CHRIS LANGHAM FREED AFTER SENTENCE CUT

[donnie]

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.

sorry, I should clarify - I don't know whether he is personally avoiding responsibility or not, wha I meant was the court has punished him for his actions and does hold him responsible. he is responsible.
sorry I expressed that badly.

I suspect that by denying a sexual interest in children, but being willing to risk all by downloading the stuff he is refusing a responsibility.

there was an experiment in canada (where else?) that put child abusers, recently released from prison, in contact with families in the area in which they were to be living on their release. the families agreed to have dinners once a week that they all attended including the ex offender and to keep in touch with the ex offender in between meals (as it were). in none of the schemes that were set up did the abuser reoffend.
i think thats pretty cool. and it would be great if something like that were able to happen here. personally, i don't hold out much hope for CL's wife - she's been there since it began and has managed to avoid seeing any of it.

maybe staring at other kids getting hurt helped CL get over his own abuse - i dunno. but he is being pretty bloody whiney over it for someone who says it was all part of his rehabilitation.
i'll shut up now

Whilst he was imprisoned for the downloading, the additional charges of abusing a 14 year old girl have received less publicity, presumably because this was not proved, not necessarily because he was innocent, but possibly because he couldn't be proved guilty. I'm not accusing him but the case wasn't only about downloading porn and therefore the implication of this being a 'lesser charge' is not the case, he was initially charged with both downloading and actual abuse.

May I add the legal proviso that this is a world wide "published" forum. He was "not guilty" of the abuse charge, and would react badly IF aware of 'suggestions' contrary to his culpability in them.

Apologies if I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to infer tha he was guilty but making the point that the initial case included other accusations, making the issue more than just downloading.

Totally agree with you.

what a great message this sends for all those out there who are involved in the manufacture and use of this horrible, disgusting 'material'.

mr langham claimed his life was 'ruined' on camera this afternoon following his release.

not a jot of remorse for the crime of which he was convicted.

dispicable.

I think it's weird to say that being kept in the bosom of his family will somehow prevent Langham from reoffending. Clearly being a father, husband and extremely successful member of the community didn't make any difference before, so why should it do so now?

Also this claim that he watched it to help with his own abuse is disgusting. If that were the case you would expect him to have watched little boys being attacked, instead he had videos of little girls being raped (one was seven years old being raped by four men) kept in folders on his computer with titles like "Lolita". Anybody who was really concerned about child abuse, if they came across child porn on the web would report it to the police. He'd been downloading stuff for years - his name came up as a suspect in Operation Ore. By the time they got to him though, he'd binned that stuff and moved on to something else.

People are so desperate to believe anything paedophiles claim, which is lucky for paedophiles as they are usually seasoned liars and masters in self-justification.

And someone said he might not be a paedophile?

There was article by Carole Sarler which I thought made interesting reading.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2195745.ec e

As with lots of stories it is sometimes of benefit to have another's viewpoint.

To the best of my knowledge I am not acquainted with any paedophiles.

Sarler seems to ignore the child rape pornography on his computer that he was convicted for. He's hardly the victim of a gross injustice.

Elizabetth I think the point there, is the pornography he downloaded, yes he was guilty of that offence.

He was not guilty of child rape!.

Hmm I think he has been sufficiently punished TBH

Hate the mob attitude

Agree morningpaper. I found this a desperately sad case. His brilliant comedy seems founded on his being a rather unhappy and vulnerable person. Of course he committed a serious crime, but he has had an appropriate punishment and I hope that he can move on successfully.

Please let me make this clear, I abhor physical violence in any way shape or form, be it perpetrated by man, woman or child.

Sexual violence I find equally as repugnant.

I also find it difficult to understand why some intelligent articulate people can be so sure that there opinion of a situation reported in the media must be the correct one.

I try to reserve judgement in these cases and do not necessarily choose to admire "The Emperor's New Clothes" until I have seen the design and assured myself of the quality of the material.

"He was not guilty of child rape!."

Who said he was? I certainly didn't . I said "child rape pornography" which is what he was guilty of downloading and looking at and is the reason why I can't understand why people are so sanguine about what he did.

It's interesting to see the difference between the reactions to Langham who did something absolutely heinous, almost beyond imagination, compared to the reactions to say Heather Mills.

There are all sorts of people sympathising with Langham who would never dream of doing the same for Mills even though her only crime is marrying then divorcing a Beatle and being a bit of an attention seeker. If we're talking mob mentality it would probably be better to start with her. Langham did commit an awful crime and people's revulsion towards it is reasonable.

The only vulnerable person I can see with regards to Langham is the seven year old girl who was raped by four men a film of whose torture he downloaded and stored in his computer in files with names like "Lolita".

The pedants will have me for that 'there/their' error.

Yes Elizabetth, he did download the pornography and was duly sentenced.

I rather think that there are far more heinous crimes than downloading pornography. Saying that doesn't mean I find the practise acceptable.

And once again I have to admire your ability to have all that knowledge at your finger tips, so to speak.

Many people felt Stefan Kisko had reaped his reward for what they believed he had done.

I'm not being funny NNT but google is probably right there on your browser bar. Anybody can have the knowledge with just a couple of searches, it's not an ability it's a function of how the interenet works.

Anyhow you linked to that Sarler article which is a pretty obscure piece when you look at it.

Surely those who download child pornography are complicit with those who create it? They are after all the "demand" side of the supply/demand chain.

Having said that, he has served his sentence and obviously can't be kept in prison forever. The pictures I've seen of him certainly do not look smug.

"Many people felt Stefan Kisko had reaped his reward for what they believed he had done."

Langham admitted in court he had dowloaded it. The police found it on his computer. He's not claiming he didn't dowload it, he's pretending he isn't a paedophile.

Just out of interest, what will happen to Langham now? He's served his time and that's it? Will he be monitored or anything like that?

I'm asking because perhaps this is an opportunity to stop another (potential) paedophile from deviant behaviour and stop him from contributing further to the child sex trade.