KidKruger

Sorry, have to chortle at 'rouge' traders !! The dyslexic's bad tradesmen..

"I can't really agree with that KK. Buying this stuff is not a victimless crime. If you're paying for it, then you're supporting the creation of more material. This is not my idea of self-restraint." No-one is saying it is a victimless crime, I've stated earlier in this thread that watching this junk is participating in child abuse. By not repeating that comment ad nauseum it's not an automatic reversal of what I've already said. If credit is binary then of course RosieH is correct. Perhaps my use of the word credit is too generous, but I don't think those people who struggle and successfully overcome such desires are entirely without 'merit', when compared to those who follow-through and harm children. In this I include those with desires who've perhaps not even watched the films. But, reading above, the challenges are saying that a 'viewer' of abuse films with no intention to physically abuse children = an abuser who physically abuses children. Morally you may have a case, but in magnitude of children harmed I think that's inaccurate. Sorry, I don't see it that way.

There is obviously a huge difference between an adult with interest enough in children to watch footage of their abuse versus an adult who (also) acts-out that interest by physically abusing children (whether under his/her care or not). Although the proposition may sound bizarre, credit would surely be due to a paedophile who's never acted-out his/her desires due to concerns for the welfare of the little ones. I say this from an assumption that such a person does not 'decide' to have such tendencies, but has to manage the desires he/she's been dealt. I wonder if an adult with such desires who never looks at, discusses or acts-out those desires is still called a paedophile. If not, then what ?

I think if people are accused of supporting child abusers or excusing them or of apologising for them, they are going to correct the accusers. It's a cheap, horrid and unnecessary accusation and inevitably will provoke a response. Hardly grandstanding.

"Kk I do not understand "There's a big need from posters here to assume things that are not occurring." What do you mean" What I mean is perpetual misquoting or extended attribution of meaning of other posters' comments.

"I think it's pretty crap that a couple of posters have chosen this thread to point out how duplicitous Christians/the church/their teachings can be." Surely if someone is 'waiting in the wings' to make such comments about Christians, a thread where such contradiction is evident is the place to raise it. However I don't think there was a concerted need on anyone's part to do so - it was obviously observations based on comments from churchgoers. There's a big need from posters here to assume things that are not occurring.

"..do not assume that everyone who has been abused as a child, goes on to commit abuse as an adult.." I don't think anyone has said this is what happens. They've said it's not uncommon. I personally know people who've been abused but have not abused others / are great parents. I don't think anyone has said compassion should be shown to the Rev, but instead remarked on how the Christians didn't appear to be obliging their advertised traits of 'compassion' is all.

..

"...it is nothing to do with sexuality...." You may want to rethink that comment.

I've not seen a single post yet on this thread which excuses, forgives or apologises for the man. But there are many many posts accusing others of doing just that.

I think Greece needs to present it's credentials for remaining part of economic Europe. Otherwise a precedent is set for milking Europe as a charity. Separately they need to pay back the money they borrowed, and squandered. Sorry, but if you make the bed, you lie in it. Nobody did this to Greece but Greece.

Concerned Parish 2 Now you. "These are videos of children. They are non consensual and NOT porn. Someone has to have suffered to make these and that is why it is a crime" The 'point' being what ? You reckon everyone else thinks it's legal to abuse children on video ? Please. "I hope that he has had no physical contact with any local children but what makes children of ED special?" Why don't you tell us, seeing as you are raising the point about locality yourself - surely if you raise your own view you can answer your own questions on it ?

Sally81 surely perspective in ALL realms is valid ? Why would perspective only be applicable to non-contentious circumstances ? Is this a Christian trait ? If you're trying to repeat your previous argument using 'perspective' as code for 'excuse', please, don't - you're accusing posters of something they haven't said, just because it fits what you want to believe they are saying. You're troubled by reason aren't you ? Is this a Christian trait ? I really hope not. But it does all sound a bit "he who's not for me, must be against me".

Sally81 thanks for backing-up exactly my point, and demonstrating what I was trying to explain.... "It's easy, and lazy (and common on this forum) to draw the worst connotation from what someone has written" "If the Reverend looked at such images then he contributed to exploitation of children" Do you ever read posts before responding to them or do you sincerely believe that the louder you shout, the more valid your twisted viewpoint becomes ?!

I think Loz's point was (though I don't want to appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm incorrect Loz) that Christians advocate 'forgiveness' and 'understanding' and there was little evidence of it on this occasion, or does Christianity have a high-water mark above which it's a free for all ? That's my impression of what was said and it was a reasonable comment IMO. I think Mr Ben's point was (though I don't want to appear presumptuous, so please correct me if I'm incorrect Mr Ben) purely an observation that it's not uncommon for an abuser to have been abused and (if I may again be so bold) that in some cases therein lies a contributory factor to the behaviour. I did not see an 'apologist' or an excuse for what happened. You may see the remark that was made as unwarranted but that's the worst you could hurl at it surely. It's easy, and lazy (and common on this forum) to draw the worst connotation from what someone has written, but in these cases IMO such challenges were obtuse and over-emotional. If the Reverend looked at such images then he contributed to exploitation of children. If he did not physically abuse children himself but did extract excitement from the images he viewed then presumably he had made a conscious decision to either limit his interest or maintain the care of those he came into contact with. I don't know all the facts, as most of us surely don't. Of course there is potential for more to come to light, as in any such case, but let's hope for no physical abuse of individuals before listing the damage done to them.

Nice one BNG.

I've always thought blokes should have a section in department stores or malls a bit like kids have ball pools, but with a bar, pool table, sports TV and wifi. Shopping trips would be oh so much more fun. Groceries - no problem. Everything else - not bovered.

HMB I'll 'empty ma box '. Plans tomoro (today) but defo fancy this in next few weeks so please keep poking me. OOI are dogs allowed ?

" I wear a ?30 wedding ring... " ?30 ?! Flash bastad.

Yes, we the EDF, are an acknowledged App design shop - what would you like us to build / do you have a SMART specification ?

but if you only eat out what you can't make at home there's nowhere to go - chefs aren't magicians.

"Why is religious belief more important than people who have actually arrived at their morals through independent thought?" Word. Why indeed.

I know somewhere that is ace / bespoke / won't cost > ?40. PM me for details. Works every time.

"yup. but 25 years ago people generally didn't want to live in London, (or even the UK especially)" no - everyone I knew had just arribved in London, couldn't wait to get to London (apart from those who'd already moved here). never has an issue finding accomodation, mainly flat shares, Bow, Chhelsea, Wandsworth, Vauxhall loadsa flats.

"Tis truu but I am not keen on the new BBC app either" agreed - the new BBC app is pants.