Seems The Police Want To Go Really Softly On Child Crime

[youngmafbog]

Anyone agree with this Copper?

For the record I dont, viewing images means you are creating a market for child abuse so just as guilty of it in my book.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4266056/Paedophiles-shouldn-t-face-charges-child-porn.html

[douglas9401]

He's just looking for early retirement on full pension.

[murraymints]

wrong

[Peter Pedant]

o god I thought it was was child crime as in
children who are criminals
rathe than children who are victims

and was gonna hail the idea that the yoof criminal system at last someone realised that it doesnt work

try to catch 'kids for cash' - Netflix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

do I approve of the vastly expensive tribunal looking into cases of abuse in Oz in the forties
yes a waste of time
( to name and shame old father X who used to beat the crap out of kids in the fifties and died in a home in wollagong in 1967)

[ToraToraTora]

some right on Liberal idiot, if there was no market there'd be no supply. These nonces should be banged up for life if you asked me.

[Peter Pedant]

become a judge YMF
go to judging school or something and
become a judge

[Jackdaw33]

He's from Norfolk. 'Nuff said.

[vulcan42]

It's a worrying trend in police work these days, If they can't cope with the problem they try to make it legal. Totally wrong in my view.

[jno]

police resources are finite. So what do you want them to do? Redirect resources away from what? Or the usual all-purpose response of "sack all the middle managers"?

[Gromit]

The Daily Mail's sidebar of Shame often falls foul of the COPINE scale. It is the low levels on this scale that the police don't want to investigate. A good thing really, we don't want our prisons clogged full up with Daily Mail readers.

https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-M4RbyRVxc6E%2FU5dmjKs-NzI%2FAAAAAAAAC0M%2FknTuzXNKkLo%2Fs1600%2Fdaily-mail-16-years-old1.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*

[youngmafbog]

What are you talking about jno? Are you in favour of no prosecution for having child images?

[Gromit]

Ymb,
Child images are rated on a scale. The police think having low level images should not automatically be prosecute.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/16/article-0-14DD8707000005DC-958_196x440.jpg

[andy-hughes]

jno - //What are you talking about jno? Are you in favour of no prosecution for having child images? //

I cannot see that jno's post indicates a suggestion of no prosecution - it merely underlines the point that Mr Bailey is making - that police resources are increasingly stretched.

Personally, I am in entire agreement with your stated view in your OP - while people look at images, there is a market for images, and that leads to on-going abuse.

I appreciate that resources are stretched, but that does not in turn mean that diluting the law on abuse is the way forward.

The government makes a lot of noise about tackling child abuse, so it can put its budget where it's mouth is, and increase funds for this type of detection and prosecution, rather than sending a message to paedophiles that viewing abuse images is now acceptable.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - //Child images are rated on a scale. The police think having low level images should not automatically be prosecute. //

Images are on a scale, abuse is not.

You can't rate levels of abuse 1 - 5, either a child is being abused or they are not being abused. The notion of somehow 'downgrading' abuse because it is seen as 'not as serious' is utterly immoral, and anyone thinking it is a way forward should be ashamed of themselves.

[Gromit]

AH,
I don't think you have read what Bailey said, or you don't understand.

He is not saying abusers or people with pirnographic images should not be prosecuted, he said

// ...But he said that an individual who is not in contact with children and is looking at ‘low-level images’ should be treated differently. //

A low level i age is not a pornographic image, it is one which the Daily Mail often publishes (see above).

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - An image is either an image that anyone can view - such as your Mail image (my PC won't bring it up, so apologies for not being able to speak about that with any authority) - or it is an abuse image, there are no shades of grey.

If you or I are looking at titillating images from the Mail's ever-hyperventilating 'let's pretend it's 1975' sidebar, then the worst we can be accused of is wasting our valuable time.

If an image is of a child being abused, then the viewer should be prosecuted.

I really can't see where there is any middle ground.

[jno]

why not answer my question first? What exactly is your proposal to deal with lack of resources?

My own opinion is that - as the cop says - priority should be given to dealing with people who pose a direct threat to children, ahead of those who don't. If you disagree, what's your suggestion?

[andy-hughes]

OK, I have managed to view the image of the child in a bikini - not something I would seek out as a matter of course, but obviously not illegal.

That is not a 'low level' image, it is a 'no level' image, it's a picture of a child - so I fail to see the point you are making.

[andy-hughes]

jno - //why not answer my question first? What exactly is your proposal to deal with lack of resources? //

Who are you addressing please?

[jno]

sorry, andy, that was in reply to the OP, who responded to my question with another question. I think the matter is worth serious debate, but it's difficult if people just express indignation rather than offering suggestions.

[andy-hughes]

No problem jno - I figured you were addressing ymb, but just wanted to be sure.