Quote: ajp29 @ February 13, 2008, 5:36 PMAre you saying Muslim fundamentalists look at child porn?
Probably. THOSE SICK BASTARDS.
Chris Langham Page 13
Quote: Aaron @ February 13, 2008, 8:42 PMProbably. THOSE SICK BASTARDS.
Shit. Look I am staying off this thread now. I keep bumping a child porn perv.
No you don't!
It's just Chris Langham.
Quote: James Williams @ February 13, 2008, 4:39 PMInteresting...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242724.stm
Some comparisons to be drawn there methinks.
Not really. The Appeal Court have got it wrong that's all and it's not the first time.
We need to take a hard line on fundamentalists and perverts and the Appeal Court in this case has made a glaring error of judgement.
You can think about terrorist material and you can think about child porn but it is (or should be) a crime to download it off the net and be in possession of it.
End of.
Firstly, I've got to say that I've seen and heard some stupid things in my time, but reading some of your responses does nothing but reinforce the idea that the world is populated by some very, very stupid people and with few exceptions.
It's one thing to "go with your feelings" but quite another to ignore facts and basic, fundamental god honest truth.
Chris Langham is guilty of CURIOSITY and nothing more. He did a stupid thing and that's the truth, but if he's going to be vilified for his stupid act then I can immediately think of at least a thousand people who deserve to go to jail for stupidity too. Having read through the crown prosecution service reports, it is pretty evident that the police and various other unscrupulous individuals tried very hard to make it about more than curiosity, even going as far as to break the law in an attempt to do that. I am far, far more worried about the state of your criminal justice system than I am about Chris Langham.
Lets dispense with the sort of ridiculous heart-wrenching and garment-tearing that some hormone obsessed females (and some less than intelligent males) have taken it upon themselves to practice here on these forums and look at the facts as they are (by the way, I should point out that if you have a problem regulating your emotions, you're probably more of a risk to a childs mental welfare than Chris Langham is).
Chris Langham looked at some pictures. Not very nice pictures we're told, but images nonetheless.
He did NOT abuse those individuals. He cannot even be blamed for encouraging them because the practise of sleeping with minors has existed long before the practise of recording the act and the TRUTH is that Chris Langham did NOT pay for the images he looked at. He in fact paid for entry to a website that sold LEGAL images of adult-aged individuals.
So a celebrity was jailed for looking at images. Why? Because the British Police don't have the abilities or the incentive to go after the people who actually committed these acts. No, instead they much prefer to go after "soft" targets, assisted by the ever over-emotional individuals involved with child protection. Child protection is a good thing, but the individuals involved with it tend to very easily lose perspective in their never ending search to justify their jobs, their funding and their obsession with creating a world in which children don't experience life, but are shielded from it.
The sad fact is that the British are recruiting completely the wrong sort of police officer in the first place. If you want bleeding heart types who are "socially aware" then what you get is idiot police officers who are little more than messengers. If you want investigators and police who will actually catch the perverts who DID commit these crimes then you have to stop with the needy socialist crap.
Get some perspective people. As regards the "female" on here (Charley? isn't that a dudes name?) who has "said her piece" and "wont be watching Chris Langham on T.V again", oh dear. What a shame. I'm sure he'll be devastated. Idiot.
He - like me - probably couldn't care less what you choose to do because - and here's the shocker - you're not important. You may FEEL you're important but you p*ssed away several minutes of your time to ensure everyone KNOWS what you're not going to do just to make a negative comment about someone you don't know, about a crime which is - fundamentally - merely human nature (curiosity is older than the telephone ya know). Society may have told you that your feelings and point of view are important but they aren't really. Take it from me.
Grow up, get some perspective and motivate your police authorities to get off their lazy backsides and actually do the job that you pay them for, not make new laws and create more criminals at the receiving end of a crime but the actual original criminals themselves. Most of all, wake up and realise that the minute you criminalised sight and vision, you cooked your goose. Oh, and Chris Langham is a funny guy, whatever he chooses to watch in his personal time and space. I - unlike you "Charley" - will continue to support him because I enjoy what he does. Good for me, bad for you.
Quote: MrWinky @ February 18, 2008, 5:00 PMYou may FEEL you're important but you p*ssed away several minutes of your time to ensure everyone KNOWS what you're not going to do just to make a negative comment about someone you don't know,
Er... haven't you just done the same thing?
Quote: Frankie Rage @ February 14, 2008, 10:44 AMNot really. The Appeal Court have got it wrong that's all and it's not the first time.
We need to take a hard line on fundamentalists and perverts and the Appeal Court in this case has made a glaring error of judgement.
You can think about terrorist material and you can think about child porn but it is (or should be) a crime to download it off the net and be in possession of it.
End of.
Horribly, terribly, wrong.
The fact is that jailing those people would be the thin end of the wedge. That's why it's such a troublesome subject. You can't limit people's freedoms in this manner. If someone hasn't physically done anything wrong, or made an actual plot, they shouldn't be arrested. That's the 'end of'!
Only when people have definitely decided on a criminal action can they be locked up. This sort of censoring helps nobody. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought for Christ's sake. "Thought-crime" has been derided by intelligent commentators in the West for as long as the concept's been around for bloody compelling reasons.
I think Winky was rather needlessly vitriolic there too. I wonder if we'll be seeing him again?
(I have to agree with a lot of the sentiment though. Hang me!)
Quote: Frankie Rage @ February 14, 2008, 10:44 AMNot really. The Appeal Court have got it wrong that's all and it's not the first time.
We need to take a hard line on fundamentalists and perverts and the Appeal Court in this case has made a glaring error of judgement.
You can think about terrorist material and you can think about child porn but it is (or should be) a crime to download it off the net and be in possession of it.
End of.
What a bizarre post. Just to be clear...in your opinion, something that the courts have said is NOT illegal should be illegal and because of this view the courts are wrong and you are right ...end of.
Where you in your schools debate team?
I'd like to say welcome to the BSG Mr Winky. I'd like to?
er, yes... welcome to the forum MrWinky!
I agree with what you're saying about Langham. But being childish about Charley's name doesn't do you any favours. 
Quote: James Williams @ February 18, 2008, 5:18 PMThe fact is that jailing those people would be the thin end of the wedge. That's why it's such a troublesome subject. You can't limit people's freedoms in this manner. If someone hasn't physically done anything wrong, or made an actual plot, they shouldn't be arrested. That's the 'end of'!
Only when people have definitely decided on a criminal action can they be locked up. This sort of censoring helps nobody. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought for Christ's sake. "Thought-crime" has been derided by intelligent commentators in the West for as long as the concept's been around for bloody compelling reasons.
Mmm. Surely a thought crime is where the thought remains entirely in the head. In these cases both were in posession of physical material which is illegal. Theres a difference between the two isn't there?
Quote: MrWinky @ February 18, 2008, 5:00 PMIt's one thing to "go with your feelings" but quite another to ignore facts and basic, fundamental god honest truth.
I'll follow anyone who mentions fundamental, God and truth in one sentance.
I also agree with what you said about Chris Langham, and believe I've said so far more clearly previously, without diluting my message with pretty unrelated vitriol. As for the police, it's true that they've gone after the easy target to make a point, but to imply that that's because they're recruiting the wrong kinds of people probably says more about the police force (or your understanding thereof) in whichever country you come from. They're forced to go after the easy cases because of targets handed down from the Government, not because they're all socialist lefty wimps themselves.
Quote: Aaron @ February 18, 2008, 6:26 PMnot because they're all socialist lefty wimps themselves.
You rang?
Quote: ajp29 @ February 18, 2008, 6:20 PMMmm. Surely a thought crime is where the thought remains entirely in the head. In these cases both were in posession of physical material which is illegal. Theres a difference between the two isn't there?
If you MAKE possession of material a crime then it's a crime. If you MAKE having a thought a crime it's a crime. This is semantics. Physically holding a text that contains ideas or pictures is not in itself either an action or even the intent of an action. It's exploration of ideas. So it shouldn't be a crime. The only way we can have thoughts is through external stimuli. Your argument is guff!
Zafar's solicitor and the Court of Appeal agrees with me anyway, at least in the context of the terrorists. 
Quote: ajp29 @ February 18, 2008, 6:28 PMYou rang?