Sign in to follow this  
Zulu 22

Child Porn ? Lynn Owens

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3553358/Paedophiles-look-low-level-child-abuse-sent-counselling-not-court-says-head-National-Crime-Agency.html

 

I know this is from the Daily Mail but it appears to be correct reporting.  I am wondering if this woman, Lynne Owens, should ever be taken seriously and she is obviously in the wrong job. To me it brings the National Crime Agency into disrepute. Offenders start at a lower level and gradually progress onto more extreme crime.  This applies throughout crime from Porn to Drugs, to violence etc.

 

How can the punlic ever have confidence.

Edited by Zulu 22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never dealt with this type of crime during my service but from those who currently deal with it I get the distinct impression that viewing this type of material is so prevalent that if all the low level offenders were prosecuted it would bring the courts and prosecution services to a standstill and cost a fortune.

I suspect your assertion that, in many instances, so-called low- level offenders gradually proceed to a higher level of offending but, as usual, we are very short sighted and complacent about such matters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Low level child porn'.....child porn is just that--child porn, whatever the 'level' End of. Never mind sending them to prison, I think they should be dealt in a physical way, medically of course. The crime is soooo sick. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Low level child porn'.....child porn is just that--child porn, whatever the 'level' End of. Never mind sending them to prison, I think they should be dealt in a physical way, medically of course. The crime is soooo sick. 

 

You sadist, But, I like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every image is a picture of a real child who has been abused so there is a very real link between viewing the pictures and a child being abused.  People viewing the pictures get a kick out of it which creates or sustains a demand for the source material.  We as a society also have to put down a very clear marker to state clearly that this is wrong.   Punishment has more than one purpose with it also acting as a deterrent to put other people off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every image is a picture of a real child who has been abused so there is a very real link between viewing the pictures and a child being abused.  People viewing the pictures get a kick out of it which creates or sustains a demand for the source material.  We as a society also have to put down a very clear marker to state clearly that this is wrong.   Punishment has more than one purpose with it also acting as a deterrent to put other people off.

But Is Lynn Owen's aware, and, why don't the others Chief Officers tell to face up to reality and butt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a cynic, I'd say that this little pronouncement is just in advance of some high-profile politician being exposed for viewing "low level" (whatever that might be) child porn and so it's laying the ground for them to be treated leniently. Mind you, that's just my cynical view because I cannot imagine any other reason for the CEO of the lead UK agency on child porn and related matters saying such a thing. :tongue_cheek:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a cynic, I'd say that this little pronouncement is just in advance of some high-profile politician being exposed for viewing "low level" (whatever that might be) child porn and so it's laying the ground for them to be treated leniently. Mind you, that's just my cynical view because I cannot imagine any other reason for the CEO of the lead UK agency on child porn and related matters saying such a thing. :tongue_cheek:

You OAH. a cynic ? nah :tongue_cheek:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid thing to say publicly.   It just brings further bad light on UK law enforcement.  

 

You have to wonder at the logic of the Home Secretary putting her in charge of the NCA when according to the article, she was facing the sack from her Surrey Chief Constable's post for incompetence.  I'm sure diversity had nothing to do with it though, there couldn't have been any better candidates out there.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to be given some sort of guidelines as to what constitutes high-level and  low-level child porn in the eyes of Ms Owen and others who use these terms. Perhaps that would give the rest of us an insight into what they mean and help us understand their mindset on this issue.

On my previous post on this issue I mentioned that I suspected that, such was the scale of child porn, that the courts and prosecution services would be overwhelmed if all cases detected were made the subject of potential prosecution. I am also informed that the interrogation of the computers of suspected offenders takes so long that yet another huge burden would be placed on the police if all cases were followed up.

If all this is the case, and the production and viewing of child porn is so rife, why can't those in authority come clean and tell us why they appear to have created a line of demarcation which means that some offenders escape prosecution. I could be wrong but it appears to me that this type of offence is, to an extent, becoming legalised at certain levels and being put on a par with shoplifting which also appears to be semi-legal in some jurisdictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every image is a picture of a real child who has been abused so there is a very real link between viewing the pictures and a child being abused.  People viewing the pictures get a kick out of it which creates or sustains a demand for the source material.  We as a society also have to put down a very clear marker to state clearly that this is wrong.   Punishment has more than one purpose with it also acting as a deterrent to put other people off.

 

Not quite. It is possibly more probable that faces have been photoshopped from innocent family images onto the torso of children who may have appeared in countless other images, but given different identities depicted by the ononymous doner face. That way those sick enough don't worry if it is true or not, to them it is another image to get aroused by.

 

It took me quite while to persuade my son to remove his two daughters pictures from the pages of Flicker, he could just not get his mind around how vile some people are or can be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.