Thursday, August 21, 2008

Gadding about

Unpleasant though he may be, I have to say that I have found the constant hounding and lurid reporting of Gary Glitter's release and subsequent attempts to go... well... anywhere, extraordinarily fucking distasteful. I thought that the point was that we punished people for the bad things that they have done and then, when they have served their term, they are free to go: until they re-offend—if they re-offend—they are free.

Unfortunately, with all the bloody parents who simply cannot be arsed to look after their brood screaming "what about the chiiiiiildren?" it seems that we have set aside the whole fucking concept of justice in order to pander to yet another special interest group. Hang on, what am I saying? We have set aside all justice for this special interest group, for even many liberal seem to think that stealing from people in order to find the life-style choice of parents is justified.

Anyway, as I said, I find the hounding of Gadd very nasty indeed; either he is mad (in which case he should be treated as anyone else with a mental illness, i.e. with sympathy) or he is bad (and can thus choose not to reoffend and, as such, should now be free). And, via Timmy, it seems that Carol Sanger agrees.
If we accept that paedophilia is an illness - and there are reasoned voices who say that it is - then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.

If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.

This has been the fundamental principle of justice, at least within crime and punishment, that has stood us in reasonable stead since Magna Carta. Now, just because one particular category of behaviour is exciting public consciousness - pressing, as it does, all the right buttons such as “sex” and “children” - is collective gut revulsion really enough to challenge copper-bottomed, tried, tested and trusted legal tradition?

Oh, how dare you, you wicked woman? Won't somebody think of the children? Won't somebody think of the fucking sodding little chiiiiiiiildddren? (Please do imagine that said with all of the contempt at my command—it is considerable.) Anyway, Sanger goes on to point out that the general hysteria of the pathetic public—especially the parents who, being too lazy to keep an eye on their own children, would rather that the state do so (paid for by those of us who have no children and no interest in being compelled to pay for theirs)—has given the government carte blanche to pass these disgustingly anomalous laws, regardless of the lack of justice inherent in them.
Take, for instance, a man who had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl or boy. If caught, and especially if force were involved, he would expect a severe sentence - at the end of which, he would emerge into the light of day and have his every movement monitored for the rest of his natural life. And so what, you say, shedding not a tear.

Quite so. But if that same man had broken every bone in that same 14-year-old child's body, he would similarly expect a severe sentence - at the end of which the prison gates would slam behind him and he would be totally free.

By the same token, Gary Glitter might deserve not a jot of our concern. None the less, in his disinclination to chat with a police officer at Heathrow, presumably before being added to the sex offenders register, he does have a point. For had his crime been other than fiddling with little Vietnamese girls, had he instead been convicted and imprisoned for, say, drug smuggling or a gang-related killing spree, he could return to Britain without a shred of further official intervention in his life.

And no, that is not an excuse to put the perpetrators of every other crime on a big fucking list either. Once people have done their time, they should be free to go about their business without the state peering over their shoulder all of the time.
Putting children in danger outweighs almost any other consideration - except, perhaps, the danger of the precedent set by singling out one identifiable group and excluding it from the principles of law that apply to all others.

Quite. And there is far too much of this sort of thing around and, you know, one day it may be you who falls foul of these inclinations. If I may quote A Man For All Seasons.
  • ALICE [Exasperated, pointing after RICH] While you talk, he's gone!


  • MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!


  • ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!


  • MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?


  • ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!


  • MORE [Roused and excited] Oh? [Advances on ROPER] And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? [He leaves him] This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? [Quietly] Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

But all this appears to go by-the-by where the fucking chiiiiildren are concerned. But this is to debase our justice system and ourselves. As Sanger says at the finale...
The solution, therefore, is either to declare all those on the sex offenders register to be unwell and apply open-ended treatment, compassionately, according to the severity of their condition - or to declare them criminals, take our several pounds of flesh and let them go. Mad or bad. But we can't, in conscience, have it both ways.

So you pick.

I think that you know where I stand—it is with the latter option. Which one will you pick?

45 comments:

Sam said...

The whole episode is textbook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

the a&e charge nurse said...

Paedophiles have been known to penetrate 2 year olds [or even younger chiiiildren] - then walk free.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/24/ukcrime.stevenmorris

If a register/surveillance prevents even one similar abuse then I fail to see how this is undesirable, or even illegal.

Who has ever suggested that all crimes should be treated in exactly the same way - the law should simply provide reasonable measures, or mechanisms to protect the welfare of citizens.

Perhaps some people toss & turn at night agonising over any minor infringement to the civil liberties of sex offenders, such as the inconvenience of being added to register [how tiresome].

The question as to why additional safety netting has been deemed necessary is very simple to answer - paedophiles, [such as the leader of the gang himself] have a propensity for serial re-offending [unfortunately], even the chiiiildren know that........they've got painful arses to prove it

peter carter-fuck said...

I've no time for Gary Glitter, but I found the spectacle of Jacquie Smith hanging around at the airport, eagerly telling the assembled hacks how she was going to make his life a misery pretty nauseating. There is obviously nothing which a NuLabor apparatchik thinks is inappropriate to use to advance their poxy agendas.

leg-iron said...

Yes, he's a rancid perv who once looked like a twat in tinfoil. But he's done his time.

He still says he didn't do this particular crime, but we'll never know for sure. Whether he did or not, he was convicted, served the sentence, followed by deportation, and that should be that. In any other crime, that is indeed that.

In this case there's a lot of political mileage for A Certain Someone and an excellent chance to get the population's minds off rising prices, government idiocy etc.

So he's done for. Shiny Gary is the latest goat on the altar. I don't like him, but he's served his sentence. He's not the Bogeyman, he's an ex-convict. He, and his past convictions, shouldn't now be used for political advantage.

That's even sicker than what he was convicted of.

John B said...

"Paedophiles have been known to penetrate 2 year olds [or even younger chiiiildren] - then walk free."

Rubbish - or at least, not since the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The guy you link to was convicted of indecently assaulting the toddler, which is still rancid and gross, but is not assault by penetration, which would have earned him a 10-year stretch according to the (generally applied by judges and always enforceable at appeal) sentencing guidelines.

"Paedophiles, [such as the leader of the gang himself] have a propensity for serial re-offending [unfortunately]"

No more so than the criminal population in general.

Old Holborn said...

I've had quite a few rucks over this today.

If Gary Glitter were to land in Karachi, declare himself a Muslim and marry three twelve year olds, he could then live in Bradford with his wives AND claim benefit for them.

"New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family"

He is also free to live in any EU country he choses, as long as his feet don't touch UK soil where FRau Doktor Smith is busily making up new laws as she goes along. He could live in Spain, where the age of consent is 13 for example.

Bigamy is illegal in the UK by the way. But not if you are a Muslim for some strange reason.

Unsworth said...

@ the a&e charge nurse

Total Bollocks. "Additional safety-netting"? Any evidence whatsoever that it works or, indeed, could be made to work? If so put up your statistical references.

All this make-it-up-as-you-go-along law perpetrated upon us by stupid morons such as that over-botoxed bint Smith has absolutely fuck-all effect. It's simple politicing, no more and no less.

Then "If a register/surveillance prevents even one similar abuse then I fail to see how this is undesirable, or even illegal." Yes you probably do fail to see how this might be illegal. It's selective emotionally driven myopia that you're suffering from. You need major help.

I'll tell you what would stop "similar abuse" and that is to shoot the fuckers - or anyone who you might suspect could be a 'paedo'. Then while we're at it maybe we should start on potential rapists, muggers, speeders, litter louts etc etc.

Typical extreme left-wing garbage. You want to legislate on the basis of what 'might' happen. Absolutely bleeding cretinous.

JC said...

Classic bit from Sam Beckett you quote in there m'lad.

Macx Stirner said...

That Beckett is nonsense. As if the Devil would be restrained by law! And the analogy about "Where would you hide, the laws being flat?" is classic abuse of human Susceptibility to [meaningless] Analogy. The only law is the law of force; either Roper or the Devil would yield, "law" making no difference - unless it caused Roper to stay his hand.

Now, I hope the British Government (or anyone else, for that matter) sees plenty of "laws" in its way, keeping it from me. But I won't rely on it. And when the lights go off, I won't restrain myself by appeals to "law" either.

Old Holborn said...

@unsworth.

I petitioned number 10 for them to ban Islam on health and safety grounds. I mean speed cameras are worth it because if they save "just one life" blah etc. 54 dead in London from Islam alone. I mean, if it saves "just one life" etc.

Cunts, the lot of them. I want them dead SO much.

Dr Smith said...

Anti Children Pro Peadophile (once they have been in jail) Devil's Kitchen.

Gary Glitter deserves everything he gets. The sex offenders register is part of the law you idiot - it's just one you don't happen do agree with becuase it restricts the liberty of people who want to fuck children.

Just have a proper think about it for a moment you nonsensical motormouth.

Banging on about changing the law in favour of convicted peadophiles by expressing your strange anger for children gives the impression that you might need some help.

Seriously - get help.

Anonymous said...

It's a pity Jackie Smith is such a hideous old bag that GG couldn't get it up for her because she really does need raped in every orifice the man-hating bitch.

Of course, part of the paedo problem relates to the fact that our age of consent is 16. There may be good reasons for it but drawing an arbitrary line for something like this is bound to cause anomalies and problems. Let's face it, children reach pubescence earlier than they used to and, hence, give of sexual signals far earlier than they ever did before. If a pubescent 13 year old finds herself in the hands of a paedo surely that's the parent's fault? It's as much the parent's fault whether the kid is in Vauxhall or Vietnam for that matter. How do you tell the difference between many 14 year olds and 16 year olds when they lie about their age when you pick them up in the pub?

Someone needs to give the public a collective slap in the face and tell them to get a grip because this shit is getting out of hand. All the eCRB stuff which penalises every adult in the land all for the sake of a few crimes a year. Fucking madness.

I'm not excusing GG in any shape or form but he's clearly not entirely sane. That much was obvious in 70s. I feel reviled by the witch hunt going on which is seemingly sanctioned by virtually the entire country up to and including that vile bitch Smith who ought to know better but sadly clearly doesn't.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Selective emotionally driven myopia - typical extreme left wing garbage, ooh, very good, unsworth.

Anyway, getting back to the actual issues, why don't you take a quick peek at the NSPCC website [if you're such a stats freak] - needless to say it doesn't make for pretty reading.

It seems john b is almost as complacent and content as unsworth.
JB has it on very good authority that toddlers are never penetrated, none of them, ever.
How does he know ?

At least one study has shown that following an investigation of 363 sexually abused children, almost 15% were under 4 years of age.
Dobash et al [1994]
http://etd.rau.ac.za/theses/available/etd-08222005-111838/restricted/Chapter2a.pdf

Many authorities have noted that the sexual abuse of children has ALWAYS gone on and tends to be denied, minimised or ignored - perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised that various rationalisations [this time of a pseudo-legal nature] are very much alive and well.

Anonymous said...

While everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the likes of Gadd, the more serious forms of abuse continue to be rife within families.

Incidence of sexual abuse in the home is a great deal higher than that perpetrated by strangers. It also tends to be more damaging, not only because it recurs and the abuse is of a more serious nature, but also because of the emotional damage done to the child who can't reconcile this aspect of the relationship with the abuser with other aspects.

I'm sure that many people who condemn Gadd might well turn a blind eye to abuse that occurs nearer to home if it meant having to get involved.

Kay Tie said...

"If a register/surveillance prevents even one similar abuse then I fail to see how this is undesirable, or even illegal."

Given that it's quite common that an abused child grows up to be an abusing adult (was GG abused as a child?), wouldn't it be prudent to put all the child victims on the register too? After all, if this prevents even one similar abuse, then it must be desirable, right?

Roger Thornhill said...

I do think they are disturbed, but not sectionable. Better they admit their affliction and voluntarily retreat into isolation and treatment.

The real issue is if the conviction was sound, then why so short a sentence. If he had another 15 years rotting away, the issue may then be moot.

the a&e charge nurse said...

That would be a very BIG register if the NSPCC figures are anything to go by.

http://ww.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/Briefings/prevalenceandincidenceofchildabuse_wda48217.html

Wat Dabney said...

Gary Glitter is an old man with a stupid little beard.

Why these children find him so attractive I'll never know.

Kay Tie said...

"The real issue is if the conviction was sound, then why so short a sentence."

Because it's not as serious as other crimes? Surely murder, rape, assault, battery, etc. are worse crimes than looking at kiddie porn?

I do wonder if the rabid outrage we're seeing is more to do with Freudian projection than any serious thinking about the subject.

Kinderling said...

Oh, in my book paedophiles receive a death sentence - I don't see anyone getting up from that to reoffend. A line crossed too far.

Because it is sociopathic behavior, and it's how they infect children thru terror (see Dr Who). It's a death sentence on the young life who will spawn many more violated children until surrounding you and your offspring are paedophile rings in high places.

But you know that already and think it's Diversity, because why else you are so Libertarian with your youngster's minds?

Keep yawing and cursing in the physical world while the conscious world is lost.

That is how you conquer yourself without anyone firing a shot. Comrade.

Devil's Kitchen said...

A & E,

"That would be a very BIG register if the NSPCC figures are anything to go by."

And do you seriously think that the NSPCC are an unbiased source?

You know, just before we get onto the figures...

DK

Libby said...

Get onto the figures then, Deek....

Go on, spend some time disputing the NSPCC's own figures on child abuse.

You weirdo.

Steve said...

They came for the paedophiles, they came for the terrorists, they came for the animal rights activists, none of whom garner any sympathy.

They came for the drug users, they came for the smokers, they are starting on the drinkers and the obese.

Soon, they will come for you.

This is not about Paul Gadd, it isn't about children either, it is about state control of the population.

So much as I find what he has done despicable, he has been punished for his crime and ought to have his liberty fully restored. No politicians making capital out of his misdeeds, no, he is free.

Perhaps this might be the one to take up this vile law and make the UK honour it's obligations under the UN and European conventions on Human Rights.

Politicians are always looking for scape goats, they found one which is rolled out every time they want to do something nasty, paedophiles are the flavour of the month. Trust your MP at your peril.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Somebody has to bat for them, devil.

Surely we are not going to quibble over a definitive number given the complex issues around data capture

Roger Thornhill said...

"Because it's not as serious as other crimes? Surely murder, rape, assault, battery, etc. are worse crimes than looking at kiddie porn?"

Well, in this case IIRC it was abuse of two 12 year olds, not looking at pictures.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Dr Smith,

"Anti Children Pro Peadophile (once they have been in jail) Devil's Kitchen."

I'm not pro-paedophile, you fucking numpty; I am simply saying that if paedophilia is a crime (rather than a mental illness) then -- just as with every other crime -- the criminal should be free to go about their business once they have done their time.

And neither am I anti-children. However, I don't give a fuck about your children -- that's your job as a parent, you see.

And I certainly have no interest in having the fruits of my hard-work stolen to pay for your children -- that your job as a parent, you see.

I don't see why I should struggle financially so that you can be given some of my money to buy your child the latest fucking Playstation, or whatever.

"Gary Glitter deserves everything he gets."

What he has got is three years in prison -- in a Thai prison -- and the world's opprobrium. But, nonetheless, he has served his time.

"The sex offenders register is part of the law you idiot - it's just one you don't happen do agree with becuase it restricts the liberty of people who want to fuck children."

No, I don't agree with it because it singles out one group of people for exceptional treatment. The theory is that we are
all equal under the law. I can see that you are a hysterical moron but even you should be able to understand why that is wrong.

"Just have a proper think about it for a moment you nonsensical motormouth."

Right back at'cha, you mentally-challenged tit.

But yes, I can see how you'd think that my keeness for everyone to be equal under the law -- yes, even paedophiles -- and for people not to be punished for things that they might do, could be construed as being anti-children and pro-paedophile.

Yes, I think that I can see how that might happen -- is it because you haven't got too brain cells to rub together? I think it might be...

"Banging on about changing the law in favour of convicted peadophiles by expressing your strange anger for children gives the impression that you might need some help."

You people just don't bother to read properly: do you think that it is children who are sitting there shrieking, "won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiiillldren"? No, you nitwit: it is the adults, and the parents who cannot be arsed to look after their own offspring.

It is the disgusting bunch of shits who have children without thinking, who steal money off others to prop up their lifestyles and who can then barely be arsed to do any parenting. I have nothing but contempt for these "people" (and no, I am not talking exclusively about chavs).

And there are far too many of these "parents" around -- I imagine that you are one of them, frankly.

"Seriously - get help."

Shall I steal your money to pay for it?

Now fuck off.

DK

Unsworth said...

@ the a&e charge nurse

"Somebody has to bat for them".

Well if you've decided to take on the Mantle of Greatness at least make a better job of it than this.

Your source of information is, naturally, an interested party. After all, like most charidees, it's hardly going to proffer any position which endangers its own survival is it? Maybe you ought to take a close look at the huge and astoundingly wealthy Charity Biz - it's quite revealing as to human venality and failure.

Then "Surely we are not going to quibble over a definitive number given the complex issues around data capture"

So you put up a source and then say that it is inaccurate? Excellent, Sherlock.

And you are choosing to ignore the rights of one who - having been convicted, sentenced, and having served that sentence in a foreign jurisdiction - is now being tried without defence and with dubious evidence by a British Home Secretary who is trashing the Law for political gain, and buffoon commentators such as your very good self.

Gadd may or may not be guilty, but you are certainly guilty of unreasoning and unreasonable bias which is based upon not very much more than newspaper reports.

P said...

Your feelings over his coverage coincide with mine. Innocent until proven guilty, free once the sentence is served.

(I don't know the full circumstances here, but I do find it a bit of a joke that he received only three years for abusing 14 year old girls - on the totally unrealistic assumption that he was jailed immediately following the offence, this would mean that such a girl wouldn't even have reached adult status by the time he was released! Perhaps this explains a large part of the public reaction to so many many legal cases - the sentencing is so far removed from the public's expectation, such as public flailing.)

I am intreagued by the following line in your text above:

"...paid for by those of us who have no children and no interest in being compelled to pay for theirs..."

Perhaps this is fair.

Would you be prepared to refund all of the money that your parents received in subsidies/hidden tax-rebates from the state on account of your existence in order to get out of such present and future taxation obligations?

Best wishes,

P

Devil's Kitchen said...

P,

"(I don't know the full circumstances here, but I do find it a bit of a joke that he received only three years for abusing 14 year old girls..."

The girls were 10 and 11 at the time. Going on the assumption that the judge is the best... er... judge of punishment, having heard all the facts of the case, etc. I would surmise that the abuse fell far short of violent penetrative rape. As I say, only the judge will really know; but, it is also worth bearing in mind that Thailand does not have a reputation for being soft on criminals.

"... on the totally unrealistic assumption that he was jailed immediately following the offence, this would mean that such a girl wouldn't even have reached adult status by the time he was released!"

Well, in this country. Remember that age of consent varies massively all over the world, including Europe: in Spain, for instance, it is 13 (with restrictions on "deceit"); in Austria, 14 (or, in circumstances, 13); in Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Kosovo, Serbia, and Germany it is 14 (this last has upper age restrictions).

In Thailand, the age of consent is 15 but the "unfettered" age is 18.

In Britain, we actually have some of the most restrictive sexual laws in Europe. And yet we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. Actually, this is quite similar to alcohol; our laws are some of the most strict in Europe and yet we have some of the highest rates of alcohol abuse.

Anyone starting to see a pattern at all...?

"... Perhaps this explains a large part of the public reaction to so many many legal cases - the sentencing is so far removed from the public's expectation, such as public flailing.)"

Indeed. However, as I say, only the judge will know.

"Would you be prepared to refund all of the money that your parents received in subsidies/hidden tax-rebates from the state on account of your existence in order to get out of such present and future taxation obligations?"

Almost certainly (depending on whether it were within my means to do so). However, I don't believe that retrospective legislation is terribly fair.

So, were I in charge, I would keep paying child credits, for instance, to those who already have children. But I would announce a cut-off date: say there would be no more child benefits paid to parents of children born more than 9 months and 1 day from now.

DK

Anonymous said...

I have no time for kiddy fiddlers, but I find Fatty Smith's posturing so nauseatinmg it is hard not to feel some sympathy for pervy old Gazza. He has done his time you grandstanding porcine cow, leave the man alone.

Let us also remind ourselves who "New Commie" are indeed coming for next. In Jan 2009 Blunkett/Blair's odious "Dangerous pictures act" from the 2008 Criminal injustice bill will be brought into force. Privately possessing vaguely defined fictional adult so-called "violent porn" images-which includes images from BBFC certified films, can get someone "3 years in prison" and later a place on the SOR-alongside paedos and rapists, under this ridiculous, subjective, repressive and evil law. No other similar country has such a deranged law...naturally the Scots Nats aren't stupid enough to want anything to do with it, so it won't apply in Brownshirt's constituency, or the rest of bonnie Scotland.

NL are on the rampage in their dying months, determined to slam in as many repressive laws as possible in the time left to them prior to their total extermination. Here they are creating a whole new breed of "sex offender" which did not exist before-who are not so in any sanely governed country. BDSM lovers may be seen flocking across the border to claim asylum on the grounds of sexual perecution-one hopes some in the ogre of the lowland's constituency.

A "Dangerous drawings act" is next on the cards to cover criminalising possession of totally unreal "child" images which are deemed "obscene". Yes-in NL's mad world drawings etc have biological ages!
Careful you don't have any paintings with cupids on in the house then-Vermin Coaker will be after you.

S Jamieson said...

Apart from Mr Gadd, growing a Ho-Chi-Minh beard, (and not lking either music or his sexual preferences or any facet of his style of life), I do not regard Vietnam as a country where the Rule of Law is held up as a shining beacon.

It seems to me his English conviction is sound but our legal system should not take anything seriously that originates from Communist States such as Vietnam

xelent said...

Contentious issue this,

However the witch hunt has indeed been played up by tick face Ms Smith herself of course...

However A&E is quite correct to point out that child abuse is probably far higher than most of us imagine...

GG is perhaps slightly unhinged and is unlikely to re-offend again, given the press will be hounding now until the day he dies..

Airport chasing him like a fugitive... Particularly with bitch smith in tow... is somewhat disingenuous I feel...

assegai_mike said...

Gary'll be down PC World by now to fetch his PC. Probably order himself a flatscreen while he's there - things have come along a bit the past three years...

Andy said...

I think Kay tie has a good point about Freud. What gets people in a tiz about these sort of cases is that there is sex involved.

The crime here is not the sex per se, or the enjoyment the paedo drives from it, it is the act of coercion. We decide that below a certain age consent cannot be lawfully be given, so we decide that acts of this nature are non concensual. The crime is therefore against liberty, it is assault against a person.

Anyone convicted of a non consensual sexual act against another person, be it rape or assualt, is guilty of the same thing. The age of the victim is irrelevant.

Shug Niggurath said...

It's a hard one to call, but even when the abuser is young themselves, more often than not it appears to be a uncontrollable urge - so I'd veer more towards madness than criminality.

The reason it's an emotive issue is because children are defenceless generally and in the case of much older abusers to younger children, totally.

I tend to think tried and convicted paedophiles should be removed from society, if that means life sentence, perpetual sectioning or whatever that's fine. This sex crime is worse than most other crimes because of the abuse of power.

And looking at Kiddie Porn is exactly the same as fucking kids in my book.

Unsworth said...

@ shug niggurath

"And looking at Kiddie Porn is exactly the same as fucking kids in my book."

Stunning.

So how do you feel about the 'Massacre of the Innocents' by Breughel or Rubens?

Would you prefer to burn the 'Rape of the Sabine' by Giovanni Bologna?

I guess you would.

Shug Niggurath said...

No unsworth, I am an adult so can tell the difference between art and photographs of toddlers being raped you odious little turd.

John B said...

"JB has it on very good authority that toddlers are never penetrated, none of them, ever."

Err, no. If you were capable of reading, you'd realise that I was saying that whenever toddlers are penetrated, and the person who does it is caught and convicted, they go to jail for a very long time. In the case you cited, the horrible man in question wasn't charged with an offence involving penetration; if he had been, he would have gone to jail for a very long time.

John B said...

"I am an adult so can tell the difference between art and photographs of toddlers being raped you odious little turd."

You may or may not be an adult, but you're certainly a fuckwit.

Raping children harms them. Looking at photographs of children being raped does not harm them, any more than looking at a painting of the Sabine women being raped harms them.

There are other good reasons why child abuse images should be illegal (to discourage supply, and to avoid normalising the concept of child abuse to potential abusers and victims alike), but that's completely different from the moronic assertion that looking at child abuse images is the same as raping children.

Shug Niggurath said...

So the children raped or abused in photographs are unharmed are they? That's a fucking daft assertion. The images are produced to feed a market, the creation of the images causes harm and involves no consent, so it is just the same.

-------------------

The Rape of the Sabine women is a statue by the way, not a painting, and does not depict a 'rape' but a kidnapping, and Livy was at pains to point out that the Sabine women were not sexually molested but in fact given full rights as citizens within Rome. Quite a bit different from wanting to look at photographs of real abuse.

Unsworth said...

@ shug niggurath

"The Rape of the Sabine women is a statue by the way, not a painting, and does not depict a 'rape' but a kidnapping, and Livy was at pains to point out that the Sabine women were not sexually molested but in fact given full rights as citizens within Rome. Quite a bit different from wanting to look at photographs of real abuse."

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Don't tell me that Bologna was some sort of sculptor! This is a wind-up, surely? And there's me thinking he was like Picasso and Rubens and Poussin and Castello and Breughel and all those other painter geezers - 'cos they all did paintings with the same name too.

And Mr Livy is a good unbiased source of Roman history? Since when?

You've been reading that Wikipedia thing, then, haven't you? We can tell, it turns your brain to shit.

Shug Niggurath said...

Fuck off unsworth, you're playing the Neil Harding defence, ostracise your enemies.

You know what, if you and John B want to raise child porn to the status of historical art go ahead, that makes both of you such a pair of wankers that I hope we never run into each other socially, because cunts who try to justify the attitudes the pair of you just have are not interested in freedom, just a free for all.

Now fuck off and live in the bubbles you have - I suggest one thing to you both, if you seriously think that photographs of children being sexually abused are anywhere on a par with classical art you need to look at yourselves as nothing more than a pair of apologist wankers. Away and vote for Clegg.

The wikipedia line is pretty much the nulab tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with you too. You're a wanker.

-----

Apologies for using your free forum to abuse others DK, not something I've done before, for that at least I am in the wrong.

Unsworth said...

@ shug niggurath

Don't like it do you? Well who started with the personal insults "you odious little turd"? Is that an "attempt to ostracise", a "denigration" or perhaps in your world is it a term of affection?

You can dish it out but you can't take it, then.

However, you're missing some serious points - deliberately or no. Child abuse in its most dreadful forms has been around since Adam. Take a look at what goes on in Africa, the Caribbean and South America right now. Why aren't you screaming about that?

As to art being somehow different. Don't kid yourself, sunshine. Much 'Art' is and always was pornography for the rich. Classical art is stuffed full of what were deemed at the time to be shocking images - many of them still are.

Do you get out much? Have a wander round the National Gallery. It's quite interesting.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, John B doesn't want to share the facts about child rape/porn so much as demonstrate how blase he is about this sort of thing, unlike the rest of you plebs.

Whenever I see John B trolling places like this, I can't help picturing that Brain Gremlin from Gremlins 2.

'There's also a lot of street crime, but I believe we can watch that for free',

kiki said...

A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,AIO交友愛情館,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天

麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,線上遊戲,矽谷麻將,明星3缺一,橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,遊戲區,電玩快打,cs online情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,A片,AIO交友愛情館,AIOAV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人文章,成人小說,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,中部人聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,做愛,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,AIO,色情影片,情色網,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,成人電影,麗的色遊戲,自拍,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,視訊交友網,視訊,視訊交友,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,中古車,二手車情色貼圖,日本A片,A片下載,情色A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,微風成人,成人網站,成人光碟,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人影城A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人光碟