harridan tory

[Anne Onime]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded. Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it. I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ. There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay. The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly. Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

[William Black]

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded. Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it. I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ. There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay. The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly. Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.

They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...

[Saracene]

Post by William Black

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded.  Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it.  I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ.  There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay.  The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly.  Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.
They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...

Do you mean the Nips have? Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?

[William Black]

Post by Saracene

Post by William Black

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded. Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it. I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ. There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay. The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly. Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.
They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...

Do you mean the Nips have?

No, we have.

Post by Saracene
Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?

Goodness no.

[Saracene]

Post by Saracene

Post by William Black

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded.  Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it.  I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ.  There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay.  The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly.  Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.
They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...

Do you mean the Nips have?

No,  we have.
 > Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?
Goodness no.
--

What was this then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Young_Persons_%28Harmful_Publications%29_Act_1955

Provisions

Section 1 defined the kind of publication which the Act was intended
to deal with. It applied to:

"...any book, magazine or other like work which is of a kind
likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and
consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without
the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—

(a) the commission of crimes; or
(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or
(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;

in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a
child or young person into whose hands it might fall."

"Child or young person" means someone aged under 18.

Section 2(1) made it a criminal offence in England and Wales and
Scotland to print, publish, sell or let on hire such a comic, or to
possess one for the purpose of selling or letting it. The offence is
punishable by imprisonment for up to 4 months or a £1,000 fine
(increased from £100 in 1975 (Scotland) and 1982 (England)).

[William Black]

Post by Saracene

Post by William Black

Post by Saracene

Post by William Black

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded. Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it. I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ. There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay. The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly. Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.
They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...

Do you mean the Nips have?

No, we have.

Post by Saracene
Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?

Goodness no.
--

What was this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Young_Persons_%28Harmful_Publications%29_Act_1955
Provisions
Section 1 defined the kind of publication which the Act was intended
"...any book, magazine or other like work which is of a kind
likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and
consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without
the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—
(a) the commission of crimes; or
(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or
(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;
in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a
child or young person into whose hands it might fall."
"Child or young person" means someone aged under 18.
Section 2(1) made it a criminal offence in England and Wales and
Scotland to print, publish, sell or let on hire such a comic, or to
possess one for the purpose of selling or letting it. The offence is
punishable by imprisonment for up to 4 months or a £1,000 fine
(increased from £100 in 1975 (Scotland) and 1982 (England)).

Now give us the date someone was last prosecuted under this act.

[Saracene]

Post by William Black
Now give us the date someone was last prosecuted under this act.
--

There is no need too. Why not just admit you were wrong? I remember
notices on cross channel ferries classing horror comics with guns,
drugs and dogs as things not to be imported.

I said "Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?"

You minced:-

"Goodness no".

You were wrong I was right, That is all there is to it.

[Saracene]

 > Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?
Goodness no.
--

Don't you mind sounding like such a fairy?

[William Black]

Post by Saracene

Post by William Black

Post by Saracene
Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?

Goodness no.
--

Don't you mind sounding like such a fairy?

Two answers to a single post, the second being a rather vapid insult.

You're becoming obsessed...

[Saracene]

Post by Saracene

  >  Didn't we ban horror comics many years ago?
Goodness no.
--

Don't you mind sounding like such a fairy?

Two answers to a single post,  the second being  a rather vapid insult.

I'd like to cure you of your infuriating twee little verbal habits.

You're becoming obsessed...
--

Maybe. I might give this up.

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

Saracene

Jews are nice people

[Anonymous]

Post by William Black

Post by Anne Onime

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:25:54 -0000, "Ian Field"

There was a video posted on the Internet a while back of a man being
beheaded. Do you believe that the police should seek out all the
people who downloaded and watched that video, or would you be
concerned only with bringing the people who created it to justice?

You have a valid point.

Kiddie porn is big bui$ne$ - attack demand and diminish the potential for
profits while at the same time gathering intelligence that may eventually
lead back to the perpetrators.

So we are perpetually told - but without a shred of evidence to
support it. I know of only two cases in the past 15 years of people
who were convicted of creating child pornography for profit, and they
were caught PDQ. There is also the famous Landslide site that made
money out of recycling all types of pornography, child porn included -
but nobody associated with that site actually created the porn and so
the money was not an incentive to abuse children.
Think about it for a minute, and it is obvious that there *cannot* be
any significant Internet-based child porn industry any more than
heroin could be sold on ebay. The creation of child pornography is
illegal in every country in the World, and no matter how anyone
arranges to be paid, the money-trail is easily traced, and so nobody
could avoid being caught fairly quickly. Additionally, anyone selling
anything on the Internet must advertise their wares in some way or
another, and police officers can find child porn sites just as easily
as paedophiles (easier in fact).
Child pornography on the Internet *must* therefore be offered free of
charge, because that is the only possible way that the people offering
it have any chance of remaining anonymous.
--
Cynic

To say that a computer user who presses a button to reproduce an
already
existing picture "has made a picture" is blatantly dishonest.All
they have done
is reproduce what exists already.
These pictures exist in many parts of the internet and rareley
is money requested.
The authorities are, whether we like it or not, prosecuting what
can only be labelled as
thought crime. There is no child under the control of the
accused except that which is depicted
and therefore no crime against a child by the viewer.All that
exists as a result of pushing the button
are newly provoked thoughts.If child pornography is illegal then
let those charged with such illegality
be prosecuted in an honest manner.

It gets better.
They've just criminalised possession of certain Japanese manga comics if
they have paedophile type drawings in them...
William Black

That could be their way of banning all content as the japanese
age of consent is thirteen
and to permit posession would encourage unwanted thoughts about
the age of consent.