I think alot of this prime minister leaving office, does this make me a security threat. I await the thought police knocking at my door.

John, essex, UK

Encouraging others to commit crime is a crime is it not?
Downloading child porn is encouraging more abuse of children and glorifying terrorist violence is encouraging more of that too!
I can't believe the stupidness of this article!

Louisa, London, UK

I take the point of the previous commenters that Langham paid for viewing the child pornography which will fund child abuse indirectly.

However, does anyone really think that his trial and sentence would have been different had he downloaded it for free?

Furthermore, as Mr Parris says, every time TomO or NR buys a "designer" article of clothing they are also funding child abuse.

I think articles like this are not meant to reinforce opinions but rather to tease the edges of them and make them woolier

John Miller, Bromley,

I agree entirely with the comments about Ms Malik. I would add that poetry doesn't necessarily convey the thoughts or intentions of the poem's speaker. In her poems Ms Malik seems to have been combinng the conventions of the dramatic monologue with the conventions of rap. If students at schools and university still study Browning's "Porphyria's Lover" and Milton's "Samson Agonistes" they are aware that it has conventionally been possible to explore extreme thoughts in poetry without necessarily subscribing to them. (Milton is far more bloodthirsty than Ms Malik.)

The case of Mr Langham is different. I gather from reports of the case that the pictures for which he paid included photographs of children being raped and not just pictures of naked children. (I may be wrong about this - the judge's language was not explicit.) Since this creates a financial incentive for child abuse, there is a stronger argument for the law. Mr Langham's defence arguments belong in mitigation.

kath bell, Nottingham, England

Do I read different newpapers? I thought Chris Langham was also caught in a sexual relationship with a 14-15 year old girl?
And wasn't the Soham murderer resposible for a series of lesser sexual offences that should have been prosecuted before he committed his final horrific act.

I think yet again is shows that liberals are in a constant state of denial.

There is a causal link beween viewing ponography and committing sex crimes in the same way that viewing violent videos leads to violent crime (remember Jamie Bolger?) In the same way there is a link beween using so-called soft drugs and hard drug use.
Once you have a foot on the ladder each rung becomes easier.
Addiction is addiction and it is progressive.

William Richards, PEDREGUER, Spain

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!


Samina is a pretty low key "lyrical terrorist" compared to one of our best loved poets.

sam_m, london,

I'm sorry, I can't agree with the premise of your argument.

Even if Chris Langham didn't actively pay for the images he downloaded it's a fair bet that the sites in question were financed by advertising in much the same way as this site is.

By participating in the economy that supports child abuse he - or anyone else that makes the same solipsistic assumption that looking at child pornography on the internet is a victimless act - is financing the abduction & abuse of vulnerable children.

The other case you allude to is clearly covered under the laws be sensibly have which proscribe incitement to racial hatred. If one of the weasels of the BNP suggested the extermination of the Muslims in our midst you & I would be standing shoulder to shoulder in calling out for their imprisonment. Let us not be divided now by your sudden attack of wooly liberalism.

Mikey, Bromley, Kent

Downloading is not thinking, it is doing. Its being a part of the unspeakable crime of creating child pornography in the first place - it is being the end user, the very reason for which the pornography is made in the first place. If there was not an audience for child pornography it would not be made. Chris Langham deserves all he gets. Child pornography -- the use and distribution of it, rises year on year with the advances of the internet. Those that take part must be punished severely, whether they pay for it or not.

Luke, nottingham,

One can see why the detention period should not be extended from 28 days at all or Government trusted with any emergency powers. Its not just the PM who is a paranoid knee jerker, but the whole coterie of state authorities and adjudicators, the police, the MPs, the JUDGES and some media editors.

Who said the lynch mob is outdated, its just got legal.

I suppose soon some bright scientist will son invent a thought reading machine and many of us will then be on the other side of the bars. A new law of detention, 90 days detention to determine whether the ‘thought’ was going to lead to action! How about this PM?

Kala Singh, southall, Middleex

Unbelievably naive comments from a columnist who should know better and normally speaks sense. In the rush to justify your position you have ignored the detail.

Malik was not jailed for writing poetry. She was in possession of a number of terrorist training handbooks, including those on the use of firearms and explosives, and had openly and repeatedly expressed her support for al-Qaeda. Forget your nonsense about 'white British people' - she broke the law. In addition, she had a job working airside at Heathrow airport - think about it.

Langham downloaded child pornography - an act which directly leads to the continuance of the abuse of children. End of. No further discussion required.

You would perhaps do better to think about the practical effects of the potential results of these two individuals' actions than try to appear so terribly clever.

You are normally much more astute. I am, for the first time, exceptionally disappointed.

Alistair, Amersham,

The issue of child abuse is very emotive.

Regrettably, in the UK, it's all but impossible to have any sensible discussion about the effects of 'abuse' because of the shrill ravings of the harridans from Kidscape or ChildLine.

I have no doubt that coercive behaviour and forcing children to undertake sexual acts is wrong. There are no two ways about it. But, the shades of grey start to creep in when you try to define what ac child is. Clearly, no-one will argue that a 5-yr old is a child. But can you apply the same rules to a peripubescent 14-yr old?

How many adolescents have found themselves in relationships which are, to coin the phrase, intergenerational in nature, and these relationships have been wholly beneficial to them. Then the monsters from the child abuse industry arrive, the police are involved and everything goes down the tubes. Often, I'm sure, it's the prosecutions and police activity that harm the 'child' more than the relationship.

Captain Grumpy, Southampton, England

How can looking at images of children being sexually exploited and abused be considered an innocent act? We are not talking about cartoons or poems, these are real lives. For Langham to attempt to excuse himself by claiming he was also abused as a child only serves to incriminate him further as he is fully aware of the terrible damage it causes. And to defend his actions on the grounds of freedom of thought is a grotesque insult to everyone affected by this sordid business.

Laurence, clifton, uk

Earth calling Matthew Parris........, Earth calling Matthew Parris...

Chris Langham is Guilty of a disgusting offence. He paid for access to photos of child rape. He funded the commission of the offence and, in my opinion, was treated very leniently by the courts. Thought Police? I think not.

Ms Malik not only wrote poetry glorifying and encouraging terrorism and atrocities against none Muslims, like me and my children, she was also in possession of instruction manuals for weapons that most people have never heard of.

Somehow, I don't think that she was going to write poetry about the mechanics or cleaning instructions of a spring loaded firing pin.

Matthew, come back to earth.....or maybe Ms malik can write verse about the joys of child porography and Chris Langham can download and watch Al Qaida videos.....

peter, london,

I write for a webzine homedefenceuk.com under the alias of the Very Reverend Harry Figgis O.B.E. I attempt to write in the style of a retired man of the cloth, it's part of the Figgis character, often quoting biblical prose or in the style of. On one occasion when writing a blog on adultery I used the phrase "smite mine enemies".

A friend took offence at the article and demanded I remove it, even though it was not directed at her. I removed the article as she found it offensive. Some months later I was visited by the Police on a different matter relating to my work as a photographer. They produced a copy of the original web page from Figgis and seemed to take my words quite seriously, they even quoted the offending phrase asking who exactly I was intending to smite.

If it wasn't for the stupidity of the Police taking a satirical webzine seriously I would have had cause for concern but I relaised that what you write develops a life of it's own in cyberspace.

keith nichol, London, UK

Very brave of you to stick your head above the parapet on this Matthew. You are right on both counts. Quite frankly, I expect that this government would lock me up if it knew what I'd like to do to the people who run it. As for the Langham issue. You do not have to sympathise with what he did to see the errors in the Law's approach to him. Why can't people see that claiming that anyone who looks at such pictures is complicit in their production applies to anyone who uses electrical equipment assembled by Chinese political prisoners or who dresses their children in clothes made by Bangladeshi child labourers or eats organic beans picked in Kenya by children on starvation wages. The argument is flawed anyway because, unless I am wrong, you can be prosecuted for looking at pictures that have been computer generated and do not involve children in any shape or form.

Marion Morrison, Cheltenham,

This argument that if no one saw this stuff then it wouldn't be produced is illogical. These things have always happened, there is now just a bigger audience. Prosecute the people who produce and publish this stuff. If an image is downloaded by 100000 people do we lock them all up? If it is sent as SPAM Email to 5000000 do we lock them up too? Offer them counselling?

GB, Dudley, UK

Mathew Parris, I agree with your comments. I believe that we are sleep walking into a nightmare state where free speech and thought are no longer possible. We need to wake up fast!

Gail , Southampton, Hampshire

Langham did not pay for the photos, he downloaded free ones from a file-sharing site, so there was no payment to fund the activity and he was indeed prosecuted for a thought crime.

Davida, Reading, UK

dear diary
What shall I do if I get in power?
I shall annihilate all the Jews

A. Hitler

Some thoughts are just evil, if you can't see that, you don't belong in my society.

Paul Fox, London, GB

That's a refreshingly sensible article.

If possession of child porn were legalised, but purchasing it remained illegal, the people producing it would go out of business because most viewers would clearly choose the safer option. Demand is only increased by those who pay.

Downloading child porn without paying is like downloading free music from file sharing networks; the producer doesn't benefit at all.

The people who download child porn without paying aren't increasing demand; the people who increase the demand are the legislators and the people who purchase the material.

Brian Ribbon, London,

Strange Days...

It must be a tough time for comedians out there - there is so much great material, what with all of these nutters spouting nonsense all the time, and no freedom to say it out loud.

Matthew is right that freedom of speech and protection from the thought police is vital; however, it is one thing to have a laugh at a silly belief system (religious or otherwise), but another completely to fantasise about chopping the holder's head off.

I, like Matthew, believe that she is a dupe. For one thing she is a woman, and any woman who is behind these un-freedom fighters is seriously mixed up. (In the world she is trying to usher in she probably would not be allowed to spend her free time writing anything on the internet.)

I seriously doubt if Matthew ever fantasised about cutting off the heads of his neighbours while going to work on the bus. There is a line that we cross when we write down these thoughts: hate crime.

Dislike the ideas not the person holding them.

Joe, Boders, Scotland

Castrate him .?Good grief !!!! .Before you strike back I have 5 sons one of whom was raped by a 42 year old man, when my son was a mere 12. We took offender to court,he went to jail.Called justice!!!
I had a son who needed help, so did not have time to wage war to have the man castrated, only to stop him doing it again..Jail was the way .

Why are people so violent.is it the times we live in with war and rumours of war that everyone bays for blood.

I think the article is right..on both people.

D MCMgregor, Tunbridge Wells, UK

Sow a thought- reap a desire,

Sow a desire- reap an action,

Sow an action- reap a character,

Sow a character- reap a destiny.

Relating to each of these characters and you being a parent and family person would you be at ease to have either of what these two groups represent, near you or yours. Yes it brings a different dimension to your outlook.

JohnW, Shaftesbury, UK

The general consensus (of thinking posters here) is that Matthew was right about Malik and wrong about Langham, the reason being that Langham, as a paying 'customer' of child abusers is part of a chain that supports that vile crime.

I think the flat assertion of this reasoning misses a couple of points. The first was made by Matthew himself towards the end of the piece: that we don't accept such a "linkage" theory elsewhere, e.g. jailing those who use the produce of child labour. The worry we should have is that if we embrace the "linkage" school of thought enthusiastically, we end up criminalising all sorts of behavour for tacitly supporting some other, undeniable, crime. Liberty is eroded.

Secondly, the laws on which Langham was convicted do not require evidence of payment, or even of the existence of a real child, for conviction. To support that means punishing the thought or holding rather definite views on what people are likely to do in future. Liberty is greatly eroded.

Kevin, Dublin, Ireland

In my opinion the police aren t really interested in the morality of the individual or the condition of the children. It is just another means of getting at certain people. They should much more realistically get at nailing the drugs problem, which is doing far more damage than a bit of pornography, and they aren t doing that.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Be clear- Langham did not pay for any 'child abuse images'. His methodology was misguided. His arrest was part of a deeply flawed witch hunt where SOCA/ now CEOP hoped they would get "lucky".

Thousands (and I mean thousands) of men have been arrested because of flawed evidence and fraud. Families have been destroyed. I know of men interrogated because a digital camera pic of their baby having their first bath at home after birth was found on their harddrive........clear evidence of perversion.

And how do you know what those 'images' were? For all we public know they were of 16/17 year olds who posted themselves because they thought it would be a "laugh"- that is now considered images of "child abuse/rape/torture"

Here is a challenge......go onto any peer to peer network and type in "Meatloaf"- you will not get what you asked for but the page listing it will be stored in your internet cache.... BANG....you too can be made an RSO in the stroke of a finger on a keyboard.

Totally Confused, Cardiff,

Think no evil? fantasising about sex with children is not a crime, no no matter how wrong the thoughts are. Downloading it on the net certainly is. It is out of the head - real, on paper. Real children, real actions, real torture, real life horror, and not the movies. I regret reading the artcle past the Samina issue. Voyeour (sic) pedophiles must be glad of the support.

Nike Olafimihan, Den Haag, Netherlands

No its not about thought crime. Its about vile ideas being countenanced, and the implications that has for possible behaviour.

I think in the case of Langham, there is actually some concern about hysterical over-reaction and the conflation of active behaviour with internet mouse-clicks. Not least of which, is the fact that the providers of paedophiliac images never seem to get prosecuted. Aren't drug sellers more liable to more serious convictions than users? - understandably so, so what's going on here?

This Muslim girl does not compare. I assume, Mr Parris, you would accept legal and criminal proceedings against someone writing anti semitic Nazi hatred, advocating violence and murder? So why do you fail to comprehend the heinous gravity of this deranged girl?

Joe, Manchester,

A thought-changing article. Matthew, this is why you are up there, among the best. Who can disagree with the comments about Langham? They are thought out, guarded and safe. I do not want them to be any other way. I, too, have my prejudices.

Malik, on the other hand, well, that's another thing. Isn't it? I hadn't thought about it much, until you drew my attention to it. The difference is not as much as I'd like.

So and in conclusion, you are correct Matthew, if we are to be sentenced for our private fantasies, most of us would go to jail. Does that make me comfortable with Langham's release? No! Am I a hypocrite? Possibly! However, I seem to be able to rest easy with the hypocrisy. Well, my excuse is that I have children, not a good one but there it is.

Marc, St. Barthelemy,

This article and some of the comments reflect some nonsense that is frequently spouted about so-called child pornography which is, in reality, images of crimes being committed on and against children. This are:
1. It is okay to look. No. If somebody made a business out of killing people and publishing the pictures on the Internet, nobody would say, ah well, it's okay to LOOK, it's not like looking does any harm.
2. According to the UK hotline, well over 90% of these crimes (publishing such material online) happens in G8 countries. Asking Internet Service Providers to block those websites is like asking the BBC not to report murders. The big question is, why does the British government not put more pressure on their G8 colleagues to have these websites disabled and the criminals tracked down and prosecuted?
3. China is chasing its tail like a demented terrier when it comes to Internet censorship - it does not control everything that its citizens see.

Joe, brussels,

Matthew, I take you point about Ms Malik, however, you are totally wrong on the Langham case. Chris Langham was caught because his credit card was used to PAY to watch videos/photographs of young children being abused. If there was not the demand for this material, the actions of the person(s) abusing the children would not have happened. This is not a thought crime.

Ruth, Poole,

This article shows that Matthew Parris cannot distinguish between thought control and real crimes, that he no longer is in touch with the climate of opinion in the UK, and that he is defending the defenceless. Langham's actions go towards perpetuating child abuse, and Malik, however naive and misguided, was guilty of incitement. Support freedom of speech and conscience by all means, but don't be surprised if I seek redress if you show support for child abuse and encourage others to behead me for my privately-held beliefs!

Chie, Tokyo, Japan

There is no commercial market leading to the actual sexual abuse of minors.

All images are historical. Abuse means damage is done.

It is equivalent to one purchasing the images of holocaust victims and families, and claiming one is contributing to the market for the the creation of dead Jewish people.

Which is what those with vested interests need you to think.

HH.

H. Hite, Dundee, UK

When God judges the whole world, which he will do. He will judge, not only every action, but every thought. And evil and wicked thoughts, like raping children or blowing up people in our mind, will condemn us; because all the evil we do begins as a thought. God does see a difference between thinking and doing wrong things - but both leave us guilty.

James, Coventry,

Thank you for restoring some of my despair with this post 9/11 paranoid world. The old quote "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to say it" is a cornerstone of our western democracy which we have preached to others so less lucky than ourselves for so long. Are we beginning to look more and more like foolish hypocrites?

pommy, Brisbane, Australia

1) Langham did not pay for the images.

2) "Images of child sexual abuse" in the UK include images of 16/17 having consentual intercourse who posted it on the net as a "laugh".

3) Such images can appear in your internet cache without your knowledge. It is called P2P. Do a search for 'Meatloaf' on Limewire. BINGO! You can now be arrested for incitement to distribute CP- and you can go to prison for it and be placed on the SOR.

4) The changes created by the SOA 2003 are being applied retrospectively.

5) Emailing a picture of your newborn having their first bath is now classed as distribution of CSA images.

Learn the law. Your thoughts can land you in jail. So don't type in Japanese (even if you are looking for language courses or recipes)- if such a search is found on your harddrive- that is an indicator of a sexual interest in children.

Totally Confused, Cardiff,

I agree, we shouldn't try to legislate on what people think. The problem is that we can't know where fantasies will tip over into disastrous action.

In 1973 I lost a friend to Fred and Rose West. We know now that Fred had been obsessed with pornographic material for years, and it seems pretty clear that his career of serial abductions, rapes and murders was driven by his pornography-fuelled sexual fantasies. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the same was true of Peter Tobin.

I feel deeply uneasy about the sentence handed down to Chris Langham, who I doubt was any danger to anyone; I fear that sending Salina Malik to prison may also do far more harm than good, and reinforce her image of herself as a potential martyr-terrorist. But in our present risk-averse culture, there are bound to be more such cases.

We have a choice - do we want freedom, and the risks it entails, or the apparent safety of total slavery?

Gill, Southampton, UK

Samina Malik's case is quite terrifying and bodes very badly for all of us. There is no 'market' for terrorism; you can't sell it to anyone, least of all through poetry.
Langham's case is completely different. He knowingly helped to sustain, thereby encouraging the proliferation of, a vile 'industry'.
One point that nobody is visibly tackling: Child pornography is globally rife and no product survives without buyers. Why is it so popular? Is it possible that identifying the attraction could lead us somewhere that we're not ready or qualified to go?

FootieFan, Eastbourne, England

By just looking at the filthy degrading images of children being sexually abused, Langham has contributed to their pysical and emotional suffering.
Shame on him

Eithne , Merseyside,

Don't you understand the basic economics of demand and supply? It is paedophiles' demand for images of children being raped that causes those images to be made. ALL viewers of child porn should be convicted of the crime of causing children to be raped - they are vital and necessary accessories to these hideous acts of cruelty. They should be published accordingly.
The only mesage now being sent to child-rapists by CL's release is that 'hey guys, you won't suffer much if we look at children being raped!'

Jane scott, London, UK

Whether Langham LOOKED at the images is irrelevant. Had he paid for access to the sites, but not viewed the images, he would have been "funding" the creation of the images and been involved in the creation of a market for them. Had the creation of the images involved actual cruelty to children then he would have been guilty of funding such cruelty.

Funding - actively or passively - cruelty to children or adults is, generally speaking, bad. But, as Parris says, many of us fund such cruelty when we buy cheap goods produced in sweatshops by kids.

But simply LOOKING at images is not in ITSELF sufficient to fund them. And if the images were produced "virtually", then even funding them is not encouraging cruelty.

Langham was not convicted of "paying money to promote cruelty". Had he been , prosecutions such as his would make more sense - but - with sweatshop produced trainers and similar examples in mind, who among us would escape whipping were that criterion rigorously enforced?

nick may, fukuoka, Japan

So where was this columnist when BNP people were on trial for exercising free speech with a private,not Internet audience?

F Kimbal Johnson, Louth,Lincs, uk

Quentin Tarantino is next.

BC, NY,

This is the second article from you defending Chris Langham and watering down his crimes. These were not just some photos of children. To quote one of the dectives working on the case, "The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK, with some serious sexual offences against her."
He deserved a longer sentence.

Denis Delworth, Glasgow,

"We all know (whether or not we realise it) scores who have looked at the most disgusting pictures for personal gratification, yet never dreamt of carrying those fantasies into action. We keep such behaviour in proportion."
Unfortunately there are people who do not keep such behaviour in proportion. I wonder if the people who love your column do actually not condemn paedophilia. Are they not concerned about children being abused and about the damage it does to them emotionally, often leading to depression and even suicide. In their narcistic minds, paedophiles think that children actually like to be their victims. They do not feel shame and therefore cannot be treated. When I heard about Chris Langham's jail sentence, I remember thinking , "How good to see one judge taking firmly the side of the children."

Lucy, London,

Regarding the implications of the Chris Langham case it all depends on if he paid for those images. He states he did not pay and there have been conflicting media reports and this fact is still not clear.
If he did pay with his credit card he is directly funding the process of new image creation that is clear and simple.
However if he found those images for free you could argue he took money away from the criminal gangs. Server bandwidth is a paid resource and unless you have advertising anyone that accesses your website actually cost you money, the more they download the more you have to pay. Its a complex moral argument.

Marcel, Paris, France

This is not a liberal point that the writer makes - it is a ridiculous one. Viciously motivated religious propaganda has been responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people in the past decade if you take the nuns who were sentenced for inciting genocide in Rwanda, the attacks on the US, Spain, the UK and less noticed ones in India, Pakistan, Russia and elsewhere. At some point in time, societies are going to have to confront the propagandists who incite violence and the legal systems of countries that are affected by this have to act. Not doing this would only cause extremists of all religions to incite more trouble which would be impossible to contain.

As far as child pornography is concerned, how do the pictures get taken without a child being abused? When responsible media does not post pictures of soldiers blown apart in fighting, there is as much a reason for restraint as there is in blocking pictures of children being abused.

Mehul Kamdar, Des Plaines, IL, USA

Children are damaged for life by the creation of pictures like those viewed by Langham. He deserved to go to gaol. Samina Malik did not, and neither did David Irvine, no matter how vile their views

Ann S, Lancaster, UK

I see your point with regard to Ms Malik, but not with Chris Langham. The point there is that he was consuming a product that was made by sexually abusing a child. He contributed to demand for an industry, the supply to which is children's misery, exploitation and torture. That is not a thought crime, he effectively had somebody abuse a child so that he could look at the picture.

Alison, London,

I think Chris Langham case is much weaker - but I would be much happier if the police concentrated on the individuals who published this material. I agree about Samina Malik - we seem to be willing to sacrifice basic freedoms such as freedom of expression for very dubious reasons. Whether we like it or not, her views are fall into the political / religous domain; we should be very careful censoring them. I wonder whether under new laws my defence (and Mathew's) of her right to free speech would "be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". A disgraceful law.

Shaun Okane, London, London

To call Matthew Parris naive would be a compliment, to call him misguided would be to praise him.Perhaps he is guided by his own inner turmoil, but what he should not do is quote basic freedoms in his 'defence' of Langham. For every picture of child pornography there is a victim, who suffers far greater than that displayed in the photographs, for many it is a life sentance, what about their basic rights and freedoms?. Langham was convicted, not for his thoughts, but for his actions, the downloading and possession of child pornography, which indirectly is sponsoring paedophiia and the exploitation of children and babies for the sexual gratification of perverts and deviants.
Remember he paid for these photographs, he actively searched for them, and in doing so he is contributing to child abuse and exploitaion. This is his crime and it is this for which he was convicted, and not surprisingly received a very light sentance.
So please thing again Mr Parris, and consider the real victims.

Darryl Maelzer, Grantham, England

You've conflated two very different things.

Downloading child porn is what creates the market for these abuses of children.

Despite the seeming great gulf between doing such things and watching pictures, there is a complete connection, much like that between the roast on your table and the bloody work of the abattoir.

Moreover, those who download child porn are literally watching serious crimes in action.

In the case of the poetess, remember one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

We regularly confuse this, having picked certain groups whose bloody brutality we accept - Israel bombing children Lebanon or America bombing them in Iraq - and those we don't.

The distinctions we make in this are ethically meaningless and purely a matter of politics.

Terror is a horrific crime, but it is absolutely no different in nature to dropping a million cluster bombs or fire-bombing a city. State terror is one of the great ugly realities of today.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO, Canada

Samina Malik wrote silly poetry, she was probably guilty of nothing but youthful folly - she is unlikely to have incited any actual crimes. Chris Langham paid with his credit card to watch actual children being horrifically abused. In no way can the two be compared. If Langham had just thought about children being raped he wouldn't have been found guilty. He paid money to watch children being raped, there is a huge difference.

emma, london, england

By becoming part of a community of people who admire and enjoy images of the rape of babies and children, Langham helps to normalise the behaviour depicted, in the minds of the perpetrators of the rapes and others who are interested in them. Every downloaded picture is another number on a site counter, another member of the community and another validation of the image in some way. Furthermore, if images are downloaded via peer-to-peer networks, the downloader also becomes a distributor.

Such actions are not thought crimes, they are deeds with implications and consequences which are quite rightly regarded in law as criminal and worthy of custodial sentences.

I am and will continue to be a huge admirer of Matthew Parris's writing, but I think he is utterly wrong on the Langham issue, and a column such as this could even help to perpetrate a victim mentality among paedophiles, who like to think of themselves as a victimised, legitimate minority.

Anne Ronald, Birmingham,

"Would he also defend David Irving?"

I can't speak for Matthew but, yes, I most certainly would defend a right to say absolutely and unequivocally whatever one wanted about anyone & anything whether it is on the subject of race, terror or guinea pig breeding provided it is not "intended" (as opposed to being perceived) as an incitement to violence. If people take offence - tough. Langham and anyone else convicted of "look & pay" crime should be released and compensated and those responsible for enacting these laws & those who have prosecuted these cases should themselves be imprisoned for false imprisonment. No doubt a good number of the self-righteous on this page have money invested in British Aerospace & other similar companies whose products kill people. Therefore all you people, who hear, speak & see no evil when it comes to your pension fund should also be prosecuted. "But I didn't know where the money was going..." Pathetic.

Mike, Huddersfield,

When you think that Langham paid those who torture and enslave children for profit for his own perverse pleasure , then of course it is an appalling crime.To argue otherwise is all part of the slippery slope of morality in Britain today aided and abeted no doubt by the likes of Parrish. Likewise a criminal activity to aid and abet terroists. Just ask anyone who has lived through ' the troubles ' in northern Ireland.

Chris murray, Treal, France

I should not be about one's inner thoughts. I hope I will not be condemned for saying that being excited by children is possibly something you can't help, just like being gay. Theoretically it should be possible to be a paedophile in a responsible way and not commit any act that exploits children - i.e. keep it to mental fantasy only. But there have always been categories of pornography that it is illegal to distribute or own, because it has been decided this material can promote undesirable acts. I don't know if it has this power or not, but if it's illegal it's illegal. It doesn't matter *why* Mr Langham had it!

Inge Jones, London, UK

Thought crime, by the definition of the words used, is one that remains in the head. By acting on these impulses, however fleeting they may have been to begin with, they no longer remain within the individual conciousness, but have made they way into the public domain...by posting a poem on the internet you are inviting others to read it and have a reaction towards it. By viewing child pornography, you are contributing to the demand that has lead to is shocking growth during the internet age. Thought s alone do not impact on other people's lives...but both cases cited above can be seen to have wider ramifications, whether immediate or otherwise, it matters not. The thoughts lead to actions, which can be felt by others, so thoughts they no longer remain

nio, chigwell,

Langham, may have kept his hands to himself, but he paid for someone else to do the exact opposite to a child. If he had paid a hitman to kill someone he would have been imprioned so he deserved longer in prison for knowlingly paying to watch a child be sexually assulted. And malik, did not keep her thoughts to herself she published them. Both were imprioned for their actions not their thoughts, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Chris, Uk,

This is a fine example of liberal woolly thinking and adherence to relativism which has diluted society's values. Mailik comitted a crime for which she was sentenced. The idea that she was victimised because she wore a headscarf is specious. Matthew is patronising her as if she is a silly woman who doesnt really know her mind. He should be sensitive to this approach as gays often complain about being told that they will grow out of it when they 'come out'. Langham viewed evil pictures for which there is no justification. If he was doing research why didnt he tell someone before viewing these sites. Matthew may not think raping a child or supporting terrorists is wrong but luckily the law says they are wrong and very few people would disagree with this result. Moral relativism has eroded values and ethics to such an extent that people are unsure what is actually right and wrong. Sometimes we just have to declare that something is evil and punish.

Colette Lain, Staines,

I agree that the pursuit of thought crimes is illiberal and just one of the many authoritarian and puritan acts of the oppressive Labour government.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that Chris Langham paid for the images, but I didn't see anything in the reporting that said that he paid for them. If he did not pay for them, then the arguments that he was funding the abuse of children disappear and he is being punished for thought crime. After all the record companies argue that people downloading music for free is killing their business, presumeably child pornographers would make the same argument. If he did not pay then he is certainly not supporting the abuse of children.

Tony Gosling, London, UK

Well argued Mr. Parris. My congratulations on a well written article. You have correctly illustrated our nations legal philosophy as it has stood for hundreds of years.

Varun, London, UK

You haven't published my letter. Who is Guilty of Thought Policing now !!

peter, london,

Hear Hear. Now how about the case of the Scotsman who was put on the Probation and the Sex Offenders Register for simulating sex with a bicycle in the privacy of his own bedroom? Presumably the bicycle was consenting, or at least not objecting! The cleaners who reported the case used a master key to get into his room so whatever he was doing was behind locked doors. What a ridiculous parody of justice by the prurient Scots. Lets see you raise the standard for this fellow too please.

Andrew Merton, Monaco, Monaco

Matthew, Neither Langham or Malik were convicted of thought crimes - there's no such thing. If they'd both kept their thoughts to themselves they wouldn't have any problems.

I don't see why liberalism even gets a mention; Langham was funding child abuse and Malik was promoting terrorism.

RF, Derby, UK

When someone pays to view an image of a child being raped they deserve a custodial sentence. Paedophiles who post these images rely on the people at home who pay to watch them. Sadly it's about supply and demand.
I think the two cases are diametrically opposed. The "lyrical terrorist" has not committed a crime. Chris Langham did.

Kathryn , Abergavenny,

I agree entirely with Matthew Paris. The worlds worst regimes used dominance over the individuals right to freedom of thought to pave the way for the loss of liberty and atrocity. Like the critics of Mr Paris, they thought these intrusions were for the common good. We are all to a greater or lesser extent, and in different ways, prisoners of our own sexuality. The law can never be absolute and needs to be understanding of the human condition. Any way, wouldn't it be more effective to switch efforts to stop access to child porn to the internet providers? If Chris Langham is guilty of anything then surely they must be more so? They can filter the net for China after all!

david bernard, nivllac, france

Rubbish - Langham is as guilty as a person who buys illegal drugs from a pusher - he's not as guilty as the pusher, but he is guilty. The children in the photos aren't "thoughts."

And if you write rubbish about killing people you ought to suffer some kind of punishment.

It must be lovely keeping your liberalism in such pristine condition, but most people will think that both punishments are reasonable. And neither crimes were purely "thought" crimes, so your column's premise is rubbish, as previously stated. Thank you.

george, London,

I am genuinely surprised that you equate the two cases together. By paying to download child porn on the internet, Langham is directly in the chain that directly leads to the abuse of young children. And that is precisely why it is illegal and why it is entirely distinct from looking at a book in a library. I think it is a serious enough issue to have no grey areas around it. It is and should be illegal for whatever reason (including "research").

As a huge fan of your articles, I am very certain that you will understand this point, so would be interested to know why you discount it. It appears to be too cut clear to allow "British Liberalism" to creep in!

Tom, Claverdon, warwickshire

If no-one ever paid to view or download images of child abuse then the financial incentive to kidnap and abuse our children for purposes of selling the images on the internet would be gone.
Therefore, Langham's actions have helped perpetuate this business. This is a fact.
And some of the contributors here, as well as Matthew Parris, think that this is OK. I wonder if they have children?

Jake Tyler, Glasgow, Scotland

Now hang on a minute - defend the misguided teenager if you will; but please do not defend paedophiles.

It could be taken as saying they too are merely misguided and to be looked after - but that just makes the victims of paedophilia look as if they should be thought of as insignificant, the horrors they went through to be dismissed.

Mike, London, UK

Most posters miss the point, as does Mathew. A "thought crime" is one that remains private. Where there are repercussions outside the person's head, it's a "deed crime".

Many have commented on the vicious supply/demand circle with relation to degrating images of children. That is true, but only half the story. The other half (and this is where Miss Malik comes in) is that where society exhibits grudging tolerance of such unacceptable views, it is received by parts of the population as acceptances and inevitably increases the likelihood of individuals acting in the depicted way.

As an example, if MTV and yuff magazine portray "happy slappings" as cool and rebellious (hypothetically - I don't think they do at present), you can be damn sure there'll be more incidents. If a rap star says "kill the pig", you can bet some plonker will eventually pick up a gun and do just that.

Michael, Dubai,

It is purely the flacid liberal thinking in this country that has led to the spread of extremism and therefore the deaths of 50 plus people two years ago.
Also, what has the liberal thinking attitude towards our society led to? Kids running amok on streets, shootings, the plethora of un married mothers and fatherless children, in fact, the breakdown in society.
Well done liberals, you will destroy by your lack of action!

Pete, St Albans, England

I agree with most people here - right on Malik, wrong on Langham.

I do have reservations about Malik working in an airport, though. I wonder if she could have been legally sacked for holding these views?

Mike, London, UK

Castrate him. There is no excuse for looking at child pronography. As soon as there is demand there is supply. Its wrong and any liberal posturing will not defend it.

Rob, London, England

It is incredible that Chris Langham was sent to prison at all, considering that an active paedophile, Michael Porter, was given three-year "community rehabilitation order" for abusing young boys. The punishment for thoughtcrime is greater than for actual crime.

Stewart Ware, London, UK

People who say that because Langham paid for the pictures he was guilty of a crime are factually incorrect, even if Langham had gotten the pictures for free he would still have been guilty of the offence.

I too have misgivings about this. I feel disgusted by people who download videos of Islamists beheading captives but I fail to see why posession of such vile stuff (much worse than pictures of naked children) should be criminalised.

By all means prosecute people who create child pornography and people who buy and sell child pornography but unless you are prepared to jail everyone who has viewed pictures of crime scenes in books, magazines or on the internet then simple posession should not be an offence.

I know this seems controversial, but we need to protect our civil liberties and this decade long paedophile hysteria along with the war on terror has seriously eroded our freedoms in ways we shouldn't have to accept.

miko, Singapore, singapore

Chris Langham was looking at sites on the internet that he needed to pay for with a credit card. Therefore he is directly funding the abuse of children and your argument that he is being punished for no more than taking a book from the library and flicking through it is fundamentally wrong. You are though spot on with your concerns at the prosecution of Ms Malik. I'm just disappointed and, frankly, surprised that you conflate her case with Chris Langham's.

NR, New York,

Fully agree, Matthew. One of your best articles. British liberalism and freedom of conscience at its best.

James Barker, Tokyo, Japan

You confuse the two cases Matthew. By posting an incendiary poem on the internet Salina Malik was not inciting to violence but purely expressing personal opinions, legitimate ones no matter how distasteful. That is a thought crime.

Chris Langham on the otherhand, by looking at such pictures was directly funding child pornography and for research or otherwise was only increasing demand for it. That is criminal.

You are right though to be wary of the current direction legislation is taking us...

TomO, Kashgar, China

But your argument with Chris Langham makes no sense.

If I walk down the street with 10g of cocaine, with no intent to actually use cocaine, I have still committed a criminal offence. It is the possession, stupid! And rightly so Matthew. Otherwise, the industry for child porn will just grow larger and larger still.

Tom , London,

When I read this marvellous column, though I am not sure I agree with it, I realise what a marvellous thing is British liberalism. And how eloquently Parris stands for certain great values -- the reason I shall always love England (apart from certain memories of life there, and the beauty of her language), though I no longer live there. Kannan Srinivasan

Kannan Srinivasan, melbourne, victoria australia

It is outrageous and ignorant to suggest that looking at child pornography hurts no one. Because people look at it, it is produced. How removed from reality do you have to be to understand that? Do you imagine that he was just looking at a child's underwear catalog? He wasn't looking at decently clad children and imagining things. He was looking at vicious, inhumane acts which really happened. How is it not a criminal exploitation of that event to use it for pornographic purposes? Does the victim depicted have no right to object to her misery and torment being used in that fashion?

S. Cully, Jersey City, NJ

Her crime was not to think, it was to publish.

A Downey, Melbourne, Australia

Arthur Downey, Melbourne, Australia

Would he also defend David Irving?

john fitzgerald, bristol, england

Mr. Parris
All my respect to u. Really u r a great writer, very eloquent, human, fair and persuasive, I wish u the best.

free samina malik, cairo, egypt

I totally agree with your coments regarding Samina Malik ... convicted for her thoughts ...... her thoughts have not or will not lead to victims .... hence no crime.

The case for Chris Langham is totally different. By participating in down loading and veiwing of child pornography he is helping to crate the market which creates creates the abuse of children ... hence in this case their is a victim .... children .. and therefore he has commited a crime ..

marke, hosuton, texas/usa

The strapline is so totally wrong. Thoughts are private - personal - in the head - for want a further kind of description. Once those thoughts penetrate the consciousness of others - well - they are not thoughts. Please. Let us get rid of this - child abuse is ok if it is thought of of and written down - but not acted on - attitude.

Spencer, London,

I don't agree that looking at a pornographic pictures of children are a person's 'own business'  In order that Mr. Langham and many others can look at these evil images (and it is evil, we are not talking about  consenting adults here) a child  has been degraded and abused, denied the possibility of a normal and joyful sex life when they  grow up.  People who 'only look and keep their hands to themselves' are responsible for the harm done to the children to provide them with pleasure.

Mary Willis , Redhill, Surrey, England

Chris Langham got off lightly. Thanks to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the standard sentence for a second offence of viewing child porn on a computer, and possible for a first offence, is now life imprisonment, under the new name of an 'indeterminate sentence for public protection'.

And people wonder why prisons are overcrowded...

G Adamson, LONDON, UK

I have to say that this article is "Spot On"

For over a decade now there has been a real encroachment on civil liberties in the UK and we will see the real effects of these policies first on those the government deems as Criminals. They will initially be Minority groups, then political dissidents and finally The average citizen.

Not to worry, when these policies stifle enough people, the result will probably get the populace together behind the opposition.

Obi Mgbatogu, London, UK

Im with you Mathew. Well said

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

Thank you for this article. It is hard to understand how a force can be given the power to arrest someone for what they look at or what they think! As you say where does this stop?
The Langham Affair has much relevance to people like us. The people who have seen the direct abuse of children, who have had no choice but to report it to the relevant authorities only to see the abusers being left in situ with their victims to carry on doing waht they do. Then we experience being informed that the latest injuries, which have been noticed on the chidren, have been deemed 'injuries which are 'self-inflicted'
The abusers in our cases are hardly ever arrested more less prosecuted.
The prosecution of Langham would seem to be some misguided use of power rather than a means to protect or rescue the being abused children.

Darnthesafetynet, London , W11 1NR

Lunacy!!

By downloading images he knew to be wrong he was conspiring in their creation, and so by your own argument prosecution was appropriate.

NR, Leeds,

I take your point in both cases Matthew but I certainly have to disagree regarding Chris Langham. Real children were in those pictures. If as you say real children were not abused then any other argument falls down and it is as you say just thought crime which is not crime at all.
By and large I tend to believe we are stronger and better as a society with almost unfettered free speech as the power of coherent argument can generally overcome prejudice, political correctness, or even unthinking religious zeal.
Whether free speech can actually change attitudes is another matter, probably not in the short term but over time definately.

steph, brighton,