-
Posts
-
something just struck me Doa, how do you know this??
QUOTE FROM DOA “I know a lot of broadband companies ban them (child po/rn sites) and do not allow access to them”END QUOTE
:shock:@dead_on_arrvial wrote:
Ok in simple terms for you.
Someone goes in tescos and steels a tin of beans, are they going to become bank robbers?
Do you think someone who steals a tin of beans should get the same punishment; has someone who goes into a bank with gun?
There a big different between someone who “views” child p o r n and those who make it. There a big different between someone who rapes a child, then kills them.
But reading your posts, it seems anyone who views or has BAD thoughts about children should be lock up for good.
The world is grey, not black and white.
Nonononononononon no no no no no no no.
NO. The only subject for debate in this thread is the sentance.
@forumhostpb wrote:
I read this case with some (small) interst. The defence he ran was largely bollocks and based on his unsupported statements that he was only doing research for a TV series.
The ‘witnesses’ that he called to corroborate this all failed to do so – thus underlining the falsity of his excuses.
Yes he is a nasty old pervert and yes he really should have been given a far more severe sentence. I hope that he likes sodomy ‘cos he’ll be on the receiving end of lots of it in jail.
At least his career as a comedian/entertainer is now over and we won’t have to see his disgusting paedophile face ever again.
Sadly he’ll almost certainly be offered Rule 45 and end up in the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit :twisted:
Ooooooo Anita…………
I have time, so I will tell you a story from the past.
About 20 years ago.
They’re where two girls under the age of 10 years old raped and murder in Brighton.
The local police had a suspect and took him to court and he was found not guilty.
About 10 years ago, this man ask me for a job has labour, he pass our police checks and there seem no problem with him on paper.
But one of my staff recognise him and refused to work with him. So we didn’t employ him.
I still think about it now.
You could say I put my business first, after all he had done thing wrong and there was no reason not to employ him.
The mere suspicion of being a paedophile can and does ruin people’s lives.
@dead_on_arrvial wrote:
Ooooooo Anita…………
I have time, so I will tell you a story from the past.
About 20 years ago.
They’re where two girls under the age of 10 years old raped and murder in Brighton.
The local police had a suspect and took him to court and he was found not guilty.
About 10 years ago, this man ask me for a job has labour, he pass our police checks and there seem no problem with him on paper.
But one of my staff recognise him and refused to work with him. So we didn’t employ him.
I still think about it now.
You could say I put my business first, after all he had done thing wrong and there was no reason not to employ him.
The mere suspicion of being a paedophile can and does ruin people’s lives.
But in Chris Langhams case, there is no suspicion, its FACT. He was caught red handed. Big difference. If it ruins his life, so be it, he didnt care about the lives of those children being ruined when watched them being abused, why should anyone care about his?
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
You might say that viewing the images is not as punishable as actually committing the offence but Paedophiles viewing images creates a demand which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.
Well you COULD say that, but you could also say that apples are purple with pink stripes and that the moon is made out of lego but they wouldnt be true either
Do you REALLY think that a paedophile is created merely because theres a demand for viewing such tripe? That a non perverted hetrosexual realises that people want to watch kids being molested and THAT “makes” them become a paedo? Do you?
That arguement holds water with crimes such as receiving stolen goods, but is as water retentive as a sieve where crimes like this are the topic
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
There is no excuse for downloading and viewing images of child sex abuse
Well no “excuse” as such, on that I agree, but I also would wonder how many people who are for whatever reason turned on by this kind of stuff can get all the kicks they require from such files meaning they wont then actively add to the amount of people actually physically molesting?
Its perhaps a similar arguement to ones based around the fact that the countries with the most stringent anti prostitution laws have the highest amounts of rapes and the ones with the more lapse ones or legalised prosititution tend to have the lowest amount of rapes
We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard and often impossible so perhaps the law might be more effectively frozen for lets say offences involving over 12’s and toughened and more focused on concerning younger kids as they are not only the ones more traumatised but are also the ones who are more vulnerable and are more easily intimidated into silence.[/quote]
@~Pebbles~ wrote:
I read somewhere that he was actually abused as a child himself, its often the case that abused people go on to abuse themselves.
So youre saying he is actually a victim rather than a perpetrator then?
We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard
Yep. Specially when people like you make it so easy to access piccys of kiddys with disgusting posts about there pictures. What a battle.
I wonder how many paedo’s have joined/viewed this site since your post after googling the disgusting words.
Im fearful of posting anything. You have brought SHAME on this site.
In peoples minds there no different between the two.
The suspicion is always there.
In case Chris Langham his life is over for what the law see has a minor crime.
There are worst cases such has people sexily abusing adults with a menial age of 8 or 9 who are not cover by the current law, but I feel they should be.
I know a lot of broadband companies ban them (child po/rn sites) and do not allow access to them
Pebbels did your read your broadband contract or just go for the free “dancing frog”?
It’s in the small print Pebbels under “Access to unacceptable material”
@sharongooner wrote:
We will never remove such an urge within people and detecting them before they act on the impulse is hard
Yep. Specially when people like you make it so easy to access piccys of kiddys with disgusting posts about there pictures. What a battle.
I wonder how many paedo’s have joined/viewed this site since your post after googling the disgusting words.
Im fearful of posting anything. You have brought SHAME on this site.
LOL, blah blah blah, yaaaaaaawn
Actually, the pic was courtesy of sky news, so perhaps you should tootle off and have a menopausal hissy fit at them too eh for showing such “filth” lol?
But if you actually bothered to get yer facts right, the actual “disgustingness” was in the minds of the people who decided how they were going to read the post rather than in what was written so IF you thought it was “disgusting” then shame on you for having such a filthy perverted mind lol, coz womeone without one would have seen nothing more than was actually there no matter how many openly worded paths of thought were put there to see which way their mind nudged them
But I could only be bothered to put two paths and seemingly that was more than enough for the darker recessed of your mind to decide what it was looking at lol
yawn yawn yawn bla bla bla.
They were your words not mine.
Very bored with this now but you seem to feel the need to defend it at every opportunity.
yawn yawn yawn bla bla bla.
ps. Im pissed off with having to scroll down so many pages when people quote your posts for replies… can you just stick to facts rather than bullshit.
Everybody else seems to manage
yawn yawn yawn
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!