I've noticed the last two days that people have been reviewing the post I put up in December about Chris Langham being arrested on child porn charges.
The reason, as I discovered yesterday afternoon, was that he has had his bail extended. Again. Since being arrested in November, the comedian has had his bail extended no less than three times. Despite being plastered all over the media as a potential child porn user, he still hasn't had any charge put against him.
This was exactly what I feared would happen and it strikes me that it is increasingly likely that Mr Langham is just the latest public figure to be forced to endure a personal hell because someone in the police wants to make a few bob selling information to the media.
Our child porn clampdown in this country is getting completely out of control. Only last week, the government announced an entire arm dedicated solely to tracking down child porn on the Internet, with its own budget. The whole subject is so taboo that it seems it is impossible to ask some pretty basic questions about what is being done in the name of cleaning up the Net.
The police's own figures reveal that only a third of the people it charges with online child porn are convicted. But these are people charged – how many people have the police arrested and not charged?
We know of three because they had the misfortune to be famous: Massive Attack Robert del Naja, actor Matthew Kelly and now comedian Chris Langham. The first two, having been completely cleared of any and all wrongdoing, subsequently told how the experience had been the most difficult of their lives. And yet still it continues. How many ordinary people are having their lives turned inside out in our fanatical zeal and our failure to hold the police to account, despite the unpalatable nature of the subject?
The police have had Mr Langham's computer since November. It is now nearly May and yet they have still to charge him with anything.
I was once hired by a national newspaper to go through hard drives bought on eBay to see if any confidential material was still on them. If you know what you're doing, it is *incredibly* easy to find files, deleted files, even deleted files written over several times. And from experience I know you can tell if there is *potentially* something of interest there within an hour. From there, it would take a day or so to search all the crevises of the disk.
Although if I had to search a few hundred drives, I can think immediately of a system you could build to speed this up ten-fold – simply automate dragging recoverable files into a drive, then separate all image files and review them at speed. The only exception would be people that have encrypted their hard drives, but then very, very few people do, and an encrypted drive would presumably push it to the front of the queue for analysis.
These simple facts present us with a number of options. The police could be delaying the news that they won't charge Langham to reduce its impact and their embarrassment. Or they have impounded so many hard drives that they have a four-month backlog. Or Mr Langham's hard drive has been categorised as “low-risk” in an initial audit and so no one has actually got around to searching it because other more high-risk drives (for any crime, not just child porn) have come in and been given priority.
None of these options is comforting. It should be the case that if someone is accused of child pornography – something that will have far-reaching and distrubing impact into someone's life – that their disk drive is prioritised, no matter what.
I very strongly suspect Chris Langham will become yet another victim of a faulty system. What is especially sad in this case is that he wasn't able to pick up not one but two highly deserved comedy awards for In the Thick of It and Help because of it. He has had what should have been one of the greatest moments of his life stolen from him.
It should be the role of the media in society to tackle the tough issues, but I don't see that happening, even when the evidence that something is going awry is there for all to see.
I may give Mr Langham's agent a call and offer to do a piece pulling apart this whole horrible situation when, as now seems inevitable, the police finally admit they put him through hell for nothing at all.
How do you feel now that he’s being charged with 8 counts of indecent assault? Do you think he’s still Mr. innocent? We all know that child pornography has multiplied since access has been made easier through the internet. They all plead their innocence. Pete Townshend was doing research for a book (when is that book being published by the way?). I just think of all those poor abused children from poverty stricken backgrounds being put through hell for the pleasure of these sick and twisted perverts. Just because they are downloading photos from the internet does not make them any less culpable, by subscribing to these sites they are creating a market for children to be tortured and scarred for life, and are just as guilty as if they were abusing the child themselves.
My point has always been – and remains – that there is something wrong with a system that not only drags out allegations of the very worst kind, but also makes them public.
And the reason why child pornography allegations and charges in particular are so damaging is outlined all too clearly in your response.
I would bet that you know almost nothing about child pornography, the Internet, or even the legal system, certainly nothing about how the law currently works with regard to child pornography over the Internet at the moment. But your highly emotive and highly aggressive response is the precise reason that there are problems that need to be ironed out.
There is a rule of law that has existed in this country for hundreds of years and you may have heard of it: it is, simply, “you are innocent until you are proven guilty”.
I honestly don’t know if Mr Langham is innocent or guilty of these charges – the reason why I have written several posts is because his case very closely fits a number of other cases where people have been had their lives turned upside down only to have all charges dropped down the line.
Even if Mr Langham has his charges dropped, you will still think that he was probably guilty of this heinous crime. And that common response is precisely the problem.
Kieren
Kieren, I support what you say in reply to Fran. Once the allegation has been made, and is public knowledge, to those well known it is as good as a conviction in their lives, whether they are guilty or not.
I happen to think most allegations in these type of cases are probably true, however they are incredibly hard to prove. If we don’t have proof, we are no better than a lynch mob.
I would be in favour of a complete press and news media ban on any allegation until conviction.
In my opinion, a lack of privacy laws by the UK government was the main cause of Lady Diane’s death.
As you probably know, the photos she was being chased for, without her permission, were to be sold to the UK.
France needed Di’s permission to publish them, the UK does not. Until we respect people’s rights to privacy, for people going about their everyday life, or until convictions have been made for others, then we will remain in the dark ages
Hey Gary,
I am intrinsincally opposed to a privacy law because of the severe so implications it has for the media’s ability to hold powerful people to account. And without that safeguard, the road to widespread corruption is open.
It is also vital that you are able to freely report that someone has been arrested and that they have been charged and for what. But the problem with child pornography investigations at the moment is that there is such a head of steam over them, and the preliminaries take far, far too long, so people are left in a horrible limbo. There are far too many people being arrested and charged and then let free. And the dropping of charges is kept far too quiet.
All this has the effect of wrongly destroying people’s lives. It is not the overall system that is wrong, it is the fact that this area of the law is operating outside the normal system at the moment.
Kieren
The main problem with revealing to he public the names of those charged with downloading illegal porn is the effect it has on the accused person’s family. Take the case of one guy from Hull, who was picked up under OPeration Ore; he later proved in court that at the time his credit card details were being taken by Landslide, he was buying a meal in a resteraunt. Just think about the suffering not only he, but also his family, suffered as a result of this public case. I think the Police should be bound by law not to reveal the identities of suspects until they are successfully convicted.
An irony of the law is this: very often with Ore cases, the Police will get the accused to accept a caution in return for a confession. This is because the Police know they have a less than 50% chance of gaining a conviction in court. If a suspect confesses and gets a caution, the Police do not reveal their identity in public. But, if the accused deny the offence and are charged, their details are revealed to the public – even if they are found ‘not guilty’, poeple will always suspect them of being peadophiles. How can that possibly be fair?
Did you not notice that none of the newspaper reports specified details of the victim(s) of the alleged assaults? They let the readers assume that is was in the context of the child pornography thing. Well I hear that Mr Langham has a variety of stalker, details minimal as the matter is sub judice, but she has made the allegations of assault. Not a child, a grown woman, the subject of possible court proceedings against her by Mr Langham. The whole story reeks.
I just think of all those poor abused children from poverty stricken backgrounds being put through hell for the pleasure of these sick and twisted perverts.
Do you write for the Daily Mail, Fran? Or do you just read it?
Maybe you should start a campaign to dispense with all that “innocent until proven guilty” crap whenever kiddies are involved: hysterical, overwrought righteous indignation is definitely a better route to justice than, you know, fair trials and all that shit.
Interesting posts but are the respondents aware that the basis of these raids has been proved to be based on flawed intelligence. For simplicity and to help others understand the background, this intelligence stemmed from information provided from the FBI from information gathered on a company with offices in Texas. This information contained worldwide credit card details of hundred of thousands of individuals that had supposedly signed up for subscriptions to Child pornography sites. They then took the view that if someone’s details were on the list then they are a paedophile and were subsequently raided and then justice would take its natural course.
Well that’s the U.S view but the facts, which are now proved, are that:
1. Child pornography offered by the Texas Company was in fact only 3% of its business activities with the rest being adult pornography.
2. Once the data base was analysed independently it was found that something like 67% of transactions were fraud. Names didn’t match and addresses were provided like ‘The Whitehouse’ and credit card numbers such as 0007 and 00000001.
As usual the U.S went in with their size 11’s and the raids started and arrests made. O.K I now hear you say “ but they found child pornography on computers†and of course you are correct but you need to address the facts that there are many ways in which undesirable information can find its way onto a hard drive too complicated to address here. You also need to understand that the laws on pornography are also very complicated and by age a child is defined as under 18! To try and put this into context in the 1970’s then Sun would print a picture of Sam Fox on page 3 and that is now defined as child pornography!
The only cases that you hear about are those when people are caught with having thousands of images on their computer as it makes good press but they keep quiet about the instances where someone has their charges dropped after 3 years due to lack of evidence.
Try and not be judge and jury until the TRUE facts have been established
A note to my previous post is that a number of key U.S witnessess have been proved to have lied under oath and have now gone into hiding and a number of U.K experts have been discredited and if that doesn’t tell you something then nothing will. In a recent U.K case the judge claimed that the information provided by the CPS was “utter nonsense”.
Would it not have been a better idea but to for the FBI to have thoroughly check the facts and have them verified before jumping to conclusions or do you subscribe to the ‘weapons of mass destruction’thinking?
I can only agree with Sean’s observations about Operation Ore. While its true that a significant number of people were discovered to have accessed child porn, a (probably equally) large number were found to possess nothing illegal at all. We won’t know about Chris Langham’s involvement until proper evidence is presented, and can be challenged, in a court.
Parrock Man points out that in cases where no actual child porn was found Ore suspects were pressed into accepting a caution for the offence of “inciting the distribution of indecent images”, based solely on their credit card details being found on the computer records of the Texas company. Many accepted the caution in return for the annonymity of not being charged with the offence. The mere threat of a charge, and the attendant publicity was enough to get people to confess to the trumped up “incitement” offence.
I’m generally against restricting what the press can publish, though they often justify the publication of private details “in the public interest”, when all they can really claim is that the “public is interested”. But… the press treatment of those accused of crimes against children or involvement with child porn is so beyond the pale, I would support a measure to protect the anonymity of anyone who is a suspect in such cases until they are convicted. They way in which an accusation destroys the life of anyone, let alone a celebrity, simply invites those with a malicious intent to make false accusations. And even if the accusations are eventually withdrawn or proved completely and utterly false in a public court, the taint nevertheless sticks to the accused.
Dear All,
Analysis of the Landslide subscriber database, where Mr Langhams credit card transaction is logged reveals that the site he allegedly paid to view is a LEGAL, ADULT site and is still running today. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Many other innocents were abused by Police as a result of their subscriptions to this particular site,
UK law enforcement agencies ARE aware of this fact yet appear to have ignored it.
Credit card fraud in the Landslide database EASILY exceeds 50%, one other site is subject to over 82% of it’s signups being fraudulent in nature. ALL provable forensically.
As for the accusations of ‘hands on’ abuse I myself am doubtful of their substance, we’ve seen the police wheel this one out for several celebrity figures in recent times. NONE of which turned out to be true.
Please take a look at some of the websites set up by victims of Operation Ore, you will be surprised and shocked at what is really going on.
Arthur
http://www.computer-investigations.com
http://xuk.biz
http://www.ore-exposed.co.uk
Oh, one more…
http://www.inquisition21.com
Thanks
Arthur,
What has happened is indeed shocking, and I, among others, are looking into it in the hope of clearing people names and correcting flaws in the system.
However, I have not seen any evidence that Chris Langham had anything to do with Operation Ore (the UK version of Landslide) – something which actually points to the fact that the problem is more widespread that this one situation.
You would do well to reflect on the fact that jumping to conclusions without evidence is precisely the reason this problem exists in the first place.
Kieren
Kieren,
Langham’s case is Operation Ore I can assure you. Not a conclusion, a fact.
The man should not have been busted for CP because he didn’t pay to look at it.
Arthur
I don’t accept your assurance Arthur. His name has not turned up as far as I have seen on the Landslide list. I think you are falsely linking two things. However, you say it is a fact, so if you can provide the evidence, I will be happy to say I am wrong.
Kieren
Then we can conclude you haven’t seen the Landslide database.
I have.
There are TWO entries in his name.
It would be unwise for me to say more than that as his case is in court this week and he could easily be a victim of credit card fraud.
Okay… Well, I have a very long list that I knew wasn’t the full thing but I assumed it had all the names on. Can you email me offline Arthur – kieren@kierenmccarthy.co.uk
Kieren
Probably better if you email me, if you don’t mind.
Are you able to see my email address without me posting it here?
Art
Offline email. What will they think of next 🙂
So why am I typing in my email address when I post, shithead?
You obviously have limited internet knowledge.
I don’t think Leo was making that point Arthur. But yes, I can see your email and will get in touch in a sec – been out over lunch.
Kieren
If that’s the case then apologies to Leo.
I have some information that would completely blow this apart but cannot do this publicly for now. You have my number.
Sean
May I ask what you think? Seeing as it has come out in court that Chris Langham has now admitted to looking at child porn because it “made him feel like a better man” and it also up for 15 counts also and for also grooming a young girl. It also seems that he broke down in tears also?
Hi Natasha,
Well I know from experience not to make any judgments while a court case is going on. At the moment it is the prosecution and so Chris Langham looks as if he has been in a completely inappropriate relationship with a young girl.
I haven’t read the latest about what he’s said about the child porn pictures on his computer – the point at which I entered this – but I will keep reading the court reports.
When all the evidence is given, it will be possible to get a better feel for what’s gone on.
Kieren
for god’s sake, he admitted using his credit card to access the sites. i’m fed up with the ‘pete townsend’ defence. any ‘research’ puts money into the hands of paedophiles. grow up sycophants
Two rules for paedophiles . The brash ones like Glitter and King are nonces.
Posher ones like Pete Townsend whatever his name is and Langham are conducting research for a mythical book or unrelated play.
Many women are victims of child sex abuse and they dont get hauled into court for looking at kiddy porn. Cos they don’t subscribe to kid porn websites.
How come it is only middle aged men who feel they need to look at child porn as a form of self therapy. I tell it how it is, Townsend and Langham are nonces like GG and King. Downloading kiddy porn is downloading kiddy porn, no matter how many Bafta’s you have won or how deep and intellectual your artistry may be.
I am not defending Glitter or King or Jacko for their behaviour.
But to show restraint when talking about a sex offender ,because they are intellectual is the lowest form of invidious behaviour you can demonstrate.
I totally agree with cjd1973. we make a mockery of law and morals if we allow people to “get away with it”, because they come from Middle England and have the powers of language manipulation to avoid unpleasant circumstances, that they have personally created. Langham has only himself to blame.
What I can’t dispute is that you have heard about the four most famous cases in the UK of men being charged with offences surrounding child pornography. The rest of it, I’m afraid, demonstrates that you know nothing beyond that.
Kieren
It is you that has an issue here about intelligence, and for some reason you feel the urge to use this case as an opportunity to share your prejudices.
Your last paragraph would only make sense if Chris Langham had been found innocent. As it was, he was found guility, so it makes no sense at all.
Kieren
Your misplaced support of Mr Langham must be embarassing to you now Kieran. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that you view the downloading of child porn as a minor offence.
Not embarrassed really, more frustrated that in this case, despite many of the signs being the same as several of the miscarriages of justice surrounding this issue, it does appear that Chris Langham did download child pornography.
I had hoped this since this was such a high-profile case and because he can afford good lawyers that it might be the first opening of the gate on the hidden scandal of perfectly innocent people being accused of the same offence: many charged, some taken to court, some actually found guilty.
My views on child pornography are the same as everyone else’s. The difference is that the more appalling something is, the more I think you need a very strong structure around it that supports people’s rights.
At the moment in this country this a very worrying sense around child pornography and terrorism that that structure should not have the same protections and in some cases the structure built up over centuries should effectively be bypassed because of the nature of the crime itself.
I think that is a very dangerous path that will see inevitable miscarriages of justice for little real gain.
Kieren
Cases aside, I see a fundamental impotence on the part of the police to adequately deal with this. If you wish to stop something; (as opposed to talk about it, point fingers and generally gossip in a inane, ineffectual manor) then you cut off the vipers head, not it’s tail. This man is a tail, oh yes he has emotional scales and he writhes with demonic intensity at times (which no one really likes to see, we all do hate dark psychological mirrors, even distorted ones) but as the police should know by now taking out the “johns” doesn’t fix the problem.
There is the idea of deterrent, I can of course see that. but there is the wider issue of the makers and the exploiters. The press say he had a credit card account! I say to whom did he give his money to? I ask myself would it not be a greater good to prevent than to cure?
Sure, if you download kiddie porn, your going down. But, don’t make a hard line (or high profile) on junkies make up for leniency on the dealers. This conviction is not a success, it’s a high profile failure disguised as a success.
I am far from prejudice in an area. I believe you however have taken up the cudgel for Langham as he physically, socially and mentally has more in common with you than Glitter, Jonathan King or Michael Jackson. I am not suprised my statement makes no sense at all to you. As we have clearly nothing in common. Chris Langham, however is someone you can obviously relate to.
The fact that Langham also stated the Press were restrained also states more about the social and psychological background of the country’s decision shapers, than the issue of child pornography and abuse. I dont remember GG or JK thanking the press for their restraint, because they weren’t. I my friend believe in equality and the same treatement for all. If someone is prejudiced it
is you my friend. Compare and contrast the coverage of Michael Jackson, J.K and Garry Glitter in the pres and then tell me about prejudice. I feel no sympathy for Mr Langham, he actively searched for abhorrent images of child abuse. If you feel the need to analyse the treatment of Langham, by the CPS, the courts etc you do so. However, the psychological objective of your Langham jeremiad is beyond, my non middle-england brain. I am thouroughly delighted it is.
The fact that Langham also stated the Press were restrained also states more about the social and psychological background of the country’s decision shapers, than the issue of child pornography and abuse. I dont remember GG or JK thanking the press for their restraint, because they weren’t. I my friend believe in equality and the same treatement for all. If someone is prejudiced it
is you my friend. Compare and contrast the coverage of Michael Jackson, J.K and Garry Glitter in the pres and then tell me about prejudice. I feel no sympathy for Mr Langham, he actively searched for abhorrent images of child abuse. If you feel the need to analyse the treatment of Langham, by the CPS, the courts etc you do so. However, the psychological objective of your Langham jeremiad is beyond, my non middle-england brain. I am thouroughly delighted it is.
actualy, the site that chris langham paid to view porn on was not a ‘child porn only’ site, there was all types of porn on that site and the subscription fee covers it all, not that i’m condoning anybody watching childporn, i just think that these sites make it far too easy for people to stumble across these sort of films
although i don’t know whether this was the case with chris langham or not, although he was aquitted of the assault counts so that doesn’t count now, i just feel sorry for his poor family, no matter whether he did wrong or not, i’m sick of seeing his wife’s face splashed across crappy paper’s like the sun, i wish they’d leave the poor woman in peace so she can begin to rebuild her life
You said in one of your earlier comments how terrible it was that Langham was deprived of richly deserved bafta awards, how about thousands of little children who are deprived of their right to happy normal childhoods and lives on a daily basis at the hands of people like Langham.
Even after conviction of an evil piece of scum like this I am still waiting for you to take back your comments and make it clear that you are as disgusted by the actions of people like this as most of your readers, you did mention that your thoughts were the same as “everybody elses”, (WEAK COMMENT) not near as strong as your defence of Langham earlier.
Did you not think for a moment before your crusade began, that the police who have an unimaginable task of trawling through filth and dirt on many hundreds of hard drives to piece together cases may JUST MAY have been trying to construct a case strong enough not to fall apart in court or maybe not even get there due to the cps citing not in the public interest unlikey to secure conviction, sadly you didnt , as many of the readers above I am disgusted by your comments shame on you using your public voice as an apologist for peadophilia, let the police do their job and shut up about ongoing investigations that you know nothing of , and lets hope Langhan does get a BAFTA while in prison and one of his fellow “convicts” shoves it where the sun doesnt shine.
Before you start I am sure you will try to de-construct my comments and defend yourself in some way but at least people know where I stand on peadophilia how about you?????????
You don’t know it, Richard London, but you are the one of very worst sorts of individual within society: someone without conviction but who relishes the opportunity to lead a mob when given a pretext of social acceptability.
This comment is full of hate, it purposefully ignores reason and logic, misrepresents just about every aspect of the words above it, and then attempts to bully me into being just as mindlessly hateful.
You should really assess why you feel the need to post this nonsense here. But you won’t. Go bully someone else.
Kieren
Dear All,
I Have kept tabs on this case for a while. Like many others I was absolutely gutted that a man who’s shows I have enjoyed and found entertaining could have viewed this kind of filth. Despite this, I have some observations to make on some above comments, most of which always surface whenever the issue of child pornography becomes prevalent in the media.
1) I am sick to the back teeth of the mob mentality that arises in cases like this. The usual comment is ‘well the good honest criminals in prison will give that nonce what he deserves’. People are not in prison for being staunch pillars of the community are they? Of course no-one wants to see a child indecently assaulted at the hands of a ‘nonce’ but neither do they wish to see a family burgled or someone beaten to within an inch of their lives – there are NO good honest criminals
2) I read an interesting point in another forum (I forget where) that commented the cherges Chris Langham faced were not representative of the fact he ‘allegedly’ paid to view those images. It was said he would have faced a different type of charge had he been proved to have paid for the images – Kieren have you heard that one?
3) any issue regarding child abuse/pornography will always bring out the gutter press and the facts will be largely distorted anyway, so brainiacs like Richard London above will always lead the mob without enough understanding of the circumstances to make a qualified argument.
Just like when Pete Townshend was only cautioned for viewing images of CP, it is very saddening and makes me angry, there’s no denying that. Chris Langham made his situation worse by this apperantly ham-fisted reason for downloading the material, and the sudden ommission of this abuse he suffered. It appears his own alleged abuse was not mentioned on his initial police interview, otherwise it would have carried more weight.
I also believe the problem with individuals with awful indulgences of this sort of practice/material is far more widespread than it is believed. How about the family protection officer charged with indecent assault?
As for Langham, I suspect he is indeed, rightly or wrongly in some peoples eyes, in fear of his life in Elmley Prison. I have a feeling he will not be given a non-custodial sentence.
Omar
I happened across your comments when just checking on this case after returning from a 2 week holiday, you call me a bully and full of hate and lacking in conviction, absolutely incredible when I think it is totally obvious that my hate is obviously directed at paedophiles like Christopher Langham! I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings or you felt bullied, but if you choose to take your personal and in my view controversial beliefs into the public forum, then dont you think I have a right to give you mine in response, surely Kieren this is the whole point.
As for your feeling of me leading some vigilante mob , well as I thought an articulate man like yourself would have an apparently suitable response and dress me up as a thug, but if the truth be known I am just a concerned father who feels molestation,torture,rape,buggery of little children just about as bad as it gets.
Of course I dont think you endorse this behaviour in any way shape or form, but its this kind of nonsense that makes judges give benefit of doubt and softer sentences to people who will not be rehabilitated.
So Kieren paint me how you like I really dont mind I wont feel bullied honest,
Oh by the way I feel my opinion reflect “Dawn Blakes” quite well or “A nonymous” or “Frans” so maybe I dont have the benefit of your vast intelligence or articulation but it wont stop me having my say so I will be checking in from time to time if only to laught at idiots like OMAR if hes not too busy watching Chris Langham repeats!
As for you, you sorry stupid man, not for a second did I suggest there were any” good ” criminals as you put it, I expressed a personal wish as to how Langham should be treated, as most intelligent people know peadophiles deserve and are treated while incarcerated at her Majestys pleasure.
People like you seem to believe you think on a higher plane than average decent people who just simply know right from wrong.
I am just amazed that in light of Langhams conviction idiots like you are still hoping for a non-custodial sentence. As for your assumtion that I and others like me are jumping on some “bandwagon” in light of these cases arising,,,,you are wrong we are not, WE THINK LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME.
Without doubt, the Langham case came ot what I belived was an inevitable conclusion. There clearly wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction re. the alleged asaults, but he admitted downloading illegal images / videos and his attempts at hiding behind the old ‘research’ excuse were pretty feeble. I will say this, though; I do not believe putting people like Langham in jail achieves very much. His real sentence has been the loss of his career, credibility, self-respect and quite possibly his family, although the press have been very respectful on that score and we don’t know if his wife is standing by him. What people like Langham need is therapy. Someone needs to try and discover why he feels the urge to look at this sort of material, and figure out a way of helping him to deal with that urge in a positive manner. You can’t ‘cure’ a pedophile like Langham by putting him (or her) in a prison cell and throwing away the key for a few months. What does that solve? Like most people, I don’t really buy in to the stories he told in court about his childhood etc. Langham is a clever writer and actor, and I think he used all of his abilities to try and fool the judge and jury. However, he obviously does have issues and these need to be addressed by specialists. Anyway, that’s my opinion!
How scary!R. London implying that it’s OK for other OFFENDERS to mete out their own justice. Whatever view you hold, the prison officers have a duty of care to ALL prisoners. The judges hand out punishment – and it is not for anyone else to advocate their own punishment. That is mob rule!
I was in court every day during this case, and I know that Chris Langham is not a paedophile.
Kieran, if i might throw my hat into the ring, i have to say your opening comments have hit the nail so far as my personal experience is concerned. It does seem that under the banner of child protection, the police are allowed to pursue, harass and investigate absolutely anybody without any thought for the consequences to their personal and professional life. My own experience is that i am presently under police investigation for the making and distributing of child pornography. When the arrest occurred, i was totally amused because it was clear that they had come to investigate the wrong person. My partner was understandably in hysterical fits of tears. I reassured her that i would be back within and few hours and gave it no further thought. How naive was that. I am so far under police bail for 6 months. I have not been allowed any contact with my partner and have been forced to find rented accomodation. All of my possessions were boxed, labelled and left for my collection. I have two children who were under my joint custody but i am no longer allowed to see them. I was a very popular teacher in an excellent private school which has been forced by the police to suspend me and bring in cover for my lessons. Without bringing in too much detail, i taught lessons at the higher end of the academic A level spectrum and the effect on the pupils will have been entirely negative. My social life was voluminous but has now been cut severly back. I have no idea what the consequences will be for my home life or my professional life and have spent the last 6 weeks in a state of complete shock and distress. I have never been guilty of the terms of the arrest and know that the police are operating on wafer thin evidence. The financial and personal cost to me has been overwhelming and yet i know i am but one individual – this must be happening to many others. I was in total agreement with the tone of your blog, this situation is out of control and the system for adminstering it is deeply flawed. I have had two divorces but none of them have matched my present circumstances for stress and disruption. Do please get in touch if you would like my full story. Kind regards
There you go Kieren your latest crusade has just arrived , I can see a career change coning , I think you missed your vocation.
I’m an individual, not a crusade. Seems you have nothing to contribute to this discussion except moronic sound bites. Get a life and go somewhere else.
Operation Pilsey which covered peer2peer images, is the biggest farce in police history. People have been convicted with evidence that they had never seen or had never tried to attract material of a childporn nature. It is a vile situation, and many innocent people are being labelled, but because of the nature of the convictions, are not brave enough to kick up a fuss. Just how the police want it.
Look at Operation Pilsey to find many people wrongly accused and convicted
Another short sighted person.My best friends husband was hauled in on child porn images, and totally exonerated of all charges. Get real and see what is happening before you join the witch hunters. One day you will see that the police have a different agenda to what you think. It’s called numbers not truth.