Kiddie Porn Fears Gone Mental?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

JohnK

The world has gone mad with regard to child porn. These days nearly any picture of a child is regarded as porn. I cant help but wonder where its going to stop.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

There was a recent story in the press about photos not being allowed at a schools sports day! Yep thats right all the dads are really there it see they can catch boys and girls with thier shorts or skirts hitched up when they run and jump! :eek: :rolleyes:

Mike.

JohnK

There was a case in Scotland about a year ago where parents were not allowed to bring video cameras to a school play because the teachers were afraid the video might end up on some porn site. Its just plain ridiculous.

Calibos

I remember that school play one. If I remember correctly, anyone wanting to video their child had to get written permission from every other childs parents before they could do so. It would only take one over protective/zealous? parent who believed all the 'scare-mongering' hype by the media to ruin it for every other parent who wanted to capture their childs school play for posterity. Of course, the converse is also true ie. that it would only take one of those parents to be a pervert/paedophile, so I suppose it depends on the way you look at it.

Talliesin

I hope the cops that pressed those charges are infertile. If there's anyone in this case that shouldn't be have custody of young children it's them.

Kell

Sad as it is to say, and some wont like me for this, it's actually joe public that is to blame for this ridiculous situation of over protectiveness of our loved ones. It's the fault of the individuals who sue the ass off a school because they didn't want their childs mugshot in someone elses video thats to blame here. I know of at least one school here where parents are required to sign a letter to say it's OK if the school nurse administers TCP if a child gets a graze in the playground FFS. Another school in Britain apparantly had all areas of exposed earth (flower beds and the like) covered up for fear that the children might come into contact with "germs" that would land the school in court.

Paedophilia in my mind hasn't ramped up or got worse over the years. I think that obsessive media coverage and completely off the wall court cases make it seem a hell of a lot worse than it is.

K-

Talliesin

Originally posted by Kell
I know of at least one school here where parents are required to sign a letter to say it's OK if the school nurse administers TCP if a child gets a graze in the playground FFS.

I normally try to have a little bit of eloquence when I post, but all I can think of here is "Well duh!".

You can't just go around randomly medicating people without checking its okay. It's bad enough people not thinking of asking the parents or guardians before they give a child some chocolate or crisps or whatever but it would be extremely negligent for a school not to check if there were allergy or contra-indiction problems. The majority of parents whose kids have no such problems can just sign the bloody letter.

JohnK

Originally posted by Kell
Sad as it is to say, and some wont like me for this, it's actually joe public that is to blame for this ridiculous situation of over protectiveness of our loved ones. It's the fault of the individuals who sue the ass off a school because they didn't want their childs mugshot in someone elses video thats to blame here. I know of at least one school here where parents are required to sign a letter to say it's OK if the school nurse administers TCP if a child gets a graze in the playground FFS. Another school in Britain apparantly had all areas of exposed earth (flower beds and the like) covered up for fear that the children might come into contact with "germs" that would land the school in court.

I think Talliesin's comment is right in this respect. A school can't just do as it likes without checking if there is some allergy or other medical condition or even a religious belief.

Paedophilia in my mind hasn't ramped up or got worse over the years. I think that obsessive media coverage and completely off the wall court cases make it seem a hell of a lot worse than it is.

I'd fully agree with this statement. Paedophilia is nothing new and it really annoys me when I read the paper and hear of this 'new' threat to children. Its been there all along but the case in the first post is not it.

I for one would be interested in knowing how many of the cases that are reported are just plain crap like the one in the first post. I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more than we would think.

muffman

Its the insecure Yanks pushing their paranoia on the rest of the world. Its Ok to marry your sister but she cant breast feed if she is under 18! Maybe they didnt mention in the newspaper article
that they were not her breasts but indeed weapons of mass distruction!

Thank God Ireland is relatively free of this crap. Although having said that we have bread and exported some of the worst paedophiles (priests) the world has ever seen!

mike65

I was in SuperValu this evening and a woman was feeding her baby the way nature intended.
No-one batted an eyelid or got arrested....

Mike.

TacT

:eek:
Someone let us live, please, this kind of hyper over protectiveness has gotten way out of hand, soon enough they'll surely ban breast feeding due to it's sexual nature :rolleyes:

Pictures of kids with their parents washing them in a big basin in the garden = PAEDOPHILES!

Where do we draw the line

Kell

Originally posted by Talliesin
I normally try to have a little bit of eloquence when I post, but all I can think of here is "Well duh!".

You can't just go around randomly medicating people without checking its okay.

Hands up- dumb comment. I was more appalled at the covering up of the soil. In relation to medication, I was thinking back to the good old days of me going to school when no-one thought to ask such questions and just got on with it. Never caused any harm then.

K-

Hobbes

*REALITY CHECK*

If people bother to look up on the story some more they will see the pictures were questionable in nature (not just breatfeeding, there were others of different situations).

For example the child breast feeding looks about 5-6, is totally naked standing in front of his mother while she is totally naked in the picture.

Unless this is a new feeding procedure I'm unaware of, it looks pornographic to me. Certainly not a breatfeeding your average family would post up on the net for friends to see.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Originally posted by daveirl
If you take the picture on it's own yes, but not if you put in the context that it is with loads of other innocent pictures and 2-3 other rolls of film of the house and the car etc.

I have a digital camera now, but if on holiday I had film left over I'd take shots of other stuff. That doesn't mean they are in any way related. I doubt very much the cops would see that way either if a person had a stack of porn in the middle of normal photos.

Zukustious

If there were nudists who wanted children and wanted to raise the children as nudists, would there be any legal action taken against them?

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Hobbes
I doubt very much the cops would see that way either if a person had a stack of porn in the middle of normal photos.

Workers in a one hour photo shop in America found what looked like pictures of a child having sex, in the middle of other, innocent photos. They called the cops, naturally, and waited for the owner of the photos to return. They were more than slightly embarassed when a midget walked in and requested his photos.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Hobbes
*REALITY CHECK*

If people bother to look up on the story some more they will see the pictures were questionable in nature (not just breatfeeding, there were others of different situations).

I'm not happy with the idea of taking photos of children bathing, but that's more because they are photos that could be used in a pornographic way than with them being pornography themselves.

For example the child breast feeding looks about 5-6, is totally naked standing in front of his mother while she is totally naked in the picture.

Only photo I found (and I did do a search) is the one in the article linked to in the first post on this thread. The child doesn't seem to be older than 3 at the very outside, and the mother has some sort of trousers or skirt on and a frilly top that is just raised enough to allow the child access to the breast. The child's position is one that is common with children who can walk but are still nursing (though one I've heard from mothers isn't very comfortable for them, and hence generally discouraged for that reason).

Talliesin

Originally posted by TacT
Where do we draw the line

This, and some other posts on this thread, implies that there is some sort of linear spectrum between the degree of lack of protection that would allow child-abusers free reign and the degree of policing that leads to cases like this. This belief is commonly held, and actively encouraged by those who either want much stronger police powers, or who want much weaker police powers (you can be sure that real paedophiles rejoiced when that couple got arrested). Similar arguments are also made in matters such as anti-terrorist policing.

I dispute this. If we were to define a law such that, for example, the La Leche League's magazine was banned it would have zero effect on the incidence of child sexual abuse (except perhaps in further encouraging a culture where childbirth is comparable to lumpectomy and parenting to poor animal husbandry, which is hardly conducive to adults having a healthy attitude towards children). Despite this being very far along the line between strong and weak policing of images of children the line has no basis in reality.