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.

actually i retract that last statement.
i can believe that he has no sexual interest in children. i just don't find it very likely.
i did some wierd stuff when trying to come to terms with what happened to me. so maybe he's doing his wierd stuff and it came out in the papers which thankfully didn't happen to me.
but still, if he's been abused as he says, he will have had to cope with much worse than being attacked in the press, so i'd expect him to get on with it rather than keep on about what a victim he is.
wow, that does sound harsh.

This is outrageous. I was really pissed off to read this. It was a light enough sentence in the first place.

I do feel like echoing so many of the points raised here, and many of them contradictory in my mind.

I agree so much with what harpsichordcarrier has said so far. This is NOT an issue that lends itself easily to analysis. We all have sexual urges that may be deemed "inappropriate" or "unbecoming" for 'civilised' beings. Undoubtedly CL has broken a taboo (is that the correct diction?), and I do see how others can be shocked at his sentnece on appeal.

What is concerning for me is his abject refusal to reflect any of his responsibilty for what turns him on.

I do like things in sex that are "questionable" in many regards. None of them abusive to others, but I 'own' them, and lovely partners accept them, and often enjoy them too.

If part of my sexual "deviances" were abusive, I know I am brave enough to deal with them, and not share them around to the cost of others. That is where CL, for me, falls short.

Anyone fall for this crap?

TiredEm crapola is what it is.

Paedophiles are oftern articulate persuasive people who see themselves as wronged victims.

Sorry if this has been said before but I couldn't bring myself to re-read the same old same old.

I know someone who worked for years on "Operation Ore" dealing with some of the worst levels of crime in this area.

Langham was charged with looking at Level 5 pornography which is the nastiest & most violent type.

You don't "stumble across" it unless you know where to look. There are warnings & consent boxes all the way through the loading procedure often including payment checks,and registration forms. You know what is coming & any genuine perosn would not even start the procedure.

His defence that he was abused as a child is an insult to all those traumatised individuals who have tried hard to NOT let their awful past experiences warp their future.

Oh and to those of you who think he should be "treated" for his sexual tendencies.

Would you consider "treating" people who like gay sex/bondage/ big-busted blondes?

Our sexual preferences are not learned behaviour but the way we can express or enjoy them is. The difference between CL & most of us we know when it's acceptable between consenting parties or not.

He should be offered couonselling maybe to help hiom see what he did was wrong but as to "treating" him or any of his like I don't think that is possible.