- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
Adam Britton, a leading zoologist who has worked on BBC and National Geographic productions, pleaded guilty to 56 charges relating to bestiality and animal cruelty.
He also admitted to four counts of accessing child abuse material.
The Northern Territory (NT) Supreme Court heard the 53-year-old filmed himself torturing the animals until almost all died, and then shared the videos online under pseudonyms.
His abuse went unnoticed for years, until a clue was found in one of his videos. Britton was arrested in April 2022 after a search of his rural Darwin property, which also uncovered child abuse material on his laptop.
This seems like it should have also been in the headline.
i mean sure looking up that shit is bad but fucking dogs to death is worse i think
I didn’t say don’t put the dog part in the headline, I said put both in the headline. “He’s also a pedophile” shouldn’t be something that people need to keep reading to find out about.
Being a paedo is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. CSAM is illegal, rightfully so, but the CSAM videos weren’t produced by him.
The amount of suffering produced directly by Britton vastly outweighs the suffering he caused by potentially redistributing the CSAM videos.
Most parents would disagree with you about people who sexually abuse children being inconsequential.
Within the context of what I’m saying, Britton didn’t film the CSAM videos. Making CSAM and possessing it are very different in terms of suffering produced.
Sharing CSAM potentially encourages the creation of more, and further objectifies the victims without consent which is obviously abhorrent.
But however abhorrent this is, it is inconsequential compared to the suffering Britton inflicted directly.
Even still, I will reiterate, the direct experience of those poor dogs is leagues more horrific than your average child molestation. If you disagree, you evidently don’t know exactly how fucked up Britton was and/or have a species bias.
Removed by mod
Americans are way too obsessive with this stuff imo, images of naked kids aren’t inherently sexual, it’s only a problem if they’re sexualised. Yeah obviously you shouldn’t post your pics of your kids online, clothed or not, but I don’t see any problem at all of having a pic of your baby’s first bath or whatever. It’s entirely normal.
Um, I think its kinda justified given the number of blatant and open pedos I’ve encountered in Europe. (And I have no clue why they feel the need to talk to me about it.) Something I’ve never encountered in the US. Not saying pedos don’t exist in the US, but at least the US culture is such that they’re more quiet about.
Also Wtf:
“A few years later, Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the “oppression of children’s sexuality.” Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults.”
I don’t know what to make of this, because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having pictures of your naked baby/toddler if you’re taking the pictures from a parental perspective.
It becomes an issue when you show them to someone who wouldn’t normally see that baby naked, or send them over the internet.
Why? The term itself has become almost totally devalued after a decade of conservatives labeling everyone with it. When I see the word now I just think it identifies the information as clickbait or propaganda.
Because it’s a fact. You know, the thing the news is supposed to report on.
It does report on that. It just didn’t put it in the headline.
That is my point, yes.
deleted by creator
I don’t think he actually fucked the dogs to death. I think they died of actual sadistic torture.
Which isn’t any better, but somehow the former just feels worse to me.
Death by anal perforation or whatever would be a shit way to die, but I think there’s some that are even worse.
It’s weird how often headlines bury that lede. Happened a lot with that Dutch volleyball player too. Headlines would never call him a child rapist. That’s what he did yet never in the headline.
On a technicality, as in the end he wasn’t convicted of that under Dutch law because rape (back then) required violence. Any newspaper directly calling him a child rapist opens themselves up to a possible lawsuit.
Unless he paid for it I don’t see how the two things are remotely equivalent. I’d take someone having thousands of vile images on their computer over someone who abused a child or animal even once.