Chris Langham freed early

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Black-Mafia, Nov 14, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Chris Langham has won a fouth-month cut in his sentence

    Wednesday November 14,2007
    Have your say(4)
    Comedy actor Chris Langham has left prison after winning a four-month cut in his sentence for downloading child pornography.

    After his release from Elmley Prison, Kent,.the actor said: "My life has been ruined but my conscience is clear."
    The 58-year-old Bafta award-winner was sent to prison for 10 months in September after being found guilty of 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child.

    His second application for a sentence reduction was successful at a hearing before three judges at the Court of Appeal in London. Langham, who denied the charges, was not present for the hearing.

    In a prepared statement, Langham said: "I have a few words to say but I need to reflect before I make a longer statement.

    "The court's acceptance based upon all the evidence and expert opinion that I have no sexual interest in children has been completely ignored in the reporting of the case.

    "However, perhaps the media cannot be blamed for this misrepresentation when the judge, having accepted that I'm not a paedophile, then sent me to prison for 10 months as if I was.

    "To set the record straight, I never paid to look at the material. I saw a tiny number of images of child abuse which I have always said were distressing, sickening and atrocious.

    "I looked because I was writing about the subject of child abuse. My own abuse as a child made it important for me to attempt to address this subject in my writing.

    "I was wrong to do so but I believe the price I have been asked to pay is out of all proportion."

    His life has been ruined ! what about the children in the websites he viewed, the police said it was some of the worst material they had come across and included infant rape and worse.
    If it was'nt for cnuts like him, there would be no demand for the sh*t and in my eyes he's just as guilty as the scum who actually did the crime, so what message does reducing his sentence give out......why can't we just string these fcukers up from the nearest lamppost ?

    When is the judicial system in this country going to wake up, they're a fcuking joke !!
  2. Well, that certainly sends the right message...... 8O
  3. msr

    msr LE

    Don't they always say that?

  4. Law is a fecking joke!
  5. kiddy fiddlers should hang
  6. Are you implying the police were lying ?
  7. If he was viewing the material, he was helping to fund such abuse and participating by proxy.

    Not the sort of stuff you just browse out of curiosity, given the prospect of public disgrace and prison even if - for whatever reason - the normal instinct of revulsion is not present. These people are acting on twisted impulses, and are either simply deviant or have a serious psychological illness.

    Is his release tied to any treatment programme? Or is it just because he's a minor celebrity?
  8. Nor is it something you just "accidentally click on".
  9. I don't condone what Langham has done in any way shape or form but the sentence was reduced because it wasn't proportionate with the crime. He was given the same length of sentence that much more serious offenders have had handed down and on appeal it was reduced.

    Legally - fair.
    Morally - not.
  10. A minor celebrity which in todays society seems to mean you can get away with murder (or in his case noncing by proxy) string the scum up
  11. The Langham defence:

    "To set the record straight, I never paid to look at the material. I saw a tiny number of images of child abuse which I have always said were distressing, sickening and atrocious."

    Seems to be another "it was a legitmate investigation of the subject" line, which is being trotted out more regularly now then ever before.

    High profile this may be, but again, the courts and legal system appear weighted on the rights of the abuser and not the victims.

    If Langham truly was stupid enough not to see how his actions would lead to court, then he deserves what he got.
  12. Judge: "Why, Mr Langham, how indeed could you be a man of dubious character, if you have appeared on the television as an entertainer? Some of you entertainer chappies have even appeared before the Queen! Not that I view the television myself of course, I have a man to watch it for me...."

    Langham: "Thank you, Your Honour"

    Judge: "Zzzzzzz....."
  13. He is a slimey degenerate.
    When Pete Townshend was cautioned for accessing a website allegedly offering child pornography he claimed it was for research purposes.
    One point made at the time was that the Home Office maintains a database of child pornography that people engaging in legitimate research may apply for supervised access to.
    If Langham needed to look at child pornography to research a writing project he could have done so legally. The excuse that he was trying to come to terms with childhood experiences is probably at best a half truth.
    Langham is clearly trying to mount an aggressive attempt to rehabilitate himself and has no apparant shame or remorse. His only regret is that he got caught, and he's certainly not making any mention of the relationship he had with the young girl he was aquitted of abusing.
    Hopefully he will open his arrogant mouth in the wrong company sooner or later.
  14. "I haven't done anything wrong."

    Pretty standard attitude from these people when they get caught.

    I hear Garry Glitter also got his sentence cut (though unfortunately not his throat). No other country will let him in so he's being deported back to England. Now, here's an ARRSE quiz:

    What will happen to Garry when he arrives at Heathrow?

    a) He'll be arrested, prosecuted as a child sex tourist for the crimes he commited in Cambodia and banged up at a cost of £30 K per year.

    b) He'll be free as a bird with the authorities operating a 'Multi Agency Protection Programme' involving police, probation and mental health workers supervising him in the community. The cost of £250K per year will be paid by the taxpayer and he'll be free to do what he likes, including hanging about primary schools, when he's not meeting with his supervisors.