The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

"I Was Only Following Orders"

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

"I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Woofer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:01 am

There`s been much discussion about police corruption in several topics here.
 
Individuals here have been shocked that serving officers would allow this to happen and that they wouldn`t allow it themselves.
 
In most uniformed services or where there is a strong heirarchy, INDIVIDUALITY is not encouraged.
 
Look at the atrocities that armies, cults and religions cause - all under orders from a leader or supposed god.
 
Look at the experiments done by Zimbardo  - "A study to support the idea of Deindivduation was conducted by Zimbardo (1970) who had college students dress up in Ku Klux Klan outfits and he then asked them to shock other people and he found that the college students who were dressed up delivered more shocks than the students who were not dressed up . Another experiment to show  the effect of deindivduation   was conducted by Johnson and Downing (1979) who asked the participants to dress up as nurses and deliver shocks and it was found that those in the nurses uniform shocked less because they were influenced to “play the part” of being a nurse.  This show that deindivduation does not always have to be negative."  Millgram
 
And of course there are the Nuremberg trials and the "I was only following orders" defense which the psychiatrist Millgram demonstrated with similar experiments to Zimbardo`s.
 
So what I`m trying to say is that it is almost impossible for INDIVIDUALS to get anywhere in any heirarchical organisation.  And I know this through personal experience - you have to go along with the rules or else you`re out.
 
The same theory of DE-INDIVIDUALISED can be applied to paedophiles, many criminals and psychological disorders - that of not INDIVIDUATING and developing their own sense of what is right and wrong.  DE-INDIVIDUATED people do not feel in control of their lives, so they find outlets to exert control. IMO paedophiles cannot be chemically changed - even if they were castrated, the desire to control will still be present.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:48 pm

@Woofer wrote:There`s been much discussion about police corruption in several topics here.
 
Individuals here have been shocked that serving officers would allow this to happen and that they wouldn`t allow it themselves.
 
In most uniformed services or where there is a strong heirarchy, INDIVIDUALITY is not encouraged.
 
Look at the atrocities that armies, cults and religions cause - all under orders from a leader or supposed god.
 
Look at the experiments done by Zimbardo  - "A study to support the idea of Deindivduation was conducted by Zimbardo (1970) who had college students dress up in Ku Klux Klan outfits and he then asked them to shock other people and he found that the college students who were dressed up delivered more shocks than the students who were not dressed up . Another experiment to show  the effect of deindivduation   was conducted by Johnson and Downing (1979) who asked the participants to dress up as nurses and deliver shocks and it was found that those in the nurses uniform shocked less because they were influenced to “play the part” of being a nurse.  This show that deindivduation does not always have to be negative."  Millgram
 
And of course there are the Nuremberg trials and the "I was only following orders" defense which the psychiatrist Millgram demonstrated with similar experiments to Zimbardo`s.
 
So what I`m trying to say is that it is almost impossible for INDIVIDUALS to get anywhere in any heirarchical organisation.  And I know this through personal experience - you have to go along with the rules or else you`re out.
 
The same theory of DE-INDIVIDUALISED can be applied to paedophiles, many criminals and psychological disorders - that of not INDIVIDUATING and developing their own sense of what is right and wrong.  DE-INDIVIDUATED people do not feel in control of their lives, so they find outlets to exert control. IMO paedophiles cannot be chemically changed - even if they were castrated, the desire to control will still be present.
Interesting post Woofer, and I especially agree that it is impossible for an individual to get anywhere unless they go along with the dominant ideology of their company/organisation, whatever.  I can only imagine how this works within the police service, but there would be no place for individual or independent thinking.  When we hear that a company is rotten to the core, it usually is, because those at the top will dictate how the company is run.  The not so charming McCanns malevolence runs right through their network of support for example.

I'm a huge fan of Zimbardo - and his experiment with students he divided into prisoners and guards proved that those with control over others, in the majority of cases, will lose their empathy and humanity.  The guards in the prison experiment became so aggressive that he had to stop the experiment.  Chilling stuff, and in many ways it explained to me why the catholic children's home I was in, was run as if it were a Nazi prison camp and indeed, why the staff it attracted were the worst kind of perverts and sadists. 

One of the problems I think, is that people are afraid to voice an opinion that differs from that of that of the majority, nobody wants to be 'different', they want to fit in.  Sadly, governments use this human weakness to steer the 'herd' into whatever direction they want. 

A good example is the discussion that is presently going on regarding the 600 arrested on charges of paedophilia.  Universally, paedophiles are the most reviled group of individuals within our society, absolutely no-one is going to defend them, and if they do, they too will be reviled. 

The majority of the public will see the 660 headline and the 50,000 paedophiles living and working among us, and will vote for any government brave enough to root them out.  If this case has taught us anything, it is has given us a huge insight into the government and media tactics of 'look here, not over there'.  No one will question those figures, for fear of being thought 'weird', if the police say it is so, it is so.  But I will repeat the question I put on another thread.  Only 39 of those arrested were registered sex offenders.  That means that 621 were not.  I want to know why not?  Are we to believe that these men have never, ever, been reported for abusing children in the real world?  If it follows that viewing child pornography leads to abuse then there must be real victims.  So why have the 621 men never been reported, and if they were, why was no action taken? 

Effectively, they are being arrested for cyber crime, and from a freedom of speech and human rights perspective, that is a very dangerous path to go down. 

But apologies Woofer, I went a tad off topic. I think every organisation will have a culture that will start at the top and work down through the chain of command.  Possibly why we are seeing a number of police 'chiefs' coming to the fore in these corruption allegations.  'I was only obeying orders' is a strong line of defence, and for the majority, within any organisation, it makes life much easier simply to go along with the ideology rather than make waves.  An interesting subject.

Woofer said:

'The same theory of DE-INDIVIDUALISED can be applied to paedophiles, many criminals and psychological disorders - that of not INDIVIDUATING and developing their own sense of what is right and wrong.  DE-INDIVIDUATED people do not feel in control of their lives, so they find outlets to exert control. IMO paedophiles cannot be chemically changed - even if they were castrated, the desire to control will still be present'.

I am not sure I agree with your final paragraph above.  The very nature of the crime sets paedophiles apart from society.  They are, on the whole, solitary, pathetic creatures who keep their unnatural desires very much to themselves.  That is, they are not part of groups, families, churches, or any other social group, they are isolated and ostracised and very much individuated.  Jimmy Savile was the exception, rather than the rule, and isn't it strange that the real reports made to the police about him were ignored, whereas I am sure if he had pressed download on a child porn site, he would have been picked up within seconds!

 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by BlueBag on Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:17 pm

You have to become a "whistle blower" to do anything.

Whistle blowers are of course protected by the whistle blowers charter...

Oh... wait...

BlueBag

Posts : 3429
Reputation : 1275
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Woofer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Yes it`s an interesting subject Cristobell - and you clarify the gist of what I was trying to say.
 
As regards your point about why weren`t 621 caught before or even on a sex offenders register.  I`ve read your other postings on this and can see where you`re coming from - that they haven`t actually hurt a child just by looking - am I right?  I must say I do find some of your thinking very liberal - almost as if anything goes and as long as it doesn`t hurt anyone it`s ok.  To an extent, I agree, but in this case it is hurting someone because they are propogating the trade, feeding it.
 
A solicitor I used to work for had child images on his computer - this was back in the 90s.  Oddly enough, most of us in the office knew but wouldn`t have dared query it because our jobs would have ended.  He had a family and young girls and, to date, no harm seems to have come to them that we know of.  But he was feeding the trade in child pornography.  For all I know he was one of the 621 or may even have been on the Operation Ore list and not charged. 
 
As regards the other point on paedophilia, I think we are at cross purposes over the word `individuated` :-
 
"Woofer said:
 
'The same theory of DE-INDIVIDUALISED can be applied to paedophiles, many criminals and psychological disorders - that of not INDIVIDUATING and developing their own sense of what is right and wrong.  DE-INDIVIDUATED people do not feel in control of their lives, so they find outlets to exert control. IMO paedophiles cannot be chemically changed - even if they were castrated, the desire to control will still be present'.
 
I am not sure I agree with your final paragraph above.  The very nature of the crime sets paedophiles apart from society.  They are, on the whole, solitary, pathetic creatures who keep their unnatural desires very much to themselves.  That is, they are not part of groups, families, churches, or any other social group, they are isolated and ostracised and very much individuated.  Jimmy Savile was the exception, rather than the rule, and isn't it strange that the real reports made to the police about him were ignored, whereas I am sure if he had pressed download on a child porn site, he would have been picked up within seconds! "

I take the word `individuated` to mean someone whose own character and personality has been allowed to develop into an authentic sense of self.  I was not using the word as `someone who is an individual`, but as someone who has autonomy.  This lack of autonomy is what I believe leads paedophiles to need to control, and of course their anger at not being autonomous exacerbates their ease in hurting others.
 
This is from `The Roots of Horror` which is primarily about the military being able to torture, maim and kill, but explains what I mean by `individuation` and `de-individuation`.
 
QUOTE
 
By demanding obedience above all from a child (whether by physical punishment, by psychological means, or through some combination of both), parents forbid the child from fostering an authentic sense of self. Because children are completely dependent on their parents, they dare not question their parents' goodness, or their "good intentions." As a result, when children are punished, even if they are punished for no reason or for a reason that makes no sense, they blame themselves and believe that the fault lies within them. In this way, the idealization of the authority figure is allowed to continue. In addition, the child cannot allow himself to experience fully his own pain, because that, too, might lead to questioning of his parents.

In this manner, the child is prevented from developing a genuine, authentic sense of self. As he grows older, this deadening of his soul desensitizes the child to the pain of others. Eventually, the maturing adult will seek to express his repressed anger on external targets, since he has never been allowed to experience and express it in ways that would not be destructive. By such means, the cycle of violence is continued into another generation (using "violence" in the broadest sense). One of the additional consequences is that the adult, who has never developed an authentic self, can easily transfer his idealization of his parents to a new authority figure. As Miller says [emphasis added]:

"This perfect adaptation to society's norms--in other words, to what is called 'healthy normality'--carries with it the danger that such a person can be used for practically any purpose. It is not a loss of autonomy that occurs here, because this autonomy never existed, but a switching of values, which in themselves are of no importance anyway for the person in question as long as his whole value system is dominated by the principle of obedience. He has never gone beyond the stage of idealizing his parents with their demands for unquestioning obedience; this idealization can easily be transferred to a Fuhrer or to an ideology."
Note the elements that are present here, and how easily adaptable these elements are to the military, or to a prison system: idealization of the authority figure, which figure can be the military itself and/or a commanding officer; a loss of autonomy or, in other words, the lack of a genuine self - which means that "self" can be filled in with "values" provided by those in authority; and, most important of all, the total and absolute premium placed on obedience, as the greatest of the virtues. This is the kind of person who will never say "no" when confronted with a monstrous order -- and it is precisely for that reason that many such individuals are attracted to this sort of command structure in the first place.
 
END QUOTE
 
http://thesacredmoment.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/roots-of-horror-denial-spreads-and.html

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:00 pm

My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by plebgate on Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:30 pm

Snipped from OP

So what I`m trying to say is that it is almost impossible for INDIVIDUALS to get anywhere in any heirarchical organisation.  And I know this through personal experience - you have to go along with the rules or else you`re out. "


I was reminded of this having read the sentence above.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8595728/Hospitals-need-more-beds-not-more-bare-arms.html


Certainly doesn't pay to be an individual going by this story.    Don't know if this man is back on duty though.  

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Woofer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:59 pm

@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:06 pm

@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.
Remember that P.I.E. were entertained by those in government (cabinet ministers now) and funded by dubious others in this 'liberal' mentality to have an 'intellectual' discussion of what should be considered offensive with regards to having sex with children.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by plebgate on Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:12 pm

@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.
Well said woofer - the lonely outcast whose crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one.    WHAATTTTT, what kind of statement is that?  I really cannot believe what I read at times.

I haven't read the blog and I would never do so if this is the kind of thing written on it.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:56 pm

@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

Mutual, with a good helping of respect thrown in too.  smilie 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

I agree, its a question of supply and demand, but my main concern would be with the supply.  The premises where the films are made are the crime scenes.  The people abusing these children are the criminals.  It could be compared to any other crime.  It would be like the drug squad concentrating on the users, rather than the dealers, a pointless, never ending exercise in futility.   



The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.


Society has been slipping into a backward slide of degradation since Eve took a bit out of that apple Woofer.  Any society will divide into the righteous, the followers and the subversives.  The righteous will take the lead, because they are, err, righteous, that is they are morally superior to the hoi polloy, so they get to make the rules.  Anyone who questions the righteous will be trampled by the rest of the herd. 

Unfortunately, such is human nature the righteous (or the self appointed righteous) will always be fighting a losing battle, because mankind's physiological make up wants us to party and have fun.  Manmade Laws cannot override that.  Look at the Prohibition, health, safety and sanity flew out the window as people pursued their divine right to get sloshed.  From a drugs perspective the logical thinking of the renowned Professor Knutt was discarded by Tony Blair as it did not fit that government's policy and ideas.  It was also a huge vote loser.  Did drugs go away?  No, we now have new and more deadly forms, and of course that Russian roulette child killer 'Legal Highs'. 

We can't really change human nature, but we can and should protect children and vulnerable people.  I still think cyber policing is lazy, maybe even fashionable, almost definitely sinister.  I would like to know who they are protecting and how they are protecting them - I have a horrible feeling of deja vu, as I remember all the kids seized by the authorities in Cleveland on the advice of Ray Wyre (freak) who believed everyone was practicing Satanic child abuse.  At the time the public were very much against the parents, as they are now against those recently arrested.  There were the usual cries, of 'they must be guilty because experts said so', but they weren't, the 'authorities' got it horribly wrong. I doubt those poor kids and their families ever recovered.
  
 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:00 pm

@aquila wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.
Remember that P.I.E. were entertained by those in government (cabinet ministers now) and funded by dubious others in this 'liberal' mentality to have an 'intellectual' discussion of what should be considered offensive with regards to having sex with children.

The opposite of that Aquila is NO discussion, and where does that take us?  If we know nothing about the crime, how can we prevent it?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:12 pm

@plebgate wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.
Well said woofer - the lonely outcast whose crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one.    WHAATTTTT, what kind of statement is that?  I really cannot believe what I read at times.

I haven't read the blog and I would never do so if this is the kind of thing written on it.
I am very sorry you feel that way Plebgate, and that others will share your thinking. 

The blog is actually entitled 'Have The Six Hundred been arrested for Cybercrime' - it covers wider issues, but as I say your prerogative.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by PeterMac on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:14 pm

Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:21 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:My earlier post developed into a blog if anyone is interested.

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/     smilie

Oh Cristobell - you are awful - but I like you  yes 

You said this on your blog - "Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids. "

But he is contributing to the harm Cristobell, because he is creating a demand for it.

The more people who watch violence, the more the media will produce it, the more it desensitises people, the more it becomes acceptable - its the slippery slope.  Same with looking at child pornography.  OK, he may never physically touch a child in his life, but he is contributing to the backward slide into degradation.
Remember that P.I.E. were entertained by those in government (cabinet ministers now) and funded by dubious others in this 'liberal' mentality to have an 'intellectual' discussion of what should be considered offensive with regards to having sex with children.

The opposite of that Aquila is NO discussion, and where does that take us?  If we know nothing about the crime, how can we prevent it?

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:23 pm

@PeterMac wrote:Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.
That's the truth.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:36 pm

@PeterMac wrote:Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.
If the child is being abused, I agree with you absolutely.  However, again I ask what constitutes abuse?  Would dressing a child up and putting make on them considered abuse?  Some would say it is.  Taking photographs of kids playing about in paddling pools could be interpreted in many ways,  its all in the eye of the beholder.  Historically, paedophiles hung around in parks, but they can get the same images now simply by logging onto Facebook.   

We have now reached the stage where parents cannot take pictures of their kids in school plays because of the hysteria about paedophiles, will these purges make it illegal to photograph children at all?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:39 pm

Here's another question I have.

If facial recognition is so great, how come Scotland Yard or the FBI haven't managed to scan the internet on paedo sites for the most missing child on the planet (according to the UK and the UK media)?

Oh, perhaps they have.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:42 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.
If the child is being abused, I agree with you absolutely.  However, again I ask what constitutes abuse?  Would dressing a child up and putting make on them considered abuse?  Some would say it is.  Taking photographs of kids playing about in paddling pools could be interpreted in many ways,  its all in the eye of the beholder.  Historically, paedophiles hung around in parks, but they can get the same images now simply by logging onto Facebook.   

We have now reached the stage where parents cannot take pictures of their kids in school plays because of the hysteria about paedophiles, will these purges make it illegal to photograph children at all?
Cristobell, you need to go have a cappuccino with Harriet Harman. You two would get on well.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Woofer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:46 pm

Oh Cristobel - I started a reply to you but its all getting so philosophical, and therefore no conclusions will be reached - we could go on forever here.  But I basically agree with you that it`s the supplier who is the actual criminal who is getting fat on the weaknesses of other souls.  The weak paedophile who watches child porn IMO cannot be let off - he is contributing to it, even if he never touches a child and even if we can see the reasons for his weakness. I don`t think your argument is with that anyway - it`s more to do with interference from authority.  It`s too big a subject   yes  

btw - I thought it was Marietta Higgs who gave the orders to take the Cleveland children away from their parents.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Woofer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:53 pm

@aquila wrote:Here's another question I have.

If facial recognition is so great, how come Scotland Yard or the FBI haven't managed to scan the internet on paedo sites for the most missing child on the planet (according to the UK and the UK media)?

Oh, perhaps they have.

Now there`s a thought !

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:05 pm

@aquila wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.
If the child is being abused, I agree with you absolutely.  However, again I ask what constitutes abuse?  Would dressing a child up and putting make on them considered abuse?  Some would say it is.  Taking photographs of kids playing about in paddling pools could be interpreted in many ways,  its all in the eye of the beholder.  Historically, paedophiles hung around in parks, but they can get the same images now simply by logging onto Facebook.   

We have now reached the stage where parents cannot take pictures of their kids in school plays because of the hysteria about paedophiles, will these purges make it illegal to photograph children at all?
Cristobell, you need to go have a cappuccino with Harriet Harman. You two would get on well.
I don't know what you have implied from my view Aquila, but I don't support child abuse or the creeps who want to sexualise children. Presumably, you too have chosen not to read my blog which is why you have got such a distorted opinion on what I actually said.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Cristobell on Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:08 pm

@Woofer wrote:Oh Cristobel - I started a reply to you but its all getting so philosophical, and therefore no conclusions will be reached - we could go on forever here.  But I basically agree with you that it`s the supplier who is the actual criminal who is getting fat on the weaknesses of other souls.  The weak paedophile who watches child porn IMO cannot be let off - he is contributing to it, even if he never touches a child and even if we can see the reasons for his weakness. I don`t think your argument is with that anyway - it`s more to do with interference from authority.  It`s too big a subject   yes  

btw - I thought it was Marietta Higgs who gave the orders to take the Cleveland children away from their parents.
Agreed Woofer, thank you for the debate.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by aquila on Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:31 pm

@Cristobell wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Every image of a child being abused is an image of a crime scene.
If the child is being abused, I agree with you absolutely.  However, again I ask what constitutes abuse?  Would dressing a child up and putting make on them considered abuse?  Some would say it is.  Taking photographs of kids playing about in paddling pools could be interpreted in many ways,  its all in the eye of the beholder.  Historically, paedophiles hung around in parks, but they can get the same images now simply by logging onto Facebook.   

We have now reached the stage where parents cannot take pictures of their kids in school plays because of the hysteria about paedophiles, will these purges make it illegal to photograph children at all?
Cristobell, you need to go have a cappuccino with Harriet Harman. You two would get on well.
I don't know what you have implied from my view Aquila, but I don't support child abuse or the creeps who want to sexualise children. Presumably, you too have chosen not to read my blog which is why you have got such a distorted opinion on what I actually said.
I did read your blog Cristobell. I read it before I made a post. I didn't disagree with all of it.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Guest on Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:58 am

@Cristobell wrote:
We have now reached the stage where parents cannot take pictures of their kids in school plays because of the hysteria about paedophiles, will these purges make it illegal to photograph children at all?

A bit Daily Mail-ish that, Cristobell.

The photos of my daughter's sports day are up on the public area of the school's website.

If people get off on those then, well, I wouldn't say good luck to them, exactly, but what realistically can or should be done about it?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "I Was Only Following Orders"

Post by Guest on Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:01 am

@aquila wrote:Here's another question I have.

If facial recognition is so great, how come Scotland Yard or the FBI haven't managed to scan the internet on paedo sites for the most missing child on the planet (according to the UK and the UK media)?

Oh, perhaps they have.

I think that would be the coup de grace in this case.

I can imagine that revelation being held back for deployment when the circumstances demand it - like the ICBM of paedo hysteria.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum