Wall of Mouths

And how would that work, exactly?

it kinda similar to downloading mp3s, one site is shut down but another pops up and everyone shifts to that one until its shutdown etc etc. I’m afraid its not something that gonna go away.

There is no worse crime than abusing a child, anybody doing it doesn’t deserve to live. May their souls burn in hell.

timfrichards wrote:

And relate “child porn” to buying a magazine at your Newsagent.

At your Newsagent, you buy what’s on offer. If it wasn’t there, you wouldn’t buy it. Compare that with the Internet. Think about it.

If anyone wants to join me in this crusade, write to:

timfrichards@email.com

Tim.

No I don’t. I buy the magazine I’m interested in.

What a very silly argument yours is: “it’s out there, so people are going to look at it”. In my opinion, that’s complete rubbish, and I profoundly disagree with government censorship.

Good luck on your “crusade” though! :)

Getting ISPs to comply is going to be difficult, due to the international nature of the internet and the ease with which people can set up web services and so on - most uses of the web are plebs (like me!) without much technical knowledge on how to stop this kind of thing.

I think there are 2 points to make:

1) Ban viewing such sites - this is hard to police admittedly, but I’m only suggesting it in lieu of anything better. Anyone found guilty of accessing such material in the UK should (and I believe, is) be punished

2) Increase international action to prevent such sites setting up. - ISPs seem to have a similar argument to arms manufacturers in that what other people do with their services is not their problem, but an increase in multinational pressure to enforce a strong code (or just legisltate for ISPs in your country) would be a start. Again, hard to police, however the measures brought in since 9/11 to crack down on money laundering (again, very hard to police), show that this can be done when there is sufficient political will.

As for the ‘people will look if the stuff’s there’argument, I think that that’s unfortunately true (the addiction rate to Heroin in Middlesbrough shot up when supplies became easier to obtain). Some people are curious (and sick) and others are just sick but can control themselves if the alternative is directly interferring with kids, but if it’s out there, it will be viewed.

Internet Service Provider (eg Freeserve, AOL etc) :D

hoochalobster wrote:

Internet Service Provider (eg Freeserve)

That’s what they’re calling them these days then?

The people looking at the sites are far less to blame than the people putting the sites up, I think.
Paedophilia is just a sexual orientation - you can’t lock someone away for having thoughts about children, it’s in no way their fault.
Of course, actually viewing child pornography is a different matter, and that’s where the problem lies, I believe.
And then that just brings up problems of ‘if the sites didn’t exist, would these people go out and do it themselves?’, and I believe in this case, the sites to be the lesser evil.
Which doesn’t make them any better in themselves.
It’s a subject I’m torn on.
The only practical way to attempt to stop it is the punishment of those viewing it, and yet that seems to be punishing the least ‘guilty’ of everyone involved. (um, except for the children)
I think.
I have a headache.

Anyone see the program on BBC2 tonight? I feel tres sick. I think it’s a sorry state of affairs when a man can abuse children and make child pornography for 30 years and then get sentenced to a pitiful 6 for it.

I think Citizen Erased has the right idea. Making and possessing child porn is illegal and the servers who host it online should be held responsible as well as the individuals involved. If they know that they will be charged and/or heavily fined if they host such things then they’ll probably be a lot quicker to clamp down.

hoochalobster wrote:

Anyone see the program on BBC2 tonight? I feel tres sick. I think it’s a sorry state of affairs when a man can abuse children and make child pornography for 30 years and then get sentenced to a pitiful 6 for it.

I think Citizen Erased has the right idea. Making and possessing child porn is illegal and the servers who host it online should be held responsible as well as the individuals involved. If they know that they will be charged and/or heavily fined if they host such things then they’ll probably be a lot quicker to clamp down.

I saw that. I watched the programmes from a year or so ago when the investigations started.

I agree with your last paragraph there Hooch.
I’ve no idea how easy or difficult the Internet is to police, but that shouldn’t stop it BEING policed I reckon.

It’s a weird subject paedophilia, I don’t think any other topic raises as much emotion as this.

The main question is why do people do it? If you could get into what makes somebody attracted to children you’d be on course to perhaps find out how to stop it, but as has already been stated here you can’t just stop somebody’s sexual orientation.

I think that one problem is that people don’t want to try to go deeper into finding out why it happens, most people seem to be happier crying out for blood and vengenance than trying to find out a long term way of stopping it at the root. A lot of abusers seem to have been victims in the past ( which ties in with Pete Townsend’s claims ), so is there some kind of deep rooted pyscological cycle that needs to be tapped into and broken? Sometimes we seem to be happier sweeping hard to understand issues under the carpet rather than confronting them head on.

But then you look at another angle..media representation. I was looking at recent stories about Matthew Kelly appearing in a stage play. The paper was extremely damning that the audience dared to applaud him. Now then, whatever your opinion maybe of him, the bottom line is that as of yet he’s not been found guilty of anything, yet he’s still being presented in the paper as a monster who’s guilty.

It’s the stigma of paedophilia, and once it’s attached it seems to stick..the same stigma that lead to the brutual attack and near murder of somebody at the hands of a vigilante gang..his crime? He was a paedeotrician for god’s sake! And that’s what scares me about all these newspaper accusations. People generally are far too ill educated or just plain thick to cope with all the facts, they’d rather go out and kick the shit out of somebody than listen to any debate on the issue. Thankfully that doesn’t seem to be the case with the people on here I’d hasten to add.

Anybody here who is a UK resident can’t have failed to have missed the furore caused by the transmission of the Brasseye paedophile special. Here we had newspapers condem the show as sick, vile and disgusting filth ( despite the fact that some of them by their own admission didn’t even watch it )..yet on the opposite page of one very vocally opposing newspaper there was a big feature devoted to Charlotte Church’s developing cleaveage, and she had only turned 15 at the time.

Somebody at work said that paedophilia was robbing children of their innocence, but we live in a society that does that to so many on a frequent basis irrespective of how their lives pan out.

If we are to try and solve the problem of paedophilia, then I think it’s time people started looking into it more in depth, it’s all very well metting out punishments for the crime, but at the end of the day people get back out there. To try and erradicate the problem you need to find out the cause and stop it there.

The incident I was reffering to happened about 4 years ago if I recall correctly, and it was that which actually led to Chris Morris writing the BrassEye special.

I haven’t seen the show you were reffering to, so I can’t say if it’s the same event or a seperate one.

The Brass Eye special was amazing, people didn’t seen to understand that it was a piss take of the tabloid’s reaction to the whole thing and not paedophilia itself

yeah that was from brasseye, also “This man has disguised himself as a school in order to lure children”