Chris Langham (actor, writer)

lucifers angel

same shit, differant day!!
Registered Senior Member
Actor Chris Langham has been jailed for ten months for downloading child porn.

The 58-year-old Bafta award-winning star, who wept in court during his sentencing hearing at Maidstone Crown Court, downloaded images and videoclips with names such as "bondage 11-year-old", "Philippine child prostitute" and "Lolita".

Langham claimed he was researching a paedophile character for a television drama and said he was trying to make sense of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child, but a jury convicted him last month of 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child.

Langham will serve five months, less the 43 days he has already spent in custody.

Judge Philip Statman said one of the victims was aged around eight-years-old, while others were between 11 and 13-years-old. He said: "Some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent, others are fully developed, some of the children are clearly of Filipino extract. All have had inflicted upon them horrifying sexual abuse and, I want to make this absolutely clear to you, I must think first of those children. They are too young to consent."

Police raided the 58-year-old star's home in November 2005 as part of Operation Ore. Officers seized three computers which contained files called "Lolita", "incest", "rape", "whore" and "hussy".

Langham, who won a Bafta for his role in the BBC drama The Thick Of It, admitted looking at child porn but pleaded not guilty to the charges against him because, he said he wanted to make a public declaration that he was not a paedophile.

His defence was that he was conducting research for the BBC television series Help. Langham told Maidstone Crown Court he and a co-writer had created a paedophile character called Pedro whose catchphrase was "I'm only a minor offender", and wanted to explore the way society viewed sex offenders through him. The episodes, however, were never made.

Outside court, Langham's solicitor, Angus McBride, read a statement on his behalf. It said: "The court has confirmed ... that I am not a paedophile. It has reached this conclusion having considered reports by social services, the Probation Service, a senior consultant psychiatrist and an expert in sexual offenders with 30 year's experience.

"If the prosecution had accepted this at the beginning I would have pleaded guilty. I have always admitted I should never have downloaded those abusive images. I am delighted that at last my account has been proved to be the truth."


--------------------------------------------------------
yes he was found guilty and he admitted to downloading child porn, but what if he was just really researching a role for a film part? like he says he was,

is this guy a peadaphile?
 
It's a pretty convenience excuse, that he only downloaded the child pornography in order to research an up and coming film role, he was 'supposed' to portray. If he really wanted to research a film role concerning pedophilla why not talk to victims of child abuse/pedophilla or convicted pedophiles themselves, it would be a more valid in-depth experience and paint a richer picture for his upcoming role.

Even if he isn't a padeo, still downloaded child porn and people like him (even if they are curious) who download child porn create a demand for it and give people who produce the child porn a market to supply to.

The only reason, he isn't serving longer is because he is a famous actor, which is a shame.
 
Entirely depends on your criteria for pedophilia.
In essense though, the term is pretty meaningless and the idea of the adult who can only be sexually aroused by children is largely mythological.

I think the main issue though is that he contributed to acts of extreme sexual abuse by supplying an active demand, and for that i believe a person should be prosecuted (which he has).
 
Pete Townshend used that same excuse.

I'm willing to believe that not everyone who downloads child porn is a pedophile but he isn't being tried for being a pedophile just for having child porn. I also wonder if he was just curious why he left the files on the computer--assuming the police didn't dredge up some deleted file.
 
I was surprised at the short sentence.
Probably more to do with lack of prison space, than anything else.
He showed no remorse, and was wasting the court's time.

Self delusion seems to be a hallmark of this offence.
He is probably sitting in his cell right now feeling wrongly done by.
 
Last edited:
I don't think being an actor had anything to do with his sentence, it's more of a reflection on the severity of the crime and whether he is a danger to the public (probably not). Perhaps the judge even took pity on a man who's acting career is now over (perhaps he will still earn money from his writing work?) and who suffered abuse as a child.
 
Pete Townshend used that same excuse.

I'm willing to believe that not everyone who downloads child porn is a pedophile but he isn't being tried for being a pedophile just for having child porn. I also wonder if he was just curious why he left the files on the computer--assuming the police didn't dredge up some deleted file.

Exactly!
 
This seems to get reported a lot in Britain. Is this because it happens more or is focused on more?

Entirely depends on your criteria for pedophilia.
In essense though, the term is pretty meaningless and the idea of the adult who can only be sexually aroused by children is largely mythological.

I think in most cases that is true.

I think the main issue though is that he contributed to acts of extreme sexual abuse by supplying an active demand, and for that i believe a person should be prosecuted (which he has).

This is another case I find gives reason to reevaluate the term. I don't think people who look on the internet should be described with the same term as people who abuse a minor. Even if it creates demand, it isn't as bad.
 
This sort of sentence reminds me of how they will punish the drug addicts, but rarely go after the guys who actually sell the drugs. In my eyes, while what the guy did was disgusting, he didn't hurt anyone. You can cry all you want about him 'creating a demand', but the pornography existed PRIOR to him accessing it. So the demand argument goes right out the window.

Deathfromabove:
If he really wanted to research a film role concerning pedophilla why not talk to victims of child abuse/pedophilla

How many people are willing to talk about the above with a stranger?
 
Back
Top