@What is wrong with you people? Part IIII
What is wrong with people rejecting laws based on opinion without fact or proven basis? Allow me to attempt to inform you.
"Your argument is self defeating here; it is that lack of self control which causes them to not stick with drawn images and move on to live images/abuse."
There is no empirical evidence that suggests that is the case, subsequently you should not base a law on something that has a lack of evidence supporting speculative and subjective opinion.
"A pseudo image is not an image of a child being abuse, it is an image portraying abuse, just as these are, this is the loop hole and that this why it should be fixed."
A pseudo photograph includes an image of a REAL child, let me try and get that through to you, as you seem to be having a difficult time understanding the concept of reality.
Drawings do not, they are expressions of fantasy, fantasies are ideas, ideas are protected under article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights. Those drawings that are traced from actual images or derived from actual images are already covered under the Justice and Immigration bill, in short this will only criminalise depictions involving non real people, fantasies, which are none of the governments business. To criminalise a fantasy, regardless of context is a THOUGHTCRIME. This has already been proven to be unconstitutionally broad in the US, and should also be proven as such in the UK. There are more than enough laws covering this subject to cover for all eventualities of ACTUAL abuse with REAL people, this is not a loophole cover, that has been covered, this is simply controlling expression of a subject that alot of people find objectionable and as such, in Labours dying breaths, they believe that pandering to the usual "won't someone please think of the children" crowd, it will garner votes.
"I am not assuming on guess work, I am speaking from direct experience, everyone and that is everyone I have seen with these types of images also had live images of child abuse. Please to not generalise from self."
Please do not generalise from self experience, your personal experience is irrelevant when you consider the scope that this legislation covers. If these people have real images, then prosecute those. How the hell does having real and fake together neccesitate overreaching legislation? Hunting down real porn would be more productive yes?
"Your last statement worries me, how can you declare something right or wrong purely based on numbers?"
Morality is based on subjective opinion, if your opinion is part of the majority, it is considered right. The majority considered homosexuality to be wrong, it is now right. how can you create a law the PUTS PEOPLE IN PRISON based on anything other than objectively gathered fact. That is how you base something on evidence. Evidential law is alot more sound because it has grounding in fact, opinion based facts are neither sound nor moral.
"Surely one child abuse is too many?"
Agreed, but a drawing does not constitute abuse. There is also no evidence to connect drawings with abuse, therefore you cannot ban it on the principle that it 'might' be used to groom. You certainly dont expect anyone to believe that fantasy drawings have been abused, or refused consent?
No need for a law.
"Would you care to explain a child who had been abused that is was ok because the numbers of ‘innocent adults’ is high?"
I'm pretty sure you are attempting to state a direct causal link to abuse via a fantasy drawing again, would you care to provide this 'obvious' causal evidence from a non subjective and objectively empirical source?
In any case, banning all outlets for this will not reduce the number of people who abuse, or stop abuse. Why look at porn when you have the real thing? Why look at drawings when they are illegal anyway, surely its worth the risk to look at the real thing? hell its only 2 years more, the fine is the same, as is the sex offender registry. Care to justify sending someone to prison for commiting no crime?
"Let us not forget we are not talking about perfectly legal adult pornography"
At the moment we are talking about prefectly legal adult pornography that is restricted from being distributed and sold under the obscene publications act. But not the possession of.
"we are talking about graphic images portraying child abuse"
We are talking about drawings that can only be subjectively proven are images of child abuse. What they contain is irrelevant, as someone earlier stated, a stick man and a stick child humping like wild rabbits is a portrayal of 'child abuse'. However, as no child is actually involved, and no harm is done, im pretty sure there is no abuse. Unless ink lines or pixels have feelings now?
"and anyone who imagines that to be art needs to seek professional help"
This is totally irrelevant, unless you are in favour of minority report style laws that lock people up before commiting a crime. Guilty before even committing a crime. This is why its called a thought crime.
1) If its fantasy its thought, you cannot regulate thought.
2) It's none of your business, the governments business, my business what anyone does in their own home that neither harms anyone or creates a victim. Therefore a fantasy drawing, cannot be considered a crime.
3) Just because you personally dislike something, doesnot make it a legitimate reason to ban it when there is no evidence of a victim or a crime.
4) You cannot arrest and imprison someone for something they have not commited (eg child abuse)
5)Given the lack of objective evidence surrounding this as to the causal links, purely creating a law that criminalises and destroys peoples lives cannot be tolerated in a free society. Even if there were causal links that support the idea that it encourages paedophilic thoughts, thoughts cannot be regulated and should never be regulated. Unless you want Orwellian Britain to become fully fledged, anyone who would want that needs professional help.
6)"anyone who imagines that to be art needs to seek professional help", so a punitive punishment and social rejection will help someone will it? Do you really think that destroying someones life for a few fantasies is either a moral or ethical decision? Do you really think that will save children? I fail to see the logic in criminalising something and punishing in order to help.
Not only are fantasies and thoughts not in the public domain, but the basic principles of freedom of expression cover them, especially for private use (such as possession).
There is simply no solid evidence to support the claims made in order to enforce this proposed legislation. It is all opinion and subjective reasoning, which im pretty sure are not the best reasons to create a custodial sentence on, and destroy a persons life. Peoples thoughts and private lives are not the domain of governments, neither is creating legislation that protects no victims and criminalises no actual harm or crime. What is wrong with these people??? What sir is wrong with you.