Rev Canon Charles Richardson

[Jeremy]

The "paying" is a key point. IMO that line isn't as wide as you make out.

[edcam]

I agree with Jeremy. He paid for and consumed material produced specifically for him and people like him. He was culpable in the extreme.

[Otta]

I purposely put "obtain" rather than "paying".

Yes if you're paying for it then you're actively funding the abuse, and I suspect you'd have to pay for this sort of thing anyway.

But anyone watching this stuff (except investigators that have to) is encouraging the practice and shares responsibility. That is what I was trying to say.

But personally I'd still separate that from actively carrying out the abuse.

[TE44]

Otta What if there were people in the room when the assault was taking place, or say watching from another room, is that a closer separation.

[Otta]

This is getting silly. I don't claim to be the moral Guardian of the world, we all have our moral compasses.

So for ME, all the people watching are taking part in the abuse, but the most.guilty person is still the person that can cross that line and physically carry out the abuse.

Lots of (twisted) people get off on rape fantasies, but most of them probably wouldn't be able to cross that line and rape someone themselves. To me it's a similar line.

Still guilty and deserving of punishment, but it's a different crime to committing the abuse.

[JohnL]

Paying certainly shows intent.

But still unsure of Operation Ore unless there's other evidence (other than

the database - I think there was in this case)

I don't know the outcome of the concerns - Landslide seemed to have many

websites and paying for one gave access to them all - whether you knew it or

not

http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/operation-ore

[peckham_ryu]

As far as we know from what has been reported publicly, the material was of child nudity in "athletic and recreational scenes, but not explicit sexual acts". For sure, that's a nasty perversion of the images in question, exploiting them for thrills. I'm just saying though... all this talk on here about complicity in assault, and supporting the origination of sexually abusive images, is probably bollocks. I have no problem with us all being appalled - I'm appalled - but there's no reason to embellish what has been reported with what else you think might maybe also have happened, but have zero evidence for.

In Germany, there are politicians who downloaded from the same site. We don't even know who they are, because German law does not classify non-sexual images as illegal. Meanwhile in England, a local vicar has taken his own life.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been ashamed: his actions exploited children, shamefully. I am saying that there is a massive lack of perspective here, both in a man preferring suicide over shame and punishment, and in the way that all the undoubtedly good things he accomplished in most of his life have now been entirely negated by a few hours of furtive onanism whilst somewhere in the Bundestag, reputations remain intact despite exactly the same actions.

[Otta]

Good post Peckham Ryu (how is Peckham Ken? ;-)) I was commenting on a more general point, and hadn't read every post on the thread, so wasn't commenting too specifically.

It is very interesting what you say about Germany. I wonder what public opinion would be there...

[Nikki66]

Hi to the person who thinks I am a fraud. I can assure you that I am indeed Charlie's cousin, my father was Charlie's mum were brother and sister & he spent a lot of time with us, so yes I would say I know him very well.& am entitled to my opinions just as you are to yours, however I would prefer it if you would get your facts straight first.

[Otta]

I said

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally, whether or not the poster claiming to be

> his cousin is actually his cousin, I take with a

> pinch of salt their claim that he had a lovely

> happy childhood, because you don't even

> necessarily know that if you're living in the same

> home as an abused sibling. A cousin wouldn't

> know.

I never called you a fraud or said you were not entitled to an opinion. And indeed your opinion on the man is probably better informed than most.

But I stand by my point. Even a sibling living under the same roof as an abused child may not know what's going on, so a cousin, even a close one, wouldn't necessarily know what was happening. That is a fair comment.

But either way I am sorry for your family's loss and all the added stuff that has come with it.

[Mick Mac]

Defo with Jeremy on this. If there was no demand there would be no incentive for people to create these videos. Whether he paid or not is a red herring, he is very much part of the overall crime.

And to be in a position of trust with children is very worrying.

Personally I don't put my children in contact with anyone who is trusted because he is the public face of a church or religion. All too respectful and often without justification as can be evidenced here and I countless other cases over the decades.

..

[Nikki66]

But you did indeed doubt that I am Charlie's cousin & I quote "I doubt the poster calling herself his cousin is actually his cousin, I take with a pinch of salt". again I never said he wasn't abused I simply stated that he had a very happy childhood along with his other 2 sisters and 2 brothers.

[Otta]

You have just made that up, what I said can be seen by anyone who wants to scroll up.

I said "whether or not the poster claiming to be his cousin is actually his cousin" I didn't say I thought you were or were not.

Anyway, wish I'd never clicked on this grim thread yesterday, I was happier knowing nothing about the whole sorry affair.

[TE44]

peckham_ryu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As far as we know from what has been reported

> publicly, the material was of child nudity in

> "athletic and recreational scenes, but not

> explicit sexual acts". For sure, that's a nasty

> perversion of the images in question, exploiting

> them for thrills. I'm just saying though... all

> this talk on here about complicity in assault, and

> supporting the origination of sexually abusive

> images, is probably bollocks. I have no problem

> with us all being appalled - I'm appalled - but

> there's no reason to embellish what has been

> reported with what else you think might maybe also

> have happened, but have zero evidence for.

>

Where was this reported peckham ryu, thats not what

was reported here.

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/east-dulwich-child-porn-vicar-took-his-own-life-inquest-told/

[peckham_ryu]

Hadn't seen that story. The Operation Spade material which triggered the police investigation was the low level stuff (see the Wikipedia links and sources linked earlier in this thread, or type Operation Spade into a search engine for the reports). It is because it was so low level that the UK authorities did not get around to dealing with it for 2 years, which I suspect says something about all the really sick stuff they have to prioritise.

If the anonymous quotation in the Southwark News is reliable, then that does make matters as bad as can be really. I guess when an offender does himself in and thus prevents the criminal justice system from determining what he did, then he leaves himself open to being judged by others based on hearsay.

[TE44]

I found it surprising it wasn't reported rather than paper quoting an anonymous source.Can anyone

confirm what was said by police.