Chris Langham
03 August 2007, 11:22 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonic - I think that is the case - but all images are classified on the scale mentioned in earlier posts and have to be viewed. Some of the forensic guys I used to work with had to do the same thing as the picture classification is submitted as evidence in any trial that takes place. Not a pleasant job 
03 August 2007, 11:23 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I am not looking for an argument when I say this, and I am not picking on you specifically either.
It sickens me that anyone can find this kind of thing a turn on. I could never want to watch it either in real life, or via download. However, you and I are not built like these people.
Each and every year that goes by more of these people are born. The vast majority, to my knowledge, simply don't choose to be built like this. They simply find themselves compelled into liking this sort of thing. Sex drive is a really power thing, and when that drive is misplaced it is very dangerous.
Which leads me to my point. Do we want these people to do this stuff in real life, or would we rather they watch something that has already happened in the past? I am honestly not sure that if tomorrow some amazing technology came out and stopped every single download it would be a good thing rtheor not.
If your "needs" are satisfied through images that have already been made (yes it was horrific when it first happened), then that may stop you from offending in the real world. We are all well aware of the tragic cases where people feel the need to do this in real life, often ending up killing someone.
The desire to have retribution on these people is obvious, I feel it too. Stringing them up, cutting their ***** of etc may make us feel good, but does that really help? The chilling thought is that right now there will be some children in this country harbouring these thoughts. One day they will have grown up and will act on them. Would allowing some of them the imagery they clearly crave in a virtual nature stop them from actually seeking out a new victim in real life and harming them?
Until we become a society that has some test to identify these people at a young age, we have to come up with policies that will mitigate the risk they cause to the rest of the population.
Like I say, I am not looking for an argument, and I don't pretend to know the answer. I just worry that denying them the imagery they so desperately crave, may mean they go out onto the street and find some schoolgirl/boy
It sickens me that anyone can find this kind of thing a turn on. I could never want to watch it either in real life, or via download. However, you and I are not built like these people.
Each and every year that goes by more of these people are born. The vast majority, to my knowledge, simply don't choose to be built like this. They simply find themselves compelled into liking this sort of thing. Sex drive is a really power thing, and when that drive is misplaced it is very dangerous.
Which leads me to my point. Do we want these people to do this stuff in real life, or would we rather they watch something that has already happened in the past? I am honestly not sure that if tomorrow some amazing technology came out and stopped every single download it would be a good thing rtheor not.
If your "needs" are satisfied through images that have already been made (yes it was horrific when it first happened), then that may stop you from offending in the real world. We are all well aware of the tragic cases where people feel the need to do this in real life, often ending up killing someone.
The desire to have retribution on these people is obvious, I feel it too. Stringing them up, cutting their ***** of etc may make us feel good, but does that really help? The chilling thought is that right now there will be some children in this country harbouring these thoughts. One day they will have grown up and will act on them. Would allowing some of them the imagery they clearly crave in a virtual nature stop them from actually seeking out a new victim in real life and harming them?
Until we become a society that has some test to identify these people at a young age, we have to come up with policies that will mitigate the risk they cause to the rest of the population.
Like I say, I am not looking for an argument, and I don't pretend to know the answer. I just worry that denying them the imagery they so desperately crave, may mean they go out onto the street and find some schoolgirl/boy
The first one is that people are born with this complusion. It is as ridiculous as saying that we are Scooby drivers because we were born with this compulsion. What in God's name would happen if there were no Scooby's.
Or a predilection for burgers, or the colour yellow.
The need to become fulfilled through child pornography or abuse is a complex psychological journey that is shaped through life experience, not something we are born with. Langham clearly has formed an additive personality and sex addiction is one of his challenges.
I find your second point even more troubling. Do you not realise that the material being viewed is made to be sold? This means somewhere in the world a child is bought or abducted (Maddie?) to be sexually abused, tortured (either physically or psychologically) and then often killed.
So everytime someone uses their credit card they are paying for this to happen. It is not as if all the child abuse has been done and they only go to historical libraries.
As a parallel how many **** websites would survive without promoting - new material - new films/images/pictures.
There is no easy answer and assuming that letting these people have access will in some way salve the behaviours is quite a disturbing thought.
03 August 2007, 11:25 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonic - I think that is the case - but all images are classified on the scale mentioned in earlier posts and have to be viewed. Some of the forensic guys I used to work with had to do the same thing as the picture classification is submitted as evidence in any trial that takes place. Not a pleasant job
I believe most who do that job, can only do it for about a year due to the nature of the subject material
I can imagine that it is a very unpleasant job
03 August 2007, 11:27 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I am really glad people have read my post in the way it was intended. This is a sensitive subject, sometimes people take views the wrong way.
If what you say is true, then the present policy is the way to go. Its hard to tell if it is the case, I just don't know.
I just tried to put myself in their shoes for a minute *shudder*. I imagined a different world where it was considered an absolute abomination for a man to fancy a woman (of reasonable age). I tried to imagine a world where every image of a naked female was deeply illegal, and an actual act of pleasure in the real world carried a massive sentence. It would be a world of forced chastity for your entire life.
The temptation/desperation to "offend" in this world would be immense. Would virtual imagery stop you from going out and doing something for real? I dunno
Could it help, possibly.
Maybe there should be some sort of debate on this topic, but I fear that the country we live in is too PC/ people too emotive to have it. I just hope we are doing the right thing.
If what you say is true, then the present policy is the way to go. Its hard to tell if it is the case, I just don't know.
I just tried to put myself in their shoes for a minute *shudder*. I imagined a different world where it was considered an absolute abomination for a man to fancy a woman (of reasonable age). I tried to imagine a world where every image of a naked female was deeply illegal, and an actual act of pleasure in the real world carried a massive sentence. It would be a world of forced chastity for your entire life.
The temptation/desperation to "offend" in this world would be immense. Would virtual imagery stop you from going out and doing something for real? I dunno
Could it help, possibly. Maybe there should be some sort of debate on this topic, but I fear that the country we live in is too PC/ people too emotive to have it. I just hope we are doing the right thing.
I am not sure the solutions you propose would work, but certainly they should be explored.
It is no good locking up paedophiles out of sight an dmind. We need to understand the compulsion and the trigger factors to stop it from happening (if at all possible)
Great post by the way.
03 August 2007, 11:31 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure I agree with this. I think the fact is we don't know enough to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
There is an argument that Homosexual people are "born" that way. Doesn't it then equally stand that paedophiles could be too?
03 August 2007, 11:31 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see two key challenges with your comments.
The first one is that people are born with this complusion. It is as ridiculous as saying that we are Scooby drivers because we were born with this compulsion. What in God's name would happen if there were no Scooby's.
Or a predilection for burgers, or the colour yellow.
The need to become fulfilled through child pornography or abuse is a complex psychological journey that is shaped through life experience, not something we are born with. Langham clearly has formed an additive personality and sex addiction is one of his challenges.
I find your second point even more troubling. Do you not realise that the material being viewed is made to be sold? This means somewhere in the world a child is bought or abducted (Maddie?) to be sexually abused, tortured (either physically or psychologically) and then often killed.
So everytime someone uses their credit card they are paying for this to happen. It is not as if all the child abuse has been done and they only go to historical libraries.
As a parallel how many **** websites would survive without promoting - new material - new films/images/pictures.
There is no easy answer and assuming that letting these people have access will in some way salve the behaviours is quite a disturbing thought.
The first one is that people are born with this complusion. It is as ridiculous as saying that we are Scooby drivers because we were born with this compulsion. What in God's name would happen if there were no Scooby's.
Or a predilection for burgers, or the colour yellow.
The need to become fulfilled through child pornography or abuse is a complex psychological journey that is shaped through life experience, not something we are born with. Langham clearly has formed an additive personality and sex addiction is one of his challenges.
I find your second point even more troubling. Do you not realise that the material being viewed is made to be sold? This means somewhere in the world a child is bought or abducted (Maddie?) to be sexually abused, tortured (either physically or psychologically) and then often killed.
So everytime someone uses their credit card they are paying for this to happen. It is not as if all the child abuse has been done and they only go to historical libraries.
As a parallel how many **** websites would survive without promoting - new material - new films/images/pictures.
There is no easy answer and assuming that letting these people have access will in some way salve the behaviours is quite a disturbing thought.
1) There is still debate about how much of your behaviour is set at the time you are born. I don't think cars are a good comparison. Its the adrenaline kick I desire, I could get that in other ways.
I have friends who are twins. One is gay, the other is not. They both had the same upbringing, in the same school, doing the same after school activities. They did everything together (they were a bit sad), yet one is gay, the other not. Genetically they must be slightly different as I can tell them apart. The bone structure of their faces is just slightly different, perhaps there was some difference that made one gay, the other not?
2) If it was determined that the methods I talked about were helpful, the measures we use today would be needed to stop new images. There is no debate on new images, they are wrong in every way. Could they survive on a historical catalogue?...?No idea, but it was all I was thinking of offering.
03 August 2007, 11:32 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I am really glad people have read my post in the way it was intended. This is a sensitive subject, sometimes people take views the wrong way.
If what you say is true, then the present policy is the way to go. Its hard to tell if it is the case, I just don't know.
I just tried to put myself in their shoes for a minute *shudder*. I imagined a different world where it was considered an absolute abomination for a man to fancy a woman (of reasonable age). I tried to imagine a world where every image of a naked female was deeply illegal, and an actual act of pleasure in the real world carried a massive sentence. It would be a world of forced chastity for your entire life.
The temptation/desperation to "offend" in this world would be immense. Would virtual imagery stop you from going out and doing something for real? I dunno Could it help, possibly.
Maybe there should be some sort of debate on this topic, but I fear that the country we live in is too PC/ people too emotive to have it. I just hope we are doing the right thing.
If what you say is true, then the present policy is the way to go. Its hard to tell if it is the case, I just don't know.
I just tried to put myself in their shoes for a minute *shudder*. I imagined a different world where it was considered an absolute abomination for a man to fancy a woman (of reasonable age). I tried to imagine a world where every image of a naked female was deeply illegal, and an actual act of pleasure in the real world carried a massive sentence. It would be a world of forced chastity for your entire life.
The temptation/desperation to "offend" in this world would be immense. Would virtual imagery stop you from going out and doing something for real? I dunno
Could it help, possibly. Maybe there should be some sort of debate on this topic, but I fear that the country we live in is too PC/ people too emotive to have it. I just hope we are doing the right thing.
I would personally deal with the cause, the use of images is just an effect.
03 August 2007, 11:34 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In light of the sentences for other crimes (say 10-15 years for murder, for example) then 30 years for possessing some kiddie **** does seem harsh yes. It's not like he was abusing the kids himself.
03 August 2007, 11:37 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) Agreed, best solution as I touched on in my first post. How do you do that though? How can you tell a pedophile for sure before they offend? What do you do with them once you have your foolproof test?
03 August 2007, 11:50 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, pre-cogs would be great if we could find them.
No easy answers for this topic. I just wanted to debate it a little, and also make people think. So often we see the standard "burn them at the stake response". The guy we are talking about today, to our current knowledge, has resisted offending against people apart from in a virtual manner.
Its disgusting, but not nearly as bad as Ian Huntley (imo). Did the availability of those images stop him from going out and living his fantasies for real?
No easy answers for this topic. I just wanted to debate it a little, and also make people think. So often we see the standard "burn them at the stake response". The guy we are talking about today, to our current knowledge, has resisted offending against people apart from in a virtual manner.
Its disgusting, but not nearly as bad as Ian Huntley (imo). Did the availability of those images stop him from going out and living his fantasies for real?
03 August 2007, 12:00 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I think the whole concept of being incarcerated for a crime before you've committed it would be horrific.
I realize this whole area is an emotive subject, but I do think we should be trying to understand and help these people instead of locking them up. If it is a compulsion, how will locking them up for a few years help?
Seems to me that, for the average Daily Mail reader, kiddie **** is the modern equivalent of witchcraft with the resulting 'burn them at the stake', 'dunk them in water and if they die, then they're not paedophiles', etc.
I realize this whole area is an emotive subject, but I do think we should be trying to understand and help these people instead of locking them up. If it is a compulsion, how will locking them up for a few years help?
Seems to me that, for the average Daily Mail reader, kiddie **** is the modern equivalent of witchcraft with the resulting 'burn them at the stake', 'dunk them in water and if they die, then they're not paedophiles', etc.
03 August 2007, 12:25 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that although he said that he was abused as a child, which is pretty awful if it is true, does not give him the excuse for the sort of thing he was accused of. It looks like he was lucky not to be found guilty of indecent assault himself.
We have to assume he is guilty of those offences that he was said to be by the jury so despite the fact he is a very talented actor, I hope that does not reduce his sentence.
Les
We have to assume he is guilty of those offences that he was said to be by the jury so despite the fact he is a very talented actor, I hope that does not reduce his sentence.
Les
03 August 2007, 12:53 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange, it was also reported that his wife wasn't at court.
Some quite valid points luminous.
Anyhow, these crimes by Langham, I do concurr that it's a strange society we live in where someone simply viewing several images could spend more time in jail than others who actually commit very serious assaults and the like.
I in no way condone paedophilia, however offences (vast majority viewing pictures) do seem to be widespread. I'm wondering if this is a throwback to natural traits in MAN itself. Wasn't the age of consent lower in this country years ago? There weren't any at some point. Most laws we have are based on some moral judgement, or a judgement from someone, they are not natural laws but moral laws.
I am not going to join a bandwagon in saying Langham is a sicko etc etc etc, nor would I want the guy to get 10 years (which is the maximum he could get). I'd say the bloke has learnt his lesson thoroughly with the ruining of his reputation and probably any further job suspects. Let the guy out and give his cell to those that swindle tens of thousands out of pensioners or people who have committed violent crime.
Out of a community of 70k on here there are probably a fair few on here that have seen similar images.
Some quite valid points luminous.
Anyhow, these crimes by Langham, I do concurr that it's a strange society we live in where someone simply viewing several images could spend more time in jail than others who actually commit very serious assaults and the like.
I in no way condone paedophilia, however offences (vast majority viewing pictures) do seem to be widespread. I'm wondering if this is a throwback to natural traits in MAN itself. Wasn't the age of consent lower in this country years ago? There weren't any at some point. Most laws we have are based on some moral judgement, or a judgement from someone, they are not natural laws but moral laws.
I am not going to join a bandwagon in saying Langham is a sicko etc etc etc, nor would I want the guy to get 10 years (which is the maximum he could get). I'd say the bloke has learnt his lesson thoroughly with the ruining of his reputation and probably any further job suspects. Let the guy out and give his cell to those that swindle tens of thousands out of pensioners or people who have committed violent crime.
Out of a community of 70k on here there are probably a fair few on here that have seen similar images.
03 August 2007, 12:59 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I'd say marketers who flood the media with soft **** of kids, and sell pink thongs and the like to 5 year old are far deserving a cell than Langham.
03 August 2007, 01:00 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luminous,
I kind of see some of your arguement about if people are looking at imagery from the past then they may not go out and do it. I guess if this could be proven then it would be an avenue to look at.
The main problem is with anything sex related it becomes part of an industry where people are out to make as much money as possible. Not having any experience in this field like most on here. I could only assume that images and videos would be continued to be made and sold on. It's a horrific thought that there may almost be a abuse production line out there with a handful of 'professional' perverts abducting children, abusing them and selling the videos for the sole purpose of satisfying their greed for nothing more than money.
This abuse must be stamped out whichever way as the victims of this abuse carry it with them for life, which in some cases is short due to suicide or murder.
I kind of see some of your arguement about if people are looking at imagery from the past then they may not go out and do it. I guess if this could be proven then it would be an avenue to look at.
The main problem is with anything sex related it becomes part of an industry where people are out to make as much money as possible. Not having any experience in this field like most on here. I could only assume that images and videos would be continued to be made and sold on. It's a horrific thought that there may almost be a abuse production line out there with a handful of 'professional' perverts abducting children, abusing them and selling the videos for the sole purpose of satisfying their greed for nothing more than money.
This abuse must be stamped out whichever way as the victims of this abuse carry it with them for life, which in some cases is short due to suicide or murder.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Justme103
Other Marques
31
28 November 2015 10:35 PM