If Myra Handly and Ian Brady had been a successful double act and won a couple of Bafta's, does the same line of sympathy apply? Does the line between watching sexual torture of children and murder also apply? After all, at the very least, all Myra Hindly did was watch so what's the big deal. Perhaps somebody should start a fan club.
Quote: Aaron @ September 16, 2007, 12:19 PMVery true. I'm not trying to defend actually looking at such movies or photos (although I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as partaking in the act oneself). My point is just that being attracted to children isn't something we should be negative about. People can't help it. At the end of the day, it's just a fetish, no different from some people who like being tied up, or from people who like 'scat' or anything else. Things which would have been frowned upon in previous years in the same way people think of being attracted to children now. Just think that it's only in the past 50 years that it's not been at risk of a life sentence for two men to kiss. People are increasingly liberal in regards to sexual preferences, fetishes and the like. I don't think people will ever be ok with actually engaging in paedophilic activities, and rightly so, but being attracted to kids? Yes. It'll be more tolerated.
Aaron how can you say that being attracted to children is'nt something we should be negative about. Then liken it to a fetish like scat. Then you go on to bring up gay people. Again consenting adults who have campaigned their arses off to have this right that they should have always had. Do you seriously EVER see a group of adults piccoting with boards stating "I am attracted to children, give me the right to be".
I say to you Aaron they would be murdered within minutes. This is NEVER EVER going to be accepted. NEVER. I think you are living in a f**koff dream world with that statement. I take back the word think, you ARE.
Maybe there are those adults who think about sex with children in the secrecy of their minds but would never dream of crossing the line by buying or looking at porn & it stays deep in their twisted minds forever. I say maybe, as I have never heard of them. The fact that I have never heard of them means even if they exist, to me they dont. Based on that There is no point in talking about them.
There is one grey area on peadophillia. The guy/woman who UNKNOWINGLY has sex with a 14, 15 year old who has consented & lied about his/her age. I would go so far as to say they should not be classed in the same bracket. If it was UNKNOWINGLY.
Quote: Baumski @ September 16, 2007, 1:36 PMIf Myra Handly and Ian Brady had been a successful double act and won a couple of Bafta's, does the same line of sympathy apply? Does the line between watching sexual torture of children and murder also apply? After all, at the very least, all Myra Hindly did was watch so what's the big deal. Perhaps somebody should start a fan club.
*Claps*
I don't believe in the death penalty but I think such cases should be dealt with the view of protecting potential victims rather than rehabilitating the individual. So if the offender is deemed to be dangerous he should be locked up for life or certified to get treatment. In my opinion Langham probably got the right sentance.
Quote: Aaron @ September 16, 2007, 12:19 PMVery true. I'm not trying to defend actually looking at such movies or photos (although I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as partaking in the act oneself). My point is just that being attracted to children isn't something we should be negative about. People can't help it. At the end of the day, it's just a fetish, no different from some people who like being tied up, or from people who like 'scat' or anything else. Things which would have been frowned upon in previous years in the same way people think of being attracted to children now. Just think that it's only in the past 50 years that it's not been at risk of a life sentence for two men to kiss. People are increasingly liberal in regards to sexual preferences, fetishes and the like. I don't think people will ever be ok with actually engaging in paedophilic activities, and rightly so, but being attracted to kids? Yes. It'll be more tolerated.
I'm sorry Aaron - this is just not acceptable.
"Just a fetish?"! Most fetishes involve consenting adults. Paedophilia can never be justified as it ruins the lives of the innocent.
If you spoke to someone who's Gay and likened them to Paedos they'd probably cut your nuts off.
You're sounding like one of those woolly liberals who talk about human rights for terrorists, murderers and thugs - and I'm sure to a true blue Tory like you this will seem like more of an insult to you.
Is Aaron a toff then? Well, I never would have guessed.. 
Aaron's a woolly liberal
I just read this post on another forum, and it says everything I want to, but more eloquently.
Just to put the other side of the argument, I think Chris Langham has been a victim of a gross injustice, and he should not be in jail at all, let alone for ten months.
He isn't a paedophile by any stretch of the imagination, and there is no evidence which suggests he has ever got sexual kicks from seeing children being abused. There was one (highly suspicious) accuser, but I suspect that the CPS included this crime in the court case to suggest to the jury that there was something dark and suspicious behind Langham's downloads, when there was not. He was being human - nosey, and curious, and self-questioning. That's all. He has been attacked for being honest in court, and saying exactly why he downloaded the pictures. For this he has been hung out to dry.
Langham didn't pay for any child porn, he downloaded it for free from Limewire - so the argument that he is fuelling a market by rewarding abusers is bogus. How can he fuel a market for something he didn't pay for? Something any one of us could download now without paying for it?
If he has 'supported' child abuse, it's only in the most secondary and moralistic sense, certainly not practically or financially, as people seem to be supposing. I think he's a troubled man, and he might well be a sleazy man, but he isn't a paedophile - despite the CPS's attempts to paint him as one in front of the jury. And I don't think victimless curiosity should lead to jail, and a ruined life. Yes - a ruined life, because thanks to the lack of anonymity for sex case accused, he will forever be associated not just with child porn, but with the repeated rape of a minor (no matter how fantastic these accusations were).
He had a handful of images downloaded over a very short period of time, and accessed a maximum of twice each. This is not the behaviour of a committed paedophile, who will usually have extensive collections over a long period of time, accessed on a regular basis. He has been imprisoned because he downloaded a series of magnetic recordings which are contrary to public taste, and if that doesn't scare the living shite out of you then I don't know what would. He was even prioritised on the Operation Ore list, because he contacted police himself to tell them he'd received a dodgy spam mail. This isn't the act of someone who sought to abuse.
As a high profile star, he has been used by the police in an unfair way to highlight their attempts at a crackdown on child abuse.
This country is not safer with Chris Langham behind bars. His prosecution will in no way stop paedophiles from accessing their kicks. We have not changed him, nor will we. His problem is not ours to change.
His imprisonment will allow scared and jumpy people to carry on believing the police have a hope in hell of stopping the trade in child porn, which is far from true. In that, it has done its job. But it hasn't achieved justice.
Langham in no way ordered kids to be abused, nor did he pay for it. There is no connection between him and the abusers on the images.
Quote: zooo @ September 17, 2007, 5:52 PMI just read this post on another forum, and it says everything I want to, but more eloquently.
Oh dear. How sad.
Oh for god's sake.
Everyone has their own opinions, there's no need for anyone to be patronising.
I agree Zooo.
Everyone does have the right to have their opinions.
I am going to stand by mine.
Anyhoo http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=357&Itemid=28
If anyone would be kind enough to offer a comment on this article I wrote that has made its way to the front of the MFAW website. It is the same letter that has already been posted here. I would be eternaly grateful if you would spare a few mins to comment. You do not have to agree with what I am saying. Merely looking at it on your browser & any form of comment will be Fabulous.
Right back to any other topics!
Quote: Charley @ September 16, 2007, 2:40 PMAaron how can you say that being attracted to children is'nt something we should be negative about. Then liken it to a fetish like scat. Then you go on to bring up gay people. Again consenting adults who have campaigned their arses off to have this right that they should have always had. Do you seriously EVER see a group of adults piccoting with boards stating "I am attracted to children, give me the right to be".
I say to you Aaron they would be murdered within minutes. This is NEVER EVER going to be accepted. NEVER. I think you are living in a f**koff dream world with that statement. I take back the word think, you ARE.
Why not? People can't help who or what they are attracted to, or what turns them on. As long as they don't act on it, then I don't see the problem. Say what you wish to the contrary (and I have no doubt that you will), but the views being expressed here - and more to the point, in the tabloids - are as good as identical to the hatred and fear which homosexuals were subjected to as recently as 50/60-odd years ago! People don't choose to be attracted to persons of the same gender any more than they may choose to be attracted to those of the opposite, and attitudes rightly changed towards them. People are and society is increasingly liberal and accepting. Whether society will mature this far in any of our lifetimes is another matter, but it will happen.
No one's saying that it'll ever be ok to engage in sexual activity, whether directly or not, with a child, but there's a big difference.
Quote: David Chapman @ September 16, 2007, 8:32 PMIf you spoke to someone who's Gay and likened them to Paedos they'd probably cut your nuts off.
It's the hypocritical attitudes of society and the public I'm comparing, nothing else.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ September 16, 2007, 8:35 PMIs Aaron a toff then?
One can dream. 
Quote: zooo @ September 17, 2007, 5:52 PMI just read this post on another forum, and it says everything I want to, but more eloquently.
I'll ditto that.
Quote: Aaron @ September 17, 2007, 9:43 PMWhy not? People can't help who or what they are attracted to, or what turns them on. As long as they don't act on it, then I don't see the problem
I think I already stated that what people think of in their own minds is not an issue as we dont know they exist.
Quote: Aaron @ September 17, 2007, 9:43 PMSay what you wish to the contrary (and I have no doubt that you will), but the views being expressed here - and more to the point, in the tabloids - are as good as identical to the hatred and fear which homosexuals were subjected to as recently as 50/60-odd years ago
What the fook has Pedophillia & being gay got in common. We are not talking about gay issues.
Quote: Aaron @ September 17, 2007, 9:43 PMWhy not? People are and society is increasingly liberal and accepting. Whether society will mature this far in any of our lifetimes is another matter, but it will happen.
No
Right can anyone else see the problem with this statement here.
Does anyone else agree at all (Other than pedos & those attracted to children) that this will ever, ever happen?
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:17 PMWhat the fook has Pedophillia & being gay got in common. We are not talking about gay issues.
Quote: Aaron @ September 17, 2007, 9:43 PMIt's the hypocritical attitudes of society and the public I'm comparing, nothing else.
...Although, if you really wish to go down that route, then they share being generally considered as "not normal" by society. I'd hope that most (if not all) of us here are mature enough to have no problem with homosexuals though, and rightly so. And that is my whole point.
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:17 PMRight can anyone else see the problem with this statement here.
Go on, enlighten me!
Quote: Aaron @ September 17, 2007, 11:21 PM...Although, if you really wish to go down that route, then they share being generally considered as "not normal" by society. I'd hope that most (if not all) of us here are mature enough to have no problem with homosexuals though, and rightly so. And that is my whole point.
I cant believe this but I will reply.
I have nothing against homosexuality & I can not believe that I am having to state that, when the issue I was talking about is Child Abuse.
The people that have problems with homosexuality are ignorant arse holes.
End of that because we are not talking about them. You are, but no one else is.
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:30 PMThe people that have problems with homosexuality are ignorant arse holes.
Thats my new 'best quote ever' Are those that don't informed arseholes? I have to say Aaron you're on you're own on this one. Even Holland see paedophilia as illegal and they f**k animals!