|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xAs always we should all come here to listen and offer support to others and not judge; especially as we will never know all the facts.
Absolutely. The temptation by myself to try to mitigate my offence by asserting that it was a pseudo-image (i.e. a fake) and there was "no victim" would be wrong. It was against the law and I have no more right to claim a lesser crime than any other.
This is a site for people who have ****ed up but have no intention of repeating their offences. Trying to create a scale of guilt helps no-one. Support in helping people recover from their actions is why I come here, not to make myself feel better that there are "worse villains than I" out there. Praise worthy words. An excellent post. Remember that old religions believed forgiveness only came from "self flagellation" but all that did was create a repressed society. When reading your posts I always believe you do not write with that intention and so I hope you continue to remember the positiveness you have found in Self Belief not self flagellation
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 298,
Visits: 3.7K
|
As always we should all come here to listen and offer support to others and not judge; especially as we will never know all the facts.
Absolutely. The temptation by myself to try to mitigate my offence by asserting that it was a pseudo-image (i.e. a fake) and there was "no victim" would be wrong. It was against the law and I have no more right to claim a lesser crime than any other.
This is a site for people who have ****ed up but have no intention of repeating their offences. Trying to create a scale of guilt helps no-one. Support in helping people recover from their actions is why I come here, not to make myself feel better that there are "worse villains than I" out there.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xThat's a really thought provoking letter. I feel sorry for the partners and children who have to grow up with this shadow looming over their heads. They are completely innocent and i think there should be some kind of protection clause in the law for the families of offenders but i feel it would never happen because our culture still relies heavily on the shame aspect and the whole 'OMG Look what he done...TELL EVERYONE' approach. I read somewhere that in Norwich or was it Norfolk ? I always get those two confused, that the police were trialing a scheme whereby they notified suspected image downloaders by letter that they 'knew what they were up to' and to sign post them towards help and essentially if they continued the consequences would be severe. Now I don't think this would work for everyone. BUT in my opinion i think quite a large number of image download offenders would get the hint and it would most likely come as a massive shock and would be enough of a catalyst to get them to address their behaviour. Having said that though, i don't think a letter alone would be enough in the long run. I believe for the vast majority of download offenders (including myself) the focus should be more on mental health, prevention and re-education. It might be difficult for the average man on the street to comprehend but the vast majority of illegal image downloaders are more porn addicts than they are deviant evil nonces who hide in school playgrounds. I think things are changing...VERY slowly but the more regular innocent people are exposed to the actual realities and truths behind most image downloading and the impact on families etc the more likely it is that things will change for the better. I'm all about prevention and i believe a large number of offenders like myself could have benefited greatly from earlier intervention and better education. This has to be the way forward because it creates less victims (the ones in the images) and destroys less families and lives. Hi The letter trial is similar to the process of vehicles seen repeatedly cruising red light areas, I'm not sure what the success rate is as again stats ar untrustworthy as we cannot confirm the data assessed. Positively I think any process that can be managed should be assessed for benefits - unless the offence breaches set boundaries. As always, more posts phrase words surrounding "image" offences as a simpler offence than others which; in my unworthy opinion, is minimising the effect of the offence and suggesting other sex offences have a greater harm effect on its victim(s). Not to raise another discussion on that in this post but I just wish to remind us all that the nature of a contact sex offence might actually; due to the scenarios of the offence, actually not have a victim(s) created by a person, and it is the "LAW" that creates the victim(s). As always we should all come here to listen and offer support to others and not judge; especially as we will never know all the facts.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Thorswrath
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 90,
Visits: 1.4K
|
That's a really thought provoking letter.
I feel sorry for the partners and children who have to grow up with this shadow looming over their heads. They are completely innocent and i think there should be some kind of protection clause in the law for the families of offenders but i feel it would never happen because our culture still relies heavily on the shame aspect and the whole 'OMG Look what he done...TELL EVERYONE' approach.
I read somewhere that in Norwich or was it Norfolk ? I always get those two confused, that the police were trialing a scheme whereby they notified suspected image downloaders by letter that they 'knew what they were up to' and to sign post them towards help and essentially if they continued the consequences would be severe.
Now I don't think this would work for everyone. BUT in my opinion i think quite a large number of image download offenders would get the hint and it would most likely come as a massive shock and would be enough of a catalyst to get them to address their behaviour. Having said that though, i don't think a letter alone would be enough in the long run.
I believe for the vast majority of download offenders (including myself) the focus should be more on mental health, prevention and re-education. It might be difficult for the average man on the street to comprehend but the vast majority of illegal image downloaders are more porn addicts than they are deviant evil nonces who hide in school playgrounds.
I think things are changing...VERY slowly but the more regular innocent people are exposed to the actual realities and truths behind most image downloading and the impact on families etc the more likely it is that things will change for the better. I'm all about prevention and i believe a large number of offenders like myself could have benefited greatly from earlier intervention and better education. This has to be the way forward because it creates less victims (the ones in the images) and destroys less families and lives.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xSold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her.
Free press label takes many forms but as George Orwell said: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published; everything else is PR (public relations).”
Stories like the one you mention come under the latter or, at most, part of a bigger story. As we all know there's much more to the story than what appears in any articles we read, every nook and cranny cannot be included in every article, but she's still a victim of many things - challenging childhood perhaps for example - and that forms part of the many bigger stories and not just the incident you were involved with. Is it right to do what she did?... That'll be a never-ending argument.
Weirdly, this story is not unique, there are a number of girls who appeared in 'well-known' images, let's say, who cashed in when becoming adults. Victims' charities must despair but adults can make silly choices.
"google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip; I have quite an unusual name so I can check when I've been Googled using Google Trends. I had an interview last year. I wasn't Googled for months but a small spike appears just after my interview. I was unsuccessful. I can't prove anything, but there's rarely such thing as a coincidence. So, the Google effect goes much further than just gossip, especially while being unspent. It provides much easier access to info, more than ever before, for those making decisions that affect my life today, eg employers.
I feel bad for sometimes taking threads off topic, as you probably know I can bang on a bit, so I'll leave some of the other topics you mentioned for other threads. Hi I enjoy chats so never worry about banging on. I agree there are many elements to the story of her life but I was only raising a single element of her life that in ways highlights her ability in taking advantage of the occasion; remember I provided the proof that she blackmailed me. Does this not show a thread of decision making; something offenders are challenged about. For clarity from my arrest i took responsibility as I said "yes" to the offer without considering her circumstances. I have never considered any ill will to her or ever will. Google effect. In ways your example; for which I also experienced a similar example of, agrees with my use of the term "gossip". In the pre-tech days it is quite possible for a recruiter/hirer to contact by phone your ex-employers etc and could of gained the same information that way. That is why I also said the likes of google etc only show what others have created. Yes, google can create a demand for offering the information, as that is what the algorithms developed and re-developed are for as that is the core of their business financial model. However that is different to actually creating the "words" that instigate the damage. I will agree their "model" does support the damage being maintained or enhanced but again that is different. For example. I challenged the owners of a website that stated "you can ask us to delete your data at anytime". That sounds great but look at the list of "businesses" they pass/sell the data to that is not included in their statement. You have to go to each of those businesses to request its deletion. Google searches these. So yes, I fully agree that Google takes no responsibility for their reporting, and have the support and power that allows them to only comply with those that society seems to have sympathy with. But I agree with you fully we should never stop challenging them or the system as we have a right to a quality of life and not be hounded. Now that is banging on!! lol take care
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
Sold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her.
Free press label takes many forms but as George Orwell said: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published; everything else is PR (public relations).”
Stories like the one you mention come under the latter or, at most, part of a bigger story. As we all know there's much more to the story than what appears in any articles we read, every nook and cranny cannot be included in every article, but she's still a victim of many things - challenging childhood perhaps for example - and that forms part of the many bigger stories and not just the incident you were involved with. Is it right to do what she did?... That'll be a never-ending argument.
"google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip; I have quite an unusual name so I can check when I've been Googled using Google Trends. I had an interview last year. I wasn't Googled for months but a small spike appears just after my interview. I was unsuccessful. I can't prove anything, but there's rarely such thing as a coincidence. So, the Google effect goes much further than just gossip, especially while being unspent. It provides much easier access to info, more than ever before, for those making decisions that affect my life today, eg employers.
I feel bad for sometimes taking threads off topic, as you probably know I can bang on a bit, so I'll leave some of the other topics you mentioned for other threads.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xUnfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd. Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place. The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves. I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.
Hi, Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action. I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility. should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.
Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".
Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?
By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?
Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?
It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.
The problem with online harms at the moment is that the ISPs, or the social media giants, have no incentive to remove illegal content, because they are not considered to be responsible for it being on their services. Supporters of making them legally responsible for the content they host, will argue that this will then prompt them to remove it more quickly. I have my doubts about this because the interet is not so easy to police and they already do a huge amount to stop illegal content being accessed or uploaded. ISPs currently grass their customers up to the police, for accessing dodgy websites, for example.. The other issue is that of money. Making the content hoster legally liable means they could be sued in the courts. Finding and suing the individual people responsible for uploading the content is much harder than suing the ISP. Plus the ISP and the social media giants have big pockets and can afford to pay big compensation to the victims, whilst the person who uploaded the image may have no money. Hi I agree with all your words and the message I believe you wish to present, however as is my beliefs and I think yours, the acknowledging of the existence of these "defences" should not allow "systems" to take the easy route. I would respect a "system" that challenges what is deemed as impregnable over a "system" that does not. Is that not what the term "hero/heroine" are meant to stand for.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 771,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+x+xUnfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd. Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place. The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves. I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.
Hi, Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action. I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility. should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.
Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".
Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?
By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?
Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?
It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.
The problem with online harms at the moment is that the ISPs, or the social media giants, have no incentive to remove illegal content, because they are not considered to be responsible for it being on their services. Supporters of making them legally responsible for the content they host, will argue that this will then prompt them to remove it more quickly. I have my doubts about this because the interet is not so easy to police and they already do a huge amount to stop illegal content being accessed or uploaded. ISPs currently grass their customers up to the police, for accessing dodgy websites, for example.. The other issue is that of money. Making the content hoster legally liable means they could be sued in the courts. Finding and suing the individual people responsible for uploading the content is much harder than suing the ISP. Plus the ISP and the social media giants have big pockets and can afford to pay big compensation to the victims, whilst the person who uploaded the image may have no money.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xUnfortunately not many people will stand up for this type of offence publicly due to the obvious backlash and misconceptions made by the crowd. Personally I sympathise with most "offenders", especially those convicted of offences like this. I think the knock-on effect is massively disproportionate to making the mistake of "viewing content". I don't believe it benefits society as a whole or anyone other than those employed in the public sector looking to maintain statistics and funding. I think that for "image viewing" offences there should be a warning before prosecution for many reasons. He makes a great point about there should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place. The terminology just shows how twisted the justice system and reporting come across and unfortunately the majority of people can't see past that and will put someone guilty of an images offences in the same boat as someone who has physically harmed children themselves. I can relate to being labelled by an ambigious term. I would describe my own offence as retaliating to someone with online harassment who antagonised me first, however the law in Scotland seems to have redefined the word stalking as "sending text messages" instead of the traditional following people around/sitting outside their house in the bushes etc.
Hi, Many who read my posts will know I truly believe in accepting responsibility for one's actions, however consideration should also be given to what made an individual take that action. I mean no offence but your words give the impression of moving the responsibility. should be more done by the tech companies to prevent this material becoming available in the first place.
Though I agree in the basic logic of your words; as I appreciate viewing and creating are terms that are manipulated to gain a successful outcome by the justice system. I would guess that in 99.9999% of the occurrences, it is the individual viewer who took the action to find them and therefore has a responsibility to the content of the image. They only used the "tech" as a "search tool".
Question: Is it the gunmaker or the person who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet, who should take responsibility for the murder of the person the bullet hit or, the persons for being in the path of the bullet?
By that and in the context of this discussion, I mean the content image is generally a human being and in ??? occurrences is not what is termed as a willing participant. The individual taking / drawing the reflection of the human being to create an image to be published is quite rightly the initial creator of the "content / victim" and in the context of this discussion, should be punished accordingly. However anything that is created and "published / shared " for a wider audience / customer base, is done to satisfy a demand that exists. Does that not mean the responsibility / punishment should also be "shared"?
Be it the person in the path of the bullet or the content of an image, we should agree it is not their responsibility or fault. There is various arguments that the creator of an "image" or the "gun maker" involvements are not to be considered as they are creating to satisfy a demand. Possibly extreme but how many pieces of art depict images that were once classed as obscene but there creators are now applauded, or humans killed with weapons supplied and on the authority of a Government in war time?
It is the eye / psychology of the viewer that allows "something" to be actioned upon in a way it was not intended, so so they must take full responsibility for their actions.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xYou can certainly hear the anger, frustration and emotion in this letter. I can relate to a lot of this having appeared in the press for my conviction and the effect it had on sooo many people around me and, more frustratingly, still does. I don't have children of my own, but I understand there is another level of hurt here too. However, targetting journalists is wrong. Even after being on the receiving end, a free press is far more important than this for many, many reasons. The decision to publish a story is as important if not more important than being aware of a story and NOT publishing it. What I believe does need independently evaluating is The Google Effect and news being online. Local rags have always been aware of court stories but a story which was once disregarded as fish and chip paper the next day now lives forever online in clear view in one click. In addition, the tinderbox that is social media - cue the argument about Fake News and at the moment that social media platforms such as Facebook act as publishers because it is published a linkable piece of media with the story (which terrifyingly could include wrong details). Importantly, a point about having all these labels thrown at the offender and NOT going to prison while still living in society. Finally, the huge rate of suicides to do with this crime, especially triggered by fear of press coverage. Although, as we know, making a noise in public about all of this would attract very little sympathy. It's all unfortunate and, in my view, hopelessly inhumane. Hi Mr W Though I understand the point you appear to be emphasising, I would have to say in my opinion I disagree with elements. You are correct we need free press, but that also carries a responsibility for their use of the "power to influence" for it to be welded appropriately and correctly. Example, the "victim" in my offence - purchasing sexual services - sold her story to a "gossip" magazine, who portrayed her in a certain manner. They did not mention the acts of blackmail she undertook as that could of influenced the view of its readers towards her. As I have mentioned before the Police use words in their charges that have a higher percentage of chance to gain a conviction, therefore possibly exaggerating the facts on a bais position. Within the nature of a creative person is a wish to "promote themselves" so they will also follow the same tact to "stand out / gain success". Both these self promoting scenarios show how "their responsibility" to protect the "unintended victims" of an offence is degraded as they insinuate that the offender is responsible for their anguish. In part this is true but, I would ask are they using that social view to their advantage? We all view and comment on the "google effect" but that is only a term promoting the effect of gossip; or rather an expansion of a fact about humans that has always been in existence, to protect oneself by talking about others. Remember Google just searches for data to present, it does not create it. Again their "survival model" is the same as the example I gave of the Police if you think about it. Social media can be wonderful humanitarian tool but also as many humans are, it can be the "devil of society". [ The following is NOT to offend or highlight an offence by others but made as a comparison. I apologize if offence is taken.]Therefore, to use a point made by those convicted of an image offence who emphasis they viewed not created, so do not have a link to the victim in the content of an image. Or those like me, who used the services of a prostitute without consideration to the individuals circumstances. Are both these offences not taking responsibility to the "victim" in the same manner as those who "report" on the offence. Finally my point is that we "should not shoot the messenger", as those targets are so many and powerful to gain an affect. We have to go to the source / conceiver of the initial information to influence them that the words they formulate have consequences!
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|