If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Paedophiles and picture phones etc.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I was reading an article in the observer today about the dangers of mobile phones with inbuilt cameras in them, about how people can take photos of children easily, and how it also makes it easier to coerce children into doing `terrible things` such as taking photos of themselves naked and touching themselves.
I personally see no harm in picturs of children as long as the child isnt harmed mentally or physically, and find the uproar about not letting people photograph children just in case they have bad thoughts about the child in the photo - absolutely incredulous.
Obviously i think people shouldnt coerce children into taking rude photos of themselves, and that would be covered under the new grooming laws, which im also not sure about, as in theory it sounds like a good idea, but it also covers magazines not being able to give sexual advice to underage teenagers, and lots of other things - basically I think it goes too far.
There was a bit in the article i read saying they didnt know how a judge would act with a child who had produced and distrubuted sexual pictures of themselves via mobile phone, yet claimed to be a victim.
My main feelings are that pictures of children doing everyday things are harmless whether naked or not, as long as no abuse is involved. Im unsure of the last scenario about the child making and distributing the pictures themselves - obviously that depends on the age of the child, and how much coercion was involved, but I think that even children can take some of the responsibility for their actions, and if they took the pictures willingly and knew what they were doing then they are not as much victims as for instance a child who has been abducted and forced to do things.
My personal feelings are that the fear of paedophiles has got way out of control and is completely out of proportion to the actual risk of harm to our children, I am worried that the media/ government has whipped up such a frenzy that people feel out of control and are just desparate to give up their rights in favour of more and more ridiculous laws which arent going to protect us, its only the normal everyday people that are going to be affected by them, now we cant take photos of our own children in a swimming pool or at brownies - how exactly is that protecting us?
Rant over - discuss.
I personally see no harm in picturs of children as long as the child isnt harmed mentally or physically, and find the uproar about not letting people photograph children just in case they have bad thoughts about the child in the photo - absolutely incredulous.
Obviously i think people shouldnt coerce children into taking rude photos of themselves, and that would be covered under the new grooming laws, which im also not sure about, as in theory it sounds like a good idea, but it also covers magazines not being able to give sexual advice to underage teenagers, and lots of other things - basically I think it goes too far.
There was a bit in the article i read saying they didnt know how a judge would act with a child who had produced and distrubuted sexual pictures of themselves via mobile phone, yet claimed to be a victim.
My main feelings are that pictures of children doing everyday things are harmless whether naked or not, as long as no abuse is involved. Im unsure of the last scenario about the child making and distributing the pictures themselves - obviously that depends on the age of the child, and how much coercion was involved, but I think that even children can take some of the responsibility for their actions, and if they took the pictures willingly and knew what they were doing then they are not as much victims as for instance a child who has been abducted and forced to do things.
My personal feelings are that the fear of paedophiles has got way out of control and is completely out of proportion to the actual risk of harm to our children, I am worried that the media/ government has whipped up such a frenzy that people feel out of control and are just desparate to give up their rights in favour of more and more ridiculous laws which arent going to protect us, its only the normal everyday people that are going to be affected by them, now we cant take photos of our own children in a swimming pool or at brownies - how exactly is that protecting us?
Rant over - discuss.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
This is a most absurd and dangerous route. So what would happen if a child abuser was found in possession of a children's clothes catalogue from Argos, M & S or Mothercare? Do we stop making children clothes catalogues just in case someone jerks off on them? What next? Should we remove photos of children in travel agent brochures if some Thompson Holidays literature is found in a paedo's flat? Will we end up banning children from all media and covering them in burqas?
Like you said, the fucking hysteria regarding child abusers in this country is ridiculous beyond all belief.
As for the camera phones, well, there might be a genuine concern about people taking pictures of children naked in the changing room of a swimming pool. The problem is not so much that someone is going to take a snap of a kid and wank off at home later- which some would argue is a victimless crime- but that the person who took the photo is likely to attempt to befriend the kid, 'groom' him and eventually arrange to meet him for physical relations. The same can be said of child abusers who persuade children to send them pictures of themselves naked. If an abuser is already on such levels with the kid he/she is very likely to take the matter further and suggest a meeting with the kid for obvious purposes.
It happens.
I have a friend who is a Prison Officer and was telling me a story about when he caught an offender "pleasuring" himself over a childrenswear catalogue :no: :yuck: :shocking:
No doubt soon our children will look like this in public:
It isn't and I wasn't suggesting a ban. I agree with you, but I was just highlighting the fact that peadophiles will use anything they can to get their kicks and it is impossible to completely stop them.
My small input is my "friend" got me really drunk (practically forced me to drink) then when I was shit faced and unable to move he undressed me and took pictures of me naked
Thats kinda strange but you are 16 so you couldnt really call him a paedophile.
still abuse though, and sad, but chaos do you think mobile phone cameras made it much easier to facilitate this, and do you think a ban on phone cams, or photographing children in public places would have prevented it? How did he force you to drink?
I don't think that banning phone cams will make much of a difference to be honest. I mean if you think about it polaroid camera's and digital camera's are still widely available, and as are scanners to scan in pictures and there are also numerous illegal child pornography sites out there.
I have to say I disagree with your statement saying that children who have pictures taken of them naked, even though it's not abuse is ok, because there will still be some people somewhere who find this sexual. Also if the children are reasonably young, they may not understand fully the consequences or why they have pictures of them naked taken.
I don't think a ban on photographing children in public places would make a difference either, because, to be honest it's very easy to take pictures of children anywhere, whether it's legal or not, just like it's very easy to get hold of drugs, or snuff video's, things like that.
He didn't force me to drink as in force it down my throat but he refused to let me do anything but stand there until I drank the alcohol, no it's not anything to do with a paedophile Lacy, because he's 19, but that's not the point, the point is exploitation of children, and I am 16, so those pictures are illegal, naked pictures of people under 18 for pornographic use are illegal aren't they? He told me he gets off on them....
but in the vast vast majority of cases, its not seen as anything sexual, I have photos of me naked as a baby and young child, its not sexual in the slightest, i also have one or two pictures of my son with nothing on, its not sexual in the slightest. I resent the implication that theres anything dodgy about my having a photo of my own child naked.
I think the thing about some people finding it sexual is no reason to take away the rights of everyone else and to curb the freedom of children. If the photo was taken of an everyday situation where no child was hurt, then you cant control whether somebody is going to be turned on by looking at it - We dont have the thought police yet, There is no sense in banning the photo, but if someone ACTS on those thoughts and abuses a child, then that is an ENTIRELY different situation.
Actually I didn't think about baby pictures at all. But I stick with what I said about it being pointless having cam phones and taking pictures of kids banned. There's no point because it won't change the people, when there's a will there's a way, and paedophiles and the like always have a way as long as they exist I think, it's a sad fact of society. You and your child is different, I can understand you havign pictures of your children naked, I mean I see pictures all the time of people who have taken pictures of their children in the bath and in similar situations, and of course when they're tiny kids sometimes they go about without swimwear on the beach, things like that. Like you said, you can't control how people will react to pictures of this subject. There will be loads of *awh that's sooo cuuuute* type things but then there are always going to be people who think of it in a sexual sense. But banning cam phones won't change that as I said there are still digital camera's and polaroid camera's, still really easy to use.
A way in which Nick (the 19 y/o) was related is when I was really pissed I remember he put a DVD on with that Radcliffe? kid from Harry Potter in it, the boy was like 8 in it and Nick look at the bits where he was half naked and was saying he's sexy and everything, that I did find strange.
But you have to admit, when you read in the papers that things have happened it usually *is* when the kids ran off into the woods or whatever.
In any case people tend to have a misconception about the number of child abductions and murders in this country. According to a poll many thought there must be at least dozens or even hundreds of such cases a year. In reality there are 8. Compare that with kids killed by traffic, or by domestic accidents, or house fires.
I agree with the immedaite family comment, it's often incestious and stuff *cringes* I can't comment on the rest really because it's new information to me that I was unaware of.