BlackSails wrote: Goplat wrote:
Hemmers wrote:For some reason the Police thought it was a good idea to arrest people who'd bought these books, but have as yet taken absolutely no action against the publishers or retailers. Utterly bizarre
Not really. The publishers and retailers can probably afford decent legal representation. If your goal is to ruin people's lives with pointless prosecutions, going after individuals is a better bet.
You will never eliminate things (drugs, child pornography, whatever) by going after the supply. As long as there is demand for something, people will supply it.
True, but something being sold in a national book chain is probably not going to be illegal - they have fairly good lawyers to check these sorts of things.
Secondly, if it is illegal, it's retarded to try and test it's illegality in court by prosecuting a purchaser, when copies of the offending material continue to be on sale less than 200yds from the courthouse
In that case it was dubious as to whether the books were even illegal. Given the fact they were being sold by Waterstones, then it is fair for buyers to assume it is legal - these were books of poetry and art featuring some risque illustrations, not out-and-out kiddie porn.
If they cross the line (which apparently they don't as the appeals court has overturned the conviction), then the proper way to go about dealing with them would be to prosecute the supplier, and (having established that they cross the legal line) issue a recall, and tell people they can bring the books back in for a refund with immunity for a period, after which anyone in possession of them will be subject to normal criminal proceedings.
It's a totally different scenario to people deliberately and surreptitiously seeking out illegal material whether on the internet or otherwise.
Whimsical Eloquence wrote:
Hemmers wrote:i.e. to be pedophilia, one partner has to be 18+, and the other has to be under 16 (and the elder partner has to know they are under 16). There is a defence if the younger partner has gone to lengths to conceal their true age (there is recent case history because the 14 year old girl had gone to great lengths on Facebook to fake the school she was at, conceal her true age, used make up to look older, etc, etc. The court concluded that she knew what she was doing and he reasonably believed she was legal).
Sections 5-8 of the same act deal with sex with children under 13, which is an absolute offence and there is no "reasonable belief" clause.
No. This is precisely the problem. To be a paedophile one has to have an erotic fixation for pre-pubescent
minors. That's it. The Law doesn't decide whether you're a paedophile or not, or at least it shouldn't. It's as if we say a female who raped another female is a "convicted Lesbian". The practice of saying "a convicted paedophile is one I find quite prevalent, even in broadsheets, and idiotic. It only serves to confuse the issue more. Furthermore, having paedophiles specifically aren't
interested in post-pubescent even if they're under the age of consent (that's Ephebophilia). Finally, many of those who commit child molestation (both pre- and post- pubescent) may not have any particular erotic fixation but instead a plethora of other psychological issues or are just plain malicious.
Well raised - that's the dictionary (and correct) definition true, so my post is inaccurate. However, the context that the OP posted in was the more general and widespread usage which is sex with anyone under the age of consent, and the more general paranoia over the issue, rather than specifically pre-pubescent children.
Since the media confuses the issue, and we are discussing the general paranoia over this issue, it's kind of appropriate to use the term in it's wider (if less strictly accurate) context. Good point well made though.
An interesting case on this locally. A priest was convicted of possessing child porn. This was the subject of discussion in the pub as my brother was at school with the guy's son. One person referred to him as a "paedophile". The actual or suspected age of the children in the images is not a matter of public knowledge (the Police merely rank them "Level 1/2/3/4/5" depending on their "severity"). In someways he may have been accurate if the images showed pre-pubescent children. However, he meant it in the context of actual being a child molester. When I pointed out his error, he seemed slightly confused and didn't seem to understand the difference between sex with a minor and possession of child porn. Calling the guy a paedophile would be slanderous or libellous because most people would understand it to mean
that he was guilty of having sex with a minor (even though it's dictionary definition doesn't imply any sort of action whatsoever, merely a fixation or state of mind).
The whole lot gets lumped together by many people as "paedophilia", regardless of age or the actual offence committed - a distortion of our language which we have the hysterical mass media to thank for.