Paphos Life

https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/child-p ... on-police/

I know nothing about the subject, which I find very distasteful. However, I do know that it happens – very unfortunately. I understand that child pornographers fall into many categories: young boys, young girls, even babies, adolescent boys, adolescent girls et cetera. Nevertheless, not all people who "fancy" a child proceed to any action that would be criminal. Yet, it seems sufficient to possess a photo or two on a computer to be so. In my ignorance, should a person with a hard disk full of downloaded explicit photos but who never has physical contact with a child be treated in the same way as someone who "uses" children in the worst possible manner? It would seem that newspaper reports make no distinction between "voyeurs" and "doers" – should they be treated identically?

I watched a channel 4 documentary the other night, called Paedophile hunters, about how the UK police track and catch these beasts, I wished I hadn't, it left me cold, I wont go into details, but one of the hardened Policeman viewing these videos, broke down and couldn't carry on, for me its simple, a bullet to the back of the head, will cure their depraved cravings.

Devil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:58 am https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/child-p ... on-police/

I know nothing about the subject, which I find very distasteful. However, I do know that it happens – very unfortunately. I understand that child pornographers fall into many categories: young boys, young girls, even babies, adolescent boys, adolescent girls et cetera. Nevertheless, not all people who "fancy" a child proceed to any action that would be criminal. Yet, it seems sufficient to possess a photo or two on a computer to be so. In my ignorance, should a person with a hard disk full of downloaded explicit photos but who never has physical contact with a child be treated in the same way as someone who "uses" children in the worst possible manner? It would seem that newspaper reports make no distinction between "voyeurs" and "doers" – should they be treated identically?

For sick bastards ( voyeurs) to sit at home and watch videos made by (doer's) , children and even babies, have to be abused and hurt to make these videos , are you seriously asking if one is as bad as another?

Its simple

They watch it, they begin to think its normal , then the more they watch it they begin to think, why not ?

Treat them the same and it nips all the nasty thoughts right in the bud

Castrate the 2 veg and the meat if they are found guilty, sick ********* !!

Soon stop them

If you've got a hard disk full of kiddie porn then you deserve everything you get. You are just as bad as the people doing the acts.

WHL wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:56 pm For sick bastards ( voyeurs) to sit at home and watch videos made by (doer's) , children and even babies, have to be abused and hurt to make these videos , are you seriously asking if one is as bad as another?

I'm not apologising for either voyeurs or doers especially as I know little about the subject or even whether one slowly changes to the other, as suggested. I'm not against the harshest punishments for doers but I'm not sure that just the possession of a few dirty photographs, even of kids , justifies the same. Of course, what is reported in the newspapers may well not represent the whole truth, especially those papers devoted to the gutter.

Devil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:51 pm

WHL wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:56 pm For sick bastards ( voyeurs) to sit at home and watch videos made by (doer's) , children and even babies, have to be abused and hurt to make these videos , are you seriously asking if one is as bad as another?

I'm not apologising for either voyeurs or doers especially as I know little about the subject or even whether one slowly changes to the other, as suggested. I'm not against the harshest punishments for doers but I'm not sure that just the possession of a few dirty photographs, even of kids , justifies the same. Of course, what is reported in the newspapers may well not represent the whole truth, especially those papers devoted to the gutter.

To be in possession of a few dirty photographs, ( many of these sickos have thousands downloaded) or watching videos,
Children and babies were abused, hurt, and in some cases killed, to make these photos and videos,
what in Gods name is so hard to understand that they go glove in hand, one needs the other.

This is the documentary I was talking about, if anyone is in doubt about how much damage these sick people do, they should take a look, personally I don't have the stomach to watch another episode.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/und ... aedophiles

If there wasn't customers for child abuse/porn (whether pictures, videos or taking part) the numbers of children abused would be seriously reduced in world.

Yes sadly we live in a sick, sad world.

They live amongst us, people who enjoy watching child abuse/porn, and the people who arrange/film it. As someone else mentioned, the punishment for these offences is not anywhere near as severe as it should be.

If they are sent to prison, they are usually protected from the other inmates, who would no doubt ensure that the punishment fitted the crime !

My wife’s company employed someone who boasted so much about having been a soldier on royal duties at Buckingham Palace etc. That a colleague google him and found he had been convicted of thousands of videos and pictures. We immediately suspended him and he brought in his union to fight his case. I had to sit across from him in meetings on about 3 occasions, in hotels, to discuss matters. Eventually, the union bloke said to us on the QT that he couldn’t face dealing with him any longer and we agreed to give him £500 to disappear from our lives. He had been ‘protected’ by the system in not having to disclose his offences. It was a very traumatic time.

Devil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:51 pm I'm not against the harshest punishments for doers but I'm not sure that just the possession of a few dirty photographs, even of kids , justifies the same.

I am absolutely shocked that anybody could refer child pornography as ‘a few dirty photographs’.
These are images of innocent children being tortured and violated in the most horrific manner. These cannot even be compared to sexual images made by consenting adults, they are more comparable to videos and photos of people being tortured and murdered.
The only reason this material is created and posted online is because there is a demand for it, therefore every single person who knowingly downloads these images is as guilty as the person carrying out the act itself.

Paulo wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:32 am I am absolutely shocked that anybody could refer child pornography as ‘a few dirty photographs’.

Okay, please allow me to clarify what I am trying to say. I agree that serial offenders who download porn images should be punished. My question is that a serial offender implies hundreds of pictures deliberately downloaded, usually from a secret website, but that anyone can, almost accidentally, have some images from the ordinary Internet of teenage girls.

There is no such thing as "almost accidentally". Either it was an accident or it wasn't.

Why don't you ask the police if you have any further questions on the topic. They will be able to tell you exactly what is and isn't legal. They will probably want to inspect your hard disk as well.

Dominic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:27 pm They will probably want to inspect your hard disk as well.

If you are implying my hard disk, they would be welcome to do so! I'm not sure exactly how many hard disks I have, including plug-in devices but there is no porn on any of them! They would also be welcome to search the house and they would find no printed matter containing porn nor anything of a similar nature. That is not my style and never has been.

Devil
For a supposedly intelligent man you come out with some quite worrying statements – How can you almost accidentally have images of teenage girls unless you have searched for them – They don’t just spring up in front of your face unless you type the relevant words.

Devil wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:58 pm
Okay, please allow me to clarify what I am trying to say. I agree that serial offenders who download porn images should be punished. My question is that a serial offender implies hundreds of pictures deliberately downloaded, usually from a secret website, but that anyone can, almost accidentally, have some images from the ordinary Internet of teenage girls.

If you read my post you’ll see I said if somebody ’knowingly downloads’ that type of material.
I don’t know if you’re doing it deliberately, but with phrases like ‘almost accidentally’ and ‘a few dirty pictures’ your starting to sound like an apologist for these peadophiles.

Who can tell the age of a girl in a photograph or video clip? Personally, the question has never arisen but I think it quite easy to mistake some made up 13 year old girls for 16 or more.

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:54 am Who can tell the age of a girl in a photograph or video clip? Personally, the question has never arisen but I think it quite easy to mistake some made up 13 year old girls for 16 or more.

I’m not sure of your point here as it is illegal to make or distribute sexually explicit images of anybody below the age of 18.
As I’ve said, the more you reply the more you sound like you’re trying to justify these acts. If you think that when people are charged with possession of child porn they are referring to topless images of girls in their late teens, then you are either very naive or extremely ignorant.
I think part of the problem in society is people like yourself who are too willing to find excuses and justification for these perpetrators.
I suggest you stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept you may be wrong about this.

Well said and fully agree Paulo.

Paulo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:30 am
I’m not sure of your point here as it is illegal to make or distribute sexually explicit images of anybody below the age of 18.
As I’ve said, the more you reply the more you sound like you’re trying to justify these acts. If you think that when people are charged with possession of child porn they are referring to topless images of girls in their late teens, then you are either very naive or extremely ignorant.
I think part of the problem in society is people like yourself who are too willing to find excuses and justification for these perpetrators.
I suggest you stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept you may be wrong about this.

As I’ve said, the more you reply the more you sound like you’re trying to justify these acts.

I have never tried to justify these acts. What I have tried to do is to point out that many cases could have an element of doubt, for example, the victim's age.

If you think that when people are charged with possession of child porn they are referring to topless images of girls in their late teens, then you are either very naive or extremely ignorant.

Please read the first post in this thread and bring it back into context. I contended that your "images of girls in their late teens" can hardly be classed as child porn. We are talking here of 16s and under. Your other contention that I am either very naïve or extremely ignorant probably has a large element of truth in it! In fact, in my first post, I have stated that I was ignorant on the subject. However, it is apparently not clever of me to ask questions so that I try to understand it more without implicitly suggesting, by some, that I'm promoting child porn.

I think part of the problem in society is people like yourself who are too willing to find excuses and justification for these perpetrators.

I have never tried to find an excuse for people promoting child porn. I have tried to understand what is going on – and I failed miserably. This failure is partially due to displays of verbal vindictiveness and implication, rather than the information really asked for.