Anorak

Anorak News | Twins Jailed For Child Porn: Thought Crimes Are Not Actions

Twins Jailed For Child Porn: Thought Crimes Are Not Actions

by | 26th, November 2010

NEWS that identical Blackburn twins James Blackie and Patrick Blackie 26, have been jailed for child sex crimes opens the debate on if paedophiles are born or created.

Patrick Blackie has been jailed for 15 months for “committing a sex attack in front of a boy” and possessing indecent images.

James Blackie is in jail for downloading 240 images and videos of children, some of them showing severe sexually abuse.

The Lancashire Telegraph reports:

James Blackie, 26, told police he got involved after being intrigued at what his brother Patrick had been looking at. But he also found that the sickening images left him sexually aroused.

So, he says he never considered children as sexual objects before he saw the images his brother was looking at. But when he did he began to think evil. This sounds like a neat defence, to make him appear a victim of circumstance. Only:

Burnley Crown Court heard James Blackie, who had already been cautioned for possessing indecent pictures of children, got the images from a file-sharing website on the internet.

Did he keep looking until he got aroused and could better empathise with his brother? He also distributed images.

Daniel Prowse, for James Blackie, said his client recognised he had a problem, wanted to address it and had sought counselling. He told the hearing: “He finds his own sexual attraction and the photos themselves to be quite disgusting.”

So, he looked because he was interested. And then looked some more. If you were shown a picture of child being raped would you look? Would morbid or titillating curiosity get the better of you? James Blackie did not abuse a child. He looked. But looking is now called downloading. If you look at a photo of abuse in a magazine, that is not illegal. But hasn’t it been downloaded on your mind?

Is looking one step down the line to acting?

In 2003, The Who’s Pete  Townshend admitted he had paid to see a child porn website. He maintained that he had done so for research. He stated that he was no paedophile.

He added that to fight paedophilia, “you have to know what’s out there.”

(For most, imagining what is there is vivid enough. Can anyone sane not sympathise with the police seizing such material and having to catalogue it? It is a grim job that must stain the mind.)

Chris Langham was another high-profile case. He was the star of BBC TV’s The Thick of It. He was jailed for ten months for downloading child porn.

The Mail told us:

The night before his arrest, he downloaded files with names such as ‘teenage girl raped on beach by five guys’ and ‘Philippine child prostitute’.

Would anyone sane or not turned on by images of child rape go and check out what caught Langham’s eye?

One video found at his home featured a girl of eight who was being abused by her father and has since been rescued by police.

She had been subjected to what is known as ‘level 5 abuse’ – the most extreme level and which can include sadism and bestiality. In the film she was bound, naked and blindfolded, and tied to a ceiling.

Pete Townshend was cautioned by police for accessing a paedophile website. He was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years, and a DNA sample was taken.

Scotland Yard said: “It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity.”

So. Are paedophiles created by the internet. No. But the web does allow for people to access their depraved fantasies in the comfort of their own room. After all, it’s only on the web – it’s not real, is it; much like what goes on in your mind…

spotter: Karen



Posted: 26th, November 2010 | In: Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink