Chris Langham arrested for Net child porn

Now we know why comedian Chris Langham wasn't at the Comedy Awards this week to pick up his two awards for In the Thick of It and Help.

Rather than the explanation that “he really is unwell”, it turns out the poor sod is trying to come to terms with the fact that he was arrested a fortnight ago by police investigating internet child porn. He must have known the story would come out and he certainly didn't want to be in a room of his peers, packed to the gills with press, when it did.

Why “poor sod”? After all, if he's guilty of accessing, downloading etc child porn then we should have very little sympathy for him. In fact, we should be glad the police have nabbed him.

Except of course there are precedents here. And I'm willing to bet that Mr Langham will see all the allegations dropped soon- but not until the poor bastard has been to hell and back. Imagine being arrested for child porn. You'd have to explain it to your family – your kids! – and your friends and work colleagues. And even if it was completely untrue, there would always be a lingering doubt in people's minds. And strangers will forever after be slightly suspicious of you.

In fact, whether Mr Langham is guilty or not, I would argue very, very strongly that his name should never have been released. Have we learnt nothing from previous cases?

You don't have to go far to find them. Singer in Massive Attack Robert del Naja went through hell two years ago when he was arrested as part of Operation Ore in the UK. You can read the whole horrible story here.

His name was blasted all over the press in connectin with child porn. And yet it was all dropped. He was entirely innocent.

The same thing happened with Matthew Kelly. He was pulled out of a pantomime and, again, saw his name all over the papers. He later described the hell he went through. He tackled Frank Skinner on Skinner's chat show because months earlier the “comedian” had made gags about him and young children. Matthew Kelly was deeply serious. You could see the poor sod had suffered.

He denied everything and, yet again, he was found entirely innocent.

People are seeing their lives and careers ruined by these public allegations, and yet according to the police's own figures only a third of those actually charged have been convicted. What is the figure for the number arrested against those charged?

Of course the UK police clampdown on child porn is welcome and – and I have spoken to several UK Internet experts about this – is having a big effect. That's great.

There have also been some high-profile convictions. Former judge David Selwood was one.  Daily Express exec Andy Bull another. Most famously, Pete Townsend of The Who was convicted and spoke about his experience.

And here is an interesting article about a real paedophile caught by UK police.

[Sorry these are all Guardian links btw – just that the Guardian has a good search engine and its links can be relied upon, plus it doesn't charge for content – so this post should remain valid for longer.]

But despite all this, you really have to ask what value there is in exposing people in public life to this horrendous pressure. If Chris Langham *is* guilty, he will be found guilty, simple as that. If he is not guilty, he will have been put through hell for no reason.

He has my sympathy.

  1. It would be more to the point if we knew how and why all these ultimately innocent citzens were a) charged in the first place, and b) on what grounds they were acquitted. If the Police were proceeding without a shred of evidence it stands to reason that they would then be in serious shit as well. Judges would make a major stink if this were the case, and quite possibly this would go a long way to de-stigmatising the citizens who’ve been wrongly charged. But they do not, apparently, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps many of these acquittals came about on technical grounds, and the courts are therefore hamstrung. I may be totally wrong, and I may just be cynical, but I find it hard to believe that even a bunch of wurzel police officers would spend huge amounts of time putting a case together if there wasn’t a shred of evidence to support their charges. But then, maybe I’m naive as well.

  2. Well it’s a very long story but I will attempt to explain via the short version. The raids were based upon U.S intelligence agencies claims that individuals were accessing child pornography via a U.S web site and obtained a list of names from credit card transactions and that all these names were downloading child pornography. Well some years on and this claim has been proved to be completely false. Of the access available to pornography only 3% was in fact child pornography with the rest being adult pornography. So to put this in perspective say you signed up 2001 for adult pornography and paid by credit card then your name would be on the list and you would have been by now paid a visit by the police.

    Now things get interesting. The definition of child pornography is that a child refers to anyone under 18 and pornography does not have to be extreme. A picture of a girl say 17 in a let’s say skimpy outfit can be classified as child pornography (which I do not but that’s my opinion). You then get woken up in the early hours your Pc is taken away for forensic examination and about two years later you are formally charged with having child pornography on your PC so you are a nasty pervert who should be locked away.

    Now it would be a very interesting exercise to take a random selection of houses within a district anywhere in the U.K and to take away their computers away for forensic examination and I strongly believe that they would find some evidence of child pornography (as the law now stands) on many of these machines. So would these people be nasty perverts I think not (but that’s my opinion). The police and the system behind all this has of course caused mass hysteria and have made wild claims in the press about this that and anything else but there are certain other things going on that could bring this to a grinding halt and at last inject some sanity into the situation.

  3. For anyone wishing to take a look at the other side of this issue then details of this can be found here:www.inquisition21.com

  4. There is also the fact that there are reliable reports from Internet security companies of spyware on machines that grabbed credit card details off machines and forward them on. There is apparently proof (which I am tracking down) that these numbers were then used on websites offering child pornography.

    The police then arrest the credit card owners. This is what happened with Robert del Naja but now it seems people have identified and analysed the software that grabbed the numbers.

    Kieren

  5. Yes you are quite correct and evidence has been collected and is now in draft form for submission to solicitors for further action. Apart from this there is further evidence to prove that the infamous ‘Click here for child porn’ banner did not exist and that this was in fact fabricated by the FBI and that other evidence detrimental to their claims was supressed. This evidence is so overwhelming that hundreds of cases involving operation Ore where people were sentenced based on flawed evidence will have their cases overturned and undoudtedly with the help of the media people will have the opportunity to read all the facts and not just what the system wished them to know about. With the basis of Operation Ore stemming from the U.S and the already discredited main witnesses, some of which have gone into hiding, it is now being seen for what is is. Does the statement ‘Weapons of mass destruction’ ring any bells?

    Sean

  6. Kieren,
    You really don’t need to look very far for the information just go to http://www.inquisition21.com and it’s all there in glorious technicolour. Be quick and be first.

  7. I know Sean, I have, I’m just double-sourcing. We should talk – email me at kieren@thisblogaddress

    Kieren

  8. What address exactly?

    Sean

  9. I am trying not to write out my full address because it can be picked up by spam robots, but it is:

    kieren [at] kierenmccarthy [dot] co [dot] uk

    Kieren

  10. Chris Langham , i am fed up to the back teeth of people like him getting a way with this sort of crime, so but anyone who down loads this sort of stuff should be named and shamed, what makes me sick is how to many of these sorts of people get a way with it, ie 12months in side for abusing a child. is this world mad? why does the justice system protect these sicko’s, it just shows that celebritys are just the same has everyone else, nothing special.
    there is no SMOKE WITH OUT FIRE , just like mr jackson

  11. Ah, ain’t it refreshing to hear the views of the ignorant majority?

    Thank you Maria for your insight.

    Kieren

  12. Well, it seems that Maria & the “ignorant majority” is correct in this instance. The creep has more or less admitted that he’s a sick fucked up slimebag.

    I do agree, names should not be released until investigations have been exhausted & only when the perpetrator has either confessed or enough evidence has been found to press charges.

  13. You see, this is what bugs me. The ignorant majority is not correct in this instance. People made decisions based on no information whatsoever. And those decisions were of the most heinous kind – that someone enjoys looking at child pornography.

    That is why we have an “innocent until proven guilty” clause written into our laws. That the man accused subsequently admits to an inappropriate relationship *does not* make the leaping to conclusions correct. That’s the problem. It is the jump that is so damaging.

    It is also worth pointing out that this girl – who says she was 14 when Chris Langham slept with her – only came forward *after* all the publicity surrounding his arrest for possessing child pornography on his computer.

    Now I can see the *extremely* dangerous logic appearing here of “well, it’s probably a good thing he was in the press or we would never have heard about this”.

    I have to say I am surprised by the information coming out of the trial (although I am still waiting for the end – when I have ALL the information – to draw a conclusion). But that still doesn’t detract from the fact that the investigation started with police publicly releasing the name of someone allegedly found with child porn pictures on his computer.

    As has been proved demonstrably – and will become a bigger and bigger issue – there have been a travesty of justice in the past and in the early days of the Met’s handling of these cases where innocent people have had their lives ruined.

    That point will remain whether or not Chris Langham is found guilty. Whether or not he did actually download child porn to his computer.

    Kieren

  14. The accuser in this case is granted anonimity – but if Mr. Langham is found guilty, what’t the betting that her story will be in the gutter press netting her a small fortune!
    I knew where my 14 year old daughter was at all times and with whom!

  15. ahh once again Kieren slapping down the views of the common people, you may do the odd piece for the Guardian about the internet, or techworld, about a new gadget, what makes you a world authority on paedophilia, Marias comments may be slightly mis-informed , but compared to you she is positively enlightening, your whole take on this case is a joke, you have dug a hole in a pile of shit and you cant get out.
    Iam sure it is of great comfort to Mr Langham to know that he “has your sympathy”, do you now regret your “ignorance” or are you trying to cover it with your journalistic skills???????

  16. I think I’ve heard enough from you Richard. There are plenty of other blogs where you can post five abusive comments in 24 hours, and plenty of chatrooms where you can try to bully people in agreeing with you. You’ll have more fun with them, I promise you.

    Kieren

  17. I’m closing this comment thread now. Thank you everyone for your comments and an interesting discussion.

    Kieren

Comments are closed.