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?

[mycats]

"someone who doesn't molest kids is not as bad as someone who does. "

Dear God, these poor children were being abused and it was being filmed and put on the internet because people WILL PAY FOR IT!
and he (that Chris *******) paid for those sick images with his credit card! thats how he was caught, therefore actively encouraging it to continue

[Neilzulu1]

Well said mycats, i can not believe how some people on here seem to wish to defend what he did or did not do. He is a nonce, simple as that.

Jno, your reasoning is absurd. Why do you insist on making excuses for him ? You so far have failed to condemn him for what he did. Are you waiting for a knock on the door fron operation ore ?

[whiffey]

jno has seen examples of this sort of stuff, nobody else on the thread has, so back off and think.

Most people comment angrily not through any understanding or analysis, but merely to join the common herd and be seen to be popular.

jno's reasoning is not absurd, it is calm and sensible and courageous.

[Neilzulu1]

God, you are so full of sh#te, perhaps you two are related to Chris Langham . As neither of you will condemn him, and all you bleet on about is a hanging from years ago.

[jno]

well, as I said mycats, it isn't entirely clear that he did get caught by paying for indecent images. He got caught for having some, but I don't know if he paid for them or not; the reports I've read aren't entirely clear, so I could be wrong. I have no problem with him being punished for this and I'm not sure that his punishment will depend on whether I personally condemn him or not. As I said in an earlier post, I suspect he is indeed a paedophile. But that's not a crime. Downloading the photos is the crime.

An odd quote from the BBC report: Ken Goss of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The images found on his computer were not child pornography." Apparently Mr Goss thinks they were of child abuse and thinks this is different from child porn; I have no idea why.

[Lonnie]

Whiffey, I beg to differ, While I was in the forces, in the far flung corners of the Empire, (as it was), I had first hand knowledge of child pornography, (not activley).

A few of us, I was a youth leader in some of these countries, (hearts and minds), and some of the stories I was told, first hand, would break your heart in two,

I could relate some of them, and what actions were taken, but its not for here, suffice it to say, as has already been said, anybody, who pays to read magazines, watch these children in films etc, are, in my eyes, criminals, and should be given the maximum sentence possible.

Although I do agree with what you say about jno being calm and sensible, thats jno's way, and he/she should be applauded for it.