If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Bullshit...anybody who looks at child porn is more of a risk to society than a fucking graffiti writer. Regardless, of whether they actuallyabuses a child or not.
I struggle to understand how you can compare the two. Its just fucking ridiculous.
I quite agree it is ridiculous.
Perhaps you should tell that to ShyBoy, who dragged it up in the first place...
I would rather someone do £25,000 worth of criminal damage every single night, rather than run the risk that one day someone like Langham might decide photos aren't enough anymore.
If you really think that, your a fucking idiot.
For any taggers out there with some "talent" that needs to be "expressed", go and do it over this knucklehead's windows rather than a commuter train. Because tagging isn't vandalism at all, it's "art".
i reckon you should have your limbs cut off for spouting such shite :rolleyes:
Avoiding the point then yeh.
What on earth are you on about?
You are a wanker. :mad:
I'm all for rehabilitation in some cases, but some of you place too much emphasis on carrot and not enough on stick.
The only way they should be let out is if we adopt a system similar to ones in other European countries. They buy themselves out of prison, they hand over the £13,000 straight away and they are released.
their appeal has been accepted! new release dates!!...whits is november 11th and tj's is early december!!!
Posted today.
If it's true I'm glad to hear it.
Kermit, I don't know if you're saying that just to shock / be controversial, but you can't say 'tagging' is worse than possessing child pornography?
I wasn't comparing them on their seriousness, but on 'instict' that law should follow. Nothing 'feels' worse in society than the abuse and hurt of children, which is why crimes that encourage this should be extremely harshly punished.
Law isn't supposed to be a foreign language or a tool for the powers that be to coerce it's population, it should be there to support what's naturally right - which most of us just by being human beings can understand. Don't vandalise other people's property is one of these, which is why they should be punished. But it's the severity of the punishment that counts. That it entails a punishment more severe typically than if they had downloaded child pornography (and chris langham who received a 5 months custodial sentence had the 'most extreme' degree, which includes penetration of toddlers - even if he claims it was for research), or if they had attacked someone in the street.
And although I don't work with offenders, or miscreants, as Whowhere does, I think it's a shame as he is at the forefront of preventing crime that he appears (I may be wrong) to believe a harsh custodial punishment is what's fitting, regardless of what happens after that.
Why do people commit these crimes? What can we do to stop them?
The answer to the first is generally assumed to be circumstances i.e. lack of education, and the second is therefore to improve peoples circumstances.
These two however seem to be from middle class backgrounds, and both reasonably educated. Maybe they need to express themselves, and have no other medium of doing so?
Whilst it's easy enough to say 'so what, they shouldn't vandalize', there's also the argument that a society should give it's citizens the opportunity to have a voice to express themselves. Maybe they do it just because their bored, but even that's saying something. But I genuinely think a lot of people just don't care about other people these days, only their own circumstance and whether their quality of life will be affected because someone scribbled over the side of a train they pass for 1/2 a second on their daily commute.
eta:
Also, although they did offer to repay the costs, the cost of taking them to court and charging them far surpassed any damage they did. It doesn't make sense any way I think about it. Having just now looked at some of their 'work', whether it's legal or not they have talent.
edit again: BTP - "The fact that these two individuals received custodial sentences reflects how seriously the courts view graffiti damage and should serve as a deterrent for any potential offenders." - so he concedes that they were made an example of (though he doesn't sentence them)
I'm sorry but that is just crap. You know it, don't you?
"No voice to express themselves?"
In the immortal words of Mr Monty Python - Fuck off
Maybe they do it because they think that no-one will give a shit, that some numpty will say that it's "art" and that they are "expressing themselves".
Maybe because no-one has pointed out that damaging someone else's property is just plain wrong FFS.
Yeah, because these two scrotes really cared about someone else, didn;t they? They really have been interested in the financial implications of vadalism on other people. It's not that it's crap to look at, it's that people's ticket prices/taxes etc are higher because of acts like this.
It's because it says some much about the callous attitude these two had towards other people's property. It's precisely vbecause this is a perfect example of something you said:
"people just don't care about other people these days"
Well, that's your opinion isn't it? I think everyone should be encouraged to do something they love doing in a legal way. I'm not condoning their actions but certainly there is a lot of negative prejudice against them because people don't like 'taggers'.
No need to swear at me either.
We could both speculate really, but that's going to end up going round in circles. I'm not arguing that they were justified in their vandalism - I said that loads of times (unless you missed it). I said that the penalty did not match the crime - which we can compare to other crimes that are more serious, which don't get as harsh penalty's. You argued earlier that maybe then the issue was that all penalties are too lenient. I said that perhaps this was because the British legal system acknowledges custodial sentences do more harm than good for society on the whole, and evidence from America where custodial sentences are much more common supports this.
Which is why they should be punished, proportionately. As for not caring, it seems from the sources I've read that they're both involved in youth work etc. and partly because of their high profile with young people is why they've been given such harsh penalties.
Look at other cases of taggers (which, I repeat, I don't agree with), and they'll be getting a harsh penalty if they get any time in prison at all. I'm not arguing what they did was right, but it's completely about the size of the crime and the size of the punishment. When would you feel personally they were being punished more than they should be? 15 years? Life imprisonment?
And yuo don't think that there are plenty of ways in which someone can exercise their artistic expressions in a perfectly legals way?
Suck as, oh I don't know, on canvas eprhaps?
Possibly because "taggers" are vandals?
And you are condoning their actions when you find excuses for them.
Just exercising my expressionist side
And that is where we will differ then. You compare downwards, because x was a lenient sentence then y must be too. I say that neither should be lenient and that is where the pressure should be brought.
Not strictly true though is it.
How that custodial sentence is managed is the key.
I think that the original sentence was about right.
You can either take a soft approach or you can take a harsh one - guess which is likely to send the "this is not acceptable" message.
I prefer, as a general rule, the carrot approach. I'd much prefer to see motivation rather than punishment. In this instance, from the information we have, it appears to be wanton - people who just don't give a shit about anyone else or their property. This isn't about poor education, disaffected youth or lack of opportunity to express yourself. In those circumstances we should be harsh, IMHO.
They should be forced to clean a lot of it up and pay for the rest of the damage done.
Indeed.
So why lock up Langham (NB I do not subscribe to Kermit's point) or indeed any other criminal...?
.. as well as serving time.
Because being a potential danger to children is significantly more worrying than being a potential danger to a train?
Oh fuck off. The very fact you're mentioning Langham shows you are at least on some level, accepting Kermits view. If you can't see the difference between two kids spraying paint on a few trains and possessing child pornography or a murderer then you're a twat.
Well, I think cleaning up the mess I made would actually make me understand what a shitty job it is and that someone else has to do it and would make me not want to do it in the future.
Putting them inside won't change a bit, probably just make them more cautious in the future and what the choose to tag.
1. The argument was that prinson achieves nothing and costs us money
2. Why should we lock someone up for the potential danger they represent
3. How is Lagham a danger to children wehn he looks at pictures which someone else took. The person taking the picture is the danger to children.
Erm not really.
It might, however, show that I can draw a connection to other parts of a thread...
Thankfully I can see the difference.
If you cannot see that a comment like "What's prison going to do? It costs money to the tax payer as well to keep them in there" opens up the door to me asking about the effect of prison generally, then you are a bigger twat.
Which is why I said "as well as".
And your argument was that their vandalism hikes up train tickets. I was just saying putting them in prison would be even more of a burdern to the everyday man.
Eh, think about it...if they're potentially dangerous then they're susseptible to carry out dangerous acts.
Because he's morally responsible for the pics.
It achieves nothing for a vandal. It keeps people like Langham away from children.
Because otherwise children are at risk.
Langham is obviously not a direct threat to the children in the pictures but he obviously is to children in general. He obviously has a sexual interest in children....which IMO puts children around him in potential danger.
I also pointed out that the complete lack on consideration for other people's property was a major factor in my comment.
We all have such potential.
How so? His act is after the fact. He didn;t order up the pictures. Someone had already taken them, the crime of abuse had already taken place.
It's [almost] like you being locked up for seeing footage of a murder.
ETA:
Until he is released. What has it actually done for him?
Children are still at risk today and he's inside.
Even though he was not convicted of direct child abuse...?
Oh God, sounds like some sort of hippie on an acid trip. A person who has been caught with child pornography is potentially more dangerous to children than someone who hasn't. It's simple logic.
The fact that he choose to view these images makes him almost as bad as the person who took them, it's a moral thing. Do you really think the child in those pictures would appreciate hundreds of men viewing the picture, thus further degrading her? No, don't think so.
Not even close mate. Must think harder.
We all have potential to shoot each other in the face, but if your found with a gun pointing it at somebody's head IMO you are more likely to do this. Same with child porn somebody who has somesort of sick interest in looking at sexual pictures of kids has more chance of abusing IMO.
No it's not :rolleyes:
Obviously, surely minimising the risk to children as much as possible is important here tho ?
Even though.
Also false logic. Only difference is that they have been caught.
Their potential to commit a crime is no greater than someone who is yet to be caught.
No, I don't think that the person in the picture will appreciate a reminder of possibly the worst moment of their life.
Does that make Langham "morally" responsible for the picture being taken? No.
Why not close? A picture of a crime was taken, Langham viewed it. he goes down. How is that different from you viewing a picture of murder happening...
I think that know the answer, I'm just trying to get past your emotive responses...
Even if the gun isn't loaded or the reality is that I have no intention of pulling the trigger?
The greatest risk to children, in this regard, are family members. Not someone who has viewed images.
You think this minimises the risk to children around the world?
And how exactly does this relate to everyone having potential? You're not making much sense.
The fact that he has viewed these pictures means that he endorses their taking and publication and makes him morally responsible for them. It also makes him a threat to children which has been mentioned already and thus merits a sentence inside.
Because viewing a photo of a murder doesn't implicate you into an industry of exploitation of others or make you a risk to other people. You don't half talk some shite sometimes you know that?
Your now just being awkward. Would you want him around your kids? If not why not ?
Of course not, I never said anything of the sort. But if locking him away saves just one child its obviously worth it.