|
Post by venceremos on Oct 20, 2014 16:50:02 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29692685I'm sure we can all agree that paedophilia is a bad thing and I'm not blaming the National Crime Agency or any other institution for saying that most of these cases won't be pursued. It would probably use up too much police time, block the court system for years and then submerge our overflowing prisons to attempt to pursue all these cases. But how appalling that 50,000 of us (ie outwardly law-abiding citizens) have become involved in this disgusting criminality. Paedophilia's always been with us and I expect the internet has given many people ready access to it where they would never have got involved in the past. Even so, that's a horrifyingly high number of people here amongst us. I'll never understand the attraction (for want of a better word) and I don't know what the answer is, if indeed there is one. Providing care and support for abused children is essential (I don't know how extensive this support is now) and might at least break the cycle of the abused growing up to become abusers themselves. Beyond that ..... I don't know. What a bloody sad situation.
|
|
|
Post by TheFoz on Oct 20, 2014 17:08:12 GMT 1
Watched a very thought provoking documentary of someone taking the law into their own hands to hunt out paedophiles because he felt the police weren't doing enough. Worth a watch but it was extremely hard to watch at times. www.channel4.com/programmes/the-paedophile-hunter
|
|
unclebob
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 128
|
Post by unclebob on Oct 20, 2014 18:39:28 GMT 1
Maybe I'm a bit unsuspecting but in 50 years I've never met anyone who either suggested they were into that sort of sickness or that I suspected. It boils down to about 1 person in 1500 so I suppose it's not that bad but it looks like we will all have come into contact with someone into that. Isn't there anything that can be done though? If it can be proved we could give them all a caution and put them on a the register because some at least be working with children.
A chap at work said that maybe it stops people like that from going any further because plenty of people watch ordinary porn and they dont turn into sex offenders. Contentious view that, the fact that they have watched it means that some poor kid has had to go through that sort of hell for other peoples sick idea of entertainment.
amother thing another collegue said was that maybe people dont always know that the stuff has been downloaded because computers can be controlled from afar or some viruses can make a computer download things without the consent. Maybe thats a load of cr@p, I dont know muchabout computers, but if were a sicko that wanted to muddy the waters and I knew about computers, thats just the sort of thing I would do. Makes me angry that so many people will get away with it, its sort of tolerating watching it and making people think they will get away with it which wont exactly discourage people from making it.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Oct 20, 2014 20:10:29 GMT 1
This is quite simply a problem of resources (lack of) and expert knowledge (lack of). It has nothing to do with the willingness or otherwise of the police and the NCA to investigate offences.
It boils down to capability. We lack it. Again, another element of the cuts to policing I harped on about a few years back.
Jim Gamble, who resigned as head of Ceop in 2010, said: "Are we going to say because there's too many we can't do it?"
He added that it was "shameful" Mr Bristow had to "come out and deliver this hard but honest message".
"And the shame belongs with [Home Secretary] Theresa May who has not invested - who has not delivered anything beyond rhetoric to make things better for children where the internet is involved."
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 21, 2014 0:21:17 GMT 1
I think it's about time they cracked down on the enabler rather than the downloader. If any newsagent/bookseller had enabled people to obtain pictures like this then they would have been raided and closed down. Google, etc. apparently provide the links to this material. They should be either blocking it or getting the sites holding this material closed down. Internet freedom is good, but not if leads to illegal material.
If access was barred then the law could persue those who still manage to get to the illegal material and there would be no question of "accidental" access.
|
|
unclebob
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 128
|
Post by unclebob on Oct 21, 2014 1:04:17 GMT 1
I think it's about time they cracked down on the enabler rather than the downloader. If any newsagent/bookseller had enabled people to obtain pictures like this then they would have been raided and closed down. Google, etc. apparently provide the links to this material. They should be either blocking it or getting the sites holding this material closed down. Internet freedom is good, but not if leads to illegal material. If access was barred then the law could persue those who still manage to get to the illegal material and there would be no question of "accidental" access. Not sure we can blame google for it, there is a new thing called the dark net which needs different internet viewing software, there was a documentary a while back about it.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Oct 21, 2014 5:03:44 GMT 1
I've heard one estimate that Google only picks up 10% of the stuff out there. Deeply concerning.
|
|
|
Post by Stewie Shrew on Oct 21, 2014 6:21:03 GMT 1
As security in a court i had the displeasure of being in a lift with one the other week, never felt like ripping someones head off so badly
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 21, 2014 10:18:37 GMT 1
I think it's about time they cracked down on the enabler rather than the downloader. If any newsagent/bookseller had enabled people to obtain pictures like this then they would have been raided and closed down. Google, etc. apparently provide the links to this material. They should be either blocking it or getting the sites holding this material closed down. Internet freedom is good, but not if leads to illegal material. If access was barred then the law could persue those who still manage to get to the illegal material and there would be no question of "accidental" access. Not sure we can blame google for it, there is a new thing called the dark net which needs different internet viewing software, there was a documentary a while back about it. According to court reports we can blame Google, for example the bloke convicted from Ludlow last week had been searching using inappropriate terms on Google according to the evidence. They know the inappropriate terminology and should prevent access to this matetial to those who use those seach terms. This simple prevention takes out the weak fools that graduate from porn to illegal, leaving the authorities to devote their resources to the determined perverts using things like the dark net.
|
|