Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Child-porn star gets 10 months as judge shames him over victims

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 September 2007
THE actor Chris Langham was last night beginning a ten-month jail term for downloading child pornography.
The 58-year-old Bafta award-winning star, whose arrest came at the height of his success, accessed videos of prepubescent children.

Langham, who broke down in tears during his sentencing hearing at Maidstone Crown Court, claimed that he was resea
rching a paedophile character for a television drama. He also said he wanted to look into the eyes of the abusers to make sense of the sexual abuse he had suffered as a child.

But he was convicted by a jury last month of 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child between September and November 2005. The videos lasted a total of 42 minutes - two were classed as level five, the most serious level of images, while a further five were level four.

Judge Philip Statman said: "Some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent, others are fully developed, some of the children are clearly of Filipino extract.

"All have had inflicted upon them horrifying sexual abuse and, I want to make this absolutely clear to you, I must think first of those children. They are too young to consent. Each of those children is a victim lacking in protection. When one sees their faces, in my judgment, they are vacant and lacking in expression ... you never ever see the faces of the perpetrators.

"Your activity took place in the comfort of your own home, no doubt at the time feeling safe in the knowledge that you would never be caught."

However, the judge added: "There's nothing in the papers before me to indicate that you are a sexual predator in the sense that it is ordinarily used."

Police raided the star's home in November 2005 as part of Operation Ore, an international investigation into child pornography on the internet. Just hours before, Langham had downloaded indecent images of children - as he had done on three other occasions in the previous three months.

Langham, who won a Bafta for his role in the BBC drama The Thick Of It, admitted looking at child porn but pleaded not guilty to the charges because, he said, he wanted to make a public declaration that he was not a paedophile.

His defence was that he was conducting research for the BBC television series Help. Langham said he had created a paedophile character and wanted to explore the way society viewed sex offenders through him.

Outside court, Langham's solicitor, read a statement on his behalf: "The court has confirmed today that I am not a paedophile. It has reached this conclusion having considered reports by social services, the probation service, a senior consultant psychiatrist and an expert in sexual offenders with 30 years' experience.

"If the prosecution had accepted this at the beginning, I would have pleaded guilty. I have always admitted I should never have downloaded those abusive images. I am delighted that, at last, my account has been proved to be the truth."

Langham, who shook visibly when he entered the dock, did not react when the judge handed him the jail term - of which he will serve five months, less 43 days already spent in custody. As he left court, he blew kisses at his three adult sons and his father in the public gallery.

Langham will be on the sex offenders' register for ten years and will be subject to a five-year prevention order.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 September 2007 10:50 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Pornography
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 15/09/2007 02:23:05

Ten months not enough, it should have been ten years, as well as mandatory castration.

2

The Fly Fifer,

15/09/2007 04:14:47

Guga ii I agree except the castration bit, unless done with a rusty knife

3

Conan,

Here 15/09/2007 04:37:41

Ten years is too much and castration is barbaric - feed him into a super-slow-running plastic shredder with dull blades while child porm movie is shown on his way in.

4

AMNo2tiredofmoaningtothemoderator,

15/09/2007 06:29:34

I wonder if he'll be sharing a cell with Garry Glitter when he heads east?

5

Boy Wonder,

15/09/2007 07:01:10

The excuses these people trot out in their defence is just unbelievable! The sentence is very light. He'll be out in five or less!

6

Conan,

Here 15/09/2007 07:15:02

#5 - hate to diasagree - but, what the heck - I'll go ahead anyway. What's 'unbelievable' is that there are highly paid individual (we are paying their salaries and expenses) sitting on the 'Bench' who are STUPID enough, and SUFFICIENTLY OUT-OF-TOUCH WITH REALITY, that they are willing to buy this nonsense. What's even more distressing is that there are whore lawyers who facilitate this for money. Selling out for money? The oldest profession - lawyering. The second oldest profession - good old fashioned sex for money. Which is worse? The former because they have no excuse.

7

Pocket Dictionary,

15/09/2007 07:30:41

The kids if they are still alive, are on a life sentence and he gets, 10 months, disgraceful.

Does he get any royalties from the DVD's etc available from Amazon and the BBC shop?

I note Amazon are still selling Gary Glitter albums, no doubt he is getting royalties from those.

8

JG,

Fife 15/09/2007 08:48:29

No, from what the judge said he acknowledged that Langham was not a "sexual predator" - he IS a paedophile. There is NO other reason to look at images like these - only for titilation and if someone is aroused by viewing images of innocent children being horrifically abused then I can think of no other word to describe them. I don't believe that anyone looks at child pornography for research purposes - if you're writing a book on the subject then read victim accounts, talk to people. You certainly don't watch the vile things Langham did.

9

,

15/09/2007 11:47:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 967117, Article id was mapped to record!
10

Suck McCrunchie (the eighth),

Doomster Hill 15/09/2007 12:09:20

1. Guga II,

His solicitor said he was prepared to be sentenced to ten years, but only if in a young offenders institution.

Seriously though, the thing I find most alarming here is that he had claimed he could access this stuff just over the 'normal' internet, not being caught like the weirdos previously who were traced through their credit card payments to access the stuff.

This then becomes worse when you consider the internet is policed to catch those sharing music downloads, yet I have never heard of anyone caught for sharing child porn.

Its quite alarming that the rights of musicians to receive payment is policed more effectively that the rights of children not to be raped or interfered with.

5. Boy Wonder
9. I'm no really here

The same mitigation was used by Pete Townsend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Townshend#Police_caution

Its worthwhile reading the link as strangely it subsequently appeared Townshend did NOT commit the offence he claimed to have committed, yet is still on the sex offenders register.

"Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do."

Or perhaps there was another motive?

11

Pinelands,

Cape town 15/09/2007 13:44:25

I see he brought his poor grand mother into this just to try and save his neck.

Perhaps he and Townsend can go into the publishing business.

It wasnt me governer

12

2Right,

On Location 15/09/2007 14:22:22

It' Time our Courts realised that as Suck McCrunchie says: they all share the same Mitigation, they always have the same excuse.
He should have not been treated any differently and his sentence should have been higher.

13

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 15/09/2007 15:03:37

Guga II and The Fly Fifer

You are both a tad gruesome today, aren't yee?

The perpetrator is a vile piece of inferior human matierial for his heinous crimes and he will never be on stage again for his stupidity in thinking he could get away with it.

Can they rescind his BAFTA award? I think they should because he brings discredit on all the other BAFTA winners - including the love of my (cinematic) life, Helen Mirren. WHAT A DAME!

14

Guga II,

Rockall 15/09/2007 15:11:29

#13 TCW Sorry Tim, it's just that I have no time, or sympathy for anyone who preys on children or old people, i.e. the most vulnerable members of our society.

15

,

15/09/2007 15:23:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

JG,

Fife 15/09/2007 16:30:23

#15 Digory
You can pay an expert to say anything you like. One week (depending on who is signing the cheque) an expert will say one thing then the followoing week he'll say entirely the opposite. Anyone who views pornographic images of children for their own sexual gratification is a paedophile. This man is a paedophile!

17

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 15/09/2007 18:55:09

He's actually a peado-sexual. To be called a peadohpile would suggest that he merely likes children, as most of us do. To engage in a sexual act with them is sex and therefore he is a child sexual or hitherto a peadophile.

After all, homosexuals are not called homophiles, are they? I am considered a Francophile - that is, I like the French, it doesn't mean I want to have sex with France or the French.

18

Isabel,

15/09/2007 19:02:44

#1 Guga II

You do come up with some excellent ideas.

19

Conan the Librarian,

Cimmeria's smallest council estate. 15/09/2007 19:28:26

#17
They were Dave.Homophile was used as a "sympathetic" term until "gay" became common usage in the seventies.I'd suggest pederast,but that is probably more about male adult/male adolescent abuse.Evil F#ckin c#nts by any other name.

20

,

15/09/2007 19:41:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

,

15/09/2007 19:55:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

JG,

Fife 15/09/2007 20:30:24

#17 Dave
The dictionary meaning of "paedophile" is someone who has a SEXUAL liking for children. I am very fond of children but not in that way (it's the French rugby players for me!!). Anyone who goes on to carry out a sexual act with a child is called a sex offender.

23

Suck McCrunchie (the eighth),

Doomster Hill 15/09/2007 20:36:02

For the benefit of those who did not notice.

TOWNSHEND DID NOT COMMIT THE OFFENCE that he took the caution for, but for reasons only he knows took a caution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Townshend#Police_caution

http://money.guardian.co.uk/scamsandfraud/story/0,,205987...

The child porn server was accessed by PC Pro magazine who found that the account registered to Townshend had never accessed any questionable content.

24

Conan the Librarian,

Cimmeria's smallest council estate. 15/09/2007 22:34:01

#23
Who...?;)

25

The Daleks,

16/09/2007 00:10:25

#22 JG

Off topic on a very series subject I know, but are you a lady?

26

JG,

Fife 16/09/2007 09:42:53

#25 The Daleks
I guess it was my rugby player comment that gave me away?

27

,

16/09/2007 21:27:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.