Chris Langham

[Swinging bee]

Mr Langham was caught in Operation Ore, which I hadn't realised. Apparently he immediately contacted the police and notified them that he had been receiving child porn via spam emails. They did not call to look at his computer for three years.

This action of the guilty, in nearly always drawing attention to what they don't want you to know stood me good stead for many years when I was 'nicking villains' for a living...they never learn........Thank goodness....

[David Bailey]

Mr Langham was caught in Operation Ore, which I hadn't realised. Apparently he immediately contacted the police and notified them that he had been receiving child porn via spam emails.

Uh-huh. Coz that happens a lot, doesn't it...

Strange how he didn't use that "defence" in court - possibly because he knew it was rubbish.

Finally, I still want to know why Townshend got away with a caution and a general feeling of 'well, he's the founder of the Who, after all...', but Langham is prosecuted and crucified in the press. What up with that?

It's a good question - one can only assume that there are "grades" of offender, and he was seen as the least offensive for some reason?

I thought he pleaded guilty to looking at child porn, but not guilty to the other offences (sex with an underage girl and I think something else) - and was found not guilty of those other offences, but guilty of the downloading child porn?

No, he pleaded "not guilty" to all the charges, I believe.

Interestingly, although he pleaded "not guilty" to the porn, he admitted he'd downloaded the clips - his defence was that he did it for research, or he was abused as a child, or his mouse slipped, or some equally-credible story. So his "defence" was based on motive, which - even if true - AFAIK doesn't matter in law - you don't let criminals off because they've had an unhappy childhood.

[Twirly]

No, he pleaded "not guilty" to all the charges, I believe.

Interestingly, although he pleaded "not guilty" to the porn, he admitted he'd downloaded the clips - his defence was that he did it for research, or he was abused as a child, or his mouse slipped, or some equally-credible story. So his "defence" was based on motive, which - even if true - AFAIK doesn't matter in law - you don't let criminals off because they've had an unhappy childhood.

Yes, I remember now. Even if you were pleading mitgating circumstances to lessen your sentence, wouldn't pleading both those things (research and abused as a child) be rather overdoing it? And I still don't understand how he could admit to downloading the stuff, and yet plead not guilty. Probably something to do with the intricacies of the law and how pleas are made - just doesn't seem very logical to me.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Mr Langham was caught in Operation Ore, which I hadn't realised.

Now theres a bizarre Operation if ever there was one. Basically someone in America who had a business handling payments for thousands of porn sites, had a few child porn sites on his books, so to speak - but when the credit card numbers were traced back to people in the UK, they were mostly ALL raided, regardless of what sort of sites they had visited. The media had a field day and vilified everyone even suspected (unless they were famous and liked ).

For further reading here is are 2 sites of contrast. Anti-Operation Ore ....and ....name and shame . You be the judge.

but Langham is prosecuted and crucified in the press. What up with that?

The famous "trial by media" - if the media likes you (usually because they know the vast majority of their readers like you) you come out of it quite well.

[Stuart M]

Interestingly, although he pleaded "not guilty" to the porn, he admitted he'd downloaded the clips - his defence was that he did it for research, or he was abused as a child, or his mouse slipped, or some equally-credible story. So his "defence" was based on motive, which - even if true - AFAIK doesn't matter in law - you don't let criminals off because they've had an unhappy childhood.

I read somewhere that part of his reasoning here (i.e. in pleading NG but effectively admitting the offence in evidence), was an objection to being placed on the Sex Offender's Register for it. Like only handing over money to someone willing to perform and film the act, for you to enjoy online, made him a better person. "But I was only a virtual nonce, m'lud", basically.

Odd logic...

[David Bailey]

Yes, I remember now. Even if you were pleading mitgating circumstances to lessen your sentence, wouldn't pleading both those things (research and abused as a child) be rather overdoing it?

No kidding. I suspect he was simply trying to push every "sympathy" button he could reach.

And I still don't understand how he could admit to downloading the stuff, and yet plead not guilty. Probably something to do with the intricacies of the law and how pleas are made - just doesn't seem very logical to me.

You can plead anything - the hope is that the jury will just go nuts, ignore the law and let you off because they like you or something.

To be fair, this can occasionally happen - euthanasia cases, Official Secrets Act, etc - when a jury's sense of "natural justice" overrides the direction of the judge. Classically this happened with Clive Ponting in the 1980's.

But I suspect that was never likely to happen with Langham. He accessed the site, he downloaded and stored the video clips, and he admitted as much.

Townshend, by contrast, probably didn't do anything wrong.

[Barry Shnikov]

Yes, I remember now. Even if you were pleading mitgating circumstances to lessen your sentence, wouldn't pleading both those things (research and abused as a child) be rather overdoing it? And I still don't understand how he could admit to downloading the stuff, and yet plead not guilty. Probably something to do with the intricacies of the law and how pleas are made - just doesn't seem very logical to me.

No, his plea was technically impossible. In another case, the prosecution counsel may well have asked the judge to change his plea to what it really was - guilty but with mitigation, rather than not guilty.

As advocates we are taught that if someone attempts to plead 'Not guilty, 'cos I was provoked, wadn'I?', the plea entered should be 'guilty; mitigation as to provocation'.

[David Bailey]

No, his plea was technically impossible. In another case, the prosecution counsel may well have asked the judge to change his plea to what it really was - guilty but with mitigation, rather than not guilty.

Yes, that would seem to be what he was "actually" pleading. But he stated that he wanted to avoid being on the Sex Offenders Register, that's why he made that plea. Possibly he was stupendously-badly advised.

Or, possibly he was just stupendously stupid and ignored legal - the Aitken "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" case springs to mind.

It's like someone murdering someone and then complaining about being labelled a murderer, just because they only did it once.

[Barry Shnikov]

Townshend, by contrast, probably didn't do anything wrong.

No, Townshend admitted the offence, but gave the same excuse as Langham, IIRC, 'I was abused as a child and my downloading of child pornography was a research endeavour to help me make sense of my experiences.' He was also cautioned, which again requires the offender to acknowledge the offence, though one suspects that more than a few people caught in the net of Ore may have thought coughing to the charge, getting cautioned and going on to the register may have been preferable to the publicity of a trial, even one followd by an acquittal.

I don't know if anyone has been charged with an offence just on the strength of their card being used to subscribe to the site, or whether the CPS deemed it necessary to find actual pictures.

[David Bailey]

I don't know if anyone has been charged with an offence just on the strength of their card being used to subscribe to the site, or whether the CPS deemed it necessary to find actual pictures.

I believe that's exactly what happened with Townshend - according to Campbell, his card was used to access a (non-child porn) site which was run by Landslide, and he was cautioned based on that. The police definitely didn't find anything on his computers.

[Barry Shnikov]

For further reading here is are 2 sites of contrast. Anti-Operation Ore ....and ....name and shame . You be the judge.

I don't like the Anti-operation Ore site. It's all a lot of interesting stuff about the possibility of miscarriages of justice, but it doesn't make the connection: "here are the names of people convicted without any evidence that they had illegal pictures on their computer".

Langham had video clips which were shown to the jury. Yes, perhaps the list of addresses provided to the Met was suspect at best; but most of the publicised cases actually involved material found on computers at the addresses to which the Ore list had pointed them. There's no suggestion - that I have so far seen - that the police ever examined a computer, found nothing on it and still charged someone.

The offence is of 'making an obscene image', the legal position being that each time you use your computer to display such a picture, you are 'making' it. There is probably a presumption that if the file is on your computer and also the software to display it, that you did so. If there are no such images, there is no offence of 'subscribing to questionable web sites' and I doubt if the CPS would be keen to prosecute somebody without the expert evidence from a computer expert that such files/pictures/films had indeed been stored on the computer.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I don't like the Anti-operation Ore site. It's all a lot of interesting stuff about the possibility of miscarriages of justice, but it doesn't make the connection: "here are the names of people convicted without any evidence that they had illegal pictures on their computer".

Indeed, but it does demonstrate an operation that blew things out of all proportion, illegal seizures and a serious misunderstanding of technology.

On the internet, you can get pretty much anything - e.g. extremely violent porn pictures and videos (and that has only recently been made illegal), graphic videos of murders etc... . There is nothing nice about child pornography, but the law has yet to catch up with technology. "Viewing something is the same as making it" is not logical, "downloading" suggests an active choice - but it isn't, ANYTHING you look at on the internet involves a download ....and language like "every view of an illegal image is another instance of child abuse" - increases hysteria and is certainly not helpful in tracking down the people who actually DO produce images like this. People who choose (or don't but are caught anyway) to download images are not the problem. Moreover the large increase of cases and media attention proves to the sickos and opportunists who make such images that there is a market now THATs disturbing.

Another thing that disturbs me is most schools have internet access to some degree but practice a black list policy rather than a white list policy - that, to me , seems bizarre. I can understand an ISP staying out of the whole censorship problem but public services and private companies should have their "own" internet - a couple of bodies set up to produce such white lists is all it should take.

There's no suggestion - that I have so far seen - that the police ever examined a computer, found nothing on it and still charged someone.

Very true. but in cases where the crime was not serious enough to warrant anything more than community service, the person could still lose their job and not be able to get another one; go on the sex offenders register and be unable to travel or move without police say-so for 3 to 10 years; have their children taken into care; have to attend classes with rapists (all sex offenders are apparently "the same" in the eyes of the law)...

Now, we can all sit here and say "they deserve it" but compare it to other sentences for crimes of actual harm....well, it all seems to be, a bit much ! Sentence by media led public opinion ? If only death by dangerous driving had such a stigma, the roads would be much safer.

What the site above highlights is that in some cases, people have taken their own lives due to an extreme and not entirely deserved social stigma that equates images with actual abuse.

Download pictures of something unacceptable? you could lose everything you hold dear, so you may as well kill yourself!

In the case of Langham - what should his sentence be ? He clearly needs help! chances are, he'll never work again.

[Twirly]

People who choose (or don't but are caught anyway) to download images are not the problem. Moreover the large increase of cases and media attention proves to the sickos and opportunists who make such images that there is a market now THATs disturbing.

DS, whilst I understand what you are saying, I’m not sure that saying that the people who are the market for such images are not the problem is either true or useful.

I would assume from reading your post that you would prefer the authorities to be cracking down on the people who produce the images, so that the one image which can be viewed by thousands, never gets produced, and that child never has to be abused. I agree. However, I suspect that the challenge of doing this is so vast (with the international nature of the production and the internet), that it makes more sense to try and remove the market for the images instead.

If people are too scared to download the images, then they won’t and the producers won’t profit, thus removing the incentive for producing the images in the first place. I have no doubt that this is unlikely to work. But the authorities are probably prosecuting the people they can actually reach in an attempt to stop it.

[Dreadful Scathe]

, I suspect that the challenge of doing this is so vast (with the international nature of the production and the internet), that it makes more sense to try and remove the market for the images instead.

Just because its a vast task doesn't mean it should not be attempted, so I don't think thats much of an excuse. As for jurisdiction - when it comes to illegal content coming into a country - at least some attempt can be made to prevent it, blocking entire domains and IP ranges would soon work as foreign ISPs are forced to clean up. It's what spamhaus do for spam mail and it works very well in the main.

If people are too scared to download the images, then they won’t and the producers won’t profit, thus removing the incentive for producing the images in the first place. I have no doubt that this is unlikely to work.

Try impossible ! most people would consider that people who hunt down pictures of child abuse have a serious problem, they are hardly going to be scared by sentences other people get. Its as likely as manic depressives being arrested for being depressed is going to stop them being manic depressives. At the end of the day, abusers will abuse regardless of law and they need to be caught - that should always be the priority.

But the authorities are probably prosecuting the people they can actually reach in an attempt to stop it.

but what i'm suggesting is they are making the problem worse, not better. A high profile demand for something leads to the immoral supplying to the demand. Reminds me of the story of the school teacher who raised money to buy slaves from Africa - apparently not realising that an increase in demand leads to....worse slavery : here. Aaah someone wants to buy our slaves - plenty more where they came from...

[Barry Shnikov]

{snip stuff about operation Ore}

I'm just a little sceptical. Doesn't the site read to you like someone who was caught bang to rights but is trying to blow smoke up everybody's ass? Maybe one over-excitable social services worker with a a history Political Correctness brainwashing may have said that about 'every viewing...', but I doubt if it was a phrase that was bandied about by most policemen.

Another thing that disturbs me is most schools have internet access to some degree but practice a black list policy rather than a white list policy - that, to me , seems bizarre. I can understand an ISP staying out of the whole censorship problem but public services and private companies should have their "own" internet - a couple of bodies set up to produce such white lists is all it should take.

I agree. Children's access to the internet should be automatically be restricted. But there is a huge problem over what the restrictions should be.

Very true. but in cases where the crime was not serious enough to warrant anything more than community service, the person could still lose their job and not be able to get another one; go on the sex offenders register and be unable to travel or move without police say-so for 3 to 10 years; have their children taken into care; have to attend classes with rapists (all sex offenders are apparently "the same" in the eyes of the law)...

Well, community service is several steps up from a caution, so such an offender would have had to have committed a moderate offence. Sex offenders are not all the same in the eyes of the law, though I think I know what you meant to say. It's probably more pertinent to say that sex offenders are all the same in the eyes of social services, since it is they who take the decisions on everything other than sentence. Most people should not lose their job if they are punished by community service. A prison sentence means you can't carry out your employment obligations, so that's different. Obviously, if you're a teacher, that's a no brainer. But if you are, eg, a car mechanic, what would be the reason for the dismissal? I know little about the sex offenders register but I strongly suspect in practice that those responsible for the administration of it are well aware of the differences between someone who was caught having sex with his girlfriend a few months before her 16th birthday, and subsequently married her, and someone who kidnapped a five year old girl and...well, you get the picture. Economic considerations alone mean they probably have to create their own hierarchy, so that the resources are concentrated on the biggest threats. (Can't tell the Daily Mail that, obviously.)

Now, we can all sit here and say "they deserve it" but compare it to other sentences for crimes of actual harm....well, it all seems to be, a bit much ! Sentence by media led public opinion ? If only death by dangerous driving had such a stigma, the roads would be much safer.
What the site above highlights is that in some cases, people have taken their own lives due to an extreme and not entirely deserved social stigma that equates images with actual abuse.
Download pictures of something unacceptable? you could lose everything you hold dear, so you may as well kill yourself!

There are plenty of people happy to post all sorts of porn (and lots of other stuff too - latest Harry Potter book, new film releases, music files, pirate software) in newsgroups, rapidshare, bittorrent and so forth which you can pick up without paying anything at all (well, not for the material itself. In such cases, a viewer of child pornography will have caused no harm whatsoever by his actions. I think your point about dangerous driving is absolutely true.

In the case of Langham - what should his sentence be ? He clearly needs help! chances are, he'll never work again.

They all need help. Most won't be offered any. Some will accept it, some won't. Those who get it and accept it may or may not benefit from it. But it costs, so don't expect much of it. Especially since there is a myth that paedophilia is some sort of personality problem that is so different from others that 'sufferers' can never recover.

[Barry Shnikov]

If people are too scared to download the images, then they won’t and the producers won’t profit, thus removing the incentive for producing the images in the first place. I have no doubt that this is unlikely to work. But the authorities are probably prosecuting the people they can actually reach in an attempt to stop it.

It's pretty well established that the real reason the images are produced is not profit. That is to say, some people may well quit the market if there is no profit to be made. But I believe the research suggests that the photography and filmmaking is ancillary to the main objective of the offender, which is the sexual gratification.

You'd have to be a complete sociopath to partake in this sort of thing simply for the money, and actually there aren't that many sociopaths around.

Of course, it's right that having such pictures or films is against the law, as is making them. But I don't think that the problem will be solved that way. My suspicion is that evolution has prepared the male brain to find the pubescent female attractive - it would make sense, given that life expectancy hasn't exceeded 25 years for more than a few thousand years. If so this, like many other aspects of human nature, must be socialised. There will always be some people who escape the net. It's a damage limitation exercise.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm just a little sceptical. Doesn't the site read to you like someone who was caught bang to rights but is trying to blow smoke up everybody's ass? Maybe one over-excitable social services worker with a a history Political Correctness brainwashing may have said that about 'every viewing...', but I doubt if it was a phrase that was bandied about by most policemen.

Well I've heard it second hand, from a friend who got caught in Operation Ore; the police had exactly that opinion - they even questioned his Argos catalogue as it has childrens pictures in it. He says he had pictures of some "possibly under 18 girls", I have to believe him of course. But at the end of the day he, and many others were crucified over some pictures produced by others. Knowing what he has told me about his situation and how he was treated, I could see the reason for such a site as the anti-ore one.

I agree. Children's access to the internet should be automatically be restricted. But there is a huge problem over what the restrictions should be.

Because no one cares enough ? Schools can easily sort something out and the same lists they use can be supplied to parents too - its up to the parents if they use it of course, but they should have that option. There would uproar if a school library got 100 copies of the full colour karma sutra and put it on a low shelf - but theres no such uproar about internet access

[robd]

but theres no such uproar about internet access

Yes there is, if your filtering system (and I can't think of any school that would offer Internet access without a filtering system) fails (or more likely, the child seeking the porn persists and persists until he finds a site not blocked. Expecting personal responsibility (and disciplining accordingly) for surfing behaviour seems to play second fiddle to expressing outrage at the school/library/council for making such 'filth' available.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes there is, if your filtering system (and I can't think of any school that would offer Internet access without a filtering system) fails (or more likely, the child seeking the porn persists and persists until he finds a site not blocked. Expecting personal responsibility (and disciplining accordingly) for surfing behaviour seems to play second fiddle to expressing outrage at the school/library/council for making such 'filth' available.

exactly -

but you misunderstand...what im saying is there is NO good reason for having a filtering system - there SHOULD be an uproar about the fact that there is no white list.

Imagine if the school library allowed anyone to walk in and place ANY material they wanted on the bookshelves?...even if the librarian does go round and remove some offensive material when they get round to it, its ALWAYS reactionary, never preventative. Yet there is no uproar about this with the internet due to lack of knowledge of the internet.

[robd]

but you misunderstand...what im saying is there is NO good reason for having a filtering system - there SHOULD be an uproar about the fact that there is no white list.

Not everyone agrees but some more views here including an interesting view that whitelisting's principal attraction is in keeping people's minds on what they should be doing rather than downloading MP3s, ringtones, games, etc

I suspect whitelisting may be more common in primary than secondary level schools.