-
Posts
-
Yep, he’ll only be inside about 5 months because hes already served some of his sentence in custody.
Apparantly he got off leniently because he “ONLY” had 15 images.
Personally I dont think it matters if he had 15 or 15000, hes still a paedophile and a threat to young children, it makes me sick that these sort of people are allowed back on the streets.
*wonders if he is a member here* :shock:
Sickening sentance, he would have gotten more for fraud.
I read this case with some (small) interst. The defence he ran was largely bollocks and based on his unsupported statements that he was only doing research for a TV series.
The ‘witnesses’ that he called to corroborate this all failed to do so – thus underlining the falsity of his excuses.
Yes he is a nasty old pervert and yes he really should have been given a far more severe sentence. I hope that he likes sodomy ‘cos he’ll be on the receiving end of lots of it in jail.
At least his career as a comedian/entertainer is now over and we won’t have to see his disgusting paedophile face ever again.
You know I am not too sure what to say about this case.
He wasn’t a sex attacker, he didn’t have millions for pictures of children on his computer, and all he was doing was looking at a few web sites.
I don’t know what he looked at or saw.
If it was teenagers aged between 12 and 16, then I can see why he got a short sentence.
If they where younger, he should have got a longer one.
But if he was only looking at teenagers, I don’t see the problem.
For those of you who do, I ask you this question:
“Are we going to start locking up boys age between 9-18 for looking at teenage girls?”
For me a paedophile is clearly someone who’s danger to children, I don’t think Chris Langham is.
Its time people had a good thinking about what is a “paedophile” and how far are we going to take this public witch hunt.
But we now live in an age where wearing a “t” shirt saying “bullocks to Tony Blair” can get you an £80 fine and criminal record.
Doa some of the pictures/videos were of an 8 year old girl and were described as a horiffic level of abuse
You might say that viewing the images is not as punishable as actually committing the offence but Paedophiles viewing images creates a demand which encourages others to continue abusing and hurting children.
There is no excuse for downloading and viewing images of child sex abuse
I read somewhere that he was actually abused as a child himself, its often the case that abused people go on to abuse themselves.
Amybody under the age of 18 is a child. Thats the law. End of.
Would you like it if he were purving over your 14 year old daughter?
Amybody under the age of 18 is a child. Thats the law. End of.
Would you like it if he were purving over your 14 year old daughter?
Oh god where to start with that one,
If a girl of 16 married a man of 38 is he a paedophile?
If a gay boy of 17 has sex with a man of 19 is he a paedophile?
What about if you’re 14 year old daughter has sex with her 13 old boyfriend?
I think most young girls age between 12 and 18 have some kind of problem with the way they look.
But sometimes a look and a smile from a good looking guy is a boost for them, a man over 40 doing the same is wrong, but not illegal.
We need to apply this law to sex attackers, makers and collectors of this stuff, or would you have anyone who comes across this martial on the web locked up?
Doa to suggest that you could “accidentally” stumble opon child po/rn on the net is a ridiculous thing to say. Anyone viewing these images has actively searched for it, and the intent to view it is most certainly there.
As for a 40 year old man smiling seductively at a 12 year old, i find that quite disturbing
Child porn is exactly that. It does what it says on the tin. He had enough to throw the book at him but still got a poncy sentance.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!