Man in court on child pornography charges

The Shtig

Samson Embarrassed Wattage wrote: »

I think paedophiles are alright, tbh. They get an unfairly bad rap.

The-Rigger wrote: »

save the paedos.

WindSock wrote: »

I [heartshape] you and ur childishness.

Ah sometimes I just love after hours...

up for anything

Crasp wrote: »

Also worrying is the inclusion of "anyone depicted as a child" being illegal... so all those schoolgirl-type scenarios are deemed illegal?

Why worrying? Sad people getting off on schoolgirls. :mad:

Crasp

up for anything wrote: »

Why worrying? Sad people getting off on schoolgirls. :mad:

It essentially means you can be guilty of possessing child pornography if one adult partner wears a skirt, shirt (or blouse - PC) and tie and you have evidence of it.

In UCC there used to be schoolgirl parties, take one of thoes girls home at the end of the night and you're ****ed. Maybe these parites still exist.

up for anything

Crasp wrote: »

It essentially means you can be guilty of possessing child pornography if one adult partner wears a skirt, shirt (or blouse - PC) and tie and you have evidence of it.

In UCC there used to be schoolgirl parties, take one of thoes girls home at the end of the night and you're ****ed. Maybe these parites still exist.

Solve the problem and get them to wear a Bottom costume. I presume beastiality is still legalish.

Ghandee

Down with this sort of thing!

bnt

up for anything wrote: »

Why worrying? Sad people getting off on schoolgirls. :mad:

Whatever you do, don't go to Japan. The "schoolgirl fetish" thing is out of control there. Yet they don't seem to have much of a child porn problem there in the way that we understand it.

I've been trying to clarify just why child porn gets everyone so angry. The thing that helped was spending time with friends in the USA last year, who have three young kids, the youngest a 2-year-old girl. You can get the impression from the media that men are dangerous and should not be entrusted with the care of kids, and I think that got to me a little before I went: was I a monster with latent paedo tendencies, just by being a single male? I needn't have worried: kids are kids, I was no danger to them - quite the opposite - and the tabloid media can get stuffed. :rolleyes:

After thinking about that, and the way I interacted naturally with my friends' kids, it seems to me the objections to child porn are because it's the way some adults try to impose sexuality on children who are simply unable to deal with it in any way. You may have some warped justification in your adult head, but the child doesn't know or understand. I remember being a child: if someone hurts you, you don't understand why. The adult may try and explain it, but you don't get it. All you know is that you were hurt, and you don't care about the adult's "reasons".

That's almost a definition of childhood: not being ready for the adult world in any sense. You do what you're told, say what you're told, and believe what you're told - traits which can be abused by some adults. But the answer is not to keep kids in the house, afraid to go outside, because that's no way to learn and grow, is it? If you can keep kids away from churches, at least, that'll drastically reduce the dangers to both body and mind. :cool:

AudreyHepburn

bnt wrote: »

Whatever you do, don't go to Japan. The "schoolgirl fetish" thing is out of control there. Yet they don't seem to have much of a child porn problem there in the way that we understand it.

I've been trying to clarify just why child porn gets everyone so angry. The thing that helped was spending time with friends in the USA last year, who have three young kids, the youngest a 2-year-old girl. You can get the impression from the media that men are dangerous and should not be entrusted with the care of kids, and I think that got to me a little before I went: was I a monster with latent paedo tendencies, just by being a single male? I needn't have worried: kids are kids, I was no danger to them - quite the opposite - and the tabloid media can get stuffed. :rolleyes:

After thinking about that, and the way I interacted naturally with my friends' kids, it seems to me the objections to child porn are because it's the way some adults try to impose sexuality on children who are simply unable to deal with it in any way. You may have some warped justification in your adult head, but the child doesn't know or understand. I remember being a child: if someone hurts you, you don't understand why. The adult may try and explain it, but you don't get it. All you know is that you were hurt, and you don't care about the adult's "reasons".

That's almost a definition of childhood: not being ready for the adult world in any sense. You do what you're told, say what you're told, and believe what you're told - traits which can be abused by some adults. But the answer is not to keep kids in the house, afraid to go outside, because that's no way to learn and grow, is it? If you can keep kids away from churches, at least, that'll drastically reduce the dangers to both body and mind. :cool:

You don't understand why the idea of grown men and women using little boys and girls for the own sexua gratification makes people angry?

Really?

chem

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/internet-virus-frames-use_n_350426.html

Read the above post and just think. What if it was you? Your name and life in bits. Friends blanking you, stigma when you are innocent :mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You don't understand why the idea of grown men and women using little boys and girls for the own sexua gratification makes people angry?

Really?

No, he didn't say that. He said he didn't understand the hysteria behind it. He never meant child sexual abuse.

AntiMatter

WindSock wrote: »

Because pedrofiles are currently the worst of the woerst in contemporary Irish society. That's why it is top newz, yall.

I can't understand these Pedrofiles at all, myself.

They get my vote.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Im so committed to the rights of paedophiles I tried to call my new pub 'Free the Pedos'. Unfortunately my friend Jez didnt like it and tried to get me to agree to 'The Swan and Tomato'.

AntiMatter

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Im so committed to the rights of paedophiles I tried to call my new pub 'Free the Pedos'. Unfortunately my friend Jez didnt like it and tried to get me to agree to 'The Swan and Tomato'.

He has some neck coming up with that title.

landsleaving

up for anything wrote: »

Why worrying? Sad people getting off on schoolgirls. :mad:

You really don't seem as 'up for anything' as your username suggests.

And in fairness, attractive female (above age of consent) + schoolgirl outfit = win. If you want to call me a paedophile for that, go right ahead.

Monty Burnz

feelingstressed wrote: »

And in the end it turned out the girl was lying and saying what she thought her parents wanted to hear to help the feud. This wasn't even a serious charge compared to this thread

I hope the person in question was charged with wasting police time, and/or sued for slander?

up for anything

landsleaving wrote: »

You really don't seem as 'up for anything' as your username suggests.

And in fairness, attractive female (above age of consent) + schoolgirl outfit = win. If you want to call me a paedophile for that, go right ahead.

And you don't seem to be leaving me any lands as your name suggests. At my age I'd look more than a bit odd dressing up as a schoolgirl. :eek:

I'm not suggesting that men are paedolphiles for getting off on females above the age of consent dressed in schoolgirl outfits. I just find it puzzling and little tawdry though. Nurses outfits are nearly as bad and she-devils make me puke. My own personal opinion so don't take it personally.

landsleaving

up for anything wrote: »

And you don't seem to be leaving me any lands as your name suggests. At my age I'd look more than a bit odd dressing up as a schoolgirl. :eek:

I'm not suggesting that men are paedolphiles for getting off on females above the age of consent dressed in schoolgirl outfits. I just find it puzzling and little tawdry though. Nurses outfits are nearly as bad and she-devils make me puke. My own personal opinion so don't take it personally.

Great response I gotta say!

As for the various outfits, I think the schoolgirl one is popular because when we were teenagers, and lusting after every girl we saw, they were in school, so the uniform is fetishised now based on the idea of the unattainable becoming attainable. Add to that the fact that sex was taboo at that age and it's instantly more attractive. That and the skirts are short and the shirts are tight. Not sure why I'm into the socks as well though, conditioned by society I guess.

AckwelFoley

up for anything wrote: »

I just find it puzzling and little tawdry though.

googles denifition of *tawdry*


brb

Overheal

lods wrote: »

This up top of the Rte news, why? Was thinking it must be someone famous or in the public eye. A bit strange for it to make the headlines.

slow news day

AckwelFoley

Overheal wrote: »

slow news day

That would be a great headline if it were for ...

eh never mind

thebullkf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I hope the person in question was charged with wasting police time, and/or sued for slander?

they should get the same sentence the alleged perp. would've gotten.

eg-cry rape- then you should be given the same sentence the rapist would've gotten..


Anyone agree?

landsleaving

thebullkf wrote: »

they should get the same sentence the alleged perp. would've gotten.

eg-cry rape- then you should be given the same sentence the rapist would've gotten..


Anyone agree?

Not really, it's very hard to prosecute these cases, and telling people they'll be punished if their claims can't be proven is a sure way to further discourage reporting of rape or any similar crime.

Minstrel27

Senna wrote: »

Their just putting up any news they can to get Gerry's coke news further down

Gerry Ryan was headline news on the RTÉ website on the day the cocaine news was released.

thebullkf

landsleaving wrote: »

Not really, it's very hard to prosecute these cases, and telling people they'll be punished if their claims can't be proven is a sure way to further discourage reporting of rape or any similar crime.

in an ideal system i meant- i just used an extreme case, take robbery for example./fraud etc

..though existing laws aren't enforced,some hope of getting harsher ones.

Caoimhín

snyper wrote: »

googles denifition of *tawdry*

Means damp.

orourkeda

Duggy747 wrote: »

Everytime a paedo is caught and rightfully charged they should make the headlines, let the rest of us know what the sick fùck looks like and let him be publicly shamed.

Another case of innocent until proven guilty being wilfully ignored in the haze of badly thought out and knee jerk reactions

thebullkf

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Gerry Ryan was headline news on the RTÉ website on the day the cocaine news was released.

he was also an obnoxious hypocrite,signifying a lot of what was wrong in Celtic tiger Ireland.

CrazyRabbit

psni wrote: »

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 is dealing specifically with the matter of child pornography. It gives in the Section 2 ss(1) a definition of child pornography:

Child pornography means:

a) any visual representation that shows or in a case of a document, relates to person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity, that shows or in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child, any audio representration of a person who is or is being represented as a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activities,

b) any visual or audio representration that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

c) any visual representation or desciption of, or information related to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of Section 3, irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other mechanical means but does not include:

1. any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

2. any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1993, is in force, or

3. any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the video recording acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force.

According to that, stick figures depicting a naked 'child' could be construed as child pornography (which should be termed as 'Child abuse images' btw).

The same goes for pics of Pedobear ("any visual or audio representration that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children")

And it even goes so far as to cover pics/videos of a 30 year old old dressed up as a kid and engaged in otherwise sexual activity.

The laws are so vague and open to interpretation that they would be laughable if it were not such a serious topic.