Niki Shisler

Chris Langham, award winning writer and actor turned national pariah is a victim, right? His imprisonment for downloading some of the worst examples of child abuse (rape, torture, you know, the really nasty stuff) an overreaction that has destroyed the life and career of a good man. A man who has done nothing wrong, a man with a laudably clear conscience. Yes? Certainly that was the message coming loud and clear from Langham’s ‘rehabilitation’ interviews, firstly in The Observer and then, still more forcefully, from his one hour TV interview with former comedy colleague turned psychotherapist, Dr Pamela Connelly nee Stevenson. Now he is to address The Oxford union, speaking about his "vilification" in the media – further underlining his victim status.

 

Well, actually Chris, no. No, no, no. You’re not the victim; you’re not even a victim. You’re the aggressor, the protagonist, the one who does, not the one who is done to.

 

Reading and watching Langham’s self-pitying, self-indulgent and, to my mind, deeply cynical attempts to spin his crime into something that ‘happened to him’ has left me feeling angry, upset and frankly shocked by, not only the weasel words coming from the man himself, but the platform the media is giving him to air them, and the indecent haste with which it has happened. And, predictably following such a self-serving media assault, I can feel the tide of revulsion for Langham and his crimes subtly turning. Of course the readers of The Sun will never forgive him; he will always be the ‘TV pervert’ or ‘shamed star’ to them. But from the people who count: the broadsheet-reading, media movers and shakers who commission scripts and open doors, the line is softening.

 

Aside from the counts of downloading images of child abuse, for which he was convicted, Langham was also charged with abusing a 14 year old girl (who is now 25). In his interview with Dr Connelly, Langham refused to talk about this aspect of the case, claiming that it was “her story, not mine”. In other words, nothing to do with him, just the made-up words of a disturbed young fan. It’s worth recalling what he did admit to regarding this girl. He admitted to taking her to a 5 star hotel for a weekend when she was 14. He admitted that they shared a room and that he was helping her with her acting, including teaching her to kiss. He admitted having sex with the girl when she was 18 and he was 50. Whether or not you believe her claim that he sodomised her over that fateful ‘acting tuition’ weekend or not, the idea that ‘her story’ is nothing to do with him is clearly absurd. In court, the young woman’s credibility was essentially destroyed by Langham’s top-notch legal team. Inconsistencies in her version of events and dates, confusion and contradictions – she was clearly ‘unreliable’. But it’s also the case that victims of abuse spend many years trying desperately to forget details, pushing memories into the darkest recesses of their minds. It’s one of the things that makes it so hard to secure convictions and, guilty or not, Langham’s behaviour was, at the very least, wildly inappropriate. Is it really too much to ask him to acknowledge that?

 

But my anger is fuelled, not just by Langham’s crimes, but by his arrogant refusal to take any responsibility for them. Over and over he has asserted that he’s entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. He left prison with the words “my life is ruined but my conscience is clear” and his TV interview ended with him telling Dr Connelly that he had “nothing to be ashamed of” and had “done nothing wrong”. This, despite being repeatedly told how downloading images of child abuse contributes directly to the suffering of children.

 

For all my anger however, I am not a child abuse survivor. My friend Anna is: she was systematically abused throughout much of her childhood, her abuser was finally convicted and imprisoned. Her abuser had himself been abused as a child, something Langham also claims. I spoke to Anna first after the Observer piece was published and again after the TV interview aired. I wanted to know how one of the victims that Langham has described as his “only brothers and sisters” felt about this presumed kinship.

 

On publication of the Observer interview, I asked Anna what, from her perspective as an abuse survivor, she wanted to say about Langham? She told me: “Chris Langham has trotted out a myriad of excuses for his crime. He has claimed he stumbled across the downloaded files by accident looking for material by Bill Hicks; during his trial he said that he downloaded the images to research a paedophile character for BBC television programme ‘HELP!’ even though his co-star, Paul Whitehouse had no knowledge of this; he has claimed that looking into the faces of the abusers made him ‘feel like a better man’; he has also claimed to have a long-standing psychological problem that has left him ‘fascinated by people tying each other up and doing weird sexual things to each other’. [It’s worth noting that, since leaving prison, Langham has also claimed that he only watched a few seconds of 4 of the 15 videos found on his computer]. I feel angry that he has selfishly put his own needs above the law and the children featured in those images he downloaded.”

 

Anna also felt bewildered by Langham’s claim that he viewed the images to try and make sense of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child. He had said in court: “I thought if I could become angry enough I might be able to break this problem I have in accessing this stuff myself”. However, Anna told me: “As someone who suffered 10 years of abuse, who faced the terror of someone violating my body on a regular basis, the idea of viewing someone else’s abuse is abhorrent to me. Whatever he claimed in court, Langham is one ‘brother’ I do not wish to have.”

It seems to be fairly commonly believed that, once the images have been made, simply looking at them is essentially harmless. Anna explains: “It is important for society to understand that viewing images is as serious as filming them. Any act which involves children being sexually abused is unacceptable. The internet has a significant impact on child abuse survivors. Once photographs and videos of children being abused are on the internet, they are impossible to remove from circulation. Paedophiles have them on their personal computers and share them on private servers. Knowing that people are still downloading images of their abuse, perpetuates the trauma for the survivors featured in them. So those who view child abuse images really are as guilty as those who film children being abused.” As Detective Inspector Derek Cuff, of Kent police, said at the sentencing: ‘Viewing such images simply perpetuates child abuse.’

Anna continues: “Celebrities need to understand that their creative endeavours do not give them carte blanche to line the pockets of child pornographers and that they are not above the law. The research excuse should never be acceptable.” In fact the subject of child abuse and pornography can easily be investigated through legal and sensible channels such as the NSPCC, the CPS, social services. Organisations such as the Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre will also always help legitimate researchers.

 

Another point raised by Anna concerned Langham’s rejection of the label ‘paedophile’. “The misconception is that those who view child abuse images are not paedophiles. Langham made much of the fact the judge said that he was not deemed a sexual predator when he was sentenced, but why should people who want to view naked children being abused be exempt from paedophile accusations?”

I wanted to know how Anna had felt, first when reading the Observer piece. If it had made me angry, how much worse would it be for an abuse survivor? She told me: “Langham’s attempts to regain his feted celebrity status through the media have made me feel sick. The Observer interview made me extremely angry. It presented a cosy home with a supportive family and gave plenty of space to the Langhams' sense of being unjustly punished.”

“His ‘apology’ was an insult to survivors like me. When he said ‘It never occurred to me that what I was doing was in any way offensive to other victims of sexual abuse. But it has been made clear to me that I have been and I am sorry for that.’ I couldn’t understand how an educated and intelligent man could ignore the impact of downloading on the victim? He is quoted as saying he is a private man, so surely he could empathise that sharing someone’s abuse in the most graphic way is not acceptable for that victim? He goes on to say he wanted to open debate and ‘tell the story of those kids’, but how would a comedy show with the catchphrase ‘I am only a minor offender, I only offend minors’ do that sensitively?”

“He then reveals a sudden insight into abuse, saying that for every image we see, thousands are being abused in their homes. Yet how could he not understand that the children in those images are voiceless victims too? Whether they know their images are on the internet or not, they are as powerless to remove them, as they were when they were abused. His excuse that he was looking to have compassion is sickening. I don’t understand why he can't just read statistics and literature from the NSPCC and rely on his own experiences to feel compassion?”

“For me, the most astonishing thing was the Langhams’ reoccurring sense of injustice as they describe the time it took to come to court; Chris’ intimidation in prison and his suicidal thoughts; his internet restrictions; the difficulties of getting insurance; the effect on their children; their financial fragility and the reactions of the public. His wife believes this is a high price to pay for ‘someone having tried to look at four images’. But are their problems greater than the trauma those victims will have to live with for the rest of their lives, knowing that their abuse is being downloaded and watched forever?”

 

Given how upsetting Anna had found the Observer article, I was initially hesitant about asking her for a reaction to the TV interview with Dr Connelly, ‘Shrink Rap’. However, Anna was keen to speak out and angry that, in all the debate and publicity around the Langham case, the voice of abuse survivors was conspicuously missing.

 

I wondered how it had felt to her, watching the interview where Langham detailed his own boyhood abuse. Perhaps she might have found some sympathy for him? It was clearly a difficult issue, she told me: “It is a terrible thing when you are an abuse survivor to not be believed. It is the thing you are most frightened of. There is a lot of pressure put upon the viewer in Shrink Rap - to believe Langham and to pity him. You are immediately transported straight into his abuse experience. It is a powerful way of controlling the viewer and it is very hard to come back from that and ask the simple question ‘did Langham break the law in viewing child abuse images and was his sentence just?’ As a viewer, I really wanted to make sure that this was the stance I watched it from.”

“Langham used shame and comfort as his feelings to describe his abuse, as well as a desire to keep it secret. He did not mention fear, physical pain, his own upset and confusion; Dr Connelly had to draw that out of him while examining his substance abuse in later life. His difficulties in identifying all the feelings relating to his own abuse, might explain why he could not identify the emotions experienced by the abused children in the files he downloaded. This might also be why in his ‘apology’ he admitted it had to be explained to him that his behaviour was not acceptable to the abuse victims and why it is re-abusing them.”

“I couldn’t understand him saying he had courage to watch the images. [Langham says, during the interview: “if those children could endure what they endured, I thought that at least I could have the courage to watch them.”] I absolutely agreed with Dr Connelly’s view that it would have taken more courage not to watch. In fact, that part of the interview made me especially angry. It felt so arrogant of him, as though he was saying ‘Give me my status back, cos I am brave really.’”

 

During the interview, Langham also talks at length about his addiction and substance abuse issues. I am myself someone who has been in recovery from alcoholism for more than a decade. Watching the interview, I felt there was a clear difference in the way Langham talked about his child abuse experience and his experiences as an addict. I asked Anna what she had thought.

 

She said: “He seems to identify much more readily with addicts and alcoholics than those who have been sexually abused, this is something that I find strange. He obviously has the ability to empathise, so why can’t he mobilise it for abused children without having to view images of their abuse? He talks about a woman, a stranger, who attends his court hearing each day, and who tells him she has an alcoholic husband. Langham doesn’t need to see a video of the husband in order to understand what she is going through. For me, this is where his explanation really pales.”

“The end of the interview left me crying my eyes out. Langham says he ‘knows who he is now’, so none of it matters. Unbelievably, he even refers to parts of the court process as ‘liberating’, ‘therapeutic’ and ‘healing’. But what about us, Chris? What about your supposed ‘brothers and sisters’? Many of us are not liberated and healed and we are still struggling with every day that passes.”

 

Throughout my conversation with Anna, I had a powerful sense of an elephant in the room. How much did we actually believe Langham’s story of his own abuse? I felt evil for my own doubts, but I couldn’t deny them. Not just the huge difference between his relating of this story, and the way he talked about his addiction, but dozens of other small, nagging details. At the end of the interview, Dr Connelly asks him if he’s been lying to her. “No” he says, meeting her gaze firmly. And yet, there it was, the classic body language of a lie: his mouth said ‘no’, but his head nodded assent. If Anna had been anyone other than a friend, someone who knows and trusts me and my motives, I would probably not have asked if she believed Langham. Even raising it at all smacks of gross insensitivity, but it simply felt too important to leave out.

 

Anna responds: “Ok. My gut feeling? I felt like I was watching an actor displaying what he thinks someone would say. I didn't believe him and I feel terrible saying that, as I know personally what it is like to not be believed. But his descriptions of the abuse do not make sense and his level of empathy and emotion over his addiction issues just shows what emotional literacy he is capable of...when it is real.”

“I can only speak for myself, of course. But I was not believed for a while by my mum, though my dad and the police said they did believe me. I was 14 when I confessed and the trauma was so deep I could not recall times and dates. I could only do it through what songs were playing on the radio in the background or what was on TV. That and smells, whether it was sunny or rainy or what I was wearing. I have two ways of talking about my abuse face-to-face. If I am talking about it generally, as I am now, I am dissociated. That is common in survivors. I talk about it without any emotion at all and as if it happened to someone else. If we are talking about how I feel about it, specific parts of it, then I will try and talk and then press my hand against my forehead and cry. Talking is then difficult. I only seem to have that reaction in front of a therapist or a new partner when I tell them for the first time. When I am asked how it felt, how I felt...I talk about absolute fear, intense pain, wanting to hide, wanting someone to rescue me, to blank out when it was happening (hence the disassociation). Then there is intense fear that people will find out I am different and dirty. The shame comes from not preventing it from happening. Voicing the details is difficult because it makes them real and I have to admit it happened. Langham just seemed to be acting out these feelings.”

“Langham didn't talk about confronting the man or finding out much more about him, or seeking justice. Most survivors I know through the blogging community want justice, however small the sentence. The only thing he said that I identified with was when he talked about the need to gain power. In my case that meant recreating the abuse through my relationships; where I would try to gain the power and end up being controlled again. But then I wonder if he is relating that to something else, say being bullied at school, and not to sexual abuse.”

“I feel sad that I don't believe him, but that comes mainly from his complete inability to empathise with abused kids in the videos he downloaded.”

 

The truth of course, is that we cannot possibly know if Langham was abused as a child. Perhaps it doesn’t even matter – the past is the past and what is done is done. No amount of faith in Langham’s version of events changes the very real suffering of the children whose abuse he watched. What does however remain, and what is ongoing, is Langham’s arrogant refusal to accept responsibility. To date there has been no admission of wrongdoing; no acknowledgement of the suffering he has caused those children; no pity for anyone but himself, no apology and no remorse for anything other than, seemingly, getting caught. And now, just months after being convicted, he is back in the papers, back on the telly. Do you really think, as he does, his punishment has been grossly, unduly harsh?

April 2008