Paedophilia Forum shows Pictures of Dutch Royal Children: October 2008 - Page 2

susan alicia · #21 10-30-2007, 10:12 AM

Prins haalt uit naar pedo-stie - telegraaf.nl [Binnenland]

WA just said in an interview in Bhutan that he does not want to see the website, I am afraid I will explode with anger. He thinks that this sort of thing must be taken care of immediately and hopes that jurisprudence will be obtained for other people with children too. He added that describing his feelings as "seriously worried" were of course an understatement. When children are misused in this way then there are no words to describe (how you feel)

ysbel · #22 10-30-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaffir

Let's remember it is only our Westernized cultural view that sees children as a gift; many many other cultures view them as additional work income for the family, and also appropriate to be married at ages as young as 12. Certainly in the US until the 1800s it was not so strange for children to not finish school and to go to work; I'm sure the same was true in the UK. That being said, abuse of children is something different.

Yes, that is what I was thinking. In fact, (and it is sad to say), I think the economic and cultural practice in Thailand of families using children as additional work income has prompted the market in children's sex for Westerners who travel over there.

However, to use pictures of children this young on this site is quite disturbing. But I suppose that since they are clothed there is nothing the law can do about it.

lucien · #23 10-30-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

Yes, that is what I was thinking. In fact, (and it is sad to say), I think the economic and cultural practice in Thailand of families using children as additional work income has prompted the market in children's sex for Westerners who travel over there.

However, to use pictures of children this young on this site is quite disturbing. But I suppose that since they are clothed there is nothing the law can do about it.

Then the law should immediatly see that it should provide in the severest punishment for putting up children on such sites,dressed or not is not the issue here dear Ysbel as I hope we will see from the jurisprudence,and there was the strong sexually related text that came with it as well.

The group,"Martijn"didn't have a lawyer so one of its members was in Court last monday defending,(DEFENDING)...backed by the chair of the paedo foundation.
Needless to say I am in very strong favour for the death penalty for anyone into this region of monstruous,utterly disgusting creeps and degénerates,regardless their station in society.

susan alicia · #24 10-30-2007, 11:57 AM

you make me laugh Lucien (even though the subject is serious and I am against the death penalty)

the text under the pictures was as far as I know normal but could be interpreted in a dirty way

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien

Then the law should immediatly see that it should provide in the severest punishment for putting up children on such sites,dressed or not is not the issue here dear Ysbel as I hope we will see from the jurisprudence,and

Quote:

there was the strong sexually related text that came with it as well.

The group,"Martijn"didn't have a lawyer so one of its members was in Court last monday defending,(DEFENDING)...backed by the chair of the paedo foundation.
Needless to say I am in very strong favour for the death penalty for anyone into this region of monstruous,utterly disgusting creeps and degénerates,regardless their station in society.

Elspeth · #25 10-30-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well I was actually more shocked that this organization is lobbying the government to lower the age of consent for sexual relations to 12!

Until quite recently, 12-year-old girls could marry in Kansas. I think the age has been changed to 16 as a result of a case in 2006, but since children are maturing physically at a younger age than they used to, 12-year-old girls would have been pre-pubescent up until a few decades ago.

**Marengo** · #26 10-30-2007, 08:24 PM

The comments of the Prince in English. He hopes that the cort case will also make it easier for the parents of other children to come into (legal) action.

From Expatica:

Quote:

Prince calls for protection of children

30 October 2007
AMSTERDAM (dpa) - Dutch Crown Prince Willem-Alexander on Tuesday said he wanted to protect all children from paedophilia, following the publication by a Dutch pro-paedophile organisation of an image of his three-year-old daughter on its website.
Speaking during a state visit to Bhutan, the crown prince said he had himself not viewed the online images of his daughter Amalia and his two second cousins, the children of his first cousin prince Maurits, Dutch news agency ANP reported.

Entire article here.

From Dutchnews.nl:

Quote:

Prince furious with paedophile website

Tuesday 30 October 2007
Crown prince Willem-Alexander has reacted furiously to the news that photographs of his eldest daughter Amalia were placed on the website of a pro-paedophile association.
Speaking from Bhutan, where he and princess Máxima are on a state visit, Willem Alexander said the affair was 'appalling'.

Read the entire article here.

ysbel · #27 10-30-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien

Then the law should immediatly see that it should provide in the severest punishment for putting up children on such sites,dressed or not is not the issue here dear Ysbel as I hope we will see from the jurisprudence,and there was the strong sexually related text that came with it as well.

The group,"Martijn"didn't have a lawyer so one of its members was in Court last monday defending,(DEFENDING)...backed by the chair of the paedo foundation.
Needless to say I am in very strong favour for the death penalty for anyone into this region of monstruous,utterly disgusting creeps and degénerates,regardless their station in society.

Well if the children are dressed then I guess its a matter of interpretation - do the pictures look sexually suggestive? And that could elicit a wide range of responses.

It looks like this group was just looking for publicity. The photos had been published before quite innocently and these children who are well under 12 years old dont' really help their campaign to lower the age of sexual consent. A rather strange public relations tool.

ysbel · #28 10-30-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Until quite recently, 12-year-old girls could marry in Kansas. I think the age has been changed to 16 as a result of a case in 2006, but since children are maturing physically at a younger age than they used to, 12-year-old girls would have been pre-pubescent up until a few decades ago.

Yes and in my home state of South Carolina, a girl could get married at 14 with her parents consent and at 16 without her parents consent. I don't know what the laws are now. Imagine the shock of parents of a 16 year old who suddenly came home married.

However I did read that 12 year old girls were married in ancient Greece and they generally weren't eligible for marriage until they had started menustrating. But some girls are maturing earlier than that now. I just know that the age at which young people are expected to act like adults has gone up. When my parents were teenagers right after WWII, men dropped out of high school or finished high school and got a job and the women married at 16-, 17, 18, 19 and became housewifes and started having children. By the fifties and sixties, kids were gong to college and getting married their junior or senior year in college and having kids. By the seventies and when my cousins started to get married they were marrying right after college graduation and now kids are waiting till after they graduate from graduate school and a lot of people are in their thirties before they marry. So childhood has been extended somewhat.

lucien · #29 10-31-2007, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

Yes and in my home state of South Carolina, a girl could get married at 14 with her parents consent and at 16 without her parents consent. I don't know what the laws are now. Imagine the shock of parents of a 16 year old who suddenly came home married.

However I did read that 12 year old girls were married in ancient Greece and they generally weren't eligible for marriage until they had started menustrating. But some girls are maturing earlier than that now. I just know that the age at which young people are expected to act like adults has gone up. When my parents were teenagers right after WWII, men dropped out of high school or finished high school and got a job and the women married at 16-, 17, 18, 19 and became housewifes and started having children. By the fifties and sixties, kids were gong to college and getting married their junior or senior year in college and having kids. By the seventies and when my cousins started to get married they were marrying right after college graduation and now kids are waiting till after they graduate from graduate school and a lot of people are in their thirties before they marry. So childhood has been extended somewhat.

but we're not talking 12 year olds,it's 4,5 year olds,and allthough properly dressed I can't believe anyone in his/her right mind wants to see their childrens pics put up at such sites at any time,while the creeps there discus what they would love to do to them and how,that is what happens.

Both the princely couples have reacted and stated it was almost unbareble to them.

**Marengo** · #30 10-31-2007, 05:47 AM

When/where did Maurits and Marilene react? I think I mised out on their statement.

To susan: the text was indeed open to a double interpretation, but as it was posted on this Martijn forum, I think we all understood that we should stick to the less innocent one.

The ´lowering of the age limit for sex´ as a goal of this website is IMHO a poor attempt to mask the even filthier purpose of it. Esp. as it seems that most/all pictures on their website were of children who were far younger than that (thta is what I heard on television anyway). Still I think that of all the peadophile websites that are around this is one of the more ´innocent´ ones as they don´t show images of naked children or worse, and it is watched by the police.

Anyway, let´s hope that some good will come from this and that the site will be closed down asap.

lucien · #31 10-31-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo

When/where did Maurits and Marilene react? I think I mised out on their statement.

To susan: the text was indeed open to a double interpretation, but as it was posted on this Martijn forum, I think we all understood that we should stick to the less innocent one.

The ´lowering of the age limit for sex´ as a goal of this website is IMHO a poor attempt to mask the even filthier purpose of it. Esp. as it seems that most/all pictures on their website were of children who were far younger than that (thta is what I heard on television anyway). Still I think that of all the peadophile websites that are around this is one of the more ´innocent´ ones as they don´t show images of naked children or worse, and it is watched by the police.

Anyway, let´s hope that some good will come from this and that the site will be closed down asap.

http://www.royalblog.nl/

At the left;"Prinsenparen verontrust over pedo..."

courtesy HJA.

susan alicia · #32 11-01-2007, 12:06 PM

Koninklijke familie wint geding tegen pedoclub - telegraaf.nl [Binnenland]

the royals won the court case against the website

dazzling · #33 11-01-2007, 06:45 PM

Pedophile Site Cannot Use Royals' Photos

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — A Dutch court on Thursday barred a pedophile support group from publishing photos of children of the royal family on its Web site, a week after it displayed pictures of the 3-year-old daughter of the heir to the throne - The Associated Press

**Marengo** · #34 11-01-2007, 06:49 PM

Well, that is good news indeed, though there are still enough other kids on the website. As the website does not have a capital of its own, a fine of that amount will probably mean that it will be taken from the web.

Regina · #35 11-01-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazzling

Pedophile Site Cannot Use Royals' Photos

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — A Dutch court on Thursday barred a pedophile support group from publishing photos of children of the royal family on its Web site, a week after it displayed pictures of the 3-year-old daughter of the heir to the throne - The Associated Press

I think the same decision should have been taken for all other children on that site, not only for the Royal children. Crazy world where we live!

**Marengo** · #36 11-01-2007, 09:09 PM

Well, that is exactly what the prince is hoping for, that this will make it easier for other parents to do something too. The couples had to pay for the costs themselves though (4000 euros), they had hopes that the site would have to pay, as it probably doesn´t have its own capital it would have gone bankrupt.

Lilla · #37 11-01-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by susan alicia

the royals won the court case against the website

Well it is a good thing that there is something called law.

If I had my way, paedopfiles should have a specific part of their body cut of and then they should be forced to roast it on a pan - and eat it!!!!

I am not a supporter of the death penalty - but if they chouked on this meal - i couldn't care less.

susan alicia · #38 11-02-2007, 05:44 AM

yes but which parent would go on that website to look for the odd chance that a picture of their child was posted. I think most, like WA do not want to go there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo

Well, that is exactly what the prince is hoping for, that this will make it easier for other parents to do something too. The couples had to pay for the costs themselves though (4000 euros), they had hopes that the site would have to pay, as it probably doesn´t have its own capital it would have gone bankrupt.

Regina · #39 11-02-2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo

Well, that is exactly what the prince is hoping for, that this will make it easier for other parents to do something too. The couples had to pay for the costs themselves though (4000 euros), they had hopes that the site would have to pay, as it probably doesn´t have its own capital it would have gone bankrupt.

I think all other parents were pleased with the Prince's words.
I quite understand him when he says he didn't see the images of her daughter or he could have had a strong reaction. I don't have children but if something like this happened to a little one of my family I think I would try to kill who dared to post pics of them in these kind of sites.
I am against Death penalty too but not for crimes against children. When a human reaches that point of cruelty, a simple forgiveness is not enough.

principessa · #40 11-02-2007, 02:22 PM

I was deeply shocked while I had read the news. Why is it possible for those paedophile person to do what they had done? Its so sick. I hope that they were judged very hard and they aren't allowed to use computers during their lifes! Or they should get very painful sentences which pains the body of them or makes them more crazy that they don't know what life is and who they. Children are so innocent.