Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2

[MrsjREwing]

Last thread full.

Steve has released a statement responding to Lord McAlpines statement.

I think they must have done. I mean I've never been to Cheltenham but I've been to Gloucester.

didnt his family own homes in Wrexham?

The Cyril Smith stuff has been out for years. I remember being told it about 25 years ago by a journalist. He told me there are lots of stories about high profile people which the Press have agreed to "sit on". This was one of them. I can't remember many of the the other names he told me. Not all stories were necessarily about child abuse, he wouldn't go into detail.

At this rate they'll be re-opening the Jeremy Thorpe trial. FFS. Why can't the police go after people who have never been held to account, and who are actually alive?

edam several weeks ago all of the papers announced that 3 Drs had been linked to JS at one of the hospitals and accused of crimes against children.

What happened to that story?

Unbelievable isnt it.

Nope it's bloody typical see here is another twat getting off scot free.
m.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/community/letters/editor-s-comment-decision-to-set-school-governor-pervert-free-is-a-disgrace-1-5121397

I'm just off to try and find out who the magistrate is.

Tips, there is a huge difference between possessing an image and interfering with children, though. When we conflate things in a sense we render less serious other things. It is why I think it wrong that a 17 year old boy who thought a girl was 16 and she was 15 should not be a sex offender register. Very different act from the 40 year old with an 8 year old boy or girl.

This is our 1600s witch hunt these days. By all means we want those who engage in illegal acts with those under the age of consent to be prosecuted but allegations must be proved.

Sorry for the capitals it's just how I found the court report.

CONNARTY, WHO IS OF PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER, IS REMORSEFUL AND CLAIMS HE THOUGHT THE IMAGES WERE PRETTY GIRLS AND HE HAD NO SEXUAL INTEREST AND DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE ILLEGAL. DISTRICT JUDGE ANDREW DAVISON REGISTERED CONNARTY UNDER A FIVE YEAR SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDER AND SENTENCED HIM TO AN 18 MONTH COMMUNITY ORDER WITH SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT. CONNARTY WAS ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL COSTS.

i find 'interfering with children' offensive and trivialising as a phrase.

and those 'images' are captured moments of an actual act of abuse.

and both of those examples are of sex offenses so why should they not be on a sex offender register? sure they're not the same offenses but they are both acts done against the law pertaining to sex ergo sex offences.

plus actually bringing hypothetical 16yo's into this is actually an attempt to trivialise in itself.

i know a good pen name if you fancy writing an article for the mail on sunday.

Tips, there is a huge difference between possessing an image and interfering with children, though
no there really isn't Xenia, as swallowedafly said, how do you think those images were made? with plasticene figures?
every viewer contributes to the industry.

we really have to get past this ludicrous idea that images are just fantasies or something. they are pictures of real human beings being abused.

Gosh Xenia I nearly wrote a post yesterday about you but I didn't as I thought twice. I wasn't being very nice.
What is your agenda? You appear to post excuses for people at every opportunity, all wrapped up in a cloud of abuse is terrible BUT......
You also appear to have a very skewed 1950's outlook on life. What's naice and what isn't is what the common working class people do.
Do keep posting though cos every time you post something particularly stupid it spurs me on to keep picking at this scab of child abuse

essentially would you not convict the guy who paid to stand in the corner and watch a child be raped because he didn't physically 'do' it? that's what the image viewer is - the guy standing in the corner and without him there'd be no need for the child to be raped.

Ah fuck I just fell for the divide and rule jobbie.

Leave it swallowed -there is nothing to see here-just keep walking.
Keep the focus on the abusers not the naysayers.

it's all divide and rule with xenia - everything is black and white - working mum good, sahm bad. earning little - didn't try hard enough, earning a lot - good hardworking person. 'just an image' v child abuse etc.

if only life was actually so simple.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/north-wales-abuse-cases-report

Let's hope the abusers are shitting themselves now

In radio interviews, Jillings, a respected expert on social services, has said his inquiry focused on staff members at the home and not people in public life.

The report is limited to the school though.

I wonder if any photos turn up?

I so hope it is actual one not one which has been recently typed

I was silly to think the "hang the paeds" lynch mob people would want a proper debate. Thankfully they are not in charge and we still have fair trials in the UK.

In no way do I support any abuse of children ever. I even think every parent who ever smacks or slaps a child should be taken to task (and I always do when I see it even in shops).

Xenia where on earth do you shop. I have never ever seen any child smacked in waitrose

Tips
I hope your post is tongue in cheek or is it only the "lower orders" who smack their children.

Xenia has a legal background and from a strict legal sense what she is saying is correct possession of photograph of child abuse (I refuse to use the term child pornography) is not deemed as serious as performing the abuse itself. Both are part of the same sordid spectrum but one is more serious than the other.

but they are totally interconnected. the abuse was performed so that the person masturbating in the virtual corner could do so. they are not viewing 'a picture' they are buying the abuse of a real child.