Chris Langham - you decide

[Buffoon]

Can’t remember the source, but some one pointed out that those that are loudest to call for the harshest punishments are often undetected fellow offenders trying to deflect attention.

Possession of such material does not necessarily mean that the owner would act that way. He was found not guilty on the abuse charge.

So I’ll go for option A.

[Lockhouse]

A

No danger to society.

[Rantor]

A

No danger to society.

I suspect B, maybe C, as he has already been remanded and they are really emphasising how OTT the stuff they found was.

Either way, probably no more baftas for Mr Langham.

[Burdock]

He did seem to be making desparate excuses:

1) Research for a TV programme.
2) He was trying to exorcise the demons of being abused himself as a kid.

Both are implausible individually, but together seem like he was just clutching at straws.

At the end of the day, he did download images of child abuse onto his computer, and he's got to expect punishment for that.

B or C.

[wobbegong]

Indeed not.

And I'm sure that Big Norm will be ever so pleased to meat him...

I very nearly slapped a "fleety" on that, then I thought about it. Very good (if it was intended).

[daviejones]

There is an arguement for A but how many Paedos started with just downloading the stuff? I have no stats so it is just a gut feel.

I could not say he was not a danger to children, I mean how many murderers started off just watching sick films then re-enacted what they saw? There have been a few cases of psychos recently.

I am not saying he would have followed it up with some kind of act but at the same time I can find no legitimate reason for him to actually want to look at it in the first place.

[WindyAnna]

No danger to society? Maybe he won't go out and reenact what he's seen but while there are people prepared to download this stuff then there will be people prepared to subject other human beings to the horrors required to get those images, they are real kids, not simulated pictures. B or C.

Windy

[richard-af]

Can’t remember the source, but some one pointed out that those that are loudest to call for the harshest punishments are often undetected fellow offenders trying to deflect attention.

Possession of such material does not necessarily mean that the owner would act that way. He was found not guilty on the abuse charge.

So I’ll go for option A.

Really? You missed this then, I think:

After the Thick of It star was led away to the cells, investigation chief Detective Inspector Derek Cuff, said:
"There was an unheard voice in the court today and that was the voice of the children involved in this case.

"Let us not forget that child abuse images are real situations involving real children who are sexually abused for others gain and sexual gratification.

"Viewing such images simply perpetuates such abuse."

[Swiss Tony]

If he gets a light sentence, it will be a green light for anyone else to try and claim the same circumstances.

An example needs to be set, that this is out of order at all times and it is not acceptable ever.

c

[DimPrawn]

I bet if his name was muslim sounding or if he was an Albanian asylum seeker if would be D's all round from CUK.