As an academic researcher in the area of child sexual abuse on the Internet I find it apalling that one can assume no link between viewing pornography and committing contact offences - a plethora of research will show a correlating - if not causal- link.
Attempting to minimise the effect of viewing this type of material has seriously traumatic effects on victims. Offering an explanation of doing research is nonsensical when everyone is aware how serious an offence viewing child pornography is-these are not images of tickling or kissing-this is TORTURE of young children for the sexual gratification of others that we're talking about.
If one wants to research the effects of child sexual abuse read the academic literature and discourse of victims-there is NO excuse for accessing these sites.

elaine , cork, ireland

The commentator writes: 'viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assault'.

When it comes to child pornography, that is entirely false. Such pornography requires that a sexual assault take place in order for it to be created. By being part of the demand for such images a viewer will also be part of the forces that bring about the crime.

It's one thing for a 50-year-old to have sex with an 18-year-old - that need not be wrong, not at all. But police have stated (on several occasions, I believe) that the images involved in this case were some of the worst that investigators had ever seen. (Some involving babies as young as 6 months being raped.) This is a wholly different matter.

The only 'injustice' I can see in this case is that Langham got off with such a ridiculously light sentence.

Leisha Camden, Oslo, Norway

At least langhyam was given a trial before being found guilty of his crimes,and then being rightly imprisoned.This is much more than the poor child 'prisoners' of the makers of these videos and images are privileged to.And let no-one forget that the images he had were of the highest category-depicting scenes of violent rape and torture-which he surely could not have initially stumbled upon,triggering a total recall of his own alleged abuse. (Why doesn;t he bring them to justice now ? ) And did you see that sickening interview with him today-Tue 20/12 ? I thought that womaqn interviewer was going to rush over and cuddle the poor thing after listening to his sob story about the awful treatment he had to endure from his fellow jnmates.

Marty, london,

Its rare to see such a sympathetic article for this type of criminal. I wonder why????????????.

Gerald

Gerald, Sligo, Irealnd

Yes, Chris Langham was a victim of injustice - he should have been jailed for a much longer period of time.

ruth, poole,

A very fair article, on a difficult subject, fair play to you. You are of course correct, the CPS are not what they were a long time ago. They are generally political, uncaring and one might say dishonest.

The UK police force and government is taking on board many of a certain dictators thoughts and comments for example

"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases."

And

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.”

As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

That is exactly what is being done.

Oh, and who said that originally, well the furor himself.

I would imagine that the actual number of photos was less than 15, after all just because a photo says “lolita” does not mean it’s illegal for example, however inflammatory it might sound. They Police know this and they also know that most people will react to it, which is manipulation whatever spin you put on it.

Dud, Belfast, UK

where is the consistency in sentencing?

ax, london, uk

It makes a refreshing change to see somone assessing the facts for themselves, I don't believe for one moment that CL is guilty as charged, - he obviously did look but if he was researching a part and found this, which he himself was a victim of, it is an understandable reason. If he was guilty of something more sinister, there l have been far more than 15 cases on his computer -a comment was even made by the police to thiseffect. Which of us at any time has not looked at something truly gruesome not because we enjoyed it but because of some kind of inability to look away and a desire to understand what can make human beings do the hideous things they do.
Unfortunately the 'no smoke without fire' group will tar him as a paedophile and now that his name is on the sex offenders register, he has no peace left.
I cannot stress enough that this is one of the most despicable areas of crime and that people who are guilty should be heavily punished, but I do not believe he is guilty.

H R, Bristol,

I agree with every word Carol. First bit of decent journalism I've seen in a while. The whole media circus is the equivalent of Victorian freak shows. He did wrong but he is not the worst, and prison will serve no purpose here.
The CPS and the police should go to the source, not the easy victories.
Here's for a short sentence and the end of witch-hunts. At the same time, here's to an end for these sick acts.

edd, UK, UK

Summising the details published in the media:

- CL's credit card had been used on a legal adult site at Landslide (Operation Ore).

- Despite there being no evidence of an offence, CL is subject to a criminal investigation as part of Operation Ore. No charges brought.

- CL starts receiving illegal emails and reports this to the police. Reportedly Kent police said they were not falling for this, a strange comment in light of the evidence they were in possession of.

- CL is arrested relating to 15 images from the day before.

Perhaps more details have emerged, but these facts do not support comments that have been made here.

D. Stanley, Gourge, France

Christopher Langham was rightly convicted of possessing an downloading child pornography or rather to give it the correct title. Images of men systematically sexually abusing and sexually degrading young girls and boys. These images are not 'fantasies' they happened and the reason they occurred is because far too many men believe they are entitled to sexually abuse and/or watch such acts. Do not forget the jury was also informed Langham deliberately sought out and accessed websites showing images of men sexually abusing and raping adult women. Viewing images of girls and boys being sexually abused is the same as participating in such acts. It not only condones such male abuse it also fuels the demand for men to watch girls and boys being sexually tortured. Would such excusers say it was acceptable for men (because it is predominantly men who view such images) to view black women and men being hanged because of their colour. It was acceptable until recently. Any difference?

JENNIFER DREW, London, United Kingdom

I think everyone should ask them selves, why hasn't the alleged victim sold her story if she was only in it for money?

I believe her, as i also was a victim of a similar crime, only 4% of cases are proven and considering it was over 10 years ago i think she was very brave to come forward.

If you look into the facts of the case into the young woman I know your start asking yourself questions.

I don't understand how he can call his acusser "a sick person" when he was the one looking at such sick images?
and if she was such a threat to his family why even give her the time of day and take her to all these posh place and buy her nice gifts?

Im sorry but i don't believe a 14/15 year old could have such a strong hold over a 47 year old man. Do you?

heidi, devon,

I understand that there exists a list of names of individuals who are suspected to have downloaded 'unsuitable material' who as yet have not been investigated.
It must be a cause for grave concern as to who has access to the 'pending list'
Just think what anyone who is on 'the pending list' might be prepared to offer or do to have their name removed from it?
The Langham case has certainly stimulated debate on what constitutes a thought or a crime as well as opening up dialogue on the other issues surrounding the very complex area of pornography, the viewing and distribution of it as well as the exploitation of the vulnearble for self gratification and financial gain.
The hope is that many more of the victims, who are violated and exploited in this 'strange to most of us world' of child pornography, can be rescued.

Darnthesafetynet, London, W11 1NR

The tactic known as “similar allegation” is an unlawful mutation of the tactic, which was made legal in the early twentieth century, of bringing “similar fact” cases. Under the “similar fact” principle juries reasonably returned guilty verdicts in cases which individually were thin on direct evidence but collectively suspicious. Under “similar allegation” juries returned incorrect and bizarre guilty verdicts on multiple historic abuse allegations by compensation seekers and attention-seekers.

The CPS now go one further, and attempt to bring two dissimilar charges, one of which arises from a either a hysterical false allegationist or a compensation chancer, and the other includes the offence of being in possession of patterns of magnetism offensive to the police. The tactic is to hope that the stronger evidence for one case will somehow influence the jury to return a guilty verdict on the unrelated weaker case. Your columnist is honorable in drawing your readers' eye to this scam.

Roy Everett, Suffolk, UK

Unlike in the Townsend case, Langman's computers actually had child porn images and videos stored on them and so the case did not rely soley on the finding of credit card details on the Landslide data base provided by the FBI. What is suprising is that Langam, knowing he had subscribed to Landslide and that his credit card details were likely to have been passed on to the UK police, did not take this as a warning that his behaviour was unacceptable and liable to bring severe personal consequences. He could have destroyed his computers (he could have afforded new ones), and resolved not to look at child pornography ever again. OK, technically this would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice - but he could have argued his old computer had broked and he got a new one. He would have then been in the same position as Townsend. Amazingly, the court heard that images/videos were downloaded onto his computer as recently as the night before his arrest.

J, London, UK

I am someone who is on "the register" for ten years as I have been found guilty of having eight pictures of naked children on my computer. To society I am a wicked paedophile and a beast that should be kept away from children for ever or, if you listen to many, I should be castrated or better yet, executed. I'm a member of the same club as Gary Glitter and now Chris Langham. I however, did not have the finances to afford the services of a private legal team and therefore spent nine and one half months in custody aweaiting trial. I too was charged with having sex with an under age girl and other sexual offences against her sister. I was also charged with taking indecent pictures of my granddaughter who I love dearly. Months before I was charged I was sent disturbing pictures through my email and I reported them to the police. I assume that these are the pictures that I was convicted of having but as I was not allowed to see them I will never know. I have run out of space but

A N Once, Solihull,

Pete Townshend committed the same crimes and gave the same explanation. In fact... in a way Langham's excuse is more credible. At least Langham's TV show actually existed, unlike Townsend's book.

Mister Langham is a fine actor and writer and it's a shame he felt compelled to do what he did. I can't help but think the media's obsession with child porn serves only to make such indulgences more taboo, more dangerous and therefore more exciting.

Whilst I feel Langhams explanation of 'research' is absurd, and do not know what to make of his own alleged abuse, I believe his insistence that he isn't sexually attracted to children.

His explanation that he downloaded the first clip accidentally and it spiralled out of control seems entirely plausible. It bears close resemblance to other crimes, ie. drug abuse and arson, whereby perpetrators are driven more by a compulsion than a desire.

He seems genuinely remorseful and I don't really see that he poses a danger to society.

Charles Thomson, London, England

The link between Langham's rape accuser and the dowloading offence might explain why Pete Townsend is a free man while Langham will probably go to prison. All the way through this I've been thinking 'How did Townsend get away with this?' He made the term 'research' into a joke and yet was far less likely to have needed that sort of research for his work. His excuse (and Langham's) was that they were using the porn to resolve issues in their past. Does this mean that all people who were abused as children end up dowlonading this sort of illegal material to help 'find themselves'? Both men actively sought these sites out and paid to download from them. Same crime, different outcome. Why?

David Searle, London,

Thank you for this article, especially the first paragraph. This sums up what I've been trying to say (albeit no one much was listening!) since I first began hearing of this.

Kirsty, Glasgow,

Wow, a thoughtful, reasoned and sensible piece on this topic. You're brave, Carol. Brace yourself for a furious onslaught from the usual nutters.

Peter, London,

The moment a verdict is given with few exceptions, the official story is taken as truthful. In these cases particularly dangerous as what is on anyone's computer as a whole is unlikely to reflect their intent and what people admit to under pressure is quite likely to be simply an act of self preservation.

The law explicitly excludes the presumption of innocence; one is guilty as the judge surmised, it is simply a technical product of the law.

What is alleged in court is often unsupported or refuted by available evidence, the law requires a level of proof by the prosecution below that which would be successful in a civil suit, yet posters here are willing to endorse a process that is corrupt by design.

It has reached such absurdity that just attempting to defend in these cases can require considerable courage:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/st2Campbell18Apr.pdf

D. Stanley, Gourge, France

I'm afraid Andrew Milner has never heard of 'mens rea' or guilty mind. Yes, you can go to prison for "thinking" things... It comes from 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' (the doing of an act does not make a person guilty unless he has a guilty mind.

In English law, it is defined in statute by the Criminal Attempts Act (1981), inasmuch as an act must be MORE than preparatory for it to be an attempted crime. This statute is intended to limit the scope of mens rea to merely thinking 'i'd like to kill my mother-in-law' to acts where the intent to actually kill her is clear.

That said, we are rapidly approaching a time where the thought-police in our Stalinist country are going to supecede any wild imaginations by George Orwell.

'There are none so corrupt as those who make the law, except those who enforce it'

Sir Stephen Richards rools ok!

Stuart Robb, London, UK

I think the author may be trying to make a valid point about police conduct, unfortunately she has chosen the wrong case with which to do it. Does the author think it's not a big deal downloading images of child rape? Langham is a sick, disturbed man and deserves his punishment.

Perhaps the charge of assault should not have been brought but given the images found on Langham's computer, the woman's claims didn't appear so fanciful. Where there is a realistic possibility of a prosecution, it is surely right that a jury decide?

Haroon Abbasi, London,

Err.. Mike, have you read the article? Carol Sarler is absolutely right. The CPS is a disaster and the current taste for publicity being shown by senior police oficers is also very worrying. The entire country seems to be falling under the spell of 'celebrity culture'.

MDHinton, Sieradz, Poland

I'm tired with how this subject constantly gets treated. While no one condones that kind of imagery on the internet and what it represents, given the manpower thrown at the people that view it, why isn't some of that used against the people that produce this depravity? If internet users can be tracked down - and they certainly can - why has NO prosecution EVER been made against the people that produce it? - as far as I'm aware. Yes, entire sites can be moved around different servers, and all around the world, but surely that can be traced as well? As with hard drugs, its the drug-sellers that are the truly evil people. They profit from what they do, know the damage it does, and large scale dealing is far worse than individual users. No one condones viewing the imagery Langham accessed; but the way such people are demonised is in proportion to forgetting about the people who actually create and deal in it. THEY should be the prime target. Lock them up, problem removed.

Joe, Manchester,

Thank god I don't live in a puritanistic, hypocritical, bloodhounding police state like Britain. If the state seriously wanted to stop pornography on the Internet they would ban it. But they haven't ... why not? because banning internet porn would seriously reduce internet usage with the massive economical repercussions that that would involve. Porn is a drug with child porn the heroin of porn. All internet porn should be considered as the route to the heroin. People would be far better off without porn so lets start talking about the catalyst to the heroin of porn. Porn is ruining relationships and lives.

Magalane Heart, Oslo,

You seem to forget that there never WAS any evidence to consider. That's rather the point.

Paul Heyes, Sheffield, UK

Well said.

Robert, London, UK

I thought this was an extremely well written article which showed a balanced alternative view of the trial. I agree wholeheartedly with some of the views expressed; Chris Langham appears to me to be someone who needs help rather than locking up

C Russell, Gloucester,

We should not forget that the images were horrific and a child suffered and possibly died to provide Chris Langham and his ilke with a few minutes dubious pleasure.

Linda Chapman, Wakefield, West Yorks.,

I can not condone Chris Langham's downloading child porn but I am left puzzled by the fact that Pete Townshend's defence for a set of very similar charges was exactly the same as Langham's. Research for his works', a history of being abused and so on.
Townshend was ‘cautioned for accessing a paedophile website’ and later cleared. Langham, however, is help on remand until mid September until being sentenced. The only difference (as far as I can tell so far) between the two cases is that Townshend never had go before a jury. Right or wrong, there is palpable inconsistency here.

mark tibenham, leamington spa, warwickshire

I suspect this article is a classic case of a journalist 'stirring it up' a bit to stimulate debate - and she's certainly done that!

The real issues here is whether Langham should go to jail. Clearly, the guy has major issues to resolve mentally - he has a long history of depression and drug abuse, and now this. His life has fallen apart; he has no career, quite possibly no family (obviously we don't know this but the suspicion has to be his relationship won't survive) - his whole life has fallen apart. Throwing him in jail to 'teach him a lesson' won't help. There is always a strong case for alternative rehab. After all, Langham does not appear to pose any threat to the public. The only thing that could come form being in jail is having the you know what kicked out of him by other criminals.

The other issue is the appaling way certain newspapers treated the case from the start. Somebody was leaking information about the case before Langham was charged - no doubt someone was paid.

Parrock, Chatham, United Kingdom

What a refreshing view of the state of todays ""moral attitudes" I thank you for a well written and thoughtful article.

Robin.W.Midwood, Perpignan, France

Herein lies the view of another minx out to make money...no doubt every child in this hideous pornography will hope you enjoy your 40 pieces of silver as you contribute to their agony.

Adele Di Carlo, Hoquaim, ny

Carol Sarler is obviously unaware of what it actually means to be viewing a level 5 site. It is not pornography in the way that we might see naughty pictures on magazine covers in a petrol stations, it is truely sick, disturibing images of children being violently assulted and bares no resemblence to the consensual world of glamour models.

Sarler has also failed to realise that these are non-consenting minors who have to rebuild their lives after being brutally raped. Hands up all the men out there who fantasise over that - no? Not your cup of tea? Thats why he needs to be kept away from our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.

Hoggarth, London, England

It's amazing how some people make up their own story from the scant information they THINK they've read in the papers. For the last time, LANGHAM DID NOT PURCHASE ANY CHILD PORN IMAGES. The sites he paid to view were named in the trial and they were not child porn sites. If they had been, he would also have been charged with Incitement to Distribute. (the same as Townshend and that's another story)

How dare you play with this mans life in such a way. In reality, he has done nothing different to many journalists in this country who have written stories about child porn and viewed images for their 'research' on the story.

ian, London, uk

And I suppose there was no child abuse before the Internet, and the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse only took place because people downloaded images of it?

Eric , London, England

Totally agree; he is being hung out to dry because he's famous. OK, he viewed some pretty awful videos, that doesn't make him complicit - complicit is agreeing to the crime being committed in the first instance; and as for the idea of "thought crime" - since when has thinking been a criminal offence?

I don't know him, I don't know if he's a nice guy or not, but this all reeks of a decision to make an awful exemplar. As for the woman's testimony - does anyone imagine for a moment the CPS would have thought it was a case to be prosecuted as a standalone? It was part of the daemonising package of the prosecution.

Congratulations Carol for having the courage to stand up and take a contrary viewpoint. I very much hope that the mitigation submissions will be strong, and that any appeal against sentence will be treated with fairness. What a vile crew much of the media is.

Becky, Bristol,

i'm interested by gareth's distinction between paid for child porn and non-paid for child porn but i must say i'm not entirely convinced by the supply and demand argument anyway. if we are to apply that argument it should be applied consistently. if i buy an outrageously cheap shirt in a supermarket or other clothes retailer, by the same argument i am surely encouraging the exploitation of the workers which periodically surfaces in newspapers (what was it, 3p an hour in bangladesh?) why is that not illegal? of course i am not putting these two sets of consequences on a par, but simply trying to show that there is an inconsistency here.

the truth is, we're appalled that anyone should derive pleasure from watching the rape of children and want to see them punished (and out of our sight, perhaps). the fact that this makes not the slightest difference in reducing child abuse doesn't stop us. however, we should re-focus our efforts into achieving that end.

andrew Roberts, London,

Isn't the entire discussion solid proof of the sense of Sarler's article?
Those who think see good and bad points and write intelligently.
Those against seem to miss the point entirely and simply rant about "abused children" and other cliches.
Nobody condones abuse of the innocent. But this is a broader topic. We always knew and accepted that the media deals in headlines and that the majority of punters don't have the time or inclinations to accept anything but simplistic caricatures.
But it is frightening when Government, Judiciary and worst of all Police and CPS gleefully go for the same route.
It's happening with "terrorists". It's happened for years with "sex".
Those who accept Jonathan King's conviction and condemn Matthew Kelly's treatment forget it was the same accusers, the same police, the same CPS who urged Kelly's torment.
We have a serious morality issue here and one which society needs to address damn fast before we have even more "lie" victims to join the victims of abuse

K Jones, Walton, Surrey

I consider the removal fo the Statues of Limitations in these cases to constitute an injustice as the accusers are subject to delusions in conccocting fantasies, and there is no opportunity to develop a defense against particular charges.

I also wonder regarding the tendency to infantilize society by proscribing access to materials, whatever their nature. I generally am suspicious of people who seek to augment their s by proclaiming that "It's for the children." Usually, they are pursuing some other agenda, which may range from securing political support to satisfying some psychological aberration of their own by identifying themselves with "good."

In the U.S., the hypocrisy is manifested in the secret lives of politicians, whose predilections toward homosexuality or paedophilia are exposed when they are caught "in flagrante delicto," contrary to their portrayal of themselves as "family friendly."

Give the man a break. He didn't "DO" anything. Thought is being criminalized.

Johnson, USA,

It seems to me that yet again the tabloids were suffering a few 'slow news days' and Mr Langham became a victim of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.(Selling trashy invented stories that make a fortune for the publishers that is)
Were Mr Townsend properly prosecuted he would doubtlessly have suffered a different fate.Langham,unlike Townsend made the legally silly error of being honest and pleading guilty to perhaps a bit of perverse curiosity, similar curiosity to buyers of The Daily Trash which buyers fuel such publicity and thirst for more,since they live vicariously perverse lives in my opinion. Honesty gets you nowhere in the world of the public role model.Maybe that explains why Posh hasn;t been arrested by the fashion and parental propriety police yet.

R Walton, Niagara Falls , Ontario

A really odd article - he got off the charges of underage rape and buggery, he was convicted of downloading highly illegal child pornography.

I am just uncertain as to what point this article is trying to make?

"viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assault, and nobody is served by pretending otherwise" - well that is exactly what the jury found too. Viewing highly illegal child pornography whether on a website, on a mobile cip or in a magazine is illegal and as the judge said that these were gross examples of level 5 porn, Langham deserves to go to jail.

Simply no more to it

Nylonmeals, london,

No-one is saying that downloading child porn is acceptable; it is not. But:

Langham didn't pay for any child porn. He paid for adult porn. Assertions that he did are false, as are comments like "a laptop full of child porn". That is speculation.

Viewing porn has nothing to do with sexual crimes. Millions of people view it every day. It is normal. The idea that if someone views porn, they are rapist in waiting is false. For that to be true, 90% of all people would be rapists.

Downloading from file sharing networks isn't supply and demand. There is no financial incentive, most people who are hosting the illegal content didn't create it, they have no control over who is downloading those files, or how often they are accessed.

PAID FOR child porn does result in a supply and demand situation, but that is not what happened here.

Langham will serve time for his crimes, but that sentences will not address wider issues raised.

Victims and the accused need to have the right to anonymity,

gareth, london, england

If he had been adidicted to child pornography, surely he would have downloaded more than 15 pictures, like the recently convicted man who had 70,000. This whole case smacks of a public hanging to discourage others. I agree entirely with the article.

Edgar Wallner, Maidenhead,

I'm not defending what he did do, but the CPS are increasingly infuriating me, using underhand tactics to cover their mistakes and false allegations to bolster the truth.

Same CPS that spent several million trying to prosecute a legitimate firearms collector for dealing illegal guns. Having stolen a year of his life while they compiled evidence, the judge systematically threw out half the charges, and the jury acquitted him of the rest. Obviously a mistake was made. However, once it was clear the case had fallen apart, why couldn't the CPS have said (and why can they never say) "ok, we made a mistake, we're dropping the case/charge". Instead they waste public money ploughing on with irrelevancy after irrelevancy.

People have asked wouldn't Carol have a different tone if it were her children on the computer? I think Carol would be more concerned about the people perpetrating the abuse and publishing the photos, and stopping the abuse, not the people accessing the images.

Richard Hemingway, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire

Since when has looking at pictures of a crime been the same as committing that crime ? Do people really believe that if there was no photographic technology that children would not be abused ? Langham may be sick or disturbed but he is no rapist and only the hysterical ,whose views are fanned by the rabid media believe such rubbish. As a victim of actual child abuse it galls me to see real and serious offences,like rape and paedophilia trivialised by labelling petty and nonserious offences in the same category.

Stephen James, London, UK

I imagine after the police found images of a 7 year-old being raped on Chris Langham's computer, and evidence that he'd been visiting child porn sites for several years, the allegation that he'd also groomed and had underage sex with a young teenager would have seemed very credible.

Many people fail to understand this: if you view child porn you are giving paedophiles an incentive to create more child porn, i.e. abuse more children.

Jan, Leeds,

Carol Sarler's article attempts to undermine the seriousness of what Chris Langham did. She consistently refers to "pornography". Oh that it were just pornography. Real children were raped and tortured so Chris Langham could pay money to view the pictures. I fail to see the "mitigating distinction between looking and touching". Perhaps she can explain to me, the children and their parents what this distinction is.

Pam Brown, Haywards Heath, W Sussex

I couldn't agree more. This is what happens when you politicise the prosecution process, putting great store on easy "tabloid friendly" victories. We don't have witch burning any more, we have child porn downloading. It doesn't matter how troubled or morally ambivalant the circumstances; the perpetrator is always labelled "evil", the prosecution able to clock up an easy victory given the strict liability nature of the legislation, the media always able to adopt a satisfyingly morally superior position, perpertrating the simplistic mantra of abuse "professionals" who fail to pay any regard to the fact that within the adult body of many of these viewers is an abused child with complex motivations and urges.

Anne, London,

Hang on a minute, there are a few things worth pointing out here:-

1. The images were found on Langham's computer. He admits to downloading them.

2. Some of the images were classed by the police as being 'level 5'-the worst kind. These are classified as 'non-consensual penetration' between adults and minors, i.e. Child rape.

3. He was tracked down through operation Ore, which tracked the credit card used at the website to Langham. In other words he paid to download these images: he didn't stumble across them by accident.

I fail to see how he would be found anything other than guilty, despite Carol's protestations that a hostile jury had been deliberately stacked against him.

Further, by paying for these images, people like Langham create a demand for this stuff which means it will happen to more children. I would be happy to have explained to me why you think that anything other than a custodial sentence is appropriate.

Sean, Ipswich, UK

I suggest those that have interpreted this to be a 'defense' of downloading child porn, should read the article in full and then stop making themselves look like idiots.

Jim, Liverpool,

Why are the purverers of this awfull child pornography not being prosecuted? They must be leaving an electronic trail on the internet. Langham is alledged to have used his credit card to pay for the images that he down loaded. The site that he was using must have some form of identity and his credit card provider must know whom the money was transfered to.
If the powers that be are so keen to stamp out child, and other , pornography on the Internet they can find the porn merchants as Langham did, and track them back to their real time locations.

Start being pro-active and take the fight to the enemy's camp.

W D Toulman, Walkington,

This is not a victimless crime and to say that he was a 'sleazy fool' is just ridiculous. He actively downloaded and watched children being raped and tortured for his own pleasure. I'm sorry how is this mearly sleazy?

If you want to comment on the incompetence of the CPS, you make some very valid points. But don't trivialise the suffering of children who have been raped for pay per view by saying Chris Langham is a 'victim'.

Liz, Ely, UK

It seems easy to bring charges against men who download child porn so why are the people involved in producing the pornography never caught.? They commit the greater crime by putting temptation in the way of the weak. Speaking as a woman who suffered child abuse I feel anger towards the parents of the children concerned. I certainly made sure that no-one had the opportunity to abuse my own children.

Margaret Collister, Blackpool, Lancashire

so you think someone who watches abusive pornography merely a "sleazy fool"??? what if it were your small child being raped for the kicks of these "sleazy fools"? anyone who does watch this material is a criminal - they are complicit in rape

Poppy, London, England

Carol, your article sound very apologetic to me, if you cannot see the problem with 'just looking' at this material then god help us all, if you through the Times can have any influence at all.

Why should a suspect be allowed anonymity, it serves no one but the guilty, who may get off. I believe in the English justice system, and if a man has had his day in court and be cleared then the effect on his working life should be minimal.

By allowing cases to be heard in camera with anonymity for the suspect, is tantamount to opening the door wide open.

What I would like to see is the service provider , having an operating licence, the same for Google and You tube, and when a case comes to court as with Langham, these ISP and in the case of material shown on You Tube should have their licence revoked. That is the only sure way to keep this material off the internet.

Also further any country >Russia< that allows the uploading of these sites should be named and shamed at the UN.

Purps, Chelmsford, England>Yes in a complete state<

Would Carol Sarler still be willing to write that "viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assualt" if it were a child of hers that Langham was watching being molested on camera.

B TURNER, gravesend, Kent

Interesting article but there is one oversight: In this case, viewing pornography and sexual assault are Not dissimilar charges with no link as Langham was looking at pornography involving underage girls and thus perpetutating the demand for such images.

James, Plymouth, UK

'Viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assault' - but viewing child pornography?

Bridget, London,

Thank you Carol Sarler - it needed saying. I am trusting that Matthew Parris will use his skills to make a similar point.

P.G., Hampshire, GB

I agreed with everything written by Carol Sarler and can only add that she has restored my flagging faith in the british media and its journalistic values. Unfortunately my opinion of british justice remains the same and while I accept that the police force will never attract many intelligent people to its ranks surely the system needs an overhaul and all involved in it should be taught ethics.

colin marriott, malaga, spain

I am no fan of Langham and find all aspects of child pornography obnoxious but Carol Sarler makes a good case for her claim that the CPS acted in an unreasonable manner. My wife and I were discussing this very idea over dinner last night and we wondered if any journalist would be brave enough to take it up and run with it. I would be happier to see proper regulation of all Internet sites through licensing, annual fees and regular audit. And, in addition, the relentless prosecution of those involved in the actual abuse and the publication of the imagery. Clearly Langham has transgressed but his punishment should be determined by reference to the acts of which he has been found guilty but as Sarler suggests ignoring the other aspects of this case, for most people, will be nigh on impossible. Again, congratulations on a brave article. Ben Carlton

Ben Carlton, Bristol,

Viewing child pornography is, at minimum, akin to aiding and abetting sexual assault. Do you think that the children are willing participators ?

Nadine, London, UK

If his wife was aware, then she should also be brought to book ! she was aiding & abetting the crime. I wonder how his children feel too, they have to bear the scares of his dispicable desires.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

a man who consciously downloads on a regular basis pictures and movies of 6 year old girls being raped and abused is no fool but a monster and should be dealt with accordingly.

maxime, warrington, cheshire

I totally agree

Bill Freedman, london, england

Oh please! If Langham`s conviction for supporting violent sexual abuse of real children by downloading images from the Internet was as a result of a woman selling her fantasies I personnally can not see how that can possibly be considered as a gross injustice. Whatever the motives of the woman were she suceeded in exposing not a "sleazy fool" but a subscriber to hard core porn involving someone else`s child.

Susan, Montpellier, France

For these child porn videos to exist in the first place, there has to be a market and it is people like Chris Langham who help create the market. It is tragic that such a gifted artist should reduce himself to this and have his career wrecked in the process but he has been the sole architect of his downfall and he is entitled to no sympathy.

geoffrey speller, Hale Barns, Altrincham, UK

Langham downloaded "level 5" pornography. This is defined as pornography depicting the torture of children. It was deemed to be so distressing that the jury were only exposed to a small sample of the "movies" on his computer. He may well have been innocent of some of the charges brought against him; but those of which he was convicted are so repulsive that it beggars belief to find so much sympathy for him.

cherry, bath,

Far from Chris Langham being treated unfairly by the police and CPS because he's well-known, excuses are being made for him by such as Carol Sarler precisely because he is someone with a certain reputation in the media. We unfortunately often read of men being convicted of downloading child pornography, but I don't recall many journalists or newspaper readers voicing their support for them. By all means offer paedophiles - and those who view images of children being raped are very much participating in child abuse - therapy, but prison sentences are also justified for downloading child porn to get the message across that this is a very serious offence and not a 'victimless crime'.

To Carol Sarler and the Times readers above who feel Chris Langham has been harshly treated by the criminal justice system, I would ask you to save your sympathy for the children who have had their lives destroyed by perverted adults.

Alan, London,

abusive pornography! abusive pornography!!

Carol Sarler, the 'abusive pornography' you speak of reduced some members of the jury to tears and that was the material which they were allowed to see. The rest was so awful that the jury was spared the horrors.

Anyone downloading material of this nature has no defense as they perpetuate the rape, torture, misery and death of heaven knows how many children.

No. The man is guilty on on the basis of downloading this 'stuff' (words fail me), and he must pay the penalty.

Nigel Graham-Miller, Valencia, Spain

The trouble is that the police are happy to make up any old cock and bull story (if that is the correct phrase to use) in order to bolster up their case and get a conviction. They do not care that innocent people get jailed. I am not saying that Mr Langham was innocent and I am not saying he is guilty, I like to deal in FACTS ,pure facts and not supposition or hype. Get police that tell the truth, rare commodity amongst them, and some of these cases would look different. One thing that does always puzzle me is why they say "he looked at child porn he must be a paedophile" . If I look at a picture of Richard Branson do I become a multi millionaire ?. If I look at a bank robbery do I become a bank robber ?. If a police officer looks at child porn in course of his job does he become a paedophile instantly ?. No of course they dont. What I am saying is NOT that child porn is acceptable because it is not in anyway shape or form, BUT we must start to consider reasons more than hype.

Alastair Carter, Wimbledon, London UK

So Carol,his only crime really was being part of the entertainment world.I suspect you need to get out a bit more my dear.

R.Hart, Sutton Coldfield, U>K>

Making an example of Chris Langham will only increase the popularity of child porn. Prohibition never works.

Stuart, Bromley, Kent,

Sincere congratulations to Carol Sarler on her libertarian stance on this and related issues in her several anti-paedohysterical columns of the past few years! It is time to get back to the simple principle that punishment should show strong proportionality to the amount of harm caused by the offender. And, yes, to cut slack to the accused over minor charges when a possibly lazy, malicious or frivolous prosecution has failed over major charges.

Chris Brand, Edinburgh, U.K.

Chris Langham came to the attention of the Polce after using his credit card to access web sites that were titled deliberately to attract paedophile inclined surfers. He typed in his credit card details of his own volition. I work with computers for a living and I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to enter such sites unknowingly. They ALL ask for a payment to be made. The actions that he took could not have been accidental !!!

Paying for such images, perpetuates the abuse of young children ! Even though he hasn't taken part in such abuse; indirectly, he IS a cause of it. If a 'market' exists for it, then abuse will continue.

And don't forget; he lied in stating that he did it as 'research' into a role that he was playing.

Going on the Internet is popular entertainment for millions of people. Langham's idea of surfing the Net, was to go onto sites featuring horrific child abuse. Unlike Pete Townsend, he is going to face the justice that he richly deserves.

Andy H, Oswestry,

Langham's acting skills seem to have fooled another middle class apologist for paedophilia. Thank God the jury weren't fooled. It is sad that every time someone 'talented' gets accused - people like Townshend, King and Glitter - there are always people crawling out of the woodwork to make excuses, and trying to be controversial. Would Carol be happy if she knew that it was her child who starred in Langham's movies.

kerry livermore, London, England,

Best column I've read in years - at last someone has the balls to speak out.
When I read all the coverage of "Langham guilty of child porn" I was amazed nobody picked up on the false accuser issue.
I wonder how many innocent men and women are in prison today convicted by liars who are rolling in cash from compensation and media fees?

K Jones, Walton, Surrey

Victim of a gross injustice? That's a more appropriate description of the children abused in the pictures he downloaded. Langham himself is not a victim with respect to his crime - despite his attempts to portray himself as such throughout his trial.

Alfonso Parelli, London, UK

Many of the replies on here seem to have entirely missed the point of the argument.
Well done Carol for a well thought out and brave article which was always going to get the knee-jerkers up in arms.
The point of the article is that the trial could have been conducted differently so as to be keeping more in the spirit of justice and fairness rather than in the slightly underhand way in which the trial was organized.
Langham would have been found guilty of the child porn charges either way but it benefits none of us to have the law manipulated by people in posistions of power in order to achieve a desired outcome. The Law is one of our defenses against abusive power - if we forget that we ourselves risk being abused by those in power, though hopefully not whilst being filmed.

pete harrison, llandudno,

Langham admitted the charges of downloading obscene images. That is a criminal offence. Are you suggesting that the jury should have let him off because he's a celebrity and that his downfall is particularly public?

K R D, Heathfield,

The standard of proof of criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the function of a jury is to decide whether that standard is met or not by the evidence placed before them. Unfortunately in most cases of child abuse, the crime is reported when the victim is an adult, there is usually no corroborating physical evidence, so you are left with one person's word against another's essentially. The function of the jury in this case is to decide who to believe. In Langham's case the jury decided the evidence against him was not strong enough to convict him. 95% of reported rapes don't result in a conviction - does that mean that 95% of women who report rape are lying? Or that rape/sexual assault is a difficult crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? In this case the crown prosecution service thought there was a strong enough case to put before a jury, and as in many similar cases the jury found the defendant not guilty. That doesn't mean the CPS were wrong to bring the case.

Emma, london, england

B Hensher, he wasn't paying people to abuse children. The site he subscribed to was a legal site featuring over 18s, as were many of the Landslide sites. Whether he saw some of the other illegal sites at that time I don't know, but the illegal images he downloaded were from file sharing networks. Thus, however abhorrent you may find his actions, he did not pay for child pornography and did not contribute to the abuse of children.

Andrew, Wales, UK

Almost all of you who disagree with the article have missed the argument and that is that the CPS used false allegations that they should have known were false, to attempt to secure a conviction on other charges.

The argument is a high minded one about our justice system and has nothing to do with the other charges of looking at child porn.

Will, London,

I don't understand the black and white attitude of those who see downloading and viewing of images as being on a par with carrying out child abuse oneself. There is a difference.

We'll see how much of an injustice has been done when he's sentenced, bearing in mind that people convicted of having 100 times the number of images that he had have been let off with tagging and community service orders.

Oh, and I suspect "obvious from the start" refers to the start of her testimony and seems to have been much the same reaction that the jury had. I can only imagine that the DC in charge of the investigation chose to ignore the huge flaws in the complainaints story because she had convinced herself that scores more victims were going to come out of the woodwork. They didn't, and never will, but the police still weren't honourable enough to admit that they'd got over-excited and back down.

JS, manchester,

Carol you are talking rubbish. Viewing pronography has every thing to do with sexual assault. You must live in a cloud cuckoo land to believe that a person who watchs with relish such filth repeatedly, hence the down loading, has enough strength of character to to resist temptation when the opportunity is available. Any way I donot think Langham is famous, he is notorius for his outlandish media roles. The only reason he won the BAFTA award is that plenty of trendy people like you thought his performance was of merit. I for one thought it was pathetic.

He thought he was too clever by half. Now he will have plenty of time to reflect on his antics while he cools down in HMP

Gidwani, Maidenhead, Berkshire

A jury found him guilty of the charges of downloading violent, child pornography. Anyone found guilty of this charge is never merely a "sleazy fool". Viewing this stuff creates a demand that leads to gross exploitation of children and young people.

You, the police and the CPS cannot see into the soul of the young woman who alleges that she was groomed as a child. The police and the CPS are doing a brave job protecting children and young people from "sleazy fools"; they believed her allegations deserved investigation and the consideration of a jury. I respect them.

I found your article uncomfortable to read. It does not follow that any girl making allegations against a celebrity is a minx on the make.

I do not agree with the premise in your article, that celebrities are innocents targeted by the police in search of "succulent" cause célèbre. The police investigate allegations. I suggest that sometimes celebrity affords protection in our society!

Susan, London,

It's likely that Langham will be incarcerated for a number of years. There was no evidence produced in court that he was/is a danger to society. All that the hearing proved was that he was a victim of his own degenerate fantasies. However, assuming that he is sent down, that would be a grave error of justice in our present climate where dangerous thugs are being released because of Blair's gross incompetence in planning for a foreseeable crisis in our prison system.

To have been listed on a sexual offenders' list would have been punishment enough, notwithstanding the destruction of his career and likely damage within his extended family. Isn't it time to educate our not very learned judges into practising natural justice equally directed at all members of our community? If Langham had been found to have been a danger to the community then the police would have sussed it out. The man's guilt is his stupidity not as a proven sexual predator of the young.

Maxadolf, Epsom, UK

Anybody who has to justify them self in down loading filth and don't make any mistake this is what it is no matter how you wrap it up in excuses when children are involved it is wrong. When I heard that this man was indited I wondered how long it would be before he played the abused as a child card its people like him that taint the genuine abused child if he was abused as a child let him with his knowledge help the children and not get his kicks out of seeing innocent children being used to gratify his own warped gratification.

Lynne Jorsdan , Larkhall , Strathclyde

carol sarler........
Do you have children?
Imagine....RAPE & TORTURE OF A 7 YEAR OLD.....
Now - picture YOUR childs face....
Hmmmm - different kettle of fish NOW????
THEY ARE ALL SOMEONE'S BABY...
Hide your face in shame, woman.

someonewhocares., London.,

Dear Carol,
I cannot agree with your premise that viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assault.

Apparantly the pornography that this sad character viewed had everything to do with sexual assault, that of innocent children suffering violent rape and humiliation.

If these men , whoever they are, cannot control themselves and and thus deny the market for such abhorances, then the law must... for all our sakes.

Jill Carr, Leek, Staffs

I to think Langham should only have been tried on viewing the child torture web sites but for a completely different reason.Your columist argues he was treated unfairly ,however i believe the other charge ,which did seem flimsy ,diluted the seriousness of the sites he was viewing.These we are told are "level 5,"the most serious level given including young children being raped and tortured.These young children are raped and tortured because people such as Langham pay to see them raped and tortured.This is perfectly clear and frankly unbelievable that The Times describes this man as if he is some old fool pinching a bottom here and there.He paid on numerous occasion to see young children raped and tortured and admitted as much,of course he should go to jail.

Fiona Murphy, Beckenham, Kent

The only celebrity who seems to have got away with it is Geoffrey Boycott.

He was convicted of assaulting a woman in France; now he is a cricket commentator again and all seems to be forgotten.

Perhaps french convictions or just assaulting women don't count.

Edward, Worcester,

If I read the time line of this whole event correctly I come to the conclusion that Langham was or is a fool. Was it not in 2002 that he first thought that the Ore investigation was heading his way and yet his computers were taken some 2 years later. The man's a fool he had two years to clean up his act and his computer.

Richard Jones, Portsmouth, UK

As a parent I believe paedophiles should be given the harshest sentence available. However I am always curious about these 'downloading' of images cases. Don't these websites have to be 'hosted' in order to be available. Where are the ISPs in the dock who make this material available over the net? There are double standards at play here and the ISPs should not be able to hide behind any excuse. If this material appears then in the first instance the web site should be destroyed without any questions.

simon, uk,

Sleazy fool? Don't think so. A laptop full of child porn makes you worse than that

Daniel Morris, Congleton,

I have to agree wholeheartedly with this article. Calling in a woman whose own family referred to her as 'a fantasist' and 'the drama queen', someone who only came forward after the downloads were made public, had to look suspicious for the CPS. In all the statements we've heard from both sides of the case after the verdict, it has become clear that 'guilt' was never the issue, it was motive. Langham pointed police to the files the moment they arrived at his house. He never attempted to deny accessing them. The question was why - even a psychiatric profile done by the CPS confirmed he was not watching those images for sexual gratification. So why did Pete Townshend get a fine and Langham was dragged through this horrific public dissection?

As for Mike suggesting he was "complicit in the crimes against these children", downloading already existing images cannot possibly be put on a par with the acts themselves, especially if Langham was viewing them from the victim's perspective.

C Fincati, London,

He came to the polices attention after using his credit card to access web sites that were titled deliberately to attract paedophile inclined surfers.
He didn't trip and hit the mouse button by accident, he sought out these sites, he went and got his credit card out of his wallet, typed out the number, downloaded the filth and stored it on his harddrive.
Why do these luvvies get the sympathy vote? If he was an unemployed hoodie from some sink estate, would you have pleaded his case?

D Thompson, Greenock, Scotland,

I find it deeply grotesque that you support Langham’s actions. In viewing these disgusting images he is playing a part in the violation of these child. That is the crime after all; they are children for god’s sake.

Rick Wilson, Leeds, UK

False allegations are always wrong - everyone would agree. But there's a very unpleasant tone here of sympathy and excuse for a 'weak', 'troubled' man. That is - a mature, successful man, with a secure career and family, who knowingly and willingly paid to support the photographed rape and torture of children. Get your priorities right, you silly woman.

cath, london, uk

I don't know the evidence in detail so perhaps he was downloading more child porn that I know about - I understand it was very little. I feel deeply unsettled by the way he has been treated - I will probably write to him to say so. From what I have heard he has been punished far to severely. I admire his work and just feel that he should not be treated thus.

John Tucker, Aston on Clun, Shropshire

Can someone explain to me why he's going to jail given only dangerous people are supposed to get sent down (and council tax defaulters).

I only ask because as the Gvnt has had to release dangerous prisoners due to overcrowding then surely soemone will have to be released to make space for this sad case.

Clark, Gen., Switz.

Clearly Langham is a case for therapy, not prison. He has been found guilty on charges thrown in as make weight when there was a good chance the main charge would be rejected by the CPS. It might be argued that anyone who longs to make a living pretending to be someone else hints at a mental disharmony if not inbalance and it is difiicult to believe that the police don't get an unhealhy frisson by bringing down a celebrity.
Similaly a person who drinks to such a degree that he falls foul of laws which most of us find it esy to accommodate is suffering from a sickness called alcoholism and.
I expect future more enlightened human beings will be amazed at the way our society punishes the sick and becomes excited by such trivia as the sale of empty honours when every ducal house and most of the aristocracy acquired their titles by dubious means.
Although it was originally said about God and money, you can easily see what society thinks of titles by the sort of people it gives them too

ian skidmore, march, cambs

- Pornography, particularly child pornography is a justification for the government to control the Internet.
- The definition "paedophile" is applied both to viewing child pornography and hands-on child sexual abuse.
- Demand creates the supply: Surely culpability needs to be divided by number of subscribers.
- Authority takes out its frustration on the "mug punter" while the "Mr. Big" of the child porno world is beyond UK jurisdiction.
- Researching my book: There is a historical echo between modern pornography and the torture of women during the Inquisition. Priests in charge of this process were clearly sexual deviants and misogynists, and perhaps this mentality persists today, albeit in an altered form.
- Forensic examination of a PC hard drive costs at least £2,000. Operation Ore has gone “tits up” because police incorrectly believed that credit card evidence was in and of itself sufficient grounds for prosecution.
- You can go to jail for what you're thinking.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa

I'm shocked you seem to be saying downloading child pornography is acceptable, and yes it is unfortunate for him that he is in the public eye but surely this means he has more responsibility.

You seem blase about a very serious issue, what i ft was your child in those pictures?

sandy, london,

Absolutely - he admitted from the beginning that he had downloaded the images. Positioning evidence against him is the plaintiff's barrister's task; positioning charges against him should not be the CPS's. To use one unlikely charge as leverage to maximise the chances of conviction in another is poor legal theory - one charge; one trial; one set of evidence should be the standard.

And as a fan of his series, Help!, I'd love to see the character Pedro. I don't really care where his moral compass is on the young girls issue; his comic work is, as really great comic work should be, only incidentall funny and thoroughly illuminating. Although the chances of that happening now are less than a snowflake's in hell.

Anna , Oxford,

Langham was convicted of 'making obscene images' of children. To most, this sounds like he took photos of abuse in front of him. In reality, 'making' in the eyes of the law means 'downloading'. Child pornography is bad, but it doesn't mean exaggeration should be par for the course.

Ian Rawlings , Dorset , Dorset

If the case presented ANY evidence that Langham had ever done more than look at pictures, I missed it - but the law makes him as guitly as the photographer

John W Haythorne, Woking, Surrey

If a non celebrity was charged with these crimes it's unlikely that any info would leak out until the trial. Langham's arrest was leaked by the police within weeks and he has not worked since. I doubt he is as comfortably off as you might assume and it is now his children who will suffer if they lose their home.
If it was my children in the pictures it would be the abusers that my anger would be directed at, not the countless thousands worldwide who would inevitably end up viewing the images. It might anger you when people rubberneck at car crashes but they can't be said to have caused the crash.

JS, M,

A courageous article. The selective leaking of info to the media by the police, police manipulation of the media and medai complicity in this - across of wide range of issues, not just sex crimes - is a hidden scandal, waiting to break. But who will break it?

julian, oxford, uk

It is always tempting for the liberal minded to have a knee jerk reaction against the hysterical knee jerk reaction surrounding paedophilia. Langham was essentially paying people to abuse children. He was helping to drive a market – it’s that simple.
Overly liberal media-types with good intentions need to engage their brains, take a serious reality check and address the double standards they live by. What’s the point of going out of the way to buy free-trade tea and coffee (a must for any self respecting liberal media 'elite's' kitchen) when they are happy to buy cocaine for their dinner party (which leaves behind a trail of human and environmental devastation and puts money into some seriously unpleasant peoples pockets).
Its exactly this sort of woolly thinking that would allow you to think Chris Langham should live by separate rules to everyone else.

b Hensher, birmingham,

The Crown Prosecution Service attracts only the lowest level of law graduates - those who are not intellectually up to the complexities of conveyancing and probate but who, with a few years intensive training, may be able to make a decision about whether to prosecute the chap who dented your bumper and then drove off. But more than the problem of institutionalised systemic incompetence is the total lack of accountability. No one is ever dragged forward from the CPS and identified as the culprit in disastrous or opportunistic cases. It's no good fining the CPS for incompetence because it's all our money anyway. But why not make individual lawyers within this comfortable club actually individually responsible for their decisions, including the financial cost of failure. That way they'd think twice before embarking on ludicrous ventures. At the moment they don't have to think once - they can prosecute with impunity just to fill their days.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

You make a fair point. But if this trial proved anything it was the value of trial by jury. The jury saw through the lies of Langham's anonymous accuser and of Langham himself who chose to defend himself by claiming abuse as a child, 'research' and tried to gain sympathy because he was a celebrity.

Perhaps the two separate cases should not have been lumped together but the jury managed to distinguish them and in so doing sent a powerul signal that there is no excuse for actively searching and paying for these grotesque images and such actions will be punished. Langham's celebrity status meant a higher profile for this case and so a higher profile punishment along with a ruined career. He really only has himself to blame for that.

Paul Owen, Birmingham , UK

There are cases, doubtlessly, where this column may have been appropriate. Langham is not that case. Your columnist would do well to recognise the difference between pornography, and child pornography. This man does not need ill advised defenders, rather he needs physiological help.

Richard Allen, Wilmslow, Cheshire

A very well-written article

M, Manama, Bahrain

Whatever. The man was found guilty of downloading a particularly nasty form of paedophilic child abuse from the Internet - in fact he admitted that that allegation was true.

The nonsense that he came out with to justify this - that it was research - is baloney. You would have to go looking for this stuff, and probably pay a monthly fee to download and view this filth.

It may well be that you are right in thinking that the CPS tried to load the dice against him with a speculative set of charges of underage rape and buggery. Nobody but Langham and the woman involved knows the truth.

But when people come out with the excuse that they wanted this stuff for research, and are believed as in previous cases it's easy to see why the book gets thrown at these odious people.

Don't forget that he had a fair trial, and the charges you find so reprehensible were disproven. The crime of which he was found guilty will, I expect, be rigorously punished.

John Annis, London,

Children's lives have been ruined and continue to be ruined because of the needs of such "sleazy fools".
Your comments will no doubt have fallen on deaf ears once you minimised the crime in such a way.
Please please please stay away from jury service.

Shameful.

Val, Huddersfield, UK

If someone who isn't a celebrity is arrested on charges of sexual misconduct, such as rape or downloading child porn, isn't their reputation just as damaged as word leaks out to their employer, family, friends and community? Why should we feel special compassion for a celebrity because an unwelcome spotlight has been shone on them?

Mistakes are made at times, innocent people charged with crimes they didn't commit but should that stop the authorities from trying to make those who are guilty go to trial? Chris Langham is highly intelligent and probably comfortably off due to recent success. If he really wanted to confront his demons he could have sought help quietly. Instead, he kept on going until he was caught. The images he downloaded are created to feed sick appetites. The girl he admitted to having oral sex with was considerably younger and more vulnerable than him. Pity him if you like but please don't say he was treated unfairly.

H Rome, Maidenhead, Berkshire

You say Langham is a victim of gross injustice. Let me quote to you what Ken Goss of the Crown Prosecution Service, said after the trial:

"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."

Shame on you for minimising the nature of the offence. Langham is no better than a "passive" child rapist, the fact he sought out and watched those crimes rather than assaulted a child himself barely reduces the seriousness of his offence, in my eyes.

Chloe, London, England,

This is the same spineless CPS who decided not to prosecute for murder three people who spent four months torturing an epileptic man, on the grounds that they (the CPS) could not be "absolutely certain" that the death had not resulted from epilepsy. They could have let a jury make a judgement on that one.

Richard Jenkins, London,

"viewing pornography has nothing to do with sexual assault, and nobody is served by pretending otherwise."

As ever, this sorts of opinion would never be printed if the writer had put their child in the position of those tortured so that Mr Langham's wallet may be made lighter (for that was the subject of his brand of "pornography"). If no one wanted to watch children being raped via the internet, those children would not be raped. The customer is responsible for what is on his plate. It was right that these charges were "bundled". If someone orders the murder of his wife, he is on a murder charge (as well as the hitman).

C Sherman, Notts,

Carol,
Would you feel the same if the pictures on his computer were of your children being abused? Let's not forget that each picture depicts an horrifc attack on a vulnerable member of our community and to download such images only encourages the further commission of such criminal acts.

Praveen Naidoo, Devon,

Perhaps they should try each charge separately.... and what disgusted me was the police and CPS representatives standing in front of the cameras, after the trial, and implying that Langham was in fact guilty of the assualt charges, but that the jury had got it wrong. The man was just found not guilty... those representatives should be sued for slander at least. Do they have no respect for the decisions of a court?

George, Brighton,

Gross injustice? If nobody downloaded this stuff then it wouldn't be produced.

Stuart Peters, North Sydney, Canada

Get real Carol. Langham was guilty of thought crime.
What kind of country do you think you are living in?

chuckee, london,

Chris Langham is more than a sleazy fool --- he went looking for and downloaded images of young children being raped. Even if the indecent assault charge was dismissed, he admitted himself that he'd been looking at those images so he should receive a custodial sentence and I think it's disgusting that you're making excuses for a man like that.

Jamie, London,

I'm just glad that we had a judge and jury unswayed by Langhams public image and who had the humanity and wit to recognise that viewing images of child torture and abuse isnt just a harmless victimless crime. Without people like langham there would be no market for such images. To brand Langham merely a sleazy fool is to dismiss every violent act those abused children suffer. This plea for Langham and his ilk is not only sickening it's further abusing the victim.

Ursula, belfast, n ireland

So it was obvious from the start was it? Before any evidence was considered? Hope you never get called for jury service!

I'm sure Langham has downloaded tons of pornography (his wife was aware of his obsession apparently) and he could have continued to do so with impunity. That would have made him a sleazy pervert in my book but he wouldn't have been committing an offence. But Langham didn't download 'abusive pornography' he downloaded images of child RAPE. He was complicit in the crimes against these children and must have known that when he viewed those images. Now it's his turn to suffer. No tears here.

mike power, aberdeen, scotland