Paedophilia

[sweet~teen]

This is a question that I have often wandered the answer to. Firstly I'd like to say I'm an 18 year old female and am not remotely sexually attracted to children! Now to my question. If someone has been found to have child pornography on their computer do they automatically get arrested? I ask this because I am sure there are plenty of people who are not paedophiles but for purely curiosity sake look up indecent images.They are not sexually aroused by these images and are infact repulsed but they did it for curiosity.Surely you can't call them paeodophiles? Sick it is but not paedophilic behaviour. The case of Chris Langham brought this question to my mind.He has ben arrested for having child porn on his computer and yet he has never abused a child.Maybe he was just curious?

[bensmum]

whiffey - I know what you are getting at here and sad to say there will always be that element in society who go for mob rule (particularly if they can't spell paedophile!) and there have always been gross miscarriages of justice (as in the Derek Bently case).
But I have to say that there should be very much stiffer penalties for the people who supply the pornography. It hurts me to think of what those poor children are suffering so that some sicko can get his kicks. And anyone who looks at it knows what they are doing.
I don't think that a group of youngsters looking at it once out of curiosity makes them paedophiles - just very misguided but didn't Chris Lanham download rather a lot for "research"

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, not sure if you know sweet teen, but this langham guy had grade 5 porn on his computer (sorry link lovers no links ). That is the highest grade you can get.
Just because he may not yet have messed with kids, his intention is there.
Its like a muslim downloading a 'How to make a bomb' and saying that he just wanted to read it and see how its made...

[carrust]

It's a bit disturbing that there's an advert on the first page of this thread for photo's of cute girls.

[dot.hawkes]

bensmum are you MrBen's Mum?

[dot.hawkes]

and my next question, somewhat more confrontational,

sweet curly thing teen, what brought you to this site to register as a greenie and ask such a sweet question at such a young age? and how are the twins?

[MrBen5]

I think i need a mum on here :(

[bensmum]

Hi dot - no relation to Mr Ben, just a coincidence!

[jno]

you're right, sweet teen. Paedophilia is more of a medical condition than a crime. It's not an offence to be a paedophile; the offences relate to specific activities such as molesting a child or making an image (eg downloading one from the internet).

And yes, it's possible to look at such porn without being a paedophile. Obviously, nobody giving the fieriest answers on here has ever actually seen any child porn, but I have. Long ago, before the age of the internet, I saw a magazine. I was curious and possibly more naive than these knowledgeable people here. I didn't like it, put it down and have never seen any since. I don't feel any guilt about this, but of course if anyone had known about it, in the current climate, I'd still be in jail. People wouldn't make any distinction between me and Gary Glitter, though I might have got a shorter sentence. But I'm not a paedophile, and no amount of raving will make me one.

[Neilzulu1]

It is not a medical condition, it is a sick sex crime. So all rapists have a medical condition do they ? or is it just for child rape ?

[Goodsoulette]

but did you actively seek the magazine out JNO? No, not likely. Gary Glitter went to jail for looking at 1000s of images not stumbling across a site having a look around and never doing it again. Even if a group of immature boys seeked out such a site and looked arouind, were sickened and never did it again I dont believe they would go to jail for it.

[whiffey]

jno you speak with great eloquence and sense, but you are to be swept away by the tattoed common herd. Kill kill kill !! Why kill though ? Ah my son, because it is the best way to be loved.

[jno]

it is NOT a crime to be a paedophile, neilzulu. There's nothing of the sort on the books, and Langham wasn't charged with it. He was charged over his actions, not his thoughts or feelings.

You may be right, Goodsoulette, but technically even copying an email with an indecent picture attached to it might count as an offence, even if you didn't know what it was. At the very least you would undergo an awful lot of questions down at the station. The reason I know I'm not a paedophile myself is that I disliked what I saw; if I'd liked it, I would have been one. But how would I have convinced an Operation Ore man of that?

[Neilzulu1]

He paid via his credit card to join child rape sites and downloaded level 5 child rape images to his hard drive and also made indecent images too. He is a nonce, he set out to get this crap on his pc, it was no mistake.

He did not just browse and then forget it as you are saying, he downloaded, viewed and stored the images. They were not lame images but level 5 ones that included babies being raped.

Why did he not have what the police would class as level 1 images, why did he have level 5? If it was done in innocence, why have the worst images, why store them?

He is a paedophile, simple as that, and i hope he gets ten years to act as a marker for any one else out there who thinks viewing these images does not make them a nonce.WELL SORRY, BUT YOU ARE A NONCE IF YOU CHOOSE TO VIEW IMAGES OF KIDS BEING ABUSED.

[Neilzulu1]

jno
Mon 06/08/07
22:02


it is NOT a crime to be a paedophile, neilzulu. There's nothing of the sort on the books, and Langham wasn't charged with it. He was charged over his actions, not his thoughts or feelings.

He will be on the sex offenders registry, so i beg to differ. He said he pleaded not guilty because he did not want to be called a peadophile. I think as he was found guilty, that makes him one does it not ?

[jno]

I'm not saying Langham isn't a paedophile; he sounds like one. He was not, however, charged with being one. I'm answering sweet-teen's question: yes, not everyone who sees child porn is a paedophile.

[Neilzulu1]

But his actions are deemed by the police as a paedophile crime. He is a nonce, i do not understand why certain people dance around this issue. Lets just hope he gets along sentence.

[jno]

the police can call it what they like, the law calls it different. A nonce is usually someone who molests children, not someone who looks at photos. Langham was tried for this and acquitted.

[Neilzulu1]

Yes , but by paying for access to the sites and downloading the images, he was just as bad as the sick animals abusing the kids.

[jno]

I disagree, someone who doesn't molest kids is not as bad as someone who does. It's not actually clear from what I've read whether he even did any of this. According to one report I read, the only website he signed up to was a legal one (this apparently wasn't argued about in court, so I don't know); the pictures he was found with were free, via p2p file-sharing.