UK comic in kiddie porn case
p2p news / p2pnet: A famous British comedian has been charged with making indecent images of children, says the BBC.
Chris Langham from the BBC TV series The Thick of It, and whose writing credits include Help and The Muppet Show, is free on bail, says the story, adding:
"Mr Langham, who recently won a Bafta for best comedy performance, was arrested in November."
"I am anxious to clear my name and although there is a great deal I would like to say, I am unable to do so as a result of the legal proceedings," he’s quoted as saying.
The charges relate to an ongoing police inquiry linked to Operation Ore, the UK’s largest-ever police investigation into paedophile activity on the internet, adds the story.
Massive Attack vocalist Robert del Naja was singled out during the same investigation. The charges were later dropped.
Who guitarist Pete Townshend was also named in the sweep.
Also See:
BBC – Comic actor charged over net porn, May 11, 2006
singled out – ‘I’ve always been open about porn’, April 11, 2003
also named – UK’s biggest Net paedophile op, April 14, 2004
May 13th, 2006 at 10:05 am
The Sunday Times July 03, 2005
Child porn suspects set to be cleared in evidence ‘shambles’
David Leppard
DOZENS of men accused of downloading child pornography from the internet may have been wrongly prosecuted, according to expert prosecution and defence witnesses.
New evidence suggests that Operation Ore, Britain’s biggest child pornography investigation, may have prosecuted innocent men on the basis of discredited American police testimony and questionable forensic methods.
Jim Bates, a computer expert who has served as a witness for the prosecution or the defence in more than 100 child porn cases, says many Ore cases are now likely to collapse or be overturned in the Court of Appeal. “It has been a shambles from the word go,” he said.
———————–
What we’ve got here is nothing less than a 21st Century witch-hunt. Police, prosecutors and public alike are so desperate to ‘nail the perps’ that they overlook exculpatory evidence in their headlong rush to judgement. Even those who have been acquitted will never be the same again–there will be a cloud of suspicion looming over them for the rest of their lives.
In this society, to be accused is to be guilty–the evidence be damned.
Accused persons have even been told by the police, when presented with evidence proving their innocence that, “You got away with it this time; you got lucky. We’ll be keeping our eyes on you.” This was said by the Toronto Police Service to James Le Crow, a Canadian victim of Operation Ore. Fired from a job he loved, abandoned by his friends, shunned by all and sundry, is it any wonder that he took his own life?
He was not the only one–there are more than 30 suicides recorded as a result of this botched investigation so far. The full toll may not be known for years, if ever.
November 25th, 2006 at 3:48 am
My reading of the comments made by Dyfed-Powys Chief Constable Terry Grange is that “Operation Ore” has gone tits up.
He said the word “paedophile” should only apply to older men who have sex with prepubescents. He said it would not be possible to prosecute all boys who have sex with girls who are under 16 but over 12. I suspect he was not acting entirely of his own volition. Namely, there was a government initiated “cat’s paw” element to his unsolicited statement. Specifically:
1) If all the over 16-year-old male students in UK with a girl friend under 16 were charged with carnal knowledge of a minor, a significant percentage of the schoolboys in Britain would be on the Sex Offenders’ Register. When two under 16-year-olds are in a “Romeo and Jullitte” relationship (DNA evidence makes it easily provable), Authority essentially lets it go. It’s an age differential that gets them excited.
“She’s younger than this whisky I’m drinking.” Don’t use this one-liner in UK because I doubt if they can afford more than a 12-year-old blended.
2) Interesting letter on BBC’s HYS site from 15-year-old female student.
“My boy-friend and I are both 15, but he is four months older than me. We have a sexually active relationship. When he becomes 16 (and I’m still 15) he is liable to be arrested, charged with paedophilia and put on the Sex Offenders’ Register.” Felt the writing skills were rather beyond a 15-year-old, but nevertheless the content was revealing.
3) At present sexual relations with a 16-year-old is legal in UK. So humping her brains out is absolutely fine, but filming it isn’t. Then it becomes “engaged in production of child pornography”, until she becomes 18. I think authority’s got its collective knickers in a twist.
4) The age of consent varies in different countries. So however reprehensible to Western sensibilities, an adult man having sex with a 15-year-old is not illegal in a lot of other countries. You don’t have to go to Third World Asia for this to be true. Check out France. So to prosecute a British male for a “crime” which was not illegal in the country it was “committed” seems to me a gross injustice. In fact it smacks of cultural imperialism. Namely, Britain applying its Victorian standards to a region outside UK jurisdiction. “Butt out” I believe is the expression I’m reaching for.