Forums Forums Local News children have rights in society

I feel sick, really sick that two people believe these people/paedophiles should be shown even the slightest bit of understanding.

I use Chris but dont SUPPORT him or his friends, I simply use the site as a one stop shop to know who is in my area so I can protect my children, the day protecting my children will be the day I seriously consider leaving these shores.

Again I ask exo and exposer, given the choice would you sooner next door to a paedophile or someone convicted of killing a paedophile who messed with their children, I honestly can say I would choose the killer every time.

FLASH....whether the thoughts are acted upon or not ...IT IS STILL INTENT....it is still a very sick thing to even think about,,,,i am astounded by the vileness some ppl on here display.....i can and will never imagine a society that accepts sexual deviancy towards children as a norm....it will never happen....

Rocketqueen it's not intent, you can't have an intent if you don't intend to do something.

I did say afterwards that I don't think that makes it okay and I certainly didn't say I accept people who are attracted to children! I said that as far as I was aware it wasn't something that can be stopped, I don't see it as any different to people who think all child abusers should be killed. That can be considered 'vile' and in your eyes would automatically make them criminal, as murder is illegal. People who are attracted to children don't always act upon it, it's like saying you're a man attracted to women so of course you go round raping women, no you don't, you don't do anything. That's the difference between a child abuser and a pedophile.

there is no difference in my eyes no matter how many ppl try to gloss over this subject...as miss g already said...whether someone acts on it or not...children have been used for their vile perversions whether in the flesh, internet, publications or wateva else....the innocence of children must be paramount...

I get your point flash but being attracted to your own sex is not in the same league as being attracted to babies and little kids mate. I know you know the two shouldnt be compared and get what your saying but being Gay was rightly made legal as it was a stupid law. Being a nonce however is illegal and will be for a looooonnnnnng time and will never be accepted in a normal society.
I think the people who are saying paedos should be eliminated and wiped from the face of the planet are spot on and ussualy those with kiddies or those who have been abused or abuse has affected them in some sort of way will obviously have a strong opnion on it.
Like you say, there is NO cure for nonceness so why dont we do the world a favour, when we catch them then either eliminate them, chemically castrate them(and pyshicaly), or take a piece of the brain an experiment with it to see if there is a way to cure it fo those nonces that dont want nonceness in them.
anyway, im off. watchin the redmen smash fulham 2-0.
Get in Maxi

No I get all that, I'm just saying you can't call someone a child abuser when they haven't actually done anything. I agree that they should just be imprisoned for life or given a death penalty, if they abuse a child, because there's nothing that can be done about the way they think, but not when they've done the sensible thing and not acted on it.

Oh and Rocketqueen I get what you mean about them finding it on the internet if they can't get the real thing, that counts as acting upon it to me though.

Exactly. That is the difference, but society and the media dont want to see any difference in the two. For those members who keep on feeling sick with my messages, then please dont read them or comment.

Someone mentioned the differences between living next door to a paedophile or someone convicted of killing a paedophile who messed with their children.

I honestly believe that most paedophiles have no intention of messing with children, and if you want to discuss the 'abuse' of looking at images, then you must know what the laws and definitions are. "Indecent" or "child p**n" have taken on a whole new meaning, where its now down to 'thought-crime', but someone mentioned that doesn't exist, but it does with images of children. If you dont believe me, then look up "copine scale" and look at level 1; there's your thought crime.

So, when a paedophile acts and molests a child, he should then take on a new label of *child molester*, as that is unarguably an *action*. Would i rather live next door to a paedophile who never touched a child, or someone who killed a child molester? I would choose the paedophile everytime.

I don't see what makes that thought crime?
A crime needs a mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reas (guilty act), can't just have a mens rea, well that's what they taught me in university, haha

born2die yes i do have a strong opinion on this subject but i wasnt abused, now where my children thankfully....my heart goes out to all those who have suffered from the heinious hands of those monsters....

soz "nor were my children "

I dont think that counts as acting. An 'acting homosexual' (for ex) would be someone enaging in sex with the a person of the same gender. If the homosexual enjoys to see pictures of whom he/she is attracted to, im not sure you could call that person an "active homosexual".

Looking at, owning or distributing child pornography is illegal in itself, just as sexually abusing a child is, so I think it does count.

The debate could rage for ages if you start talking about CP online. Could be argued that child models don't count for example... would never hear the end of it. With the laws in action today there'd be talk of loli and anime-based CP as well =/

I think there's been studies on how there's been no noticable supply=demand increases when it comes to the amount of people that view such stuff online.

The dangers of creating loads of categorisations for things, is that when you come across someone that doesn't fit into those categories then they will be innocent never mind how obvious it is that they are guilty of something.

The more words, the more loopholes!