You know I am not too sure what to say about this case.
He wasn’t a sex attacker, he didn’t have millions for pictures of children on his computer, and all he was doing was looking at a few web sites.
I don’t know what he looked at or saw.
If it was teenagers aged between 12 and 16, then I can see why he got a short sentence.
If they where younger, he should have got a longer one.
But if he was only looking at teenagers, I don’t see the problem.
For those of you who do, I ask you this question:
“Are we going to start locking up boys age between 9-18 for looking at teenage girls?”
For me a paedophile is clearly someone who’s danger to children, I don’t think Chris Langham is.
Its time people had a good thinking about what is a “paedophile” and how far are we going to take this public witch hunt.
But we now live in an age where wearing a “t” shirt saying “bullocks to Tony Blair” can get you an £80 fine and criminal record.