Sunderland

[sean_ork]

And by your refusal to answer my question with a yes, it must be a no ....... .

That just sums up the level at which you want to debate a complex topic - yes/no answers are meaningless


You might as well ask me what's 2 + 2 - is it yes or no

 

[sean_ork]

So you're saying that you're happy with the derisory sentences handed out to child sex offenders, because that's what the punishment that "the legal system deemed to suit the crime" thereby saying that you're happy with all sentences handed out to child sex offenders, because the vast majority of these are given a slap on the wrist and very few see the inside of a prison cell.

One last try .....


Do you really beleive what you've posted is actually true ?


Specifically the last sentence

 

[Englishman]

That just sums up the level at which you want to debate a complex topic - yes/no answers are meaningless


You might as well ask me what's 2 + 2 - is it yes or no

Sometimes they are meaningless, some questions require far more conversation due to the complexity. By that wasn't one of them. It was a simple question as to whether or not, in your eyes, hoarding pictures of children involved in sexual acts makes them child sex offenders. And it either does or doesn't.

You won't answer that, and the mere fact that you think that's a difficult question, and a complex topic is unbelievable to me. How can you think that the answer is no, in some or all cases?

They are child sex offenders in every sense of the description. They gain sexual gratification from viewing images and videos of children being sexually abused.

And these people make up a large amount of people who are convicted in court, and the vast majority then walk out of court. They walk out with a lot of other examples listed in this thread. So yes, what I said about a huge amount of child sex offenders walking from court is a piece of factual evidence. Child sex offenders do not seem to be viewed worthy of imprisoning by most judges. Which says a lot about these judges.

 

[sean_ork]

........ So yes, what I said about a huge amount of child sex offenders walking from court is a piece of factual evidence. Child sex offenders do not seem to be viewed worthy of imprisoning by most judges. Which says a lot about these judges.

Of course I beleive those who hoard images are offenders, but that's a point you've kept chasing as a distraction from answering my question. I just don't beleive in handing out to those scumbags who are found guilty whatever I think is a suitable punishment - like it or not that's the job of the law makers and judges/jury

So now thats clear ...

If its "factual evidence" you won't mind posting some official figures that support your comment about the majority of child sex offenders not seeing the inside of a cell - is that to much to ask ?

Remember you didn't claim that the majority of folks who hoard images don't see jail, you claimed that the majority of those convicted as a child sex offender don't see the inside of a cell.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, here's your original comment ....

So you're saying that you're happy with the derisory sentences handed out to child sex offenders, because that's what the punishment that "the legal system deemed to suit the crime" thereby saying that you're happy with all sentences handed out to child sex offenders, because the vast majority of these are given a slap on the wrist and very few see the inside of a prison cell.

You've effectively said our legal system simply slaps those guilty of child sex abuse on the wrists and rarely sends them to jail.

 

[Englishman]

Of course I beleive those who hoard images are offenders, but that's a point you've kept chasing as a distraction from answering my question. I just don't beleive in handing out to those scumbags who are found guilty whatever I think is a suitable punishment - like it or not that's the job of the law makers and judges/jury

So now thats clear ...

If its "factual evidence" you won't mind posting some official figures that support your comment about the majority of child sex offenders not seeing the inside of a cell - is that to much to ask ?

Remember you didn't claim that the majority of folks who hoard images don't see jail, you claimed that the majority of those convicted as a child sex offender don't see the inside of a cell.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, here's your original comment ....





You've effectively said our legal system simply slaps those guilty of child sex abuse on the wrists and rarely sends them to jail.

Finally, and at long last. Thank you.

Do you really think that there are going to be official figures to highlight the amount of people convicted of child sexual offences who walk out of court. Very few people, judging by reports I see, who hoard images go inside. There are also a fair few people who actually commit sexual offences against children who walk out of court.

So yes, our legal system simply slaps those guilty of child sex abuse on the wrists and rarely sends them to jail.

They don't seem to view child sex offenders as worthy of prison time. Yet someone who has a fight, is jailed immediately. And God forbid defraud the taxman. Judges, most of the time, don't seem to view these offences of criminal acts.

 

[sean_ork]

Do you really think that there are going to be official figures to highlight the amount of people convicted of child sexual offences who walk out of court.

Oh, so that factual evidence you mentioned a few posts ago is actually fictional "evidence" ?


Thanks for finally admitting it.

So yes, what I said about a huge amount of child sex offenders walking from court is a piece of factual evidence.

 

[sean_ork]

Very few people, judging by reports I see, who hoard images go inside. There are also a fair few people who actually commit sexual offences against children who walk out of court.

So yes, our legal system simply slaps those guilty of child sex abuse on the wrists and rarely sends them to jail.

Can't you see how coming up with such a sweeping conclusion, based even just on your own comments, is fundamentally flawed ?

 

[Englishman]

Oh, so that factual evidence you mentioned a few posts ago is actually fictional "evidence" ?


Thanks for finally admitting it.

Right, so if there aren't official statistics to back something up, then it becomes fictional. Do a little search of all people convicted of child sex offences and see how many of them actually go inside, it's not something that's difficult to do.

 

[Englishman]

Can't you see how coming up with such a sweeping conclusion, based even just on your own comments, is fundamentally flawed ?

Most people convicted of child sex offences make the news, even local news. So unless you think that I'm in court every time that somebody is up for sentencing, yes, I have to rely on reports. You have done nothing to actually prove me wrong, just argue and tell me that you're happy with whatever the judges sentence people to, then back track that you're not happy with the sentences when nonces are allowed to walk out of court. Your argument is all over the place.

 

[Geordie Spark]

Sunderland - Twinned with Beirut and home to the hated Mackems!! :devilish:

 

[sean_ork]

Right, so if there aren't official statistics to back something up, then it becomes fictional. Do a little search of all people convicted of child sex offences and see how many of them actually go inside, it's not something that's difficult to do.

You still can't see where you've gone wrong with your sweeping statement can you, you've extrapolated the results of the few reports you've seen as being a true representation of EVERY case - so unless you have seen a report of every single case your "fact" simply isn't credible - unless YOU prove it.


I could say here that youve got a large collection of hard drives hoarded at home - that's just a rumour, until I can prove it.


I could say my mate has seen your hoard of hard drives, - that's just heresay, until it can be proved.


If I start posting on the internet that ALL Englishmen have a hoard of hard drives, simply because its been proven that a few have - that's just scare mongering.


If I post that the majority of folks found guilty of child sex abuse don't go to jail that's also scaremongering ........


If you make such outrageous remarks its down to you as the originator to prove its true - until you do everyone will see it for that nonsense it is.


Prove me wrong, you said its easy to research - prove me wrong.