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 |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Chris Langham - 10 months ?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Pete Clarke |
The obvious difference being that murder novels are a product of someone's imagination, whereas child porn is a recording of an event of child sexual abuse.
There's a world of difference and that's not a very good analogy JK. |
|
veritas |
I don't think your analogy is valid. The police don't 'possess' a stolen dvd player by handling-but if they look at the same pics as Langham, they are doing exactly what he did.
Where do we find the right policeman to look at the pics ?..no idea. My extensive dealings with the police is that I wouldn't trust a single one of them, which doesn't mean I haven't met some highly honourable and honest cops. Also-you would have to be pretty naive to not know that exhibits-dvd players, drugs, child porn go missing from police lock-ups every day of the week.
I'm probably not making my point clear: I'm not defending Langham and as Michael points out they were 'grade 5' ( I didn't even know they graded this stuff) I guess they were pretty bad. So Langham is certainly one sad bastard.
But it's the media hysteria that frightens me especially when the self-appointed 'victims' groups get involved calling for "tougher sentences". The media loves this stuff because it involves sex and sex sell. They ignore the overwhelming amount of other child abuse-mental and physical (non sexual) that is destroying thousands of young lives in the UK...far more than sexual abuse cases.
And I can see the same happening in the UK that is occuring in the USA. An example:
6 months ago an 18 yr old boy has sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend after dating 18 months and deciding to finally 'do it'. They take nude pics of each other on their mobile phones an email them to each other . The girl's mum finds the pics on her computer-calls the cops and the result:
Both the boy and the girl are charged with producing child pornography ( a possible 10 year sentence). The boy is charged with sexual assault (the legal age in the state is 18). They want to marry-they'll have to wait until they get out of jail and if they have children, those kids will have to live with knowledge that both their parents are registered sex offendors for life.
As for Langham-he got the right sentence and probably nixed his career for life. |
|
chrissy |
The point I was trying to make earlier is that how Langham and his ilk are made into the 'faces' that represent the child porn industry, whilst those ditributing the filth remain unseen. What is wholly wrong is that very few people understand how the child porn industry (and it is an industry) actually operates. They know nothing about where the children come from, where the chain begins, and who holds the purse strings. I'm not saying Langham shouldn't be punished, but what alarms me is the lethargy involved...let's wheel Langham out as the demon and try not to think about the sickening industry that lies behind it all. Anotherwords crucifying Chris Langham isn't going to alter a god damn thing. |
|
Michael |
I have to say that I agree with Zooloo entirely. I don't know the specifics of the Langham issue, so I won't refer to it (although let's remember the images were Grade 5, which includes the worst images of sadism and bestiality. I have to ask myself: would he have a stash of heroin in his home if he was researching drugs? I think not). But to say that watching child porn is something akin to a personal preference and that disapproving of it is "thought policing" is dangerous.
The porn industry is exactly that: a business with workers, producers, distributors and consumers. Child porn is something else: by definition it is the recording of a violent crime against an unwilling victim as they are under age. Therefore, downloading it is a third party crime.
Might I refer you to the recent case of Timothy Cox, the self-styled "Son of God".
observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2163408,00.html
Specifically concerning the police: "In total, 31 children and babies, 20 from Britain, had to be rescued by officers following the raid on Cox's parents' home."
Concerning the link between watching and partaking: "One convicted paedophile has described how curiosity quickly led to child abuse. 'The more I see the pictures, the more I'm going to want to do something. It's just the next step before you start abusing,' he says. Behaviour analysts working for CEOP call this the 'spiral of abuse'. Their research indicates that a predilection that was once suppressed is now shared in forums where paedophiles swap ideas and develop fantasies. Cox, like many paedophiles, was described by police as someone utterly 'obsessed' with collecting and distributing images of child abuse."
I know there are lots of side issues around this - the actual age of consent, the legal process in the UK, the role of media - but let's not forget the basic issue of child porn: the infliction of suffering on a non-consenting victim and the subsequent exploitation of the images. |
|
zooloo |
veritas wrote:
firstly- I find it very difficult to see how looking at photographs of anything can possibly be considered a crime.
Especially as in this particular crime-it's the only one I can think of where those who arrest, prosecute and sentence also "commit" the crime as well-by viewing the offensive material. They do exactly as the accused does-a unique position.
Do you find it difficult to see having possession of a DVD player a crime, is someone knowingly handling stolen goods doing no wrong whatsoever?
The police handle stolen goods, are they "committing" the same crime as a fence?
Where can the police find special people who can tell if a picture is an offence without looking at it? |
|
|
|
|
