King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: The first intelligent national comment on Langham
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
uberman	I hadn't seen all the comments. It's at 88 with most being antis although overall there are some very good comments. You should try the same when they put it on a more mainstream website though....much less forgiving, intelligent varied etc. I'm sure the Observer, Guardian, Independent all have good commentary in line with discussions here. My point (well one of them) was that a change in the situation is likely to be prefaced by a shift from think-piece to editorial across the media and not just those metioned above. I think it will develop when it is a useful tool for political criticism. The politicos like to be seen as tough and decisive rather than exploring grey areas and since we're not far from a general election I can't see Brown becoming grey on these matters when he's moving to a compromise situation on internment! I wholeheartedly support your own continuing efforts to interact with the media as you are placed to do so. In terms of your letter to the Observer though a couple of points: I'm with you on the downloading/imagining as thought crime but of course Big Brother characterises a downloader as a participant and a pornographer which are a bit technical and lightweight as arguments. While home computing allows people to photoshop to their darkest heart's content I'd suggest that in the last couple of years technological advances have seen the production of video based illegal content increase exponentially on a commercial basis out of Eastern Europe. Naturally Big Brother has photoshopped stuff covered as 'pseudo-images' with the same Criminal tariff even though no abuse actually occurred. No wonder men don't want to work in schools or anything to do with children and young people! The system has also changed. The media have long since ignored the complexities of what constitutes a child. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 raises the age someone may be considered a child to 18 but other legislation in 1978 and 1988 had superseded the CPA 1933. Legal definitions are one thing but a paedophile is defined as a psychiatric condition (a paraphilia) under DSM-IV as having a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children leading to the common argument of it as a sickness. The media also don't distinguish between paedophilia and hebephilia. Legal definitions which are more wide ranging suit the media because they can tar more people. Grey areas are not their thing - nor will they be Brown's thing as he heads towards an election. In the case of Langham he is not a paedophile imho. There is no history and if did access material via online purchase he would have access to a lot more material than he actually downloaded. Big Brother is not forgiving of those who wish to peek under the wizard's skirt when told not to. Again DSM-IV makes the interesting distinction of a paedophile actually having had sexual contact with a child or, bizarrely and arbitrarily, an interest held for 6 months or more. And you're right too that we we have just passed the milestone of 40 years of legal homosexuality. Perhaps if we wanted to be really progressive we'd define this as pedosexuality, call it an innate sexual oritentation and discuss from there.... Sorry for going on, slow Sunday
JK2006	I don't know what the law is on photographs but we all know the age of consent has now - rightly - been equalised at 16 and the C&YPAct 1933 clearly defines a child as "a person under 14" and those 14-18 as "Young Persons". In this enlightened era we tend to call them "teenagers" - that's 13-19 of course.
In The Know (but not this time)	JK2006 wrote: [quote] A
JK2006	The Observer is packed with commentary on Langham... here's a copy of my letter to them... Poor Chris Langham; falsely accused of historical abuse but fortunately acquitted. Vile Chris Langham; rightly convicted of downloading child porn. Might I make a few points commentators seem to have missed? Just because someone pleads guilty does not mean they ARE guilty. Most innocent victims of false allegations are urged to plead guilty by their lawyers in order to get shorter sentences when they are inevitably convicted. I would guess - many images downloaded these days are either totally constructed by Photoshop and the numerous others systems which create lifelike figures or involve actors and willing participants eager to depict expressions for large sums of money. Every picture is NOT an abuse victim as the conventional wisdom dictates. Thinking and imagining should NOT be a crime where doing is. Or Agatha Christie would have been locked up as a child. A paedophile is someone who finds a child sexually attractive. A
JK2006	86 comments in 24 hours so far on Sarler's piece but many seem genuinely disturbed and impressed by her thoughts. It's not the media progressing but the people starting to become aware. The media will follow when they consider it profitable. Note that the "antis" simply shout slogans and go for the obvious. The intelligent posts overwhelmingly ask "what is going on"?