主播大秀

Chirs Langham is a scapegoat. He abused no-one. He encouraged the abuse of no-one.

Child sexual abuse is promoted by the tabloid newspapers, celebrity and girls magazines, wherein women are portrayed as gaining great status by looking and behaving sexily - so youngsters are encouraged to emulate them.

And this, in turn, encourages adults to view them as sexual beings.

Child abuse is also promoted by those who stir up abuse hysteria - because this causes NORMAL adults to keep away from children.

It is also promoted by those who oppose proper marriage laws - such as the feminists. For example, fatherlessness is known to be a MAJOR factor when it comes to children's vulnerability to abuse.

All in all, therefore, if people are so concerned about child abuse then they should be prosecuting those people who PROMOTE it.

Chris Langham did NOT promote it. He did NOT engage in it. And he did NOT encourage anybody else to engage in it.

In essence, he is being prosecuted for an ALLEGED thought crime.

Charles

Well, Well, Well, "I did not lie"; that's another one. Who on earth believes the wretched man. He should resign before the evidence hits the fan.

Write great sorry my heart go out to those falling victim of the U S BRIDGE accident I extend my sympathy to the berived family and speedly recover to the wounded.

#1 Charles Williams

Chris Langham was convicted by a jury of committing ACTUAL criminal offences. No amount of specious argument can defend the indefensible. Perhaps you think that searching for, paying for, downloading, keeping and viewing hardcore child pornography shouldn't be against the law. In which case I strongly disagree with you.

Chris Langham - think he is more of a victim of our clumsy way of dealing with whole issue of child abuse, not a perpetrator. Should not be convicted of a crime, but obviously has suffered. Been taken to the cleaners by the young girl he really wanted to help, and of course provided a good story. All part of the cycle of abuse which is not helped at all by media sensationalism which leads to a witchunt, persecuting victims and not tackling the real problem eg Pete Townsend may have been another such victim who is not in custody for the same kind of charge.

Well having seen the interview that Kirsty Wark held on the issue. Still think Chris Langham should not be in prison, but, in therapy.

I understand the emotion and anger behind the victim "Shy"'s comments -from experience. It is not the police who can stop paedophilia - however brilliant they are at the technology, or, the government. Victims are very confused and their accessing these kind of images is not always fully understood, by police or politicians.

I feel I would have liked to see a paediatric psychotherapist's opinion. The debate would have been more balanced, not wholly emotional, and, manipulated politically by the Labour MP, wary of his voters on this sensitive issue.

US BRIDGE
Sorry, I'm probably missing something here. But why is Newsnight covering this? All the main news bulletins have reported the incident. That is all the 主播大秀 needed to do. Why does the 主播大秀 go into some deep analysis about bridge construction & maintenance in AMERICA. Plus the cheeky dig at how the Bush Administration is responsible for the bridge? We all know the 主播大秀 hates Bush. But you really should go and read up & understand how a FEDERAL system of govt. works before discussing anything that happens in America. You would better serve the TV tax payers of the UK if you talk about the floods in the UK.

When a victim of abuse states that in her view Chris Langham is not a victim but a perpetrator, I'm inclined to believe her. I'm amazed by posts suggesting that Chris Langham shouldn't have been convicted; he committed an indefensible crime. Anyone found to have actively sought out images of child abuse should face appropriate charges. No one should be above the law on these matters.

Yes - he committed a crime, which he admitted. I too speak from experience, as a victim, but I do not intend to go into details, neither did the victim in the TV interview. So did Pete Townsend committ a crime, downloading some child porn for research purposes, maybe not as shocking - I do not know.

Think the actor deserves a fair trial, not trial by media or Newsnight!

The law is a very blunt instrument, to deal with this issue which is not always as black and white as it seems. Even lawyers are not very adept at dealing with it using research as mitigation. That is why we have psyhcotherapists and experts in the field who should be consulted.

Even murderers are allowed to plead, diminished responsibility, and interviewed by trained psychologists before sentencing. There is just this very knee-jerk reaction to child abuse which actually allows many abusers to go unnoticed for various reasons. Trials are sensationalised, witchunts etc all of which drive the perpetrators underground. Real criminals cover their tracks, don't behave naively, like Langham or Petesend, so why the throw the book out of the window on this case?

The police are not experts in new technology, just have learnt how these guys operate, otherwise half the city traders could be inside for fraud!

I feel deeply sorry to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes for Menezes' death on 21st of July of 2005. Although IPCC has commented on Mr. Ian Blair as a lier, he has firmly denied he was in this incident. He said that the police should try their best and great efforts to protect London as safety place from the terrorists. Yes, it is good thing and in fact, is the duty or responsibility of the police to do so. If there is always to have " mistaken shoot", the lives of our citizens have been threatened. We,like Menezes to be innocent one, not break the law, and do things as we daily do, will be under panic of " mistaken shoot".
What is more, it is funny that Mr. Blair said they would learn this incident and "guarantee it will not occur agin". I have a question if unfortunately, it happens again, how does he have to face the public.
I always believe that "precaution is better than cure" and "Learn from a failure" is no good.

Thank you for the quality News on the Newsnight.
May you consider us in Malawi sending our contribution of News to your pages and other African countries.

Keep it up good work.

A. Phiri

I'm normally a big fan of Newsnight, but I really thought this programme was a let-down.

First of all, the Chris Langham story should not have been the lead story. It is nowhere near as important as the investigation into the Met in terms of its wider implications. While there was a good report on the investigation, I was disappointed and surprised not to see any further analysis and interviews. I didn't learn anything I hadn't already seen on the 10 o'clock news which is unusual for Newsnight.

As for the bridge story, it was obviously worth reporting in detail. However, the interview with the architect took a bizarrely irrelevant angle on the whole thing, trying to cast it as some kind of stand-off between fancy design and safety concerns. Given the nature of the bridge in question, this seemed very odd. The considerable amount of time spent on that interview could have been much better spent on the Met story.

Good piece on Iran though.

There, that's my moan over with.

Menezes - didn't he bolt when he saw the police? if so, how shrewd was that?

Langham - yet another reflection that the very culture of the political class is inadequate to deal with the philosophical questions of advanced democracy -

- we have to move from concepts of averages and public intervention programmes driven by a buzz-word mentality (baaah!) towards a deeper understanding of individual behaviour, potential, and empowerment.

Prisons and educational institutions need to be reformed, the former destigmatised and the latter depoliticised (teach climate change and healthy eating? - no! teach science, nutrition and independent decision making).

BRIDGE COLLAPSE

Why was the interview with an architect, as opposed to a structural engineer, advertised at the beginning of the programme?

This serves to enforce negative stereotypes about the role of 'engineers' in this country. Engineers are responsible for designing bridges so that they stand or fall - not architects.

Irate Civil Engineering Student

Like others, I'm not convinced the Chris Langham item was particularly useful. One would like to know why he is facing prison whereas Pete Townshend, like 100s of others picked up by Operation Ore, was only cautioned. Was this because Langham was also on trial for other offences for which he was acquited? More generally, the unqualified praise for Operation Ore may be premature. There are a growing number of cases where it appears people were accused after their credit cards were used fraudulently, and that the police and CPS have been not been up to speed on the technical issues involved.

Re the bridge failure.
Canadian, if not other North American, Professional Engineers wear an Iron ring. This is a reminder to them of their responsibilities, and comes from a bridge disaster way back when (was it the Second Narrows bridge collapse, near Vancouver BC?)
Professional Engineers and the associated scientists make the world we live in, like it or not. They are probably the most under rated part of our society.
As we speak, wires in our new suspension bridges are pinging wire by wire failing. Interesting eh!
Joe, BSc MITE (ex MIEE)

Priorities

Whilst I thought the piece on Iran was excellent, completely disagree about the importance of child abuse, of the Chris Langham case. Clearly you have not suffered the devastating effects of child sexual abuse, which I will say has destroyed my dysfunctional family.

Having listened to the Today programme where they did interview experts in the case they both agreed with my point - that although a crime was committed, and it should remain illegal to access this kind of material - the reasons and motivation of the victim, are crucial to how he or she (in my case), is treated. Treatment, not prison needs to be brought into the whole debate to prevent child sexual abuse. As Kirsty mentions, there is an issue of denial which can remain passive; it remains passive in the vast majority of people who access this porn, as in "normal" human beings who access porn in their millions on the internet. Denial becomes active, usually as a result of a combination other factors, which leads to violent acting out of their neurosis - sexually abusing children.

I think the media, and maybe Newsnight, owes it to an actor, one of their own, very talented, and funny political satirists, to bring such evidence into the public arena and get him out of prison into treatment of some kind; before he does commit suicide, and, another possible miscarriage of justice takes place.

So what can newsnight do during the silly season when political news is thin on the ground?

Business news is good....

Then there is science....

And Tech....

We have a couple of wars going on...

and of course a bit of fun like the Tommy cooper statue story.

Hopefully now when there is time for more of this type of stuff these are not the reporters who have been given holiday leave?

Chris Langhams reasons seem to be changing daily?
Why? should he even want to look at such disgusting filth in the first place? Surely his immagination could well serve him
Also, WHY are these sites up and running in the first place???ISP'S should be fined ruthlessly for allowing them to be on their sites.I'm sure if the Will to ban them was strong enough, then these sites would NOT Exist?

CHRIS LANGHAM

The fact remains that a man who harbours sexual desires toward under-16s can no more be 'treated' or 'cured' of his preferences than a gay person, or someone with a tendency to date redheads or fat women.

I believe that psychologists tried this, to 'turn' gay people straight during the years when homosexuality was still illegal and treated as a mental illness, and it failed, because homosexuality is an innate sexual preference, the factors behind which we are only just beginning to understand.

Paedophilia is likewise not a mental condition (as many seem determined to argue) but an innate part of someone's sexuality, however in a civilised modern society and the importance we place on consent it is one that by its nature must never be condoned, tolerated or accepted in any form.

Whilst those cursed with these desires may not be to 'blame' or have any control over their preference the fact remains that the protecting the safety and innocence of children remains paramount, and as such their human rights must take precedence over those of any potential abuser.

As such the only answer, in my mind, would be indefinite and permanent incarceration of convicted or potential child sex offenders, neutering (to destroy ALL sexual desires) or the death penalty. Sorry, but that's the stark and not particularly pleasant truth of the matter.

And with reference to this specific case I don't see why Chris Langham (any more than Garry Glitter, Pete Townsend or for that matter Michael Barrymore) should be singled out for sympathy and special treatment - his considerable talents in other areas do not mitigate the very real offences he commited, namely feeding the market for this kind of degrading filth.

Re: Bridge Collapse.

We all know that the 主播大秀 suffers from 鈥楤ush derangement syndrome' but with all the recent coverage on 主播大秀 bias, I thought you would at least try to cover this up. Instead your reporter in Minneapolis suggests that the bridge incident may have implications at the Federal level and negatively impact the Bush Administration. Here鈥檚 the sad thing; as sand-poundingly stupid as this remark was, I expected to hear it, and wasn鈥檛 surprised when it was uttered.

I was shocked that the conviction of a paedophile is more newsworthy than the Menezes report.

The Langham discussion was no discussion at all, but rather an excoriation of paedophilia and Langham in particular. No debate was to be had here about the media hysteria over paedophilia, given that Newsnight was perpetuating it. Indeed, there was to be no discussion of why paedophiles access such images given the police expertise in catching them. The assonance between "devious" (much used) and "deviance" (avoided) was interesting, and it is a shame Newsnight was not braver by discussing the societal construction of deviance, particularly pertaining to paedophilia. In fact, Newnsnight presented a pusillanimous, tabloid view of paedophilia, just with better accents.

Honestly the views on Clive Langham are quite shocking to me as a victim. That you cannot see, as has been discussed, on a number of radio shows today by psychotherapists, he did not plead guilty to being a paedophile! He pleaded guilty to downloading porn - porn which should be illegal and not available on the net at all, rather like snuff movie. I was surprised that the debate did not involve a psychotherapist and was as already somewhat stereotyped.

We need to understand this kind of behaviour. It is global and far more widespread that eg drug addiction, yet very little is done to actually deal with the problem. Prison cannot stop a crime like this, it can remove the perpetrators; but Clive Langham was not one of these, a victim himself suffering from some kind of breakdown that led him into this behaviour. He was found not guilty of any active abuse of a child. The witchunt is beginning to remind me of the persecution of German Jewish refugees during the 2nd World War in this country.

We put Jewish people who managed to get out of Germany, where they were being massacred, and, we, the allies, treated them as hostile aliens, locking them up in camps similar to the ones they had managed to escape from. They were not treated sympathetically, by us, the British, but subject to brutality and a harsh regime. Double jeopardy.

So now we put victims of child abuse in prison, when they act out their denial in a confused and obviously disturbed manner? No wonder these terrible rings continue to exist, and victims do not come forward for fear of being persecuted themselves.

Chris Langham looked at pictures. He did not abuse any child.

Dear Sir,

I think Langham needs help. He should be spiritually delivered. He likes children because he is unable to function well with adults. He should not be allowed to work with the children. Purnishment doesn麓t help much because he doesn麓t know that it麓s wrong to look at the images.

US Bridge - The types of such disasters can be avoided in many ways, people who prophecize should prepare us of the happenings. They should not be afraid to tell the World the truth!

AHMADINEJAD - I believe that every Leader of the Nations needs respect & discussion. Forcing him in that way
might create confrontation that will
lead him to acquire something that麓s
more dangerous than what he has now.
This is a new Day & Time for Peace talk, Freedoom, Trade & Friendship!
Forget about the past, & look forward
to a better life in the future!

Vincentina

Shella said, "The witchunt is beginning to remind me of the persecution of German Jewish refugees during the 2nd World War in this country."

Well said Shella!

sir,
i do not agree with you that ahmedinijat is under pressure within the country.i think Iranian government has planed to live under economic sanctions,if the united nations put sanctions over Iran but they seem determined to face all difficulties but would not leave their nuclear progarmme.
mushtaq khan mooliani
layyah pakistan

Chris Langham - What a pity that Newsnight couldn't present a more balanced and insightful investigation of the issues highlighted by the Langham case.

Whether or not Langham is himself a victim of abuse, we don't know. One imagines however that it is not unlikely. But surely a discussion that managed to rise above the tabloid equation of understanding=excusing was in order?

Rather than the hate fest it was, couldn't the programme have attempted to examine what function looking at such images might serve for victims of abuse, and the impact of abuse on a victim's sense of self?

Any MP (and he's a Labour one at that) who can dismiss others so off-handedly as 'these awful people' seems to be a bit short in the humanity department.

Sure, there are grades of degradation but given the hordes who access pornographic - and therefore exploitative - imagery on the internet, maybe the whole matter is a little greyer that we might like to admit?