Chris Langham Page 4

Quote: Baumski @ January 16, 2008, 9:51 AM

Without making any apologies for directing this towards EMS but as you appear to be quite understanding towards Chris Langham, what I would like to know is whether or not you would feel as pragmatic towards a member of your family or circle of friends who looked but didn't touch. Would you allow that person to watch over your children?

There is no fine line between the two acts because it is very much a black and white issue. Chris Langham should not be allowed a platform to explain in much the same way as Gary Glitter wasn’t, or is there a wave of sympathy towards him also? Or maybe there isn’t because people don’t respect his work as a glam rock entertainer and is, by definition, guilty as charged.

What Chris Langham did was to tear apart one of the few acts of humanity which is to protect those who are unable to defend themselves and that is unforgivable.

View original

I disagree. I have many friends who are paedophiles, and deep down they’re good people. They just like looking up images of children, online. They don’t go out, kidnap kids, and then touch their genitalia. They just fantasize about doing it. Which is totally ok.

Relax, shitbags...I’m just kidding.

But still, as far as I’m concerned, there is a difference. I see one as horrible and the other as very horrible.

I don’t have any children, and children get on my nerves. Maybe if I have some oneday, then I would feel differently.

It’s easy to endlessly spurt out stuff like “SICK PAEDO FUCK”! “YOU SHOULD BE BURNT ALIVE”! and nothing else. But these people are still humans (you might disagree) and obviously something has gone very very very wrong somewhere down the line. Is it their fault? I really don’t know. But I’m not of the belief that they should just all be thrown on a bonfire and disposed of.

Quote: Baumski @ January 16, 2008, 9:51 AM

what I would like to know is whether or not you would feel as pragmatic towards a member of your family or circle of friends who looked but didn't touch. Would you allow that person to watch over your children?

View original

I don't have children (yet), but as this is a hypothetical question anyway, I'll say that I wouldn't have any inherent problem with that. It's a question of trust overall though, not just in terms of what someone may or may not have done in terms of "child abuse".

Quote: Baumski @ January 16, 2008, 9:51 AM

There is no fine line between the two acts because it is very much a black and white issue. Chris Langham should not be allowed a platform to explain in much the same way as Gary Glitter wasn’t

View original

I disagree. There's a huge difference between just viewing an image and actually going and sticking your cock in a five year old, particularly if one hasn't paid for the 'privilege'. And in regards to Gary Glitter, I'd be very interested to hear what he has to say. All we've had is a few short news pieces speaking to him about his highly dubious trial(s), so I'd welcome an interview of a similar nature.

Quote: Eat_My_Shirts @ January 16, 2008, 11:31 AM

I disagree. I have many friends who are paedophiles, and deep down they’re good people. They just like looking up images of children, online. The don’t go out, kidnap kids, and then touch their genitalia. They just fantasize about doing it. Which is totally ok.

Relax, shitbags...I’m just kidding.

View original

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:25 AM

He said on the program that he didn't use his credit card and didn't pay for the images - that they were freely available over the net.

So is he lying in the interview or are people making things up? I don't know a lot about the case.

View original

Since all we've heard previously has been through the press (mostly the tabloids) - who are of course noted for their technological know-how, awareness, and eye for accuracy and detail - I'm fairly sure that he's telling the truth. In fact, I have no doubt that I could quite easily download such content myself, should I wish to. Which I don't.

Anyway, I maintain that the biggest tragedy in all this for me is that we'll almost certainly never see that second series of Help.

I agree with EMS.

Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 11:38 AM

Since all we've heard previously has been through the press (mostly the tabloids) - who are of course noted for their technological know-how, awareness, and eye for accuracy and detail - I'm fairly sure that he's telling the truth. In fact, I have no doubt that I could quite easily download such content myself, should I wish to. Which I don't.

View original

Mmm. I suppose it would be difficult for Langham to file anything for libel in the circumstances.

Jesus, it would be so easy for someone with an interest in that sort of thing to click on a few links and access free content. Very different to 'going out and sticking your cock in a child'. Was nearly a year in prison too little or too much punishment for the crime?

And are there any attempts to shut these sites down? Would it be too difficult? How did they know to knock on Langham's door? Are they using these sites like honeytraps? Oh, I don't know, the whole problem is far too troublesome for me.

Here's some worrying research (from Wiki):
In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment. The authors also noted that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, [one could] hypothesize that the actual rates ... were even higher.".[36]

A study by Hall et al. of Kent State University found that, of their sample of 80 adult male volunteers, 20% reported some attraction to prepubescent girls and 32.5% exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli.[37]

Less research is available regarding pedophilia's occurrence[38] in females. In a 1996 study of a university sample, 2.6% of surveyed females self-reported at least some sexual interest in children.[39]

Twenty-one percent?!?! That can't be right.

Q: "What did you study at uni?"
A: "The primary school next door"

When the police sat Langham in front of the images he downloaded they should've measured his brain activity to see if he was aroused.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:47 AM

Mmm. I suppose it would be difficult for Langham to file anything for libel in the circumstances.

View original

If I was him, I'm not sure that I would bother. I mean, would it be worth it? As far as I'm aware there was nothing in his charges nor conviction of having paid for said images, video, whatever it was (although I could be wrong?), in which case he's got nothing to 'clear' on his record, as 'twere, just his reputation. And seriously, would it make the slightest bit of difference to good old Joe-public?

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:47 AM

Jesus, it would be so easy for someone with an interest in that sort of thing to click on a few links and access free content. Very different to 'going out and sticking your cock in a child'. Was nearly a year in prison too little or too much punishment for the crime?

View original

I can't really tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic here, but in answer to the question, I think that it was pretty fair overall. I'm not certain of his release conditions (if any), but I'd like to know/think/see him doing a bit of community service, charity work etc.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:47 AM

And are there any attempts to shut these sites down? Would it be too difficult?

View original

Well the way he was speaking leads me to think that this wasn't on the web. But assuming it was - and of course there is no doubt paedophilic content on the web - then shutting sites down is a tricky business. I won't bore you with details, but it would rely on the sites being run from computers based in countries with strong laws regarding this kind of thing.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:47 AM

How did they know to knock on Langham's door? Are they using these sites like honeytraps?

View original

That's something I was wondering. Based on the method I interpret him as having used in order to access this content, I can only assume that it was due to tracking by his ISP. A fairly simple procedure, if they know what they're looking for.

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 11:47 AM

Here's some worrying research (from Wiki):

*snip*

Twenty-one percent?!?! That can't be right.

View original

As much as we'd like to think to ourselves that it is significantly lower, I can't say I'm too surprised. IMO - highly argued against previously, but I stick by it - being attracted to children is just the same as any other fetish or fantasy. Some people like being tied up and whipped. Some people like the idea of sex with "grannies". Some like playing with food. (And some people even like gingers! ) Some like 'scat' games, and others being dominated. I daresay that for a lot of those, people don't exactly choose to be turned on by, but they just are, for whatever reason. It's a concept that we have in our society that this is wrong. I'm sure we've all read stories of 12 year old girls in India, Pakistan and the like being forced into arranged marriages with 35 year olds and what-have-you. It's just something that is acceptable in their society, but not in ours. Really - and I'll probably be blasted for making such a "comparison" - it's little different to being gay or straight (one could actually argue further to the opposite I suppose, what with the whole procreation thing, but anyway). You can't help if you're attracted to people of the opposite sex, or of the same sex. You just are. And in our society it is - IMO quite rightly - increasingly acceptable to be homosexual. But in others, it couldn't get much worse. Intriguingly, it's probably the same kind of societies which find marrying off 12 year olds acceptable, but that's a whole different discussion again.

So in summary, my point there is that we really can't help who we're attracted to and what turns us on. People like all sorts of things, to various levels of acceptability in different socities. I don't think that we should criticise or target people who find children attractive unless, of course, they actually follow those instincts and fantasies through to actions, be it watching videos, viewing images, or committing the acts themselves. In fact, I'm certain that in future, we as a society will be much more enlightened as to such mentality, in a similar way to how we quite rightly no longer stigmatise or lock up people for being gay. (Obviously there's a bit of work still to do on that front, but you get the point.)

Now, who wants to have a go at me first?

Well if people want to prosecute thought crimes, like the government is trying to do at the moment, then fine lock up people like Langham. However, unfortunately, we can only deal with these people after they've commited a crime so all this debate is pretty academic to be honest.

I tend to ignore other societies because they are mostly f**ked up, what the hell are honour killings all about!?! Our society probably treats the crime of looking a paedophilic images too leniently and most of you are forgetting that 'sticking your cock into a child' is exactly what has happened to the children in the images. If you drive a getaway car to a robbery and your fellow robbers kill someone you are guilty of murder. Whats the difference here. If you demand images then you are guilty when they are supplied. Payment is irrelevent.

Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 12:21 PM

I can't really tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic here, but in answer to the question, I think that it was pretty fair overall.

Now, who wants to have a go at me first?

View original

I was just genuinely musing. I suppose the length of time was sufficient for him to reflect. He said as much in the interview.

I certainly don't want to 'have a go', at least; I definitely concur. Unless people want to lock others up for "thought-crime" any arguments to the contrary are fallacious, IMO.

Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 12:21 PM

Now, who wants to have a go at me first?

View original

Oh no you're far too old for me

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 12:48 PM

I tend to ignore other societies because they are mostly f**ked up, what the hell are honour killings all about!?! Our society probably treats the crime of looking a paedophilic images too leniently and most of you are forgetting that 'sticking your cock into a child' is exactly what has happened to the children in the images. If you drive a getaway car to a robbery and your fellow robbers kill someone you are guilty of murder. Whats the difference here. If you demand images then you are guilty when they are supplied. Payment is irrelevent.

View original

Nonsense. Poor analogy. "What's the difference"?! Where are the bloody similarities?!

Think the 'other societies are f**ked up, I ignore them' comment is rather indicative of a closed mind too, I must say.

I think the whole "payment" question is more complex: if one has to *pay* for the image, then it brings it into the *finite* domain; free images are a nebulous concept and so the harm done by downloading them or viewing them is difficult to quantify.

The jury were shown the images too. Is this right?

Didn't he pretty much say he found the images on youtube?

Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 12:54 PM

Nonsense. Poor analogy. "What's the difference"?! Where are the bloody similarities?!

Think the 'other societies are f**ked up, I ignore them' comment is rather indicative of a closed mind too, I must say.

View original

Well the similarity is that the crime isn't based on what th criminal wanted or thought he was doing but on the reality of what actually happened. You want to look at images of children then you have to be held responsible for the acts commited to produce those photos. Its not rocket science.

Close minded? So you tend to see societies where they abuse/belittle/kill women as being valid? The ignore part is mainly for the way they treat women and children. What is an Islamic Theocracy going to teach me about how to treat women for example?

Quote: zooo @ January 16, 2008, 12:58 PM

Didn't he pretty much say he found the images on youtube?

View original

Good God, if this is the case it makes looking at child porn as easy as falling out of bed.

Quote: zooo @ January 16, 2008, 12:58 PM

Didn't he pretty much say he found the images on youtubeYouthTube?

View original

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 1:02 PM

Well the similarity is that the crime isn't based on what th criminal wanted or thought he was doing but on the reality of what actually happened. You want to look at images of children then you have to be held responsible for the acts commited to produce those photos. Its not rocket science.

Close minded? So you tend to see societies where they abuse/belittle/kill women as being valid? The ignore part is mainly for the way they treat women and children. What is an Islamic Theocracy going to teach me about how to treat women for example?

View original

It really is an absurd analogy if you look at it clearly. You said: "If you drive a getaway car to a robbery and your fellow robbers kill someone you are guilty of murder. Whats the difference here."
Of course the differences are legion, but one difference is that in Langham's case the 'murder', if you will, had already been committed. The principal crime had already taken place, and Langham is more like an 'accessory after the fact', though this is still not correct. Even so, as I say, looking at free content over the web is a nebulous issue. How can you define the damage Langham has caused by looking at these free images? Has he funded the making of such material? No. In this context the worst he has done is help reaffirm that there is a 'market' for it. If we look at someone's human rights not to have someone look at footage of them being molested as a child, we are on very shaky ground indeed. Of course it's wrong, but how much harm has it caused to any party, and what should the punishment be to fit the crime? Defining such problems is tricky, as our reactions are based largely on undefinable 'taboos', an intangible certainty that something is wrong and needs to be punished.

The analogy could be a lot better, anyway, I think.
*
It is closed-minded by definition, because you are judging them by a set of values created by our society. It's never going to work: it's like trying to find your way to the Lake District using a DVD operation manual as your map. You have to look at other cultures very carefully indeed and try to abandon many preconceptions. Besides, one can still condemn aspects of another culture and celebrate others. Look at the Americans. Love some aspects of the shades of culture there, hate others. Cinema, guns. Constitution, death penalty. Even keeping one's own preconceptions it is obvious to see that different ways of life are rich and complex and can't be shrugged off with a derisory 'they're worthless and wrong' attitude. A "valid/invalid" binary analysis is an argument set at an absurdly low resolution.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 12:48 PM

I tend to ignore other societies because they are mostly f**ked up, what the hell are honour killings all about!?!

View original

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 12:48 PM

If you drive a getaway car to a robbery and your fellow robbers kill someone you are guilty of murder.

View original

Thus proving that the law is bollocks.

Quote: Rob B @ January 16, 2008, 12:53 PM

Oh no you're far too old for me

View original

Quote: zooo @ January 16, 2008, 12:58 PM

Didn't he pretty much say he found the images on youtube?

View original

That's certainly not how I interpreted what he said, but it's entirely possible.

Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 1:02 PM

Close minded? So you tend to see societies where they abuse/belittle/kill women as being valid?

View original

No, but then we're only judging them against our moral and social values. In their eyes, we're wrong to let women have jobs and whathaveyou. In ours, it's wrong to NOT let them

..... And I think James said that far more intellectually (and long-windedly ) than I just did. So I largely just "ditto" his previous post.