On 03/10/2019 13:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:
It also aides the normalisation of an entirely detestable practice.
IWF does not aide so.
No, the normalisation of an entirely detestable practice comes from the opposite of IWF involvement; you suggested that we should permit child pornography on the Web/Internet, as opposed to censoring it? To catch criminals, and to make it unprofitable? I had stated that a lack of profit does not stop those inclined to abuse children for sexual gratification, and also that doing absolutely nothing to prohibit child pornography serves to normalise its existence.
look as if you were suggesting that in the UK we are very successful in making money from child pornography *by censoring* child pornography?
"they" means those who are likely to be guests of Epstein.
Oh yes, I forgot that the possibility that one member of the Royal Family sharing the alleged inclination of Epstein to abuse underage children, made the whole United Kingdom a profiteering empire of child pornography. If you're going to call out the whole of the UK for something defamatory, at the very least take the time to think about it without your tinfoil hat. ;) -- Tom