Chris Langham Page 16

Quote: ajp29 @ February 18, 2008, 10:59 PM

This is making me

Its not a Thought Crime!

They were charged with posessing illegal material. End of argument. Just like when someone is arresting for posessing drugs they don't go 'officer why are you arresting me for thinking about doing drugs?'

Oh and while i'm ranting, we prosecute people for thinking all the time. Ever heard of intention?

View original

I think the point is that someone who is in possession of drugs is clearly either going to sell them or use them. Otherwise what is the use in their having them?

The intention associated with owning a book is rather harder to pin down, and in my mind the law must not make these inroads into freedom of learning or expression. A book is information.

If I own a book on religious fundamentalism it does not make me a religious fundamentalist. It means I have a brain and wish to explore issues and have reasoned and informed analysis - which is a right. And why I don't care to live in China. If I own a book on religious fundamentalism that contains terrorist propoganda and get arrested as a terrorist I AM being accused of a thoughtcrime because no physical crime has taken place, merely contemplation or the thought of it, WITHOUT obvious intent such as in the drugs possession analogy.

If the government/courts decide the possession of such material is a crime, then sure, by definition it becomes a crime in itself, but this is avoiding the point. And the fact is the Court of Appeal threw it out.

Restrictions that many on this forum would like to see upheld by the law can only breed resentment, are impossible to police effectively, and are not only absurd but scary. I think it shows how readily people will toss away liberties to keep the bogeyman from the door. Hey, I don't want to look at terrorist material. Doesn't affect me. Lock 'em up. Must've been up to no good. Hang 'em.

It's McCarthyism, plain and simple, and I don't want the smallest part of it.

Quote: sootyj @ February 19, 2008, 12:01 AM

In the words of Thatcher after being criticised by Geofery Howe,

I feel like I have been mauled by a dead sheep.

From the Spanish Inquisition to the Nazis to the BNP, the two charges oppressive governemnts make of their foes is, they are pedophiles, and terrorists.

To permit prosecution for possessing ideas, and images, is to open the flood gates of thought control and persecution.

Exept you sound like the kind of guy, who'd be first in line when they give out uniforms.

Probably to stick it on, and wank over a copy of Mein Kampf.

View original

Go to bed silly!

As you're getting abusive, you're obviously over-tired!

Frankie I am puzzled have you ever written any comedy? Or do you merely lurk about looking to be offended? Or am I being suckered by a genius comedy character your testing. A small, minded, little Englander, and frankly quite possibly in a closet.

When I say closet. I mean it's what you fear in yourself that makes one angry, and pedophilia really seems to anger you.

Does Langham anger you, because he kicks off a part of your subconscious that you'd rather not go to?

Perhaps rather than the well-worn arguments about censorship and freedom of thought/speech, more thought should be given as to why people want to view these "offensive" materials?

Quote: M Lewis @ February 18, 2008, 11:29 PM

Dont spoil the conversation with facts!

View original

Don't worry, it's kicking off again!

Well if you bear in mind Biblical figures were getting married age 6, we need to accept that this has always been with us.

If we view pedophilia, as an illness in need of treatment we might make some progress.

It took centuries to move from individual vengeance, to state administered laws.

Also instead of viewing it as being about arbitrary dates, and ages, and about consent, and abuse of power it makes more sense.

I also don't think I went through some magical maturational point at 16. From about age 10, I was fascinated by Bongo mags, and keen to act on the wisdom they contained.

Quote: sootyj @ February 19, 2008, 12:26 AM

Frankie I am puzzled have you ever written any comedy? Or do you merely lurk about looking to be offended? Or am I being suckered by a genius comedy character your testing. A small, minded, little Englander, and frankly quite possibly in a closet.

When I say closet. I mean it's what you fear in yourself that makes one angry, and pedophilia really seems to anger you.

Does Langham anger you, because he kicks off a part of your subconscious that you'd rather not go to?

View original

Oh stop it..

You're like the little boy on the stairs who won't go up to bed and just has to have the last word..

I simply think it would be a good idea to make the possession of child pornography and terrorist material illegal. You don't agree, you think it's OK. I am not sure what that actually says about you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just misguided and over-liberal. However, I've got your address and I'll be checking your bins!

Ladies, some calm!

Hmm I guess I'll give up in enagaging in any direct discussion with your good self, seems a little pointless, as I doubt you read them any way.

Personally I always start from the point of view, of what will cause the least harm to all.

The thing about censorship is, it always starts with the best of intentions, and gets subverted so fast.

Personally I think if Shakespeare was alive today, he'd have written the Merchant of Venice about pedos.

But what the hell, I guess I'm writing this for my self. n.b. it's usually the liberals who are most pro censorship. Can't be a national socialist with out being a socialist.

n.b. if you are reading this, do you ever write comedy?

Sorry I'll be good sir, please don't suspend me, I've got ADHD, and I've run out of Rhytallin.

Quote: sootyj @ February 19, 2008, 12:41 AM

n.b. if you are reading this, do you ever write comedy?

View original

Allegedly.

Every technological advance since the printing press has been used to disseminate controversial and illegal views and materials. In the case of the internet it's obviously an unpoliceable place to block content. What is requires is personally responsibility and control. That's why parents do have a responsibility to control what their kids are exposed to.

You can't, ultimately and eventually censor anything without making it become a sought-after commodity.

I agree with laws against producing and distributing child pornography and racist/terror-inciting materials. But you go after the producers, because you'll never control distribution.

I agree with you Sooty, though your mode of expression is a little below the belt at times.

Quote: sootyj @ February 18, 2008, 11:04 PM

I dunno, I think Chris Langham is a bit of a sad man, but that's no reason to send him to jail for 6 months. He looked at picutures he shouldn't of, but it's not like he paid or endorsed, or supported them. If I watch Pulp Fiction, am I going to prison for encouraging murder, and drug dealing.

Our screwy attitude, towards kids, abuse, and innocence is ruining our country. Holland lowered the age of consent to 12, and out huge resources into sensible sex education programs, and family support. They have way less abuse, teen pregnancies, and other exmaples of our being a sexually degenerate culture.

16 is daft, and the country is now full of under 16s technicaly abusing each other. People like Langham need help, and therapy, and to be kept an eye on. We seem to be degenerating to the point that the defintion of good parenting is not abusing your kids, and not trusting anyone.

The number of guys I know who left youth work, for fear of essentially getting a scarlet letter. A contributing factor to me moving into adult services, was when I started getting asked,

2Are you going to rape my child?"

Should have replied

"No he's way to ugly,"

or

"No but, I like the look of your cat,"

We are sitcking our fingers in our ears, and driving silly men, who should know better to suicide. Whilst a generation of kids grow up with every male professional caring for them terrified of them.

Oh and I am sick of the way the Police chase down easy convictions to make up numbers. For every Langham there's a dozen real nasty bastards who it's jsut to hard to prosecute. hard beacuse they know if they befriend the kids, then the police won't bother going for a difficult prosecution.

View original

This is very well said, and one of the handful of worthwhile contributions to this thread.

Quote: sootyj @ February 19, 2008, 12:41 AM

Can't be a national socialist with out being a socialist.

View original

Oh, come on now... Soot. Anyway, hardly anyone in the Labour Party would class themselves as a "socialist" thesedays.

Quote: Aaron @ February 19, 2008, 12:42 AM

Allegedly.

View original

Not aimed in your direction.