Worlds largest paedophile ring discovered

[pugwash4x4]

Aberdeenloon said:

And that makes it all ok in your wold, eh Frankie?

don't be ridiculous that's not what he's saying.

despite having encountered real sexual abuse of children within my immediate family, taking a kneejerk reaction to the issue is NOT the answer. Frankeh is trying to have a rational, reasoned debate here, and i, for one, fully support it.

We cannot have a situation where, no matter how repugnant the thought, we have a situation where you lock someone up for their "thoughts".

Getting emotional about a topic does not make you "right"!

[Jasandjules]

Can such a person be "cured" - IF we work on the view that it is simply an illness. Is there evidence of this?

This is of course a highly emotive subject and it's such a tricky line as well, if you consider that in the UK, it used to be considered acceptable to marry 12 year olds......

Personally I think there are some acts which are so abhorrent that the perpetrator of them should be removed from society, permanently.

[tinman0]

Eric Mc said:

Not me - the courts.

The law DOES recognise the difference and will hand out different sentences to those found guilty of the varying degrees of criminality.

What I am arguing against here is the rabid vigilantism that crops up on PH which seems to wish that the rule of law be overridden by the rule of the mob.

People are so emotive about this topic that logic and sense goes out the window.

Sure we have laws that work on severity, which is what you are suggesting here.

But with crimes against children of this nature, the severity should be along the basis of someone shooting 5 people or 10 people. At the end of the day, they shot a bunch of people.

The crime is abhorrent regardless of what roll the paedo plated, whether it's looking at the pictures, or doing whatever they do to children physically. All part of the same thing.

What I fear the most is that when people like Frankeh and to an extent yourself, try to trivialize the crime, the defendant always gets a lighter sentence, until the sentence becomes quite meaningless. The problem we have in the UK are that sentences are already absurdly lenient as it is, without campaigns to decriminalise pedophiles and rebrand it as a mental condition.

If people want it to be taken as a mental condition, then paedos need to be removed from society and kept in an asylum indefinitely.

[Aberdeenloon]

Frankeh said:

I'm not an expert on this but I believe that because he doesn't produce any 'original material' then all he is doing is swapping leaked images with people who have other leaked images.

It's like me swapping a picture of Jessica alba for a picture you have of Natalie Portman.. Neither of us took the picture, know Natalie Portman or the photographer.

We're certainly not the reason the photographers originally took the picture, either.

Hope that helps.

pugwash4x4 said:

Aberdeenloon said:

And that makes it all ok in your wo(r)ld, eh Frankie?

don't be ridiculous that's not what he's saying.

despite having encountered real sexual abuse of children within my immediate family, taking a kneejerk reaction to the issue is NOT the answer. Frankeh is trying to have a rational, reasoned debate here, and i, for one, fully support it.

We cannot have a situation where, no matter how repugnant the thought, we have a situation where you lock someone up for their "thoughts".

Getting emotional about a topic does not make you "right"!

Sorry, but I think that's exactly what he was saying.

[CampDavid]

Jasandjules said:

Can such a person be "cured" - IF we work on the view that it is simply an illness. Is there evidence of this?

This is of course a highly emotive subject and it's such a tricky line as well, if you consider that in the UK, it used to be considered acceptable to marry 12 year olds......

Personally I think there are some acts which are so abhorrent that the perpetrator of them should be removed from society, permanently.

In some parts of the world that's still the custom.

Can they be cured? Dunno. Probably not. I'd imagine there has to be some psychological treatment though, which doubtlessly isn't working out at the moment.

[gtdc]

pugwash4x4 said:

Frankeh is trying to have a rational, reasoned debate here, and i, for one, fully support it.

We cannot have a situation where, no matter how repugnant the thought, we have a situation where you lock someone up for their "thoughts".

Getting emotional about a topic does not make you "right"!

But then it turned out Frankeh's friend wasn't just having thoughts. He was involved in viewing/distibuting images and was trying to say to Frankeh that that wasn't abuse.

[MOTORVATOR]

Eric Mc said:

tinman0 said:

Eric Mc said:

But are they EQUALLY wrong?

Ah fk it. You live in this cesspit of a country that debates how innocent or guilty a self confessed pedophile who looks at dodgy material is.

Not me - the courts.

The law DOES recognise the difference and will hand out different sentences to those found guilty of the varying degrees of criminality.

What I am arguing against here is the rabid vigilanteism that crops up on PH which seems to wish that the rule of law be overidden by the rule of the mob.


People are so emotive abbout this topic that logic and sense goes out the window.

I think the point Frankeh was making is that forgetting what the law recognises, the individual himself recognises it is wrong.

The question is someone who recognises the wrongness of their actions and one who doesn't, which is the greater risk?

[Eric Mc]

tinman0 said:

Eric Mc said:

Not me - the courts.

The law DOES recognise the difference and will hand out different sentences to those found guilty of the varying degrees of criminality.

What I am arguing against here is the rabid vigilantism that crops up on PH which seems to wish that the rule of law be overridden by the rule of the mob.

People are so emotive about this topic that logic and sense goes out the window.

Sure we have laws that work on severity, which is what you are suggesting here.

But with crimes against children of this nature, the severity should be along the basis of someone shooting 5 people or 10 people. At the end of the day, they shot a bunch of people.

The crime is abhorrent regardless of what roll the paedo plated, whether it's looking at the pictures, or doing whatever they do to children physically. All part of the same thing.

What I fear the most is that when people like Frankeh and to an extent yourself, try to trivialize the crime, the defendant always gets a lighter sentence, until the sentence becomes quite meaningless. The problem we have in the UK are that sentences are already absurdly lenient as it is, without campaigns to decriminalise pedophiles and rebrand it as a mental condition.

If people want it to be taken as a mental condition, then paedos need to be removed from society and kept in an asylum indefinitely.

I am most definitely NOT trying to trivialise anything.

What I am emphasising is the legal view that there are different levels of offence - which I think is a sensible approach to take.

[IainT]

TonyHetherington said:

Just about to delete everything, edit, you name it but just seen the apology.

As you can guess, it was an extreme and unwelcome thing to suggest, but thanks for bringing the discussion back to decency and feel free all to carry on.

Tony (moderator)

It's ok to accuse someone of being a pedo as long as you apologise quickly for it?

Balls is it.

[tinman0]

Eric Mc said:

What I am emphasising is the legal view that there are different levels of offence - which I think is a sensible approach to take.

I don't disagree. But whether you are looking at the pictures, or creating the pictures - it is way off the scale of vileness and should be treated as such.

Have a look at the re-offending rates of the people in question, it's something in the order of 80% within 4 years of the previous offense.

[Aberdeenloon]

IainT said:

TonyHetherington said:

Just about to delete everything, edit, you name it but just seen the apology.

As you can guess, it was an extreme and unwelcome thing to suggest, but thanks for bringing the discussion back to decency and feel free all to carry on.

Tony (moderator)

It's ok to accuse someone of being a pedo as long as you apologise quickly for it?

Balls is it.

Yes, I overstepped the mark, and yes I apologised for it. I was trying to highlight the point that Frankeh's friend was not "innocent" because he was "only looking at the pictures".

[GTIR]

Jasandjules said:

This is of course a highly emotive subject and it's such a tricky line as well, if you consider that in the UK, it used to be considered acceptable to marry 12 year olds......

Age of consent in Vatican State and Zimbabwe (amongs others) is 12yo. In 2011!

[tinman0]

GTIR said:

Jasandjules said:

This is of course a highly emotive subject and it's such a tricky line as well, if you consider that in the UK, it used to be considered acceptable to marry 12 year olds......

Age of consent in Vatican State and Zimbabwe (amongs others) is 12yo. In 2011!

Not sure the Vatican is a very good arbitrator for the age of consent right now.

[cornishgirl]

Eric Mc said:

Not me - the courts.

The law DOES recognise the difference and will hand out different sentences to those found guilty of the varying degrees of criminality.

What I am arguing against here is the rabid vigilanteism that crops up on PH which seems to wish that the rule of law be overidden by the rule of the mob.


People are so emotive abbout this topic that logic and sense goes out the window.

True. It is the modern equivalent of witchcraft in that the 'usual' response is almost hysterical especially, I am ashamed to admit, nearly all females.

Although, oddly enough about 15 years ago when a farm labourer in my village was found out that he had been touching up the girls - me included - no one wanted to involve the police.

He was bashed up by one of the fathers but most ot the adults sympathy was on his side because he had always been a bit slow. He's still living there but doesn't have much to do with anyone. I know he doesn't have a computer and I'm sure he wouldn't be able to use one anyway.

But if an outsider did anything like that I shudder to think what would happen to him.

[Eric Mc]

These days, we don't really have the asylum space to enable "undesireables" to be locked away.

The law also doesn't countenace permanently medically damaging offenders.

Nor does the law coutenance having them killed.

That's where we are.

Do PHers think that these laws should be changed?

[gtdc]

Has there been any success demonstrated with treatment?

[TonyToniTone]

Frankeh said:

He did/does look at pictures/films and I put it to him that he was creating the demand for such material.. I then got schooled pretty comprehensively on how the scene actually works.

Frankeh said:

Just to clear things up for the monumentally stupid. I don't support or condone paedophilia in any shape way or form.

So why don't you report him to the relevant authorities?

[Eric Mc]

I think the example Frankeh mentioned was from a forum where the individual was apparently based in the US. How would a UK citizen report an anonymous US poster to the US authorities?

I would think that the Forum hosters would be the correct agency to do this.

[Shay HTFC]

Aberdeenloon said:

IainT said:

TonyHetherington said:

Just about to delete everything, edit, you name it but just seen the apology.

As you can guess, it was an extreme and unwelcome thing to suggest, but thanks for bringing the discussion back to decency and feel free all to carry on.

Tony (moderator)

It's ok to accuse someone of being a pedo as long as you apologise quickly for it?

Balls is it.

Yes, I overstepped the mark, and yes I apologised for it. I was trying to highlight the point that Frankeh's friend was not "innocent" because he was "only looking at the pictures".

You've got the wrong end of the stick then.

Frankeh never said that the guy was innocent, only that he wasn't the reason for the images coming up in the first place.

The way I understood Frankeh was that he was saying there is an inner circle of people creating and swapping videos and at some stage the inner circle get 'bored' of them and just chuck them away.
They don't give a st what happens to the video after that; its trash. It is at that point other people come along and effectively pick up the trash (akin to a kid picking up a thrown away an unwanted pokemon card out of the bin) and watch the old material.
Its like if a tramp picks out a paedophillic(sp?) image out of the bin... even though what he is looking at and doing is wrong and criminal, he isn't actually fuelling the paedophile industry through his actions.

Its all wrong and quite sickening, but if the above is true, then in my opinion the people on the outside are less guilty in the fact that they are not instigating the crimes or infact fuelling them. They are still very guilty of crime however and need psychological help.



My view on it is that I don't believe that paedophiles are born paedophiles, but instead are very emotionally immature and damaged people who never matured past a certain stage in their development. Rather than just executing them and coming no closer to understanding the problem, I would rather imprison them and study them to try and understand the root of paedophilia.

It would be much more beneficial to millions of children in the future if we could today avoid kneejerk reactions and actually study why these people act the way they do. Is it psychological, or is it genetic? Either way, a bunch of pitchfork wielding mobsters on PH aren't gonna have a fking clue whats true, other than what their wild emotions are telling them.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Thursday 17th March 17:18

[Aberdeenloon]

Shay HTFC said:

You've got the wrong end of the stick then.

Frankeh never said that the guy was innocent, only that he wasn't the reason for the images coming up in the first place.

The way I understood Frankeh was that he was saying there is an inner circle of people creating and swapping videos and at some stage the inner circle get 'bored' of them and just chuck them away.
They don't give a st what happens to the video after that; its trash. It is at that point other people come along and effectively pick up the trash (akin to a kid picking up a thrown away an unwanted pokemon card out of the bin) and watch the old material.
Its like if a tramp picks out a paedophillic(sp?) image out of the bin... even though what he is looking at and doing is wrong and criminal, he isn't actually fuelling the paedophile industry through his actions.

Its all wrong and quite sickening, but if the above is true, then in my opinion the people on the outside are less guilty in the fact that they are not instigating the crimes or infact fuelling them. They are still very guilty of crime however and need psychological help.



My view on it is that I don't believe that paedophiles are born paedophiles, but instead are very emotionally immature and damaged people who never matured past a certain stage in their development. Rather than just executing them and coming no closer to understanding the problem, I would rather imprison them and study them to try and understand the root of paedophilia.

It would be much more beneficial to millions of children in the future if we could today avoid kneejerk reactions and actually study why these people act the way they do. Is it psychological, or is it genetic? Either way, a bunch of pitchfork wielding mobsters on PH aren't gonna have a fking clue whats true, other than what their wild emotions are telling them.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Thursday 17th March 17:18

Some good points, especially about studying them to protect children in the future.

My question would be do these people pay for this stuff or is it free? If they are paying for it then surely that are fuelling the industry and demand for the material? But, like you say either way they are guilty of crime - I just think the crimes of watching and doing are closer in severity than most people seem to think.