfood, your idea won't work.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>> If you haven't seen the pictures uncensored, how can your opinions be
>> valid?
>
>Errrrrr, because I presume that behind the blacked out area between the top
>of the legs and the abdomen lies the genital area, and behind the black box
>at the top of the shoulders lies the child's face.
>
Ah, so now you are condemning these photos on what you *presume* they
show.
My point exactly.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nH1TM0BG...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <98ui6c$dd5$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
>> <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >> If your male primary school teacher downloads photos that *are*
>> >> indecent, or if he touches a child when/in a way he shouldn't, then you
>> >> are already covered by the current law, and that is good enough for me.
>> >
>> >See above. Surely it is important to do something *before* a child is
>> >touched, or worse.
>>
>> There you go again, wanting to lock people up for the crimes they might
>> commit, instead of ones they have committed.
>
>It's called crime prevention. If I saw someone about to walk into a pub,
>brandishing a Machete, might I be right in presuming he was possibly going
>to assault someone?
You might. You would also be right in assuming that mere possession of
that machete is a crime for which he could be arrested and imprisoned,
because of the damage he could do *with* the machete.
> What do you propose we do with such a Teacher? Nothing?
Correct. Otherwise you end up locking up lots of innocent teachers in
the hope of getting the one or two who might pose a danger to children.
And who would ever become a teacher then?
>Or are you OK with it until it's one of your kid's Teacher's?
I would blame the teacher. I would not blame the system that didn't lock
him up when he had committed no crime.
>
>> Well I think you are taking an all-too unhealthy interest in this
>> subject on this thread. I think there is a danger that you might abuse
>> children, and I want you locked up. How are you going to convince me
>> that you shouldn't be locked up?
>
>So are you Richard - see you in Jail.
My point precisely. Any of us could end up in jail on your thought-
police approach to this subject.
--
Richard Miller
Marshall Rice
<alan.g...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>I've assumed this was what people were being convicted of but after
>reading fishfood I start to wonder just what the courts are doing.
So do I.
Convictions for possession of such innocuous things as French and
Scandinavian naturist magazines are not uncommon, and last year one
individual was convicted for possession of a video tape showing naked
children in freeze-frame which he'd made from a broadcast TV programme.
--
Marshall Rice
Marshall Rice
<ome...@mailandnews.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:28 +0000, Marshall Rice wrote about Re:
>Saatchi Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>
>>(though not all) offences,
>
>Marshall, sorry to go OT, but I thought Mens Rea and Actus Reus were
>an essential ingredient of all offences.
>
>What offence can you commit without the guilty mind & act?
Any strict liability offence - speeding is the most common though by no
means the most trivial example
--
Marshall Rice
Marshall Rice
<tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> writes
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:25:53 +0000, Adam <ome...@mailandnews.co.uk>
>wrote in uk.legal:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:28 +0000, Marshall Rice wrote about Re:
>>Saatchi Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>>
>>>Mens Rea (guilty mind) is already an essential ingredient of most
>>>(though not all) offences,
>>
>>Marshall, sorry to go OT, but I thought Mens Rea and Actus Reus were
>>an essential ingredient of all offences.
>>
>>What offence can you commit without the guilty mind & act?
>
>presumably mens rea plays no part in any strict liability offence,
Exactly
>or
>in something like, say (in some instances) manslaughter.
Hmmm. I'm not sure about that.
--
Marshall Rice
Simon
"Adam" <ome...@mailandnews.co.uk> wrote in message
news:amm9btgo8o87vegk7...@4ax.com...
So what happens to pictures of 17 year olds then?
Simon
Alan Hope
Fishfood took the opportunity to write:
>For the benefit of everyone else who has flamed me, insulted me and
>basically alleged that I get some perverse pleasure out of this, perhaps I
>should explain that along with colleagues I regularly arrest Paedophiles who
>download and distribute indecent material from the net. Also those who
>actually carry out physical abuse as well. My only pleasure is putting these
>people behind bars.
I might respectfully suggest you and your colleagues spend a little
more energy doing that and a little less scuffing up the
beautifully-waxed floors of art galleries with your size 10s. Your
results to date have been, shall we say, not all that impressive.
--
AH
John O
Marshall Rice <Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:08WEiBAM...@msrice.demon.co.uk...
Its amazing, once you start, what you can find. Recorded 'You've been
framed' for my daughter tonight....and also watched some of it ..... :(
One of the 'hilarious' videos involved three boys sat on top of some form of
fountain and pretending to urinate.
Bit like the one in the Saatchi Gallery.
Perhaps fishfood will be off now condemning this particular production as
sick, perverted and aiding and abetting paedophiles.
> --
> Marshall Rice
David Husband
<Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> writes
What about "indecent" pictures of a 16 year old taken the day after
his/her 16th birthday ?
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset.
Adam
Gallery - Art or Child Porn:
>So what happens to pictures of 17 year olds then?
Not sure, perhaps it's not as absolute (with a few exceptions) as
possession of under 16........anyone else expand?
Cynic
>> That's easy. It is the difference between taking proper steps under
the
>> civil law to ensure that children are protected, and not imposing
>> criminal penalties on someone for something that is not a crime.
>I don't know much about Civil Law, so what would those proper steps
be?
>(Genuine question). If the Teacher could be dismissed he could easily
walk
>into a new post, it has happened many times.
You say that you work with sex offenders, but you don't know about the
many measures that are already in place to protect children from
potential child abusers. I think you must be very new to such work.
It is easy (perhaps too easy) for a teacher or childcare worker to be
blacklisted so that they cannot ever again get a job with children.
You state that such a person could get around it by forging documents,
but that is not as easy as you make out. It is a simple matter of one
'phone call to check with a previous employer - no matter where in the
World that employer is.
In the scenario you present of a teacher behaving in a way that is
cause for concern, if the concern is great enough the teacher would be
suspended. The teacher can either then voluntarily resign and not
seek work with children, or the teacher can go to civil Court to
contest the suspension. The Court will then decide whether the facts
are of sufficient concern to justify the action against the teacher.
Nothing *criminal* need be proven. A teacher who was found in
possession of many photographs of naked children that could not be
explained would certainly be prohibited from work involving children
ever again.
You however are advocating the *criminal prosecution* of such people.
In effect, you would punish a person for what you think they *might*
do in future. That would be an abhorrent situation.
You say you work with offenders. You do not say in what capacity.
I'd make a guess that it is at the social-work level. I am well aware
of the check-boxes of "indicators" that people like you use to judge
whether someone is a potential offender. Do a bit of research and
look at the history of such "indicators" over the past 20 years. You
will find that the various theories in this area have only a short
lifespan before they are debunked and we hear of the many lives that
were ruined as a result of false accusations based upon "flavour of
the month" psychology. Have a look at the "indicators" that you use,
and see how many of them would also fit an innocent person. One I
like especially is the one that says that a child abuser will deny
that he is a child abuser, so a denial is an indication of guilt. So
what do you suppose an innocent person would do? Admit it?
The theories that you are working with now, and which I have no doubt
you believe to be infallible will almost certainly be debunked in the
near future. How long ago was anal dilation debunked as a medical
test for abuse? How long ago since you would have been working with
"anatomically correct" dolls? Do you still believe in SRA or not?
How about repressed memories? Think about that knee-jerk slogan you
have today, "Believe the child - children do not lie." It's a bit of
a one-sided slogan though, isn't it? If the child says they were
abused, that's proof absolute to people like you, because "children do
not lie." If the child tells you they were *not* abused though, do
you believe the child then? No, you say the child is too frightened
to "disclose", or has been "groomed". So how can you believe in a
slogan that is so obviously, "heads I win, tails you lose"?
People like you cause far more damage than you prevent. Children
deprived of fathers who they love. Children being subjected to
endless interviews until they "disclose". Children being dragged out
of class week after week by well-meaning but misguided school nurses,
and being questioned inexpertly and distressingly at length. Children
being subjected to "therapy" sessions to "correct" their "misplaced
affection" for their father - and at the same time having their head
completely screwed up so that any chance of them ever regarding sex as
normal and healthy is gone forever. And when the children get so
twisted by all that "protection" that they have behavioural problems
then simple - just blame it all on the alleged abuser and recommend
more "therapy" to cure them. Meanwhile the therapists and the child
protection workers and the foster carers all "Tut Tut" together, and
sing the song of "Something Must Be Done" whilst raking in the vast
amounts of money shovelled into the "child protection" industry and
calling for "stronger measures".
Take a look at http://www.childrescue.org.uk
Just btw, the original meaning of the word "paedophilia" was "love for
children". It was not meant sexually at all. What people like you
have done is to lump those who genuinely love children together with
sexual predators who lust after children. Your thinking when you
condemn the photographs in question is right along those lines. You
don't give a passing thought to the fact that the nude has been
associated with art for centuries. Many artists consider the naked
human form to be something beautiful and pure. I don't personally
think quite the same way myself, but I accept that many people do, and
I have absolutely no problem with that way of thinking. I note that
there are many paintings by famous artists that depict naked children.
Tell me, if you had your way, would you send teams of your
thought-police round to churches and galleries with knives to cut out
all the indecent images of cherubs from the old masters? Do you get
apoplexy about the thought that somewhere a vile paedophile is
possibly getting off to a picture of baby Jesus lying naked in the
manger?
One other question - what attracted you to work involving sex
offenders?
--
Cynic
Cynic
>>So what happens to pictures of 17 year olds then?
>
>Not sure, perhaps it's not as absolute (with a few exceptions) as
>possession of under 16........anyone else expand?
AFAIK possession of indecent photographs of a person of 17 is not an
offence. In the case where there is no evidence of the exact age of
the subject, it would be for the magistrates or jury to decide the age
of the person in the photograph.
--
Cynic
Fishfood
> In article <98uiiq$k2k$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
> >> Fishfood wrote
> >>
> >> >The current test lies on the photograph itself, rather than how it is
> >> >displayed or who is in possession of it.
> >>
> >> "context".
> >>
> >> >Thousands of people will have
> >> >similar photographs of their own children, and there is nothing wrong
> >> with
> >> teacher
> >> >downloads hundreds of these from the Internet (and nothing stronger).
> >> Surely
> >> >something needs to be done in that sort of situation.
> >>
> >> cause harm to any child?
> >
> >Because it may be indicative that he has an unhealthy sexual interest in
> >children. A Teacher has ready access to children, and if he had these
> >tendencies it is only the fear of being apprehended that would stop him
from
> >indecently assaulting them.
>
> Is it only fear of apprehension that prevents you from indecently
> assaulting anyone else you may have a sexual interest in? If so, perhaps
> you'd better go and get some therapy. If not, why should paedophiles be
> any different in that respect?
> --
> Marshall Rice
Because I can fulfill my sexual desires within the law. Paedophiles can not.
Fishfood
Were these kids Martians or something. What did they have there, antennae?
Fishfood
I think you have joined this thread a little late. I'm talking about
Teachers (and the like) who download child erotica and/or pornography. What
I say is that they are a serious risk to children and should be allowed to
teach again. Also that they should be prosecuted.
Fishfood.
Fishfood
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:04:47 -0000, "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fishfood <fish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:990mgk$6f4$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> >>At least when someone is convicted these days they go on the
> >> Sex Offenders register. I am advocating a change in the Law, to deal
with
> >> possession of such photographs when they are *not* of family members.
> >> Remember that prior to 1978 it was not illegal to take or distribute
*ANY*
> >> indecent photographs of children, and again not an offence to possess
them
> >> until 1988.
> >
> >The difficulty is that, as for definitions of abuse, you are starting to
> >widen the definition to the point where it will lose all meaning and/or
lose
> >public confidence.
> >
> >Like most people, I suspect I would start by defining an indecent photo
of a
> >child one which depicted a child in a clearly sexual/erotic
> >context....either being abused by an adult, or mimicking adult erotic
> >activity.
>
> reading fishfood I start to wonder just what the courts are doing.
Well you assumed wrongly Alan. Child Erotica is not illegal.
Fishfood
Fishfood
> > > In article <98vvfv$sm6$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Fishfood
> > > <fish...@hotmail.com> writes
> > > >So who is being hypocritical now? I thought you said there was
nothing
> > wrong
> > > >with these pictures. On what grounds would you wish to remove such a
> > person
> > > >from their employment? Are you now agreeing that possession may be
> > > >indicative of an unhealthy interest? Please clarify.
> > >
> > > That's easy. It is the difference between taking proper steps under
the
> > > civil law to ensure that children are protected, and not imposing
> > > criminal penalties on someone for something that is not a crime.
> > > Richard Miller
> >
> > I don't know much about Civil Law, so what would those proper steps be?
> > (Genuine question). If the Teacher could be dismissed he could easily
walk
> hand
> > in a false CV, saying that his previous post involved working through an
> > agency abroad.
>
> Register would need is a false passport and a fake CV. Pretty easy to
sort
> out the former and the latter is just a word processor away.
In theory perhaps. Most Paedophiles however are usually of good character
otherwise and it would be unlikly they would have the nouse, wherewithall or
bottle to carry this off. In any case the register is not passive and
regular checks are carried out, including meeting with the subject on a
regular basis. Failure to register their address is also an offence so it is
difficult for them to regain employment in the same field
>
> Oh. I forgot. For the sake of the children, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. So,
> maybe this would help: compulsory Personal ID cards, issued by the State
and
> validated at regular intervals? Perhaps everyone having to report to a
> Police Station once every two years, to prove that they were using their
> card and had not amended or forged one?
>
> Might go some way to eliminating a lot of unsavoury practises.
>
> You are shifting ground again. The point is that anyone determined to
evade
> State check-ups can do so pretty easily in the UK. We have neither the
> culture nor the bureaucracy to prevent this. So because we don't have
> that - you are correct - you would like to impose further and further
> restrictions on civil liberties elsewhere to compensate?
No. The register is fine. You are making speeches now and shooting off at
tangents. Don't confuse what I say with your own paranoia.
> >At least when someone is convicted these days they go on the
> > Sex Offenders register. I am advocating a change in the Law, to deal
with
> > possession of such photographs when they are *not* of family members.
> > Remember that prior to 1978 it was not illegal to take or distribute
*ANY*
> > indecent photographs of children, and again not an offence to possess
them
> > until 1988.
>
> The difficulty is that, as for definitions of abuse, you are starting to
> widen the definition to the point where it will lose all meaning and/or
lose
> public confidence.
>
> Like most people, I suspect I would start by defining an indecent photo of
a
> child one which depicted a child in a clearly sexual/erotic
> context....either being abused by an adult, or mimicking adult erotic
> activity.
At last you agree with me. At the present time child *Erotica* is not
illegal. This is the point I have been making.
Fishfood
Fishfood
Yeah, sick & perverted alright. That's without the content you've just
described (joke)
Fishfood