Re: Chris Langham, the compassionate paedofiddlier

On 24 Nov, 19:57, Alan Hope <usenet.ident...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

{Clippage}

But he wouldn't, that's the whole point. Your argument is pointless.
It's like saying that if Dodgson tried to have sex with a 13 year old
today he would go to jail. Well, of course he would, but why bother
saying it? If Dodgson were alive today he would know that the age of
consent is now 16 and not 13 which it was when 'Alice' was originally
published, & so he would, like the vast majority of people, comply
with the law.

So in fact you're saying if he had made them today he would be locked
up. Which is what I said, and you denied.


No, I am saying that your speculations about impossible situations are
ultimately pointless so should not form the basis of an argument about
a hypothetical legal scenario.

By the way, what does the age of consent have to do with photos?


You tell me. I thought it was the example which proved my point.

Laws change and people change with them. You need to get your head
round that difficile concept otherwise soon you'll be telling us that
if King Henry VIII were alive today and tried to chop his wife's head
off he wouldn't get away with it.
"No doubt about it" you'd say, as though imparting an obscure fact no
one else knew.

And what, you popped in from nowhere, on your first visit ever, to
state the fucking obvious?


The thread did not move me until this juncture, but as soon as you
started talking complete and utter bull*** instead of plain
horse***, my sensibilities were riled.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Kafkaesque provisions of the laws on child
pornography, we're not allowed to know exactly what Chris Langham is
accused of looking at. The papers all say serious abuse, but we're not
allowed to know. The only information we get is from Plod. So, no
reason to be at all skeptical there.
Yes, they do that because they don't want weirdo pervs like you
gloating over the images pretending that you only want to do so
because of the news story.

Another fucking lamebrain who thinks that anyone who cares to even
think about this question instead of reacting with a knee-jerk must
therefore be a perv. What a pleasure it wasn't doing debate with you.


I am sure that you are busily mass debating the issue of why the big
nasty policemen won't let you see the sicky-icky pictures even now.

That's how the law works I'm happy to say.
Hundreds of police officers, judges and psychologists have helped form
this policy. It works better than allowing nosey pervs like you or
greedy newspaper editors from exercising your 'right' to see young
children being sexually abused.
It is sufficient that the police have rated the images at a certain
level.

Yes, because the police have our best interests at heart. You're one
yourself, perhaps. Spending time in here instead of actually helping
children who are being abused. Far better to spread the word, insult
Usenet posters, lock up celebrities, than actually fucking do
something for the children.


Whether or not I do or may have worked for HM's finest is neither here
nor there. The fact that we were once acquaintances is. (As is the
fact that you are still talking the same old horse***.)

That's the one thing the British police do better than all else:
parade around making a lot of noise about a problem while doing sweet
***-all.


Of course, you yourself would never 'parade around making a lot of
noise', would you?

Whoops - you do every day.

Your selfish and childish angst at not being "allowed" to see
pictures of juveniles being abused is something you should keep quiet
about rather than publicise on the internet.

I haven't asked to see them. I'm pointing out that the police announce
how bad things are, and nobody is allowed to see them. People like you
just swallow it wholesale. That's what the word "Kafkaesque" suggests,
since I suppose they don't teach you that at Hendon.

--
AHhttp://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -


The SGC is pretty clear about the issue: The levels of seriousness (in
ascending order) for sentencing for offences involving pornographic
images are:

Level 1 - Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity
Level 2 - Non-penetrative sexual activity between children, or solo
masturbation by a child
Level 3 - Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
Level 4 - Penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children,
or both children and adults
Level 5 - Sadism or penetration of, or by, an animal

There are robust systems in place to make sure that the images which
seem to hold a special interest for you have been assessed by the
experts. The CPS, police, judges and barristers will have had access
to the images in question and would presumably all have agreed which
category the crime fell into.

You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do
not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court.
Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

f

.

Loading