Child Porn Crime Rises In Britain: Report

[ultimatejester]

LONDON, Jan. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Child porn crimes in Britain have risen 15 fold since 1988 and new internet mobile phones could makethings even worse, according to a report issued Monday by a leading British children's charity.

The National Children's Homes (NCH) said in its report that 549child porn offenders were charged or cautioned across Britain in 2001, compared with only 35 in 1988.

The internet is largely to be blamed for the sharp rise in child porn offenses, said the report.

Experts also fear the launch of mobile phones capable of accessing the internet will make child porn crimes even more widespread and difficult to combat. Prepaid mobile phones cannot be traced as there is no record of who owns the handset.

It is reported that advanced 3G -- third generation -- technology will allow paedophiles to access child porn on pay-as-you-go phones with impunity.

"The internet is about to go mobile, and that could make many things more difficult to prevent or detect," said NCH's web consultant John Carr in an interview with the BBC.

"Almost all the issues of child safety on the internet that exist today become much more complex when the internet goes on thestreet." Enditem

[G2k1boy]

Yep that's the world we live in :angry:

[Wizard_Mon1]

some one was just telling me about his landlord who got locked up for child pornography and he had to 10-15 year old daughters

its a mighty fu^ked world

[Rat Faced]

I think its wrong to blame the internet alone, although lets face it...it makes all this crap so much more available for them.

In the 1980's, this type of thing was still swept under the carpet to a great extent.

If you look at the figures from say the mid 1990's...when the UK really started cracking down until the present day, there may be a truer correlation as to the effect of the internet...rather than society as a whole's attitude hardening.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

but received a strong reprimand from British authorities for allegedly looking at Web photos of abused children.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._music_eo/13177 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/eo/20031229/en_music_eo/13177)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 January 2004 - 21:37
I think its wrong to blame the internet alone, although lets face it...it makes all this crap so much more available for them.

In the 1980&#39;s, this type of thing was still swept under the carpet to a great extent.

If you look at the figures from say the mid 1990&#39;s...when the UK really started cracking down until the present day, there may be a truer correlation as to the effect of the internet...rather than society as a whole&#39;s attitude hardening.
I agree, Rat, although I think the internet has the unintended effect of enabling and fomenting the acting-out of perverse behaviors.

There has always been a segment of society whose self-control was hair-trigger; the availability of the stuff on the &#39;net is playing a large part in showing us (and the children, unfortunately) just who these people are. :(

[Biggles]

The headline statistics are somewhat spurious given that no one in the UK had the internet in 1988.

What is much more worrying in the body of this report, is that criminal gangs in Eastern Europe have moved in and are treating it like a business. As has proved in other areas of crime in Europe, these people are powerful, have corrupted authority and play nasty. Until the social and economic problems of that area improve this problem is going nowhere very fast.

[J'Pol]

It is always dangerous to associate the increase in detection and prosecution with the increase in the rate of the crime.

I personally suspect that the internet has caused a much more dramatic rise in the availability and indeed creation of this type of material than these figures suggest. I cannot support this with figures it is merely an opinion.

The main problem there is that, as people have more access then they can get the available material more quickly. As such there becomes a higher demand for new stuff to be made. There is only one way to make child pornography and that is by involving children in it. So the increased demand automatically leads to increased instances of child abuse. Some of it is the sharing of lewd pictures of young girls, some of it is more hideous than it is proper for a healthy mind to try and comprehend. There is everything in between.

The other thing to bear in mind is that todays organised crime gangs are in many ways less scrupulous than some of the older ones. They had their own rules and would not do (or allow) certain things, there were boundaries they would not cross. It appears nowadays that, so long as it makes a big profit, anything goes.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

Wouldn&#39;t disagree with that. Prior to 1988 I am not even sure if it was something the police much looked for. Incidents like the web site used by the FBI (forget the name of the operation) also show that the internet can be used to police these crimes thus increasing detection rates.

With regards the criminals, the "new East" has grasped the principles of supply and demand remarkably quickly. Capitalism unfettered, just what Marx feared it would seem.

[J'Pol]

Biggles

This may be what you speak of. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/04/1028157882468.html)

[Biggles]

It is indeed.

Although it does rather strike me that if the police have not followed up most of the leads by now the chances are that the relevant computers are at the bottom of a land fill - in fact most computers from 1999 are at the bottom of a land fill regardless of content.

Also, if they arrest 7000 people, where are they going to put them - it would seem lunacy to put them all in the same place or even in aggregate lumps of say 200? This whole issue is going to cause some administration serious problems at some point in the future; either that or they get a couple of steps ahead of the criminals and block the source.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 January 2004 - 21:27


Also, if they arrest 7000 people, where are they going to put them - it would seem lunacy to put them all in the same place or even in aggregate lumps of say 200? This whole issue is going to cause some administration serious problems at some point in the future; either that or they get a couple of steps ahead of the criminals and block the source.
I hate to say this but...

Put them in the main prison population and get the guards to go on a tea break...the problem will solve itself....

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+13 January 2004 - 23:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 13 January 2004 - 23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@13 January 2004 - 21:27


Also, if they arrest 7000 people, where are they going to put them - it would seem lunacy to put them all in the same place or even in aggregate lumps of say 200? This whole issue is going to cause some administration serious problems at some point in the future; either that or they get a couple of steps ahead of the criminals and block the source.
I hate to say this but...

Put them in the main prison population and get the guards to go on a tea break...the problem will solve itself.... [/b][/quote]
Well thought out, constructive and helpful argument there, thanks for that.

Will you lead the vigilantes or had you some else in mind.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+13 January 2004 - 22:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 13 January 2004 - 22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 January 2004 - 23:24
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@13 January 2004 - 21:27


Also, if they arrest 7000 people, where are they going to put them - it would seem lunacy to put them all in the same place or even in aggregate lumps of say 200? This whole issue is going to cause some administration serious problems at some point in the future; either that or they get a couple of steps ahead of the criminals and block the source.
I hate to say this but...

Put them in the main prison population and get the guards to go on a tea break...the problem will solve itself....
Well thought out, constructive and helpful argument there, thanks for that.

Will you lead the vigilantes or had you some else in mind. [/b][/quote]
in the context of my original post i mentioned a guy who has a family. im not excusing his behavior one little bit but he is still only human and maybe he just needs help.

if he cant be help then let teh dogs lose on him as well as :angry: prisoners.

[Biggles]

Rat Face

:D Care in the community?

That essentially was the problem I was suggesting. 7000 could fill half a dozen prisons on their own. Put a couple of hundred in one prison and they would be running the show. I am not sure of the total prison population of the Uk but I think all told, taking into account remand and open prisons, it is about 60,000. I have to confess I am a bit hooked on the environment thread at the moment and am reading some stuff on that. If anybody has the figures to hand throw them in.

It must be remembered that this was one sting 3 or 4 years ago and that the news report I saw (which of course may have been scare mongering) suggested that these 7000 are only a fraction of the actual problem - I may be wrong but I am sure it said the police estimates were in the region of 200,000. (I wouldn&#39;t hang my hat on that though as it was some time ago I didn&#39;t pay much attention).

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+13 January 2004 - 22:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 13 January 2004 - 22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced@13 January 2004 - 23:24
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@13 January 2004 - 21:27


Also, if they arrest 7000 people, where are they going to put them - it would seem lunacy to put them all in the same place or even in aggregate lumps of say 200? This whole issue is going to cause some administration serious problems at some point in the future; either that or they get a couple of steps ahead of the criminals and block the source.
I hate to say this but...

Put them in the main prison population and get the guards to go on a tea break...the problem will solve itself....
Well thought out, constructive and helpful argument there, thanks for that.

Will you lead the vigilantes or had you some else in mind. [/b][/quote]
I have no intend to being involved.

I did mention that i hated to admit the problem could sort itself out....personally im of a much more liberal viewpoint on this subject; the people involved should be tied down and the families of the victims let loose with rusty blunt knives.

Unfortunatly Mr Blunket doesnt listen to me ;)

[J'Pol]

I think we were actually discussing the material and specifically how the internet had made it more accessible.

Perhaps I had picked up the direction of the thread incorrectly. It was more related to pedophile pornography as opposed to pedophile acts carried out on children.

I take it your sentencing policy remains the same, brutal beatings for those convicted of having such material. Do you still decline to do this yourself.

[Rat Faced]

J&#39;Pol, you&#39;ve caught me out...

I really shouldnt post when im tired...

My punishments were for the purpetrators of course...


The punishment should fit the crime they say...so for watching this?

Let em sit through 5 years of enforced Richard and Judy <_<

[Biggles]

:&#39;(

That is harsh, very very harsh.....


but fair some would say.

[J'Pol]

Should we become animals, in order to deal with animals.

Some say yes, I don&#39;t know.

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

I know Richard and Judy are grim ... but animals?

aliens maybe :D




Apologies for being flippant on a serious thread :sad1:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@14 January 2004 - 00:16
J&#39;Pol

I know Richard and Judy are grim ... but animals?

aliens maybe :D




Apologies for being flippant on a serious thread :sad1:
You have been reported for your incessant puerile spamming.

You must be close to moderation by now. (Sounds stupid when you say that - close to moderation).

[Biggles]

Although according to my son, all words sound strange and meaningless if you say them often enough - and he has often proved himself right, as my ears bleed and my brain exits through a trap door I have had put in at the back of my head.

Is undergoing moderation painful - it does rather sound like something Fugley would do to someone.