back to article Holiday snaps? Er, no - criminal porn

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it especially clever, if you’re voluntarily handing your PC over to the police to assist them in their inquiries, not to understand the difference between “holiday snaps” and pictures of a criminally pornographic or indecent nature. That, however, was the fairly elementary mistake made …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Watch out J-Pop fans

    Make sure you don't have any photobooks or the attached dvds!

  2. paulf Silver badge

    I wonder...

    ...if the dodgy grumble was downloaded from a site that advertises in the Hull Daily "Pure as the driven snow" Mail's escort and dodgy services section*.

    *At the end of the newspaper as far away as possible from the "Holier than thou" section at the front...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      probably best to avoid anything Japanese

      Did anyone see that program on iPlayer about the teenage girl who accidentally became famous in Japan when she posted a youtube video of herself dancing?

      The dad was such a dick I thought to myself "this man HAS to be a cop" and sure enough the narrator announced that he was. I would have laughed if it wasn't so tragic.

      "as a cop", he would repeatedly tell us, "I'm well aware that the internet was invented by paedophiles to lure children"

      Think that's an exaggeration? Watch the show. I wanted to punch the screen.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        Beckie Cruel.

        Kozue Aikawa for me k thx, far cuter, got to shake her hand after a danceroid gig w00t lol.

        Backie Cruel's dad is also a money grab git if the documentary is to be believed.

        Actually my buddy was one of the first people to do the lucky star dance thing, he got over 2 million hits lol.

        Yeah also don't get most of AKB's older PV's or latest pv, lots of teen girls jumping, panties showing, songs about the school uniform getting in the way. Damn you youtube provider of CP!

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge


        "as a cop", he would repeatedly tell us, "I'm well aware that the internet was invented* by paedophiles to lure children"

        Is it just me or did sound quite hopeful that *was* what the internet was for?

        *And I don't think the various contributors at BBN and ARPA would be happy with that description of themselves.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Question for her parents.....

        'So, how many times a day do you think your little girl's 'super-fan' wanks off to video's of her dancing in a short skirt?'

    2. LinkOfHyrule

      Hell Daily Mail

      the mac daddy of Humberside.

      Mac daddy as in pimp, not Steve Jobs

      And no offence to Hull by saying "Hell Daily Mail" either!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Something rotten... work here. As far as I can glean from numerous news reports, Mr Bohling has complained about police procedure in the search for his missing son. That's something worth bearing in mind.

    As for the charges of chil pr0n: clearly utterly ridiculous.

    "When he was interviewed on the first occasion he said he didn't understand that a photograph which wasn't nude in which no sexual activity was depicted could be seen to be indecent."

    Chilling, isn't it? Reads like something out of Orwell. Remind me: how much does 2+2 equal, again..?

    Well, I'm sure most ordinary proles would probably echo the sentiment. If a photo - or an entire series of photos - are clearly 'Level 1' they are also clearly non-pornographic. The police will, of course, disagree: having successfully pulled off the trick of convincing British Courts to view a non-pornographic image as 'child pr0n', they know better than anyone how easy it is to get a charge. The 'making' charge is utter drivel, and everyone (apart from the police, apparently) knows it.

    This whole thing stinks. Honestly, does anyone in the police service these days even remember what it was they were supposed to have signed on for? How have they reduced themselves to this squalid state? Did they jump or were they pushed?

  4. alphaxion

    something I don't get

    We see "ignorance of the law is no excuse" often trotted out to slam the book of law at some idiot, yet politico's get to use this very excuse to get off scott free and only have to apologise for very serious cases of fraud, corruption and abuse of position!

    How can that be? Surely they should be getting a spanking by the law just like this dimwitted fellow.

    1. Hud Dunlap
      Paris Hilton

      You mean like photos from laptops??

      He should have worked for the school board in the the U.S.. Obviously there was no criminal intent.

      Paris, because she tried that angle on here violation of probation conviction. I think she said " I just sign what people tell me to sign".

    2. feargal halligan

      Yes, but...

      "pornographic" or not, it's still 400 pictures of kids you don't know on your laptop.

      Sure, the cops may be magnifying kids in the background, distorting the focus or whatever, but do you have 400 pictures of kids you don't know on your latop? If it were just these pics I'm not sure I'd feel this way, but in the context of a bunch of animal porn which was bought online... well, I just think a lot of people who are talking about 1984 etc are forgetting the simple fact that - "pornographic" or not, 400 pictures of kids is worth a question or two, certainly IMHO.

      The notion that the british police are on a crusade to convince anyone of anything is a bit simplistic to me, and I honestly don't think that investigating large collections of kiddie pics is somehow a million miles from their job.

      Fact is that even if my best mate was caught out like this, my first question - assuming they weren't planted - would not be "what did you do to anger the cops" it would be "what the fuck were you doing with 400 pics of kids on your hard drive.

      Privacy is one thing, but people abuse privacy just like they abuse kids: to read some comments here it's like people are trying to deny that molesting kids is a problem, people defending right to privacy seem to rather not discuss that aspect and like to frame anyone who does as a hysterical paedophile. IMHO it is not unreasonable to assume that someone with 400 poics of kids he doesn't know might need some help.

      Funnily enough, it's not the law that then proceeds to witch hunt and stigmatise these people: it's the public and the media. I get the impression that it's easier to blame the cops for this situation than the more complex blame that is carried by our messed up society.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, but...

        "what the fuck were you doing with 400 pics of kids on your hard drive."

        to which the proper retort is "why the fuck is it any of your business?"

        If it's not child porn then he hasn't committed a crime. Simply looking at children is not a crime. It's just not. Doesn't matter whether you look at 4 children or 400 children.

        "to read some comments here it's like people are trying to deny that molesting kids is a problem"

        No one is saying that. Where is the proof that he molested kids? Oh that's right, there isn't any. And in the absence of proof, what are people? Innocent. Say it with me; I - N - N - O - C - E - N - T. That's right.

        We do have proof that certain weird hatted individuals who work for a certain weird cult covered up REAL child molestation but what are we doing about that?

        Oh that's right


      2. Anonymous Coward

        Yes, but...

        Be careful. While I'm sure that the police aren't on a crusade to take away all our civil rights, the first question should be 'what's the motivation, and how might that impact what they say, and how they word it.

        I have "dozens, if not hundreds of pictures of children on my hard drive, up the age to 3 years old."

        Family photos of my niece, my sister & my parents, and at least a couple with some toddler friends of my niece (hence justifying use of the word 'children' rather than 'child')

        But see how they could spin it if they wanted to?

        If a mate of mine was caught out like this, my first question would be 'What really happened in there? Tell me your side of the story!'...

        Sure, he may be a secret kiddie fiddler, but I wouldn't assume that without giving him a chance to explain himself first...

        1. TimeMaster T

          OK ...

          "While I'm sure that the police aren't on a crusade to take away all our civil rights"

          You haven't really been paying attention have you?

      3. A J Stiles

        I call bull

        "I just think a lot of people who are talking about 1984 etc are forgetting the simple fact that - 'pornographic' or not, 400 pictures of kids is worth a question or two"


        There is no more evidence that looking at pictures of children leads people to abuse children, than there is evidence that looking at pictures of sports cars leads people to break the speed limit, or evidence that looking at pictures of bottles of booze leads people to become alcoholics. Or evidence that looking at pictures of famous adults leads people to become stalkers.

        Hell, even if the guy was getting his rocks off, *as long as it was only into a box of tissues* then I can't really find that objectionable. As long as it was only into a box of tissues.

        "Funnily enough, it's not the law that then proceeds to witch hunt and stigmatise these people: it's the public and the media."

        Yes. It's people like *you* that try to imply guilt by association, "Oh, the guy must be a pervert", making us all afraid of our own shadows. (44% of men and 28% of women would think twice about helping a child in distress: -- meaning, if anything, that a child in distress is now *more* likely to be "helped" by an undesirable. And they are just the ones who aren't afraid of looking selfish in a survey.)

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        "but in the context of a bunch of animal porn which was bought online"

        Er, if I read the article right, it was bought online, but by someone ELSE.

        He snaffled a copy of it, no evidence or suggestion that money changed hands.

      5. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        @ Feargal

        YOU are an example of the "more complex blame that is carried by our messed up society". Children are meant to be attractive (in the sense of kittens and flowers) to humans - we are genetically programmed to find them so. Our "messed up society" has managed to turn that into a general sign of wrongness. People are now afraid to show care and consideration to children in public - that is way beyond "messed up", old boy.

        1. Scorchio!!


          Indeed. My niece wanted a piggy back from me on Friday. I refused and would not be persuaded, precisely because of the past 13 years of state snooping (by CCTV, the use of RIPA etcetera) by a government which has increasingly restricted the civil rights of its electorate in a manner that has horrified watchers across Europe and the US. A state in which a police officer calls in social services because a woman is decorating her house, and it does not look to his eye to be suitable for her children, a state in which elderly folk on a beach are reported for photography that might also encompass the children playing there, a state in which schools explicitly ban parents from using cameras because of the use to which the photographs might be put.

          Why not simply ban all photography of kids? This is almost as bad as the burkha. The coincidence of small minded people in the executive with small minded people in the legislature is making this country a bed of nails.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Big Brother


        I would struggle to think of why a person would want 400 pictures of children they don't know on their computer, but there may be valid reasons. I have a fair few pictures of people I don't know on mine. Partly pictures of cute Asians (though, TBH, I don't quite "get" the whole idol thing so I tend to look for those that are old enough to be a potential girlfriend, not my daughter!), but I also have a number of images of children (not revealing, I might point out) because when writing stories and such I find a face helps to visualise better. No idea (nor much interest) who the original is, if I see a picture on-line that I like the look of (male, female, young and old - it is NOT a sexual thing) then I save a copy and invent their backstory...

        ...the point, however, that I'd like to get to is before our messed up society does its knee-jerk witch-hunt routine, it would be really good to get actual hard statistics on how many internet paedophiles are actually known about (convicted or not), and then relate that with how many children are abused by their own parents/uncles/brothers/step-fathers and other assorted family members. And while we're at it, don't just stop with daddy sticking his dick where it oughtn't ever go, include also those oh-so-loving parents that trot out "you're useless, you never do anything right" day after day after day...

        AC, because some people with more power than intelligence are pretty good at seeing what they want to see and disregarding the rest.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up


      When my TV was stolen I reported it to the police. They came round to "look for evidence" but when they got here they took one look at the spot where the TV used to be and arrested me for "being in possession of an area of free space likely to be useful for bomb making".

      True story.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge


        "They came round to "look for evidence" but when they got here they took one look at the spot where the TV used to be and arrested me for "being in possession of an area of free space likely to be useful for bomb making"."

        This didn't have anything to do with "Possession of a dark skin and full beard"?

        You can guess what's on my DVD.

    4. Andy 3

      Re: Something rotten...

      An insciption above the entrance to the Old Bailey reads:

      “Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer.”

      The police and justice system have not forgotten what they signed up for. Perhaps it is you that have forgotten right from wrong?

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        @Andy 3

        I think you'll find it reads "Punishment to the evil doer, justice for the children of the poor."

        That is a fact. The rest is your opinion.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Something rotten...

      While I gave your comment a thumbs up, because I agree with the broad sentiment, there's something I don't quite agree with:-

      "If a photo - or an entire series of photos - are clearly 'Level 1' they are also clearly non-pornographic."

      That's not actually the case (depending on what's meant by "pornographic", and assuming you mean "indecent"). The Protection of Children Act 1978 criminalises possession of indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children, and indecency doesn't have to be limited to just what's pornographic.

      While there are SAP level 1 images that aren't indecent, there are also SAP level 1 images that are indecent.

      SAP level 1: "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity."

      SAP level 2: "Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation by a child."

      Erotic posing can be clothed as well as unclothed. Flashing knickers could be an example. So could posing nude, with legs spread and labia majora spread apart for a clearer view, as long as it's not then "solo masturbation" (as that would then be level 2).

      But does "erotic" automatically mean "indecent"? No, of course not.

      A 17-year-old striking a sexy pose in sexy underwear may well count as "erotic posing" without being indecent. Think, for example, of a teenager going to see the Rocky Horror Picture Show at the local flea pit, dressed accordingly, and not indecently exposing herself while doing so. And think of that same teenager putting up some photos of that fun night out up on Facebook.

      But a 9-year-old, posed to show underwear in a series of photographs that would otherwise be recognisable as "non-nude porn" in the case of, say, Tiffany Teen? Does that child understand why they're being posed in such ways? Would they agree to such "modelling" if they really understood what it's for? Is it not a mild form of abuse? Are such images really not indecent?

      I remember, in infant school, that the game of "knicker chase" was not allowed, because it was "dirty". But we did PE lessons in nothing but our underwear - vests and knickers for the girls, who were then showing more than when caught in "knicker chase". In secondary school, teachers made us all take all our clothes off in front of each other. Showers after PE wouldn't have been quite so effective at rinsing the sweat off our bodies, otherwise.

      Context and purpose are relevant to determining whether or not photographs are indecent.

      According to the article:-

      "The images were accessed after payment was made by credit card and then downloaded onto a third party's computer. Bohling subsequently copied the files to his computer.

      According to prosecutor Karen Quintick, appearing in Beverley Magistrates’ Court earlier this week, the first set of images were "of young children and pre-teens wearing clothes and posing to reveal their underwear"."

      Sounds like "non-nude porn", but with children. As abuse, it might be very mild, but still an inappropriate way to commercially exploit children. Sounds like a case of the Protection of Children Act 1978 being applied as originally intended.

      But, having said all that, I do agree that we shouldn't be criminalising possession of non-indecent images simply because we don't like the possessor's thoughts. While the original purpose of posing a child in a particular way may well contribute to making the subsequent image indecent, I don't agree that an otherwise non-indecent image can magically become indecent by being looked at "in the wrong kind of way". We shouldn't be criminalising paedophiles for being paedophiles. That's why I was inclined to give your comment a thumbs up.

    6. henrydddd
      Thumb Down


      In the US, child pornography laws were expanded to include sexually provocative shots (no sex acts involved). The people pushing for this law change reassured parents that they would not be prosecuted for having bath tub shots and the like. The interpretation of this laws now includes all frontal nudity. In the US people have been sent to prison and classified as sex offenders for having bath tub shots of themselves! Children are being classified as sex offenders for sending nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves to each other. In this case the victim is being punished. Laws are needed to protect children from predators, but somehow things have gone too far the other way in some cases.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      re - something rotten

      Your rant is funny - reads like some conspiracy theory.

      You've choosen to read this with your blinkers on and paid no attention to what's actually been said. The reg has put out the bait and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.


  5. Natalie Gritpants

    I may not be Poirot

    but I can guarantee that his missing son wasn't inside the PC.

  6. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

    Understand the law? How!

    Whilst I in no way condone this person possessing these pictures, this story indicates how difficult it is to live in the modern world.

    Ignorance of the law is no protection, but if this is the case, surely there is an onus on the government to make sure that the most pertinent features of existing and new laws are publicised to give people a chance to comply?

    A case in point is the Coroners and Justice act 2009 (I think), which has been discussed often in these forums, which is largely unknown to almost everyone that I talk to in my social circles. This includes a significant number of family friends (mainly of my daughter) who have an interest in mainstream manga and animé.

    I'm sure that there are titles that are regularly stocked on the shelves of high street book sellers that contain pictures of seemingly young people (often, but not exclusively girls) in compromising positions. And the fact that they are drawings makes no difference to the legislation. Even if the worst of the titles are removed from the shelves, there will be copies in peoples private collections or in the second hand market.

    Why are there not warnings on the bookshelves, Amazon, and everywhere else people who may have such titles will see to check their collections?

    And I am still not clear about how the law can be operated. If you take general landscape pictures on a beach where young children are playing, and without any intent, capture an image of a child in a state of undress where the child is in an accidentally provocative pose (like falling on their back at the moment that the picture was taken), this picture may fall foul of the law.

    Now don't get me wrong, I do not often take pictures on the beach, even though I live in a seaside town. But I could not guarantee that in the 1000's of pictures I have taken over the years, that I do not have something like that either on paper, negative, or stored on CD-ROM.

    And things that may have been regarded as totally innocent 60 or 70 years ago, even in quite prudish times, may also fall foul of this legislation. Acquiring such pictures before the legislation came into effect is no defence either.

    So how many of us have checked our photo collections? I know I was shocked to find that one of my archive CD's has pictures taken using my first digital camera, which I let my two youngest sons play with when they were about 6 and 4. Some of these pictures are explicitly of their nether regions, taken I presume for a giggle, in the way that young kids do. I copied them wholesale without checking to CD and backed up this CD several times as I added to the collection. This means I now have pictures of undressed young boys scattered around on numerous disks. I doubt I could find all of them even if I tried. Am I a criminal? How can I prove that I did not take the pictures, or even that they are of my own kids?

    In this, and several other instances, the law is definitely an ass, and so open to interpretation that I pity the poor defendants who get dragged in to cases that are taken to court to try to set precedent.

  7. Rogerborg

    To be fair to the disgusting kiddie fiddler

    Pictures taken from the front row of a Pussycat Dolls or Miley Cyrus concert would likely be "level 1".

    No? Take a high res picture, crop out the few bits that aren't gyrating crotch and sweaty sweater-meat, and they'd be indistinguishable from a low res perv-zoom shot. I said "ZOOM" shot, you filthy beggars.

    I guess it's OK if you do your perving in a crowd though.

  8. Anonymous Coward

    Naked Children!

    Remind me not to go to church - the last time I was there I saw images of naked children on the ceiling and a statue of some guy who's had his skin flayed off him ... and what's the the dude nailed to the sticks - he's almost completely naked!

    Oh, think of the Children.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Damn, and damn.

      Meant to AC my previous comment, but what the heck. It's fairly innocuous.

      Hang on, who's that beating down my door?

      CDs and DVDs officer? Yes, I have several hundred scattered around. Where do you want to start? Oh! you want to take them all away! Can I have a receipt please? And please note the ones you can't read are not encrypted, they're almost certainly ones that have failed to burn, and I forgot to throw away. No. Really. They don't have encryption keys for them. No. NO. Not the cuffs!

      Help. Call a lawyer!

      1. TimeMaster T


        "Meant to AC my previous comment"

        Funny that ...

        You actually felt the need to hide your identity while pointing out how the current laws can be used against innocent people.

        Isn't it about time people started doing something about this? How many peoples lives will be destroyed before the rest of us get outraged enough to actually do something?

        Not anon, because I'm not going to hide because I'm afraid of what might happen if I disagree with Big Brother.

      2. TimeMaster T


        "Meant to AC my previous comment"

        Funny that ...

        You actually felt the need to hide your identity while pointing out how the current laws can be used against innocent people.

        Isn't it about time people started doing something about this? How many peoples lives will be destroyed before the rest of us get outraged enough to actually do something?

        Not anon, because I'm not going to hide because I'm afraid of what might happen if I disagree with Big Brother.

        And for the record, I am afraid.

        Of our governments. More afraid in fact of them than I am of terrorists.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          @ Timemaster T

          Indeed, in this past decade it has become quite clear that the terrorists have won their battle against us.

          No, not the ones living in sand dunes with different beliefs...

          ...the ones that hang out in Washington and Westminster and forgot the whole "of the people and for the people" ethos a long long time ago.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      In many of the cases where people are done for kiddy pics, they are nailed for 16 specimen charge images, but it is often mentioned by the police that they had tens/hundreds of thousands of images in total. But the phrasing of this sometimes suggests that the larger number images were not at all of the same nature, and that the police are using the mention of the mass of images to insinuate they are the same as the specimen images - "painting a picture" if you will - or perhaps just that someone with such an unhealthy interest in smut is worth banging up any way.

      Like you, I've got CD backups that go way back to the early days of the net, when I just used to chuck the contents of the HD onto a CD, including the browser cache. Given the wilder nature of the web in the late 90s and the wall to wall ads for smut on just about any page that made it into Yahoo's keyword stuffed top 100, I dread to think what might have ended up in those browser caches without my ever seeing the images in question, and I'd think I'm far from the only one who has no idea whats lurking in their archive.

      How guy in this case thought "holiday snaps" of other peoples kids with their kit off was OK, I really don't know. But the line between what is OK or strictly legal and what isn't seems to move depending on whether you've had an axe to grind with the police. By nailing people because they don't like the cut of their jib the law seriously devalues the severity of those genuine cases they rightly pursue vigorously and contributes to the Daily Fail hysterical fearmongering that every male between 30-100 is an evil kiddy fiddler that just hasn't been caught yet.

  9. Anonymous Coward

    Puzzled by this...

    This puzzles me:

    I'm a graphic designer by trade, and a BDSM freak by nature. I often describe myself as a "pervert" and was - justifiably I think - quite worried by the invasive powers of the extreme pornography act which appears to threaten my right to tie up and beat my wife and acquaintances and then photograph these acts.

    But despite my trade and sexual proclivities, I don't even have 400 pornographic pictures, period. Certainly not the 25,000 that the teacher in mnachester had - that's IMHO an outrageous amount of material. And - strangely enough - I don't have *any* pictures of minors whatsoever, barring those of my nieces and nephews and friends' kids who - surprise surprise - aren't showing their fucking underwear, posing provocatively or anything of the sort.

    I'd think of myself as the most liberal you can be without becoming pointlessly radical, basically, and I believe extremely strongly in peoples' right to consensual whateverthefucktheywant: yes, even cannibalism, once tests of mental stability are passed, is a permissable consensual act in my opinion: you want to do it, then sign the forms, do the interviews, and chow down (you mad bastard, you)

    But I just cannot understand where people get the notion that downloading pics of kids is okay: or indeed animals. How people can keep collections of hundred of images of kids showing their underwear and not think it's a problem is beyond me. Kids - and animals - cannot consent, and while I do not thing you are WRONG or EVIL I just don't get why you can't realise that you need help to live in a civilised society.

    In many ways, I think it underlines how completely fucked up so-called normal sexuality is in this world - something that us BDSM people actually find unnerving and a bit disgusting.

    But really: "my collection of 400 pics of kids showing their underwear is completely innocent and normal"?

    Really? People think that? And please, don't give me that "they're not molexting anyone" routine: people who believe they're napoleon aren't hurting anyone either, but they still need help because inevitably their way of thinking is going to cause problems.

    But hey, I'm a wierdo, maybe that's just me...

  10. TkH11


    He handed the computer to the Police knowing there were images on there despite the consequences for himself....the guy is an idiot. Delete them first then, at least give yourself a chance at not getting caught!

    We all know they can recover deleted images unless more advanced precautions are taken but the Police would have been looking for websites accessed, emails etc.

    One thing you can never ever do, is trust the Police. May be you think yo are helping them find your child, but at the end of the day, any chance to screw you, and they will take it. Always do.

    1. Bob Wheeler
      Thumb Up

      Spot On

      Hey feller, I think your spot on with this.

      Some folks like football, some go to church, other get the whips and chains out - a big so what as long as you don't come around to my house to watch football etc.

      Certainly since the advent of digital camrars it is now so easy to take your holiday snaps by the thousand rather then the old fashioned roll of 36 kodak moments. I could not say how many holiday/party/family photos I have now but in the best prat of 10 years it is in thousands. Almost without fail I could name just about every one on those photos, or at least put the photo into social context.

      However, I'm a building freak - I love odd/quaint/unusal buildings and I take a photo of a house or building as and when I see one I like. But and this is the point, I have about 2 or 3 dozen assorted photos of buildings, not 25,000. But I guess I don't have to worry as I've never seen a building posing yet!

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        @Bob Wheeler

        "Some folks like football, some go to church, other get the whips and chains out - a big so what as long as you don't come around to my house to watch football etc."

        Actually you might find some people do *all* three (although not at the same time).

    2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      So am I but for different reasons

      "How people can keep collections of hundred of images of kids showing their underwear and not think it's a problem is beyond underlines how completely fucked up so-called normal sexuality is in this world - something that us BDSM people actually find unnerving and a bit disgusting."

      Well, I can't tell for everyone but I consider myself pretty "normal" sexually and I too find these things unnerving and disgusting, so BDSM people do not have monopoly on that.

      But I'm also puzzled: why does it seem that anytime anyone's computer appears in the possession of the police they find child porn images on it (especially if it belongs to a teacher)?

      Are they all being framed by the police? Is it because of selective publicity in the media? Or is it because we have much higher proportion of paedophiles in the society than we would have thought otherwise?

      If it's the latter - we (collectively) must be doing something very wrong because we seem to be in denial.

      I am quite sure that the proportion of paedophiles among people should stay pretty much constant throughout the time, just like that of other mental illnesses (unless there are factors involved such as some kind of mass poisoning/mutation etc).

      That means that if we see a lot of paedophiles now there were lots of paedophiles before, always. Yet, we are still here and the society has not collapsed. That means in turn that most of the paedophiles are not trying to act out on their fantasies.

      So does it make sense to seek out and prosecute these latent/passive paedos if they are not the ones doing the damage? Why not leave them be but concentrate on those who actually abuse children, those who make the photos (and not those who only look at them)? Why not let the passive ones to quietly draw their fantasies on paper and in CGI but crash like a proverbial ton of bricks on those who physically molests children?

      It seems to me that the authorities are doing exactly the opposite - going for the easy target, "low hanging fruit", the capture of which gives them opportunities to announce major victories, to stage high-profile prosecutions of small fish while the real sharks keep swimming in the deep.

      I have a big problem with such approach.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Some sense at last

        (sorry I'm the BDSM AC from above, who's probably gonna forget to click the anymous box any minute now...!)

        This is a much more interesting point, and invloves the kind of shades of grey where the police are just being lazy - I find this easier to believe. IMHO the term "paedophile" implies a discrete set of symptoms and defined behaviour, and doesn't really exist - all you have is varying degrees of poorly controlled impulsive behaviour, which at the thick end of the wedge amounts to being monstrous.

        My simple answer is I don't know: it's not simple, is it? We could be dealing with a horrific and underground human trait (which I doubt) or simply the psychological detritus of our extremely repressed and messed up society. What people can't discuss really festers - so it's hard to talk in terms of how many "paedos" that there "are" without talking about contributing factors.

        I think the biggest point though is that if *we* - society in general - weren't so fucking lazy, and didn't bother our arses trying to actually understand what the problem is, rather than bundling it all into the "lynch them" box, then the actions of the police wouldn't be such a huge problem:

        But the thing is it works that way in all areas: a burglar - probably the smallest fry in terms of crime that damages society - pays the most and generally will never work again. Just because they're not listed on a register doesn't mean that they're victimised despite being in a sense predators.

        Okay I'll shut up now and go eat lunch.

        1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Here we go again

          An article appeared on BBC an hour ago:


          Two teachers have been arrested in the West Midlands on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

          The men, aged 37 and 43, who teach at separate Solihull schools, were arrested in Monkspath, Solihull. Both have been suspended.

          A police spokesman said: "At this stage... there is nothing to suggest any physical contact between the suspects and the children."

          They were bailed for further inquiries and for seized property to be examined.

          Solihull Borough Council will shortly be contacting parents whose children attend the schools to inform them directly of the arrests, the police spokesman added.


          Hardly a day goes by now without some child-porn related case appearing in the news. Are these two active abusers who made the pictures themselves or are they passive sexually-confused pictures-watchers? Have they done real harm or is the harm being done by publicly exposing them and in the process traumatising children and parents?

          1. Anonymous Coward

            Paedos are all the same

            Can people stop asking stupid questions along the lines of 'if someone just possesses indecent or pornographic images of children but they are just looking at them, is that harmful to society?'?

            I'm not a child pathologist or psychologist, but we can probably assume that, with hindsight, most children (probably all of them), if they had an enlighted choice, would not choose to be paedo material. At worst, we can probably assume that most children who are used as paedo material are upset and/or damaged by it in some fundamental way so that their later life is scarred by the experience at best.

            I think I am also going to assume that not every single one of the images that was on this chap's pc was purely 'incidental' and not 'deliberate' (i.e. organised) porn, made by professional paedos, the sort of which most people would class as evil, dispicable, etc.

            Therefore, he has (indirectly, since he has in effect encouraged his friend, who is a funder of child porn) supported the whole evil industry, even if he's only the mildest of offenders. I say they were right to charge him and let it be a warning to other supporters of the child porn industry, even if they are on the bottom-rung of the child porn ladder.

        2. Scorchio!!


          Paedophilia means 'love of children'. In neuropharmacology we speak of hydrophilia and hydrophobia knowing what it means, precisely because some chemicals are attracted to and other repelled by water. Then there's lipophilia, and so on. It is not a reference to behaviour, and that is where the problem begins; paedophilia is a state of mind. Removing gonads does not work, since the job of sensitising areas of brain occurs around the time of puberty. Removing the orchids after maturity is a literal case of locking the door after the offender has bolted. So called chemical castration does work, to an extent, but has some pretty repulsive 'side effects'.

          As to the age of majority, as was observed earlier, it was increased to 16 in response to the Victorian problem of child prostitution. The other poster also made reference to, e.g., the age of consent in Spain being 14, and there are many other variations. Given recent prosecutions of children for rape the question, which was also raised, of sex between, say, a 16 year old girl and a 14 year old boy merits consideration. Because we have begun to define so many things, it being that laws are being applied to almost every part of our lives, there is now little room left for, well, for what? For those instances in which a 16 year old girl has sex with a 14 year old boy, and the cascade of exceptions that tumble out of the legal barrel along with this one when it is pulled out for examination.

          This is what happens when governments destroy centuries of case law by writing law. These people wanted to give us a constitution; unlike the British approach to law, a mixture of legislation and case law which, over centuries, builds a stable yet flexible approach to change and only applies negative law (these are the things you cannot do, the things that are illegal), constitutional law applies positive law; these are the things that you can do. It stops there, like a cliff in the middle of your path. Go over it and you stand a reasonable chance of being prosecuted.

          The last government became my enemy when they monkeyed around with the law, and these people *are* lawyers. Never forget.

    3. Bryce 2

      You're puzzled?

      I'm more puzzled by your attitude. I personally find it disturbing that you enjoy tying up and beating your wife. To me, that is not normal. You also take photos of this as well. I would be of the opinion that you would need help because use violence in your relationships.

      I don't agree with what you do, but I'll defend your right to do it.

      On the other hand, I am also of the opinion that if you don't actually DO something, how can you be guilty of doing it?

      There have been more than a few books feeaturing nude children in them - just ask Brooke Shields - as well as movies with nude *gasp* underaged children in them - again ask Brooke Shields - and none of those were ever considered *illegal*... they would be now however.

      Unless someone actually ACTS on their thoughts, what are they guilty of?

    4. Dave Bell

      It's strange

      OK, the police want photographs of the missing person.

      They might want photographs taken at about the same time, to see if they spot anyone known to them (that feels a little far-fetched, but it would justify wanting to see a full roll of holiday snaps on film).

      But why the whole computer?

      (And giving it to the police pretty well eliminates the assumption of privacy.)

  11. Bob Wheeler

    Would You

    If you have a set of photos etc on your computer, that you have no problem showing to your wife/gf/mother then it's a safe bet the pic's are dodgy.

    If on the other hand you'd never want your wife/gf let alone your mother seeing them. then hit the big DELETE key etc etc etc.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "Like" a holiday snap? Where did he go on holiday? Thailand?

  13. Anonymous Coward

    @BDSM AC

    Oh, Hello Simon. very sensible comments, BTW.

    1. Anonymous Coward


      Hee hee hee, no my name isn't simon, you must be thinking of some other pervert ;-)


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019