Justice?..pah!
MikeW
youll get 15 months in prison.
Hit a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, whilst speeding in a 30 limit,
then drive with the body on the roof for a mile, push it off, and then
drive away, without calling an ambulance: a few hours community
service.
Mike Warren.
I
Lord Limbic
"MikeW" <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote in message
news:3A8D3DFE...@here.and.now...
Steve Smith
children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
up his arse...
"MikeW" <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote in message
news:3A8D3DFE...@here.and.now...
Jacqui
As someone wrote to a paper yesterday - run an international paedophile
porn ring and get 15 months, grow dope and get up to 7 years...
Jac
Cliff Morrison
Yes but that's just a pleb and there's lots of them, whereas the future
Lady Baroness Posh Spice of Beckham is very rich and in the meeja a lot.
And therefore *important*.
White Shite
>children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
>up his arse...
That's an unfair sentence. After all the blokes who had the pictures weren't
doing the abuse, they shouldn't have had any sentence. Anyone who thinks
different won't reply because their computer is built by child slaves and
upon realizing this will destroy it before sending a reply using it. Or
perhaps it isn't child abuse they object to, but the sexuality involved. Or
perhaps child abuse is alright when they are benefitting. The hysteria about
paedophilia is not about children it is about people who are different. They
are all child abusers because their sexuality is different but "ordinary"
men aren't all rapists, because that's different.
White Shite
var...@cableinet.co.uk
ICQ 88954483
Col
"Steve Smith" <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dgdj6.1730$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
> About the average sentence for possessing thousands of pictures of small
> children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
> up his arse...
>
The maximum sentence the time of their arrest was 3 years. Now it is
a rather more realistic 10 years. The defendants pleaded guilty and were
apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
more arrests. This was taken into account (as the law dictates) and they
got less than 3 years. Today they might get 7-8 yrs. Still not enough IMHO,
but the courts have to work in accordance with the law as it stands.
Col
--
Our minds are remarkably similar,
Except you happen to be insane.
Kevin Lee
wrote:
Depending on the timing of the offences, courts can make the
sentences on different counts run consecutively so that the offender
serves a longer sentence.
Kevin Lee home page:www.keltia4.co.uk
Kevin Lee
The entire legal system is full of inconsistencies. For example,
sentences for drink driving vary from one court to anothter.
Sentencing at magistrates courts is also a lottery. There should be
universal sentencing policies throughout the country.
Mike Swift
<k...@keltia4.co.uk> writes
>Depending on the timing of the offences, courts can make the
>sentences on different counts run consecutively so that the offender
>serves a longer sentence.
>Kevin Lee home page:www.keltia4.co.uk
I'm sure this is an option but have you ever heard of it being used.
The headline 'Serial rapist gets 7 life sentences' appears in the press
often, I would be happier if they were consecutive, at least then the
scumbag might serve 56 years instead of 8.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
'46 M Y++ L+ U KQ+ c B+ P99S P00S p+ Sh++ S(Benneton) R(HD5)
phil hunt
>>About the average sentence for possessing thousands of pictures of small
>>children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
>>up his arse...
>
>
>That's an unfair sentence. After all the blokes who had the pictures weren't
>doing the abuse, they shouldn't have had any sentence.
I have a picture (it's quite a famous one) of the Saigon chief of
police about to shoot a Viet Cong suspect. Does that make me an
accessory to murder?
> Anyone who thinks
>different won't reply because their computer is built by child slaves and
>upon realizing this will destroy it before sending a reply using it.
I don't know about that, but they will throw away all the clothes
they own that were manufactured in third-world countries. Assuming
they are not hypocrites of course.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your
silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation
of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
phil hunt
>news:dgdj6.1730$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
>> About the average sentence for possessing thousands of pictures of small
>> children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
>> up his arse...
>>
>
>The maximum sentence the time of their arrest was 3 years. Now it is
>a rather more realistic 10 years.
10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
> The defendants pleaded guilty and were
>apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
>more arrests. This was taken into account (as the law dictates) and they
>got less than 3 years. Today they might get 7-8 yrs. Still not enough IMHO,
>but the courts have to work in accordance with the law as it stands.
Why is it not enough?
What would be a good sentence IYO?
Lord Bored
wrote:
>
You are absolutely right, it's not the courts fault at all. The guy
who nicked Posh Spice's luggage got 15 months. This just shows how
badly our well paid politicians framed the law.
I have heard psychiatrists say that there is not cure for being a
paedophile. They go into jail perverted and come out of jail perverted
and are likely to re offend.
It's about time we made 550 of our MPs redundant. They have about 200
Senators and Congressmen in the US. One guy over there got 100 years
for his part in this disgusting business. Sounds like they know what
they are doing.
Lord Bored
hunt) wrote:
>10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
It's a deterrent sentence. We and by that I mean the vast majority of
right thinking people in this country, want these people to stop what
they are doing. Looking at photographs may seem minor but it
encourages a market. That market involves abusing children.
Some people have mentioned child slavery as abuse and pointed out that
we all benefit from it. I agree. Child slavery is just as bad and it's
about time the people who run this country woke up to the fact. (I
don't believe they ever will because capitalism depends on one group
doing well at the expense of another - sigh)
>
>> The defendants pleaded guilty and were
>>apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
>>more arrests. This was taken into account (as the law dictates) and they
>>got less than 3 years. Today they might get 7-8 yrs. Still not enough IMHO,
>>but the courts have to work in accordance with the law as it stands.
>
>Why is it not enough?
>
>What would be a good sentence IYO?
For the lookers - 10 years. For the makers - throw away the key.
Lord Bored
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
You would seem to have your head stick up somewhere dark and brown.
Severian
435 congressmen (and congresswomen)
100 senators
Of course these are just the federal congressmen and senators; each
state has a bunch of its own.
Try reading the US constitution some time.
--
Severian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded
by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
Gene Wolfe, _The Citadel of the Autarch_
Edward Cowling - London UK
<smegfo...@lineone.net> writes
>
>"Steve Smith" <steves...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dgdj6.1730$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
>> About the average sentence for possessing thousands of pictures of small
>> children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
>> up his arse...
>>
>
>The maximum sentence the time of their arrest was 3 years. Now it is
>a rather more realistic 10 years. The defendants pleaded guilty and were
>apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
I think we should also keep in mind that those 3 years are probably
going to be very unpleasant or spent in solitary. When they come out the
media will stick to them like glue, and in reality it's going to be a
life sentence !
I heard on Panorama that several of the gang had committed suicide
rather than go through the shame. I can't say I've much sympathy, but it
does show they don't consider this a minor offence.
--
Edward Cowling - London UK
Edward Cowling - London UK
We do have a strange attitude to vehicular homicide in this country. I
think it comes down to intent.
1. Did the person intent to rob the shop - Yes - It's an evil act.
2. Did the motorist intend to kill - No - Bad luck a tenner fine.
Ok I know it's over simplified, but it seems to be the way the courts
look at these crimes. I remember a year or so ago when a 70 year old guy
killed a pedestrian on a crossing and was found to be virtually blind.
All the papers kept on about what a sweet old guy he was !!
Personally I think we need to shift away from intent and look more at
the damage caused to victims.
David the Twat
White Shite <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vNfj6.2121$n33.2...@news3.cableinet.net...
>
> That's an unfair sentence. After all the blokes who had the pictures
weren't
> doing the abuse, they shouldn't have had any sentence.
More off the wall verbal diarrhoea from the white solid type. Doesnt it
sink into your faecal brain the obvious fact that these pervs are only able
to drool over such images, because they have been produced in the name of
child abuse, torture, coercion,rape, murder etc? They're not cartoons, or
digitally mastered images, you stupid little tosspot - the hundreds of
thousands of kids, including (shudder) innocent harmless babies FFS, have
suffered in the name of this unspeakable 'art', and this case outlines the
supply and demand. This garbage is merely a by-product, and I'm fed up with
apologists like you, who probably think it's just 'harmless' voyeurism, when
the facts speak for themselves, that many such fantasies can often creep
into action, as the appetite is whetted, some pornography having a
cumulative effect on 'some' people.
Anyone who thinks
> different won't reply because their computer is built by child slaves and
> upon realizing this will destroy it before sending a reply using it.
Trust you to attempt to smother the issue with this pseudo-political poop,
instead of facing the real debate.
Or
> perhaps it isn't child abuse they object to, but the sexuality involved.
Or
> perhaps child abuse is alright when they are benefitting. The hysteria
about
> paedophilia is not about children it is about people who are different.
Who cares if someone is 'different' so long as they dont' directly or
indirectly hurt anyone else - this paedophilia interchange defies the
acceptable face of sexuality.
They
> are all child abusers because their sexuality is different but "ordinary"
> men aren't all rapists, because that's different.
Completely different and you know it. Who cares - you're only trolling as
usual.
DTT
White Shite
>sink into your faecal brain the obvious fact that these pervs are only able
>to drool over such images, because they have been produced in the name of
>child abuse, torture, coercion,rape, murder etc?
Don't you see the obvious fact that all your child produced produce was the
product of slavery? Is slavery more acceptable?
They're not cartoons, or
>digitally mastered images, you stupid little tosspot - the hundreds of
>thousands of kids, including (shudder) innocent harmless babies FFS, have
>suffered in the name of this unspeakable 'art', and this case outlines the
>supply and demand.
Well I suppose that child slavery is not there to satisfy demands.
This garbage is merely a by-product, and I'm fed up with
>apologists like you, who probably think it's just 'harmless' voyeurism,
when
>the facts speak for themselves, that many such fantasies can often creep
>into action, as the appetite is whetted, some pornography having a
>cumulative effect on 'some' people.
Really? Should "mormal" heterosexual males be denied access to porn because
they are all rapists?
>Trust you to attempt to smother the issue with this pseudo-political poop,
>instead of facing the real debate.
Real debate is this. By the argument that the people who had the files on
their computer were guilty of child abuse so is everyone who buys products
produced by child slavery. Neither hurts children and in each case the
argument is that they create a demand.
>Who cares if someone is 'different' so long as they dont' directly or
>indirectly hurt anyone else - this paedophilia interchange defies the
>acceptable face of sexuality.
They dont hurt anyone else.
>Completely different and you know it.
Explain why, because I don't understand.
Who cares - you're only trolling as
>usual.
Really? It seems I'm not alone in standing up against paedophobia.
White Shite
Cool counterargument.
David the Twat
phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn98rcr7...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk...
>That's an unfair sentence. After all the blokes who had the pictures
weren't
> >doing the abuse, they shouldn't have had any sentence.
>
> I have a picture (it's quite a famous one) of the Saigon chief of
> police about to shoot a Viet Cong suspect. Does that make me an
> accessory to murder?
How the hell can anyone have this short-sighted attitude, comparing this
well known and disturbing photograph, which was news-reporting of the
highest shock value, as opposed to the filthy paedo-porn industry? Amazing.
You may as well have suggested the other high profile photo, of that young
naked Vietnamese girl (Kim summat) fleeing a war-ravaged village, at least
it's more in keeping with the distorted argument you have flimsily fallen
into.
If you had seen the shooting photo, then dashed out to kill a few more
Vietcong, then it's nothing to do with 'accessory' it would just be a sad
example of an unhinged mind, many of which do copy what they've seen, in
whichever format. Incidentally, I believe that the guy on the receiving end
of this summary trial and execution was actually guilty of many deaths
himself, so I would therefore suggest that he received just desserts? I
may be wrong......
DTT
(guilty of aiding and abetting the Gulf War, Aberfan, Dunblane, Hungerford,
Oklahoma bombing......get my drift oh naive one?)
phil hunt
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:11:41 +0000, ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>
>>10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
>
>It's a deterrent sentence.
It's a deterrant to the extent that it deters. Sexual desires are very strong
in most adults, and many people will not be deterred.
In any case, looking at pictures doesn't harm anyone, so why lock
people up for it? No doubt the police investigating the W0nderland
case looked at some of the pictures so, if looking at them is
intrinsically bad, they should be locked up too, shouldn't they?
Of course not, you might reply (I'd agree), because they weren't
looking at them to get turned on. In which case I would point out
that you effectively favour locking people up for their thoughts.
I would rather pedophiles get turned on by looking at photos than by
raping children.
> We and by that I mean the vast majority of
>right thinking people in this country, want these people to stop what
>they are doing. Looking at photographs may seem minor but it
>encourages a market.
Only if the photos are illegal. WI it was make legal to possess
and distribute the photos, as long as it was on a non-commercial
and discrete basis. Then anyone woh wanted them would get hold of
them, and people who didn't want them wouldn't see them.
And because of all the free photos around, no-one could make money
selling them.
The 750,000 photos in thr w0nderland investigation already exist.
>That market involves abusing children.
Does it though? What abvout "pseudo-photographs" -- these are illegal
too, you know, even though no child was involved in making them.
>Some people have mentioned child slavery as abuse and pointed out that
>we all benefit from it. I agree. Child slavery is just as bad and it's
>about time the people who run this country woke up to the fact.
More to the point, ending it worldwide would reduce some peoples
standards of living -- we'd have to pay an extra fiver for
a pair of trainers.
>>> The defendants pleaded guilty and were
>>>apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
>>>more arrests. This was taken into account (as the law dictates) and they
>>>got less than 3 years. Today they might get 7-8 yrs. Still not enough IMHO,
>>>but the courts have to work in accordance with the law as it stands.
>>
>>Why is it not enough?
>>
>>What would be a good sentence IYO?
>
>For the lookers - 10 years.
In which case why do you not subscribe to the principle of "people
can do anything they like as long as they harm no-one"?
phil hunt
And also should how absurd the statement that 3 years isn't a detterent
but 10 years would be.
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Who cares if someone is 'different' so long as they dont' directly or
> >indirectly hurt anyone else - this paedophilia interchange defies the
> >acceptable face of sexuality.
> They dont hurt anyone else.
are you saying that paedophiles are not hurting anyone when they
produce the kiddie porn pics?
White Shite
Against such logic...
Anyway, I'm off to start a petition to allow the government to snoop on our
computers to see if we are looking at pictures of naked women. After all if
one group of people are automatically going to molest people because of
porn, so will straight heterosexual men. After all I know who rape more
people, them or a few anoraks who download child porn. I think it unlikely
however. You see it's them who criticise others for tendencies they are not
able to help. They are natural and everyone else is a freak.
Alright so paedophilia is disgusting but what if they can't help it because
there is a gene? If they feel disgusted themselves they can't get help
because as long as the kneejerk mentality exists they would get lynched by
people who don't care about any abuse (or they would also be as eager to
condemn, say, bestiality) but the 17th century AD myth that children are
asexual beings (I thought foetuses wanked in the womb but facts are to be
made to fit ideas not the reverse).
I am not going to defend the abuse of children because it is abuse. However
it cannot rationally be worse than other sexual abuse such as the rape of
women. Nor is sexual abuse any worse than other forms of abuse (in this
country if you touch a child "inappropriately" but without sexual intent you
can get done for sexual abuse but spanking is "discipline"). The anti
paedophile movement is based on the sentimental crap that opposes
rationalist discussion. If I was convinced of the need for a crackdown on
paedophilia, I still wouldn't accept the arrest of people who just
downloaded the pictures because they are just consumers of the end product -
like people who buy slave goods. If you aren't harming anyone directly or
telling people to harm others, then you shouldn't be punished. This is
simple enough. Don't you agree? Wouldn't most people if children were not
involved? What is worse is that the anti-paedophile does not even
distinguish between paedophilia (sexual attraction to children) and
ephebophilia (sexual attraction to young adults), which means denial of
freedom to consenting adolescents who seek to have a relationship with
someone only a few years older than themselves because a well meaning bigot
cant tell the difference between someone in their twenties having sex with
someone barely under sixteen and a dirty old man who abducts from school
playgrounds. What is more, internet paedophilia is being used by the
government to justify intrusion of all our online privacy because they know
few people are going to dare criticise a policy that claims to protect
children, because they will then look like paedophiles.
I have no difficulty exposing overly senrimental nonsense as such without
help but I would like to see the opinions of others who think all this has
gone a little too far and are willing to stand up before someone else who
isn't even a paedophile gets targetted by vigilantes. Stand up against mass
hysteria before it's too late, not for the good of paedophiles, but for the
good of everyone.
Lord Bored
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>Real debate is this. By the argument that the people who had the files on
>their computer were guilty of child abuse so is everyone who buys products
>produced by child slavery. Neither hurts children and in each case the
>argument is that they create a demand.
>White Shite
>var...@cableinet.co.uk
>ICQ 88954483
"Neither hurts children" Are you ill?
Lord Bored
hunt) wrote:
>>>10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
>>
>>It's a deterrent sentence.
>
>It's a deterrant to the extent that it deters. Sexual desires are very strong
>in most adults, and many people will not be deterred.
Then they'll get locked up.
>
>In any case, looking at pictures doesn't harm anyone, so why lock
>people up for it?
The actual physical act of looking at pictures may not cause harm but
encouraging the production of the picture definitely does cause harm.
>No doubt the police investigating the W0nderland
>case looked at some of the pictures so, if looking at them is
>intrinsically bad, they should be locked up too, shouldn't they?
>Of course not, you might reply (I'd agree), because they weren't
>looking at them to get turned on. In which case I would point out
>that you effectively favour locking people up for their thoughts.
No, locked up for encouraging the production of images etc.
>
>I would rather pedophiles get turned on by looking at photos than by
>raping children.
The lesser of two evils argument really is pathetic especially in this
instance.
>
>> We and by that I mean the vast majority of
>>right thinking people in this country, want these people to stop what
>>they are doing. Looking at photographs may seem minor but it
>>encourages a market.
>
>Only if the photos are illegal. WI it was make legal to possess
>and distribute the photos, as long as it was on a non-commercial
>and discrete basis. Then anyone woh wanted them would get hold of
>them, and people who didn't want them wouldn't see them.
You obviously haven't followed this case very well. There were
pictures of babies being sodomised.
>
>And because of all the free photos around, no-one could make money
>selling them.
>
>The 750,000 photos in thr w0nderland investigation already exist.
>
>>That market involves abusing children.
>
>Does it though? What abvout "pseudo-photographs" -- these are illegal
>too, you know, even though no child was involved in making them.
>
>>Some people have mentioned child slavery as abuse and pointed out that
>>we all benefit from it. I agree. Child slavery is just as bad and it's
>>about time the people who run this country woke up to the fact.
>
>More to the point, ending it worldwide would reduce some peoples
>standards of living -- we'd have to pay an extra fiver for
>a pair of trainers.
Tough.
>
>>>> The defendants pleaded guilty and were
>>>>apparently fully cooperative, which could mean giving info that leads to
>>>>more arrests. This was taken into account (as the law dictates) and they
>>>>got less than 3 years. Today they might get 7-8 yrs. Still not enough IMHO,
>>>>but the courts have to work in accordance with the law as it stands.
>>>
>>>Why is it not enough?
>>>
>>>What would be a good sentence IYO?
>>
>>For the lookers - 10 years.
>
>In which case why do you not subscribe to the principle of "people
>can do anything they like as long as they harm no-one"?
See above about encouraging a market.
Lord Bored
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>You would seem to have your head stick up somewhere dark and brown.
>
>
>Cool counterargument.
Well it's about all your agrement warranted, sorry.
White Shite
anyone themselves they aren't abusers? Can't you see that they are punished
despite being as innocent/guilty as people who buy products made by child
slaves but are not punished?
White Shite
>produce the kiddie porn pics?
Well of course they do. Then again the child slavers do as well. The people
who use the end product don't. Yet people who use the end product are
punished despite not abusing children. The argument used to say they do can
also be used against anyone who buys goods produced by child slavery. So
unless it is the argument is irrational since it is based on accepting as
fact, without reason, that child slavery is more acceptable than sexual
abuse.
Steve Smith
"White Shite" <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Lgxj6.4692$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
White Shite
Not really. Does one have to be to point out that there isn't anything wrong
with consenting sex between any people of reproductive age? Yet the
anti-paedophiles don't know the difference. Even where the person in
question is only in their early twenties but having sex with someone under
an arbitrary legal age who is really in the same age group is subject to
claims of paedophilia and police harassment.
White Shite
Against your style of debate, there isn't much else I can say to defend my
opinion. This doesn't mean that you have won, merely that you have felt
obliged to resort to name calling to avoid debate. I win by default.
White Shite
>encouraging the production of the picture definitely does cause harm.
Yes it does. You would have a point if you believed the same punishment for
the people who buy the products made by child slaves (as opposed to saying
that is should stopped, an argument few will disagree with but different to
punishing the people who create demand by buying the goods).
White Shite
child slavery are not abusers. Why punish either? You say that the people
who download the pictures should be punished by imprisonment because they
create demand. You agree that child slavery is evil and should be stopped
but seem not to believe that the people who create demand should be punished
similarly. Call me old fashioned but laws should apply to all. Perhaps you
are an accessory to child abuse yourself and would be sent to jail for using
these goods. I don't know, but if so you should be the last to criticise
your fellow creators of demand for child abuse.
Steve Smith
"White Shite" <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Nlzj6.5200$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
neither is acceptable, but what you are saying is that if one lot get
away then the others (paedos) should get away too. both needs to be
stopped dude.
Kevin Lee
<mike....@yeton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <hs5r8t037j6n3p3ef...@4ax.com>, Kevin Lee
><k...@keltia4.co.uk> writes
>>Depending on the timing of the offences, courts can make the
>>sentences on different counts run consecutively so that the offender
>>serves a longer sentence.
>>Kevin Lee home page:www.keltia4.co.uk
>
>
>I'm sure this is an option but have you ever heard of it being used.
Certainly have. When I worked for a branch of the Civil Service which
prosecutes serious criminal cases several drugs dealers received
sentences of three years on different counts of possessing illegal
drugs with intent to supply each to run consecutively. This meant
most of the ring had to serve 12 years and the ringleader 15. For good
measure the judge also issued criminal bankruptcy orders for the
disposal of the various Ferraris , yachtsand houses which the group
had bought with the proceeds.
The department also prosecuted a gang of armed robbers who had held up
security vans in the south-east over a three year period, again the
gang received different terms but they ran consecutively
>The headline 'Serial rapist gets 7 life sentences' appears in the press
>often, I would be happier if they were consecutive, at least then the
>scumbag might serve 56 years instead of 8.
IIRC the "record" for life sentences belongs to an IRA terrorist who
posted letter bombs. He received a life sentence for each package
posted with a minimum recommendation that he serve at least 30 years.
Kevin Lee home page:www.keltia4.co.uk
Kevin Lee
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>We do have a strange attitude to vehicular homicide in this country. I
>think it comes down to intent.
>
>1. Did the person intent to rob the shop - Yes - It's an evil act.
>
>2. Did the motorist intend to kill - No - Bad luck a tenner fine.
>
>Ok I know it's over simplified, but it seems to be the way the courts
>look at these crimes. I remember a year or so ago when a 70 year old guy
>killed a pedestrian on a crossing and was found to be virtually blind.
>All the papers kept on about what a sweet old guy he was !!
>
>Personally I think we need to shift away from intent and look more at
>the damage caused to victims.
Vehicular homicide cases are dealt with in an odd way in this country.
IIRC Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act is the basis for the offence of
"causing death by dangerous driving" (the intent to kill is not an
issue for this offence) yet prosecutions for this are very rare.
Instead in most cases where a pedestrian or another motorist is killed
the guilty driver is often charged with the lesser offence of
"dangerous driving" or "reckless driving" which carry lighter
sentences. Why? Any lawyers care to comment ?
FWIW , I believe that in cases where a motorist or other road user has
been convicted of being responsible for the death of another there
should be a minimum sentence of 7 years and a life ban from driving. I
would also like to see stiffer sentences for drink driving and driving
under the influence of drugs also with a severe mandatory
disqualification period of 3 years.
White Shite
If that's a serious question, then I'll give a serious answer. I don't know.
I believe one should judge others as people not according to age (or other
labels). I 'd easily go with someone at senior school, but then again I'm in
my twenties, so it's not as though I'm niddle aged. I'd like to think that I
still would though, not through ephebophilia (the attraction to that person
because of their age not because they are a person) but because of who they
are.
If the question is meant as what should be the minimum age for sexual
activity, I don't know. Some people advocate that there should be no age of
consent and I tend to agree. If the person is a victim of abuse, they will
have been intimidated in some way. If they agreed then that wasn't abuse.
Forcing people to have sex is evil, consentual sex is always a civil
liberty. Lots of people start having sex with partners the same age before
senior school. Should they be prosecuted for abusing each other? If they are
sexually active, does it matter if the partner is 9 or 39? Of course this
argument could be used the other way because a much older partner could be
in a position to abuse power over such a young partner (this is why I doubt
that the people who downloaded the pornography would themselves abuse
children because as with other sexual abuse it is power rather than sex that
turns them on). However this didn't appear to have happened in ancient
Greece where people were more liberal regarding the subject and it could
also be the case in a legal relationship with an age difference. So I think
there shouldn't be an age limit and if there is a limit, about which I am
open as long as it is rational and not sentimental, it should be based on
the IQ of the younger partner.
White Shite
>away then the others (paedos) should get away too. both needs to be
>stopped dude.
Well both things should be stopped but it would be impossible to do this by
imprisoning everyone who buys goods made by child slaves . So if they aren't
going to be punished, it's unfair that other people who are "guilty" of
creating child abuse by demand get imprisoned. In any case, lots of people
see child slavery as less evil than child sexual abuse even if they stand
against both. That doesn't make sense.
dormouse
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 06:11:02 +0000, Lord Bored
<lordboredofe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:11:41 +0000, ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil
> >hunt) wrote:
[snip]
> I would rather pedophiles get turned on by looking at photos than by
> raping children.
>
[another snip]
'scuse me Phil but how do you think that photo's were obtained in the first
place? ... and I would remind you that it was a condition of joining the
club that potential members first supplied a quantity of such photos for
distribution within the club.
Of course there is always the possibility that some of them at least won't
have to serve their entire prison sentence ... at least not if some "honest"
GBH merchant gets them first... still we live in hope.
--
dormouse
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
your comments don't make much sense either
White Shite
In what way? I will see if I can explain.
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >your comments don't make much sense either
>
> In what way? I will see if I can explain.
in that you think that its better for B to get off scott free if you
can't prosecute A and B rather than make B do hard bird and maybe one
day get A too
where B is someone with 500,000 pics of kids being raped on his PC
White Shite
>can't prosecute A and B rather than make B do hard bird and maybe one
>day get A too
You can't get A, ever. There's too many of them because of the vast quantity
of imported goods produced by child slaves. I'd like them to both be
punished but that can't happen because of practical reasons. Imagine how
full the prisons would be. How would we fit them in? Release the murderers
to make enough room for people who have done the crime of make a bit of
demand for an industry that shouldn't exist? Punish the people who film the
children being raped and the corporations who create slavery. If A and B
have done the same crime, both should, if convicted, have the same
punishment. If A is to be let walk the street because of any reason, so
should B, or an injustice would be done to B.
Steve Smith
instruction kit. It may have escaped your notice that the ancient greeks are
no more, maybe because their civilisation fell apart. Tell me, were these
wonderful ancient greeks also right about women and slaves? I think you have
exposed yourself for exactly what you are, yet another paedophile, and I am
sure that when you are middle aged you will still be homing in on the same
age group. I suggest you get some psychiatric help asap.
Steve
"White Shite" <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:InCj6.6502$n33.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> You can't get A, ever. There's too many of them because of the vast quantity
> of imported goods produced by child slaves. I'd like them to both be
btw what do you class as "produced by child slaves"?
White Shite
By this I mean those children forced to work for a bowl of rice.
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >btw what do you class as "produced by child slaves"?
>
> By this I mean those children forced to work for a bowl of rice.
so what do they make and where are they?
White Shite
>instruction kit. It may have escaped your notice that the ancient greeks
are
>no more, maybe because their civilisation fell apart.
Now I thought that they were invaded by Rome, and their culture fused with
that of Rome and the Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire still existed after
Italy fell. Lastly, a civilization is a group of ideas which characterize a
culture. Since Greece influenced Rome which conquered parts of Europe and
the church based in Rome spread Greek originated ideas beyond, another name
for Western civilization is "Helladic" civilization after a figure of Greek
mythology, Hellas. Unlike, for example, Inca civilization, classical Greece
is still here today as an empire of thought. The greatest contribution of
Greece is rationalism, namely that an argument which is emotive is invalid
because it is based on preconcieved ideas and that this challenges the
development of new ideas.
Tell me, were these
>wonderful ancient greeks also right about women and slaves?
Since only the rationalist thought of the Greeks can challenge preconcieved
ideas about women and slavery (and some Greeks did), these would exist if it
had not been for Greece.
I think you have
>exposed yourself for exactly what you are, yet another paedophile, and I am
>sure that when you are middle aged you will still be homing in on the same
>age group. I suggest you get some psychiatric help asap.
This is, according to Greek rationalism, a straw man argument. Someone
disagrees about paedophilia being inherently evil so they are one! You have
created a hermetically sealed paradigm, and the most purely rational
arguments cannot cross in or out of it. Some of us are open only to facts
and testable hypotheses, and refuse to have a go at anyone because they
challenge existing ideas.
White Shite
>exposed yourself for exactly what you are, yet another paedophile,
Actually my arguments are based on the implications of the paedophobic
hysteria and the hypocritical reasoning behind it. I am sure this was clear,
yet you seek to use abuse because a new idea challenges your simplistic
right and wrong world. Or worse. After all if the people who claim to be
anti-gay are often in denial, what does it say about you and your friends
throwing bricks through the windows of people who look like a picture
printed in a newspaper on council estates? Shame I'm not a paedophile too,
or we could have met at the psychiatrists. Resistance to new ideas without
rational justification and inner problems are a dangerous mix. People like
you going around are something scarier than the much hyped but practically
nonexistent example of one of your lot kidnapping and raping a kid then
sacrificing it to the devil.
White Shite
They are in the third world where western capitalists keep their slaves, out
of sight and out of mind. They make various goods, but most famously items
of clothing such as trainers that are sold for over £100 a pair.
Steve Smith
I have heard all these arguments before from paedophiles seeking to blur the
moral distinctions. I have even found paedophile information on the net
describing the tack to take in these discussions, hence my comment about
'standard from the paedophile debating instruction kit'.
They do not persuade me that you are anything other than what I initially
wrote. I am resistant to the 'new idea' of having sex with children, and I
expect many others here on the newsgroup are too. (Actually you will find
its an 'old idea').
There are many things in my 'simplistic right and wrong world' which are
either right or wrong and there are also many things that fall into the grey
area between. This is not one of them IMHO.
Steve,
I have never thrown a brick in my life BTW.
"White Shite" <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xiRj6.205$nl.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
White Shite
the
>moral distinctions. I have even found paedophile information on the net
>describing the tack to take in these discussions, hence my comment about
>'standard from the paedophile debating instruction kit'.
Ifyou are goint to behave sensibly instead of name calling like a
creationist, I will attempt a discussion. Firstly there are no moral
discussions for the rationalist. Morality is based on preconcieved ideas
handed down. Rationalists do believe in right and wrong, but they practice
ethics. That is, the old assumptions be questioned. Few would advocate
killing people in the street with a gun for no reason, but that is distinct
from issues of abortion or eusthanasia for example. Yet in a moral system
all three could be considered wrong and never to be questioned. If the moral
system made these exemptions it would be no better because there are good
arguments against these issues. Perhaps you know this and just confuse the
words, a lot of people do, but there is a difference. I seek to question
issues regarding paedophilia which touches other ethical issues such as sex
involving young adults, the rights and responsibilities of young adults, the
right of someone to choose to see pornographic material in their own home
and so on. I don't ask that you accept my opinion but see it as equal to
your own, unless you can expose flaws, in which case I am wrong.
>They do not persuade me that you are anything other than what I initially
>wrote.
I suspect that you are a paedophile too. That wasn't written as a childish
insult, it is based on the experience psychologists have of people who are
emotive about issues of sexuality. Perhaps you don't realize it yourself,
perhaps you do, or I could be wrong because I don't know you. Specifically,
what makes you think that I am a paedophile? Is it just the relucance to
condemn all paedophiles? I used to think all gay people were rapists (and
paedophiles) because that is how our culture tells us to think. With
rationalist thought, I could see that they were not, and that they were
people. Itis also through this that I can see that paedophiles just have a
sexual orientation which may or may not be genetic, that many paedophiles
are not even paedophiles (like men who have sex with teenage boys) and that
many would never touch a child because since they are brought up in our
culture which condemns paedophilia they will feel dirty themselves (and as
long as they are told they are entirely evil they can hardly seek help). I
am not black although I feel sorry for blacks, I am not gay because I feel
sorry for gays and I do not need to be a paedophile to see that they are all
in a no win situation against hatred built on a lack of reason. Murderers
get less of a rough ride than paedophiles. Murderers don't get lynch mobs
after them, not as often anyway. The paedophile may have just downloaded a
picture from the internet. Isn't this ridiculous?
I am resistant to the 'new idea' of having sex with children, and I
>expect many others here on the newsgroup are too. (Actually you will find
>its an 'old idea').
That is fair enough, it is their opinion and it is equal to mine if it
embraces rational argument. I would like to hear some of these opinions .
Although argument by majority is not something that I find convincing. It is
an irrational argument. By new idea, I meant unfamiliar idea.
>There are many things in my 'simplistic right and wrong world' which are
>either right or wrong and there are also many things that fall into the
grey
>area between. This is not one of them IMHO.
As I gave a discussion of my opinions, which I hold until refuted, can you
give yours? Is ephebophilia wrong? What about age differences? Do you think
that sometimes an age of concent violates civil liberties for responsible
young adults? When is a child an adult? Can a child give consent? Then I can
perhaps change your opinions or you can change mine. Right and wrong as
unquestionable isn't something that will affect me much however. There must
be a reason why.
>I have never thrown a brick in my life BTW.
Yes but can't you see how they are merely a more extreme version of your
opinion? Similarly people who commit racial violence are just more extreme
than people who oppoe immigration and so on. Without being receptive to
opposing ideas this is what happens. The intolerance becomes violence and
group thinking creates riots. Hence the need for rationalism.
David the Twat
phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn98t1s3...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk...
Phil Hunt (I shall resist any rhyming comeback, re talking like one etc)
spouts the following (<snipped>)
> I would rather pedophiles get turned on by looking at photos than by
> raping children.
.
Children HAVE been raped to provide this shite. It's a by-product - gettit?
>
> In which case why do you not subscribe to the principle of "people
> can do anything they like as long as they harm no-one"?
Kids HAVE been harmed, you silly ostrich head in the sand. Pornography is
generally accepted, having been produced by consenting, and often well-paid
adults who choose to indulge in this. I presume that you also condone
'snuff' movies? Doesnt 'harm' anyone does it?
Prat.
DTT
White Shite
Not neccessarily. They can be digitally edit images.
>Kids HAVE been harmed, you silly ostrich head in the sand.
So punish the person who harmed them, not the person who has them. Can't you
see? Should someone who buys a £100 pair of trainers be punished like the
child slavers, or is there a difference?
Col
> >Children HAVE been raped to provide this shite. It's a by-product - gettit?
>
>
> Not neccessarily. They can be digitally edit images.
>
> >Kids HAVE been harmed, you silly ostrich head in the sand.
>
> So punish the person who harmed them, not the person who has them. Can't you
> see?
Without the demand from 'the person who has them' there would be no
incentive for children to be harmed in the first place.
Should someone who buys a £100 pair of trainers be punished like the
> child slavers, or is there a difference?
>
That's an interesting anology, but it dosen't really stand up to scrutiny.
With child porn, the harm is inflicted deliberately in order so that
somebody else may 'enjoy' the results. Child slavery on the other hand
is but a symptom of the global economy and capitalism as a whole.
Nobody is enslaving children for it's own sake; it exists simply because
the structure of the world economy makes it possible for it to exist.
Col
--
Our minds are remarkably similar,
Except you happen to be insane.
trash80
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >so what do they make and where are they?
>
> They are in the third world where western capitalists keep their slaves, out
> of sight and out of mind. They make various goods, but most famously items
> of clothing such as trainers that are sold for over £100 a pair.
which countries?
i am indonesian myself u see, a country where the minimum wage is 25p!
but no one is a slave as far as i know
White Shite
>With child porn, the harm is inflicted deliberately in order so that
>somebody else may 'enjoy' the results. Child slavery on the other hand
>is but a symptom of the global economy and capitalism as a whole.
>Nobody is enslaving children for it's own sake; it exists simply because
>the structure of the world economy makes it possible for it to exist.
Does it matter to the abused children why? In any case it is not relevant
because the issue is not wether it should be stopped or why it goes on, but
is it right to punish someone for using the produce of child abuse on the
grounds that they are creating a demand for it, but not someone else who is
also guilty of creating demand for child abuse.
The prosecution of people who use the internet for child pornography has
fuck all to do with any intention of stopping paedophilia or it would have
been done ages ago. Recently Blair has been passing laws allowing the pigs
to intrude on our private online activities. This would normally be an
outrage but by claiming it is to protect children anyone who complains is
automatically called a paedophile themselves or at least someone who doesn't
care about children.
Remember that Jack Straw, relative of a convicted sexual offender himself,
encourages this have a go way of thinking and that the police were less
hostile towards this violent unwashed mob than to human rights protesters
against a Chinese pseudocommunist dictator.
The police and the fascists, a terrible combination. Remember my argument
for guns being neccessary to protect our freedom? If civil libertarians with
guns were there to keep the peace like the police should have done, the
bigots wouldn't have harassed people who were entirely innocent until they
killed themselves or damaged property.
Paul Hyett
this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>>
>>>10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
>>
>>It's a deterrent sentence.
>
>It's a deterrant to the extent that it deters. Sexual desires are very strong
>in most adults, and many people will not be deterred.
>
>In any case, looking at pictures doesn't harm anyone, so why lock
>people up for it?
Because children *must* have been abused to create those photos in the
first place.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett - The Wild Frame Grabber of the Net!
Website at http://www.activist.demon.co.uk/USsitcoms/
White Shite
>
>He thinks everybody else in the world is a bit thick, like a Sun
>reader. And thinks that he can patronise us, like the Sun does, by
>talking like the Sun does. There really is no point in arguing with
>him over any point whatsoever, he seems more obsessed with making
>alliterations and puns than actually thinking about anything he
>writes. Again, er, like the Sun.
Then when his sanctemonious evil gets exposed, he goes on about how liberal
he is and that he is only joking to cover up the fact that he doesn't have a
clue about any issue he is talking about and that, since he sees fit to
criticise other opinions without an arument, he is not liberal at all. If
only all debate worked like that. I killed six million Jews but I was only
joking!
Of deja was still online I'd make a link to the post where he said "As for
rational arguments this is a cop out" and have it as my signiature, then
everyone would know not to bother. I mean, how can anyone hate the concept
of rational arguments? That person must be really covinced that they are
right and all other arguments are wrong.
What is more he expects us all to treat him nicely as though he is our
friend. Yet every post he makes seens contemptuous and full of personal
abuse, with name calling being a substitute for wit, with yet more nastiness
being the response to anyone who is offended. Why should he be treated any
different than he treats others?
White Shite
>
>i am indonesian myself u see, a country where the minimum wage is 25p!
>but no one is a slave as far as i know
Depends on what you call a slave. I would call that slavery.
MikeW
White Shite wrote:
> David don't you see the argument? Can't you see that if they didn't abuse
> anyone themselves they aren't abusers? Can't you see that they are punished
> despite being as innocent/guilty as people who buy products made by child
> slaves but are not punished?
>
Hmm..you do have a point there. If we buy products, knowing they are made by
child slave labour,arent we are as guilty as people who look at child porn
pictures.?.
The only difference might be that someone who views child porn, could possibly
be incited to act it out, whislt I dont think people who buy goods produced by
child slave labour, would be incited to make the goods themselves by employing
child slave labour.
However, both acts would not happen if the demand was not there.
Mike Warren.
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>About the average sentence for possessing thousands of pictures of small
>>children being abused! Nice to see this judge has his priorities so firmly
>>up his arse...
>
>
>That's an unfair sentence. After all the blokes who had the pictures weren't
>doing the abuse, they shouldn't have had any sentence.
Isn't it illegal to own such pictures? If it is, then they are guilty
of a criminal offence. If it 'isn't' illegal then how the hell did
they end up in court, huh?
>paedophilia is not about children it is about people who are different.
This is a troll, right?
>They
>are all child abusers because their sexuality is different but "ordinary"
>men aren't all rapists, because that's different.
>
There can be no defence of it WS. It's wrong, it's abhorred by most
and if the public had their way the penalties would be far harsher
than a mere prison sentence, believe me..
Hang everyt last one of them. Hand me the rope, I'll glady do it.
--
Mike Plowman
Coronation Street Visual Updates - www.csvu.net
"There was life before Coronation Street,
but it didn't amount to much." Russell Harty
MikeW
trash80 wrote:
The problem is, that much of the child labour problem is not
publicised, because large busines have there own agenda.
Hence your question.
so..if you are prepared to take some time to actually find out the
terrible conditions a lot of children all over the world are forced to
endure, so you can get your shoes a bit cheaper, then here is a link.
its a lot of reading, if you can be bothered.
http://globalmarch.org/child_labour_today/index.html
Mike Warren.
MikeW
Steve Smith wrote:
> Shite,
>
> I have heard all these arguments before from paedophiles seeking to blur the
> moral distinctions. I have even found paedophile information on the net
> describing the tack to take in these discussions, hence my comment about
> 'standard from the paedophile debating instruction kit'.
Hes not blurring moral disticntions.
Hes making a point, of which *I* had never considered before, and which is a
fair one, that People who buy goods made by child slave labour, if they KNOW its
made by child slave labour , are as bad in encouraging the abuse of children, as
people who view child porn.
hes not excusing paodophiles, hes trying to make the moral point about how we
rightly condemn one form of child abuse, whislt accepting another form of child
abuse.
His 'new idea', is NOT that sex is ok with children, its the idea that we accept
goods produced by child abuse, whilst condeming people who view child abuse.
Myself..I'd love to see a law whereas anyone KNOWINGLY buying goods, produced by
child labour, gets the same punishment in law as people who view child sex porn.
Mike Warren.
MikeW
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> stated
> this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
> >>
> >>>10 years fo looking at photographs is absurdly too long, IMO.
> >>
> >>It's a deterrent sentence.
> >
> >It's a deterrant to the extent that it deters. Sexual desires are very strong
> >in most adults, and many people will not be deterred.
> >
> >In any case, looking at pictures doesn't harm anyone, so why lock
> >people up for it?
>
Here we differ.
People who get an advantage from child abuse, (knowingly) whever its by buying
goods made by child slave labour, or viewing pictures, should both get the same
stiff penalties in law.
Mike Warren.
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>David don't you see the argument? Can't you see that if they didn't abuse
>anyone themselves they aren't abusers?
And that isn't what they are charged with. They are charged with
posession of illegal material.
>despite being as innocent/guilty as people who buy products made by child
>slaves but are not punished?
Is it illegal to buy products of child labour? No, it isn't. We're not
talking morals, but law.
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>anti-paedophiles don't know the difference. Even where the person in
>question is only in their early twenties but having sex with someone under
>an arbitrary legal age who is really in the same age group is subject to
>claims of paedophilia and police harassment.
Because they have broken the law?
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>The people who download the pictures and the people who buy the products of
>child slavery are not abusers. Why punish either?
Because one of the acts is illegal.
You say that the people
>who download the pictures should be punished by imprisonment because they
>create demand.
Creating demand is not the crime, posession of the material is the
crime.
>You agree that child slavery is evil and should be stopped
>but seem not to believe that the people who create demand should be punished
>similarly.
Because it's not illegal to buy such products, therefore no crime is
being committed.
>Call me old fashioned but laws should apply to all.
Agreed. There is no law againts buying products produced by child
labour. I'm not in any way condoning child labout but you are trying
to compare the two and from a legal standpoint, there can be no
comparison.
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Children HAVE been raped to provide this shite. It's a by-product - gettit?
>
>
>Not neccessarily. They can be digitally edit images.
>
>>Kids HAVE been harmed, you silly ostrich head in the sand.
>
>So punish the person who harmed them, not the person who has them. Can't you
>see? Should someone who buys a £100 pair of trainers be punished like the
>child slavers, or is there a difference?
A) It is illegal to posess such images/photgraphs.
B) it is not illegal to buy trainers.
Can you see the ablosute basics of this argument?
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:28:13 GMT, "White Shite"
> <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >David don't you see the argument? Can't you see that if they didn't abuse
> >anyone themselves they aren't abusers?
>
> And that isn't what they are charged with. They are charged with
> posession of illegal material.
>
> >despite being as innocent/guilty as people who buy products made by child
> >slaves but are not punished?
>
> Is it illegal to buy products of child labour? No, it isn't. We're not
> talking morals, but law.
> --
Morning Mike!
I think the moral aspect of buying goods made by child slave labour should be
relevant. Just because something is lawful, doesnt always make it right?.
Mike Warren.
Mike Plowman
>> Is it illegal to buy products of child labour? No, it isn't. We're not
>> talking morals, but law.
>> --
>
>Morning Mike!
>I think the moral aspect of buying goods made by child slave labour should be
>relevant. Just because something is lawful, doesnt always make it right?.
>Mike Warren.
>
I agree totally and morning to you too Mike. However, comparing the
two is impossible because the laws are different.
I agree that child labour is not a good thing but to put on on an
equal footing in debate with the sexual abuse of children is
riduculous. Such arguments are often put forward by advocates of child
sex, not to increase the perceived seriousness of child labour but to
attempt to decrease the seriousness of child abuse.
If the will of the government or people is to make purchase of goods
made by child labour illegal than we'd all stop buying them. At
present it isn't.
Posession of child porn 'is' illegal Regardless of any moral
arguments, that's the law, full stop.
I don't reacll the last time I read of a child being abducted and
later found gluing soles onto a pair of Reeboks. Sorry if that sounds
glib, but it's a fact.
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:58:26 +0000, MikeW <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote:
>
> >> Is it illegal to buy products of child labour? No, it isn't. We're not
> >> talking morals, but law.
> >> --
> >
> >Morning Mike!
> >I think the moral aspect of buying goods made by child slave labour should be
> >relevant. Just because something is lawful, doesnt always make it right?.
> >Mike Warren.
> >
> I agree totally and morning to you too Mike. However, comparing the
> two is impossible because the laws are different.
>
> I agree that child labour is not a good thing but to put on on an
> equal footing in debate with the sexual abuse of children is
> riduculous. Such arguments are often put forward by advocates of child
> sex, not to increase the perceived seriousness of child labour but to
> attempt to decrease the seriousness of child abuse.
>
I make no attempt to decrease the severity of child abuse. Whatever form it takes.
When I buy goods, I always check to see where they are manufactured, and I dont
buy them If I KNOW they from a country that I know indulges in child slavery.
explotation of children , whatever form it takes, is unforgivable and should be
severly punished.
So..lets start by decreasing the market for it, whever its child porn, or child
slave labour.
>
> If the will of the government or people is to make purchase of goods
> made by child labour illegal than we'd all stop buying them. At
> present it isn't.
> Posession of child porn 'is' illegal Regardless of any moral
> arguments, that's the law, full stop.
Hmmm...I might be devils advocate and ask about cannabis...which is illegal, so
none of us smoke it cos its illegal..do we ;)
>
>
> I don't reacll the last time I read of a child being abducted and
> later found gluing soles onto a pair of Reeboks. Sorry if that sounds
> glib, but it's a fact.
>
Happens all the time in some countries Mike. Children are held against their will
and forced to work long hours in appaling conditions. Beaten and half starved if
they dont work hard enough.
The problem is that child porn is much more widley publicised than child abuse by
slave labour.
the scenario you describe, isnt glib..it does happen, a lot in some countries,
children are abducted, and held in sweat shops.
there is plenty of information about this on the internet, and reading it is a
real eye opener. Do a search on 'child labour'.
I never considered it much, until reading Mr WS's post, so I looked up details of
child slave labour, and its absolutly horryfying.
And it is illegal in many countries, to either employ these children, it is also
illegal in the UK for any manufacturer to produce goods made in this way. However,
a lot of the goods do end up on the market in the UK.
Possesion of child porn was made illegal because it caused a market for the vile
stuff.
Maybe , when the full facts behind forced child labour become known, then the same
penalties will be made law.
Mike Warren.
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:21:12 GMT, "White Shite"
> <var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Children HAVE been raped to provide this shite. It's a by-product - gettit?
> >
> >
> >Not neccessarily. They can be digitally edit images.
> >
> >>Kids HAVE been harmed, you silly ostrich head in the sand.
> >
> >So punish the person who harmed them, not the person who has them. Can't you
> >see? Should someone who buys a £100 pair of trainers be punished like the
> >child slavers, or is there a difference?
>
> A) It is illegal to posess such images/photgraphs.
>
> B) it is not illegal to buy trainers.
>
> Can you see the ablosute basics of this argument?
A) Is a good law, and should be enforced , to the limit.
B) Should be law,,if knowingly done. after all, if you stop the demand, then you
stop the problem.
The trouble is, people gain a benefit from child labour, ie, cheap goods, and
companies make large profits from it. If the majority gain, I dont think thats a
reason to ignore the problem.
Its a moral dilemma really, if the vast majority of a country benefit from
something, should it remain lawfull, even if it means the explotation of someone
else?.
Mike Warren.
Edward Cowling - London UK
<k...@keltia4.co.uk> writes
>
>FWIW , I believe that in cases where a motorist or other road user has
>been convicted of being responsible for the death of another there
>should be a minimum sentence of 7 years and a life ban from driving. I
>would also like to see stiffer sentences for drink driving and driving
>under the influence of drugs also with a severe mandatory
>disqualification period of 3 years.
I'm against the trend of wanting people locked away for longer and
longer periods. Every prisoner costs us about £30,000 a year to keep in
prison, and doesn't seem to serve much purpose other than a nice cosy
feeling of retribution.
Why not make the culprit work off a fixed settlement to the victims
family ? The govt would pay an amount (say £250,000) to the widow of a
drink drive victim. The convicted killer would then have an attachment
of earnings order to repay this amount. The repayments would have to
hurt to create a deterrent, so as with the CSA a fairly large chunk of
their salary every month/week would be deducted.
Personally I'd like to see this approach to many crimes, rather than
locking people up in crime school for years.
--
Edward Cowling - London UK
David the Twat
trash80 <tra...@removethisok.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:180220012035170410%tra...@removethisok.btinternet.com...
> i am indonesian myself u see, a country where the minimum wage is 25p!
> but no one is a slave as far as i know
Sheesh! How can you afford these internet phone bills then????
;o)
DTT
Edward Cowling - London UK
gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk writes
>
>Personally I don't care, and I think 10 years is well excessive.
Especially when these kind of photo's can turn up unsolicited in text
news groups. I've found several jaw dropping pictures as attachments
that I had no idea were on my PC. But try telling that to the copper
who's last assignment was 2 years on point duty !
It's a bit like 'trawling' for victims at children's homes, and using ex
cons as witnesses.... you can see the episodes of miscarriage of justice
coming up in years to come.
>
>I think Alan is right. It's more about putting ogres under bridges and
>putting the shits up parents. Creating lots of the lurking intangible
>fear that's the blood that politicians feed off. Something like 90% of
>child abusers are not lurking weirdoes, they're family members, often
>fathers and especially stepfathers.
>
I was a bit concerned over the demonisation of the loner in the Panorama
report. A lot was made of him going to pubs on his own. Replace 'loner'
with 'black' and they'd never get away with such prejudice.
The last thing we need is to start the new century purging our society
of anyone 'different' !!
White Shite
>
>B) it is not illegal to buy trainers.
>
>Can you see the ablosute basics of this argument?
I can see argumentum ad baculum, which is an irrational form of argument.
It doesn't matter what the law is because the issue is wether the law is
just. If it is legal to trade the goods made by child slaves, then it is
not. Let's look at it this way, if child porn was produced by capitalist
corporations, the law would legalize it.
Mike Plowman
>there is plenty of information about this on the internet, and reading it is a
>real eye opener. Do a search on 'child labour'.
>I never considered it much, until reading Mr WS's post, so I looked up details of
>child slave labour, and its absolutly horryfying.
I've read reprts and seen TV News stories and agree with you entirely
but I was really refering to the UK as I assumed WS's posts were
focussed on the Wonderland individuals who were sentenced (just about)
last week.
As an argument, 'There is child slavey in some countries so I should
be allowed to look a child porn' doesn't really hold up as far as I'm
concerned. Two seprate issues, two different kinds of abuse and one
cannot be used to justify the other.
A swift execution for any involved in either would be a good solution.
White Shite
then you
>stop the problem.
The problem is that laws must be practical and if everyone who buys the
trainers was to be given a sentence like people who buy child pornography,
they couldn't all be sent to prison.
White Shite
>
>Agreed. There is no law againts buying products produced by child
>labour. I'm not in any way condoning child labout but you are trying
>to compare the two and from a legal standpoint, there can be no
>comparison.
No, I am trying to compare the two ethically. After all the law should
embrace ethics. Thus both should be legal or illegal.
Mike Plowman
No, it wouldn't. You are missing the point that a great majority of
people find child pron in whatever form totally abhorrent. It cannot
be rationalised in the way that a case can be made againts child
labour. There can be 'no' move to legalise it when the great majority
of people find it intrinsically wrong.
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:57:56 +0000, MikeW <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote:
>
> >there is plenty of information about this on the internet, and reading it is a
> >real eye opener. Do a search on 'child labour'.
> >I never considered it much, until reading Mr WS's post, so I looked up details of
> >child slave labour, and its absolutly horryfying.
>
> I've read reprts and seen TV News stories and agree with you entirely
> but I was really refering to the UK as I assumed WS's posts were
> focussed on the Wonderland individuals who were sentenced (just about)
> last week.
>
> As an argument, 'There is child slavey in some countries so I should
> be allowed to look a child porn' doesn't really hold up as far as I'm
> concerned. Two seprate issues, two different kinds of abuse and one
> cannot be used to justify the other.
>
Im not saying that Mike. I definatly dont think child porn should be legal, far from
it.
Im just trying to put forward a view that child abuse isnt always child pornography,
and that ANY child abuse, whatever it is, should be stamped out.
If that means punishing the end user in law, then so be it.
Mike Warren.
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>No, I am trying to compare the two ethically. After all the law should
>embrace ethics. Thus both should be legal or illegal.
Most people may be generally unaware that their
trainers/computer/walkman/delete as applicable. They would 'not' go
into a store and say, 'I'd like a new telly please but I only want one
that has been made using children on slave wages.'
They are buying a product that may have been produced by such methods
but that is 'not' the prime reason they are buying it, even if they
are aware of the labour methods involved, despicable though they may
be. they would also not be gleaning 'enjoyment' or 'pleasure' from
that aspect of it's production. It's a product whose primary reason
for purchase is to perform the fuction for which it was obtained.
Whereras, with child pornography, the individual using the pornography
can hardly state, 'Oh I just wanted some porn, I had no idea that
children were involved in the production.' The fact that children are
used in the production is their prime reason, indeed 'only' reason
they are seeking it out. What other function would you say child
pronorgraphy has?
So, if we were all to purchase only goods which are produced without
child labour, can we expect you to obtain porn which is produced
without children being involved?
Somehow, I doubt that and to try and use labour issues as any form of
justification for freedon to abotain gratification through abuse of
mimors is, frankly, sickeneing.
Mike Plowman
>Im not saying that Mike. I definatly dont think child porn should be legal, far from
>it.
>Im just trying to put forward a view that child abuse isnt always child pornography,
>and that ANY child abuse, whatever it is, should be stamped out.
>If that means punishing the end user in law, then so be it.
I agree in principle Mike but as purchasers we, I would hope, don't
actively seek out products that have involved child labour. Yes, you
are quite ight that we should all be far more aware of these things
but I really don't believe most actively supports it knowingly. Most
of us are blissfully ignorant to it. That's not a good thing and
anyone reading this thread should be thinking carefully about what
they buy from where from now on.
Child porn does not have the same kind of 'innocence by ignorance'
factor. Anyone seeking it out knows 'exactly' what they are after and
how it is made.
White Shite
>of a criminal offence. If it 'isn't' illegal then how the hell did
>they end up in court, huh?
What has that got to do with wether the law is justified? Nelson Mandela was
guilty of a criminal offence. I don't think he did anything ethically wrong.
>This is a troll, right?
If you mean do I intend to shock, then yes. The evil moralists need a kick
up the arse to provoke them into showing how their simplistic views on
issues fail to take into account science and logic, let alone the opinions
of others. If you mean do I really think that people who are vocal about
child abuse are not entirely motivated by protecting children, then yes that
is a genuine opinion. Other forms of child abuse are not condemned as
harshly. If I was to kill a child just for pleasure, when I would be
released I would be given less shit than if I looked at a digitally edited
picture of a child for which no child had been abused. Society is sicker
than any paedophile.
>There can be no defence of it WS. It's wrong, it's abhorred by most
>and if the public had their way the penalties would be far harsher
>than a mere prison sentence, believe me..
I don't deny that child abuse is wrong. I have no intention of defending it.
Similarly I have no defence of rape, but it does not mean that one should
not try to understand the motivation behind it which I am trying to do.
However unless one is to call people who buy trainers child slavers then the
people who had pictures of child abuse were not child abusers themselves.
They were paedophiles and that is different. After all not all straight men
rape women do they? I don't care about the opinions of the general public.
Too bothered with soaps and sport to create an opinion, they just copy what
the rest of their kind heard at the pub or read in a tabloid and believe
that this is equal to complex ethical opinions by people who have considered
an issue instead of saying it is right or wrong.
White Shite
So you find it acceptable that a 7 year old can be imprisoned for sex with a
15 year old? That it is the law doesn't change my opinion either. Who writes
the laws? Are they given by God? No, they are written by people who have
nothing to do with the people who they will make criminals or victims and
their opinion is not better than mine unless it is logically superior. I
realize that the law is not just an unfair rule but opposes youth rights and
three cheers to the revolutionaries who break it.
White Shite
>equal footing in debate with the sexual abuse of children is
>riduculous. Such arguments are often put forward by advocates of child
>sex, not to increase the perceived seriousness of child labour but to
>attempt to decrease the seriousness of child abuse.
Your argument is invalid because one could put them on equal footing not to
decrease the seriousness of the sexual abuse of children but to increase the
"percieved" seriousness of child slavery.
>If the will of the government or people is to make purchase of goods
>made by child labour illegal than we'd all stop buying them. At
>present it isn't.
So until then we should all accept it as ethically correct? Fuck the law,
and the bigots who the government bows to if they allow produce of child
savery to be sold.
>I don't reacll the last time I read of a child being abducted and
>later found gluing soles onto a pair of Reeboks.
Funny, it's rare that children are abducted by paedophiles.
Jacqui
>
> >Because they have broken the law?
>
> So you find it acceptable that a 7 year old can be imprisoned for sex with a
> 15 year old?
They couldn't, a child under the age of 10 cannot be imprisoned at all
(let alone be deemed to have had sex with a child twice its age). If
you mean 17 year old, say so.
Jac
Jonathan Bratt
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> writes
So a 15 year old who has sex with a 7 year old is promoting youth
rights? 6? 3? How old? While people develop at differing ages - and the
law can reflect that - a 7 year old cannot possibly be in a position to
give informed consent.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> writes
>>Isn't it illegal to own such pictures? If it is, then they are guilty
>>of a criminal offence. If it 'isn't' illegal then how the hell did
>>they end up in court, huh?
>
>
>What has that got to do with wether the law is justified? Nelson Mandela was
>guilty of a criminal offence. I don't think he did anything ethically wrong.
>
>>This is a troll, right?
>
>If you mean do I intend to shock, then yes. The evil moralists need a kick
>up the arse to provoke them into showing how their simplistic views on
>issues fail to take into account science and logic, let alone the opinions
>of others. If you mean do I really think that people who are vocal about
>child abuse are not entirely motivated by protecting children, then yes that
>is a genuine opinion. Other forms of child abuse are not condemned as
>harshly. If I was to kill a child just for pleasure, when I would be
>released I would be given less shit than if I looked at a digitally edited
>picture of a child for which no child had been abused.
I think you might find you're wrong there. Look at Hindley or Brady.
> Society is sicker
>than any paedophile.
We are all sicker than an adult who abuses children for their own sexual
pleasure?
>
>>There can be no defence of it WS. It's wrong, it's abhorred by most
>>and if the public had their way the penalties would be far harsher
>>than a mere prison sentence, believe me..
>
>
>I don't deny that child abuse is wrong. I have no intention of defending it.
>Similarly I have no defence of rape, but it does not mean that one should
>not try to understand the motivation behind it which I am trying to do.
>However unless one is to call people who buy trainers child slavers then the
>people who had pictures of child abuse were not child abusers themselves.
>They were paedophiles and that is different. After all not all straight men
>rape women do they? I don't care about the opinions of the general public.
>Too bothered with soaps and sport to create an opinion, they just copy what
>the rest of their kind heard at the pub or read in a tabloid and believe
>that this is equal to complex ethical opinions by people who have considered
>an issue instead of saying it is right or wrong.
So by your definition those who disagree with you are simply too lazy to
have given the subject any thought?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Mike Plowman
<var...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Because they have broken the law?
>
>
>So you find it acceptable that a 7 year old can be imprisoned for sex with a
>15 year old?
You have an example of this presumably? As an aside, minors are not
imprissned ie 'sent to prison'. And secondly, don't try to choose a
stupid unlikely to happen in the real world any more than once in a
blur moon example and then try to tar the entire rationale with it.
You're supposedly an educated person and I expect better.
>That it is the law doesn't change my opinion either. Who writes
>the laws? Are they given by God? No, they are written by people who have
>nothing to do with the people who they will make criminals or victims and
>their opinion is not better than mine unless it is logically superior.
Well, laws are passed by a democratic process in this country. No,
that doesn't mean they are all just, but what would you suggest as an
alternative? That what 'you' believe is right should be the law even
if you are a tiny minority? Laws, by and large, reflect the will of
the majority. It ain't perfect and the laws don't suit everyone but
it's the best we've got for now.
>realize that the law is not just an unfair rule but opposes youth rights and
>three cheers to the revolutionaries who break it.
At what age does a boy or girl become 'youth' in your eyes?
tiny
news:KK8k6.3214$nl.8...@news3.cableinet.net...
> So you find it acceptable that a 7 year old can be
> imprisoned for sex with a 15 year old?
I give you then benefit of the doubt and accept you meant
17 and 15. Now go to uk.legal and find out about the
difference in law re underage sex in relation to under 21/16/13.
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:12:48 +0000, MikeW <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote:
>
> >Im not saying that Mike. I definatly dont think child porn should be legal, far from
> >it.
> >Im just trying to put forward a view that child abuse isnt always child pornography,
> >and that ANY child abuse, whatever it is, should be stamped out.
> >If that means punishing the end user in law, then so be it.
>
> I agree in principle Mike but as purchasers we, I would hope, don't
> actively seek out products that have involved child labour. Yes, you
> are quite ight that we should all be far more aware of these things
> but I really don't believe most actively supports it knowingly. Most
> of us are blissfully ignorant to it. That's not a good thing and
> anyone reading this thread should be thinking carefully about what
> they buy from where from now on.
>
> Child porn does not have the same kind of 'innocence by ignorance'
> factor. Anyone seeking it out knows 'exactly' what they are after and
> how it is made.
> --
Yes..to a point. However, as the law stands at the moment, you could click on a seemingly
innocent looking link, and find yourself having a child porn pic in your cache, you might
instantly quit out of your browser, and,unless you are aware of cache clearing, might
find yourself the victim of a child abuse squad sting, who would then raid your house and
maybe do you for having the pic in your cache.
Ok..highly unlikely, but, as the law stands, possible.
the defence of 'unknowingly' downloading the pics wouldnt stand at the moment.
I see what you are getting at, the stimulus for child porn is direct, the one for goods
by child labour is indirect,
however...if all goods that were produced by child labour had a big sticker 'produced by
child labour', then I wonder how many folks would buy the more expensive ones. that were
not produced in that way?.
the humanitarain in me says 'not many'..the cynic says 'quite a lot'.
Its a bit like buying stuff from a bloke in the pub, a lot of people do this, but do they
ever consider the victims of theft that these goods nearly always come from?.
Mike Warren.
Mike Plowman
>I see what you are getting at, the stimulus for child porn is direct, the one for goods
>by child labour is indirect,
>however...if all goods that were produced by child labour had a big sticker 'produced by
>child labour', then I wonder how many folks would buy the more expensive ones. that were
>not produced in that way?.
>the humanitarain in me says 'not many'..the cynic says 'quite a lot'.
Er, haven't you got the wrong way round?:-)
MikeW
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:38:56 +0000, MikeW <Mi...@here.and.now> wrote:
>
> >I see what you are getting at, the stimulus for child porn is direct, the one for goods
> >by child labour is indirect,
> >however...if all goods that were produced by child labour had a big sticker 'produced by
> >child labour', then I wonder how many folks would buy the more expensive ones. that were
> >not produced in that way?.
> >the humanitarain in me says 'not many'..the cynic says 'quite a lot'.
>
> Er, haven't you got the wrong way round?:-)
>
> --
err.yes......ya right ;)
I did mean , oh well..you know...;)
Mike Warren.