MAP Forum

https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

Please leave comments and corrections here.

If anyone wondered why I'd been quiet for a while, the answer is.... working on this article.

Great work, man!

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 5:38 pm https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

Please leave comments and corrections here.

Good summarisation and analysis BLueRibbon, thank you.

A few points. PIM: nowhere on the site could I find what this particular dreaded acronym meant. I guessed prohibited indecent material, and read your piece with that in mind. A Glossary would be useful for an acronym-averse individual such as myself.

"Regardless of the circumstances of production, there is no mechanism by which the simple possession of PIM causes actual harm to children."

The UK is a subservient member of the five eyes intelligence alliance. The FBI holds the view that each time someone looks at a picture of a naked underage child, then that child is being sexually abused. UK authorities naturally concur with this view, and punish accordingly. The concept of harm to the child is irrelevant here. UK authorities will prosecute and gauge jail time on the number and nature of the images found to be in someone's possession, using the Copine scale. As far as I am aware, such a defendant is given no opportunity to speak in a UK court - thus he cannot defend himself using his own words. The word defendant is a misnomer here.

"Supply and demand economics relate to financial transactions, not pirated media. Unless PIM is purchased, an act which our proposal does not seek to decriminalize, the supply and demand argument again PIM possession has no merit."

The phrase "PIM" is not used in the UK. However, the phrases "child pornography" and "indecent images of children" evidently are, as they are used within the media reports on the case. If Edwards paid for these images, then both phrases are appropriate, under UK law. " ... the supply and demand argument (against?) ... has no merit" may be true, but then the defendant either created them or distributed them, for them to be found on his device.

“It is apparent from these quotes that actually harming children is not what bothers police chiefs the most. Instead, it is the sexual interest in children, an immutable characteristic that seems to bother them most.”

Exactly. “"If people are determined to be offended - if they will climb up on the ladder, balancing it precariously on their own toilet cistern to be upset by what they see through the neighbour's bathroom window - there is nothing you can do about that." Christopher Hitchens.

However, I would go further, and suggest that it is very much in the interest of lawmakers and enforcers to be upset by what they painstakingly go out of their way to see, as it increases the need for more manpower and resources to tackle the ever-increasing child abuse problem.

“Edwards will likely not receive a custodial sentence. People convicted of viewing PIM are rightly not considered dangerous enough to be locked away ...”

The UK establishment dictates what is dangerous and what is not. Huw Edwards is the latest in a long line of UK celebrities and dignitaries (whether alive or dead) who have fallen fowl of establishment whims. He will similarly be made an example of, just to keep the child abuse narrative alive - schadenfreude excites them and please them in equal measure.

To be fair, we do have a glossary, and the first mention of PIM in the Edwards article links it:

https://www.map-union.org/encyclopedia/glossary#PIM

Brian should probably mention the image of a whitewashed face was formerly a mural of Huw Edwards, and I believe a news story documenting that event is also available somewhere.

I agree that Huw Edwards was lynched, but he's far from the worst example. Does anyone here remember Operation Ore? There was a clusterfuck and a half.

In a nutshell, what happened with Operation Ore is that UK police went after people whose credit-card numbers were found in an American porn portal database (Landslide). Many were charged with 'incitement' for the crime of trying to purchase child pornography. (Many of those credit-card numbers were stolen).

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/apr/19/hitechcrime.money

Strato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 10:04 pm

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 5:38 pm https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

Please leave comments and corrections here.

The phrase "PIM" is not used in the UK. However, the phrases "child pornography" and "indecent images of children" evidently are, as they are used within the media reports on the case. If Edwards paid for these images, then both phrases are appropriate, under UK law. " ... the supply and demand argument (against?) ... has no merit" may be true, but then the defendant either created them or distributed them, for them to be found on his device.

PIM is a Mu term, along with AMSC (Adult-Minor Sexual Contact). Just like MAP, these terms are designed to be as bland and encompassing as possible. We hope they will start to replace terms like CSAM and CSA.

Edwards technically 'created', or rather "made" indecent images of children, but only in the legal sense. It is an absurd bastardization of parliament's intentions; that's why there's no statutory defense for 'making' despite there being a statutory defense for 'possession'.

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 1:51 am Brian should probably mention the image of a whitewashed face was formerly a mural of Huw Edwards, and I believe a news story documenting that event is also available somewhere.

Done, but linking an article within a caption unfortunately does not work.

Strato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 10:04 pm A few points. PIM: nowhere on the site could I find what this particular dreaded acronym meant. I guessed prohibited indecent material, and read your piece with that in mind. A Glossary would be useful for an acronym-averse individual such as myself.

Although we had linked to the glossary as mentioned, I think PIM is a unique enough acronym that it is worth giving the full meaning in parentheses in addition to the link. The link color is sometimes hard to notice depending on screen color settings.

I agree that Huw Edwards was lynched, but he's far from the worst example.

Far from the worst example, but definitely the most topical for now. His pre-sentence hearing is on the 16th.

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 1:51 am To be fair, we do have a glossary, and the first mention of PIM in the Edwards article links it:

https://www.map-union.org/encyclopedia/glossary#PIM

Thank you for the correction plus clarification Jim.

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 4:52 am

Strato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 10:04 pm

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 5:38 pm https://www.map-union.org/blog/mu-analy ... ar-on-pim1

Please leave comments and corrections here.

The phrase "PIM" is not used in the UK. However, the phrases "child pornography" and "indecent images of children" evidently are, as they are used within the media reports on the case. If Edwards paid for these images, then both phrases are appropriate, under UK law. " ... the supply and demand argument (against?) ... has no merit" may be true, but then the defendant either created them or distributed them, for them to be found on his device.

PIM is a Mu term, along with AMSC (Adult-Minor Sexual Contact). Just like MAP, these terms are designed to be as bland and encompassing as possible. We hope they will start to replace terms like CSAM and CSA.

Edwards technically 'created', or rather "made" indecent images of children, but only in the legal sense. It is an absurd bastardization of parliament's intentions; that's why there's no statutory defense for 'making' despite there being a statutory defense for 'possession'.

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 1:51 am Brian should probably mention the image of a whitewashed face was formerly a mural of Huw Edwards, and I believe a news story documenting that event is also available somewhere.

Done, but linking an article within a caption unfortunately does not work.

A few more thoughts on the Edward’s case, in particular his treatment by the media and public alike. I apologise if I chew the cud on this one, but, debate is healthy, so I have been told ...

I used the phrase UK establishment in my previous comment. Their modus operandi has changed subtly since the 1970s, and we should be aware of that when considering activism.

Although they still control how states govern, the nature of the control has shifted quite dramatically. There was a time when a government voted in by the people, governed the people, and more or less honoured pre-election pledges made. The public voice was critical because governments could be held accountable; consequently there was some semblance of democracy back then.

Now however, governments, plus the public they are elected to serve, are becoming irrelevant. The public has no choice when voting; political parties are merely different cheeks on the same arse.

States are increasingly governed by narratives, implying power and control has transferred away from the public, politicians and lawmakers, into the hands of the collective West media. It is now even possible for the media to manufacture presidential candidates, with no public involvement. The basket-case UK is virtually no different as far as I can see.

Laws and conditions that govern what one can say or do become ever more oppressive. Examples: broadening of the scope of rape crimes, possession of cartoon and AI generated images of naked children, broadening of the scope of what constitutes harmful speech, the closure of accounts for customers not sharing bank “values”, endless intrusive CCTV monitoring, etc. etc.

Most worrying of all is the public’s acquiescence in the face of increased state control. The media knows that by repeating a narrative over and over, it is possible to affect public sentiment. The Huw Edwards case is the latest in a long line of such cases in the UK. The repetition of headline cases courtesy of the media, keeps this very useful narrative alive and helps increase state control.

There is very little a sexual minority group can do when the public has for so long had it drummed into them that members of said minority group are equivalent to extremists. We are constantly told they are a fundamental threat to our democracy, our values, our consensus, our family, our way of life. It is all about promoting collective emoting to create and target a single enemy; debating the facts becomes irrelevant because no one wants to hear about that. Anyone arguing the enemy’s case becomes the enemy too. We live in Spanish Inquisition times.

This is why our group can expect no support from other (once kindred) sexual minority groups who have now gained respectability and do not wish to put that hard-earned status in jeopardy. This is why Huw Edwards can expect no support from any quarter either. The "He is the enemy and must be punished" UK media mantra has long sealed his fate.