Chris Langham Scapegoat? Part 1 these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of thought Chris Langham, a well-known UK comedy actor, was recently imprisoned for downloading fifteen illicit child porn images on to his computer, and in this piece I hope to demonstrate that the punishments being meted out for offences such as this are far too severe, that these severe punishments are largely imposed because of the abuse hysteria and male hatred that are continually being generated by the feminists, the media and the abuse industry, that these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of thought, that the real culprits whose activities very actively promote the sexual abuse of children are getting away Scott free, and that the underlying aim behind both the hysteria and the harshness is, quite simply, part and parcel of the unremitting drive to demonise men and to profit from doing so. At the outset, however, it is probably wise to state that the argument is not that viewing illicit child material should be made legal, but that the current response to it is unwarranted and way overblown, and, further, that the hysteria about this issue is largely being generated by those very people whose activities promote child abuse in the first place, and that, basically, they are fomenting hysteria to cover up what they, themselves, are doing. Chris Langham's crime was trivial And the first thing that one has to strip away when trying to understand the arguments that follow is that there is no dispute over the fact that the downloading of such images is illegal - and that it should be so. But when we have done this, we are left with the fact that Chris Langham's crime was trivial - certainly in comparison to many other crimes for which the punishment is slight. For example, ... She Had Suffered Enough A woman who battered a nine-week-old baby in an horrific attack HAS AVOIDED JAIL after a judge decided she had already suffered enough. Claire Thompson, 32, who had been entrusted with looking after the infant, was found guilty in March of fracturing its skull, breaking a rib and inflicting up to three leg fractures But no jail time. .... Chris Langham has not abused any child Chris Langham has not abused any child, nor has he promoted the abuse of children. What he has done is simply to look at images of abuse. He looked at pictures. But, in practice , he is being taken so horribly to task by the media, the public and, indeed, the law not because he looked at pictures - a trivial offence - but because of what this implies about what might have been going on inside his head and because various powerful groups want to hide the fact that they, themselves, are major promoters and purveyors of child sexual abuse; and, typically, they do this by protesting very heavily that they are outraged by such abuse and by passing the buck on to whomsoever else they can - with much success. imagine that Muslims were being prosecuted and vilified simply for looking at pictures of terrorist attacks To get a better feel of what is going on here, imagine that Muslims were being prosecuted and vilified simply for looking at pictures of terrorist attacks; the argument being that simply by looking at such pictures, Muslims were both encouraging acts of terrorism and being turned on by them. Or imagine the same arguments being applied to people who watch programs that depict murder and violence - both fictional and non-fictional - viz; that the very act of looking at such material promoted murder and violence as well as indicated that the viewers themselves wished to perpetrate such things. The whole notion, though having some considerable merit, would be completely unacceptable to the majority of people. I suggest that the notion does have 'some considerable merit' because I actually do believe that if, for example, certain Muslims were persistently attempting to view images of terrorism then this would likely indicate that there was some fascination with the subject and also some likely desire on the part of such Muslims to be engaged in terrorism. I am not saying that this would necessarily be the case, but that there would be a strong likelihood that this would be the case. Furthermore, images of terrorism could easily inspire religious zeal for further terrorism. And one could apply similar arguments in the case of people who persistently immerse themselves in matters to do with violence. But we would not be publicly vilifying or prosecuting such people - for many reasons, which are too complex to go into in this article. And yet Chris Langham is being heavily demonised for having looked at pictures. Why? Fifteen images hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content Fifteen images hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content - and even if it did, it still remains the case that the only 'crime' here is 'downloading pictures'. Indeed, one of the most aggravating aspects of this case is the almost unbelievably naive discourse that has been generated over the matter concerning the question of whether or not Chris Langham is a 'paedophile' - something which he denies. And those who believe that he must be so (which is the vast majority of people, it would seem) are mostly arguing that, therefore, he deserves a prison sentence. But Chris Langham was not convicted of 'being a paedophile'. He was convicted for downloading pictures. And we would not, for example, convict a Muslim of 'being a terrorist' simply for downloading pictures. We would be outraged at the very idea of such a thing. what should one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time every week delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse? Furthermore, of course, if it is indeed the case that looking at some fifteen pictures is, in fact, highly indicative of some significant moral defection when it comes to children then what, perhaps, should one make of, say, those police officers who choose to spend many hours every week looking at such material - and who choose to view thousands of pictures? And what should one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time every week delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse? Surely, if the desire to look at fifteen images is definitively indicative of say, 'an unhealthy sexual interest in children', then those who choose occupations that involve far greater engagement with such material should be viewed with even greater concern. Indeed, I am almost certain that, one day, we will actually find this to be the case. Putting this more bluntly; when, for example, brain-scanning technology allows us eventually to state with relative certainty who, exactly, is turned on by child sexual abuse, it will come as no surprise to me if we discover that a very large percentage of those who choose to work in this particular area are, in fact, at the top of the tree when it comes to 'an unhealthy sexual interest in children'. And, of course, given the current hysteria and the way that it seems to be heading, I think that men would be very wise to demand that such brain-scanning techniques were employed on such people before they were permitted to embark on any careers involving child sexual abuse. Apart from protecting children, this would also help to ensure that the various pronouncements of those who are involved in such matters were genuinely out of concern for the children rather than, say, the devious machinations of closet paedophiles attempting to gain further access to situations which excite them sexually; something which has happened time and time again over the past two decades; e.g. therapists (of various kinds) claiming that they are interrogating children about sexual matters because of their concern for their welfare when, in fact, they are simply exciting themselves. And if the notions above suggesting that people should be investigated by brain-scanning technology if they wish to work with children and, further, that they should be penalised if anything untoward is believed to be going on inside their heads at any given time offends you in any way then, perhaps, you are beginning to understand what is being done to Chris Langham - and, indeed, to all men - in one way or another. (The only difference here is that Chris Langham did not have a brain scan. Instead of such a scan, the fifteen images were used - by the public - as the 'evidence' for what was going on inside his head.) After all, if, according to much of the public, Chris Langham, who does not work with children, deserves severe punishment for an alleged thought crime concerning child sex, then it surely follows that the minds of those who actually work in the area of child sexual abuse need to be investigated very closely indeed - and that if anything untoward going on inside their heads is discovered by a brain scan, then, presumably, they should be vilified much more severely than Chris Langham. Chris Langham is being demonised for an alleged thought crime. In short, Chris Langham is being demonised for an alleged thought crime. And I emphasise the word alleged , because I see no evidence, thus far, to prove that anything particularly untoward was actually going on inside his head when he viewed the images. Most people, however, do not accept this. They would say, "Yeah right. No sexy thoughts were going on inside his head, eh? Pull the other one." But hold on a moment. In his testimony, Chris Langham pointed out that he, himself, had been sexually assaulted at a young age, and that his desire to view such material was related to his inner need to understand the situation from an adult point of view. millions of people by books on 'abuse' - women mostly Is this really so far fetched? Well, why should it be? - given that millions of people buy books on 'abuse' - women mostly - allegedly in order to come to terms with events that they, themselves, have experienced. Or so we are told. Indeed, there are nowadays whole sections to be found in libraries and book shops that are solely devoted to tales of child sexual abuse; so popular has such material become. So why is it so far-fetched to believe that Chris Langham was simply using images to do whatever it is that, for example, women claim to be doing when they immerse themselves in tales of sexual abuse? Or is it, in fact, the case that people who read such books do actually turn themselves on sexually when they wade through book after book describing child sexual abuse? And, if so, then why are they not also being vilified - and prosecuted - for what is going on inside their heads to do with child sexuality? The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have it both ways. The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have it both ways. Either people who flock to buy books on abuse are turning themselves on - in which case why are they not vilified and, possibly, prosecuted? - or they are using such books to resolve their personal issues (not for sexual reasons) which is exactly what Chris Langham says he was doing. So why is Chris Langham being given such a hard time for doing what millions of people do? - with public approval. And the answer to this question is that, quite simply, Chris Langham is a man. Had he been a woman, you would not have heard much in the way of outrage from the media or from the public. On the contrary, I imagine that, if anything, we would have been very forcefully led to believe that the woman was a victim of some sort, that her viewing of illicit material was a cry for help stemming from some unwholesome past, and that the utmost sympathy should be accorded to her. because Chris Langham is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he must have had some evil intent However, because Chris Langham is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he must have had some evil intent and that, therefore, he deserves to be treated very harshly indeed. And so he is being vilified for what might have been inside his head as he viewed the pictures. When it comes to children, western men have been thoroughly demonised, and almost any contact (physical or mental) that they have with children - even their own - must nowadays always be viewed with suspicion, whereas, of course, when women have contact with children, their actions are always to be seen as benevolent. ... A primary schoolteacher has been banned from working for allowing children to hug him. ... Here is an example of the campaign ads put out by a child abuse 'charity' in America. You will notice that the idea behind the first advert is to buttress the view that women nurture children and protect them, while the idea behind the second advert is to cast suspicion even on a man who is simply holding a child's hand. it does not seem 'right' for a man to hold the hand of a child. The second advert is basically saying that it does not seem 'right' for a man to hold the hand of a child. And, before long, the public will actually believe that it is not right for a man to hold the hand of a child. Now, you might believe that the previous paragraph grossly overstates the case, but I can assure you that it does not. Over the past three decades, we have witnessed the definitions of abuse expanded to a ridiculous degree, and these expansions of definition are very often preceded by publicity campaigns designed to demonise even the most innocuous actions of men - actions that are often merely actions of kindness; e.g. a male teacher putting an arm around a crying child. Indeed, one might recall the recent incident of the priest who was dismissed from his post simply because he kissed a young girl on her forehead - in full view of the class and the teacher. It is simply presumed that he must have had some wicked intent, or that he might have had some, and that, therefore, he needs to be punished. Like Chris Langham, the priest did nothing to harm any child - on the contrary, he was being warm, positive and friendly towards a child in a public setting - but he was punished for what abuse hysterics thought might have been going on inside his head. Nobody actually knows what was going on inside the priest's head, but he was punished nevertheless. fathers who bathe their own children should be suspect And there are now even radio advertisements being aired which suggest that fathers who bathe their own children should be suspect; e.g. If Dad Gives His Little Daughter a Bath and Puts Her to Bed, Call the Cops! Glenn Sacks And three very important issues arise from all this, all of which reveal the truly appalling extent to which men are being mistreated as a result of the abuse hysteria that certain organisations profit from generating. Firstly, men are now being very harshly treated not only for completely innocent actions, but also for the thoughts that they might have had. Secondly, they are being punished without any proof of what their thoughts actually were. Thirdly, all men are being horribly demonised as a consequence. Indeed, one only has to look again at the disgusting advert above to appreciate what is going on - on a huge scale. it is women, rather than men, whose thoughts are more readily prone to engage in fantasies of child sex abuse And yet it seems to me that it is women, rather than men, whose thoughts are more readily prone to engage in fantasies of child sex abuse. ... Misery Literature For Women The bestseller lists are full of memoirs about miserable childhoods and anguished families. Waterstone's even has a "Painful Lives" shelf. Why are authors confessing their hurt so freely and do readers find morbid enjoyment in them? "I just don't buy the idea that people buy these books for information or advice, for an 'Open Sesame' to becoming free of their own harrowing memories", says Times columnist Carol Sarler.



"Rather they show that, as a nation, we seem utterly in thrall to paedophilia. We are obsessed with it. And now, with these books, we are wallowing in the muck of it. It's all rather disgusting." I agree. It is mostly nothing more than verbal pornography The idea that people will spend hours ploughing through material that truly disgusts them or upsets them is nonsense. They love this stuff. It is mostly nothing more than verbal pornography; particularly for women who get turned on by the idea of being 'abused'. It is one thing to read a newspaper article that might describe what sexual horrors people have undergone, but quite another to devote hours of one's time wading through a book that gives all the details; and then to buy another book, and another book, in order to go through it all again and again. And, of course, if this child-related pornography was visual, rather than verbal, those who manufactured it, or viewed it, would definitely be prosecuted very severely. As such, it seems likely that one of the main reasons that more men than women are prosecuted for their interest in child sex is to do with the fact that men are more likely than women to employ the visual mode when it comes to satisfying this interest. Indeed, had this been the other way round, I am almost certain that visual depictions would have been seen as completely acceptable by the public while verbal ones were made illegal - because this is the way that the cookie has been set to crumble for the past many decades; woman - good, man - bad. But the evidence seems to suggest that it is women, rather than men, who immerse themselves more in fantasies about child sex. After all, the amount of visual child pornography that is consumed by men is surely but a tiny fraction of the verbal quantity consumed by women - even if only for the reason that the former is illegal whereas the latter is not. Furthermore, as is typically the case, the detail that is found in books coupled with the imagination of the reader will likely produce far richer mental representations of the subject matter than will be produced by images. All in all, therefore, the notion that men engage more in unwholesome thoughts to do with child sex than do women seems risible. women have many more opportunities to satisfy any natural curiosities or sexual predilections that they might have concerning children's bodies Furthermore, of course, women have many more opportunities to satisfy any natural curiosities or sexual predilections that they might have concerning children's bodies and attitudes because of their far greater involvement in child-rearing. Activities such as bathing, dressing, playing, hugging, kissing, fondling, etc., allow women to make contact with children in a very intimate manner. Not only does this allow women to satisfy (and, perhaps, expunge) any natural curiosities that they might have in a way that is mostly denied to men, but it also allows them to engage in sexual activities - major or minor - without much chance of being discovered. many of these therapists were sexually excited by what they were putting these children through Indeed, further evidence of the high levels of women's interest in child sex abuse stems from those many thousands of cases wherein female 'therapists' spent months trying to force young children into admitting that they had been sexually abused when all the evidence - which included the persistent denials of the children themselves - suggested that nothing of the sort had taken place. In my view, many of these therapists were sexually excited by what they were putting these children through. Quite simply, talking about child-sex with the children turned them on. And, of course, given that when it comes to satisfying themselves sexually, women are particularly attuned to the verbal mode for stimulation, the notion that these therapists were not excited by their investigations seems highly unlikely. And, clearly, the sexual imaginations - i.e. the fantasies - of those women who tried to promote the myth that children across the country were being subjected to ritual satanic sexual abuse tells us far more about what goes on inside the heads of these women than it does about anything in reality. After all, there was no ritual satanic sexual abuse. It was all inside their heads . Where did these notions come from? How long were they circulating inside their deluded minds? How many thousands of hours did they think - i.e. fantasise - about children being ritually and sexually abused throughout the UK? Why did they spend so much time dwelling upon such fantasies? Well, in my opinion, when people fantasise for thousands of hours about sexual situations involving certain types of individual in certain types of situation, there is only one conclusion that can realistically be reached - and this is that they are being sexually aroused. (Also see, Slap That Face - Beatrix Campbell) And this is surely the conclusion that must be reached by anyone who believes that the viewing of fifteen pictures is indicative of somebody requiring a prison sentence - and a public battering. But here we are, with Chris Langham being publicly vilified and imprisoned for looking at some pictures, whereas thousands of women 'therapists', who fantasised about child sex for years on end, who badgered children as young as three with sexual thoughts and imagery, and who harmed tremendously thousands of children and families, are barely criticised, let alone imprisoned. How do they get away with this? Well, one technique of theirs is to continue to make a huge fuss over child sexual abuse and to claim that they are thoroughly appalled by it. The truth, however, is likely to be very different. My guess is that they love it. Finally, I was shopping at ASDA (Wal-Mart) last week. They have a very small selection of books on sale. And I presume that they only sell those books that are in particularly high demand by the public. About 20% of the titles of the entire range were to do with 'abuse', and another 20% were to do with serial killers, murderers, torturers and, in general, 'evil' people. You know the type. Totally legal. But Chris Langham is in prison for looking at a few pictures. In the next part I hope to show that if the public and the abuse professionals were genuinely concerned about child sexual abuse, then they would be demanding that severe punishments are handed out to those people who promote it the most. And the fact that they do not do this reveals much about what is really going on in this area.