The paedophile Chris Langham has been convicted for downloading child pornography from the internet on to his computer. The jury rejected his claims that he had downloaded it as part of his research for a TV programme that he had written. Langham was found not guilty of indecent assault against the 14 year old girl, who had alleged that he had raped her. He has been remanded into custody to await pre-sentence reports. And, the judge ordered him to sign the sex offender register.
Langham had pleaded not guilty to the charges of downloading child pornography, even though he admitted downloading it, because he did not want to be labelled as a paedophile, as he claimed that he wasn't one. Well, Chris, you are, and the label is appropriate.
Oddly, the judge said: "In my judgment, and I have thought long and hard about this, it would [be] a misplaced kindness to give you bail at this stage". I wish the judge had explained why he reached this view. Could it be that he is giving Langham a taster of prison as a short, sharp, shock, before imposing a non-custodial sentence? I doubt that it is to protect him from the media pack.
16 comments:
JHL he is guilty of knocking one out to some kiddy porn? Not a paedophile in my book.
zinzin: I agree that it is not as bad as actually physically sexually abusing children, still he got sexual pleasure from seeing children sexually abused. The CPS said that these were not simply pictures of nude children. I think the label is fitting.
And anyway, surely the use of the term "kiddy porn" somewhat (hugely) minimises the fact that such pictures are indecent photos of children?
How could anyone possibly think that someone "knocking one out to some kiddy porn" is not a paedophile?
Mousie there is a world of difference between "knocking one out to some kiddy porn" and indecent assualt and buggery. Langham confessed to viewing indecent images and was found guilty, but was acquitted on the more serious charges.
Having a wank over some indecent images does not make him a paedophile.
So what about the Prophet Mohammed? is he not also guilty of such crime?
Answers please on a postcard....
"Married an eight year old gurl but waited until she was 11 before he shagged her??????? Mohammed??? What???????
Zinzin, while I accept that there is indeed a world of difference between "knocking one out to some kiddy porn" and indecent assault and buggery, it still constitutes paedophilia.
The accepted definition of a paedohile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.
I'd say that in order to have a wank over indecent images of children, one would have to be sexually attracted to them.
If the cap fits...
The accepted definition of a paedohile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.
Is it? the term paedophile means lover of children. The common usage is an adult who engages in sexual activity with a child.
Langham was found not guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a child.
He has sexual desires that, we as a society find abhorrent, but he has not acted upon them.
zinzin: I Googled the words definition of a paedophile and this is the result:
Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children
pedophile
degenerate, deviant, deviate, pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior.
Link
JHL locking up someone who has sexual desires that we as a society find abhorrent is worthless. The makers of child porn should be in prison not its consumers.
A contributer on my blog does bring up the issue of those who pay to view kiddy porn.
zinzin: They are not locking him up for his sexual desires, but for the criminal offence of downloading child pornography.
They have caught some of those who made or at least distributed the images.
Do you think that it should be a criminal offence to view/download child porn?
zinzin: Now you are putting me on the spot. I will have to think about it. As I am already on my second triple whiskey, coke and ice, now's not the time. Later, when I have a clear head...
"Oddly, the judge said: "In my judgment, and I have thought long and hard about this, it would [be] a misplaced kindness to give you bail at this stage". I wish the judge had explained why he reached this view. Could it be that he is giving Langham a taster of prison as a short, sharp, shock, before imposing a non-custodial sentence?"
Surely the kindness would be misplaced because Langham is going to be handed down a custodial sentence of between 6 months and 3 years (true to current guidelines)? We will know for sure on 14 Sep I suppose.
For me the controversy here is over sentencing policy in child sex offence cases. This judgment seems to give a conflicting signal to that from the body responsible for policing on line child sex cases given only this June (detail here).
The fact is that 'kiddie porn' (and how abhorrent is that name?)only exists because people view it. Watching it causes suffering. Rewarding the provider financially encourages more abuse, devastates more lives.
Viewers of child porn are responsible for this.
Zinzin, if the term paedophile means lover of children, then there are surely millions more of us out there!
Not all paedophiles engage in sexual activity with a child. Some of them just watch others do so.
One cannot and should not be incarcerated for one's sexual desires, but downloading images of children being sexually abused by adults is a different matter.
If you download and view the images for sexual gratification you are as responsible for the perpetuation of this vile "industry" as those who produce them.
Post a Comment