Chris Langham
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Langham
Ok - not exactly news - he has been remanded in custody pending sentencing for 15 counts of making indecent images.
According to the court report he has been remanded as the video he had on his PCs contained images of a children as young as seven years old being sexually tortured - they are regarded as category five - the most serious category of child ****.
It is so sad that anyone can lack the humanity to commit such acts and that someone like Langham can and would want to purchase such footage.
The maximum sentence for each offence is ten years so he is likely to be a very old if and when we ever see him again. Such a talented and ultimately broken individual.
According to the court report he has been remanded as the video he had on his PCs contained images of a children as young as seven years old being sexually tortured - they are regarded as category five - the most serious category of child ****.
It is so sad that anyone can lack the humanity to commit such acts and that someone like Langham can and would want to purchase such footage.
The maximum sentence for each offence is ten years so he is likely to be a very old if and when we ever see him again. Such a talented and ultimately broken individual.
#4
i wouldn't have put it so politely myself
I've been following the case in the morning paper
he wanted to publicy deny he was a paedophile !!
absolute fvcking scum
A week ago, i was hoping justice would prevail and wasn't 100% sure he'd get put away, but in the end he got 30 years and well deserved too!!
bastid
I've been following the case in the morning paper
he wanted to publicy deny he was a paedophile !!
absolute fvcking scum
A week ago, i was hoping justice would prevail and wasn't 100% sure he'd get put away, but in the end he got 30 years and well deserved too!!
bastid
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this story last night, and well tbh I have never seen the guy before or heard of him
severe torture might be a good start to his prison life, one can only hope
severe torture might be a good start to his prison life, one can only hope
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully some good can come of this, it being such a high profile case. If it is seen that downloading child pornography will be discovered, and lead to a serious jail sentence, then hopefully demand for such reprehensible media will be reduced.
#7
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is 7 to 10 years with a minimum of 4 years served.
PS As he was using American websites it is a shame he won't be shipped off to Leavenworth. Four years there would be a life sentence!
PS As he was using American websites it is a shame he won't be shipped off to Leavenworth. Four years there would be a life sentence!
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#17
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#18
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
Sorry to burst your bubble but he won't be old when he gets out whoever he is because the UK justice system sentences concurrently not consecutively so he will get 15 sentences of 10 years all to be served concurrently so in actual fact he will only serve a max of 10 years and not 150 years. But will probably be out after 6 or 7.
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SE15/EC4
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's very sad really. The bloke was himself abused as a child and has been pretty damaged all his life, with depression and alcohol problems well documented before any of this came to light. Apparently a common vicious circle.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sickens me that anyone can find this kind of thing a turn on. I could never want to watch it either in real life, or via download. However, you and I are not built like these people.
Each and every year that goes by more of these people are born. The vast majority, to my knowledge, simply don't choose to be built like this. They simply find themselves compelled into liking this sort of thing. Sex drive is a really power thing, and when that drive is misplaced it is very dangerous.
Which leads me to my point. Do we want these people to do this stuff in real life, or would we rather they watch something that has already happened in the past? I am honestly not sure that if tomorrow some amazing technology came out and stopped every single download it would be a good thing or not.
If your "needs" are satisfied through images that have already been made (yes it was horrific when it first happened), then that may stop you from offending in the real world. We are all well aware of the tragic cases where people feel the need to do this in real life, often ending up killing someone.
The desire to have retribution on these people is obvious, I feel it too. Stringing them up, cutting their ***** of etc may make us feel good, but does that really help? The chilling thought is that right now there will be some children in this country harbouring these thoughts. One day they will have grown up and will act on them. Would allowing some of them the imagery they clearly crave in a virtual nature stop them from actually seeking out a new victim in real life and harming them?
Until we become a society that has some test to identify these people at a young age, we have to come up with policies that will mitigate the risk they cause to the rest of the population.
Like I say, I am not looking for an argument, and I don't pretend to know the answer. I just worry that denying them the imagery they so desperately crave, may mean they go out onto the street and find some schoolgirl/boy
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is incredibly depressing to know that there is such a huge demand for this stuff out there. Langham is just the public tip of a very large iceberg Watch out for comment by Jim Gamble, who runs CEOP - top bloke who is totally dedicated to catching these people. He makes it his business to ensure that this sort of stuff is deliberatly very high profile. More power to him as far as I am concerned. It is also good to know that although CEOP is a government dept it has received massive backing from the IT industry and it now has considerable resources available to it.
Re the downloading of images as opposed to acutal abuse - I think you have to consider the children in the photos who are being abused! That is surely the point?
Chris
Last edited by Chris L; 03 August 2007 at 11:07 AM.
#24
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Duck my sick losernetters
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's very sad really. The bloke was himself abused as a child and has been pretty damaged all his life, with depression and alcohol problems well documented before any of this came to light. Apparently a common vicious circle.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
It's no suprise if he was abused as a child but it sure as hell isn't any sort of excuse.
#25
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Duck my sick losernetters
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there's a good case to say that this sort of material can actually incite them to go out and abuse rather than sate their desires.
#26
I think it's very sad really. The bloke was himself abused as a child and has been pretty damaged all his life, with depression and alcohol problems well documented before any of this came to light. Apparently a common vicious circle.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
Do you all think downloading child **** is as bad as sexually abusing children? I'm not sure really... obviously we wouldn't say watching a video of a murder is the same as doing it, but that's a bit different. Maybe the degree doesn't matter in this kind of case.
I'm attempting to condone child **** by the way, or to justify Langham. Just interested in whether people think he's a guilty as the people who made the stuff he watched.
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to burst your bubble but he won't be old when he gets out whoever he is because the UK justice system sentences concurrently not consecutively so he will get 15 sentences of 10 years all to be served concurrently so in actual fact he will only serve a max of 10 years and not 150 years. But will probably be out after 6 or 7.
Maybe your glasses need a remap?
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "crime" to me seems to be that by watching/paying for this stuff he is encouraging more of the same i.e. more harm to children, not that he is watching it as such, sick though that might be. The people that really deserve the long sentences are the people that make the films and the internet site owners that promote them. Langham is destroyed now so I would shove him inside for a couple of years as he didn't actually harm anyone directly. dl
Pete Townsend must have had better lawyers
Pete Townsend must have had better lawyers
Last edited by David Lock; 03 August 2007 at 11:15 AM.
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed although in my previous job we did some work with CEOP. At their London office they have a (literally) caged file server that contains every single dodgy image relating to children found on the Internet - it runs to millions and increases daily at a frightening rate. Now obviously they didn't show us (no particular desire to see it and technically an offence to even look at it!).
It is incredibly depressing to know that there is such a huge demand for this stuff out there. Langham is just the public tip of a very large iceberg Watch out for comment by Jim Gamble, who runs CEOP - top bloke who is totally dedicated to catching these people. He makes it his business to ensure that this sort of stuff is deliberatly very high profile. More power to him as far as I am concerned. It is also good to know that although CEOP is a government dept it has received massive backing from the IT industry and it now has considerable resources available to it.
Re the downloading of images as opposed to acutal abuse - I think you have to consider the children in the photos who are being abused! That is surely the point?
Chris
It is incredibly depressing to know that there is such a huge demand for this stuff out there. Langham is just the public tip of a very large iceberg Watch out for comment by Jim Gamble, who runs CEOP - top bloke who is totally dedicated to catching these people. He makes it his business to ensure that this sort of stuff is deliberatly very high profile. More power to him as far as I am concerned. It is also good to know that although CEOP is a government dept it has received massive backing from the IT industry and it now has considerable resources available to it.
Re the downloading of images as opposed to acutal abuse - I think you have to consider the children in the photos who are being abused! That is surely the point?
Chris
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what you say is true, then the present policy is the way to go. Its hard to tell if it is the case, I just don't know.
I just tried to put myself in their shoes for a minute *shudder*. I imagined a different world where it was considered an absolute abomination for a man to fancy a woman (of reasonable age). I tried to imagine a world where every image of a naked female was deeply illegal, and an actual act of pleasure in the real world carried a massive sentence. It would be a world of forced chastity for your entire life.
The temptation/desperation to "offend" in this world would be immense. Would virtual imagery stop you from going out and doing something for real? I dunno Could it help, possibly.
Maybe there should be some sort of debate on this topic, but I fear that the country we live in is too PC/ people too emotive to have it. I just hope we are doing the right thing.