If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Garbage men track down pedophile and turn him in to the police. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 188
    More: Spiffy, recycling bins, pedophiles, documents  
•       •       •

13838 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2012 at 10:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 07:55:22 PM
Paedophile, subs.

/W-Nnnnnnnn-B-C... W-Nnnnnnnn-B-C...   
 
2012-11-02 08:45:25 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-02 08:46:00 PM
Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.
 
2012-11-02 08:53:09 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.


i47.tinypic.com

Awwwwwwww.... Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!
 
2012-11-02 09:10:26 PM
This is why we have the hero tag, subs.
 
2012-11-02 10:05:35 PM
♪Garbage man
Garbage man
Does whatever a
garbage man can♫
 
2012-11-02 10:52:44 PM
www.spirit-of-metal.com
 
2012-11-02 10:54:00 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.


Noooo... You know he had pictures of them. Looking and touching two different things.
Just pointing out your jump to conclusion is probable, but there is no evidence for that.
 
2012-11-02 10:55:47 PM
They should be used to taking out the trash.
 
2012-11-02 10:56:28 PM

ShadowWolf: BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.

Noooo... You know he had pictures of them. Looking and touching two different things.
Just pointing out your jump to conclusion is probable, but there is no evidence for that.


So, he doesn't diddle kids himself (yet), he just creates a market for the professional kiddie diddlers, and continues the victimization of those children long after the act is finished?

I stand by my statement.
 
2012-11-02 10:57:00 PM
 
2012-11-02 10:57:34 PM
To trash.
 
2012-11-02 10:58:04 PM
We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.
 
2012-11-02 11:01:38 PM
Im assuming there is a "that's not my garbage" defense.
 
2012-11-02 11:02:01 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.


I don't believe pedophiles are sick, especially since there are degrees of it and most people don't know that. I think there's something wrong with finding younger-than-pubescent humans attractive, but only wrong in a scientific sense. I won't pass judgement on them.

I think you question regarding digitization is an interesting one. Sometimes you just want to kill some people, cause explosions, see people pay for their crimes (as uncivilized as that is), but instead of going out and committing these crimes, you go home, kick back, cook up some popcorn, and play some video games or watch DieHard. I think it may both make the problem worse for some, and bearable/forgettable for others. When i'm feeling randy, I find some porn on the pc and some minutes later relieves the bug, and i'm able to refocus on my work. YMMV.
 
2012-11-02 11:03:57 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.


Pedophilia is not a static sexual orientation where someone simply is attracted sexually to prepubescent children. It's a progressive escalation of behaviors. While not all pedophiles are predatory in nature, child pornography is a way for them to escalate their fantasies. The really freaky thing about their pathology, though, is that they don't see it as harming a child - but loving them the way the child wants to be loved, in only a way they can understand.

Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.
 
2012-11-02 11:05:06 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.


Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?
 
2012-11-02 11:06:18 PM

BronyMedic: Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.


What if it is completely computer generated?
 
2012-11-02 11:07:36 PM
The comments section on that page is a dazzling example of why we have representatives make decisions and don't put everything up to a public vote. If everyone had their way, the death penalty would account for punishment for like the 20% worst crimes, life in prison for the next 30%, and we'd round off the 50% of least serious crimes by only giving people a decade or two. I think everyone should actually be subjected to their own brand of what they consider justice for one week, and after that week the world would be a much more humane and rational place.
 
2012-11-02 11:07:52 PM

Carlip: Im assuming there is a "that's not my garbage" defense.


With the exception that they found "hundreds of pictures of naked boys and girls on his computer", that would be a laugh, wouldn't it? Paedo next door was throwing out his trash in this guy's bin? Heh.

/note to self: dispose of incriminating documents in neighbors trash
 
2012-11-02 11:08:13 PM
What's the pedo's Fark handle
 
2012-11-02 11:08:44 PM

NewportBarGuy: i46.tinypic.com


leaving satisfied
 
2012-11-02 11:09:01 PM
They care a lot!
 
2012-11-02 11:09:32 PM
FTFA: "Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children."

"Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order."

...He imposed £300 costs.

The judge told Eaton... "Your barrister has described your behaviour as foolish but I regard it as very serious. They could have been found by anyone including young children"


So lemme get this straight... he admitted to 18 counts of possesing child porn, got no jail time (suspended sentence), a £300 fine... all because the "serious" part of this crime was that kids could have found the pictures in his trash?

Wow, the UK has to be the absolute worse place in the world to get caught if you're a pedo. I mean, 300 pounds and 2 years supervision... what is this, Auschwitz?

Also, why the fark would anybody print this shiat out? That high-def flat panel he used to view the pics before printing them wasn't good enough?
 
2012-11-02 11:10:40 PM
In before Mike Rowe
 
2012-11-02 11:11:20 PM
www.mikeroweworks.com

I'm Mike Rowe, and this is my job.
 
2012-11-02 11:11:23 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?


Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?


Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?
 
2012-11-02 11:11:53 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: Besides that, child pornography continues the victimization of the child long after even the initial perpetrator is captured and justice is done.

What if it is completely computer generated?


computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.
 
2012-11-02 11:13:35 PM

kriegfusion: computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.


Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by attempting to equate predatory pedophilia and ephebophilia with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old consensually.
 
2012-11-02 11:13:59 PM

CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.


Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.
 
2012-11-02 11:15:55 PM

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: FTFA: "Eaton, from Tiverton, Devon, admitted 18 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children."

"Exeter Crown Court gave him an eight-month suspended sentence and ordered him to go on a sex offenders programme as part of a two-year supervision order."

...He imposed £300 costs.

The judge told Eaton... "Your barrister has described your behaviour as foolish but I regard it as very serious. They could have been found by anyone including young children"

So lemme get this straight... he admitted to 18 counts of possesing child porn, got no jail time (suspended sentence), a £300 fine... all because the "serious" part of this crime was that kids could have found the pictures in his trash?

Wow, the UK has to be the absolute worse place in the world to get caught if you're a pedo. I mean, 300 pounds and 2 years supervision... what is this, Auschwitz?

Also, why the fark would anybody print this shiat out? That high-def flat panel he used to view the pics before printing them wasn't good enough?


well, at least he didn't say anything mean.
 
2012-11-02 11:16:16 PM
Really? An eight month suspended sentence, with a 300 buck fine? And you have to register? Really? That's all? For making child porn and victimizing underage children? Wow....I don't even know what to say.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:18 PM
If they've hurt anyone, you could give them some brain surgery.

It'll be a delicate operation though. You'll need the right tools.

www.kingofswords.com
 
2012-11-02 11:18:17 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?

Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?

Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?


Texas I believe ruled that comics and drawn depictions are the same thing as actual photographs.
 
2012-11-02 11:18:41 PM

BronyMedic: kriegfusion: computer generated animations have no victims, therefore it should be completely legal in my opinion. For Brony, i'd like to see specifics on this; not that I doubt there can be some serious consequences with *specific* CP, but I think in a society where active sub-18 and adult sexual relations take place, if it was accepted and not thought of as wrong, there would be very little in the way of negative consequences.

Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by attempting to equate predatory pedophilia and ephebophilia with a 17 year old having sex with a 25 year old consensually.


The questions were talking about, from what I was gathering, pedophilia in general, and not predatory, which we can all agree predatory sexual actions in any form are bad. No one is insulting intelligence, or attempting to; perhaps you are, in automatically assuming being attracted to people under 18 is automatically predatory, and therefore creating a strawman argument right off the bad for the villagers to set afire.
 
2012-11-02 11:20:43 PM

BronyMedic: Too bad they didn't toss him in the garbage compactor, and get rid of him with the rest of the trash.

/yes. I know he's a human being, and killing is bad.
//I also know that he diddles kiddies.



mobile.freewallpaper4.me



concurs.
 
2012-11-02 11:22:34 PM

doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.


Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.
 
2012-11-02 11:22:38 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, all you know is he (allegedly) collected images of naked children.

Or do you have information not in the article that says he actually molested children?

Oh, you really assume I care at this point. Yes, I know, I'm a horrible, heartless person for wishing ill things on pedophiles


Actually, I just asked a question. But if you just lump the two together because hey, why not, ok then.

ArcadianRefugee: What if it is completely computer generated?

Since when does a real-life child get victimized by the production of shota-ai or lolicon? And in what jurisdiction is that illegal, again?


The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Link
 
2012-11-02 11:25:28 PM

ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."


Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.
 
2012-11-02 11:26:52 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.


Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.
 
2012-11-02 11:28:55 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.
 
2012-11-02 11:31:43 PM

kriegfusion: doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.

Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.


I don't think it's right to alter people like that just to fit current social mores. But it's also not right to harm other creatures just so you can orgasm.

I guess the only real solution is difficult. So here's a really bad solution that doesn't help anyone but I really like:

www.murphsplace.com

You wanna fark kids and animals? Well that's gonna happen. But if you control your farking libido, eat your veggies, and train well we can wrangle up some adult fans of the type you're into. Difficulty: you have to be prepared to take it like a man when and if the time comes.
 
2012-11-02 11:32:30 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: The US.

"The Supreme Court today [Monday, May 19, 2008] upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn't actually child pornography. Or involve actual children."

Bolded the important part of that statement. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


Yeah, that is stupid. Computer-generated images don't hurt anyone.
 
2012-11-02 11:32:33 PM

doglover: kriegfusion: doglover: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick.

Sick implies they can get better.

Pedophilia is considered morally wrong thus a choice legally, but it's not a real choice. Not moreso than any other kind of sexual wiring. Most people are straight. Another large bunch are gay. Another large bunch like roleplay, S&M, whipped cream, or what have you. As the bell curve gets on, you get the weirder stuff: true asexuality, cutting, vomit etc. If you keep going the whole way out it goes from harmless to weird to harmful: bestiality, pedophilia, rape.

If you can't turn a straight person gay or a gay person straight, I don't see how you'd hold out any hope for correcting a much larger problem with the same wiring. Pedophiles and other harmful sexual deviants are simply broken by nature. Only by changing their very nature could you hope to cure them. I don't know if that really qualifies at an illness at that point.

Very well put, doglover. I think firstly society in an impartial way (who knows how we'd achieve that) could decide what a sensible cut off age would be acceptable. I personally go with mother nature and let her draw the line, although for relations at a younger age, damage done would have to be proven. With some kind of limit in place, the answer to fixing this *problem* if thats what we see it as, would lie in scientific study. Putting people behind bars does nothing to solve the problem in the long run. I'd much rather figure out what makes people sexually attracted to people of such a young age, and somehow maybe 'snip' that gene and take care of the problem in the bud.

I don't think it's right to alter people like that just to fit current social mores. But it's also not right to harm other creatures just so you can orgasm.

I guess the only real solution is difficult. So here's a really bad solution that doesn't help anyone but I really like:

[www.murphsplace.com image 504x352]

You wanna fark kids and animals? Well that's gonna hap ...


That's NOT gonna happen, rather.

Too busy checkin' the hotlink to proofread.
 
2012-11-02 11:33:27 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.


You might also want to read more on the actual case.

Wiki Link to the US v. Williams (2008) entry. The whole issue at hand was could the person be charged and convicted for trafficking in child pornography because he was passing around pictures of women which he tried to promote and distribute as child pornography, not drawings or hentai. The photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model, and was promoted as actual child pornography.
 
2012-11-02 11:33:44 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.


So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).
 
2012-11-02 11:35:51 PM

ArcadianRefugee: So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


If you take an 18 year old model who has the body of a 12 year old, and digitally alter the photograph to resemble child pornography, then yes. Semantics matter. Your fraud turns into a federal sex crime charge the moment you try to spread it around to all the other pedos on the Tor.
 
2012-11-02 11:36:37 PM

BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

You might also want to read more on the actual case.

Wiki Link to the US v. Williams (2008) entry. The whole issue at hand was could the person be charged and convicted for trafficking in child pornography because he was passing around pictures of women which he tried to promote and distribute as child pornography, not drawings or hentai. The photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model, and was promoted as actual child pornography.


So if the same was done -- photo was digitally regressed to appear 12 even though it was an of-aged model -- and was promoted as "adult entertainment", then it should be entirely legal, despite the fact that the end result (the image) is exactly the farking same. Right?

"Sorry, your honor, that's not child pornography, that's merely 'adult entertainment'."

Right, and it's not 'child molestation', it's 'man-boy love'.
 
2012-11-02 11:39:04 PM

kriegfusion: CruJones: We all agree pedophiles are sick. But is it possible that digital porn may keep some from actually committing real life crimes? Not a position, just a question.

I don't believe pedophiles are sick, especially since there are degrees of it and most people don't know that. I think there's something wrong with finding younger-than-pubescent humans attractive, but only wrong in a scientific sense. I won't pass judgement on them.

I think you question regarding digitization is an interesting one. Sometimes you just want to kill some people, cause explosions, see people pay for their crimes (as uncivilized as that is), but instead of going out and committing these crimes, you go home, kick back, cook up some popcorn, and play some video games or watch DieHard. I think it may both make the problem worse for some, and bearable/forgettable for others. When i'm feeling randy, I find some porn on the pc and some minutes later relieves the bug, and i'm able to refocus on my work. YMMV.


Unfortunately the concept of scientifically wrong doesn't exist.
 
2012-11-02 11:40:28 PM

ArcadianRefugee: BronyMedic: ArcadianRefugee: Actually, it says precisely what I think it says: material which is not, in fact, child pornography, can be prosecuted as such.

If the material is promoted as child pornography.

So no, it doesn't say what you think it says. Taking the previous example of Hentai, the material is presented as adult entertainment, not child pornography.

So? Promotion? So, if I 'promote' something as an actual murder, despite no one having been murdered, it should be prosecutable as such? That's ridiculous.

Last I checked, promoting something as something it was not was fraud, not (CP, murder, whatever).


The FBI nabs would be hitmen customers all the time. The people they contact are LEOs and would never follow through on anything, so no one is in danger, but the perps want a murder, so conspiracy to commit murder is the charge, even though arguably the would be victim is safer with their enemy in the FBIs cross hairs than they ever were in their life.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report