Prison is too kind, for self-pitying abusers like this man. His disguisting actions should generate an intrusive public presence. He and all other peadophiles ought to have their crimes tattooed literally on their heads so that everyone can see and be aware that they are dangerous sick predetors.

petra, london,

The Law is the Law, and we must kep to it, otherwise we will have social, cultural, and political anarchy. I feel very sorry for these poor children, their suffering must be unbareable, I also feel sorry for CL's family; their shame must be devasting, and his poor wife must be miserable. Finally, I feel for CL. His addiction to these vile sites is evidence of the misery humans can and do inflict on each other.

NM, UK, UK

News items showing war scenes are not illegal or censored, because they may influence violence, or turn good people evil.

Why because the evil of war is better seen and discussed.

Who are we protecting here? The child or the abuser.

The child has nothing to be a shamed of, nudity and physical intimacy, in them selves, don't cause the harm.

If people could view child porn for reserach purposes and education - would the sky drop?

Society and the shame it bestowes on the abused, causes further abuse to take place.

lets grow up!

CRAIG CLARK, nottingham, uk

So tofty Langham thanked the press for their restraint. Well lah de bleeding dah. I want to see the same treatment of Langham as the press gave Gary Glitter. They weren't restrained with him or Jacko or Jonathan King.

The man is a sex offender and nonce. I dont care how plum his accent is and how many BAFTA's he's won. Is there one rule for the cucumber sandwhich brigade and one rule for the rest of us. I am suprised that we are not having a day of National mourning for the unfotunate thespian. The press are total hypocrites. Not making excuse for the other three.
But everyone seems to be making excuses for Langham.

Dawn Blake, West Midlands,

If there can be a lighter note on all of this, aren't judges just the end? A juror oversleeps and this stupendously self-important character Statham says 'it is a very, very serious contempt of this court'. I hope this fatuously silly pretentiousness will be greeted with real contempt the next time he appears in court. Loud laughter, jeers and shouts of "Pratt" would be appropriate. You'd think judges would be more aware of their almost universal reputation as buffoons and be a bit more circumspect - but I suppose all their ludicrously antiquated theatrical panoply gives them delusions that the rest of us think they are 'important' and 'deserving of respect'. They watch too much tele if that's what they think. I mean - Cherie Blair's a judge sometimes - so obviously I can 'put it to you' that 'I rest my case' 'm'lud'. And that of course is the other thing - the perennial hilarity of their language. 'M'lud' indeed. What a hoot they are.

eric, harrogate, uk

Langham was convicted of possessing and downloading images depicting young girls being sexually abused and sexually tortured. There are no excuses for his actions. He made a choice to view such images. Do not forget Langham also admitted viewing websites containing images of men sexually abusing and raping adult women. Langham was rightly convicted and attempts at deflecting attention away from his criminal behaviour are all designed to minimalise and normalise the increasing acceptance of pornography wherein men are shown sexually abusing and sexually torturing women and girls. Just because Langham was acquitted of sexually abusing the young woman whe she was a teenager does not mean Langham is not a sexual predator. This young woman's character was vilified by the defence and unfortunately the law does not allow her to defend her name or character. Unlike Langham who tried to portray himself as a 'victim.'
RESEARCHER IN MALE SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

JENNIFER DREW, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

The law as written presumes guilt, the burden of proof is on the accused destroying a prime tenet of justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

The IWF and various filtering technologies claim to exist to allow for the reporting or avoidance of accidental downloads of illegal material. This presents something of a contradiction as the law makes no such provision. Where people and vested interests seek to demonise the accused it is no suprise that all manner of explanations are presented by way of mitigation.

D. Stanley, Gourge, France

> But Chris Langham did not commit an act of child abuse. He did not encourage anybody to commit such an act, and he does not promote such acts

RandyWalk, I have to respectfully disagree. He did not directly commit the abuse, but he *is* encouraging somebody to commit it and he *is* promoting the acts by downloading the clips. Of course he is. Consider the law of supply and demand. If he and others like him didn't download these clips, they wouldn't be made. Or rather, they'd only be made by fools at a loss, and they are far less numerous than those out to make a gain.

Yours sincerely,

Zoe Marie Bullingham, London,

"Surely by paying to download images / movies of the abuse of children he does both encourage people to commit such acts and promote such acts?"

There is no evidence that viewing images/videos of something will encourage people to do something. How can someone go to jail for veiwing a collection of pixels?

Kurt, Paris, France

I remember not so long ago when British tabloids would have pictures of 16 year old girls topless on Page 3. The age of consent has varied around the world throughout the ages - someone considered a paedophile today would have been considered totally normal in another time or place. Obviously abuse is abuse, but I'm sure most "normal" people have "worrying" sexual thoughts at some time in their life. The trouble is, the internet makes it easy for people to be curious. Where is the line drawn? I think most people recognise when it has been crossed, but it's very hard to actually define.

Craig Wilson, Kent, UK

Randy W's right to say that the fashion and tabloid media are guilty of the sexualisation of children, not to mention those who slobber over newspaper photos of some sub-teen starlet, but there is a reason why the law makes no distinction between dowloading this kind of pornography for sexual reasons or "research purposes" - it's because the act of downloading perpetuates the market for this material, and thereby perpetuates the abuse itself. Langham may, as he claims, be no paedophile, but his actions have perpetuated a cycle of foul abuse, and on that count he is surely as guilty as sin.

Mark, Worthing, UK

What he did amounts to bankrolling the abuse and rape of children, and for that he should receive jail time. Yes civil liberty and internet privacy are causes worth fighting for, but not when some web users are directly funding crime.

Olly, Colchester, UK

It's certainly "sick", and a sign of mental problems, but it seems to me that the crime is in the doing of the acts of abuse against the children, not in the watching. I understand that paying for downloads supports the market for this obscenity, but I think society is on slippery ground defining the act of watching, which of itself does no harm, as criminal. It smacks too much of the "thought police" for my liking. Although I suppose that effectively paying someone to commit a crime does, in essence make one an accomplice.

Quijote, Marbella,

To Ade in Wallasey: I agree it does sound odd at first instance that he was convicted of 'making' the image, even though he was not the photographer, but this is how it is works in law and practice.

Whilst an image is clearly 'made' by the photographer at the scene it obviously does not physically travel to a computer screen as a photograph but instead is broken down to its digital components (a binary code I believe) and sent on it's way - when asked for.

The receiving computer reassembles the image from that digital code into a copy of the original image taken, therefore when you knowingly download the image you 'make' it again.

The original image remains on the memory card of the camera which captured it, everything else is just a reassembled copy. A single image can therefore be 'made' as many times as required.

Richard Langlois, Jersey,

Chris Langham may have downloaded stuff but how about folks who post them and run those sites??

Katie, London,

Randy Walk - have you ever heard the term supply and demand? If there were not people such as Mr Langham who sought out such material no one would bother to make the pictures and videos. It is precisely because of people like Mr Langham that such disgusting abuse is perpetrated and recorded for others pleasure. I have had the misfortune in my job to have to view some of the material recovered as part of operation ore. Those images will stay with me forever and I challenge anyone to tell me that Mr Langham does not encourage or perpetrate such crimes against children. No-one who saw these images could be unmoved.

Shelley, London,

On one level, its difficult not to have some sympathy for this guy. He was kicked off the original 'Not the 9 O'Clock News' team before the show took off, he's a superb comic actor, but never rose above being one of those likable 'what's he been in?' TV presences for decades. Then he finds some real success and reward in his 50's, and promptly launches a nuclear torpedo into his own life.

But likable as his persona may be, and despite all the talk of a culture of teen sexuality and Big Brother, there is no justification for paying to watch pre teens and pubescents being abused and raped. Hopefully the police are actively pursuing the providors of such filth worldwide, but its also right that those who pay for their activities should be held accountable. Can the card payments of Langham and others be entirely divorced from the kind of child abduction case so frequently in the news? If Langham recovers from the inevitable holocaust of self pity, he may do well to reflect on that.

Kevin Wilson, Langley,

I can't help bringing to mind 'he who has no sin cast the first stone'. Langham has not committed an offence in my view. The real problem is elswhere. I am appalled at his treatment. It reminds me of witchhunting, of communist huniting etc. Leave him alone. There is a old saying that we accuse others of the things we hold in our own hearts. This is verging on hysteria.

Richard, London, UK

Of course he committed an act of child abuse, by downloading and viewing the images of children being raped, tortured and abused.
He PAID for the images with his credit card .. thereby helping some other sicko make money out of the plight of these children.
Its supply and demand .. by paying for the images he created the demand that leads to the supply, and the supply is at the expense of innocent children.
Would you think that it was normal for a person to want to see images of children being raped and tortured ? For many people these images would make them feel sick, if someone gets pleasure from them, then their perspective is very warped.
Let him pay the price. maybe he will get some of the treatment in prison that the children in the images he downloaded received , then he may know the terror and pain they felt for someone elses perverted pleasure

Kieran McCausland, Letchworth, UK

"Surely by paying to download images / movies of the abuse of children he does both encourage people to commit such acts and promote such acts?"

Langham did not pay to download any of the illegal images - these came from free P2P filesharing networks.

He was originally arrested via Operation Ore because he had subscribed to a legal adult porn site using the Landslide Keyz subscription system, which the UK police incorrectly took to mean that he had paid to access illegal material -he had not. The US authorities were well aware that only a small number of Keyz sites held illegal material but the y either misled the UK police on this or the latter chose to ignore the truth.

John Thow, Glasgow, UK

It seems that a surprising number of people - most unfortunately - find child abuse in some way titillating but exciting. But most of these acknowledge that they should never indulge in such behaviour because it is deeply immoral. So they keep it as a private fantasy and indulge it by looking at pictures of other people doing it.

This group could be said to be encouraging and promoting child abuse by creating a market for the images, but the acts depicted in the images would probably take place anyway.

Another group decides to act out - or try to act out - these fantasies with unwilling children and do immeasurable damage.

Should we not differentiate in law between these two groups?

Tony Jones, Grantham, Lincs

I wonder if the BBC will be hiring Langham again for any of its shows, particularly The Thick Of It ... ?

Probably not: if it does, then they must surely offer Robert Kilroy Silk his old show back; after all, they unilaterally accused him of racism, but hte police weren't interested and he's never been prosecuted under any racism laws. Langham, however, is now a convicted paedophile.

Joe Jones, London, UK

'But Chris Langham did not commit an act of child abuse'. Chris Langham actively sought out, bought and kept movie clips of children being raped. This is child abuse; the fact that he did not actually touch the victims is immaterial.

Ken, Chelmsford, Essex

The problem is that this is a very complex issue, which people are trying to reduce to soundbites. What Chris Langham did was serious and wrong in the minds of any right thinking person. It is not true to say however that everyone who has viewed such material has generated further supply and abuse. Many of these images are for example, scans taken from magazines in the 1970s when such material was legal in most countries now in the EU. The supply in those cases, is therefore limited and cannot be added to. There are many other examples I could give. According to figures by the UK's biggest child protection charity, offenders are now statistically more likely to go to prison for downloading such material and nothing else, than they are for actual 'hands on' sexual physical abuse of children. This indicates that in all the hype and downright misinformation, the plot has been lost.

Incidentally, the second charge facing Langham of sexual abuse of a young girl, looked highly dubious.

Anthony, Glasgow, Scotland

Anyone who has images or videos of this nature in their possession should be punished. If nobody was willing to pay for this then it would not be so prolific.

Tom, Manchester, England

andrew, no one is suggesting the internet should be banned. using it to track down those who have raped and abused children seems like a justifiable exercise, though, wouldn't you say? or penalising those who encourage such behaviour by funding and legitimising it.

your response is similar to suggesting that because the police apprehend a criminal in the street or because certain actions in the street (rape, for example) are regarded as offences, life and commerce will grind to a halt now that we're no longer allowed to use the streets. ie - it's ridiculous.

jem, london, uk

I think that anyone sufferring from hysteria over this should watch Chris Morris in Brass Eye about the subject. He managed to get some very gullible people, major stars and even a politician to go on air and get all embroiled in the matter and carried away rather like at a charity collection event. These celebrities (I loath to use that word) and the media, love these cases.

It remains that Chris Langham was and always will remain one of the best comedians.

And, don't forget to look at the Judge's ruling. He said that Mr. Langham did not have a defence to the charges he was convicted of . This seems odd to me. Are there appeal grounds? Let us wait and see.

Pete Balchin, Solicitor , Bristol, UK

If someone pays to download anything they are promoting that "commodity"
Anyone contributing to or encouraging the use of children in sexual acts deserves all our society can throw at them.
While Porn featuring adults is acceptable to most people porn featuring children is simply unacceptable.
Chris Langham appears to have paid for the images found on his computer and is not the first "star" to have been caught doing so.

Michael Wilkinson, Telford, England

Randy from Birmingham
Got to disagree with a fair few points there.
The magazines these day are nothing like how you describe them and i'd say they promote good messages to young people. Anyway what exactly does that have to do with abuse?

Policies to promote single motherhood? Isnt alot of what the government is promoting at the moment the aim to reform the family unit and values. And again what is the link to abuse.
Also how do you know he didn't encourage anyone, or promote what he was looking at?
Fair enough certain factors can maybe increase the chances of child abuse happening but the people who do it are sick sick people, and anyone who looks at it is just as bad.

Simon, Worcester,

I agree with Randy Walk. Kids, especially young girls are portrayed in inappropriate ways. I think the kids programme "lazy Town" is a case in point. A girl of nine or ten or eleven should not be wearing make-up dying her hair and wearing short drersses. The girl is portrayed in a sexual way that makes me, as a man, extremely uncomfortable. It is wrong.

That latest dross, come dancing for kids, or whatever it is called looks to me to be even worse.

Do these producers know what they are doing? In its own way it is just as bad as what Chris Langham did.

Sexualising young boys and girls who cannot give informed consent is just as bad as Chris Langham's offence and in my view worse.

Ivor Griffiths, Lancater, Lancashire

Anyone who understands the effect of abuse & the impact it has on the whole life of a child cannot condone images of such abuse being viewed or downloaded. This action does encourage and promote acts of abuse by both rewarding the abusers in monetary terms and also allowing them to think it is acceptable. Of course the abuser is the direct culprit but the viewer of such material is also culpable and should be punished accordingly. Any individual who is so naive as to believe that abuse is not widespread or devastating to the families involved should really think again.

janice, Grantham,

Some people can't help what turns them on, sexual fantasies are our most deepest secrets, I feel sorry for these people who get off over children.. But it's no excuse, children are the most innocent and shouldn't be victims of others fantasies.

Adam Webb, MK, UK

He deserves a very lengthy prison sentence - anyone who even looks at such material is perpetuating the appalling abuse of children. There is no justification in the world for even thinking about looking at it let alone downloading it. People like Mr Langham make me sick and the only place for such people is prison.

Claire, London,

Fact - Chris downloaded children being violently abused & raped (category 5 material), this is illegal and immoral and he has admitted to doing so, no matter what stories Chris has come up with to cover his actions he did it and he got caught doing it

Paul, Liverpool, Merseyside

By viewing those images Langham is complicit in the abuse of those children. By paying for them he is actively condoning it. Lots of people have been sexually abused as children but would not dream of looking at child pornography.

He also claims that he was "researching" paedophilia for a comedy he was writing. What on earth has paedophilia got to do with comedy? That's sick.

Helga, Lytham St Anne's,

Andrew Milner:

I feel it can sometimes be overlooked that child porn is not a Hollywood pretend creation. It is real children being abused and tortured for others' delectation. Please don't cite 'big brother', freedom of information etc as a defence in this situation, it is inappropriate and insulting to those who have suffered at the hands of such disgusting abuse, and have been watched by people with a sickening fascination for such an abomination.

Jo S, Hertford, UK

With respect - I think you both are missing the point.

Child protection has to come first and I think a custodial sentence as a deterrent is fitting for someone who has lied about his behaviour after his arrest and then initially in court.

Steve H, london, UK

Why has Langham been charged with "making an indecent photograph" - which implies he was there, videoing or photographing the actual abuse,? All the way though this trial, we've heard that he downloaded existing material - which I would have thought was a lesser - albeit still serious - offence?

Ade, Wallasey, Merseyside

"But Chris Langham did not commit an act of child abuse. He did not encourage anybody to commit such an act, and he does not promote such acts. "

Surely by paying to download images / movies of the abuse of children he does both encourage people to commit such acts and promote such acts?

John Beck, London,

It is people who promote and encourage child sexual abuse who should be in the dock. For example, the tabloids and the teenage magazines promote child sexuality by encouraging children - particularly the girls - to behave like sexy celebrities or glamour models in the hope that they will be as successful and attractive by doing so.

We also know that policies that promote single motherhood also lead to children becoming much more vulnerable to all sorts of abuse; and yet the government persists in promoting single motherhood.

The abuse hysteria also causes millions of ordinary adults to avoid having much to do with children, which leaves them vulnerable.

But Chris Langham did not commit an act of child abuse. He did not encourage anybody to commit such an act, and he does not promote such acts.

Many others, however, do. Perhaps it is they who should have been in the dock.

Randy Walk, Birmingham, UK

Keep in mind guys that these high profile Internet child porn cases are a gift from Heaven for Authority as they build justification to control the Internet. The other justification is "terrorism".
Ban the Internet and UK business and commerce is severely disadvantaged, but leave the current arrangements in place, and Internet correspondents can keep alive issues the government would prefer forgotten. But no doubt Big Brother will come up with a solution, like registering all Internet users, logging every site visited and blog submitted. Paranoia: It keeps you alive and it keeps you free.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama , Kanagawa