tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post3657560729000475643..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: NOT ALL MEN ARE PERVERTSRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-5421357864673948922016-12-28T17:09:19.459+00:002016-12-28T17:09:19.459+00:00Music and art is supposed to be provocative Ziggy,...Music and art is supposed to be provocative Ziggy, if it isn't it will be instantly forgettable. The same applies to writing by the way, the objective is to make the viewer/reader think.<br /><br />As for kids being desensitized, the Elvis argument returns. Fifties teenagers were probably also thinking what's all the fuss about. And I've no doubt the sexy beat and all that jiggling steamed up a few car windows on the way home, but isn't that what rock and roll is all about?<br /><br />This generation of kids have grown up in an age of technology is that is so completely different to the worlds I, and possibly yourself, grew up in Ziggy. <br /><br />Kids who grow up in loving homes with good communication will not be desensitized. Their families are their strongest influence. If their parents are respectful to them and everyone around them, they will be too. <br /><br />Probably about 90% of teenagers have watched things they are not supposed to. And that figure probably applies to every generation. Those who are led astray, would have been led astray anyway because their roots are already unstable. The majority however wont be affected one way or the other, just as we weren't when we got hold of an illegal copy of the Evil Dead when aged 16.<br /><br />I think we should have a lot more faith in the younger generation, they are of course what we made them!Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-7223099646445606472016-12-27T23:58:20.476+00:002016-12-27T23:58:20.476+00:00@ Ros
Old fogey lol tut tut if you only knew. Ove...@ Ros<br /><br />Old fogey lol tut tut if you only knew. Over the years there's been many suggestions fly my way but think everyone of them is the opposite of old fogey or prude. <br /><br />I take your points, Ros. I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure you know where I'm coming from though. I agree Re Elvis ( remember the 'outrage' concerning his pelvis turning good ol' boys in US of A into sex maniacs and women to lose their morals and minds ?). Miniskirts are always nice. I say that objectively as a sexist pig ( ducks). But that was then, this is now, to coin a cliche.<br /><br />Today, stars(?) still wear the same.Even the ones with a bit of real talent(gaga etc). But the choreography is all sexual and provocative. Ask a cross section of 'lads' or men their thoughts on those stars.You'll learn what they want.And the girls want to be wanted too-that's also been around as long as the birds and the bees. What's twerking for ? All ok in rap videos but teaching pre teens ? its rife and i think wrong. Once you're old enough twerk your brains out- just wipe it up.<br /><br />''unless you can supply something far more dazzling and entertaining, the herds will go back again and again.''<br />That's the 'nail on the head' moment. The psychology of addiction and the evolving of it.Addiction can happen to anyone regardless of their upbringing.It's not just drink or drugs now.But addiction is mechanically the same whatever your 'poison' of choice. Addicts are still a minority . But if only 5% of drinkers or drug takers are addicts, what numbers are we talking ? If kids can be desensitised to violence and all crimes relating to it, they can be desensitised to anything. As for the Sia vid and my opinion..the flesh coloured leotard is deliberate. It's for shock value. The lyrics? You choose. The Elastic Heart's more of the same. But this was about the chances of child porn triggering the viewer to act if i remember. Best i can offer up at short notice..https://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm<br /><br /><br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-64469840338845612062016-12-27T13:02:20.735+00:002016-12-27T13:02:20.735+00:00ZiggySawdust/Rosalinda,
There are as many minds a...ZiggySawdust/Rosalinda,<br /><br />There are as many minds as there are heads I guess, but with regard to Maddie Ziegler, isn't it significant that Ziegler herself tells us about her journey in the Maddie Diaries? Her own story is all that matters in my opinion.<br /><br />NL<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-87278204760793533712016-12-27T09:36:04.845+00:002016-12-27T09:36:04.845+00:00Not at all 00:38, I welcome alternate opinion, wit...Not at all 00:38, I welcome alternate opinion, without it, how would I ever learn anything? <br /><br />Actually my sons are grown men, and it was figuratively speaking 00:38. Though it must be said, as a young working mum, I had my share of dubious nannies! When your child is covered in chicken box, the minder won't have him and you are desperate to keep your job, you have to make decisions on the spot. <br /><br />I get really irked by people who are surrounded by family who smugly relate how careful and responsible they were as parents. Especially in the Madeleine case. Trying to sustain a full time job and raise kids is a nightmare for most parents, especially for those who have moved away from the bosom of the family. Why do the 'smugs' have to continually rub it in? Grrrr.<br /><br />But aside from all, yes I would trust Bjorn implicitly, it is delightful and extremely rare to stumble across someone who is so enlightened. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-14094752200875288572016-12-27T09:16:49.890+00:002016-12-27T09:16:49.890+00:00You have hit the nail on the head Bjorn, it should...You have hit the nail on the head Bjorn, it should be clearly defined as to what images are deemed legal or illegal. And who judges the images? Will it a panel of right wing Christian Judges who will ban children's swimming costumes?<br /><br />The Swedish examples you give are ludicrous, but no doubt, the UK ones could match them. Under that criteria the pictures I have published above could see me arrested! It really does feel as though we are living in a twilight zone. Neither myself, nor 99% of the population see anything sexual in kids in bathing suits, nappies and naked. When my first son was born, I took loads of snaps of him naked, he was the most beautiful, scrumptious little creature I had ever seen, I could barely resist the urge to sink my teeth into his chubby little bottom! Is that now weird?<br /><br />Children are beautiful and for 99% of us they are not sexual in any way! Running society along the lines that everyone thinks like the 1% makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />I agree with you Bjorn, that violence, rape or anything that distresses a child should be classed as heinous and anyone making films of that nature should be arrested immediately and the children rescued! <br /><br />Reaching them via their viewers is a long, laborious and time wasting exercise. They are going after the easy targets which looks good on their arrests figures, but the abuse of the actual children in the videos goes on. <br /><br />What's makes me so mad about this whole subject Bjorn, is the way in which the majority, politicians especially, dig their heads deep into the sand. Unfortunately, the 'I'm not listening' approach, has placed ridiculous laws into the hands of wannabe Judge Dredds who would happily throw the works of the old Masters onto a bonfire. <br /><br />It is madness, but a sign of the huge leap backwards society is taking with politics swinging to the right all over the world. We are heading for a new Age of Ignorance, gawd 'elp us. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-55875798840733841762016-12-27T08:38:57.240+00:002016-12-27T08:38:57.240+00:00Goodness me Ziggy, I thought that missive had been...Goodness me Ziggy, I thought that missive had been penned by Ebenezer Scrooge! Porn and titillation are as much a part of human history as reproduction, and is closely related. Birds and bees and all that. And, incidentally, unless you can supply something far more dazzling and entertaining, the herds will go back again and again.<br /><br />Does it all really influence young people? Other than seeing a lot of young girls with very strange eyebrows, they seem pretty level headed to me. Leaps and bounds ahead of myself at that age. I don't think they raise an eyebrow to be honest, they have had glitz all their lives, todays celebrities have to keep upping the ante.<br /><br />I am afraid you are sounding a bit 'old fogey' Ziggy, repeating the arguments of all the granddads who have gone before, lol. Kids are what you bring them up to be, they are not going to be corrupted by a wanton young hussy singing provocatively anymore than women were raped en masse when mini skirts and hot pants were all the rage. <br /><br />You make a couple of sweeping statements there Ziggy, 'child porn is as much as stimulus.....' - really? What evidence is there to support this? You then cite a music video with child gymnasts as an example of 'things going too far' [my words]. I'm baffled. Surely anyone with that specific fetish (little girls in leotards), can look at them quite legitimately on the sports channels?<br /><br />Youngsters don't want to see their idols standing still on stage like a choirboy, they want to see them thrusting their hips a la Elvis (who also caused an outrage) and swinging half naked on a wrecking ball. I quite like that video myself, go Miley! Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-73134726474342077602016-12-27T08:07:20.019+00:002016-12-27T08:07:20.019+00:00Hello Mark, hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.
...Hello Mark, hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.<br /><br />I'm glad you raised the point about creating a market, that is of course the second strongest argument to root out those watching child porn on the net. <br /><br />That argument however, is comparable to tracking down users of drugs rather than suppliers. It could be said the users are creating the market. The users of course far outnumber the dealers and tackling the drug problem in that way would mean quadrupling (at least) every drug squad. Type 'got any drugs' and expect to be pounced on by a swat team.<br /><br />The drug users, on the whole, are not lawbreakers. Some it could be said, are just pathetic and there is no public appetite to hound and imprison them.<br /><br />Tackling the problem of underage pornography by arresting and publicly humiliating anyone who looks at illegal images (and who is to judge what is legal?)will make little or any difference to those children who are being abused. Like the drug industry, Law enforcement needs to go after the makers of the films and the suppliers. <br /><br />Assuming a man is a predatory child abuser because of what he likes to look at on the internet, is simply bizarre. The sex industry is not only multi million/billion, it caters for every known fantasy and creates a few new ones. If men who like to look at young girls or young boys are sex offenders, what are those who like bondage and S&M? Should we assume they are violent and should not be allowed out in public? <br /><br />Criminalising people for what they look at and what they 'might do' is a very slippery slope. Rounding up men who 'might' have looked at underage age pictures, and destroying their lives anyway, is probably the most scary legislation we have. It gives unscrupulous people at the top the power to invent false charges against almost anyone they want. If we accept the persecution of this small (unpopular) minority group without question, who will be next?<br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-90508572780264736902016-12-27T00:38:55.858+00:002016-12-27T00:38:55.858+00:00@ ros 17:11
I expressed a different opinion - bas...@ ros 17:11<br /><br />I expressed a different opinion - based on what Bjorn had said. Is having a different opinion preventing discussion in your view???<br /><br />Fascinating that you would be prepared leave young children with a stranger from the internet!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-81805429907583531702016-12-26T23:17:59.513+00:002016-12-26T23:17:59.513+00:00@17.28
Porn is Hollywood's dirty cousin . Chil...@17.28<br />Porn is Hollywood's dirty cousin . Child Porn is that dirty cousin's twisted son. All three are driven by supply and demand ; If you want to gauge the audience size , look how much is supplied in each .The effect of each branch of this 'entertainment' seems to have influence on a lot of those who view beyond the experience alone. The herds of sheep who obsess over celebrity trivia while the real world heads to hell on a bike is frightening.Porn is giving wrong impressions and now wannabe studs and 'babes' suddenly have an 'awakening' and get experimental( it's a movie folks, don't try this at home ). Child porn is as much a stimulus to those who have that yearning. So, what's their next step going to be. Frightening stuff. Monkey-see, monkey-do is my number 2 pet hate.It really disappoints me. And make no mistake about the next step that's been under way for a few years - the sexualising of kids. Their 'role models' changed the game with Britneys famous schoolgirl performance. Lady GaGa is a soft porn act when she isn't dressed as an uncooked meat pizza. Madonna ? enough said. But the prize goes to the clowns behind a certain video 2 years ago. I watch some great stuff music -wise on youtube and some have a couple of hundred billion hits. But when i saw Sia - Chandelier on some tacky music channel when at my son's i nearly choked. his has almost 2 billion hits on youtube. You can't tell me that video isn't being deliberately provocative . All female gymnasts are small so i see no reason whatsoever to use an 11 year old girl 'dressed' that way and dancing that way other than to dare us to respond. And, before the 'people who see it must be it' clones throw their arms up in sanctimonious indignation, watch it.<br /><br />The rules are being changed all the time by the vile creatures who fund these mediums . I'm no religious zealot by the way. I'm not religious at all .The long game is their Fabianistic speciality. here's no rush to reach their goal, as long as they reach it. When the gap between innocence and experience is closed the lines will be blurry enough to the point where ages of consent will have to be reviewed. It won't be to raise them. Bet your hoouse on that . ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-88422014968530792522016-12-26T22:29:30.002+00:002016-12-26T22:29:30.002+00:00I get it Mark, and in a sense you’re quite right, ...I get it Mark, and in a sense you’re quite right, but the problem, as I see it, is to define child pornography. If it’s about films/photos of children having sex with adults, it’s nothing but rape and violence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, a lot, or perhaps most of all images/photos of children, which by our authorities (Swedish/British) are considered to be child pornography, are completely innocent and inoffensive, such as children bathing naked, small girls sunbathing in bikinis, or children in swimsuits eating peeled bananas in the “wrong way” and of course all the cartoons with naked characters of imaginative children. And what about our treasure of children's literature, with its fantasy illustrations of children. <br /><br />A Swedish translator of Japanese Manga cartoons was prosecuted a few years ago for having child pornography in his computer, that is, he had the cartoons in it. Without watching these fantasy images of children, it would have been difficult for him to do his job. <br /><br />He was convicted in a lower court, but acquitted in a higher court, but of course he lost his job and got his life destroyed. <br /><br />Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-73039169905242068432016-12-26T17:28:54.370+00:002016-12-26T17:28:54.370+00:00To state " It is fallacy to state that men wh...To state " It is fallacy to state that men who look at underage porn will go on to assault children" misses the point. These "watchers" create the marketplace for the child abuse to be created, to order.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-61921171539845723162016-12-26T17:17:19.093+00:002016-12-26T17:17:19.093+00:00That distinction between love and paedphilia is dr...That distinction between love and paedphilia is driving a huge wedge between men and children Bjorn, and I find it heartbreaking. So much love, guidance and wisdom lost through ignorance and prejudice. <br /><br />I have no doubt it will be a recurring theme Bjorn, I would gift every child a 'Tom', someone who cared enough about them to record every smile and every tear. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-73662155342024638932016-12-26T17:11:11.628+00:002016-12-26T17:11:11.628+00:00FFS 16:41, it's comments like yours that preve...FFS 16:41, it's comments like yours that prevent any sort of discussion around this sensitive subject. Bjorn's comments are reasoned, considered and show no hostility towards children whatsoever. If my children were young I would leave them with him before most others. I wouldn't be leaving them with dodgy child protection officers and enthusiastic (Bennett) social workers, who's main concern is removing parental rights. <br /><br />Your blinkers are preventing you from seeing the light 16:41, maybe you should adjust them.Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-10321238868357655512016-12-26T17:02:48.757+00:002016-12-26T17:02:48.757+00:00Hi Ziggy S.
You’re quite right, I shouldn’t really...Hi Ziggy S.<br />You’re quite right, I shouldn’t really implicate everyone in my thoughts. I’ve an old habit of using “we” when talking or writing. I respect your opinion on “paedophilia”, though it’s somewhat different from mine. I really hope that adults’ love for children and its alleged connection to “paedophilia” will be further discussed here, later on. It’s of course up to Rosalinda to decide.<br /><br />Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-4183515223051742982016-12-26T16:59:05.951+00:002016-12-26T16:59:05.951+00:00Yes, Rosalinda I agree, in that we should all lear...Yes, Rosalinda I agree, in that we should all learn from society’s prejudice, in the recent past, against homosexual individuals, when sexuality in general is being discussed. I hope that you will bring up this subject later on.<br />Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52075225581084904342016-12-26T16:41:45.757+00:002016-12-26T16:41:45.757+00:00@ Björn25 December 2016 at 23:05
I am very concer...@ Björn25 December 2016 at 23:05<br /><br />I am very concerned about your comments - particularly if you have access to children in any way whatsoever.<br /><br />You are wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-71651196166044538192016-12-26T04:20:23.892+00:002016-12-26T04:20:23.892+00:00Interesting comments Bjorn!
Actually you have got...Interesting comments Bjorn!<br /><br />Actually you have got me thinking about the way homosexuals were treated in the 1950's and 1960's. It seems bizarre now, but in those days, it was assumed that homosexuals were a risk to children. And I think that is where most of the distaste and violence towards homosexuals came from. Eg, men who didn't want to have sex with women would turn their attentions to kids.<br /><br />Of course we are far more enlightened now, and we can see how cruel and inhumane that kind of thinking was. Homosexuality was illegal, and hating gay people was a national sport, the Sunday tabloids competing with each other to out VIPs. <br /><br />And of course it carried the same vulnerability to blackmail and corruption. Being exposed as gay was the kiss of death to the career a politician or a celebrity. And for ordinary people it had the power to devastate lives, kids considered at risk taken into care and being shunned by the entire neighbourhood. <br /><br />That same kind of sinister witch hunt is back 21st century style. Literally any man with 'family day at the beach pictures' can be prosecuted for being in possession of underage images. <br /><br />Then there is this huge mythical leap that somehow links looking at images with violent crime. That argument has been disproved again and again in a variety of different situations. <br /><br />I think someone should be brave enough to bring the subject out into the open. All the ignorance around the subject is due to lack of information and the fact that most people are too afraid to discuss it. If they say anything reasonable or less than condemnatory about the paedophiles, they will be accused of being sympathisers. <br /><br />I fear it will be a long, long time before the reasonable voices are heard Bjorn. Meanwhile we do at least have one small corner of the internet that is trying to understand. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-3936902404083256942016-12-26T03:25:18.353+00:002016-12-26T03:25:18.353+00:00Bjorn
There isn't sexuality in all of our hugs...Bjorn<br />There isn't sexuality in all of our hugs and kisses. Hugs and kisses can be to console and comfort. Touch is our most important sense.We may all be sexual beings but I think you need to draw a few lines.<br /><br />As for paedophilia , we do know what it's all about. If you don't, fair enough, speak for you, not all of us . Witch hunts are wrong no matter who the hunt is for. But it's too easy to be politically correct and 'aware' and call everyone who gets angry a mob or hunter. If there's a genuine reason for anger and a genuine anger at justice not being done, it's called being human . A witch hunt is only a mob of angry people looking too hard to vent and not hard enough at the reasons and evidence they think they have. ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-54171598516192917842016-12-25T23:05:49.483+00:002016-12-25T23:05:49.483+00:00Hi Dave (Bottomley)
Rather late, but I just felt I...Hi Dave (Bottomley)<br />Rather late, but I just felt I had to comment on what you say.<br />It may come to you as a shock Dave, but there is sexuality in all our hugs, kisses and caresses, no matter what our sexual identity/orientation may be, because we are all sexual human beings by nature. <br /><br />So, anyone, who associates with children, expresses some kind of sexuality, whether it’s a mother, a father or a teacher. Whatever we may call such intimate contacts, they are different from adult’s love affairs, in that they are about the relations between adults and children. <br /><br />If a person, who does not fit in society’s social structures, does what any mother can do to her child, any elder sibling can to do its baby brother or sister, or what any female kindergarten teacher can do to a child in her care, that is, embrace it tenderly and make it feel physical closeness, that person would be defined by others as a potential abuser (paedophile). Yet, such a person may love children, or some special children, just as much as anyone else. <br /><br />What should be more discussed here is how we as adults are connecting with our and others’ children in society, and of course how sexuality, sexual identity and gender affiliation affect our lives. <br /><br />I am against the witch-hunt for pedophiles, because we don’t really know what’s all about.<br /><br /><br /> <br />Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-19491480955652597272016-12-25T06:25:21.003+00:002016-12-25T06:25:21.003+00:00I almost forgot...
Happy Christmas to you and your...I almost forgot...<br />Happy Christmas to you and yours Rosalinda :) x<br />and to all on the forum ..ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-40257452601623109672016-12-25T06:23:15.735+00:002016-12-25T06:23:15.735+00:00@Dave Bottomley
'' You are now defending ...@Dave Bottomley<br /><br />'' You are now defending any man who has sexual tastes and thoughts about children and saying that is fine as long as they don't do anything! ''<br /><br />'' I have looked back at my posts and cannot see that I said "fine" (you quotation marks)''<br /><br />I'm not having a pop, just helping to shorten the rally so we can begin a new set.<br /><br />The 'having a sexual orientation toward children' mentioned elsewhere and whether or not they want to hurt them is a less simple argument than it seems here . Firstly, having that sexual orientation is evidence that the 'wiring' is wrong in the head. before the man or woman who owns that head acts in any way at all it's their responsibility to try and get it fixed. They owe it to themselves and society . If they have no perception of it being wrong, their problem runs even deeper. The other side of this is the inner battle or torment that is seldom won. that's when the trouble happens. They may begin by honestly not wanting to hurt a child, but do when the battle's lost. Regarding a definition of 'hurt' I'd say this. Any sexual act regardless of the physical damage or ferocity of it, is violent. The raping of innocence is psychologically violent.It can destroy any concept of barriers and right and wrong in the child. It can arrest the moral development of the child. And, often if that child carries that around because they've been too scared, or threatened, or haven't been believed. What kind of isolation follows ? What private logic is formed in the child ? Whatever it is, it's hard enough to detect, let alone remove in order to give back their life.<br /><br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-59340271416453488292016-12-25T05:57:47.215+00:002016-12-25T05:57:47.215+00:00@16.17
I take your point and believe and agree wit...@16.17<br />I take your point and believe and agree with it. I should have added a 'generally'. I think the further back you go in the last century the less was known about the whole area of paedophilia in the wider public arena. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, obviously. It's a human flaw . It was swept under carpets and , sometimes even within families it was never talked about and denial set in. Denial is at it's most dangerous in these circumstances be it 'in house' or in society. Nobody is truly protected by denial. What goes down, must come up . ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-33292837562505213702016-12-24T23:14:54.327+00:002016-12-24T23:14:54.327+00:00Again, you can't possibly know that.
Most chi...Again, you can't possibly know that.<br /><br />Most child murders are spontaneous and unplanned, and most are committed by people who know them. Random kidnappings from a public place are extremely rare, that's why they make headline news. But even then they are likely to be opportunist rather than premeditated.<br /><br />Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not all alike, their tastes cover a wide spectrum. The same applies to paedophiles, each one is an individual, you can't just lump them all together. Some will be violent predators, but most won't be. <br /><br />Claiming to know how a paedophile thinks is nonsense Dave, even respected experts with a string of qualifications would never make a grandiose claim like that. <br /><br /> Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-44852241427792626482016-12-24T22:18:54.627+00:002016-12-24T22:18:54.627+00:00@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2016 at ...@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 December 2016 at 22:09<br /><br />We are not talking about violent crimes.<br /><br />"As for EVERY paedophile does it in their head first - really? How could you possibly know that?"<br /><br />Nonsense comment -a paedophile must have had the thought beforehand.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12269155984023052311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82993871586434098022016-12-24T22:09:42.567+00:002016-12-24T22:09:42.567+00:00The quotation marks were there because I wasn'...The quotation marks were there because I wasn't repeating you verbatim.<br /><br />As for EVERY paedophile does it in their head first - really? How could you possibly know that? Violent crimes are rarely pre-planned, they are usually the result of a series of events that have got out of control. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.com