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
Potential doesn't increase because of a past act. Our "awareness" of someone's potential is what changed.
It's simple. Reading the newpapers you would think that there is a paedophile on every street corner just waiting to snatch our kids, you'd think that anyone wearing a hoodie is going to mug you etc. Not true.
However, the impact of those stories is that people live in greater fear.
So the risk hasn't increased, just perceptions of risk.
It means nothing of the sort. It means that he [possibly] got a kick from viewing them. Not endorsing how they were made, not endoorsing the act of making them. Just the still image which followed.
The threat to the child is the person committing the act of abuse. That would happen with or without the camera being there.
There is no evidence that Langham would have abused a child and therefore he doesn't represent a risk to children in that way.
Again, how does viewing a picture make you a risk to someone else?
And how does a short jail sentence reduce that risk - the original point...
Why wouldn't I, anymore than anyone else in the street?
Erm... "surely minimising the risk to children"
The salient word be "if"... the whole point of the tangent.
Scrote argued that sending down two vandals achieves nothing because [to paraphrase] prison doesn;t work. I'm asking, if it doesn't work then why have it at all...?
Seriously mate, your talkin utter shite now.
I was hardly saying it would save every single child in the world now was I ?
Why am I? because I have a sense of reality, because I know that there are huge numbers of risks which my children face every day and that paedophilia is possibly one of the lowest, because I know that children are more at risk from paedophilia through a member of my family than anyone else they will come across in their lives...?
The utter shite is being talked by someone who thinks that looking at images means that you will abuse children given the chance.
Neither did I. I asked if children around the were safer because Langham will spend a few months inside.
The answer is, quite simply, no they aren't.
Greater potential. Potential.
Don't put words in my mouth.
:rolleyes:
Complete and utter bollocks. So you're saying me and you and Chris Langham have the exact same potential to abuse children? Balls.
I
Actually, to have viewed this pictures (and to be traced) he would have to sign up to the site and give a certain amount of money a month to the distributor to view the pics. So he would actually have given money to the persons taking this pics and funded further exploitation of children.
Really? He's not a risk to children, great lets release all people who have been arrested for possessing images of children because they're not really a threat, they only looked at the pics. You know how ridiculous that sounds?
See above.
Ya what now?
Okay, you argue that looking at images increases the "potential" that you will commit the act which you have seen.
So, killed anyone lately?
Now you're just being obtuse.
You know what you're actually arguing for here?
Its obviously dependent on the subject. Going and actively looking for / paying for child porn is completely different.
:rolleyes:
This is going nowhere tbh.
Maybe balls to you, but show me evidence to support that he is a risk to children, directly...
So the person doing the abuse wouldn't abuse children anyway? They aren't getting the kicks themselves but are just in it for the money?
It sounds like the police go for the easy target.
Stop the abuse and you a) erm... stop the child being abused and b) stop the images being made.
I'd say that a) was the real objective, wouldn't you?
Jeez, it was your point.
If prison doesn't work, then why imprison anyone - even those who commit emotive crimes like viewing pictures of child abuse. It won't stop them from doing it again so what have you actually achieved?
Yes and it's not what you think I'm arguing for.
Do you know what you are arguing for?
You are arguing that putting someone in prison prevents them from committing further acts and protects those harmed by their actions. Kind of like putting vandals inside will prevent them from vandalising something else and protects the property of their victims.
You are also arguing that because someone has been convicted of a crime they, automatically, carry an increased risk of committing another and therefore this is another reason why they should be inside. This is a very dangerous step to take. It can be argued that we all have potential to commit crimes. The point of our law and order system is that we wait for the crime to happen before punishing someone - we don't punish them for something which they might do...
Evidence? You gotta be kidding me, it's there to see. He knowingly went onto a child porno site and downloaded images of a child. I don't know what that says to you, but to me, it shows that he enjoys looking at the exploitation of children and suggests he's a threat to children.
No, but he is funding the exploitation of child abuse.
I was talking about the train taggers, the damage they done is easily solved. I.e. get a bit of elbow grease and clean it all up or pay a fine to help the cleaning of it. What's Langham going to do, go around and say sorry to the little girl? Get real.
It says to me that there is no other way of getting these pictures...
Like I said, the abuse will happen without the post act exploitation.
If you looked at pictures of the tagged item, doesn that make you as guilty of the act itself? Even if you pay to view them?
Nothing Langham ever does with change what happened to those children.
The fact that neither you nor I have even looked at those images will, either.
IMHO it makes someone like Langham less of a danger to society than someone who is prepared to go on a £25,000 rampage of destruction because he is "bored"
It's kind of difficult to apologise for something which you didn't actually do, isn't it?
I think he was referring to the part of Kermit's post he did not agree with.
Though it's not the same argument we started out as - someone who downloads and watches child pornography is continuing the exploitation of children. It might happen anyway, it might not so much though. To think - someone films themselves abusing probably a family member, then distributes it over the internet must get some kind of sick kick out of other people watching.
Nobody watches, well, they might still do it. But we could all hope a little less. Otherwise, why should any videos of any abuse be banned? The act has happened as you argue, watching will make no difference?
Anyway, back to the original point of the thread. MoK, you think prison sentences are too lenient? Ok, I concede there is a punishment aspect - make people pay what they deserve. Cant do the time dont do they crime, etc. However, besides this, what good does it do for society, which includes the victims, the perpetrator, the taxpayer and the community by locking people up for longer.
Prison doesn't tend to reform people. Theres the cost to the taxpayer of footing the bill. The victim might get some compensation from the criminal compensation thing - but probably will be worse off than the con in reality.
Having said that, extremely serious crimes such as murder, rape, sexual abuse need custodial sentences as it is the most severe sentence you can have and it sends out the right message. But vandalism is a much less severe kind of crime, along with being drunk and disorderly, theft etc. Whilst they're all still very wrong, I think we'd prefer to have our TV nicked than any of our families or ourselves hurt or worse.
Which is why the legal system should, in sentencing, show a distinction. But for petty thieves and vandals are serious custodial sentences for significant lengths of time necessary? 16 weeks, fine. 6 months even. But 15 months? You'd expect that for an assault / ABH / GBH charge.
Wrong wrong wrong.
All the police need to do is obtain the data from the server which lists every single IP address that has been used to visit the site. Langham got caught because he used his own computer.
I love all this talk that these taggers must have been expressing themselves, or making a political statement, or that they're misunderstood, or they've had a broken home e.t.c e.t.c. e.t.c bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.
They are little fucking vandals, they are similar to Langham in that they don't give a shit about anyone else and have little regard for the rules/laws of society. I'm glad they got prison time, I hope they are made to clean up the damage as well, although that would be too much to ask.
I think people are excusing them because it was a train and not their own house so it doesn't matter. If some little scrote tagged your windows or pulled your fence down, I bet you wouldn't be bleating on about their misunderstood political underpinnings.
There's also a large underlying theme that these idiots are doing it because they have nothing else to do. Bollocks for 2 reasons.
1. THEY ARE 19 AND 20. Why aren't they acting like adults?
2.I had fuck all to do when I was younger, I didn't have a youth club, I didn't have a parade of shops or a cinema nearby. Me and my friends played football, we rode around on our bikes, we tried unsuccessfully to get into bars in the city and pick up chicks. I certainly had less to do than kids nowadays.
But surely if someone commits a crime, then they are more like to commit a similar crime if they are released? Arthur Shawcross, anyone?
No, you are the one who is WRONG.
He was arrested because he used his credit card to pay for the porn!
Have you got even ONE piece of news where someone has been done based on their IP address?
The police rarely bother, it would be a massive job, then locating the individuals, then proving which actual individual was using the machine at said time. Proving no one was tarting on the connection, wireless hackers etc.
Get your facts straight :rolleyes:
So how did he access the pictures then? You seriously telling me I could go on the net now and search child porn pics without having to sign up to some site first?
Aw, how cute. :yeees: You know, there are children today who have nothing to do and do the things you mentioned above, stop with all this shite.
No he never, it was through his credit card.
Obviously having no regard for the "rules/laws of society" trying to get into bars underage then. :rolleyes:
I think the individual case is quite different from the general impression people will have if they don't think about it. Yobbo vandals drinking white lightning or something equally vile, setting fire to bins, being noisy, tagging all over the place.
In this case, it turns out they weren't drunk, weren't 'bored' or mouthing off, but wanted to do something creative (if you look at what they've done before, it's not mindless). Very wrong place to do it certainly and they should be punished for damaging someones property. But like I've been arguing all through this thread, there is a distinction between mindless vandalism where people will kick in windows, set fire to things and just scribble their initials on anything, to trying to do something creative on someone elses property.
So, should all criminals be locked up for life on the basis of their "potential" to commit further crime in the future?
I think that some sentences are too lenient, some are too harsh.
In this instance you have a couple of kids, with no regard/respect who thought that they could draw all over someone else's property. When my kids were toddlers they'd get a few "stair" minutes/slap legs for doing that. When you are in your teens that's a little wasted, non?
It's very easy to make excuses for their actions, to condone them or to see them as some kind of martyrs to a cause. They aren't. This wasn't a case of being unable to express themselves, nor being uneducated, nor poor. They are petty criminals and sometimes, just sometimes, a short harsh shock right now will be a preventative as any other scheme. Sure they could be made to clean it up or pay for damages at a couple of quid per week but that really won't offer us anything either. It will just teach them that the justice system is lenient.
You mean the current system doesn't. When you consider that the greatest section of the prison population, who reoffend, are those on drugs then it could be argued that this is where we fail, not in the concept of imprisonment.
So let's look at that 15 month figure. 7 months after earlier release for behaviour, so is that too long?
I'm so glad that you don't run the justice system. Hell I;m being accused to being harsh but I wouldn't dream of putting someone inside, or keep someone inside, purely on the basis of what they might do.
For the greater good [which is a paraphrase of "the public's safety is more important"] is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Toddlers don't have the same level of understanding as teenagers. Besides, you can't exactly compare toddlers who scribble over someone's walls to teenagers who graffiti public places, can you?
I'm not saying keep every single person who commits a crime in prison - I just mean the danergous ones.