Quote: zooo @ September 15, 2007, 12:53 AM

Chris Langham got 10 months
But hopefully he'll be out in five.

View original

Why?

Quote: zooo @ September 15, 2007, 12:53 AM

Not wanting to start any more debates about stuff and things, just saying, I feel sorry for him, still quite like him.

View original

Why?

The guy gets off on acts of degradation on children and yet somehow that's all fine and dandy. I accept that everyone has an opinion but in this case I just can't understand a sympathetic view extended to a man who likes to see children get raped and worse. I just don’t understand it at all.

I agree with Baumski.

Anyone who looks at these vile images is a monster. His defence was research. Hmmmmmm! What research. Wanking research. (Harsh but true)
.
Then he broke down during cross examination & done a remarkable performance playing an abused child himself. Which I must add, had not come out before that time.

The question has to be not why he looked at these vile disgusting & torturous images, but that he did.

He should rot in Jail. IMO.

I could make a Chris Langhem joke here but that would be immature and hence he might try to touch me (lol i used hence in a joke)

Quote: Baumski @ September 15, 2007, 11:49 AM

The guy gets off on acts of degradation on children and yet somehow that's all fine and dandy. I accept that everyone has an opinion but in this case I just can't understand a sympathetic view extended to a man who likes to see children get raped and worse. I just don’t understand it at all.

View original

Does he though? I watched the thing with Paul Whitehouse (senile old git - forgotten the title again) and thought it was funny. Could it not have been research for that?

Quote: Charley @ September 15, 2007, 3:42 PM

Then he broke down during cross examination & done a remarkable performance playing an abused child himself. Which I must add, had not come out before that time.

View original

You have got a point there tough Charley.

I really don't know what to make of it all although he is an actor.

What research would warrant paying for (Therefore encouraging) child abuse. Had it been for him acting a part, then he could have drawn from his new own child abuse experience.
There is a ton of info on the effects that follow such a traumatic experience. Obviously images that would shock, give you nightmares & encourage more degradation, IMO are absolutely NOT necessary.
Monsters come in all shapes & sizes. Even the funny, talented & respected.

I'm with zooo on this one. The people who "deserve to rot in jail", Charley, are only those who actually engage in the acts themselves, first-person, physically.

Quote: Aaron @ September 16, 2007, 1:37 AM

I'm with zooo on this one. The people who "deserve to rot in jail", Charley, are only those who actually engage in the acts themselves, first-person, physically.

View original

Ahhhhhhh right. So the person who pays to watch the act, which is being engaged as a point of profit, does not deserve to rot in jail.
You only ever get statements like that from a non parent. If perverts (& this is what this guy is), did not sit at their desk getting off on these vile images, then these images would not be profitable.
How would you feel if those images were of your sister or brother?
I bet it would be entirely different.
Lots of pedo's start off with looking at these images before they go off and commit the physical act. It is illegal to look at child porn for a reason Aaron. That reason is that it is SICK. There is nothing else to add to that. Based on his warped need to see children being raped he DOES deserve to rot in Jail. I will be surprised if there is a parent on here that does not agree with me.

Quote: Aaron @ September 16, 2007, 1:37 AM

I'm with zooo on this one. The people who "deserve to rot in jail", Charley, are only those who actually engage in the acts themselves, first-person, physically.

View original

Yeah - but they drive the demand don't they.

I'm not saying if hes guilty or inncocent - but if no-one wanted to see images of 3 year old kids getting screwed physically and mentally ther would be no demand for filming it.

Next it will be the guy/woman who drags the kids off to be abused does not deserve to rot in Jail, because they didnt physically touch the child. Or the guy who held the camera, cause not a finger he layed on the child.

If you are attracted to children, you cannot be cured of it. You have it. There will come a point when images are not enough. The whole lot of them should be lined up & shot. Slowly......They are all sickos, regardless of how deep or shallow they dabble.

bring back capital punishment! oh, wait a mo, sorry.. BRING BACK CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!

There shouldn't be ANY sympathy for Langham, the sympathy should be for the poor kids in the images that Langham was looking at! Surely?

Quote: Charley @ September 16, 2007, 1:59 AM

You only ever get statements like that from a non parent.

View original

I can assure you that I will never change that opinion.

You can never say that!

Quote: David Chapman @ September 16, 2007, 2:18 AM

Yeah - but they drive the demand don't they.

I'm not saying if hes guilty or inncocent - but if no-one wanted to see images of 3 year old kids getting screwed physically and mentally ther would be no demand for filming it.

View original

Very true. I'm not trying to defend actually looking at such movies or photos (although I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as partaking in the act oneself). My point is just that being attracted to children isn't something we should be negative about. People can't help it. At the end of the day, it's just a fetish, no different from some people who like being tied up, or from people who like 'scat' or anything else. Things which would have been frowned upon in previous years in the same way people think of being attracted to children now. Just think that it's only in the past 50 years that it's not been at risk of a life sentence for two men to kiss. People are increasingly liberal in regards to sexual preferences, fetishes and the like. I don't think people will ever be ok with actually engaging in paedophilic activities, and rightly so, but being attracted to kids? Yes. It'll be more tolerated.

Look at where it starts - the abuse of a child. Anyone who buys into that is condoning it. Jail is too good for them. There are plenty of ways he could have carried out his research without being involved. He could have got information from a number of charities and even given them a hefty donation to help the victims. They would have been more than willing to help him with his own problems.

Very well put Loop.

It is mainly our over-liberal politicians and (some) judges who are getting more tolorant to underage sexual activity. Most parents would agree with Charley I reckon.