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.
