LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store
Guest

Adult Baby - Escapes Jail (UK)

Recommended Posts

interesting. paraphilic infantilsm entered successfully in mitigation (and receives a legal definitition for maybe the first time), but still fined 350, community service and had to sign the sex offenders register. obviously, all those baby images were a mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post

"suffers from a rare condition called paraphilic infantilism". Now lets hope that someone seriously looks into it

Share this post


Link to post

Funny, you search for that term now and all you get is a People Of Walmart photo and an Oliver Beane you tube video.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's funny or that he got away with anything. His life is, pardon my french, fucked.

 

Having your name and addresses together with the report on the web and in the papers can and will wreck anything whatsoever he will try for the rest of his life.

 

Just the possibility of having something to do with children at all will scare every employer or agency away. They now all scour the web for anything related to you and if something, anything comes up, it's so much safer for them to turn you down. Job, credit, renting, permits.

 

That his paraphilic infantilism is called a rare condition does not mean that it's accepted. A name has been put to an (for the general vanilla witch hunters) abhorrent, disgusting mental illness that should really have him put into a closed ward. Remember what happened to Maxine and Derek in Portsmouth? There will soon be another article in the papers that he has been hit by a brick or hung or something else that the righteous vigilantes take to be appropriate. And there'll be not much of an inquiry following that.

 

He didn't get away. He's dead.

Share this post


Link to post

This says it all:

 

"Your condition has meant that in this internet age you have spent a good deal of time looking at young children in nappies on the internet and over 90,000 were found on your computer."

 

“Although that is something that would concern anyone, I stress that I sentence you on the basis that it is not illegal to have that material, but it demonstrates what I regard as a worrying interest in young children."

 

“It has also brought you to court because while viewing this legal material you also viewed a comparatively small number of illegal images. There is no evidence to suggest you looked for this illegal material."

 

“Nonetheless, you must have known from the very first time that such photographs appeared on the screen that it was a risk you took and continued to take."

 

I've made this point many times already on these forums. Having pictures of kids in diapers (even if they are your kids, and there is nothing else untoward about them) can land you in jail in the UK. Ethics or morality be damned, its the law. My replies in the "Tumblr" topic and in the "Husband Is A Dl, Need Advice?!?!" thread might also be worth a look if you're interested as to why.

 

Remember the UK is a police state and thus your odds of getting caught and convicted are relatively high. My advice is that you do not take the risk: do not keep pictures of anyone under 18, regardless of their content.

 

 

Bootnote: I'm not taking a position on if this state of affairs is good thing or not by the way (frankly I'm not decided myself on the issue), I'm simply pointing out the facts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Paraphilia is basically defined as getting turned on sexually by something not usually associated with sex. Too bad it's made out to be a "disease." I still doubt it is fair to make him register as a sex offender when he never actually committed an offense ("offence" in England) against a child or showed any signs of premeditating an illegal act. The judge did seem to understand the situation and handed down a relatively fair sentence. What many people fail to understand about paraphilic infantilism is that a person's interest in diapers usually begins BEFORE puberty. It only becomes sexual once diapers (and other infantile paraphernalia) are able to cause an arousal. The root of infantilism is not sex-based; the sexual part is a secondary reaction. Have you ever watched a television show as an adult that you enjoyed as a child? It brought back fond--and hopefully pleasant--memories. That's a PRIMARY reaction. If you popped a boner, well...that's the secondary reaction but it wasn't your first reaction to the show. The link between the two reactions comes from the PLEASURE center in your brain and is similar to how you feel when you eat something that tastes really good. Not necessarily sexual, but the pleasurable feeling comes from the same part of your brain, the thalamus, hypothalamus, as well as input from the occipital lobe. Aw, nuts! I just made sexual arousal boring--sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just noticed that the article fails to say why the police looked at his computer in the first place.

 

That's the most worrying bit.

Share this post


Link to post

He probably log into one of those child molester sites police set up to trap them. Having that many pics of children there is something wrong with him. And court order pshyciatrist is the best thing for him.

Share this post


Link to post

He probably log into one of those child molester sites police set up to trap them. Having that many pics of children there is something wrong with him. And court order pshyciatrist is the best thing for him.

Share this post


Link to post

babylee75, all these pictures could just be somewhere in buffers and caches sitting around on your harddisk.

The police does not make a difference between a picture found in "/home/joe/pictures/kiddies/lovely" or in "C:/Windows/Internet Explorer/Microsoft/cache/temp/last/tracking".

Those pictures were probably from wrong search results.

 

Do you sanitise your system every day?

Share this post


Link to post

If im taking in what I think im taking in he was looking for people in nappies not children even that being said. If your not sexual arroused by people in nappies then why are you looking at such images. I think he was bullshitting a bullshitter. I dont condone such involving children. As a father myself of two relitively small children I would castrate the first one trying to do anything abusive toward my children! Then call the police.

Share this post


Link to post

How many of you even read the article? It said why & how he was caught. It also tell you why he is considered a risk to kids. I know the person he was staying with, but never met him. Glad I didn’t now to.

Share this post


Link to post

Well according to the article the dude had over 90,000 images of children, 250 of which were considered explicit. I also have a hard time believing this wasn't sexual-unless he had some other sort of condition, like OCD, why would he download so many? And why kids? I think the police were correct to monitor him and have him listed as a sex offender.

Share this post


Link to post

@ babyadduk: I can't find where it says why he was caught, could you point that out? I seem to have a blind spot there...

Share this post


Link to post

I've just come back to this topic and find that quite a few people would be OK with a quick lynch job to take care of a paedo. In an earlier post I wrote that "he didn't get away with it, he's dead." about the AB in this topic. And I think what happened last week supports that.

 

Some guy hasn't got the right skin colour to fit into the 'hood and he's got a wonky back, so he walks funny. His name is also not Brian or Kevin or Shaun or something else sensible, but Bijan. Clearly a weirdo.

 

Now, some kids make fun of him and tease him. When nothing much happens, they get into his front garden and stomp down all his flower beds. What can he do? He takes pictures of them doing it to call the police and show that as evidence. The kids tell their dad, and dad goes around to Bijran and tells him to hand over the photos, or else. Bijan keeps the photos, tells the cops and nothing happens.

 

Daddy now spreads through the street that Bijan takes kiddie pix and that he's a paedophile and asks the police to arrest him. They do, find that he's only got pictures of vandalism by kids and bullying by their dad; they let him go. Nothing happens.

 

So daddy gets a few beers in, goes around to Bijan and stomps on his head until he's dead. He then calls a mate to drag the problem a few hundred Yards away, "oh, and Stev, bring some kerosene", and burns it.

 

OK, so Daddy and his mate got arrested for murder, but that doesn't help Bijan much. Maybe the house prices will go up now...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514945/Vigilante-murderer-killed-Bijan-Ebrahimi-mistaking-paedophile-jailed.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280

 

The BBC article fails to point out that Mr. James is most likely the one who spread the paedophile rumours himself, not a poor victim of a misunderstanding. Mr. Lee also does not actually live there, he's the visiting "partner" of a mother of three and father to some of them. Beats her up occasionally.

 

 

All you got to do these days is point at someone and shout "Paedo!" to have someone arrested. Then tell the right vigilante mob when he's released again.

It's getting like Nazi Germany here: stich up your neighbour before he does it to you.

Share this post


Link to post

The judge got hoodwinked.

 

1) Infantilism is not a disease.  Sorry to all the vanilla psychiatrists who write the DSM, but paraphilias are not diseases.

2) 90,000 pictures absolutely is sexual.

3) No pictures of kids, PERIOD, EVER!  If someone did that here, they would get banned and with good reason.  IMO, this guy is a pedophile even if he may not be a physical danger to children.

 

All that said, it sounds like the illegal pictures were downloaded accidentally and promptly deleted.  The other pictures, while disgusting, were not illegal.  The judge reached the right decision for the wrong reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

It is worth noting the British police's "Operation Ore" which targeted Paedophiles in the last decade.  They went a bit overboard and the result was a huge number of false convictions and 39 suicides.  Like most witch-hunts it stopped when they picked on somebody who was just too important - said to be a senior Labour Party figure - and the whole operation was then cut off at the knees.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore

 

Zander is quite correct about the UK being a police state.  They have even tried to fit up a government minister by "putting in the verbals" but it has backfired on them and there have been a number of arrests (But, of course, no prosecutions.)

 

It appears there may have been some kind of plea bargain in this case, as the culprit readily admitted the offence and got away with a very light sentence.  It does, however, establish a precedent in the courts that a diaper lover is also a paedophile.  We may now expect more vigorous against such easy targets as ourselves.  It is so much safer to arrest an AB/DL than to tackle a real burglar of mugger, and the police get lots of lovely publicity for doing so.

 

Such a pity that our police - once the envy of the world - are now so bored, lazy and incompetent that they feel they have to target us!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Such a pity that our police - once the envy of the world - are now so bored, lazy and incompetent that they feel they have to target us!

 

They're prosecuting people for thought crimes... I'd be seriously considering a way out of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I know this guy and I can say that he is not even interested in kids and it has not bothered him at all

Share this post


Link to post

any one have any update on this guy

Share this post


Link to post

Pictures of children in any state will get you into trouble in the US, since laws are so gray when it comes to child pornography. So, storing images of under age persons wearing diapers is not a good idea, smart or even slightly intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post

Wondering about tv, magazine, and internet ads for children's items? It's pictures of children in diapers. If you produce such ads, where does that put you? What about someone who then looks at such ads? 

And what about tv shows, and movies that depict children who are wearing diapers? 

Hypothetically, if You look at an ad for baby diapers, and say, oh great diapers! Or, if You see the very same ad, and post on an AB forum, hey did ya see the great baby diaper ad, have a look! 

Where would you stand? Are you a no good freak, for looking at a baby in diapers? 

What if, this guy in this discussion, had only pictures of diaper ads? Ads with pictures of children in diapers. What if he had theatrical movies, depicting children in diapers? 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now