So because he just looked he shouldn't be considered a paedophile, 'active' or not? What if he had acted on what he'd viewed? Would you be so charitable then? Of course, no one can make 'windows into men's souls', but as children need to be protected, perhaps this has taught men like Langham and his ilk a valuable lesson.
I agree with you.
Does it really matter if he was an active paedophile or not? it's like saying that someone that belongs to a paedophile ring is not a paedophile because that person never had sex with children and his motivation was money not feeling acttracted to kids.
Seeing those pics is a form of sexual abuse, I do not know if that makes him a peadophile, but he's close.
So because he just looked he shouldn't be considered a paedophile, 'active' or not? What if he had acted on what he'd viewed? Would you be so charitable then? Of course, no one can make 'windows into men's souls', but as children need to be protected, perhaps this has taught men like Langham and his ilk a valuable lesson.
no! im not saying he shouldn't be considered because he only looked, im saying that it automatically shouldnt be decided that he IS because he looked because there is no evidence either way that he had ANY sexual interest looking at those 4 pictures, and regardless of subject, there needs to be some evidence to prove it either way. Yes, arguably looking at an image of child abuse does suggest wrong intent, but it does not set it in stone. what if he had acted on it? thats completely hypothetical... you can't judge someone on what you think they COULD maybe do, only on what they have done or show heavy signs that they might do, neither of which Langham showed any suggestion of.
for him to have looked at 4 pictures, in one condensed time period, once doesnt suggest to me an active or inactive sexual interest in children. Paedophiles speak all the time about how they can not help themselves looking, that is almost like a drug to them etc, so if langham is a paedophile, he showed extrordianary restraint in only doing it once, and not since or before. He "says" he was abused a child, i dont personally think he would lie about something such as that and we can not judge him either way as to whether he is telling the truth, he openly admitted viewing 4 pictures, cooperated with the police fully and denied sexually abusing a girl of which he was found innocent.
i think some of you think im defending his actions, but im just as disgusted by paedophilia as you are, but i do not think this a black and white case of man gets caught having looked at some pictures, therefore he has a sexual interest in children, because i think there is very little to back that up.
Again, the police officers charged with searching through child abuse material are never questioned as to whether they have a sexual interest in the material they are viewing, and illegial is illegial whoever is looking so the police are just as culpable when viewing the material. I dont care if they are the law - the principal is still the same, a man looking at images of child abuse. As we cant "see inside a man's soul" how do we know that the officers dont have a secret sexual interest that they might act on? we dont! The point is no matter how disgusting, and how repugnant WE find the idea of looking at the images, it doesnt render EVERYONE who does look sexual interested or morally depraved, regardless of migitagating circumstances.
"Seeing those pics is a form of sexual abuse, I do not know if that makes him a peadophile, but he's close."
i dont agree with this at all, viewing, reading, watching listening or operating something (anything) does not automatically make you part of the cause, and even looking at a picture of child abuse with no alledged sexual interest on a minimum of occasions does not make YOU responsible for the abuse in the image, a paedophile, or abuser. Again, are you trying to suggest that the people who legally deal with this makes them close to being a paedophile, as they have still viewed the content, regardless of reason or order? i have seen all kinds of video's and images over the years that to some would be considered illegial, obviously not relating to this particular subject, that have completely disguted, upset or completely thrown me, but it doesnt mean i agreed with any of it, enjoyed it, supported it or had any interest beyond an initial viewing. Langham, regardless of the nature of his crime, did not definatively look at these images for any sexual reason, whether public morality or morbid fascination come into it or not. He is either an incredible liar, with no consciounce, or a someone who stupidly looked at an image the law told him and admitted to it
This isnt directly what happened to langham but could happen to ANY user of a pc. Like i said before, there are so many ways for images of any nature to get onto your pc, without you knowing for a second. What if a single picture of child abuse turned up your computer even though you knew 100% you definatley had not viewed or accessed it ANY time. would you take the line of well the pictures there, i must be a paedophile, or would you argue the case that it had planted, that you had never viewed ANYTHING of that nature on any occasion, that maybe you had been on a normal porn site and maybe it downloaded itself, and sit there whilst everyone decided you should be in prison and a disgusting human being. Again, take a look in your temp internet folder, i guarantee you will see things in there you wont be able to place to any usage of your PC
i would, like most, would never consider looking at an image of child porn, because it's not only been drilled into me, rightly so, how disgusting it is, but i have no interest in understanding the reasons behind it or anything else to do with it in for that matter, and its illegial. BUT, i dont believe that because someone does, it automatically and definatively means they have any interest and arnt upset or disgusted by it, whatever their motives.
He claimed he was sexually abused and that was his defence for looking at the pictures. Nobody (including
yourself) knows if this is true or just something he dreamed up to excuse his behaviour.
Just because a few professionals stand up and state he's not a paedophile, doesn't mean he would never act on what he saw. He cannot be seen to get away with what he did. Townshend obviously satisfied the authorities that he wasn't going to act on what he viewed, and got a caution. I'm not saying this was right by the way.
He was found not guilty of that because the girl concerned decided to keep it quiet for a long period of time. Any evidence of under age sex would be long gone, so no evidence, no guilty verdict.
as you said yourself about "soul", how could townsend possibly have satisfied the authorites that he was no threat when they had proof he had paid for access to a site - a crime actually arguably worse than langham's, that towsend was by relation let off for (and he undenieably was without even a court case)? If no one even knows your motives beyond your own statements and circumstantial evidence, then how can people by tried for a crime as there would be nothing but conjecture and hypertheticals to back this up?
Forensics are able to determine sexual abuse case's decades after they took place, why would this case be any different.
by the way please dont think im picking on your arguement - rather just questioning, your questions/thoughts like you have mine - i dont feel like im having an arguement with anyone else either im just finding this a very interesting debate, which you dont get that often on DS. i dont like the whole "he looks guilty" frame of mind, as court cases prove there is much much more than even we have discussed this far
Bast
ps. this was pete's statement after being found "innocent"
Pete Townshend Press Statement
After months of investigation officers from Scotland Yard's Child Protection group have confirmed that they have not found any downloaded child abuse images on rock guitarist Pete Townshend's computers. They added that Pete co-operated fully with the investigation and that the decision to caution was made in accordance with the MPS Case Disposal Policy for this investigation.
Pete stated "From the very beginning, I acknowledged that I did access this site and that I had given the police full access to all of my computers". He added "As I made clear at the outset, I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material readily available on the Internet to children as well as adults, and as part of my research toward the campaign I had been putting together since 1995 to counter damage done by all kinds of pornography on the internet, but especially any involving child abuse"
The Police work closely with the Internet industry through the Internet Watch Foundation to monitor paedophile activity and any member of the public accidentally discovering such images should notify the IWF through their website.
Ironically Pete later contacted the Internet Watch Foundation on the subject of the offensive site. He pointed out that "The police have unconditionally accepted that these were my motives in looking at this site and that there was no other nefarious purpose, and as a result they have decided not to charge me. I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."
surely he looked, therefore he is a paedophile, regardless of images on his computer if the same logic is to applied as Langham's case, specifically
"As I made clear at the outset, I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material readily available on the Internet to children as well as adults, and as part of my research toward the campaign I had been putting together since 1995 to counter damage done by all kinds of pornography on the internet, but especially any involving child abuse"
so what exactly did langham do worse than this that warrants jail and the attitude towards him, when pete's case is pretty much swept under the carpet now. Pete PAID to access a site, on which he then viewed images. Langham viewed images. They both coorporated fully with the police and both admitted what they were accused of , pete looked simply out of interest as to why these things happen and to understand the depraved nature of it and write an essay, Langham said he looked to try understand the abuse he suffered as a child to write a script and help his inner demons. So whats the big difference, why is one man public enemy number 1 whilst everyone gets excited about seeing the other play guitar? is it because more people know who pete is perhaps? despite claims from an investagative journalist, Duncan Campbell, that townshend had paid for access to a site not even related to child porn, townshend was still ordered to be put on the Violent and Sex Offender Register, from which he shall very shortly be removed.
But I would not immediately say a person who has looked at a couple of images of child sex is a pedophile. It is wrong and I can't imagine looking myself but some people are just curious, particularly given the amount of press pedophiles are given. Just looking at a couple of images does not make someone a pedophile. Stupid yes! Pedophile, not necessarily.
Also about the Lolita Sex site he paid. Many many people find porn with younger women (not children) appealing. Many legitimate adult porn sites and films use the word Lolilta to imply that their model/actresses are young. But if they are consenting adults this is perfectly legal. Just subscribing to a site with Lolita in the name does not make someone a pedophile.
I think that any kind of child abuse is horrific and would never excuse someone of being involved. But I think it is very dangerous to jump to conclusions and label people based on sketchy evidence. The disgust most of us feel about genuine pedophiles and child abuse colours our judgement when a case like this comes up.
As someone said above. Just looking a photo of two men having sex doesn't make someone gay. There is such a thing as curiosity.
Looking at child porn is illegal and wrong and there should be consequences. But labeling people pedophiles for just looking once or twice makes me uncomfortable. I can't compare a man who looks at a couple of images of child porn with another who actively abuses children.
Personally I find that quite sickening. As I said in an earlier post, what part of "child pornography" is so hard to understand that you need to actually download it to get it? Like "research", "curiosity" is just another excuse that paedophiles who want to look at child porn but don't want to be labelled paedophiles use. At the end of the day, they all deserve what they get.
I see your point, but he viewed the pics, even if he didn't act on them.
If it wasn't for casual viewers like Langham, these images wouldn't get made, as there wouldn't be any demand.
The bloke who had sex with a bike is no comparison though!
Other than what he claims, how does anyone know he didn't "act on" them? He did it alone, in secret, in a seedy and illegal fashion, when there were dozens of legitimate avenues of "research "available to him.
Other than what he claims, how does anyone know he didn't "act on" them? He did it alone, in secret, in a seedy and illegal fashion, when there were dozens of legitimate avenues of "research "available to him.
Research, my arse, and then he only gets 5 months in jail for it? I suppose some slippery out-for-money lawyer helped get him a light sentence, despite the fact that he could be a major risk to children. Talk about lack of justice in this country, again.
Comments
I agree with you.
Does it really matter if he was an active paedophile or not? it's like saying that someone that belongs to a paedophile ring is not a paedophile because that person never had sex with children and his motivation was money not feeling acttracted to kids.
Seeing those pics is a form of sexual abuse, I do not know if that makes him a peadophile, but he's close.
no! im not saying he shouldn't be considered because he only looked, im saying that it automatically shouldnt be decided that he IS because he looked because there is no evidence either way that he had ANY sexual interest looking at those 4 pictures, and regardless of subject, there needs to be some evidence to prove it either way. Yes, arguably looking at an image of child abuse does suggest wrong intent, but it does not set it in stone. what if he had acted on it? thats completely hypothetical... you can't judge someone on what you think they COULD maybe do, only on what they have done or show heavy signs that they might do, neither of which Langham showed any suggestion of.
for him to have looked at 4 pictures, in one condensed time period, once doesnt suggest to me an active or inactive sexual interest in children. Paedophiles speak all the time about how they can not help themselves looking, that is almost like a drug to them etc, so if langham is a paedophile, he showed extrordianary restraint in only doing it once, and not since or before. He "says" he was abused a child, i dont personally think he would lie about something such as that and we can not judge him either way as to whether he is telling the truth, he openly admitted viewing 4 pictures, cooperated with the police fully and denied sexually abusing a girl of which he was found innocent.
i think some of you think im defending his actions, but im just as disgusted by paedophilia as you are, but i do not think this a black and white case of man gets caught having looked at some pictures, therefore he has a sexual interest in children, because i think there is very little to back that up.
Again, the police officers charged with searching through child abuse material are never questioned as to whether they have a sexual interest in the material they are viewing, and illegial is illegial whoever is looking so the police are just as culpable when viewing the material. I dont care if they are the law - the principal is still the same, a man looking at images of child abuse. As we cant "see inside a man's soul" how do we know that the officers dont have a secret sexual interest that they might act on? we dont! The point is no matter how disgusting, and how repugnant WE find the idea of looking at the images, it doesnt render EVERYONE who does look sexual interested or morally depraved, regardless of migitagating circumstances.
"Seeing those pics is a form of sexual abuse, I do not know if that makes him a peadophile, but he's close."
i dont agree with this at all, viewing, reading, watching listening or operating something (anything) does not automatically make you part of the cause, and even looking at a picture of child abuse with no alledged sexual interest on a minimum of occasions does not make YOU responsible for the abuse in the image, a paedophile, or abuser. Again, are you trying to suggest that the people who legally deal with this makes them close to being a paedophile, as they have still viewed the content, regardless of reason or order? i have seen all kinds of video's and images over the years that to some would be considered illegial, obviously not relating to this particular subject, that have completely disguted, upset or completely thrown me, but it doesnt mean i agreed with any of it, enjoyed it, supported it or had any interest beyond an initial viewing. Langham, regardless of the nature of his crime, did not definatively look at these images for any sexual reason, whether public morality or morbid fascination come into it or not. He is either an incredible liar, with no consciounce, or a someone who stupidly looked at an image the law told him and admitted to it
This isnt directly what happened to langham but could happen to ANY user of a pc. Like i said before, there are so many ways for images of any nature to get onto your pc, without you knowing for a second. What if a single picture of child abuse turned up your computer even though you knew 100% you definatley had not viewed or accessed it ANY time. would you take the line of well the pictures there, i must be a paedophile, or would you argue the case that it had planted, that you had never viewed ANYTHING of that nature on any occasion, that maybe you had been on a normal porn site and maybe it downloaded itself, and sit there whilst everyone decided you should be in prison and a disgusting human being. Again, take a look in your temp internet folder, i guarantee you will see things in there you wont be able to place to any usage of your PC
i would, like most, would never consider looking at an image of child porn, because it's not only been drilled into me, rightly so, how disgusting it is, but i have no interest in understanding the reasons behind it or anything else to do with it in for that matter, and its illegial. BUT, i dont believe that because someone does, it automatically and definatively means they have any interest and arnt upset or disgusted by it, whatever their motives.
as you said yourself about "soul", how could townsend possibly have satisfied the authorites that he was no threat when they had proof he had paid for access to a site - a crime actually arguably worse than langham's, that towsend was by relation let off for (and he undenieably was without even a court case)? If no one even knows your motives beyond your own statements and circumstantial evidence, then how can people by tried for a crime as there would be nothing but conjecture and hypertheticals to back this up?
Forensics are able to determine sexual abuse case's decades after they took place, why would this case be any different.
by the way please dont think im picking on your arguement - rather just questioning, your questions/thoughts like you have mine - i dont feel like im having an arguement with anyone else either
ps. this was pete's statement after being found "innocent"
Pete Townshend Press Statement
After months of investigation officers from Scotland Yard's Child Protection group have confirmed that they have not found any downloaded child abuse images on rock guitarist Pete Townshend's computers. They added that Pete co-operated fully with the investigation and that the decision to caution was made in accordance with the MPS Case Disposal Policy for this investigation.
Pete stated "From the very beginning, I acknowledged that I did access this site and that I had given the police full access to all of my computers". He added "As I made clear at the outset, I accessed the site because of my concerns at the shocking material readily available on the Internet to children as well as adults, and as part of my research toward the campaign I had been putting together since 1995 to counter damage done by all kinds of pornography on the internet, but especially any involving child abuse"
The Police work closely with the Internet industry through the Internet Watch Foundation to monitor paedophile activity and any member of the public accidentally discovering such images should notify the IWF through their website.
Ironically Pete later contacted the Internet Watch Foundation on the subject of the offensive site. He pointed out that "The police have unconditionally accepted that these were my motives in looking at this site and that there was no other nefarious purpose, and as a result they have decided not to charge me. I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."
surely he looked, therefore he is a paedophile, regardless of images on his computer if the same logic is to applied as Langham's case, specifically
so what exactly did langham do worse than this that warrants jail and the attitude towards him, when pete's case is pretty much swept under the carpet now. Pete PAID to access a site, on which he then viewed images. Langham viewed images. They both coorporated fully with the police and both admitted what they were accused of , pete looked simply out of interest as to why these things happen and to understand the depraved nature of it and write an essay, Langham said he looked to try understand the abuse he suffered as a child to write a script and help his inner demons. So whats the big difference, why is one man public enemy number 1 whilst everyone gets excited about seeing the other play guitar? is it because more people know who pete is perhaps? despite claims from an investagative journalist, Duncan Campbell, that townshend had paid for access to a site not even related to child porn, townshend was still ordered to be put on the Violent and Sex Offender Register, from which he shall very shortly be removed.
Research, my arse, and then he only gets 5 months in jail for it? I suppose some slippery out-for-money lawyer helped get him a light sentence, despite the fact that he could be a major risk to children. Talk about lack of justice in this country, again.
It makes me feel sick, it really does.