So while Rolf Harris and a few others go to prison and new investigations start amongst politicians

[Bernie174]

Love to hear how you know that though

It's not through experience! I rely for that information on a young lady in my team who in a similar conversation, when I said, in my day there were few, said "Thats not changed". I have a 17 year old daughter, and I'd hope that she was still sweet and innocent, but I dare not ask!

Geza....The DM are holding the front page and it's due to be debated in the UN!

 

[viv1969]

Bernie...you should know better than to be trusting anecdotal evidence. Shame on you.

 

[Bernie174]

Ah, but I am not 'from' Southampton Jonathan, I simply live here. I can't disagree with you though.

Viv, the trouble is evidence against is equally anecdotal.

 

[Byker28i]

Byker, 'deprave and corrupt' is a moving feast, and thats the problem. The same applies to the word 'pornography'. Both though depend on the 'eyes of the beholder', hence it is for a Jury to decide. If you speak to the extreme feminist brigade, they will say Page 3 is porn, if you speak to the average man in the street it isn't.
Social attitude's in general move the perception of what is obscene or pornographic upwards. So once page 3 would have been taboo, it' isn't now. Once men and women having sex was defiantly porn and possession would lead to being changed. Now you can buy it over the counter in Soho, and of course view it anytime you like on line.
The CPA, strangely moved it back the other way, but I wonder of in reality the social attitudes would agree? It would I think come as a shock to many that a topless photo of a 16 year old could led to a trip inside, notwithstanding the CPS Guidelines.

Cheers, this is kinda my thinking of why it could be an interesting subject for a thesis

 

[BT Bob]

I'm seriously considering writing my thesis on the social restrictions of photography with children.

Back in the late '90s, as part of a City & Guilds Photography course I completed the History of Photography module. My theme was the role of women in photography (behind the camera), and I spent a long time discussing the work of Sally Mann. Much of the work she did of her kids growing up was undoubtedly controversial at the time, but more recently has become very highly regarded. However, if she were taking pictures like that these days she would undoubtedly come under heavy scrutiny.

I think it would make a really interesting thesis - although you'd need to tread very carefully and probably need some "approval" from the University that your research was for a genuine academic requirement, just in case you got the "knock on the door" (Pete Townshend, take note)!!!

 

[Byker28i]

Cheers Bob, I'm more thinking about social attitudes to photography with children, in public places, on websites, social media etc. An exploration into the current accusational approach, when it changed, that sort of thing. It'll be a couple of years away yet (distance learning) but it's an area of interest. I was one of those kids who kept asking 'but why' when I didn't understand something.

 

[big soft moose]

castration would also ensure the same and they would have to suffer it for the rest of their lives. I think this would be a suitable punishment. A warm room, free food and getting paid for staying there is not a suitable consequence for their actions. They could be out building the railways for example, and keep the prisons empty.

Actually it might not because not all child sex offenders are paedophiles in the literal sense (of being sexually attracted to children) , in the same way that not all rapists are motivated by sexual attraction to their victim - often in both cases it is some psychosexual pathology that drives the offence, and it can be more about power, degradation, and control than about sex per se. Ergo castration won't necessary remove the urge as it comes from the brain not the balls. (also a minority of child sex offenders are female)

As I said a 9mm behind the left ear covers all bases quite nicely , and is the only absolute guarantee that they won't reoffend

 

[Bernie174]

Cheers, this is kinda my thinking of why it could be an interesting subject for a thesis

Be interesting to read, it's a kind of social paradox!

Actually it might not because not all child sex offenders are paedophiles in the literal sense (of being sexually attracted to children) , in the same way that not all rapists are motivated by sexual attraction to their victim - often in both cases it is some psychosexual pathology that drives the offence, and it can be more about power, degradation, and control than about sex per se. Ergo castration won't necessary remove the urge as it comes from the brain not the balls. (also a minority of child sex offenders are female)

Strange that. I've nicked 3 rapists, none of them said anything like that, it was more, I had no chance, so I forced her or we were heavy petting and once I started, she started to say no, type answer.

I think like most things, if a defendant can put some excuse to the behaviour they think they will get a lighter sentence. A bit like "I burgled the house to get money to buy drugs" excuse. I lost count of the number I of times I heard that, yet oddly, none of them were actually ever taking drugs!

I blame 'research', when will the trendy lefty do gooders realise that prisoners lie through their teeth????

 

[big soft moose]

Strange that. I've nicked 3 rapists, none of them said anything like that, it was more, I had no chance, so I forced her or we were heavy petting and once I started, she started to say no, type answer.

Well you wouldn't expect them to say "well officer, I'm a social inadequate with an unresolved oedipal complex and I'm angry at women because they've always rejected me" chances are they may not be consciously aware of the drivers themselves and even if they were they wouldn't necessarily want to admit it - not least because it makes them look like a danger to all women and thus more likely to get a custodial sentence

" I had no chance so I forced her " may be the literal truth - but it doesn't explain why he forced her, rather than just shrugging his shoulders and looking elsewhere .

 

[Bernie174]

On the other hand, maybe it's simply the truth, and in the first case it is simply he's done what most men have done (and I don't doubt many women about men!), thought to himself, "Cor, I would", been turned down, so forced the issue.
If they wont tell or the 'drivers' (can we please use proper English not social worker claptrap!) aren't apparent, then there's a distinct danger that the theory is utter rubbish, actually, in my experience it is utter rubbish.

 

[big soft moose]

On the other hand, maybe it's simply the truth, and in the first case it is simply he's done what most men have done (and I don't doubt many women about men!), thought to himself, "Cor, I would", been turned down, so forced the issue.
.

yes but I'm talking about the reasons why he's forced the issue - most men think cor she's a bit of alright, get turned down and shrug and say 'her loss' and move onto the next girl , because we don't associate force with sex and we aren't turned on by the idea of beating a woman into submission.

returning to the issue of child abuse - think of for example Brady and Hindley , do you honestly believe they were motivated by sexual attraction ?

(also while I'd agree you have more first hand experience with criminals than I do , having arrested 3 rapists doesn't qualify you to dismiss as rubbish, theories that are developed by psychologists who have studied hundreds of such individuals. )

 

[viv1969]

Castration will certainly render them unable to carry out the actual rape itself, regardless of motivation.

 

[Bernie174]

yes but I'm talking about the reasons why he's forced the issue - most men think cor she's a bit of alright, get turned down and shrug and say 'her loss' and move onto the next girl , because we don't associate force with sex and we aren't turned on by the idea of beating a woman into submission.

How about pure and simple lust? Usually with drink thrown into the occasion. Odd as it may seem to you, research methods involve asking people convicted questions, and those prisoners will say what the people they are talking to want to hear. I've seen these researchers in action and I wouldn't have accepted the answers they do, nor asked questions in the way they did. The results I would class as questionable at best.

Very few rapes are 'beat' into submission, like child abuse most of them are people who know each other, and usually because somethings started and the woman has got to a point where she's said no. The man has either then considered that to be no, meaning yes or has just got to a point of no return in his mind.

I have no idea what motivated either Bradly or Hindley, but I am aware that there are millions of words written about them, none of which really have much validity, as they weren't telling.

 

[big soft moose]

How about pure and simple lust? Usually with drink thrown into the occasion. .

Doesn't explain it - most men lust after hot girls , and most men get drunk on occasion - but most men don't commit rape.

End of the day you can think you know best - but has it ever occurred to you that given that criminals will say what they think you want to hear, that what they say to you in questioning might not be the whole reason either ?

Personally I suspect that people like researchers working for FBI behavioural science unit are bright enough not to take everything a criminal tells them at face value

Dismissing the research as 'a load of lefty b*****ks' is also what leads to police saying things like " he's just a nicker sniffer he aint dangerous" and releasing a stalker who then goes on to rape and brutally beat a woman because the officers dismissed the psychologists assertion that underwear theft and peeping tom behaviour is often a precursor to more serious offences

returning to the subject of child sex offenders - assuming they are just attracted to kids, like you or I are attracted to hot women doesn't really do much for dealing with the issue (unless we just shoot them in the head in which case rehabilitation isn't relevant). If they are going to be let out one day in order to treat them effectively its first necessary to know why they did what they did , and assuming its simple is what leads to mistakes with letting them out to reoffend.

 

[Bernie174]

Different people have different trips. Some people steal things. It doesn't mean that the majority have a physiological trigger that causes it. In many cases, it's simply easier that to work and earn the money to buy it.

The same happens in sexual offences. Just because someones raped someone it does not mean they have a trigger that sets them off. The vast majority of rapes are as I said, boy meets girl, they start some heavy petting and shes gets to a point that she wants to stop. He doesn't. Thats the vast majority of cases, it usually involves drink too.
A few, and I mean a few are the ones you mention, yet you and others are led to believe that its the majority of cases, it simply isn't. If it were then the recidivist rate would be a great deal higher, it's not repeat rapists are very rare.

As are the examples of what your stalkers, 1 in several 1000 go onto attack, mostly it's simple infatuation. In any case, Police don't imprison, Police are tied by the CPS charging decisions and have no powers to detain 'in case'. Like it or not, mostly it's serving a letter saying pack it in or get nicked. Then arresting numerous times and watching them released time and time again. But like I said, thats 1 in several 1000 cases, not an everyday occurrence. The blame for that lays with the limited powers available, not with Police.

 

[big soft moose]

Different people have different trips. Some people steal things. It doesn't mean that the majority have a physiological trigger that causes it. In many cases, it's simply easier that to work and earn the money to buy it.

I'm sorry but that's simplistic rubbish - yes its easier , but it would be easier for you too - so why did you chose to become a cop rather than say a thief ? - people do have psychological triggers driving their behaviour , most of the time they are invisible and most of the time it doesn't matter , but when you are talking about criminals then sometimes understanding the why does make it easier to treat the what and the how.

The same happens in sexual offences. Just because someones raped someone it does not mean they have a trigger that sets them off. The vast majority of rapes are as I said, boy meets girl, they start some heavy petting and shes gets to a point that she wants to stop. He doesn't. Thats the vast majority of cases, it usually involves drink too.

So nearly all rape is date rape ? (again simplistic rubbish) - but even if it were true there'd still be the question of why a particular individual loses control when another doesn't, not every case where he wants more than she does leads to rape - because most people know right from wrong even when they are half cut. It really amazes me that a serving officer can think that "I was drunk / she was gagging for it / she led me on" is an appropriate reason or excuse for a sexual assault.

Police are tied by the CPS charging decisions and have no powers to detain 'in case'. Like it or not, mostly it's serving a letter saying pack it in or get nicked. Then arresting numerous times and watching them released time and time again. But like I said, thats 1 in several 1000 cases, not an everyday occurrence. The blame for that lays with the limited powers available, not with Police.

I agree with you about the 'criminal protection service' but is disingenuous to say that the police have no control - they determine where they place their time and how hard they look into a certain matter, and if they believe (wrongly as it happens) for example that only a few in each thousand stalkers become dangerous, because they've dismissed the research that suggests otherwise as 'left wing b*****ks' then they will choose not to take many stalking cases seriously - this also accounts for the victims who feel that they are being told "we can't do anything unless he hurts you"

Also going further OT the thing that p***es me off about this is that they'll devote b****r all resources to dealing with a stalker (because its a low priority because after all stalkers aren't dangerous) - but when a relation/friend of the victim catches the stalker, for example , masturbating outside her bedroom window , and responds to this by kicking seven shades of s***e out of said stalker , the police will then easily devote the resources that they allegedly didn't have before to building a case against the relative/friend for assault , even though he is demonstrably not a risk to society and should therefore be a lower priority than the stalker was in the first place.

 

[Bernie174]

So nearly all rape is date rape ? (again simplistic rubbish) - but even if it were true there'd still be the question of why a particular individual loses control when another doesn't, not every case where he wants more than she does leads to rape - because most people know right from wrong even when they are half cut. It really amazes me that a serving officer can think that "I was drunk / she was gagging for it / she led me on" is an appropriate reason or excuse for a sexual assault.

Not what I said, go away, and come back when you can quote accurately please.
Nearly all rape IS what you have called date rape, and I call rape! What I said was, that rape is often the result of what started as heavy petting, she says no at whatever point, and some men take that as no meaning yes. I did not at any point suggest that makes it all OK. It doesn't. However, it IS what happens. Nothing in that says "She was gagging for it", and if drink is involved, nor have I suggested that it is an excuse or it makes it all right!

I agree with you about the 'criminal protection service' but is disingenuous to say that the police have no control - they determine where they place their time and how hard they look into a certain matter, and if they believe (wrongly as it happens) for example that only a few in each thousand stalkers become dangerous, because they've dismissed the research that suggests otherwise as 'left wing b*****ks' then they will choose not to take many stalking cases seriously - this also accounts for the victims who feel that they are being told "we can't do anything unless he hurts you"

The only utter B*****ks being talked here is by you. How much time do Police spend on stalkers? Show me the research that proves your point, you can't, because it isn't there. The reality is most stalking is low level, the reality is that only a handful of stalking jobs have ended the way you suggest, in fact I can think of 2. How many allegations of stalking are there a year?

Also going further OT the thing that p***es me off about this is that they'll devote b****r all resources to dealing with a stalker (because its a low priority because after all stalkers aren't dangerous) - but when a relation/friend of the victim catches the stalker, for example , masturbating outside her bedroom window , and responds to this by kicking seven shades of s***e out of said stalker , the police will then easily devote the resources that they allegedly didn't have before to building a case against the relative/friend for assault , even though he is demonstrably not a risk to society and should therefore be a lower priority than the stalker was in the first place.

Again, a load of utter B****KS, being spoken by you!
You say "they'll devote b****r all resources to dealing with a stalker (because its a low priority because after all stalkers aren't dangerous)" so how much time do Police spend on it? Tell me in manhours. Oh, you can't can you, because it's a baseless allegation.
All Police CAN do in the first instance is serve a letter, nothing else. Only then can they arrest. Then it's up to the Courts, not Police. If they release, then so be it. Hardly Police's fault is it?

but when a relation/friend of the victim catches the stalker, for example , masturbating outside her bedroom window , and responds to this by kicking seven shades of s***e out of said stalker , the police will then easily devote the resources that they allegedly didn't have before to building a case against the relative/friend for assault , even though he is demonstrably not a risk to society and should therefore be a lower priority than the stalker was in the first place.

What the hell do you expect? You cannot, like it or not, kick the poo out of someone in those circumstances. In effect you gave Police no options, again, like it or not, not only do they have to deal with chummy, they have to deal with the assault too. Police officers didn't kick his head in, your 'relative' did, it's him thats to blame, not the old bill! If they weren't wasting time dealing with that, they could be doing what you suggest. What an pillock he was!

It is rare that I see such a load of misquoted and foundationless rubbish in any post, but you take the record there. Nothing you have said has any basis in reality, nothing there has any proof supporting it and nothing you have assigned to me was what was said. Do some research before you post more utter c**p!

 

[viv1969]

It is rare that I see such a load of misquoted and foundationless rubbish in any post, but you take the record there. Nothing you have said has any basis in reality, nothing there has any proof supporting it and nothing you have assigned to me was what was said. Do some research before you post more utter c**p!

Hang around a while Bernie, you'll get used to it. :sleep:

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Actually it might not because not all child sex offenders are paedophiles in the literal sense (of being sexually attracted to children) , in the same way that not all rapists are motivated by sexual attraction to their victim - often in both cases it is some psychosexual pathology that drives the offence, and it can be more about power, degradation, and control than about sex per se. Ergo castration won't necessary remove the urge as it comes from the brain not the balls. (also a minority of child sex offenders are female)

As I said a 9mm behind the left ear covers all bases quite nicely , and is the only absolute guarantee that they won't reoffend

I am not saying that 9mm or more isn't fun, but seriously, have you heard about hormones and what they do the brain? f***ed up brain in this case?

 

[big soft moose]

What the hell do you expect? You cannot, like it or not, kick the poo out of someone in those circumstances. In effect you gave Police no options, again, like it or not, not only do they have to deal with chummy, they have to deal with the assault too. Police officers didn't kick his head in, your 'relative' did, it's him thats to blame, not the old bill! If they weren't wasting time dealing with that, they could be doing what you suggest. What an pillock he was!

so in essence a stalker can harass and menace a young lady with impunity and the police will do jack s*** because its not a priority and after all they know stalkers aren't dangerous (despite the massive body of evidence to the contrary) but if anyone gets sick of this situation and takes the law into their own hands then they are to blame - not the police who did absolutely nothing when the offence was originally reported ... erm yeah, right okay...

The only error my friend made was calling the police - he should have just kicked the guys arse and told him to stay the f*** away from his friend if he didn't want worse ...

oh and by the way all the police can do is issue a letter - really ? , last time I looked harassment was against the law , so is aggravated trespass , and so is criminal damage. The police could act on a number of levels if they wanted to - but because of the misguided cobblers that some believe about stalking being a low level crime they don't want to invest the resources to do so (and to be clear I don't blame the rank and file , I blame the chain of command for whom resource allocation is a higher priority than locking up perpetrators)

 

[big soft moose]

I am not saying that 9mm or more isn't fun, but seriously, have you heard about hormones and what they do the brain? f***ed up brain in this case?

Indeed - and believe me I have nothing against castrating sex offenders (preferably with a blunt knife) , however it isn't an entire solution because if someone is basically a sadist and get their jollies from power over others, then they won't necessarily stop doing that just because they can no longer get it up.

 

[Bernie174]

Am I writing in French Pete? or are you just finding the words difficult?

The legislation is such that to stalk, or to use it's proper name, harrass someone, it has to be persistent. Part of proving that is to serve the stalker with a letter, telling them to behave.
It's only after that you can arrest. It ain't what Police prioritise, as I have told you at least once before, it's what the bloody law says they can do!
Priority or not, Police can only act within the law.
If you can't follow that, I'll arrange for someone to draw you pictures.

The only error my friend made was calling the police - he should have just kicked the guys arse and told him to stay the f*** away from his friend if he didn't want worse ...

Really? So it'[s OK for your friend, it was a relative last time, make your mind up, to break the law, and action shouldn't be taken against him, but how outrageous that Police weren't nicking chummy without any evidence? You see thats the other problem with Police they will insist on acting independently, like they are meant to.

You really do not have any idea what you are talking about Pete, do us all a favour and wind it in, your talking crap again.

 

[big soft moose]

Am I writing in French Pete? or are you just finding the words difficult?

The legislation is such that to stalk, or to use it's proper name, harrass someone, it has to be persistent. Part of proving that is to serve the stalker with a letter, telling them to behave.
It's only after that you can arrest. It ain't what Police prioritise, as I have told you at least once before, it's what the bloody law says they can do!
Priority or not, Police can only act within the law.
If you can't follow that, I'll arrange for someone to draw you pictures.

Or you could do some research into the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (England and Wales) which made stalking itself an offence - what you've described is the situation before that was passed . Still its not entirely surprising that you aren't aware of it as a FOI in 2013 showed that only one in four officers had received appropriate training about the new law and what it meant

Really? So it'[s OK for your friend, it was a relative last time, make your mind up...

you also seem to have a problem with reading comprehension , what I actually said was

when a relation/friend of the victim catches the stalker

I made no reference to this person being a relation to me

...to break the law, and action shouldn't be taken against him, but how outrageous that Police weren't nicking chummy without any evidence? You see thats the other problem with Police they will insist on acting independently, like they are meant to.

Personally I would have hoped that the police would investigate and actually develop some evidence ( the umpteen letters she was sent would be evidential of stalking , not to mention the occasion on which chummy wrote the word "slut" on the side of her car in spray paint - the police did attend, that but all they did was issue a crime number for the insurers) Also yes my friend should probably have expected to get charged for assault, which is why I said his mistake was to call the police... he should have just kept it between chummy and himself.

really do not have any idea what you are talking about.

You aren't doing too well on that front either ... knowing what the current legislation says is a good first step if you are going to hold yourself up as an expert on all matters criminal

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Indeed - and believe me I have nothing against castrating sex offenders (preferably with a blunt knife) , however it isn't an entire solution because if someone is basically a sadist and get their jollies from power over others, then they won't necessarily stop doing that just because they can no longer get it up.

may I add rusty blunt knife

It may be the worst example I've ever given, but let me give it a go. Have you observed how much castration changes the behaviour of male cat? A lot, and not just the obvious. Obviously a common homo paedophilus has slightly more grey matter in a brain than a tomcat, but it is reasonable to assume that testosterone still plays a pivotal role in their behaviour. There needs to be a clinical trial - control group with 9mm and the rest - blunt knife.

 

[Gremlin]

Castration will certainly render them unable to carry out the actual rape itself, regardless of motivation.

Not sure how it works on Humans Ruth but in certainly doesn't have that effect on dogs.
Castrated males can and do still mate, some breeders keep them to help tell when a bitch is ready

 

[viv1969]

Not sure how it works on Humans Ruth but in certainly doesn't have that effect on dogs.
Castrated males can and do still mate, some breeders keep them to help tell when a bitch is ready

Seems that's right Ingrid.
It seems too that chemical rather than surgical castration is used to good effect in quite a few countries in relation to child sex crimes and repeating sexual offenders.

 

[Cobra]

Not sure how it works on Humans Ruth but in certainly doesn't have that effect on dogs.
Castrated males can and do still mate, some breeders keep them to help tell when a bitch is ready

Humans, it seems that the eunuch's from ancient China and Egypt were not not quite so incapable as was believed by their masters

 

[Gremlin]

Seems that's right Ingrid.
It seems too that chemical rather than surgical castration is used to good effect in quite a few countries in relation to child sex crimes and repeating sexual offenders.

I know the dog part is right Ruth, I know breeders that have them
Also handy for using on maiden dogs so a valuable stud dog doesn't come to any harm later

Humans, it seems that the eunuch's from ancient China and Egypt were not not quite so incapable as was believed by their masters

Strangely I always thought Eunuchs were more like the lions at whipsnade seems not though

 

[AHILL]

Would admin please let me know why my post was deleted from this thread. Thanks

 

[viv1969]

Never doubted the dog part ingrid....I was referring to the human side.

 

[Cobra]

Strangely I always thought Eunuchs were more like the lions at whipsnade seems not though

They don't remove "everything" unlike the Lions

Would admin please let me know why my post was deleted from this thread. Thanks

After considering the RTM's we received, it was decided that the post could be deemed as inflammatory.
Historic knowledge "tells us" that comments like that end up "in tears before bed time"
following the retaliatory remarks from other posters.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

 

[chadders]

I can't help feeling this thread has strayed off topic. All this talk of neutering is making my eyes water.

 

[Nod]

They don't remove "everything" unlike the Lions

Not sure that much human castration goes on these days. Back when the church used to do it to keep the choirboys' voices high, I have a feeling that the amount of tissue removed was dependent on the surgeon doing the job. Before then, when it was done to slaves to stop them breeding either other slaves or their owners' harems, I have a feeling that it was almost a matter of the slave master grabbing a handful, slicing it all off then applying a branding iron to cauterize the would.

How are your eyes now, Chadders?!

 

[Cobra]

Not sure that much human castration goes on these days.

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't either
(But you never know )

The reference was to the Whipsnade lions, where everything went,
and a tube is added for them to pee through,
Hence the fact that they look like and act like females.
(but are bigger and have heavier heads)

 

[Nod]

I remember the conversation about the Whipsnade lions' size and "configuration.

At a guess, most castration these days is done as a punishment for being on the losing side in wars and is probably of the brutal handful kind.

 

[viv1969]

Chemical castration is certainly used, not just in countries possibly viewed as underdeveloped, and in countries such as Australia and USA offenders can request chemical castration for life to reduce a possible life custodial sentence.

 

[AHILL]

After considering the RTM's we received, it was decided that the post could be deemed as inflammatory.
Historic knowledge "tells us" that comments like that end up "in tears before bed time"
following the retaliatory remarks from other posters.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

it certainly does, thanks Chris.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Not sure how it works on Humans Ruth but in certainly doesn't have that effect on dogs.
Castrated males can and do still mate, some breeders keep them to help tell when a bitch is ready

Male dogs castrated before sexual maturity never actually develop into dogs, they stay a pup forever and have no significant interest in sex.
Male dogs castrated after sexual maturity can still go through the motions, although their sex drive is reduced considerably. Because of this, castration of adult males isn't much of a cure for most behavioural problems, for which the real cure is training - but a lot of them get castrated anyway, probably because vets recommend it.

I have no idea how effective castration is on adult human males. I do remember though that there was a serial rapist in America who, although he couldn't get an erection because of health problems, raped a number of women using object rape and digital rape, so maybe taking away the ability doesn't solve the problem.

 

[viv1969]

Male dogs castrated before sexual maturity never actually develop into dogs, they stay a pup forever and have no significant interest in sex.
Male dogs castrated after sexual maturity can still go through the motions, although their sex drive is reduced considerably. Because of this, castration of adult males isn't much of a cure for most behavioural problems, for which the real cure is training - but a lot of them get castrated anyway, probably because vets recommend it.

I have no idea how effective castration is on adult human males. I do remember though that there was a serial rapist in America who, although he couldn't get an erection because of health problems, raped a number of women using object rape and digital rape, so maybe taking away the ability doesn't solve the problem.

I suspect penile rape far outnumbers object or digital rape no matter which way you look at it, certainly in cases reported to the authorities.

 

[onomatopoeia]

So the real decision here is what's indecent. Would simple topless images be considered indecent, especially in the light of page 3?
The word 'indecent' has not been defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978, but case law has said that it is for the jury to decide based on the recognised standards of propriety. So do we fall back to the Obscene Publication Act 1959, with the test of does the material have a tendency to deprave and corrupt?

Juries are reluctant to convict on the "deprave and corrupt" standard under the OPA. The police went through a phase (decades ago) of trying to shut down the Soho sex shops and prosecute the owners for selling videos depicting consensual sex between adults and the prosecutions kept failing as juries wouldn't convict. More recently the CPS tried with gay sex videos depicting BDSM, anal fisting and urination in R V Peacock and lost, with the jury taking only two hours to find him not guilty. They then tried to prosecute someone else for possessing the same material under the "extreme pornography" section of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. They lost that one as well. One might think this would send a message, but the CPS have apparently not changed their guidelines for prosecution under either act as a consequence of their two defeats at the hands of juries in high profile cases.

So, given what doesn't fall foul of the OPA definition, I don't think the deprave and corrupt test is appropriate for "indecent" under the protection of children act, but then again I don't think nudity on its own is "indecent" either, or else "baby in the bath" pictures suddenly become so-called child porn.

Other than that, as I understand it, any two 16 year olds of whatever sexual persuasion can consent to do anything together except they cannot share pictures of themselves doing it until they're 18. That has to be bad law!!

It is indeed a nonsense. Governments (of all flavours) seem intend on extending childhood though. Probably out of fear of a Daily Mail-esque (they aren't the only media organisation culpable here) backlash.