Well, there’s paedophile danger and then there’s paedophile danger

This might be something to not worry about very much:

About 300,000 paedophiles are sharing sexual images or abusing children on the dark web, nearly four times previous estimates, Britain’s National Crime Agency has revealed.

What we’re worried about is people abusing children. Actual live humans being harmed.

The worry about online pornography is that it leads to – either in its production or by stimulating the desire for action – live human beings being harmed.

That is, the online bit is measuring a proxy and not direct harm. What we want to know about is direct harm, not the proxy.

And the general finding is that more of the proxy leads to less of the harm. They’re substitutes, not complements.

The real difficulty here being to get anyone to accept the evidence……

34 thoughts on “Well, there’s paedophile danger and then there’s paedophile danger”

  1. “That is, the online bit is measuring a proxy and not direct harm. ”
    There’s plenty of harm online. Maybe not physical contact, but direct interaction between adults and children. Harmful interaction. You know about ‘camming’, I expect.

  2. Given the improvements in CGI I would have thought that’s the next road porn will go down.

    That’ll get the legal profession in a tangle. CGI characters that look 15 but are actually 18….?

    Talking of generated images, who is people’s favourite cartoon pin up? She might not be real but Cool World’s Holli Would does it for me.

  3. Can only read the first bit of the article–but that is enough.

    It is bullshit.

    They whinge about the “rise” of paedo stuff on the open web–2 lines after whinging about having found 2.88 million accounts on the “dark” web.

    1-Why are paedos looking at/posting(?) stuff on open web when they have –presumably much safer–dark web “accounts”?
    2-How does Plod know the number of accounts but not enough to prosecute account holders? Have they found a dark web stats site that has let them know this interesting fact? Or was it pulled out of their most reliable source of info–their arse?
    3-What does account mean in this context? On Amazon say it is a clot of info about you that facilitates transactions. Does anybody think paedos would arrange matters so on the dark web? All that matters to crims is evil product out–cash back in. Are the paedos going to let crims have any info about them they can avoid giving? What would stop crims running a nice blackmail scam on the side if they had such info? So no –I don’t believe tales of accounts. Perhaps 2.88 million “transactions”= crap sent for payment received. But if so, 2.88 million of that kind of transaction prob equals a far smaller number of paedos making numerous transactions. Calling such exchanges “Accounts” allows Plod to claim nearly 3 million paedos active. Assuming they haven’t just made the entire thing up anyway.

    Then the nonsense really kicks off.

    Some of these “accounts” can only be got if paedo sends pictures of themselves raping a child.

    So –despite the fact that it is believed that 80-90% of paedos are just porn lookers not active kiddie-fiddlers ( yes obv kids had to be fiddled to produce the porn )–Plod wants us to believe. To believe that people are going to send photos of acts that could get them life sentences into the tender care of criminals. In order to get back images of something they are already doing and photographing themselves doing. As well as being evil such a pack of child rapists would have to be amazingly stupid.

    In short it is lurid cop-porn deceit aimed at attacking a free internet.

    I can guess the piece will call for more power to reign in the wicked dark web etc.

    Yes there are paedos out there and they are a danger to a small number of kids. But this mighty army of dark web paedos crap is agit-prop designed to attack freedom using good old paedo-hysteria as justification.

  4. It’s easy to get the stats because all of the victims are in the “care” of the local authority.

  5. CGI porn? Can I have Nigella Lawson, Kim Wilde and Kate Humble please on a king-sized bed please.

  6. @Jussi

    It’s a good point.

    Whenever a debate arises about which of two celeb hot bods you’d rather shag, I point out that since it’s only ever going to happen in a fantasy, why not have both?

  7. That moment when you realise all your candidates for virtual carnality (Gina Carano, Natalie Dormer,…) are well into milf territory…

  8. Steve takes a different approach. The problem with paedos is that they’re paedos. They need permanently removing from society, preferably before they molester kiddos. Pedpocalypse now.

    The longstanding legal principle here is Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

    So – get feely with the altar boys? Death.
    Naughty scoutmaster – Death.
    Wanking at pictures of kiddos – you guessed it, my droogs.

  9. @Steve

    Yeah, but you know what it’s like with make up and clothes. You pick some bird up in a nightclub and she looks 20. It’s only when you wake up the following morning you realise she’s only 7.*

    *that’s a joke.

  10. If they fiddle kiddies by all means Steve,

    But paedo-ism–like sodomy and almost all other paraphilias are very likely early-life imprints which humans are vulnerable to.

    Hardly the fault of the poor bastards who have them.

    A tiny % of people –because usually of extreme life circs–cannot make the distinction between good and evil and act out their urges, Hang them by all means.

    But do you intend to kill–estimated 100,000 paedo porn lookers?

    Up to now looking at kiddie porn =kids being fiddled which is why “live-action” porn must indeed be severely punished.

    But art and CGI now mean to the vast majority of those afflicted with paedo-ism –who are lookers ONLY– can at least get on with their lives without anybody else being harmed.And without us needing to become mass murderers.

    Now as to the abuse industry line that paedos always move from looking to acting.

    Ok –show me the people who have moved from love bites ( which is an action already not just looking) into cannibalistic sex killing. Show me the bondage fans who have decided to become burglars so they can actually tie-up attractive housewives, the rape porn fans–including lots of women–who decided to really commit rape. In short some evidence that the vast majority of those with paraphilias are not perfectly able to understand and respect the difference between fantasy and reality.

    We can’t stop whatever imprints small children are given by life. We have very little understanding of how such imprints work and most people–whose imprints don’t directly hurt anyone would not and probably could not give them up anyway.

    We can focus on running down the small and dangerous groups of those who bad life circs + imprints have left them willing to act out dark fantasies with unwilling victims.

  11. Here’s an interesting question this brings up: assume or imagine that there is clear and uncontested evidence that CGI of kiddie porn reduces, let’s say dramatically reduces, real world paedo activity. How hard would it be to decriminalize virtual/CGI? Any politician going to try to do that?

  12. This would be the government that considers a bloke a paedo for taking a wiz against a tree when a nipper comes into view? That Vietnamese nail bar girls are chained to the bed at night? That you don’t need a face mask (because we’re too fucking incompetent to stockpile any)? That government?

    BTW, what are the production figures for people’s collective farm 472 this year?

  13. Andrew C – ACKSHUALLY, it Ebolaphilia, bigot!

    Ecks – Sure.

    Hardly the fault of the poor bastards who have them.

    It’s kinda like wasps. Not their fault they’re stripey yellow bastards. But we still can’t live with them. The boy-buggerers of Athens, ironically enough, had the perfect solution to antisocial elements – ostrakizein.

    But do you intend to kill–estimated 100,000 paedo porn lookers?

    Yes, but in a humane and ecologically sustainable way that respects their human rights (damnatio ad bestias).

    Esteban – assume or imagine that there is clear and uncontested evidence that CGI of kiddie porn reduces, let’s say dramatically reduces, real world paedo activity

    The problem is, scratch any professor presenting this sort of “research” and you’ll find a pedo. And pedos are incorrigible liars. Google Helmut Kentler.

  14. Dr. Fox: “Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that’s a scientific fact: there’s no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.”

    Brass Eye

  15. The evidence …?
    ” we asked 100 lying manipulative amoral kiddy fiddling fucks and they said ….,,.”?
    There is no evidence!
    What we do know is that sex with children can be normalised, in human history it has been, along with slavery genocide and much more we have thankfully left behind. Zero tolerance is the only way and sustaining the cultural abhorrence with which decent people regard these animals.
    No compromise
    No understanding

    By the way I hope you lot are feeling ashamed as the death toll amongst Muslim front line health workers mounts.

  16. I’m with Steve, millstones and necks come to mind.
    Kiddie porn normalises pedophilia, much like drag queens reading to tots in public libraries while in full adult show regalia, like young boys in drag at pride parades, like slebs encouraging their prepubescent children to crossdress, like…The msm encourages us to “tolerate and embrace” a lot of stuff that should be on the social margins.

  17. Tolerate not embrace.

    Tolerate= avoiding mass murder of people who no longer have to be involved in promoting crime. Look on the CGI stuff as a prescription for a troublesome condition. It massively reduces live kidde-porn meaning henceforth only really active hard-game crims will be in the business.

    There is no point to ruining the lives of those who will do no further harm. When no live kids are harmed then there is no justification for pursuing victimless crimes let alone murdering them.

    If they should transgress into actual kiddie fiddling the noose awaits. Looking at CGI and harming no one provides no justification for murder.

  18. I don’t like stupid leftist created phrases like “fascist” –socialist is the correct phrase.

    We see Facepainter–who has slung the word about like a child-molester handing out Smarties against anyone supporting Brexit is a proven and self-condemned example of what he condemns. “Hang them all” says the great oh-so-morally-superior middle class Marxist prick.

    And then –in the next phrase endorses a cult by no means strangers to the topic under discussion. And not as spectators.

    Did you expect all RoP in the NHS to resign then Face? They are taking the same chances as everyone else in that incompetent organisation. What makes one group heroic ?

  19. Neumonia: “By the way I hope you lot are feeling ashamed as the death toll amongst Muslim front line health workers mounts.”

    Can’t say I care , let alone feel any emotion other than that if a religion (of any denomination) prevents you from taking proper precautions when handling patients with a dangerous illness, it’s obviously not fit for purpose.

    If there’s a higher % of “Muslim” health workers that catches the current Nasty compared to other denominations, they obviously are Doing It Wrong. Which in and of itself would be a reason to question their actual suitability for the job.

    Case Closed.

  20. Newms – What we do know is that sex with children can be normalised, in human history it has been, along with slavery genocide and much more we have thankfully left behind. Zero tolerance is the only way and sustaining the cultural abhorrence with which decent people regard these animals.

    100%

    We used to snigger at pearl-clutching conservatives with their slippery slope fallacies. We know now – what with deranged women mutilating their children’s genitals with NHS assistance and sexual deviants wanting to snuggle up to kiddos for storytimes – that it’s more like the greased chute in an abbatoir*

    *So when you’re near me, darling can’t you hear me, S.O.S.

    By the way I hope you lot are feeling ashamed as the death toll amongst Muslim front line health workers mounts.

    Inshallah, Coronavirus is a disease of peace. The real danger is that regressive elements will create a Coronaphobic backlash.

    Srsly tho, I haven’t seen anything to suggest our Muslim friends are at any greater risk than anyone else. Corona doesn’t give a shit about your pork life, mate.

    Ljh – Turns out that creating habitable order out of chaos is hard. It’s a task worthy of Sisyphus. As soon as we slack off and start tolerating things we shouldn’t be tolerating, we start getting crushed.

    That’s why olden thymes people were intolerant bigots – it wasn’t just for the shits and gigs, there are a million ways to create Heck on Earth whilst living well is a tightrope made of dental floss.

    Ecks – There is no point to ruining the lives of those who will do no further harm.

    You’re thinking about this the wrong way. There aren’t any “safe” pedos. It’s like a wasp’s nest in the nursery, or a pitbull playing with your toddler, or a buffet table with Diane Abbott around.

    What are fathers for? Cormac McCarthy explained:

    My job is to take care of you. I was appointed to do that by God. I will kill anyone who touches you. Do you understand?

  21. “There aren’t any “safe” pedos.”

    That is just silly Steve? If that is true how can any males with fantasies about raping women be considered “safe”? That is the definition of some Marxist-feminist skank. We are all monsters who can’t be trusted etc. You have–tho’ I can’t think of a specific example–made enough comments for anybody to say you have no sympathy for that point of view.

    What changes the moral point when it becomes a limited set of people that nobody likes?

    By all means a Father should dispatch anybody he finds molesting his children.

    But what has that to do with the point I made? I said hang actual fiddlers. But those who are able to keep their urges in check without actual harm?

    Drug addicts cause vast harm–gonna kill them too? Eastwood said it–“pretty soon you are executing your neighbour because his dog pissed on your lawn”.

  22. The notion that everyone looking at child porn should be topped contains two logic errors. Firstly, that there is some reasonable, universally accepted definition of child porn, and secondly that everyone viewing it is wanking off over it because it depicts a “child”.

    Someone laughing at a lewd cartoon of Lisa Simpson is not a paedophile. Someone with a collection of cgi trolls and elves porn is not a paedophile just because some government bottom inspector decided the “elf” looks under eighteen.

    According to the British Government, the female doesn’t even have to be a “child” for it to be child pornography, merely to look like one. For example, St. Greta will be eighteen next January, but any porn she makes next year would be child pornography because she looks twelve.

  23. That is just silly Steve? If that is true how can any males with fantasies about raping women be considered “safe”? That is the definition of some Marxist-feminist skank.

    Oh quite and people who enjoy watching Good Fellas are potential gangsters and people who enjoy watching Tom and Jerry are potential cartoon characters.
    You see Ecks fictions of various sorts may have a very different relationship to the viewer.
    Wishing to watch a child being sexually abused is of itself sufficient evidence that the viewer has a literal relationship with the image. Wishing to watch a real animal being tortured is not the same as sniffing with manly sorrow when Lassie falls down the mine ….

    Stop defending the indefensible its disgusting

  24. Defending the indefensible is your lifestyle Facepainter traitor.

    If someone is into fiddling kids then time they were dead.

    But you are going to murder 100,000 people who have unsavoury interests that they don’t do anything about.

    And I was accused of being a keyboard warrior for wanting to punch a leftist.

    As Shaft put it “You aren’t going to do Jack Shit” Face. But with a taste for disposing of those you dislike we get a glimpse of the world you would create.EU paradise indeed.

    I think if there are to be killings –they should be as a result of what somebody has done not because other people can’t handle their emotions. Would I want to be a pal of such a person? Not if I found out about his unfortunate patterns of thought.

    But so long as his mental troubles/actions remain confined to his mind I wouldn’t murder him either.

  25. i’m with the great liberal Ecks on this one. We punish people for what they do, not for what they are. If the law said we should all be good, who among us would escape whipping? (King Lear)
    Psychopaths are kept in the general estate because they can’t be cured and secure hospitals are even more expensive. Psychos make up 3 – 5% of the population and it would be impractical to lock them all up.

  26. Philip/Ecks/RlJ +1

    And it’s more than just “impractical to lock them all up”. You’re transiting rapidly into thought crime territory. Slightly surprised at some of the more “flog ’em and hang ’em” sentiments for (actual) actions not even contemplated (never mind not “yet” committed).

  27. A pendant writes – it’s Hamlet (the lad himself):
    Use every man after his desert, and who shall ‘scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.

    We now return you to this interesting role-reversal thread, in which Newmania takes the part of Attila the Hun, while Mr Ecks is the bleeding-heart liberal. 🙂

  28. Heard a BBC R4 piece a few years ago from a never done Paedo

    He confessed his urges to GP and asked for help like druggies, alchies etc receive. GP referred to Psyhc, Psyhc informed plod. No help, sacked, divorce, has had to move town sev times and life ruined

    imo NHS failed and cost to us is chap on benefits until he suicides

    Protect The NHS? No – Protect and Help Patients

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *