Actor Convicted over Child Porn

[The Bacon Guy]

BBC News | England | Actor Convicted Over Child Porn

Actor Chris Langham has been found guilty of downloading child porn. Langham, of Golford, Kent, said he was only studying the porn as research for a television drama - but he was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court. However, the 58-year-old actor has been acquitted of charges of indecently assaulting an underage girl and two counts of a serious sexual offence. Judge Philip Statman remanded the Bafta winning comedy performer in custody for sentencing on 14 September.

So what do you chaps think about this? The "research" excuse, aside from being somewhat incredible, doesn't cut it at all in my view. His crime and the effects of his crime were still the same, and made worse by the fact that he paid for the material rather than simply possessing it. So I’m happy with the ruling and the high profile nature of the case. It should let a lot of people know that possessing child porn will get you in trouble no matter what your excuse was.

It's interesting that he thought not being a paedophile was somehow a defence. It strikes me as somewhat insane that funding the abuse of children is somehow more acceptable than simply being attracted to them. Perhaps it says something about how society views the issue of paedophilia.

Your thoughts?

[SoylentGreen]

Ken Goss of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The images found on his computer were not child pornography. They were horrific images, still and video clips, of children being sexually abused. Chris Langham actively searched for those images."

What ever his excuse for searching for these type of clips, once having found them, if his intentions were good, then he should have reported his find to the police.

[ZNFYRH]

What struck me was that his research didn't match his medium.

If you're going to be a stripper in a movie and your character dances fully nude, you should research strippers who perform nude.

If you're going to be an exotic dancer who keeps her clothes on (think Jessica Alba in Sin City) then you only need to study exotic dancers.

I don't see how looking at pictures of child abuse is supposed to give greater insight into anything on that topic.

No matter what the angle he's taking, if it's for television, and he can't act appropriately, he's not much of an actor.

[thx1138]

How old are we talking?
If the girl is with out question under age then he knew what he was doing.

But, what about images of girls at or near legal age, how is he to know?

[Mia]

He said that he was researching it, not that he thought he was viewing of-age persons.

Bacon, you are really interested in pedophilia and all things related.

Why do we need 45 threads on it though?

It's relevant that he's not a pedophile. You can say all day long that most pedophiles don't offend against children, and no one can prove one way or another because there is no way to study non-offending pedophiles, but one fact remains: the ones that do, offend a LOT. Pedophile child offenders have the highest recorded recidivism rate, and the average number of victims is astounding. Pedophile offenders are the minority among sex offenders, but manage to commit most of the offenses.

Do I think being a non-offending pedophile is worse than being an offending non-pedophile? No, and that's not what his comment means. But with your fascination with the subject, and unrelenting need to defend it, you see it that way.

Give it a rest.

[Netopalis]

I really don't see what the big deal is. Guy gets arrested for child porn, happens to be famous, makes an excuse. If it wasn't for the second part, it wouldn't even be news.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Mia Bacon, you are really interested in pedophilia and all things related. Why do we need 45 threads on it though?

Having only started one of these “45 threads” in the last year, I wouldn’t know. Why do you care so much?

Quote by: Mia Do I think being a non-offending pedophile is worse than being an offending non-pedophile? No, and that's not what his comment means. But with your fascination with the subject, and unrelenting need to defend it, you see it that way.

Calm down. My curiosity with this case was that he pleaded not guilty to possession of child porn on the grounds that he wasn’t a paedophile. In other words, in his mind, downloading child porn is perfectly legal if you are not a paedophile. The fact that this mindset exists, and is actually quite a common defence in child porn cases, says something about how society views paedophiles.

Quote by: palis I really don't see what the big deal is. Guy gets arrested for child porn, happens to be famous, makes an excuse. If it wasn't for the second part, it wouldn't even be news.

True, but this is still an important case precisely because of its high profile nature. It lets a lot of people know that it's not difficult for the cops to catch you and that the "research" excuse doesn't cut it.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy BBC News | England | Actor Convicted Over Child Porn So what do you chaps think about this? The "research" excuse, aside from being somewhat incredible, doesn't cut it at all in my view. His crime and the effects of his crime were still the same, and made worse by the fact that he paid for the material rather than simply possessing it. So I’m happy with the ruling and the high profile nature of the case. It should let a lot of people know that possessing child porn will get you in trouble no matter what your excuse was.

I agree with the ruling. He should definitively be punished for this. However, i still disagree with punishing people for Sexual assault, for possession of visual material. There must be some sort of line.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It's interesting that he thought not being a paedophile was somehow a defence. It strikes me as somewhat insane that funding the abuse of children is somehow more acceptable than simply being attracted to them. Perhaps it says something about how society views the issue of paedophilia. Your thoughts?

Perhaps it does. Well, i'm not really surprised by this attitude. People are actually that daft.

[rmnunez]

I suspect the "sexual assault" charge was separate and unrelated to the child porn possession claim. Assault requires an unwanted physical contact with the victim.

[DCAPBTLS77]

Quote by: rmnunez I suspect the "sexual assault" charge was separate and unrelated to the child porn possession claim. Assault requires an unwanted physical contact with the victim.

I am actually pretty certain that a sexual assault charge does NOT have to be physical contact, I could be wrong but I think I am correct . That being said, if the guy really was researching a role , well then I have to say that perhaps this was not the best way to go about doing said research,he could have spoken to convicted child abusers , or even to adult survivors of sexual abuse. It seems to be a very flimsy excuse to me. I could almost be more forgiving of this had the guy said he was curious about what connotes abuse. The reason I feel there are so many threads on this particular subject is that people seek to gain knowledge about what they dont understand. We all have very strong feelings on this subject and as much as I dont like what some people have to say on it, it is thier right to say it. The guy was stupid , maybe hes a pedophile , maybe he isnt, no one really knows everyone else's deep dark secrets , and everyone has a dark side , as long as no one gets hurt , physically or emotionally, then we all need to be free to express ourselves . Before anyone gets snippy with me NOTE that I said "AS LONG AS NO ONE GETS HURT , PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY."

[rmnunez]

Right, an assault could result from the imminent fear of an unwanted physical contact, still something hard to imagine would happen from looking at pictures on a computer.

[Scribbler1]

Britney Spears said she was researching a "role" when she tried to bash a photographer's car window in with an umbrella.

I don't believe that one either.

But the law must be VERY careful when trying to nail someone for having child porn on his computer. A good friend of mine, who is a big fan of pornography, often goes to newsgroups to get it. The problem is, as I have seen myself is that a lot of these pictures seem to be labeled as one thing and end up BEING kiddie porn, which he immediately stops looking at. But, if there are hidden copies of this stuff on his machine he could easily be busted for it.

Personally, I've always believed newsgroups could be a haven for viruses, but there's no convincing some people.

[Mia]

1) 'I'm not a pedophile' wasn't his defense. He said he pled not guilty because he didn't want to be seen as a pedophile.

2) The charges of sexual assault do not stem from the CP case, but sex with a 14 year old.

[rmnunez]

I don't understand your note Scribbler, would wonder about how actual child porn could be found labeled as something else. While I can understand the purveyor wanting to conceal the true nature of the material (for legal reasons) I don't see how anyone would ever find the stuff if mislabeled.