My feed

to access all these features



206 replies

donnie · 14/11/2007 18:57

I just read it on the BBBC website - sorry, no good at links.

What message does this send to people, if possessing child pornography is viewed as so minor an offence?

I am very angry about this.

OP posts:
pagwatch · 14/11/2007 18:58

sadly I think this was always on the cards!

tiredemma · 14/11/2007 19:00

Despicable creature.

Still trying to fool us into believing that he is not a paedophile.

He does look rough though in the pic. Perhaps prison was tough. Heres hoping anyway

NAB3littlemonkeys · 14/11/2007 19:01


I am hiding this thread now as I can't bear to see that awful mans name.

( I didn't mean to shout. I am just so bloody angry)

donnie · 14/11/2007 19:02

Ihope so too tiredemma, but I also wish he was still there.

OP posts:
Elizabetth · 14/11/2007 19:04

His sentence wasn't long enough in the beginning and now they've decided to cut it? So wrong.

Sexual crimes against women and children go virtually unpunished.

Lulumama · 14/11/2007 19:06

link here from times online

Lulumama · 14/11/2007 19:07

he is a disgrace

he;s not a peadophile, don;t you know

a local man has just been given a jail term for downloading child pornography... he said he was 'lonely and isolated' , his wife is standing by him, they have a toddler.

i would not and could not countenance living with a man who did this, there is no justification .

lazygirl · 14/11/2007 19:13

I have to say I do think there's a significant and important difference between downloading images of child abuse and abusing a child yourself. not condoning either. obviouisly

Lulumama · 14/11/2007 19:19

i agree, but the downloading and viewing of images is perpetuating abuse, and i don;t believe that this is done for any other reason than sexual gratification i.e paedophilia, certainly if more than one image is viewed and it is done on subsequent occasions.

workstostaysane · 14/11/2007 19:23

lazygirl, you are very entitled to your opinion - but i suspect that to the boy or girl being raped, attacked or however else tortured in the download, your 'significant or important difference' is twaddle. you look at those pictures, you pay some rapist to take and make them.

i have no opinion on chris langham by the way.

Tinker · 14/11/2007 19:23

Why couldn't he just shut up instead of trying to justify himself?

Lulumama · 14/11/2007 19:24

i know tinker, the justification is revolting and makes me feel even more ill disposed towards him

Elizabetth · 14/11/2007 19:28

I know someone who was abused whe she was a child and pictures of it were taken. It causes her appalling anguish knowing that the photographs are out there and that strangers have used them to get their sexual kicks.

There is no excuse. Langham should still be in prison. He's claiming now that he has a "clear conscience".

ruty · 14/11/2007 19:29

appalling. And he has children of his own. women are getting their children taking away because of hints of suspicion and a man who watches the most extreme forms of child abuse for gratification gets reunited with his family after a token sentence.

Lulumama · 14/11/2007 19:31

spot on ruty... it is just horrific

i wonder if his family ar buying into his reasoning?

ruty · 14/11/2007 19:42

i'm sure they're in denial. But his posturing and self righteous lies were sickening.

corblimeycharlie · 14/11/2007 19:53

Its the wives "standing by them" that sickens me as much as the offender themselves, particularly if they have children. If it were my DH he would never see me or the children again.
I cheered yesterday when the wife of the murderer of Lesley Moldseed was on the news saying she was sickened by him and she and her (adult) son will never have contact with him again.

Marina · 14/11/2007 20:08

A very good point ruty and I also agree about the self-justification being awful to observe.
With his money and connections I trust he'll keep a low profile and get some heavy-duty therapy to make sure he never poses a risk to children again.
His children I saw mentioned in press coverage were late teens/young adults - unless there were younger ones covered by privacy laws.
Corblimey, though, I think the two cases are different. I am very glad Castree has finally been convicted of Lesley Molseed's murder and in his wife's position I think I'd wash my hands of him too
But you could argue that Chris Langham's wife "standing by him" might be a helpful factor in ensuring he doesn't download any more porn, or groom any more young girls. Because surely she will be on his case night and day.
Personally I think part of the problem with convicted child sex offenders returning to the community is that because their families have disowned them, no-one is taking an interest in their whereabouts or activities.

harpsichordsahoy · 14/11/2007 20:10

lulumama, I am not sure I agree with that tbh, that the only reason for looking at these images is sexual gratification. I think the reasons for offending are often very complicated and entangled. I think the easy availability of these images on the internet makes offending much much more likely for people who are just curious.
ten or twenty years ago, the vast majority of those people would not have been committing any kind of criminal offence. only a small minority would have gone onto abuse children.
I don't believe that everyone looking at images of children being abused on the internet are all paedophiles.
I don't believe that they will all inevitably go on to abuse children.
that's not to say that their actions should not be punished and it should be recognised that they play an active part in creating the industry that supplies picture of child porn.
I don't know anything about CL but if (As he says "the court (accepted) based upon all the evidence and expert opinion that I have no sexual interest in children" then I can accept that might be the case.

harpsichordsahoy · 14/11/2007 20:12

by the way Marina, I agree with you about the social isolation of offenders.
I don't think it helps anyone too much to try and draw black and white distinctions about offenders and offending.
I don't say there are any easy solutions.

Saturn74 · 14/11/2007 20:13

Wow, home in time for Christmas.

I am not surprised though.

Slebs are above the law, apparently.

beansprout · 14/11/2007 20:14

I'm with harpischord on this one. Perhaps it's worth considering that there may be people better placed (his wife, the court, psychiatrists) to assess CL's mental and emotional state.

The mob always worries me.

corblimeycharlie · 14/11/2007 20:17

That is a consideration that I have never really taken into account Marina. You are right, in the interests of the community it is better for offenders to return to live with family members rather than alone. In reality I could imagine standing by my children (as I would feel, rightly or wrongly, a sense of responsibility for raising an offender) but to stand by my husband who hurt other children would be intolerable to me.

I suppose I would feel betrayed on all accounts and would be anxious that I was not seen to condone his behaviour.

I think I would find it difficult to even look at the man again let alone live with him.

workstostaysane · 14/11/2007 20:30

'I don't believe that everyone looking at images of children being abused on the internet are all paedophiles.
I don't believe that they will all inevitably go on to abuse children."

The point is, that by using the pictures, for whatever reason, you ARE abusing children.
Because if you think that only the people who take the pictures are the abusers, then you really are on a slippery slope of avoiding responsibility.

i see no reason to believe that CL is a paedophile, but the punishment should be for downloading the images fullstop.
and as for his wife keeping and eye on him!!! cos she was really paying attention when he was sleeping with the teenager and downloading the images in the first place wasn't she..???

harpsichordsahoy · 14/11/2007 20:38

he isn't avoiding responsibility, and he has been punished for downloading the images. I think looking at pictures of abuse is participating in the abuse, contributing to creating a market for the abuse and should be punished accordingly.
I don't think it can be equated with actual contact abuse, though, tbh. Looking at something isn't the same as actually doing it, and any sentence will reflect that.
I appreciate that many people take a much more black and white view of this than me.
I don't think it is question of his wife "keeping an eye" on him - more a question that someone in this position will at some point have to leave prison and go into the community. the more utterly isolated they are, the less likely they are to be rehabilitated.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.