[quote name="Aaron" post="50753" date="September 17, 2007, 11:21 PM]
Go on, enlighten me! 
[/quote]
You are ridiculously stating that at some point in the future, attitudes to pornographic material showing child abuse or the people who are turned on by it, will be accepted.
That is not going to happen.
Ridiculous. Crazy.
I'm not even talking about Langham anymore.
I'd never really thought about it before, but there must be quite a number of people who do have those feelings towards children but would never dream of acting upon them. They can't help having the feelings though. And you can't have thought police or we're all heading towards George Orwell land.
Surpressing urge to crack jokes in between serious debate... Head's exploding arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh *dead*
Quote: ajp29 @ September 17, 2007, 11:31 PMThats 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!
I must learn to look at what i have wrote before hitting post.
Yeah I wonder what Aarons opinions are on people who are into beastiality. He has a little meow meow which is obvious he adores. Is it ok to look at pornographic material of a cat being rammed one?
Don't suppress! Let it all out. Even if it makes a mess.
Quote: zooo @ September 17, 2007, 11:39 PMI'm not even talking about Langham anymore.
I'd never really thought about it before, but there must be quite a number of people who do have those feelings towards children but would never dream of acting upon them. They can't help having the feelings though. And you can't have thought police or we're all heading towards George Orwell land.
This is true Zooo, & I have agreed on that point.
The fact we dont know they exist means they are not acting on anything.
I mean its like Crimewatch putting up a mug shot & stating "This is a pic of a geezer who has thought about robbing a bank".
Ah. We're on the same page.
Well, a similar area in the library at least.
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:30 PMEnd of that because we are not talking about them. You are, but no one else is.
No. I'm not. You're the one who began actively discussing homosexuals, based on one passing comment.
Quote: ajp29 @ September 17, 2007, 11:31 PMI have to say Aaron you're on you're own on this one. Even Holland see paedophilia as illegal and they f**k animals!
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:33 PMYou are ridiculously stating that at some point in the future, attitudes to pornographic material showing child abuse or the people who are turned on by it, will be accepted.
Not pornographic material. I have stated that numerous times, so you're just proving explicitly that you've not been reading my posts, and/or not understanding the argument.
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:43 PMIs it ok to look at pornographic material of a cat being rammed one?
And again...
Quote: Charley @ September 17, 2007, 11:45 PM
I mean its like Crimewatch putting up a mug shot & stating "This is a pic of a geezer who has thought about robbing a bank".
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.
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.
The above argument is very eloquent BUT it's still illegal to download child porn and that is what Langham has done and that is why he's in jail. I am glad the court has sent out this strong message to all people that may be tempted to download child porn that FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DO IT it's illegal and they will be sent to jail!
Good thing too!
Also very good points. Whatever way one wishes to look at it, Chris Langham broke the law and should be punished accordingly. But yes, even though I am a conservative, I would seriously question whether prison is really suitable or effective in this case.
Prison at least stops him re-offending while he's in there (hopefully..)
I doubt if offenders of this kind can be 'cured' unless they can cure themselves and I hope with an intelligent man like Langham, prison will be such an awful place and a shock to him that he will not reoffend.
There are some crimes that are inexcusable.
Acts of abuse involving children & animals are one of those crimes.
Right down to watching it.
This will remain the case forever. If anything punishments will be made more severe.
I dont know how true that statement about Langham downloading it from Lime Wire is. Reports I have read are that he was traced via his credit card.
In the end I dont care either way. He got them, he looked at them we all know why. He deserves his punishment, infact he, IMO has got off lightly. He has already made friends (From the reports I have read), with a fellow inmate who is into the same things.
Now we only have the media to go on. So how true that is i dont know. I dont care. Anyone who does something they know to be illegal runs the risk of prosecution.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ September 18, 2007, 12:17 AMPrison at least stops him re-offending while he's in there (hopefully..)
I doubt if offenders of this kind can be 'cured' unless they can cure themselves and I hope with an intelligent man like Langham, prison will be such an awful place and a shock to him that he will not reoffend.
But look at the specifics of the case. He's not an offender in the way you're using the term. "Curious" seems more apt (although strictly speaking, no doubt an offender as he did break the law). The whole point of the case was that he hadn't looked at any more than a handful of pictures on a few occasions each, and nor, if Laura's quote is correct, paid for them. From what I have read of the case, he was abused as a child, and spurred by a programme that he was writing, became curious about what motivates paedophiles and excites them and so on. He wasn't an active member of a national paedophile ring or anything of that ilk! Can you honestly say you've never done something illegal because you were curious about it? Not perhaps anything like looking at paedophilic photos or videos, but just anything? I know that I have. (And, from the admissions of cabinet members, it seems most of the House of Commons probably has too!)
Quote: Charley @ September 18, 2007, 12:29 AMThere are some crimes that are inexcusable.
Like commissioning According To Bex.
Quote: Charley @ September 18, 2007, 12:29 AMNow we only have the media to go on. So how true that is i dont know. I dont care. Anyone who does something they know to be illegal runs the risk of prosecution.
Well said.
Aaron, I can only come back to the one fact. The images on his laptop. What you say about Langham's intentions are just his claims which may not be true. Only he knows his true intentions BUT the fact is he had the images on his laptop, and THAT'S why he's in jail.
Too harsh a penalty? What would be the right penalty? A fine? I don't think so, we can't let people buy their way out of their guilt. Community service? Again, why do people in the community have to put up with criminals helping them? No, jail is the only answer.
Well Said Frankie.
I am exhausted now. I love a good debate. It gives me a warm feeling.
I am cream crackerd now though.
I once stole sweeties Aaron. I knew it was illegal but they were black jacks & they made my tongue look like I was seriously ill.
This then ensured a 3 day stay off school. They also tasted nice.
I stole them as I had no money. I got caught & sentenced to an evil eye off the lady in the cornershop from that day forward. Even now when I go to my home town. *Shudders* She must be like 90 now though. As old as Dave Chapman.