
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.
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 9:55,
archived)
It would be understandable why he might have seen some dodgy pics though. I have no idea how much they are talking about.

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.


( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 9:59,
archived)



"Honestly officer I never knew he was thirteen and three quarters"
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:01,
archived)

obtaining pics is enough.
It pays people to abuse children.
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:02,
archived)
It pays people to abuse children.

Like I said he didn't convince me and even if it's true I don't think that it excuses him


( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:09,
archived)



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
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:11,
archived)

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
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:19,
archived)
Like buying some grass and not thinking about the crime the money goes towards

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.
( ,
Fri 27 Jul 2007, 10:24,
archived)