bickster Posted July 29 Moderator Share Posted July 29 11 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Any 60 year old bloke buying nudes off a sub 21 year old is a creepy **** regardless Almost sickening the amount of people defending this degenerate at the Time. Who are we to judge what two consenting adults get up to in their private lives. It was never about approval or defending. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 A very good friend of mine i knew was selected to go onto jury service a few years ago. After the case was done all he said to me was it was about "kiddy diddling". My friend was never the same after, he ended up drinking too much, lost his job and finished with his long term girlfriend. He cut off all his friends, including me, and must have suffered awfully having to hear the details of the case. I have often wondered if counseling was available to jurors after cases like this. I guess he suffered some sort of mental breakdown, and like a typical man bottled it up until it destroyed his life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Just now, delboy54 said: A very good friend of mine i knew was selected to go onto jury service a few years ago. After the case was done all he said to me was it was about "kiddy diddling". My friend was never the same after, he ended up drinking too much, lost his job and finished with his long term girlfriend. He cut off all his friends, including me, and must have suffered awfully having to hear the details of the case. I have often wondered if counseling was available to jurors after cases like this. I guess he suffered some sort of mental breakdown, and like a typical man bottled it up until it destroyed his life. Same happened to that ex policeman I was on about. Drinking to cope , then his work started to be affected until he was caught drink driving which made his drinking worse and lead him to cocaine etc etc etc . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 My missus got sexually abused by her mums fella years ago when she was about 8/9. Her mum also got sexually abused by her uncle as a child. One of the older blokes who I used to work with he said growing up he was round his mates playing in the spare room and they found a stash of pictures hidden. Turns out they were children being sexually abused and they belonged to his mates dad. They just put them back and nothing was ever said. He went on to say it just never got spoken about back then and was in some ways accepted . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tomav84 Posted July 29 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said: A lot of people would experience schadenfreude. That's not a problem. The problem is how these groups often act, ruining chances of prosecution. Justice would be much more likely to be served if they recorded everything, stood back and handed information over to the police. That said, I imagine without the public attention* it gets a lot of them wouldn't bother any more, so maybe more people would go undetected. *I may be wrong, but I doubt there is a financial benefit as I don't imagine Youtube monetises these channels i have a potentially controversial theory on these nonce catching accounts: they don't give a **** about protecting kids (at least, it's not their primary concern). they were the school bullys...loved picking on the weak at school however once they hit adulthood and went into the workforce etc they could no longer do this and get away with it. but they found a niche...where they could continue to pick on weak individuals and treat them however they liked where the public would (arguably rightly) not sypathise with their 'victim' in any way. if they literally just did the whole decoy thing, apprehended them, and as you say just passed any video evidence to the police but not shared what they were doing on social media then they could absolutely play the card that they're performing a public service. the live stream aspect serves no purpose other than to fuel their ego and feel like tough guys (i don't know how facebook live views are monetised and agreed, i would be surprised if such accounts received revenue but equally i'd be amazed if there was no financial benefit to them doing this in some way) 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: They always make me feel slightly uneasy. I mean they’re nonces so I have no sympathy for them. But they often feel very much like entrapment well this is another thing...we don't get told how these conversations are initated. if they just set up a fake account and wait for blokes to start messaging, then fine, throw the book at them. but i strongly suspect that they go 'fishing' for these interactions and as i said in my post above, they're often blokes who are not quite all there. they potentially have just received the first bit of female attention they've ever had in their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jonesy7211 said: Can't agree with you there sir. There's no understanding it. Not just the acts themselves but the lasting impact it leaves on their victims. Being attracted to any other adult, regardless of sexuality is totally different. Children aren't equipped to stop sexual mental and physical abuse from an adult. Who we are attracted to is not something we can decide unfortunately. Whether a person acts on their feelings of attraction is where we do have a choice in the matter. I can’t imagine what it would be like to realise you are attracted to children. I wonder how many people there are out there who are attracted to children but have not ever acted on it and would never tell a soul about it but instead live with a huge internal turmoil? Edited July 29 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 7 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Who we are attracted to is not something we can decide unfortunately. Whether a person acts on their feelings of attraction is where we do have a choice in the matter. I can’t imagine what it would be like to realise you are attracted to children. I wonder how many people there are out there who are attracted to children but have not ever acted on it and would never tell a sole about it but instead live with a huge internal turmoil? The law of averages says there will be the odd one on VT that’s got this exact problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 18 minutes ago, tomav84 said: well this is another thing...we don't get told how these conversations are initated. if they just set up a fake account and wait for blokes to start messaging, then fine, throw the book at them. but i strongly suspect that they go 'fishing' for these interactions and as i said in my post above, they're often blokes who are not quite all there. they potentially have just received the first bit of female attention they've ever had in their lives. Yep exactly. It doesn’t excuse them. They should still know better. But it makes me uneasy that these people might never have been in that situation if it wasn’t for these stings 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 Worth noting our laws mean receiving a copy of an image that is considered illegal is classed as making the image, therefore it's possible Huw has been charged because he received the pictures we already knew about. The charge makes it sound like he was going full Glitter, but may well not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 24 minutes ago, Chindie said: Worth noting our laws mean receiving a copy of an image that is considered illegal is classed as making the image, therefore it's possible Huw has been charged because he received the pictures we already knew about. The charge makes it sound like he was going full Glitter, but may well not be. Weren't those photos of another consenting adult though? Unless the original details were wrong I assumed this was a whole new thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 50 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said: Weren't those photos of another consenting adult though? Unless the original details were wrong I assumed this was a whole new thing. I may be forgetting but wasn't the suggestion that he may have got photos from the other party when they 17? So they have him on a technicality that isn't what anyone is thinking when they hear child porn charges. I may be wrong though, I've slept a lot since this came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 2 hours ago, LondonLax said: Who we are attracted to is not something we can decide unfortunately. Whether a person acts on their feelings of attraction is where we do have a choice in the matter. I can’t imagine what it would be like to realise you are attracted to children. I wonder how many people there are out there who are attracted to children but have not ever acted on it and would never tell a soul about it but instead live with a huge internal turmoil? Yeah kinda like wanting to kill!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 13 minutes ago, Chindie said: I may be forgetting but wasn't the suggestion that he may have got photos from the other party when they 17? So they have him on a technicality that isn't what anyone is thinking when they hear child porn charges. I may be wrong though, I've slept a lot since this came out. You're right, the images were from age 17 onwards it seems. Not sure whether that counts as images of "children" but then I'm not too up on the law. Guess we'll find out more as the story evolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Well the question is if that was your 17 year old son would you be happy about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 22 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said: You're right, the images were from age 17 onwards it seems. Not sure whether that counts as images of "children" but then I'm not too up on the law. Guess we'll find out more as the story evolves. I'm not either, I think the age for explicit images is 18, below that is considered a minor still (to an extent, I think) but as said I'm not certain. Either way he's broken the law but I think people would view a 17 year old sending him pics willingly (even if for money) is different to the, err, more usual stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 Just now, Chindie said: I'm not either, I think the age for explicit images is 18, below that is considered a minor still (to an extent, I think) but as said I'm not certain. Either way he's broken the law but I think people would view a 17 year old sending him pics willingly (even if for money) is different to the, err, more usual stuff. Yeah, but if the law says receiving an image is illegal, then it's illegal Which bothers me a bit, because what's to stop someone with a grudge sending somebody else a dodgy image from a burner phone and then dobbing them in to the police? That person would be guilty of receiving an indecent image. Surely that can't actually be the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 So in terms of knocking the back out of him the lad was legal but it’s illegal to have explicit photos of someone who’s only 17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 29 Moderator Share Posted July 29 2 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: So in terms of knocking the back out of him the lad was legal but it’s illegal to have explicit photos of someone who’s only 17? UK age of consent laws are very unaligned. Wait until you hear about cigarettes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 35 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said: Yeah, but if the law says receiving an image is illegal, then it's illegal Which bothers me a bit, because what's to stop someone with a grudge sending somebody else a dodgy image from a burner phone and then dobbing them in to the police? That person would be guilty of receiving an indecent image. Surely that can't actually be the law? presumably, if you received unsolicited illegal content (whatever it may be), and took it straight to the police, you'd be ok. they'll probably still take your devices etc for investigation which would be a massive inconvenience but if one was genuinely innocent then they'd be able to prove it clearly in the case of a certain newsreader he either a) solicited said image or b) didn't do the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts