Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Churchwarden faces jail for having sex with 'obscene' life-size kids doll

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TheNarrator
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Because maybe the images are not as revealing as they try to present them? It is more about context than content.

    To explain this... nudity no always bad, but certain poses and angles are... so in theory the picture of a fully dressed kid... let's say in a halloween costume, doing a cat like pose... might be categorized as porn... if in the right context... the doll is the right context... you can basically put that doll next to a family album and construct an appropriate context to explain that the seemingly innocent pictures are, in the mind of the perv, porn.

    So for them the doll is crucial, because it is the context to be used to catalog the pictures...

    I remember in the news some time ago, a guy went to a library where there is a book of artistic photography, the guy made a copy of a page that featured the picture of a nude boy, and they call the cops... the photocopy was considered child porn ,but the book was OK and stay in the library for people to use it.

    It is all about context, no content.
    PRECISELY!!!

    my girlfriend is younger than me. her group of friends..... i met them all i was older and didnt have much in common with them.

    there was a guy called Gord. he was a good kid. he was very affable. he got charged with pedophilia pictures... he was 18 or so. he was finally sentenced at 20.

    here was my take when it happened

    #1 everyone demonized him and called him names
    #2 everyone wrote him off
    #3 he was a fucking KID!!!!! man at 18 you dont even know what you're into yet!!! jesus christ! i think i had animal porn on my PC at that age(among all kinds of stuff!!!!)... charging that kid was so wrong.. it ruined his life for what!? for being curious!? my god.....

    except.. i dont understand how a book can be OK and a photocopy OF the book isnt ok!? thats fucked. its the same pic.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheNarrator
    replied
    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
    No I don't know for a fact, and you are right, what is reported can easily be a lie, even when it looks credible. But I don't have any reason to dismiss the articles posted by Malcolm, so I assume it is reported in good faith.

    What you say underlines the need for a justice system as it has slowly and painfully evolved. No one in this world who doesn't have a corrupt agenda would erode rights to presumed innocence, a fair trial, to face the evidence presented against them, habeas corpus, burden of proof lies with prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt, restrictions on jeopardy and all people face equal jeopardy from the legal system.

    what i say underlines that the system is 100% failing and one of its huge failings is that it does not have any awareness of gynocentrism. the system serves women. demonizes men. and good luck if you are one

    i will tell you this, i was in the newspapers. and if you guys read those articles you would think "this guy's a sicko"
    however.. it warped the truth. it told lies. and i did nothing.

    REALIZE those 2 lines and understand your own bias and understand that you truly are trained to believe in a system that would fail you miserably.

    Leave a comment:


  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Because maybe the images are not as revealing as they try to present them? It is more about context than content.

    To explain this... nudity no always bad, but certain poses and angles are... so in theory the picture of a fully dressed kid... let's say in a halloween costume, doing a cat like pose... might be categorized as porn... if in the right context... the doll is the right context... you can basically put that doll next to a family album and construct an appropriate context to explain that the seemingly innocent pictures are, in the mind of the perv, porn.

    So for them the doll is crucial, because it is the context to be used to catalog the pictures...

    I remember in the news some time ago, a guy went to a library where there is a book of artistic photography, the guy made a copy of a page that featured the picture of a nude boy, and they call the cops... the photocopy was considered child porn ,but the book was OK and stay in the library for people to use it.

    It is all about context, no content.
    This is a good point. Select groups who get to interpret what things are gain a dangerous amount of power. A lot of things emerging now, like the censorship on youtube and google are prime examples, groups using the power to say what a threat is to censor opinions they don't want to be said, not because it is dangerous to people but because it threatens ideologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Originally posted by unheard View Post
    What amazes me is they focus on the doll rather than the more serious issue of possession of indecent images. It seems their agenda is to stop these dolls begin imported. I read somewhere, not sure where, that they could be given to paedophiles to stop them re offending. I'm not sure if that would be the case, but if it stopped a small percentage it would be worth it.
    Because maybe the images are not as revealing as they try to present them? It is more about context than content.

    To explain this... nudity no always bad, but certain poses and angles are... so in theory the picture of a fully dressed kid... let's say in a halloween costume, doing a cat like pose... might be categorized as porn... if in the right context... the doll is the right context... you can basically put that doll next to a family album and construct an appropriate context to explain that the seemingly innocent pictures are, in the mind of the perv, porn.

    So for them the doll is crucial, because it is the context to be used to catalog the pictures...

    I remember in the news some time ago, a guy went to a library where there is a book of artistic photography, the guy made a copy of a page that featured the picture of a nude boy, and they call the cops... the photocopy was considered child porn ,but the book was OK and stay in the library for people to use it.

    It is all about context, no content.

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    https://themarcusreview.com/2017/08/...-goes-missing/

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ren...a5c-1501977050

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08...iage-equality/

    Leave a comment:


  • MatrixTransform
    replied
    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
    a corrupt agenda would erode rights to presumed innocence, a fair trial, to face the evidence presented against them, habeas corpus, burden of proof lies with prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt, restrictions on jeopardy and all people face equal jeopardy from the legal system.
    they're manufacturing both 'mens rea', and 'actus reus' ... but yeah, [sarc]for the social good rather than cementing their careers.[/sarc]

    this will only get worse while schools and universities are brainwashing facilities.

    Dunno about the Doll thing but I do know the Safe-Schools thing is real and its happening here now.

    the zombies are coming for your children

    Hearts first, Minds second ... they dont believe it corrupt, they believe it's necessary
    Last edited by MatrixTransform; 08-06-2017, 12:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • unheard
    replied
    What amazes me is they focus on the doll rather than the more serious issue of possession of indecent images. It seems their agenda is to stop these dolls begin imported. I read somewhere, not sure where, that they could be given to paedophiles to stop them re offending. I'm not sure if that would be the case, but if it stopped a small percentage it would be worth it.

    Leave a comment:


  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
    i know nothing of the OZ story. nothing.

    however. do you know he actually did these things? i dont. i wasnt there, im not prepared to judge him on someone else's say. i have been the victim of this and i want no part of it.

    why do men follow blindly the system which rates them second rate citizens!?

    100 years ago we would marry 12-14 year old girls off to suitable (rich) husbands.

    now if a guy looks at a 14 year old he's put in jail.

    meh. i look at human history and i think this is the WORST possible time to be alive for any man
    No I don't know for a fact, and you are right, what is reported can easily be a lie, even when it looks credible. But I don't have any reason to dismiss the articles posted by Malcolm, so I assume it is reported in good faith.

    What you say underlines the need for a justice system as it has slowly and painfully evolved. No one in this world who doesn't have a corrupt agenda would erode rights to presumed innocence, a fair trial, to face the evidence presented against them, habeas corpus, burden of proof lies with prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt, restrictions on jeopardy and all people face equal jeopardy from the legal system.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheNarrator
    replied
    Originally posted by voidspawn View Post
    (I do agree that this case the guy is dangerous, if he's stalking and taking pictures he's way too far gone.)
    i know nothing of the OZ story. nothing.

    however. do you know he actually did these things? i dont. i wasnt there, im not prepared to judge him on someone else's say. i have been the victim of this and i want no part of it.

    why do men follow blindly the system which rates them second rate citizens!?

    100 years ago we would marry 12-14 year old girls off to suitable (rich) husbands.

    now if a guy looks at a 14 year old he's put in jail.

    meh. i look at human history and i think this is the WORST possible time to be alive for any man

    Leave a comment:


  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
    yeah i hate to agree with simpleman but ive read this threat twice now.

    i dont give a fuck what doll a man uses to jerk off. its fucked up..but he's not hurting anyone

    the pictures are debatable..what are "kid pics" i get the feeling anyone who looks young would be labeled as such to make a case for the cops... yet most men like women close to 18.......

    sorry if this shocks some of you but maybe im jaded..i see the manipulation i went through with the cops and all i can think is: what are they manipulating here?
    I read this story right after the video story of what was going on in Victoria, Australia where the mother revealed the extent of child abuse going on directly in classrooms. Forcing kids to roleplay homosexual acts, teaching them to use dildos, shaming them for showing dissent, telling them to keep it secret from parents. That is the GROOMING done by child abusers. Some guy with a weird silicone blob fuck object from the east, who have different ideas of what womanhood looks like anyway... but even ignoring that, what ticks me off is silicone blob banned and acted on... safer schools programme government funded child abuse completely okay. (I do agree that this case the guy is dangerous, if he's stalking and taking pictures he's way too far gone.) I know one story is in Australia and one in the UK, but this stuff merely starts in one our countries, then spreads around like wildfire.

    If societies decision is to protect children and childhood, which is the one I supported and as far as I know still stands, it should be bloody consistent.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheNarrator
    replied
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    Let's be realistic here... Those with a penis are a risk to going on rampant rape at any giving time. LOL.

    So the real question here is... If a woman have a small dildo... ???
    yeah i hate to agree with simpleman but ive read this threat twice now.

    i dont give a fuck what doll a man uses to jerk off. its fucked up..but he's not hurting anyone

    the pictures are debatable..what are "kid pics" i get the feeling anyone who looks young would be labeled as such to make a case for the cops... yet most men like women close to 18.......

    sorry if this shocks some of you but maybe im jaded..i see the manipulation i went through with the cops and all i can think is: what are they manipulating here?

    Leave a comment:


  • simpleman
    replied
    Mr Brown added: “There is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitised and their behaviour becomes normalised to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves, as is often the case with those who view indecent images.”
    Let's be realistic here... Those with a penis are a risk to going on rampant rape at any giving time. LOL.

    So the real question here is... If a woman have a small dildo... ???

    Leave a comment:


  • voidspawn
    replied
    Originally posted by malcolm View Post
    He sounds like a sick bastard.
    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/n...ing-to-129754/

    There's another saddo like him making the news in Newfoundland.

    http://www.thetelegram.com/news/loca...oll-trial.html
    That's comprehensive and damning. Possession of pedophillic photographs by themselves are sufficient in UK law far a conviction and quite rightly, the rest of the evidence collected simply cements the case that he is a danger to children and part of a network that procures, possesses and distributes material that abuses children. Good post Malcolm, I now know what to make of it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X