This makes my bloody boil

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Our fucking justice system sucks just put them in jail and throw away the key.:nono:

Wednesday August 15, 06:41 PM

Tip-off sees second man convicted on child porn
A second international tip-off has led to another New Zealander being locked up for possessing images of children being sexually abused.

Warren Neil Smith, 50, was jailed for eight months today after earlier pleading guilty in Tauranga District Court to 15 representative charges of possessing objectionable publications.

ADVERTISEMENT


Internal Affairs deputy secretary Keith Manch said German police alerted the department's censorship compliance unit to a number of New Zealanders who had downloaded child sex abuse movies from an Internet forum.

Smith was one of them, and the department found several hundred movies of children engaged in various sexual acts and poses when his computer equipment was searched.

He was given leave to apply for home detention but the court declined to defer his sentence so he will spend time behind bars pending a hearing by the Parole Board.

Yesterday, a 64-year-old Taumarunui man pleaded guilty in the district court there to 20 representative charges of possessing an objectionable publication.

Bruce Alexander Suttie was sentenced to eight months in prison after a United States government agency tip-off. He was given leave to apply for home detention.
The department searched his home in May 2005 and found 802 sexually explicit pictures of girls aged between three months and 12 years.

"We hope these prosecutions serve as a warning to others indulging in this activity that they will be caught," Mr Manch said.

"Countries are co-operating to fight this trade because the children who feature in these pictures are the victims of abuse by adults. Those who seek to profit from it either by trading in the images or seeking personal gratification need to be stopped."

[MSTRS]

Our fucking justice system sucks just put them in jail and throw away the key.:nono:

:nono: off with their tackle first (and none of your nambypamby chemical castration)

[Colapop]

Just put the f*ckers in Gen. Pop. and let the animals sort them out.

[007XX]

:nono: off with their tackle first (and none of your nambypamby chemical castration)

Second that (very strongly)...Can I hold the plyers? :devil2:

[Coldrider]

Sorry, not enough, this sickness cannot be cured.
Leave em to the daleks.

[MSTRS]

:nono: off with their tackle first (and none of your nambypamby chemical castration)

On second thoughts...acid would be acceptable.

[Macktheknife]

:nono: off with their tackle first (and none of your nambypamby chemical castration)

Slow roasting first on bunsen burner, then remove, slice and serve to owner.

[Laava]

Surely 8months is a deterrant to any paedophile and will make them change their lifestyle?:sarcastic smiley:

[Mrs Busa Pete]

MY problem with this is the sentences but also letting the bastards apply for home detention:eek5:Whats that for so they can continue surfing the porn sites it is just sick.

[Hitcher]

Ahem. There's a bit of a double standard at play here on Kiwi Biker. Some members are happy to post and leer at images of young women and obtain some lascivious jollification, yet sharpen their castrating knives when the perpetrators of some of this material get caught. These young lasses whose images get splurged willy nilly are other people's daughters and sisters. Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.

[ManDownUnder]

:nono: off with their tackle first (and none of your nambypamby chemical castration)

Agreed 100%


Second that (very strongly)...Can I hold the plyers? :devil2:

Me too...?

[Mrs Busa Pete]

Ahem. There's a bit of a double standard at play here on Kiwi Biker. Some members are happy to post and leer at images of young women and obtain some lascivious jollification, yet sharpen their castrating knives when the perpetrators of some of this material get caught. These young lasses whose images get splurged willy nilly are other people's daughters and sisters. Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.

Yes you are write there hitcher but they are consenting females that flash there bodys. I dont think you would allow photos of naked 3 year olds in sexual over tones on this site. And if i caught my husband looking at that sort of thing i would cut it of for him with out blinking a eye.

[Goblin]

MY problem with this is the sentences but also letting the bastards apply for home detention:eek5:Whats that for so they can continue surfing the porn sites it is just sick.
All this means is that the judges who hand out these pathetic sentences are, deep down inside, paedophiles themselves and dont really think child porn is a real crime. Now put a cannabis charge in there and they'd be locked up with no chance of home detention.

[Goblin]

Ahem. There's a bit of a double standard at play here on Kiwi Biker. Some members are happy to post and leer at images of young women and obtain some lascivious jollification, yet sharpen their castrating knives when the perpetrators of some of this material get caught. These young lasses whose images get splurged willy nilly are other people's daughters and sisters. Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.Double standard? The pics that people post on here are NOT child porn! The girls/women who put their pics on the internet for all and sundry to perve at do it themselves. Kids being sexually abused and photographed is a whole different story.
Convicted paedophiles should be castrated! That would deter a few Im sure.

[avgas]

Kiddie porn doesn't really turn my dial.
but neither does tofu.

[NotaGoth]

Ahem. There's a bit of a double standard at play here on Kiwi Biker. Some members are happy to post and leer at images of young women and obtain some lascivious jollification, yet sharpen their castrating knives when the perpetrators of some of this material get caught. These young lasses whose images get splurged willy nilly are other people's daughters and sisters. Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.


There is all this finger pointing over those images that were posted. But maybe its also time to think about the FACT that some girls bodies dont "develope" as everyone else expects it to. You can be 20 years of age and have the body of a 14 year old. Not everyones lucky enough to be given huge fucking hooters and the muff of a 25 year old, lets not forget SOME age differently, and at 22 you can still have a baby face. It DOES happen. Sheesh!!!

[Hitcher]

There is all this finger pointing over those images that were posted. But maybe its also time to think about the FACT that some girls bodies dont "develope" as everyone else expects it to. You can be 20 years of age and have the body of a 14 year old. Not everyones lucky enough to be given huge fucking hooters and the muff of a 25 year old, lets not forget SOME age differently, and at 22 you can still have a baby face. It DOES happen. Sheesh!!!
There is a whole bunch of issues circulating around this matter.

The major issue relating to "that thread" from yesterday was that all of the attached images were uncensored. The inclusion of "NWS" in the subject line is insufficient "protection", and members with a desire to post any image of the female form should be mindful of this, less they be infracted for so doing. Or not.

That's the Moderator bit done with.

On a personal note, and at the risk of sounding like a crusty old prude, I struggle to see why this site encourages the posting of sexual images when, I understand, there is a number of other web sites that specialise in publishing such material. There is something very teenage-boyish about a desire to share nudie images with one's mates, and I refuse to accept that such exchanges are performed for any purpose other than titillation.

I appreciate that that the objectification and exploitation of women is sometimes a matter of context. Sometimes it isn't, as evidenced by the resources invested by governments around the world to pursue and prosecute paedophiles, child pornographers and other less savoury members of our community who like to get their sexual jollies in ways that are not condoned by the wider community.

[justsomeguy]

I think the home detention is ok - provided they release the address details to the public, along with a photograph of the garbage pile. It would be nice to throw a molotov cocktail into his bedroom once in a while.

Hitcher, I fully support your idea of not having nude/soft porn on this site.

Especially since these pictures are part of member galleries - aren't censored - and appear freely on the home page.

[Goblin]

The major issue relating to "that thread" from yesterday was that all of the attached images were uncensored. The inclusion of "NWS" in the subject line is insufficient "protection", and members with a desire to post any image of the female form should be mindful of this, less they be infracted for so doing. Or not.

That's the Moderator bit done with.
So did you infact infract Spank's arse?

[Hitcher]

So did you infact infract Spank's arse?

A conversation has been had with His Devine Shadow.

[peasea]

Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.


Hmmm, looking at self in full-length mirror, methinks I'm a knockout.
Especially that bit riiiight.... there! (Ouch.)

I'm dressed again now, sorry........

[Mrs Busa Pete]

There is a whole bunch of issues circulating around this matter.

The major issue relating to "that thread" from yesterday was that all of the attached images were uncensored. The inclusion of "NWS" in the subject line is insufficient "protection", and members with a desire to post any image of the female form should be mindful of this, less they be infracted for so doing. Or not.

That's the Moderator bit done with.

On a personal note, and at the risk of sounding like a crusty old prude, I struggle to see why this site encourages the posting of sexual images when, I understand, there is a number of other web sites that specialise in publishing such material. There is something very teenage-boyish about a desire to share nudie images with one's mates, and I refuse to accept that such exchanges are performed for any purpose other than titillation.

I appreciate that that the objectification and exploitation of women is sometimes a matter of context. Sometimes it isn't, as evidenced by the resources invested by governments around the world to pursue and prosecute paedophiles, child pornographers and other less savoury members of our community who like to get their sexual jollies in ways that are not condoned by the wider community.


I fail to see what that has to do with naked 3 year olds in a sexaul referance.
And members don't have to look at said thread at the end of the day. And said females have given there consent to have those photos taken.
And the main reason for this thread is my rant about the sentence and the fact they can apply for home detention.

[Hitcher]

I fail to see what that has to do with naked 3 year olds in a sexaul referance.
And members don't have to look at said thread at the end of the day. And said females have given there consent to have those photos taken.
And the main reason for this thread is my rant about the sentence and the fact they can apply for home detention.

Be obtuse or semantic if you wish. And who in this case may have given "consent" and what they may have consented to can only be speculated on. They certainly didn't knowingly consent to their images being endlessly recycled.

Anyway, I have drawn a line in the sand and I'm standing on my side of it. Where you choose to stand is up to you.

[Maha]

Ahem. There's a bit of a double standard at play here on Kiwi Biker. Some members are happy to post and leer at images of young women and obtain some lascivious jollification, yet sharpen their castrating knives when the perpetrators of some of this material get caught. These young lasses whose images get splurged willy nilly are other people's daughters and sisters. Look carefully at yourselves in the mirror here, gentlemen.


Absolutley right..there a couple of pics early on in another thread where the 'Girls' look 12/13yrs.... 14 at a stretch!...

[Goblin]

Absolutley right..there a couple of pics early on in another thread where the 'Girls' look 12/13yrs.... 14 at a stretch!...And those "girls" posted their own pics on photobucket for all the world to see. If they have regrets or dont want people to perve, they should have thought about it a bit more before uploading their pics. Small children who are abused and photographed dont have a choice and that's the difference!

[Trippin113]

Instant death, ya cant fix those peole, even cutting off the tackle wouldnt really stop them aye. They have a choice, give them the means to kill themselves, or mainstream jail for life (no segregation crap).:2guns::bash::clap:

[peasea]

Instant death, ya cant fix those peole, even cutting off the tackle wouldnt really stop them aye. They have a choice, give them the means to kill themselves, or mainstream jail for life (no segregation crap).:2guns::bash::clap:

On ya.

I do think, though, that many of them would be a few kumaras short of a hangi and whenever I hear about what they get up to I cringe and think "what the f...?". Nobody in their right mind does what they do, so they must be cuckoo. String 'em up I say, do the gene pool a favour.

[Mutley]

I am in agreement with Hitcher.
Many replies in this thread state the women have given their consent for their photos to be displayed on the web, but many young women and men are coerced by threats, drugs, bullies, perhaps even dreams of a better life into posing for these photos and taking part in porno films. I am not saying that they are the majority but to assume that all porn photos go out with the complete agreement of the participant is very naive. The legal age for sex in NZ is 16, in Germany its 14. Images here of 14 year olds would be considered child abuse.
Can you be sure of the age of the person in the photo?
I myself developed at an early age (10) and I had alot of unwelcome attention because of it.
It really annoys me that some people assume because the photos were taken, the participants must have agreed to it.

[Goblin]

I am in agreement with Hitcher.
Many replies in this thread state the women have given their consent for their photos to be displayed on the web, but many young women and men are coerced by threats, drugs, bullies, perhaps even dreams of a better life into posing for these photos and taking part in porno films. I am not saying that they are the majority but to assume that all porn photos go out with the complete agreement of the participant is very naive. The legal age for sex in NZ is 16, in Germany its 14. Images here of 14 year olds would be considered child abuse.
Can you be sure of the age of the person in the photo?
I myself developed at an early age (10) and I had alot of unwelcome attention because of it.
It really annoys me that some people assume because the photos were taken, the participants must have agreed to it.You are absolutely right Mutley! There is no way of knowing who has agreed to their images being shown all over the web. Nor do we know their ages. The thread I was refering to was Spanks thread with the photobucket girls.

There's a huge difference between teenage girls/boys discovering their own sexuality, naively posting up pics on the net and children being sexualised, photographed and put up on the net. Teenagers doing it their way will learn consequences for their actions but small children learn things they shouldnt have to deal with.

[Harry33]

Nude pics, Dead motorbike riders pics. In my opinion all these types of pics don't really have much to do with why I'm here and I question why any of these need to be posted on this site. There are heaps of other sites around if thats your thing. If you feel you need to post these type of things atleast give heaps of warnings and mark them as r-rated etc and as for people thinking we use these gruesome pics as wake up calls/learning aides. I say bullshit.