From The Times...

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/column...s/article2195745.ece

Yes, an excellent article.

The most interesting point is the likelihood that the CPS only pursued this woman's fanciful accusations in order to whip the jury into hostility against Langham, thus ensuring a conviction on the lesser charge.

This should have been staring me in the face all along, but it only occurred to me on Friday when listening to some colleagues during a "lock him up and throw away the key" type conversation about Langham.

I must be getting old!

Very intelligent and well thought-out piece.

I particularly liked the way the police (in persuit of the famous) thought these cases were "succulent", and the description of Sunday rags as "panting" !

Since this is still out of the House of Murdoch I wouldn't rush to praise. The HOM spends most of its time whipping up a mob frenzy so while this is a more rational piece it also suits the Murdoch purpose.

Let us not forget also that the process is further systemically flawed because the cops actively publicise such cases to create - sorry find - more 'victims' and the CPS have a politically driven mandate to prosecute anything related to sexual offences. This is demonstrated for example in the poor conviction rate in rape cases.

....Not to mention the queues forming to get your mortgage paid off if you were a Catholic choirboy in years gone by.....

I was a Catholic altarboy - but I never got assaulted !
Can I claim compensation?

Dude, if the priest at the time is clouded in allegations or convictions then join the class action and start shopping for swimming pools!

Oh, hang on, there's something floating around in the back of my head about false accusations....not taking money under false pretences...being truthful...all a bit vague though.......

Uber... might I be being too optimistic to feel the tide is turning?
So many people appear to be catching on that all is not what it seems in the world of presumed sex abuse.

But as for swimming pools and bank balances, I'm a great believer in karma. It really does kick in.

Swimming pools are no great comfort when you're dead, or a dribbling vegetable, or eaten away by the acid of guilt.

You may swim in the day but it's no great comfort when you cannot sleep at night.

And those poor false accusers know the only way to expunge the gnawing rats of guilt is to own up to lying and face the consequences.

Uberman wrote:
Dude, if the priest at the time is clouded in allegations or convictions then join the class action and start shopping for swimming pools!

I was beginning to feel unwanted !

JK, nice to see you had happy hols. I'm on the last day of mine but have spent it in dear old blighty catching up on things that just seem to slip by...

As for being too optimistic on the media...even with reflection and thought on this article I don't think I would shift from a basically cynical position on whatever they do.

While the position of the article is that the legal process in cases of this nature has been corrupted by a bunch of self-interest groups - including 'victims - and that truth is the casualty along with innocent people who are forever tainted, the article is of little real substance.

It is a think-piece, nothing more than an exercise in polemic perhaps, if you look at the comments it has generated - but that shows what you are dealing with out in reader land. The article criticises aplenty but does not create any depth by seeking out responses from anyone to these important issues of charge-bundling, anonymity of the accused, compensation tariffs etc. Don't forget today the NOTW launched 'Code Madeleine', it's latest exercise in self-aggrandisement, sorry it's latest crusade for child safety. Whatever it is it's action, not talk or an article. Wait till you see these articles in the 'intelligent' media appearing regularly - particularly in the right wing media - pressuring the relevant elements on their behaviour and the flaws in the system with the potential to effect a change and you might have something.

But the Cops want the publicity to 'find' victims and the CPS are basically obliged to pursue any allegations of sex crime. That needs to be fixed as does charge-bundling, anonymity for the accused etc.

Maybe if there hadn't been so many recent high profile celebrities falling victim to this new industry there wouldn't be any such discussion either and that's what is needed - more high profile cases to further the discussion! There have been dozens of deaths (murders) over the last few years of people accused of sex crimes - before any trial - but while I saw papers like the Guardian and Independent discussing these same issues, the argument, particularly on anonymity, isn't any further forward.

So if things do change JK you can take credit for that because it will be the high profile cases with 'celebrities' that create the debate and will effect change where the murders of others did not.

Throwing out a few other ideas: you might also think that entities such as the House of Murdoch are a bit cheesed off that these cases are now a whole cottage industry where they have to wield their chequebook through a minefield of Police informants, other agencies' informants, witnesses, victims 'Agents' etc. rather than just locking in the exclusive before the Mirror got there as it used to be...So the article may be a critique of a dark little industry they are no longer masters of.

You might also say it is simply a new angle for the more intelligent media having exhausted the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' approach. After all, they are the 'intelligent' media so they are supposed to challenge things.

You might also say it's just a clever way of fanning the flames by looking intelligent but again, going back to the response it's generated in the comments section, it's just fanned the flames of outrage of Mr. Disgusted of Middle England rather than seeding an idea for the future.

You might also say going out to left field that this new perspective falls out of the War on Terror as the corrupting of the judicial process and civil liberties is proceeding at a terrible pace as a result of it. The arguments against surveillance Britain and what to do with offenders don't really carry much weight when it's a child safety issue but all this 'Terrorist' activity has shown up high profile conflicts and weaknesses in all the same parties - the media, judiciary, politicians and problems of the same sort experienced in sex crime cases - trial by media, hostile approach by CPS/Police - so maybe a re-think on one issue is now appreciating the wider implications.

This answer has turned out to be longer than I expected but anyway...I think there is a hint of change but it's not being driven by the media. We are seeing more and more cases of this nature being seen to be deeply, deeply flawed. If it was any other topic then we'd have seen more scrutiny before now so I think that IF any change comes it will be a media response to the obvious flaws in the system shown through persistent legal failures than any proactive assessment of the situation. Let us not forget though that in rape cases they are now trying to change the rules to make the accused more convictable so fixing the system will not always bring what you'd want.

As for guilt - well the Catholics do it like noone else I think the probably we are dealing with here though is a shift in moral perspectives. It seems to be traditional for one generation to look down on those coming through with a disdainful 'it wasn't like that in my day' attitude. I'm in my mid 30s and I am coming to that view. It just seems that what people are willing to do for a quick buck is all too easily tempered by some short term benefit.

So I don't dispute what you are saying about Karma...but I do think that the gnawing rat of guilt probably isn't as strong as you might think and people do what they do and few of them lose much sleep.

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"?

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 wrote:
[quote] A

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.

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