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.

Agree again Ruty ? just because almost everyone thinks he should have served his full sentence doesn?t mean we?re a mob, does it? I think the word is used a bit freely to be honest.

His various defences do make him sound like he?s trying to wheedle out of it ? not very pleasant! It?s weird, you can feel quite ?let down? by slebs when they?ve done something wrong, like they should be beyond reproach.

Peachy, I don't think any reasonable person could be anything other than anti paedophile

Suppositions,prejudices,concerns,ideas etc. are all by the bye.

If there is proof, then let the person be dealt with in the proper manner.

Quite!

NoName I think you are mistaken in equating the feeling that there should be stronger sentences for downloading child abuse with guillotine knitters.

ruty, my dropped stitches and my dropped aitches must equate to an " Off with her head"
order.

Or, I read humour in your post which was unintended?

perhaps i was not very clear. you were making a correlation between those, like me, who are upset about the leniency of Langham's case, and those who are guillotine knitters, ie, those who read the Daily Mail and want to burn down paediatrician's doors...

"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!"

Have you not heard the warning not to open your mind too much in case your brain falls out?

If we're talking psychology here I've got to say I find it fascinating when people commit the most heinous crimes particularly sex crimes and paedophilia, there is often a queue of people wanting to sympathise with them and coddle them. I can't really get my head around it. I've got a lot of sympathy for the little girls who were abused in order to make the videos that Langham watched. I can't see why he needs any.

"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!"

Have you not heard the warning not to open your mind too much in case your brain falls out?

If we're talking psychology here I've got to say I find it fascinating when people commit the most heinous crimes particularly sex crimes and paedophilia, there is often a queue of people wanting to sympathise with them and coddle them. I can't really get my head around it. I've got a lot of sympathy for the little girls who were abused in order to make the videos that Langham watched. I can't see why he needs any.

Dunno why Spychology would affect this much tbh- have studied to at under grad level (not all the way through) and a child is a child.

Be fair ruty, I acknowledge that convicted paedophiles deserve whatever punishment is meted out to them( and possibly more ).

In this situation, we are discussing a man who downoaded files regarding sexual abuse of children, he has paid the price and served his sentence for the crime. Whether the sentence was just, is arguable.

He has not been found gulty of being a paedophile(I don't know whether he is, or is not a paedophile).

If he is a paedophile and is with evidence, at any time is found guilty of the crime and subsequently sentenced to a deserved term of incarceration, then I will happily get out my knitting kneedles and wool and sit there knitting while the sentence is carried out.

I hope that makes my stance clear.

Sympathy ? feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else?s misfortune. (Oxford concise dictionary)

Who, here, has offered Langham any sympathy? Not me! I would like to be able to understand what drives anyone to do anything, even something as heinous as perpetuate the supply/demand cycle for child abuse. It would be so easy if we could just look in his head and go ?oh, he?s just pure evil?, but it?s not that simple.

The only people I have sympathy for are the victims.

Once again [sigh] I?m not making any excuses for him!

And Elizabetth, you could be right, I feel like my brain is falling out!

NoNameToday has likened him to Stefan Kisko, an innocent man who did indeed deserve a great deal of sympathy.

laughs @ song...I lost mine ages back.

songbird

whast the row about

"And Elizabetth, you could be right, I feel like my brain is falling out!"

Oops, I'm sure your brain is fine. It is a funny line though.

there is a broad assumption here that harsher sentences for people who download child abuse images, and treating all those who download such images as paedophiles with no place in society and as outcasts who cannot be changed - an assumption that these things will reduce the amount of offending.
in fact I think the opposite is true.
if you genuinely want to reduce offending then you need to look beyond the strong words and actually look at the reasons for offending and the successes of rehabilitation.
imo

Can't remember who it is now, but there is a mumsnetter whose DH works with child sex offenders and she has posted that the vast majority of them were abused as children themselves.

Basically, NoNameToday and I (and a few less argumentative others) are going along the lines of there is something to be understood about wanting to view pictures of child abuse. I argued that it might be possible to be curious about it without being sexually aroused (not speaking from personal experience of course!), and that curiosity could be a 'defence'. It might be semantics, but downloading images of child abuse doesn?t necessarily make one a paedophile.

Others disagree, to put it mildly, and seem to think that we are defending Chris Langham!

yes Elizabetth, Stefan Kisko did deserve sympathy,as did his mother, I will not go down the road of lack compensation fot their unbelievable trauma.

My point in mentioning Stefann Kisko was that he was an innocent person who was believed guilty of a terrible crime, and as such, was the ideal candidate.

Chris Langham was guilty of a terrible crime and served his sentence, but he is not guilty of the crimes that people think he might commit! Who knows, in time he might be a guilty person, but as yet, he is not.

He's guilty of the crimes he did commit. Good grief.

Just because you're not bothered by the fact he downloaded film of little girls being abused doesn't mean the rest of us aren't or that we are unreasonable in condemning him for doing so.

you can be in favour of mor ehumane treatment of paedophiles and those who have downloaded images
for the sake of common humanity and practicality, to try and reduce their offending
without being an apologist.
which I am not

Probably v. true dinosaur-sadly some victims of abuse grow up with a distorted view of what is correct behaviour and sadly go on to abuse others when adult.I agree with rehabilitation though as well sentancing,it can only be the way forward.

How much more humane could you get than letting him out after four months? Most child abusers don't serve any time at all for their crimes. Ian Huntley raped a twelve year old girl, but nothing ever happened to him for it until he was convicted of murder and then his previous victim was able to take a civil suit against him.

Paedophiles routinely get short sentences. There was a guy who raped a baby in Scotland who only was sentenced to six months.

Elizabethh, who is saying they are "not bothered" by the fact that he downloaded images?
he has been convicted and he has served his sentence.
just because we are taking a more pragmatic view doesn't mean that we are "not bothered". I think that is a bit insulting tbh.
there isn't one morally and emotionally correct response to this activity. if we don't have the same response to you, it doesn't mean we don't care.
sometimes it might be more helpful to take a less emotional view if one can.