The actor Chris Langham has been convicted of downloading child pornography, and has been remanded in custody until the middle of September, at which point he will be sentenced on 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child. We do not know what these indecent photographs look like, but the fact that Langham has been remanded in custody perhaps suggests that they were “level 5” images, which involve children being, for example, anally or genitally penetrated by an adult.There are other questions, too, in the wake of Langham’s conviction for downloading child pornography – and, it should also be acknowledged, his acquittal on six charges of indecent assault and two charges of buggery with an under-age girl. Chief among these outstanding issues is to consider when is a paedophile not a paedophile?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_wilson/2007/08/when_is_paedophilia_not_paedop.html
When is paedophilia not paedophilia?
The actor Chris Langham has been convicted of downloading child pornography, and has been remanded in custody until the middle of September, at which point he will be sentenced on 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child. We do not know what these indecent photographs look like, but the fact that Langham has been remanded in custody perhaps suggests that they were “level 5” images, which involve children being, for example, anally or genitally penetrated by an adult.