K, I'll get right on to the CPS about their website being wrong.

Whatever floats your boat and don't start whinging now, simply because you didn't even bother reading your own cited link and can't understand what threads are about, ffs.
Like I said, get back to me when you've something valid to say. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Yeah, I posted reams of stuff and a few cites that you dismissed out of hand, so I'm not interested in pursuing this either.

Don't know who's whinging.

That would be you, with your "Oh well then I'll simply tell the site they're wrong so there, wah wah wah!" style whinging.

The thread's heading is: What should we do with self-confessed paedophiles who don't act on their desires?

My original response to this was: Then later I said: Then I said:
You're the one who then conflated this with 17-year-old teens taking pics of their 17-year-old gf, which we weren't even discussing. Again the thread's heading isn't "can there be mitigating circumstances for what is currently considered a sexual offence", or "Should reforms be brought to what is legally considered a sex offender in general" but "What should we do with self-confessed paedophiles who don't act on their desires?

Hence my purely within the context of the discussion comment on there being no mitigating circumstances for paedophiles accessing CP on the darknet. Which went right over your head. Which again is of no interest to me, or your non valid examples.

You can't read English. Or else you're simply being argumentative for the sake of it. Or you're trolling. Neither of these explanations says much for you

Now are you really not interested in pursuing this or are you gonna come back again with yet more irrelevant examples that have sfa to do with the thread's actual topic? If it's the latter then feel free to have the last word mate- as I said, it's futile continuing with you.

I'm really not interested, but last words then:

Don't care about the thread title. Discussions progress, new avenues are explored. I was responding to something you specifically asked for: a list of mitigating circumstances.

My example of an 18yo getting sent nude pics by a 17yo girlfriend is relevant because you keep saying things like this:

It's a real world example (there have been many such prosecutions for this or similar in the US that you could google for) of why this statement isn't true.

And 18yo adult doesn't need to go trawling the dark web for that. There's also things like provocative pictures of under age girls that may be non-nude and therefore not illegal in some jurisdictions but illegal in others, and hence on the surface web. There's also sites like 4chan which have a history of posting stuff like that to troll people. There's also cases like Traci Lords, of people involved in porn who turned out to be under age. There have been cases of amateur porn that was illegal. When there's a bunch of nude pics of teens off Tumblr or something, it'd hardly be surprising if some turned out to be 17 (again, you can search for such cases, because law enforcement can't really keep up with the way images spread, and it's not like every picture on the internet is going to have age verification available).

But even if you wanted to fixate on your specific hypothetical of this sound of mind paedophile trawling for child rape, there's still factors involved that can be mitigating, and I listed some that you dismissed out of hand.

So yeah, I'm done.

Sorry, I just can't resist this. Particularly this gem:
I don't care that you don't care about the thread title as my comments are within the context of the thread's title. Your not caring and delusion that you can discuss whatever you feel like is neither here nor there.

Goalposts are moved and I couldn't care less about your moving of said goalposts just cuz you "don't care" about the actual thread's topic, nor would anyone else interested in honest discourse.

No you weren't and stop lying, as I said there were no mitigating circumstances for paedophiles accessing child porn on the dark net. You then babbled irrelevancies, due to "mitigating circumstances" suddenly becoming "Mitigating circumstances for what you feel the thread should cover, due to your not caring about the actual thread's subject". And now you expect me to go along with your straw man. Dream on. And you have the neck to wonder whether I'm being dishonest or dumb. I knew you were trolling.

Rest of your waffle is yet more irrelevancies still, which again are not valid examples wrt the actual topic we're discussing- despite your lack of interest in it- and merely highlights your ignorance on the definition of paedophilia, so we can comfortably dismiss that for the boring noise without substance that it is and all.

So yeah, we're done, 'bye and have a nice trip back under your bridge.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=131

I'm not going to type anything new for this discussion, but I am going to point and laugh at you.