the plot thickens………………

The objective surely must be to prevent them from doing their terrible acts ever again. The problem for me is that I simply do not understand WHY they do these things in the first place – so devising a prevention strategy is a problem.

Is permanent imprisonment an answer? I don’t know. You can cold bloodedly murder somebody in the most awful way and still only get ”life imprisonment” (i.e. 14 years or so). Is this a ”worse” crime than downloading indecent images of children?

Take an extreme case:

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/trowbridgenews/display.var.1786376.0.exnursery_school_boss_faces_45_sex_charges.php

Now I actually knew this guy a few years back – met him at a dinner party through a mutual friend – and never once did I suspect that he could or would do this sort of thing. But there you see it – paedophilia of the most terrible and horrible sort …. done whilst he was in a position of trust.

OK he is currently remanded in custody awaiting sentencing – but how long inside do you give him and will it prevent him from carrying on as before? Fact is that I really don’t know. All I hope is that he is imprisoned for the rest of his natural life – but somehow i don’t think he will be.

now the Courts want him to be psychologically examined:

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/display.var.2126462.0.paedophile_sentencing_put_back_again.php

I can see the “throught police” are out in force again……………

What we are dealing with here some person who never grow up.

From what I can see on the news, its 120 pictures on a computer, not thousands.

None of the kids in the house are in them, which is suprizing if he was an active paedophile.

I am sure that if he had a “history” of being a paedophile one or more of the “newspapers” would have found out weeks ago.

What we do know is he’s a “bit thick”

So that is why I am qustioning this so much.

But back to the “throught police”………

If you see a picture of a car crash where people have died, do you crash your car?

If you see a picture of war, do you start one?

If you see a picture of a peodophile, does it mean you will become one?

We can’t arrest people for looking at picture or what they dream of doing, only there actions. There is a big different between taking part and watching or most of us would be in court for speeding and the roads would be empty.

I think the law on viewing and downloading anything from the web is an a ss.

Depending on what you view, you can be arrested for anything from terroism to being a paedophile or anything else our great British people are told to fear by the media.

Cath can’t see the different between “commiting an crimal act” and “observing one”

No wonder people can’t understand how the courts work.

All p orn sites are the same, there not free or cheap and you need a credit card to use them.

Child p orn sites are not easy to find and not free, so how someone so young, on benfits, can afford to use them and have the skill to find them is questionable.

I think we need to think about what could seen has child p orn.

Lets say there is a man changing a nappy on a baby, if you took pictures and was selective about them, you could make them look like child po rn.

Or maybe a farther giving this teenager son a hug, could be seen has gay child p orn too.

Without seening these pictures its hard to know what was download and when.

But most of these “nuts” who like child p orn have collects running into thousands and locking this man away with others like him would only increase his contacts and access to more child po rn.

I feel sure that if this young man was a peodphile, had access to children in the home, he would have increase his collection using the children in the family unit and would have taken full advantage of the familys trust.

This doesn’t seem to have happden.

I get the feeling there is something wrong with this case, it fills me with a sence of unease.

Just for cath………………

If you know anything about computers, you can put anything you like on someone elses computer without them knowing, its simple to do.

So if I place pictures of pro al-Qaeda terrorist, plans of the local airport and then removed them, called the police, told them you was plaining on blowing up the local airport and all the information was on your computer.

The police would then arrest you and you would do about 5 years for planning a terrorist act.

But would you be a terrorist? Did you kill anyone?

There are a lot of subjects that are on the web, you have the right to chose what you see for now but the moment we start locking people up for viewing some picture on a web site, we turn into China.