Yes we must remember that there is now a paedophile on every street corner and rings of kiddy fiddlers around europe all waiting to steal your child.

Now everyone can have their own fund to search for their child, a godsend for all of those jealous of the McCanns ‘finding fund’.

Pandering to the paranoid.

Midge - How can we ensure all children are safe all of the time? Tag them? Insure them? Lock them up? The image is not sick. The sickness is how with the heinous crime of peadophilia there is no debate in the tabloids only scaremongering and, in this case, a marketing device for an insurance company - an industry that plays on fear

sick sick sick…people should never have to live in fear that a phsyco will steal their child..i wonder how much cash the company will make considering hardly any children ever get kidnapped…this should be just as illiegal as the woman going door to door collecting for “the mccanns”…

everytime there is a tragedy like this…its hectic to see how many money grabbers there are out there..

Stan,

Is there any evidence that a phsyco has stolen MM? I would suggest that it’s more likely to be a sexual pervert.

Suspect she’s dead now mind.

Dogstar said……….

“Langham was duly pronounced a liar, a pervert and a sex offender (despite having been found not guilty of any sexual assault against anyone). Go figure”.

There’s absolutely nothing to figure. He is a liar, a pervert and a sex offender.
Just viewing images of child pornography on your PC makes you legally a sex offender. It is an offence and it is sexual. 10 years on the sex offenders register plus sentence. Hopefully very long.

For him to be able to view the images he viewed and downloaded (to watch over and over) that included young children being raped by grown men and animals, children had to be raped by grown men and animals!
Go figure that dogstar.

Moderation said: ‘…For him to be able to view the images he viewed and downloaded (to watch over and over) that included young children being raped by grown men and animals, children had to be raped by grown men and animals!’

Where on earth did you get the animals from? So now he’s guilty of sexually exploiting animals, too?

What always amazes me about cases like this, is that one moment here’s a man who was a celebrated, award-winning comedian, actor and writer, as well as a married father of five. Then, within seconds, he is transformed as if by dark magic, into a ‘monster’ and a ‘pervert’ who abuses small children (’…some as young as seven’, according to PC Knacker of The Yard).

Actually I’m still puzzled about a few other things, too. Like, if Langham first came to Police attention back in 1997 as a result of the infamous ‘list of names’ handed on plate to UK police authorities (by US Postal Services) as part of Operation Ore, why exactly has it taken 10 years for any legal action to be taken against him? More importantly, why are CEOP quoted in the BBC News Online report into this case as ‘refusing to comment on Operation Ore’?

What is it they don’t wish to discuss?

Now I’m puzzled Dogstar… is it that you do not believe that a successful, celebrated, married father of 5 could possibly be a paedophile (in thought and by proxy, if not actually in person), or do you not believe that paedophiles could possibly live amongst us, often sucessfully, without you somehow ‘knowing’ that they are perverts? :-s

Dogstar said…………Re-read your post, Moderation. You compare me directly with Mr Langham, suggest I approve of child porn and accuse me of making light of whole thing.

But according to you he has done nothing wrong so it can’t be a problem? can it?

Does sensible debate mean accepting it? downgrading the crime? maybe to a magistrates court?

Yes my views are set in stone. Its an offence to even open a file which contains images of child abuse and the perpetrators should instantly receive a custodial. End of.

Dogstar, disagree, I think there is a very sensible debate going on here between you and Moderation. In fact, the best I’ve seen on this site. And I think Moderation is making mincemeat out of you. If you think there’s nothing wrong with what Chris Langham has done, I’m beginning to have doubts about your predilections myself. Keep it up, you two, you are the best thing that’s ever happened here.

I was talking specifically about armchair paedophiles who see nothing wrong with watching images on their PC or DVD player…… like Chris Langham.
It is just as wrong and it perpetuates the crimes that others commit……

So, if paedophiles can’t help what they do and nothing can cure them do we then ignore it? In other countries there are certain aversion therapies that work…… is that what you mean? It would still have to be in a prison environment.

I disagree so much with the comparison to being gay. Gay isn’t wrong but raping children is.

Liz Jordan wrote: ‘…If you think there’s nothing wrong with what Chris Langham has done, I’m beginning to have doubts about your predilections myself.’

See? There’s the problem. Right there.

Moderations wrote: ‘…Yes my views are set in stone. Its an offence to even open a file which contains images of child abuse and the perpetrators should instantly receive a custodial. End of.’

And there’s another one. Ridiculous.

Tell you what - how about we actually hear from an accredited expert in the field of working with paedophiles? It might make a refreshing change. This is from BBC News Online today:

‘…Ray Wyre, an independent consultant who specialises in the prevention of sex crime and abuse who is treating Langham, said he did not think the actor was a paedophile.

He said: “He has an obsession with his own abuse and the whole imagery relating to abuse.

“In a sense, he feels the same way a juror would when viewing these images, including anger. You don’t have to have a paedophile motive when viewing abusive images.”

He added: “Often offenders see themselves as the child in the pictures, which is what he does.”…’

Ray Wyre is very respected within child protection circles, with years of experience at the sharp end of dealing with paedophiles. He’s worked with many police forces over the years.

But people like you, ‘Moderation’, never care to listen to the experts. You blindly obey your basest instincts and go for the jugular each and every time. ‘Kill them all,’ is your mantra. You are not interested in reason, in research or academic examination of the issues. You just want to strike out and damn anyone you don’t like the look of.

In short, you are The Mob. Never mind that Langham, like a great majority of those convicted of downloading CP, has never laid a finger on a child in a sexual way (remember? he was cleared of all allegations of indecent assault?), you still want his guts ripped out - just in case. It makes no sense. The man will go to jail. He will receive the statutory counselling and he will attempt to rehabilitate - and I’ll bet he does that pretty well, despite being chained to the Sex Offender Register for many years to come. I suspect Langham is intelligent enough to have learned his lesson very well. But thanks to a sensible legal system, he won’t have his balls cut off, he won’t be lynched by you and your slavering cronies and he may just manage to contribute something worthwhile back to society in time.

By your standards, Pete Townsend (who has made a very successful recovery from his horrendous experience at the hands of Operation Ore) would be rotting in ditch somewhere by now. Thankfully, both the Police and the Courts took a very different view.

Moderation wrote: ‘…Hundreds of children are raped to death every year for paedo snuff movies…. is it okay to watch them because you didn’t do it yourself? There really is no difference you know. The man in front of his PC watching that movie can very easily take the next step. (and they often do. it’s an evolving process)…’

*bangs head repeatedly against wall*

Okay. I surrender. LOL.

No, No, No - you misunderstood me … my fault entirely for posting without explaining what I meant properly (it was the end of the working day and I was anxious to leave my desk!).

Of course I do not believe that paedophilia and being gay are in any way either related or comparable in terms of morals, act, acceptability … etc etc. That is not what I was trying to say at all - God Forbid, I’m not some kind of religious throwback or mental case!

The point that I was trying to make is that, whether or not a paedophile chooses to act on his impulses, he will always be attracted to children. It is the way that his inbuilt sexuality drives him, and an individual’s sexuality is such a subconcious and inbuilt drive that it is virtually impossible to change - to re-educate a paedophile into finding adult women attractive is akin to asking a heterosexual to never find someone of the opposite sex attractive again, or to ask a gay person to find only the opposite sex attractive for the rest of his life.

So therein lies the depth of the problem … of course we cannot, and *should* not ignore it - and the depth of the problem is far greater, and more entwined with our daily lives, than most people ever realise. But what we do have to realise is that no amount of re-habilitation, counselling, castration or beating to a pulp is going to ‘cure’ these people, and that no prospective long prison sentence is going to deter them. Free will only goes so far, and sooner or later they will come into contact with a child that they cannot resist - that risk is too great to take.

So what is the answer? How do we ensure that, once these people are caught (and the tragedy is that only a tiny proportion ARE ever caught), they never, ever have the opportunity to ruin another child’s life, memories and mental stability? For me, the only answer is life without parole - lock them away and throw away the key, regardless of the ‘level’ of the offence.

But what we also need to do is to recognise that these are REAL people …for years Chris Langham was a respected member of the community - he was recognised for his work, raised 5 children and took his place in society. By instantly switching from our accepted view of him to the view that he is ‘monster’ we are effectively denying that paedophiles can, and do, live amongst us whilst being fully accepted into our lives, families and homes.

It is the elephant in the living room … if we can only see paedophiles as ‘monster’ then we are effectively denying that our brother, our son, our uncle, teacher, scout leader, priest, neighbour, work colleague, friend, nephew, son in law, grandson…may be a paedophile. By labelling the person (rather than the act) we can then feel comfortable about not looking too closely at those we know and trust…. and in 80% of cases it is those very people who abuse our children.

Thanks, Molly, for a very considered post. I have to say there’s a lot of rational argument in there I haven’t really seen much of on these boards in the short time I’ve been around here.

I guess the only real issue I have with everything you’ve said is in your conclusion. ‘Lock ‘em up and throw away the key’. It just seems so reductive.

I know many around here would probably agree with your conclusion - but back in the real world it’s just not a viable answer. UK prisons are already overflowing thanks, in part, to all those ’sex offenders’ who’ve been banged-up since Ore (and still counting). The government’s answer is to build more ‘prison places’ (although they seem a bit more reluctant to actually build more prisons) into the system, but all the experts seem to agree that on present projections in another decade the UK will be no better off in terms of prison places provision - in fact, much worse. And let’s not even mention the astronomical cost of housing, feeding and maintaining all those prisoners - to the taxpayer and to the essential services tasked with doing so.

Hmmm. I think the single best option - for the moment - for ‘containing’ the problem of paedophilia (and you are quite right - it is a sexuality, not a learned behaviour, as much as idiots would like to think otherwise) is probably what is happening at the moment. Fear. Fear of getting caught. The personal, social and material consequences of being convicted are now so great, so cataclysmic, here in the UK and USA that I think the message is probably getting through loud and clear. And if it isn’t - it certainly cannot be for the want of broadcasting that warning. But using fear alone to maintain a status quo, inevitably becomes a problem in and of itself.

As much as I snipe at CEOP (and that’s mainly in relation to their handling of Ore), I cannot deny they have appear to have had a major impact on the spread of CP in the UK and around the world. They work with international police forces and use some of the best experts and most advanced technology in world to try and stay one step ahead. It’s a difficult area to work in and I guess it takes a hell of a toll on those who do it, day in, day out. It can’t be very pleasant at all having to peer into some of the world’s darkest corners.

Where I have a problem with CEOP is only in some of their methods. Their use of fear to alarm just about everyone is sometimes, imo, wholly disproportionate to the actual problem - the UK, for instance, in a recent report by the IWF, is statistically almost completely free of CP hosted in this country, which means the threats - in terms of supply - come from abroad. Of course, there are domestic cases - there always have been and always will be (we are dealing with a form of human sexuality here) - but these are isolated instances, far from the ‘networks’ we hear continually about from the likes of CEOP. These cases are no less horrific or painful for all involved, but it’s important to maintain at least a measure of perspective.

To be fair to CEOP - they are by no means the only ones playing the fear factor at every possible opportunity. Sadly, it’s become a bit of national sport for almost every child advocacy organisation (it’s one way to raise next year’s budget, I guess), Member of Parliament (popular with the voters, I guess) and reporter (the readers, inexplicably, seem to like it).

Hysterical reportage compounds an already misinformed level of public knowledge, serving only to heighten predjudices and silence just about all rational discussion. It is profoundly counter-productive. All we end up with is an ever-expanding prison population (600,000 sex offenders in the USA - and many of them are mere teenagers themselves). Hand on heart - do any of you feel the local park is any safer for your kids? Have we ended up with a safer environment for our kids, whether the boogeyman ever existed or not - or have we got precisely the opposite? All I can see is that everyone is scared. The parents are scared, the kids are scared and the paedophiles are scared.

When I was a kid of 12 I was down the local park all day. On my own (okay, with the dog) or with a few friends. We knew about ’stranger danger’ and all that, but we didn’t live in fear - we just enjoyed our evenings and school holidays going out and about, doing what kids do. It doesn’t happen now. Children today seem to live in hermetically sealed bubbles, screened off from the real world, mollycoddled, over-protected from some mythological boogeyman waiting on every street corner, in every public swimming pool, at every bus stop. When I was a 14 year old I was hopping on my bike and cycling around the countryside - for a whole day! On my own! It’s shocking.

Anyway (and I know I’m going on a bit - hey it’s late and I feel like rambling), to return to the, erm, ‘thrust’ of this dissertation: all dissent from popular wisdom (i.e. the gutter press and tabloid broadcast media) now seems to be under embargo. We may not engage in speculation, investigation or curiosity. We must accept what we are told or risk the consequences of being publicly shamed for our temerity in daring to ask impertinent questions of a sensitive issue.

I’ve been accused here of siding with Chris Langham - of seeing him as some sort of ‘innocent unfortunate’. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was in possession of CP he paid for. There is no question of his guilt, none at all. He can be said, correctly, to have contributed directly to the suffering of children and he should face the necessary consequences. In such cases - and CEOP are, of course, right to highlight them where appropriate - there are no excuses for such behaviour. The sexual exploitation of children is totally unacceptable.

But I despair of the half-arsed reporting, the loaded pre-prepared statements from Police and prosecution in such cases and the way the tabloid media seem to roll about in this swill with gleeful abandon. It doesn’t bring any of us any nearer to solutions, let alone a proper, clear understanding of the problems.

Just once, I’d like to witness a level-headed, balanced, informed and bi-partisan discussion of the whole sorry business - Police, child advocates, experts, victims and perpetrators, every possible point of view expressed in an intelligent, informative manner. Real statistics, demonstrable facts and a total absence of moral preaching.

Not likely, eh?

And there, you will be grateful to know, I shall leave it and this whole troublesome subject. I think I just unloaded all I ever really had to say on the matter. Now I’m off to bed to read the latest edition of Private Eye and have a chuckle at Colemanballs.

Goodnight, everyone.

Very funny, edge. Your mother worked full-time, I take it?