It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge tells teacher sex offender: I don't criticise you for being attracted to children

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 





Can someone please help me understand this? I'm speechless - when is sexual attraction to children acceptable or normal? Is there someone in the UK who knows about this judge?


well i am not defending offenders but in the and during the Roman and Ancient Greek times it was considered acceptable look it up if you dont believe me.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
There are peds running the world right now in case no one noticed. People seriously need to wake up, and do something about it, maybe Violence is the answer, these people need to be deballed tarred and feathered and then thrown into the hardest core prisons to teach them that Children are not Pets nor are they Slaves. These People are going to destroy the western world. This is past unaccecptable, Freaks who call themselves judges, cops and politicians, and maybe even prime ministers, presidents and Royalty need to be disbanned now. This is not normal behaviour and if people don't stand up now, i'll be afraid to open my eyes two years from now. Wake Up!
edit on 30-7-2011 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maluhia

Can someone please help me understand this?


Sure.

Most of the people in the top positions of power (male and female) are into Satanism and child abuse these days. The judge was simply making sure she didn't offend her peers.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
She is right, how can one not adore children?

It is what you do that matters, liking children is not the problem.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
People do not choose their sexuality, and this is most probably true for pedophiles, too. So from this point of view, criticism is indeed quite pointless, like criticising a mentally ill person for their illness. That does not mean preventive measures should not be taken, tough, such as not allowing pedophiles to work with children.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
It is obvious to me, this judge needs to retire from the Bench. She should be forced to quit.

Anyone here in the UK should write to thier MP, write on how disgusted we as citizens are, at this ruling and at the remarks.

As for the individual involed, he should be on the sex offenders registar. Those officers invovled in thsi case will be livid also.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
The judge is partly correct, I don't think that anyone is responsible for their feelings, but they are responsible for their actions (many people think about killing other people somewhere in their life, but they do pass from thought to action), and that's where the judge failed.

People should be sentenced because of their actions and not because of their thoughts or feelings, and in this case, when the judge says something like "This was by any standards a substantial collection, with some 300 of the worst kind" she should act according to that, and I don't think she did (I don't know what the sentence could have been).

This two sentences from that article also make me think that this judge should be replaced, quickly.


In 2008, she allowed former headmaster Phillip Carmichael to walk free from court after accepting that medication for Parkinson’s disease had turned him into a paedophile.

Sentencing a bus driver to ten-months in jail in 2006 for abusing a 12-year-old girl, the judge acknowledged that she felt “obliged” to lock him up because of “current views about sentences”.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I was reading some years ago the only ones that seemed to be in the kiddie porn business were government agencies, they were the only ones then advertizing and offering it as a "sting" operation supposedly. Someone answering their ad and seeking post-pubescent, young teen semi-porn were also sent other very vile porn images of young children to help "seal the deal" for arrest.

Once downloaded many who erased or deleted the unwanted images did not realize those images couod be "brought back" which the govt agencies did to make their case. And in many cases it was not "porn" per se that the buyers wanted, rather enticing though not obscene photos of young teens - much of which was produced with age-regression software. Obscene photos were included to help make the arrest.

While sex is unacceptable or "frowned upon" under many or most circumstances violence is acceptable almost without any restriction - only the most graphic violence crosses the line. Not sure I follow the logic here as I am not a consumer of either genre except for the gratuitous violence that accompanies any action film.

While it seems unfathomable to me that a judge could verbally condone any sort of unacceptable behavior while conducting their official duties, I agree that it is the person's actions that would be a violation of law and not the indulgence of fantasy. A person, however, may indulge their violence fantasies almost without limit without fear of prosecution or intimidation.

There is an element of "thought-crime" to this whole business that animated sex prosecution serves to punctuate. Something here disturbs me.




edit on 30-7-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Come on guys, why so much hypocricy.
I don´t know your ages, but no matter the age, you can´t honestly say you never saw a 16 year old girl that you wheren´t attracted too?

The Female starts becoming attractive at age 13-14 to males, thats just nature.
And this judge obviously have seen many such cases, so i would argue she knows damn well what shes talking about, and i think she is correct in not judging this part of basic human instincts, instead letting judgement on the actions, since it is afterall against the law to do anything more than feel the urge.

Also this preference don´t change with age, in males. The physical attraction part that is.

Don´t judge before you have been in the same positon yourself.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Come on guys, why so much hypocricy.
I don´t know your ages, but no matter the age, you can´t honestly say you never saw a 16 year old girl that you wheren´t attracted too?


There's a difference between finding a young woman attractive at first glance vs. this.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Come on guys, why so much hypocricy.
I don´t know your ages, but no matter the age, you can´t honestly say you never saw a 16 year old girl that you wheren´t attracted too?

The Female starts becoming attractive at age 13-14 to males, thats just nature.
And this judge obviously have seen many such cases, so i would argue she knows damn well what shes talking about, and i think she is correct in not judging this part of basic human instincts, instead letting judgement on the actions, since it is afterall against the law to do anything more than feel the urge.

Also this preference don´t change with age, in males. The physical attraction part that is.

Don´t judge before you have been in the same positon yourself.


He had 300 pictures in the 2 most serious categories with young children.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 30-7-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Come on guys, why so much hypocricy.
I don´t know your ages, but no matter the age, you can´t honestly say you never saw a 16 year old girl that you wheren´t attracted too?

The Female starts becoming attractive at age 13-14 to males, thats just nature.
And this judge obviously have seen many such cases, so i would argue she knows damn well what shes talking about, and i think she is correct in not judging this part of basic human instincts, instead letting judgement on the actions, since it is afterall against the law to do anything more than feel the urge.

Also this preference don´t change with age, in males. The physical attraction part that is.

Don´t judge before you have been in the same positon yourself.


I will never "find myself in the position" of having porn pics of 2 year old kids..

Do you therefore think that it is ok that young children are abused and photographed for some sick bastards pleasure??

So you are protesting this guys rights for that??

I for one am glad that this guy has his pic in the paper and will be on our streets soon.

Im sure he will be recognised and then will recieve his due.

Maybe the results will be on youtube.


That is one video i would definitely reccomend.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


It's bloody disgusting, I live in the UK and these cases are going up. I think the problem is, it's pretty easy to be a teacher in the UK if you have no previous criminal records. A degree in a certain subject and voila pretty much. It might not be as straight forward as that, but you catch my drift.

Some people in the world, might decide to become a teacher so they can get close to these kids. Another problem is the fact the way some of these 13+ year olds dress. Its sick. I also read in the paper yesterday that people were offering pole dancing classes to kids as young as 6.

Out of hand? Yes.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children, not teens. The article even talks about picture of two year olds.
edit on 30/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


This is sickening. 2 year olds?? He has an impeccible record??? I can almost gaurantee he has done this at other times, and just hasn't been caught....and that more than likely, he has abused children in real life. This "judge" is a disgrace.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


i somewhat agree as a friend of my had someone send some pics to him we think a fine man in a blue shirt with a badge and gun gets his computer repaired and bam 5 years lifetime sex offender
come on people murderers do not serve life why pictures ??



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUNSILENT
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


i somewhat agree as a friend of my had someone send some pics to him we think a fine man in a blue shirt with a badge and gun gets his computer repaired and bam 5 years lifetime sex offender
come on people murderers do not serve life why pictures ??


You do realise that their are REAL children being sexually abused in these vile pictures dont you?

And that the demand for them means more kids lives being destroyed for the sake of these perverted bastards?

They are against the law

Those that have those pics may as well have abused those kids themselves as it was their demand for them and vile pervertions that called them into being.

If anyone I knew possesed such a thing, their lives would not be worth living



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Yet we still wonder why the world is the way it is and getting even worse.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maluhia

Can someone please help me understand this? I'm speechless - when is sexual attraction to children acceptable or normal? Is there someone in the UK who knows about this judge? This judge needs to be investigated for mental illness. I know nothing about judicial appointments in the UK, but this one seems to have a seriously bad track record, that is blatantly obvious. Corrupt judges I've read about are usually a bit more discrete.

w ww.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 30-7-2011 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



YOUR ? ... "WHEN IS SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN ACCEPTABLE OR NORMAL?"

ANSWER: When the Judge is also a pedophile OR the Judge is a pedophile who is controlling their urges and doesn't cross the line (although 'the urge' still exists) OR the Judge doesn't care because the Judge takes (zombie-induced types of Pharma) drugs that prevent them from caring OR the Judge doesn't care -- they lack a conscience because they are a Sociopath.

SOCIOPATH -- An individual who 'appears' perfectly normal, but whom actually lacks a conscience or their conscience is inactive -- it's not 'engaged'. "Appears" is the key word. So, at times, they do and say unconscionable things.

Sometimes, these heartless, soulless people get into powerful positions. They will often mimic those who do have a conscience along with strong morals and values. But, realistically, these horrid people are actually missing a part of their brain. You'd most likely never know their conscious never fully developed when you're observing them or if you only know them as a casual acquaintance. They look everyday normal. Their true self doesn't immediately emerge so that they can fool others into thinking they are normal and have a conscience -- when they don't -- they put their best foot forward until they have fooled whomever they need to fool or when their victims are 'lined up' or 'in place' They just mimic people who do have a conscience when the need arises so they can dupe others.

It takes a conscience to make a conscionable decision so justice can be served ... and so one's words and actions are compassionate, helpful, and beneficial to all.

There's NOTHING normal or compassionate about the Judge's comments ... NOTHING.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Hail Satan! Here comes the devil's advocate!!

reply to post by Maluhia
 


It is normal in a society which has a very high rate of attraction to children. It is acceptable in a society that is less elitist and prudish concerning the nature of human sexuality. Take, for example, age of consent laws.

As SaturnFX and highpriestess say, the law decrees that a "child" becomes an adult when the clock strikes midnight on their 18th birthday. Suddenly, it is normal and acceptable in this society to be sexually attracted to them. Suddenly, they have gained the mental and emotional maturity to consent to sexual activity. How marvelous, that the courts can legislate the human body and mind!

Surely, we all must agree on this point; that it is impossible for something in reality to contradict the Law. The Law is the source and the outlet of our moral outrage; how can be be righteously outraged if reality does not conform itself to our Law? Consider the following:

There was no legal age of consent in ancient Greece and Rome
It was normal and acceptable for people under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity
Therefore, their bodies were not legislated into strict moral order!

This is foolproof logic and every sensible person must agree!

Now, there is only one objection that remains to be addressed. That is the absurd notion thatpeople under 18 can have sexual feelings. Shame on you, NeoVain, for spreading the totally false lie that teenagers are capable of mature adult relations. Don`t you know that you can only be sexually mature when the court says so? As I have just demonstrated, it is impossible for biology to contradict the judgment of the Law and the outrage of people who have no knowledge of the case at hand or the players in that case.

So we must today conclude this: that as soon as you become 18, you are sexually and emotionally mature and are incapable of making stupid mistakes driven by hormones or passion or emotions! And if you are engaged in sexual activity before you are exactly 18 years old, then you are being exploited because it is impossible for you to be mature without my - ahem - the court's say-so.

P.S. Freud is a fraud, I know this because momma beat me when I played doctor with the neighbour girl




new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join