Child Pornography and the high profile...

Former Member · May 2006

Kermit wrote:

It's remarkably easy to download child pornography, and its remarkably easy to get snared by it unwittingly.

Normally they wouldn't prosecute over a few pictures, prosecution would only be triggered with a number of images. Although quite often fame brings this number down. And on top of that there are different categories of child sex abuse images, ranging from one, which is just non-sexual nude images of children, to category five, which includes bondage, torture, anal penetration and bestiality. One or two cat fives will see you get sent down for a long time, whereas obviously a lot more cat one images won't bring about even a caution.

I think people end up intrigued by child sex abuse images because of the power and control, and the helplessness of the victim.

So "nudist" or "naturist" websites count as child pornography (cat 1)?

Former Member · May 2006

Kentish wrote:

So "nudist" or "naturist" websites count as child pornography (cat 1)?

That's what I was thinking. Plenty of parents will have pictures of their kids naked or semi-clothed. Doesn't mean it's child pornography.

Former Member · May 2006

Kermit wrote:

It's remarkably easy to download child pornography, and its remarkably easy to get snared by it unwittingly.

Normally they wouldn't prosecute over a few pictures, prosecution would only be triggered with a number of images. Although quite often fame brings this number down. And on top of that there are different categories of child sex abuse images, ranging from one, which is just non-sexual nude images of children, to category five, which includes bondage, torture, anal penetration and bestiality. One or two cat fives will see you get sent down for a long time, whereas obviously a lot more cat one images won't bring about even a caution.

I think people end up intrigued by child sex abuse images because of the power and control, and the helplessness of the victim.

Sometimes you can even download childporn because it is rename and you think you are downloading something else instead... happended to me few times and was really not a pleasant experience... some people are just dying to make everyone see some child porn, they are fucking psycho and not in a good way...

Former Member · May 2006

Kentish wrote:

So "nudist" or "naturist" websites count as child pornography (cat 1)?

Not really, but they can be construed that way in a collection of images of child sex abuse.

It's all about context with child sex abuse cases, really. One or two pictures of children on a naturist website wouldn't attract any attention, but a website entirely specialising in naked images of young children probably would. One or two pictures of your kids in the nude would be fine, but 2000 wouldn't.

Having said that, though, some newsreader's husband was nicked for taking pictures of his wife's 2-year-old daughter in the bath.

nihilisticmadman wrote:

Sometimes you can even download childporn because it is rename and you think you are downloading something else instead... happended to me few times and was really not a pleasant experience.

It's happened to me as well, its happened to a lot of people. And it's sick.

Former Member · May 2006

seeker wrote:

Are you making an assumption there, or have you got something to back that statement up ? (If so,I`d love to see it)

No, its my opinion/argument.

What evidence could possibly exist that definitively shows what the absolute duty of a state is? It is a matter of argument and opinion: that is the point of political discussion.

Every argument relies on premises, that was mine. Do you disagree?

Former Member · May 2006

carlito wrote:

No, its my opinion/argument.

What evidence could possibly exist that definitively shows what the absolute duty of a state is? It is a matter of argument and opinion: that is the point of political discussion.

Every argument relies on premises, that was mine. Do you disagree?

I don`t believe the "state" has any duty. I am not aware of any evidence. I`m also not aware of any evidence of a "state".

Former Member · May 2006

Stay on topic in the thread please - start another thread about the exsistance of the state if you want to debate that issue.

If you've zero to add to this issue then please don't try to derail other's discussions.

Former Member · May 2006

stargalaxy wrote:

Why do people with money and power go towards child pornography? Maybe it's precisely because of the money and power itself. You need money to get this kind of stuff - it's not as if you can go into Google for it, and you need power. (i.e. "friends" who can tell you how to get hold of this stuff)

Depending on how you define child porn then it can be easy to come across. I was browsing on You-tube the other day and came across a really sick video with young children masturbating themselves and being told off by their parents. Ok so it wasn't *that* graffic but it was just sick and I certainly was not going out there looking for it or anything I was just browsing online like one does.

Also you forget that globally things are much less regulated than in the UK.

Former Member · May 2006

I'm With Stupid wrote:

But then Hugh Grant slept with a prostitute

He didn't actually sleep with Divine Brown he just got a gobjob from her (apparently he wanted more but he couldn't afford her!)

Former Member · May 2006

Randomgirl wrote:

He didn't actually sleep with Divine Brown he just got a gobjob from her (apparently he wanted more but he couldn't afford her!)

Jesus Christ, he makes £10m a movie. How much does she charge? She must be good if he couldn't afford her.

Child Pornography and the high profile...

Comments