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.

Langham's reputation is ruined, regardless of the time he spent inside - good!

See what I mean songbird?

It happens all the time here NNT - it surprises me sometimes how people are completely unwilling to understand thoughts and opinions different to their own.

Oh, very!

God must feel really good, sitting up there in heaven thinking
"That's not what I meant you to do"
"You've misunderstood my directions"
"I told you all sinners must be forgiven didn't I?"

tiredemma
great point abotu terminology

Now which patronising two would that be mildmanneredjanitor?

Why is it patronising to look at the issue a little more closely?

Quite, and actually, I'm not patronising, I'm genuinely baffled that people can be so close-minded. I like to try and understand humanity. I sometimes think I should have studied psychology, so I don't have spout amateur bollocks as I do!

No, noone has to agree with me, and in fact only one person is.

If you look back to my first post, I wasn?t attacking anyone, or their opinions, just trying to put a slightly different slant on things. My opinions were then criticized, so I tried to defend them. Simple as that!

'evidence that cannot be misconstrued' ie downloading extreme images of child abuse. Funny, I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt who hasn't committed an actual crime. especially against children.

No mildmanneredjanitor, that is wherE you have totally missed the poinT.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, doesn't mean they are right or wrong.

I have my opinion and if it doesn't agree with yours, it doesn't mean you are wrong!

But that's the rub isn't it? because I don't agree with you, you think I am wrong

I read songbirds post as being her opinion,quite a interesting point actually..

Someone who works in the child protection industry may, or may not, be justified in looking at images of child abuse online. Someone who works in TV, I'm telling you now, is not. Langham said first it was research for a programme he was writing. not necessary. then he said he was trying to come to terms with his own abuse.And he still says he has a clear conscience. He is an intelligent man. He knows the supply and demand argument, he knows counselling is a better [and less damaging for others] tool for recovery. Disingenuous to say the least.

saying someone is 'close minded' [sic] because they don't agree with you is a kind of universal argument. Everyone thinks that.

'Could someone explain to me how you come to terms with being sexually abused as by watching little children being raped?'

I was raped as a teenager- technically not a child but I was a aaprticularly innocent never been kissed teen so not far off.

I can't possibly understand myself how seeing others exposed to even more horrid experiences could help or have helped me (it was many years ago thankfully).

I just don't understand that argument at all. He's not a poor man, he oculd have afforded Counselling and therapy.

Personally I am on the side of the supply chain argument- one can assume that there are poeple out there in the world who make a living from these sites, (esp. as apparently they take credit cards from what I can deduce about op Orr?). Now, remove their amrkets and wham- their businesses all gone. What a damned shame.

As for the sentencing I am saddened he is out but wouldn't wish to be part of any mob decre3e I suppose (though sometimes on these thredds mob can be used to mean majority decree which is not fair)

I agree Ruty. Didn't Pete Townsend plea the research line? I can?t remember what happened then, he didn?t get charged, did he?

'mob' mentality is the screaming about paediatricians being hung drawn and quartered. It is possible to have a considered and intelligent opinion that someone like Langham should have served his full sentence, and that there should be more serious sentences for these crimes.

The point is ruty, the man has been found guilty of that crime, and has served his sentence. Whether people feel this was an adequate sentence is not in question, he has served it.

The question as to whether he is a paedophile and guilty of a crime, he was judged in court and found not guilty I believe.

Now he may be a paedophile, he may be a prat,a stupid idiot, a typical man, a very stupid person........

He may be lots of things, but he served the sentence for the crime of which he was found guilty.

Now if there is evidence around which proves him guilty of any form of child abuse, then I will take my knitting needles and do a Madame le Farge at the appropriate spot..

pete townshend was cautioned, iirc, and put on the sex offenders register for 5 years

Agree Ruty. Sadly though there seem to be some accusation on here that seem to equate just being anti Paedophile with being one of those people that burn down houses in the middle fo the night

thats the point entirely ruty,suitable sentancing for child abusers,its just a kick in the face for survivors after going through the court system (and the horrors of abuse obviously) for them to either get suspended sentancing or a custodial sentance for a few months.