b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7448170 (Thread)

# No.
If he has paid for child pornography or, indeed, done anything which encouraged a trade which causes pre-pubescant children to be abused then he needs to be punished.

It doesn't stop his jokes being funny, just as I still like my Gary Glitter tape that I have in the car.

I find paedophiles to be a bit sad. i don't fancy children, so it is easy for me not to abuse them, but if I did - well, it must be a hard life, much like being gay in 1960.

No possible excuse though - they have to fight it - if I was raped as a child would that mean it was okay for me to rape someone? If I got run down by a drunk driver then it'd be okay for me to drink and drive?
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 9:52, archived)
# Clearly it wouldn't be
which is why the 'if he hasn't abused any kids' disclaimer.

It would be understandable why he might have seen some dodgy pics though. I have no idea how much they are talking about.
(I helped save b3ta! Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 9:55, archived)
# It does sound like his defence is a bit shonky
he doesn't deny having the pics and looking at them to create a character that wasn't even a paedo (according to Mary Whitehouse) doesn't really convince me.


(I helped save b3ta! Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 9:59, archived)
# AKA The Pete Townsend Defence
or at least a variation of.
(I helped save b3ta! Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:00, archived)
# Not to be confused with the Sue Townsend Defence...
"Honestly officer I never knew he was thirteen and three quarters"
(I helped save b3ta! Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:01, archived)
# I don't care
obtaining pics is enough.

It pays people to abuse children.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:02, archived)
# err . . . yes
Like I said he didn't convince me and even if it's true I don't think that it excuses him


(I helped save b3ta! Sir Aunty Grampa Dave the Hat - enjoying a post-meridian muncheon - Ta! Cannaoogim!?, Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:09, archived)
# 'ning.
I agree with you. "Pictures of child abuse", what does it mean? Well in cases I've seen reported it mostly means violent torture and destruction of a child's, or even a baby's unformed sexual organs and sometimes includes murder, all supervised and filmed by someone who is supposed to be the guardian of the child. Being abused oneself ought to be the biggest incentive to keep away from this kind of stuff. I'm afraid I can't sanction "innocently viewing some pictures" under any circumstances
(I helped save b3ta! edjogs Collared doves are shit., Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:11, archived)
# I agree
although I accept that someone may possibly view pics without fully realising the consequences of their action.

Like buying some grass and not thinking about the crime the money goes towards
(I helped save b3ta! Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something., Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:19, archived)
# I go along with that principle
but in this case we are talking about pictures of children being MUTILATED by their guardians or with their guardian's consent. It is beyond my powers of imagination to believe that doing it or watching it being done can ever be innocent.
(I helped save b3ta! edjogs Collared doves are shit., Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:24, archived)
# I wasn't aware of the nature of the pics
for some people - this only justice is prolonged public beating
(I helped save b3ta! Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something., Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:29, archived)
# I'm not being sarky but
the clue is in "child abuse". It doesn't mean pictures of someone sending their kid to bed without watching CBeebies.
(I helped save b3ta! edjogs Collared doves are shit., Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:37, archived)