Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 41rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Mick-Talbot. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
at least they showed the b@stards faces tho - sure that there'll be plenty of people who will mete out their own version of justice...
-- answer removed --
Maybe as in 1st or 2nd degree murder there should be two categories of paedaohilia.....those who read about it and those who practice it. Although images of young children are distasteful the comparison with bodily engagement in paedophilia are world's apart although the sentences handed out are similar. As an analogy reading the magazines on the top shelf in WH Smiths bear no relation to an actual rape.
Question Author
That's one strange analogy, Rov.
rov1100

However - in order for this pictures to exist in the first place, children would have to be abused. By distributing pictures, those convicted are effectively encouraging the rape and abuse of many children, rather than just 'a few' (which would be the case if they'd personally abused children).

Difficult...

What WAS is that joeluke said that got removed? Don't repeat it word for word - just te gist will do.
Silly comparison Rov....topshelf stuff is consenting adults doing a job which also has no relation to rape.
rov1100, the argument is that those who just distribute it are nonetheless contributing to creating a market in it - bit like the way drug importers and dealers are seen as just as much a problem as those who grow or manufacture drugs.
Sp....something along the lines of...2 wrongs. Gay wrong...paedophilia wrong.
ummmm

Thanks...I was concerned it might've been an insightful comment which moved the discussion along.

No need to worry.
No such luck.
Question Author
Joeluke was outraged that one of the paedophiles was gay.
This men acts as 'facilitators' for the paedophiles.
They had their own server with which to distribute existing and 'new' pictures.

It always used to be that a 'Fence' got more porridge than a thief and the same should apply here..
Question Author
I really hope they get there assets stripped .. in and out of prison.
Is it a deterrent no. They will get out, they will re-offend.

As others said, children have to be abused for the images to exist, owning these images are as bad as the act.

Minimum 10 years would be good. life would be better.
>> The criminal operation spanned seven years and netted the group around £2.2m, although none appeared to have extravagant lifestyles.<<

big money for such short sentences
Crime, in this country, pays thanks to the hand wringing liberal elitists.

They shoudl be strung up.
youngmafbog

In what way does crime pay?
<<Crime, in this country, pays thanks to the hand wringing liberal elitists.

They shoudl be strung up.>>

Top marks for cramming so many clichés and ludicrous stereotypes into just 17 words and 2 misplaced commas!
LOL "They shoudl be strung up". You jcan tell this was written hurriedly by quaking angry hands, I agree Zeuhl. Well done "R1's nodding dog" for posting rabid fascist drivel again.
ps "jcan" is a real word ;-)

21 to 40 of 41rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

33 months is it enough ?

Answer Question >>