I am surprised by some of the comments on here. For example, the comment that 'nobaby should be locked up for looking at something'. The offence of making an indecent photograph of a child is one of strict libablity, so you don't get to say 'I'm sorry but it was my job to look at children being abused'. The reason is because looking at these picture creates a market for child abuse and if people didn't look at them then no doubt the instants of these horrible acts of cruelty would go down.

On a different point, it is doubtful whether he actually looked the pictures purely for 'research'. Bear in mind he was charged with 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child. Why did he need so many pictures?

Marie-Therese , London,

Mr. langham is not a "pedophile"...I believe he was the victim of a pedophile in Canada when he was 8 yrs. old...I also understand he has sought extensive professional help over the years to resolve the severe emotional and phsychological problems he has suffered arising from this childhood abuse. However it is appropriate that he serve his time in gaol as determined by the law. Viewing child pornography, an altogether hideous business, is unlawful. There but for the Grace of God go not I.

R Maxwell, NYC, US

I agree that looking at anything alone should not carry a prison sentence; people are let off for far worse crimes where they actually harm someone else all the time. I've seen pictures of murdered people but that doesnt make me a murderer, anyone claiming that would be an idiot.
Unfortunately for Langham when it comes to children people are not rational and the histerical group reaction takes over, I'm not saying he's innocent but he didnt need to be locked up. If we're talking about justice then only those that would definately harm others should have their freedom taken away, what Langham got was punishment from, not protection for the public.
The trends towards the "Nanny state" that others mention make me very uneasy also but in the case of child abuse there should always be a tough stance but not to the point where 'looking' and 'doing' have the same sentence, because as Mark mentions above why wouldnt a pedophile then not just go abduct a child? They're sick not stupid.

Chris, Edinburgh,

At last I read some balanced responses to the Langham case . I agree with David ,London . I have known Chris Langham as a former fellow student and later in life as a professional colleague . No way does he deserve the labels the tabloids have heaped on him . Yes he made a hugely foolish mistake . But writers often sail very close to the wind in their research of characters , sometimes placing themselves in danger in pursuit of truth . The Chris Langham I know is a gentle , kind person and would not hurt a fly . I only hope in time the British public will show some forgiveness and remember the 30 years of laughter he gave them and instead concentrate on jailing those who actually perpetrate these horrors against children .

JH ,UK

J . Hagar, birmingham, uk

Today Chris Langham is jailed for looking at pictures. Last week man does not go to jail for actually interfering with children. Is this is the new definition of pedophile?

Dave, Darlaston,

I'm not sure that anyone should be jailed for LOOKING at anything , whatever it may be . The crime should only be a crime if you are actually involved in the contact offence of actually doing it .
Some people like to look at the Al-Jazeera website and see hostages being beheaded. Now whilst that is repulsive to me they are only looking , and i cannot see how looking at anything can result in a jail sentence.
Soon the Government will be making it a jailable offence to even think about such things.. i mean where does this incresingly Police State we live in draw the line.?

david , london,

It is perhaps wise to stop for a moment before getting too carried away with "the harhser the punishment the better" type logic.

A century or two back in the UK we had something a bit similar to that. If you murdered someone, you could be exectuted -many people would say that was correct - problem is you could also be executed if you stole food for the table. Most people then realised "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb".

The danger now is that if - as some people want - many years imprisonment are given for VIEWING child porn, SOME people will realise that "doing it for real" has no higher penalty.

Sadly this is true for the "life for paedophiles" logic. The obvious conclusion for a paedophile is to then kill the child - not going to be sentenced for longer than life - and a better chance of escaping - "Dead men tell no tales".

Depends what is more importants, protiecting childrens lives OR punishing paedophiles. Not sure you can have both effectively.

Mark, Wellingborough, Northants

Should serve the full ten months. As high profile cases
like Gary Glitter, Pete Townshend and Michael Jackson should have been enough to deter Langham.

Hopefully this sentence will deter others and I hope the sentences continue to get harsher and harsher.

Good Riddance to him.

Dawn Blake, West Midlands,

Today this man is jailed for 10 months for downloading the worst kind of child pornography.

Two weeks ago two young lads from Macclesfield were jailed for 15 and 12 months respectively for artistic graffiti on trains.

Which do you think is the most repulsive offence? Has not our justice system got things the wrong way round here?

Michael, Surrey, UK

I have never felt inclined to post my views on a website before. However, Chris Langham's self pityng plea that he is having an 'awful time in prison' makes my blood boil. Seriously, what did he expect? That all right minded adults in the UK would congratulate him & pat him on the back for viewing the websites he did? He is a paedophile, short & simple. No right minded person can believe his feeble excuse that he was doing it for research. Perhaps if he admitted that he has a serious problem and needed help people would be more sympathetic. I am not vindicative but I do believe he deserves everything he gets. People like him should be locked up and never released as far as I am concerned. They will never change their ways. I am sure he is remorseful and sorry but unfortunately I suspect that these feelings are only fueled by self pity and a regret that he was found out. He has no one but himself to blame for the mess he has made of his life.

Maggie, Liverpool, UK