Euro cops cuff 112 in paedophile network raids

Re: Question

Why would it matter to you? Whether one of the detained was Gary Glitter, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (unlikely now) or Fred Blogs is immaterial.

Optional

Both my next door neighbours have been arrested as part of the European-wide raids against online paedophiles.

F**k knows where I'm going to get my free wi-fi now.

"Operation Nickthekiddyfiddlers" Might have given the game away somewhat, had word got out.

Perhaps...

...you would prefer it to be called Operation "Oedipus"?

It's the closest they could get

It's about catching people who get their flies too close to sons.*

* And daughters, of course. And a small percentage of those convicted could be female too. But a pun is always worth creative license.

Err...

Police operations, afaik, are named randomly.

It's over 9000!

In other news, 4chan just imploded beyond the schadenfreude event horizon!

It's also worth noting, did all of the "Chlid porn" actually contain children?

There have been some definitions of the term lately that do include porn which does not actually contain children.

Obivously a daily mail reader

I despise people found guilty of abusing children as much as anyone, but I thought logic behind the death penalty was old testament 'eye for an eye'. You will have to go a long way to convince me that child abuse equates to murder.

I think a harsher punishment is having them languish in prison for a very long time without much to do but feel guilty for what they have done. To me killing them off is letting them off easy....

In abuses cases, no one wins and everyone loses

Sorry but as much as I hate the bastards too, I'd rather pay to have them rot in a cell dwelling on the enormity of their crime than see them "get off" with a death sentence. When you kill someone they no longer have to face up to the consequences of their actions or confront the horrendous damage they have done to their victims lives. The abused however, has to continue their life with all that terrible mental hardship, constantly influencing their decisions, especially social interaction.

And anyway, as we know from our Yankee cousins the death sentence works wonders for cutting crime and they never get the wrong person on death row!

Better if the victim is killed then...

Using your logic it would be better if the abuser killed their victim after abusing them then, as there life after being abused would be worse than if they were murdered....

Following the questionable 'eye for an eye' old testament logic, that the death penalty is built on, the worst you would be able to do to the abuser, is abuse them in the same way they abused their victim. Anything else just has no moral justification, useless of course you are part of a touch and pitchfork waving mob, baying for blood (known in modern times as Daily Mail readers).

Drug use versus child abuse

We should go after the paedos, by all means, but leave the druggies and dealers alone!

Unlike child abuse, the production, sale, and consumption of drugs involves purely voluntary transactions. These are victimless crimes.

Every hour the police waste in the War on Drugs is an hour they could have spent chasing real criminals.

"I find it hard to imagine a more henious crime than kiddy fiddling, though I suppose there might be some."

Erm, murder. Cold blooded multiple murder is not the worst crime anymore? I must have missed that memo.

"For me there can be no penalty severe enough for someone caught in the act - which even includes having materials depicting such acts."

Well that approach does not devalue the crimes of the real dirt bags who actually abuse children, if you lump in those who only have depictions, including drawings where no abuse ever took place. Also under UK law those depictions can even be of people you could legally have sex with (i.e under 18). So sure using your logic, someone who has a drawing picture of a 17 year old on their computer is as bad and should get the same punishment as some who abuses a 1 year old.

In fact your approach incentivises people into real abuse rather than sticking with looking at depictions, as the punishment would be the same. Happy you are not in charge of the justice system.

Some people really need to think past the yuck factor to get some perspective on this issue and the laws that are applied.

"On another level, I can't actually fathom what pleasure someone could ever get from sexual exploits involving children."

That's the one part I can agree with you on. Does that mean though that also disguising, are people who find very petite women attractive. Those who might be confused for being younger than they are. I.E Natalie Portman, etc

Things are a lot more complicated than just burn anyone who ever found attractive, anyone who gives the 'impression of being under 18' (wording of the law).

Boat floating

Why would somebody want to stick their penis in an anus?

Or be tie up and flogged?

Or come into a shoe?

Or watch an amputee struggle to get onto a LI-LO?

Re: I'm interested in these response

What I find interesting is the use of the word kiddy-fiddler as it presupposes that all child abuse is defined as interfering with a child in a sexual manner.

We get all up in arms about what is a relatively small number of victims because the crime presses the right buttons yet think nothing of abuse that is child labour. But what the hell, we get cheap clothes, trainers, footballs, car parts and nobody videos the children working so it's OK.