Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Chris Langham sentenced to 10 months in prison

113 replies

jenk1 · 14/09/2007 19:00

but he has been told he will serve half that

here

OP posts:

SenoraPostrophe · 14/09/2007 19:53

whoops - no bloody wonder the rpisons are full.

ruty · 14/09/2007 20:00

if there wasn't a market there wouldn't be any pictures. absolute bollocks it was research. you can read on end about stuff without needing to see the photos.

Spandex · 14/09/2007 20:34

Only looking at pictures? Well, that's alright then. Why on earth is he going to prison? Are you totally mad SenoraPostrophe?

He's a paedophile. He likes to see adults having sex with children and children being tortured. Prison's too good for him.

WorkersforfreEdam · 14/09/2007 20:38

It does seem like an absurdly low sentence for the severity of the images/ a not guilty plea.

Wonder how on earth anyone decided his risk of reoffending was low. And how can he be deemed remorseful since he denied it was a criminal offence - I know he admitted having the images but he claimed it was for 'research' and didn't admit guilt, IIRC.

Spandex · 14/09/2007 21:02

I'm glad he's lost everything. I feel for his family. But I hope he really suffers.

He's having an awful time in prison apparently. Good.

Call me vengeful but I loathe paedophiles with every inch of my being.

Meglet · 14/09/2007 21:03

Wicked, I agree with you about the Obs article on sunday. Truly terrifying, have been trying to forget it.

tigerschick · 14/09/2007 23:03

Just seen this on the news.
Can't believe it is so little.

tiredemma · 15/09/2007 13:29

quote from his QC
" He has had a dreadful six weeks inside. He has had his food spat in. Prisoners throw disgusting things at him from their cells"

strangely- Im not sympathetic to his plight.

andiem · 15/09/2007 20:23

I am really shocked at SPs posts these are real children who have been abused to provide the videos. he had a 15 minute video of an 8 year old tied up with wire and being raped and you don't think he should go to prison

I read the observer article too made me very sad and upset

Pan · 15/09/2007 20:34

I too am surprised at the length of sentence. Given the judge was going to imprison him, Iwas anticipating alot more. This was partly as he didn't show 'any remorse'..he denied he had paedophilic tendencies, didn't wish to be described as so, only provided an excuse re (unsustainable) own abuse rather than 'owning' his behaviour, and presented a 'defence' which was legally non-existent.

All sentences under 12 months come with an automatic release at half-way.

He had an effing good barrister.

bosscat · 15/09/2007 20:35

Yes I read that too about a 15 minute video of a child being raped and tortured. I don't subscribe to the view of "he was only looking at the pictures." The question has surely to be WHY was he looking at the pictures? I don't believe his excuse of research and obviously neither did the jury and that's that. Of course the sentence has to be custody. What else are you supposed to do with him. Its a disgraceful and shocking thing to do.

FluffyMummy123 · 15/09/2007 20:35

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 15/09/2007 20:36

Message withdrawn

lucyellensmum · 15/09/2007 20:37

SP, you are being extremely niave, i dont want to know about what he was looking at, the thought makes me feel ill - this is not the same as looking at playboy you know. If he has the descire to look at such vile filth then he clearly has desires to carry it out. Whether he will act on those desires or not is irrelivant, because IMO we shouldnt be taking the risk of the sick bastard being released back into the community, i hope the shame kills him, no really, i do. I hope the other prisoners get to him and lets see how he likes to be vulnerable and frightened. sick bastard - 10 months, fuck me, you could get more for non payment of fines.

I think downloading of child porn should be treated as seriously as child abuse itself, its creating a market and lets face it, i would have thought that most child abusers download the shit, so if you download it, then you are probably more likely to do it.

The only way a ten month sentence would be acceptable to me, is i after such time, they castrated the bastard.

Pan · 15/09/2007 20:39

Yes, i-cod..saw your typo...still trying to decide if it was deliberate.......

Pan · 15/09/2007 20:42

"i would have thought that most child abusers download the shit, so if you download it, then you are probably more likely to do it. "

No evidence that this is the case. Though understandable to link downloading with 'contact' offenses.

Surely he will not work again????

lucyellensmum · 15/09/2007 21:01

pan, i think the point i tried to make, albeit badly was that a child abuser is likely to download child porn, if that is what turns him on, i guess someone who just views may only just view it. But i just cant imagine someone looking at this without a strong desire to act it out. For one thing, its hardly curiosity, i would rather gouge my eyes out than look at that stuff. The trouble with saying that there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, is that i guess you can only make a link if the abuser had been caught. Sadly they seem to get away with it and i suppose the people who get caught downloading this stuff are not that easy to detect. Sorry, im really not being very clear, im tired and not making much sense.

Pan · 15/09/2007 21:05

I think I know what you are saying. But there isn't anything that has a link twix the two. 'Contact' offending demands a lot more than downloading and masturbating in the comfort of one's own home.
Both nasty.

FluffyMummy123 · 15/09/2007 21:14

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 15/09/2007 21:16

Message withdrawn

WideWebWitch · 15/09/2007 21:20

I think this has just sent a message loud and clear that as a society we aren't that bothered about child abuse. we just can't be - TEN months? Anyone who downloads and looks at this stuff is helping perpetuate it and leading to more abuse. It makes me hopping mad.

Pan · 15/09/2007 21:31

www, I agree. the sentence will neither encourage nor stop any offending. just lets us as a country know how we value our children's safety.

UCM · 15/09/2007 21:33

Should have been 10 years. IMO>

edam · 15/09/2007 21:45

I just don't understand how our legal system can give Chris Langham ten months/serve five for downloading the most extreme forms of child porn while those young men who graffiti-ed trains got two years. Mad. I know you aren't supposed to be able to directly compare sentences for different crimes, blah blah blah, but really, how on earth can you make sense of that?

I'd love to see a comparison of sentencing for property crimes and violence against people, esp. women and children. Because my guess is much harsher punishments are handed out for crimes against property. I bet domestic violence and child abuse attract on average much shorter sentences than fraud or robbery.

NAB3 · 15/09/2007 21:46

Can I just post this 550 times so I don't have to see his stupid, creepy, sick name???

Flip

1 2 3 4 5