Up for sentencing soon..............Some of the videos accessed by langham showed the worst and most horrific level of child abuse. Langham admitted viewing them but pleaded not guilty because he did not want to be labelled a paedophile.........EH! WTF?
Apparently he was "researching" for his TV role, despite the character not being a paedo, and despite the fact that the NSPCC would have provided all the advice he needed without having to use his credit card.
I understand from the reports at the time of the trial that the show for which he was doing his 'research' was a comedy. There is some pretty dark humour out there (ARRSE and RR included) but it doesn't usually make for laughs on TV. I'm aware of the Brass Eye parody episode which hopefully didn't invove any 'research'.
Shock horror, paedo court case thread doesn't degenerate into red hot poker torture thread.
Agreed, as I said to my other half, "I don't want to see him made an example of, I want to see him treated the same as 'Joe Bloggs' would be treated". And I think 'Joe Bloggs' would have got a heavier sentence.
I should have thought his main sentence will begin upon leaving custody, as I should have thought he will now be placed on his local sex offenders' register for life. The sentencing of offenders who sexually abuse children has always been less severe than for consensual offences between adults. Why the judiciary should behave like this is beyond me. Perhaps they really do regard it as less serious than theft - but then historically Roman law has had a large influence on the evolution of Western jurisprudence, with its emphasis on protecting property rather than children.