@ Lee
It gives me great relief that there are people far more intelligent than you responsible for lawmaking and enforcement in this country.
I couldn't find an icon for "dickhead" so you'll just have to imagine one for yourself.
Pupils find teacher's abuse images
A teacher who let a class use his laptop was given a suspended sentence yesterday after kids found child sex abuse images in his recycling bin. Michael Humphreys, 32, of Didsbury, allowed members of his year 11 class to use his laptop to play chess. The cunning kids checked his deleted items and found a file called 'paedo girl …
-
Wednesday 25th August 2010 20:01 GMT JaitcH
Better to amuse himself with pictures than the real goods
Sorry, the fact that someone has pictures doesn't make him a practitioner.
Many teenagers, of both sexes, view pictures that might be disturbing but it doesn't meant they will go our and ravish someone of the opposite sex in a similar way.
I remember at a public school in Wiltshire they conducted sex education lessons between the last examination of the summer term and departure for summer holidays. No teachers were allowed to be present and the person conducting the various 'grades' of education - attendance determined by age - held nothing, and I mean nothing, back.
Over the years I have recalled this part of the curriculum and realised how fortunate we were to have been taught about the various aspects rather than going out and experimenting on our own.
Personally, I am of the opinion that it is far better that people of such inclinations satisfy their needs from a computer graphic display than from real practice.
I teach teenagers English (as a second) language and some of them are really beautiful and, dare I say it, which cause improper thoughts on occasion. It doesn't mean I am either tempted or would even succumb to my temptations - and these children are perfectly safe, from me.
Likewise with this unfortunate teacher - has he ever touched a student or a minor under the age of majority?
-
Wednesday 25th August 2010 22:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Lee - Some sanity please
Can we refrain from calling people paedophiles when they are not hoarding images of prepubescent children? Because they aren't paedophiles when they are looking at images of children past puberty.
I understand that UK law describes "Child Pornography" as anyone under 18, but seriously the word paedophile has been over-used and often incorrectly.
It clearly states in the article that the man was collecting images of teenagers. That does not make him a paedophile.
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 00:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Privacy advocate != Paedo supporter
Lot of comments here seems to be non-objective.. in the sense instead of analyzing this case in isolation, they are carrying the excess baggage of privacy invasion rules and fighting those rules even if it means they have to support a pedophile.
If you really think about it, if there were no crazy paedos like this teacher [who incidentally is surrounded by kids]; crazy lawmakers would never have felt the need to create to crazy anti-porn laws.
I am anti-paedo and anti-dumbass-porn-laws at the same time. What about you ?
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 09:13 GMT David Pollard
Premature pubescence
Part of the reason behind the increasingly severe pornography laws is the fall in the age at which girls begin to mature. It is indeed quite alarming. "Many girls now begin puberty at age 7 or 8."
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/641926.html?campaign_id=rss_topStories
http://www.livescience.com/health/early-onset-puberty-girls-breast-cancer-100809.html
Whether this is due to obesity, endocrine disruptors, psychological pressures or whatever, it must be causing panic amongst the righteous. After all, someone must be to blame. And sterner laws, they believe mistakenly, will provide a remedy.
-
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 09:17 GMT TkH11
harm
The argument that's nearly always used is that downloading the pics causes the abuse to take place, it creates a market.
In this case, (and I'm sure many of these types of cases) such an argument is invalid.
No abuse took place: there was no victim.
So are we punishing people because they've caused harm?
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 10:42 GMT Vladimir Plouzhnikov
From what I can see
It appears that each of these images found on the teacher's computer could well be legal but somehow, because there were 25,000 of them the CPS and the judge decided that the teacher thought certain thoughts while looking at them.
If that is not a prosecution of a thought crime then I don't know what is.
I always thought that if each of the pictures is legal in its own right then even if you have millions of them they should still be legal. I was wrong obviously.
I am becoming seriously worried about children safety in this country now. If every paedophile out there will feel that looking at even legal pictures of children (or drawings, cartoons etc) presents the same risk to him as actually abusing children they will all be on the streets, going for the real thing, instead of wanking away in front of their PCs.
The responsibility for this will be with the moral vigilantes among the police, lawmakers and media.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 13:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
Balanced?
Problem with this is that the mail has sensationalised this and made a mountain out of a mole hill - the editor has the tabloid reflex.
However, it reports:
"The vast majority of the material was at level 1 - the least serious category - but a handful showed girls as young as six performing sex acts."
and the reg says:
"His defence told the court he had begun looking for teenage models for an art project before collecting images for "personal use".
The teacher pleaded guilty..."
If this was just a few thousand pics of kids (cat 1), he'd not have pleaded guilty. He probably fessed up because of the "...but a handful showed girls as young as six performing sex acts."
Every crime has a first step. Had he taken that step, who knows?
He had the makings of a peodo, therefore he got what he deserved.
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 14:23 GMT Ari 1
that goes against all research
Research strongly suggests a negative correlation between sex crimes (rape, child abuse etc) and porn.
That is, where porn is available, these crimes are fewer. Of course, as many areas where porn is banned are also not known for the excellence of their legal systems we might have problems sampling advanced data, but one of the studies used states in the US where laws were changed, tracking the before and after statistics.
That particular study is:
Diamond, M. (2009) Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
So, as long as he had not shown any tendencies towards actually abusing children he was probably safer where he was. Now the man has almost nothing to lose, no job prospects and such. He's probably WAY more dangerous BECAUSE of the measures taken by the state.
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 15:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thought Crime, Pre-Crime, Prejudice
"Every crime has a first step. Had he taken that step, who knows?
He had the makings of a peodo, therefore he got what he deserved."
While in this case, he was, indeed, in possession of abusive images, and had crossed that line, the end of your comment sounds similar to a dangerous attitude that seems increasingly prevalent these days.
When it comes to paedophilia and sexual abuse of children, there is an increasing move towards pre-emptive criminalisation. The so-called cartoon porn law, Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, is probably the clearest example yet.
Rather than criminalising people for what they've done or are setting about doing, we are increasingly criminalising people for what they might yet do. It's not even a case of criminalising people for what they're certainly going to do, but just for what other people believe they might do in the future.
Sometimes it is necessary to put up pre-emptive barriers, such as with drink-driving, where we criminalise people not for harm they're certainly going to do, but because of the risk they've chosen to make of themselves to other people. But there is always a need to justify such pre-emptive criminalisation: at the very least, it must be necessary, proportionate, and sufficiently clear for people to know how to avoid breaking such a law without being unduly inconvenienced. There must surely be a demonstrable, causal link between what it is that's being pre-emptively criminalised, and the related harm that such pre-emptive criminalisation is supposed to prevent.
In the case of pre-emptive criminalisation of paedophiles and ephebophiles, where paedophilia and ephebophilia are increasingly criminalised by criminalising harmless symptoms (such as possession of mere drawings), we are increasingly, pre-emptively criminalising people on the basis of desire. That's thoroughly in the realms of thought crime.
The first problem with this is that freedom of thought is - and absolutely must be - an absolute, unlimited right. Thought itself, including desire, should never be criminalised, whether directly or by proxy. We don't criminalise a wish to kill, a wish to steal, a wish to destroy, and we shouldn't be criminalising the wish to abuse - no matter how disgusting, how abhorrent, that wish might be to most of us.
The second problem is that paedophiles simply don't choose to be paedophiles, any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual. (How many straight men could successfully choose to be gay instead? (Without already being bisexual, of course.)) Criminalising paedophilia, even indirectly, is criminalising someone for something about them that they never actually chose. It's totally unjust, just as criminalising someone for having naturally blue eyes would be unjust (even though having naturally blue eyes promotes Nazism (I'm joking!)).
The third problem is that proponents of such pre-emptive criminalisation seem to have difficulty demonstrating the efficacy of such laws. While it is claimed that potential abusers "feed" their early desires by using otherwise harmless material (such as non-indecent, non-abusive images of children), where "one thing leads to another", such claims seem to lack credible, supporting evidence that doesn't amount to abusers simply trying to put the blame elsewhere (such as by blaming pictures, and even blaming children themselves).
We shouldn't be criminalising paedophiles for being paedophiles. We should return back to the original purpose of such legislation, which was to protect real children from real abuse. We shouldn't be trying to pre-empt harm by criminalising thoughts. The ends do not justify such Orwellian means. And we shouldn't be pre-emptively criminalising people just because of what we think they they might possibly do in the future. We should only pre-emptively criminalise when it's necessary, proportionate, and of demonstrable efficacy.
So, while in this case he had indeed crossed the line by possessing abusive images, I do disagree with your final line, because of how it applies, prejudicially, to those who haven't crossed the line, and may well never cross the line.
-
Friday 27th August 2010 04:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ah really???
"The second problem is that paedophiles simply don't choose to be paedophiles, any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual. (How many straight men could successfully choose to be gay instead? (Without already being bisexual, of course.)) Criminalising paedophilia, even indirectly, is criminalising someone for something about them that they never actually chose. It's totally unjust, just as criminalising someone for having naturally blue eyes would be unjust (even though having naturally blue eyes promotes Nazism (I'm joking!))"
No sir. NO.
While the jury is still out on "preference"; the actions are certainly in your control.
If your natural predisposition is to hurt others, others will hurt you back.
That's what the law is doing.
Defend privacy, not pedoz.
-
Friday 27th August 2010 10:15 GMT Bryce 2
Yes really...
Exactly what has this guy done OTHER than possess photos? Has he abused children? No. Has he hurt anyone? No.
Until he crosses the line and actually DOES abuse someone or hurt someone, then he has not committed any ACTIONS that require punishment.
Punishing him for something he MIGHT do, is what is wrong. You should punish him for something he's DONE, not what he MIGHT do.
I believe that is what the poster above you is trying to say.
-
Friday 27th August 2010 14:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Ah really???
"No sir. NO.
While the jury is still out on "preference"; the actions are certainly in your control."
I said, "The second problem is that paedophiles simply don't choose to be paedophiles, any more than heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual."
Paedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Even though you clearly do know the difference between preference and actions, you're disagreeing with what I wrote about preference, on the basis of actions. You seem to be willfully conflating chosen action with unchosen preference. And no, I don't agree the "jury is still out on "preference"". Who, given a choice, would actually want to be a paedophile, given how despised they are?
Yes, actions are indeed a matter of choice, but that doesn't mean that paedophiles actually choose to have the preferences they have. Just because a gay man gets to choose whether or not to have consensual sex with another, consenting man, it doesn't mean he therefore gets to choose whether or not to be gay in the first place. Being gay is not a "lifestyle choice". Likewise, just because child abusers choose to abuse, it doesn't mean that paedophiles choose to be paedophiles. Don't forget: there are paedophiles who choose not to abuse!
"If your natural predisposition is to hurt others, others will hurt you back.
That's what the law is doing.
Defend privacy, not pedoz."
So, even if a paedophile refuses to abuse, it's okay for the law to "hurt them back"? Not because of what they're going to do - since they refuse to abuse - but because of their unchosen preference?
Sounds like bigotry, to me.
To get an idea of the real damage that kind of bigotry does, you might like to read the following item about a 15 year old boy, driven to the brink of suicide, by paedophilia:-
http://randomreality.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2004/10/20/163041.html
"Victims
Imagine, if you will, getting sent to a job where a 15 year old boy is threatening suicide. You turn up at the address and discover that it is a care home. Meeting with one of his carers she hands you a list of the boy's medications and it reads like a 'Who's who' of psychiatric drugs. You talk to the boy, and he seems calm, collected and very polite. He explains that he wants to jump out of a window and kill himself, and agrees that he would like to go to hospital. You take him into the paediatric department of a local hospital. As this does not feel like the normal "Teenager wants to kill themselves" you have a chat with the children's nurse and you ask them to let you know what happens to the patient. You leave, and continue with your shift. The next day you ask the children's nurse about the patient and she tells you - "The boy wanted to die because he wants to have sex with, and kill small children - and that he knows that it is wrong".
I hate paedophiles as much as any other member of society - but in front of me that day, I saw a victim."
Who's the real monster? The paedophile who refuses to abuse, or those who drive them to suicide?
-
-
Monday 30th August 2010 16:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thought Crime, Pre-Crime, Prejudice - reply
Bloody hell, you don't half waffle.
I agree that everyone is entitled to have private thoughts, however in this case, this teacher choose to act on those thoughts. He did not accidently download this material, he addmitted that this material was for "personal" use and he pleaded guilty. He got what he deserved.
Now to the red-herring in you argument - homosexuality, hetrosexuality and paedophilia. As you point out, you can not tell anyone what to think and I gather the gist of your argument is that society trys to (and I agree that this is the case). The difference however with homosexuality/hetrosexuality and paedophilia is consent. When a paedophile views pictures (this is the move from mere thought to action) of children engaging in sexual acts, they are contributing to the industry of abusing kids - they are creating the market. "The second problem is that paedophiles simply don't choose to be paedophiles,..." - the children who are in these pictures (of abuse) do not choose to be abused.
The crossing line bit. Well the line is where ever you want it to be. You'll have the black and white thinkers (prejudicial?) i.e. right and wrong and then there are those who can see the greys. When it comes to children, I think you'll find people tend to side with the black and white crew. When people hear of individuals viewing pictures of child abuse, they might view this as contributing to the the problem and they want to see them punished.
-
-
-
Thursday 26th August 2010 13:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Child P0rn from torrents sites, a good thing?
This is tougue in cheek before the flaming starts....
'He had used special 'torrent searches' to automatically trawl the internet for the material, the court heard.'
Since dowloads of music and movies from torrents sites are killing off those industries (according to the them). Then by the same logic, ped0monsters getting child pr0n from torrents sites, rather than paying for it are, are killing off the child abuse industry. What a hero this guy is....
Amonymous? you bet....
-
Friday 27th August 2010 14:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Interesting... (AC obviously)
Does anyone else find it odd that so many 'IT professionals' have such an extensive knowledge of what is and what is not classified as porn, child or other. I have noticed over the years that articles of a sexual nature generally generate more comments (articles about anything from Mr Jobs and Co. excluded of course). I doubt that many posters work in the field of crime enforcement or the judiciary so tell me boys and girls, why are some of you very knowledgable about what you can safely have on your computer which although potentially pornographic, is in fact safe to the point that you can spout verbatim, what is and what is not defined as child porn...!!!!
Just on a point about the story in question, the title of the file could have born no relation to the content of the file, we should all be aware of unhiding the file extension for known extensions and no doubt, we have all seen filename.ppt.exe along our travels. Also, it is not IMHO beyond the realms of reality for a student to have had suspiscions about this teacher and planted the file to lead to a police investigation. Obviously, either way, he was clearly a naughty teacher and deserves his punishment but I just wanted to make a few points.
Please don't waste my time or yours flaming for the sake of flaming, it is generally accepted that the more homophobic you are, the more uncomfortable you are about your own sexuality and your attraction to the same sex so anyone flaming for the sake of it, please consider this thought...
-
Friday 27th August 2010 18:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hitler and Niemöller
"I doubt that many posters work in the field of crime enforcement or the judiciary so tell me boys and girls, why are some of you very knowledgable about what you can safely have on your computer which although potentially pornographic, is in fact safe to the point that you can spout verbatim, what is and what is not defined as child porn...!!!!"
For me, it's a combination of Hitler and Pastor Niemöller:-
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." - Adolf Hitler.
"As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty." - Rabbi Daniel Lapin, remarking on that Hitler quote.
"First they came..." - Pastor Martin Niemöller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
If you look at the important, fundamental principles that are sacrificed in the name of protecting children from paedophiles (and similarly when it comes to extreme porn), you see just what an important point Rabbi Daniel Lapin has. And it's not just legislation such as Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that is cause for concern, it's also stuff like the Vetting and Barring Scheme with the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and other Orwellian Big Brother stuff.
Pastor Niemöller comes into it because, if I'm not prepared to speak out (anonymously, of course), who else can I expect to speak about against what's been happening? That's why I've bothered to read legislation that doesn't seem to directly affect me.
We haven't got to the point of sweeping purges - yet - but learning from history, it looks like we've already been heading down that kind of road. Perhaps we still are. Big Brother databases were already being set up (didn't IBM provide useful hardware to Nazi Germany?); the Vetting and Barring Scheme was being established; control orders were being imposed on terrorist suspects - not convicted, and with the "evidence" kept secret, even from their own lawyers; children were (still are?) being locked up in detention centres as illegal immigrants; fast-track deportation of allegedly bogus asylum seekers, with swift raids to deny them time to even seek legal advice and possibly appeal; the political use of fear of terrorism as an excuse to salami-slice our rights and freedoms away; protesters branded and databased as "domestic extremists" by ACPO...
I have no wish to draw dirty drawings of children. But if I can commit a sex crime, just by drawing the wrong kind of picture, in private, then it's obvious: I do not live in a free country.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
