Posted on 02/28/2017 5:56:12 AM PST by C19fan
Paedophiles should not face jail for looking at pornographic images of children unless they are a physical threat to youngsters, says Britain’s most senior child protection officer.
Officers should instead focus on the most dangerous offenders who have access to youngsters or are directing abuse online, said chief constable Simon Bailey.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Millstone
Neck
Deep blue sea
Isn't it a question of priorities?
Volunteers worldwide do a great job of exposing thought crimes.
Doesn't it make sense to focus official law enforcement limited resources to immediate threats of actual physical crimes and criminal activity?
I don’t know why you are attacking me.
My comments on this thread are not out of line.
They need to take a look at this character’s files.
No need to insult janitors.
My point was this this highly-paid public servant is wasting taxpayer money and needs a demotion.
That was my only point.
Those who make child molestation a social activity (even online) or a profitable business should face serious charges. Harming children is unacceptable, as is looking at images of children being exploited or harmed.
So, all these young children in the pornographic images are suddenly capable of informed consent???
This loser should be fired and blacklisted from ever working in the UK government again.
I am thinking “Britain’s most senior child protection officer” should come under some scrutiny himself. To me, this boneheaded opinion means he is covering for himself or someone else. Look on his computer first.
Of course, no one in that government (or maybe not even in that country) will think to do that.
Too many people weren't even born when this sicko problem started, in the late 70s. Reversing that would be a good start. Clearly that "small step" of tolerance didn't quite work out.
We need lots and lots of new closets for the endless pervert alphabet sickos. The ones who act on their beliefs.
Viewing actual child pornography is an actual crime.
Thinking about child pornography is what would be a thought crime.
Your premise fails.
The people who are yanking their cranks to these images are legitimizing the practice; they should be prosecuted, too.
Could someone SELL slaves if they don’t use them themselves? Could you maybe PURCHASE a slave for resale?? What about snuff films? Can you WATCH them without retribution, if YOU PERSONALLY didn’t film it? What about underage peep shows? Can we still attend and see young kids degraded and raped on stage, I mean, if you are only WATCHING???????
The pedophile apologists are out on this thread, and more open in dismissing it than they have been since Sandusky was convicted.
Even on this site, the concept of moral absolutes is under assault.
when it’s a catholic priest it horrible. when it’s a coach at Penn state....eehh. Know what I mean?
This is the next thing to be shoved down our throats by the gay nazis.
Trannies ( freaks) are now mainstream and a protected class, pedophiles are next.
They are born that way, doncha know?
I have been opposed to it in every case.
No one gets a pass on this.
You left out the cops. We have several on this forum who insist that police who utilize their badge to coerce sexual favors are always being singled out.
We need to go back to the melting pot and can all this group identity crap.
And sex with minors is always wrong.
What that in English?
Let's just agree to disagree.
Limited resources.
Actual physical crimes.
The priority seems clear to me. All or nothing positions always fail in the real world.
Have a nice day.
Money drives the crime - there’s a strong correlation between those who ‘watch’ and those who eventually ‘imbibe’. This is evil. We can’t kill these people because it’s against the law but we can put them prison.
Actually, I got that.
S’Awright. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.