Trout

iTrader: (1)

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.

davegtt

String him up by the bo11ocks and let the kids torture him back

DCI Gene Hunt

Put him in a room with their parents

ChefDude

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

Sonic'

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

PeteBrant

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.

carl

30 years?!?! Seems a bit harsh. Where did you hear this?

PeteBrant

Must be a different chap, because Langham isn't due to be setenced until September IIRC.

Sonic'

I thought he wasn't being sentenced until 14th September

ChefDude

ah well, my source isn't fool proof - The Metro.

ChefDude

hopefully it won't be a light sentence - there's no excuse for what he was doing.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

I think to most 'normal' people this is clear already.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

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!

PeteBrant

Of course, but there are obviously people out there that still do it. The more people you scare off doing it, the better, as obviously once there is no demand for a thing, it ceases to be.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

I would imagine they'd still do it regardless but I know what you're saying.

PeteBrant

Well, we can but hope. The higher the profile of the offender, the more people tend to take notice of the punishment given.

davegtt

Harsh? Are you kidding? Death Penalty isnt even good enough for these people

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

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.

Aaquil

Death penalty sounds good to me!

Infractme!

You think he will do time? I reckon he'll get away with it and be sent for treatment.

Longjing

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.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Now I am not looking for an argument when I say this, and I am not picking on you specifically either.

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

Chris L

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

Infractme!

The problem is that in order for such material to be produced a child has to be abused. Therefore I'd argue that by consuming it you are complicit and perpetuate the cycle of abuse.

It's no suprise if he was abused as a child but it sure as hell isn't any sort of excuse.

Infractme!

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.

bugsti

I think the statistics are that if you were abused as a child, there is a greater chance of becoming one yourself.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Speaking of bursting bubbles read post 13.

Maybe your glasses need a remap?

David Lock

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

Sonic'

I have heard of that server previously, arent the images all kept for the file hashes, to identify the same or similar other pictures, so that someone doesnt have to look at the images to compare ?

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Firstly, I am really glad people have read my post in the way it was intended. This is a sensitive subject, sometimes people take views the wrong way.

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.