Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
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:
Nightynight · 15/09/2007 22:19

www, on mumsnet, people have said that sexual abuse is just part of growing up - if it is carried out by children on other children.
To me, it is different sides of the same coin, and sexual abuse should be taken more seriously.

dont ask me to find the thread, it was years ago, but I was shocked at that attitude.

FluffyMummy123 · 15/09/2007 22:33

Message withdrawn

spottyshoes · 15/09/2007 22:34

Comparative sentencing would mean we actually needed a bit of consistency within the legal system which isnt going to happen any time soon. I have seen a serious persistent offender given a community penalty for a serious GBH yet 18mths detention given for a breach of an Order - justice?

10 months let out after 5 too short?? Dont forget the 5 months he'll spend on licence - that's sure to make ALL the diference

harpsichordcarrier · 15/09/2007 22:46

everyone serves half their sentence though.
length of sentence doesn't have any deterrent effect imo.
the risk of being caught is the deterrent.
deterrence only works if you have something to lose.
Chris Langham has lost everything.
he needs help, but fuck knows he won't get it.

Pan · 16/09/2007 00:52

Well worse is that he won't have any licence to serve. They only come in after one year plus sentence, or if under 21 years old.

Having said that, his attitude indicates he wouldn't be interested in any intervention.

spottyshoes · 16/09/2007 07:37

slaps wrist Of course, sorry - I'm an under 18'er - dont do adult

arfishy · 16/09/2007 08:20

If I'd downloaded a video like that for "research" I would have got about a second in and then phoned the police.

He's an evil pervert who needs repeatedly cattle-prodding until he admits his guilt, gets castrated and pays back something to society.

Not 5 months. Even if it is being repeatedly beaten in prison.

He'll get out and do a Gary Glitter.

Revise your Message

FluffyMummy123 · 16/09/2007 09:14

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 16/09/2007 09:14

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 16/09/2007 09:14

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 16/09/2007 09:15

Message withdrawn

Pan · 16/09/2007 11:15

It's tricky, isn't it? What people say at trial can vary massively once they have been sentenced, in terms of culpability and willingness to engage. But from what I read atleast, he was denying to a degree that placed himself beyond intervention, IMO.

FluffyMummy123 · 16/09/2007 12:53

Message withdrawn

ruty · 16/09/2007 16:10

India Knight writes well about this case today.

donnie · 17/09/2007 14:44

he was NOT only loking at the pictures SenorApostrophe.He was using his credit card which means he was PAYING PEOPLE TO RAPE CHILDREN. Get real FFS.

I too am disgusted at the lenience of this term but I expect he will het the shit kicked out of him in prison. What a shame eh?

ruty · 17/09/2007 15:33

no i think he will get preferential treatment, judging from the sentence.

harpsichordcarrier · 17/09/2007 15:41

yes cod I would.
ten months is prison, what's the point of that? I would have made some sort of condition on his release
(don't know what's available)

policywonk · 17/09/2007 15:41

I agree with others that the most worrying thing about this is Langham's complete denial that he is in any way culplable. He has spouted all sorts of pseudo-therapeutic bullshit in an attempt to deflect the blame.

Theclosetpagan · 17/09/2007 15:46

Sad thing is my actor hubby worked with CL a few years back and is utterly shocked. Said he was a really nice bloke (they were doing a charity show together).

I don't know enough about the case to say if 10 months is a long enough term or not - it does seem awfully lenient though.

alycat · 17/09/2007 15:47

in our local paper, also CL's local, (which carried the case in detail) last week they reported that the case had led to the apprehension of one of the perpetrators of the abuse that CL was watching - a father raping his daughter.

harpsichordcarrier · 17/09/2007 15:47

well he said that he was abused when he was eight years old.
not sure whether that amounts to pseudo therapeutic bullshit

policywonk · 17/09/2007 15:50

harpsi - he said more than that - said he was 'investigating' child abuse in order to feel the abused children's pain, said that the children in the photos and videos were the only brothers and sisters he had, said that the court had 'accepted' that he is not a paedophile... the man is in denial, big time. If he was abused himself then of course he deserves consideration, but it doesn't absolve him - and he seems to think that it does.

harpsichordcarrier · 17/09/2007 15:58

well I am not sure we can conclude from any of that that it is pseudotherapeutic bullshit.
maybe he believes it.
it is really not possible to tell from here, is it?

alycat · 17/09/2007 17:25

Sorry, but surely that is a self defeating arguement?

If he genuinely was abused at 8 yrs old, he WOULDN'T need to do any research to understain the pain.

Pan · 17/09/2007 19:55

FWIW, bit of confusion here....the 'research' was for a programme for which he was going to take part in..which his co-writer Paul Whitehouse effectively denounced as a 'misleading' assertion - they hadn't discussed characterisation.

The 'I was abused' line was even less convincing, about 'making sense' of his own abuse..
Two unconnected 'explanations'.
Making some kind of 'condition' would have no value. He fails to see himself as an offender, so there is nothing to engage in.