Chris Langham sentenced to 10 months in prison

[jenk1]

but he has been told he will serve half that

here

Revolting assertion that these abused children he was watching were his 'brothers and sisters'. Does he really think people would believe that thespian bollocks?

What a horrible man. He was contributing to their abuse. He's a loathesome paedophile. Interesting that not all his children testified on his behalf. Poor kids. A ponce for a dad. They'll get a hard time.

I hope you are not suggesting that I am confused, Pan

I know about the Help! line of defence, but the Grauniad also said the following:

'In an 11-page statement he read to the police following his arrest, he compared himself to Charles Dickens, saying that as a writer he had wanted to "dig a little deeper into the darker and more fundamental places". He said he had downloaded the images because, as an artist, he felt "condemned to feel the pain for all of us and try and express it".'

Message withdrawn

policywonk

Lord. They should just turn the internet off, I reckon. There must be a switch somewhere.

What, Pan, the Dickens comparison? Classy.

the thought you being confused!!

Oh, er, right. Yes. Never happens.

Was walking DS1 to school this morning, a bit bleary, and was explaining (I have a loud, posh-girl voice) to him how flies ate spiders. It was only when the woman behind me started giggling that I realised what I was saying.

TBH whatever sentence these sickos get it's not enough for the crime. This chap had level 5 porn as I understand it (1-5 scale eg as nasty as you can get). If that's his "nature" then any amount of prison isn't going to change him, 90% of sex offenders re-offend apparently so you can't re-hab them. These category C prisons are like clubs to them they just meet other like minded perverts who give them contacts for when they get out. they should be kept in isolation if we can't put them down. Not a violent person by nature but give me 5 minutes with any of his ilk & I'd not be responsible. probaly makes me no better than him though!

I hate to say it, but I'm not surprised by this joke of a sentence.

It's just too bad he's not the type who will kill himself in prison.

Fucking scumbag.

"90% of sex offenders re-offend apparently so you can't re-hab them"
well that just means that 90% of sex offenders aren't rehabilitated. not that they can't be. and the system is not geared up to doing so.
tbh reoffending rates are pretty high for many sorts of offences, which is not the same thing as saying rehabilitation can't work.

the thing is though there is no real prospect of rehabilitation in the current climate, when we are quick to label people as paedophiles and not countenance any treatment of them other than violence. which, imo, doesn't help in any way to reduce offending or bring any kind of solution or protection for children.
imo.

and, er, no I wasn't confused either.

He claimed to have been abused as a child.

I am also aware that he claimed he was researching for 'Help', where he was playing a therapist, and he needed to see these images to help play the part realistically - as you quite rightly say this was refuted by Paul Whitehouse. As pw quotes from the G he felt "condemned to feel the pain for all of us and try and express it".'

My, not very interesting, point was...

That if he really had been abused as a child he would have already felt the pain and humiliation that an abused child feels, therefore no research would have been necessary.

well, I have been sexually assaulted but I can't possibly say I understand how every other person who was sexually assaulted feels.
also, I think it is fair to say that I have blocked a lot of it out. maybe he had some difficulty accessing it. who knows.
hard to second guess what really went on, what was in the presentencing reports and all the evidence, unless you were there. imo.

Not that I want to get into a pissing contest about this, but I was raped as an 11 yr old by a member of my (not close) family.

I do not need to do ANY research to remind me exactly how bad that was (and continues to be).

But no, I cannot speak for all those who have suffered at the hands of abusers.

yes, of course we are all experts on our own personal experience (and I am of course sorry to hear about your's, it sounds very damaging)
but I don't think that helps us to necessarily understand the experience of others. we all react in different ways.
I have no idea if Chris LAngham was abused, or what effect it had on him, but he has been sentenced by someone with access to a great deal more information and experience than any of us picking up on what the media has chosen to report.

lots of us were abused
to use it as mitigation is abhorrent

but to ignore it as causation, explanation, an aid to understanding and prevention or rehabilitation is nonsensical and counterproductive.
twenty years ago, the victims of abuse were not heard or believed.
thirty years ago, they were blamed.
to ignore this makes no sense.

I echo every single one of harpsi's posts.

I fear for a society that thrives on backlash, and and eye for an eye.

Sooner or later we'll all be left blind. And the blind leading the blind....

don't get me wrong, I absolutely understand the natural and visceral abhorrence for abusers and those who collud ein and aid and abet the abuse.
but I think if we are ever to help the damaged and make progress we have to overcome our disgust and be practical and pragmatic.
we have sympathy for the abused but this turns to immediate and irreversable condemnation once that person (say) looks at pictures of abuse on the internet.
they are then considered to be beyond the point of no return.
but what possible incentive is there for a person to seek help if their sexuality has been completely screwed up for whatever reason? who would go to their GP and say I am aroused by children? I am tempted to look at sexual images of children?
I am not saying that should be acceptable but to write off so many people as lost is pointless and (imho) to some extent negligent, because those people put beyond the pale might be more likely to abuse - what do they have to lose?
sorry I am probably not being very articulate, it is late and I am very tired

You are making complete sense harpsi

If society wants to bury it's 'mistakes', sooner or later we will be up to our neck in our own mess.

(its late and I am using to many euphemisms nad metaphors!!!)

thank you
I did some work in this area fifteen years ago and it worries me sometimes that no only have we not progressed in our attitudes and perspective over our treatment of sex offenders but we have (imo) significantly regressed.
imo it is partly to do with our (collective) guilt over ignoring the plight of children for so long. and wanting to draw a line in the sand. which is as I say understandable but not the way to improve things or even deal with them.
imo.

That's kind of what I was saying on another paedophile thread...

If the whole of society turns its back on offenders then the offender remains caught up in his world of abuse - there is no pleasure in anything else, only persecution and so this is where his motivations remain.

Well, thats sorted that then

Wouldn't it be fair to say that most people wouldn't want paedophiles to be rehabiliitated even if it were possible?

I'm not saying this is right but I think a lot of people would never trust a paedophile regardless of their treatment.

you do make sense Harpsi. I heard about a programme where paedophiles were assigned a circle of 'friends' - volunteers who liased with the police but not part of the police, ordinary people who took it upon themselves to befriend the paedophile and try to help them stop reoffending. Apparently it had quite a good prevention rate. Obviously, paedophiles in prison need lengthy and in depth psychotherapy. As does Chris Langham. My worry is the level of denial he is spouting right now - comparing himself to Charles Dickens etc. I find it very strange that he gets 5 months in prison and no condition of seeing a psychologist, for example.