Daggers Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 Pædophilia is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children. Actor Chris Langham has been found guilty of downloading child porn.Langham, of Golford, Kent, said he was only studying the porn as research for a television drama - but he was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court. However, the 58-year-old actor has been acquitted of charges of indecently assaulting an underage girl and two counts of a serious sexual offence. Judge Philip Statman remanded the Bafta winning comedy performer in custody for sentencing on 14 September. The jury of seven men and four women deliberated for about two hours and 40 minutes before they returned their verdicts. 'No knowledge' Langham claimed in court that he had looked at the images while formulating a character for the BBC series Help. He said he pleaded not guilty because he did not want to be called a paedophile. Full BBC article herePersonally - I think he's a cnut.
Head Honcho Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 Pædophilia is the condition of being sexually attracted to prepubescent and in some definitions, preadolescent children.Full BBC article here Personally - I think he's a cnut. As do I the fvcking leech
Pete_foxes Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 mm.. Innocent until proven guilty. I know the've found all the stuff on his computer and all that. But just think if he was innocent, he'l still have a shit life from now on.
Webbo Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 I've been following this in the paper and I think the jury got it right, guilty of the child pornography, innocent(or at least not proven) of the child molesting. The fact that the judge denied him bail suggests that he'll be going down and we all know how nonces suffer in jail. Serves the bastard right.
Blue Bob Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 mm.. Innocent until proven guilty. I know the've found all the stuff on his computer and all that. But just think if he was innocent, he'l still have a shit life from now on. Thought he had been found guilty today. Just waiting for sentence.
Raj Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 Should never jump to conclusions or believe what you read/hear...BUT he does look like a perv!!!
Head Honcho Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 I've been following this in the paper and I think the jury got it right, guilty of the child pornography, innocent(or at least not proven) of the child molesting.The fact that the judge denied him bail suggests that he'll be going down and we all know how nonces suffer in jail. Serves the bastard right. ............and so eloquently put I love a bit of "Serves the bastard right"
Webbo Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 ............and so eloquently put I love a bit of "Serves the bastard right" And they can take his DNA sample as well if they want.
Flynny Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 I think the jury has reached the correct decision here with what he's been charged with, which is illegal whatever his motives are. Innocent until proven guilty though, definitely. I find his story plausible, if not probable.
Finnegan Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 I've been following this in the paper and I think the jury got it right, guilty of the child pornography, innocent(or at least not proven) of the child molesting.The fact that the judge denied him bail suggests that he'll be going down and we all know how nonces suffer in jail. Serves the bastard right. And they say the Daily Mail Reader thing's a myth.
Blue Bob Posted 2 August 2007 Posted 2 August 2007 I think the jury has reached the correct decision here with what he's been charged with, which is illegal whatever his motives are.Innocent until proven guilty though, definitely. I find his story plausible, if not probable. He admitted to looking at child porn and even had his credit card number taken of child porn sites. The jury has found him Guilty - so what more evidence would you want to say he is a pedo?? His story is just trying to get out of the charge like Pete Townsend tried - research. There are some subjects that you dont research as it will get you into trouble such as child porn and how to make a car bomb ect ect. He is an educated man and should know better. He got caught simple. Would you want him to come and baby sit for your kids?? Thought not.
skinnydipper Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 Someone in my cricket team is called chris langham I think you should whip his bails off
stez Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 he claimed it was for research, which paul whitehouse refuted, saying the character was a deviant, but not a paedophile. and i wouldn't have thought (though i don't know) that there'd be any need to actually download the stuff (but not being in those circles i wouldn't know) he admitted to having the stuff (hopefully to get some leniency from the judge, which he didn't get) but was found not guilty of indecent assault (how ever many counts it was). on the scale of things he's no robert black, but he still deserves to be punished; stupidity is no defence.
Daggers Posted 3 August 2007 Author Posted 3 August 2007 If anyone carried out genuine research involving images of child abuse then they would: Inform their employer, or Inform their solicitor, or Inform their relations, or Inform a friend They would not do it secretively, joining sites using a credit card and downloading the images onto their computer. I sincerely hope Langham gets everything coming to him in prison, I really do...and if he doesn't get sent down then I hope his life is made an absolute misery.
James. Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 He admitted to looking at child porn and even had his credit card number taken of child porn sites. The jury has found him Guilty - so what more evidence would you want to say he is a pedo?? His story is just trying to get out of the charge like Pete Townsend tried - research. There are some subjects that you dont research as it will get you into trouble such as child porn and how to make a car bomb ect ect. He is an educated man and should know better. He got caught simple. Would you want him to come and baby sit for your kids?? Thought not. This wasn't just child porn. This was child abuse pictures. They were described as horrific. Anyone with ANY common sense would do something before downloading pictures like these to pre-empt any possible trouble further down the line. Maybe informing the police or something like that. At least getting some sort of advice. I haven't seen any suggestion that he did this. He got caught out. He's a cnut.
Daggers Posted 3 August 2007 Author Posted 3 August 2007 If anyone carried out genuine research involving images of child abuse then they would: Inform their employer, or Inform their solicitor, or Inform their relations, or Inform a friend They would not do it secretively, joining sites using a credit card and downloading the images onto their computer. I sincerely hope Langham gets everything coming to him in prison, I really do...and if he doesn't get sent down then I hope his life is made an absolute misery. This wasn't just child porn. This was child abuse pictures. They were described as horrific.Anyone with ANY common sense would do something before downloading pictures like these to pre-empt any possible trouble further down the line. Maybe informing the police or something like that. At least getting some sort of advice. I haven't seen any suggestion that he did this. He got caught out. He's a cnut. Beat you...
Geo V Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 As much as he may be claiming to have that stuff as research on his PC, I think I am right that he admitted snogging a 14yo girl in his dressing room. He got away with doing anything more with her but IMO if you are a middle-aged dude prepared to go as far as kiss some under-age girl, I think you are capable of poking her too and I dont mean with your elbow to her ribcage .
Flynny Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 This wasn't just child porn. This was child abuse pictures. What's the difference?
James. Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 What's the difference? Probably would have been more accurate if I had said child abuse pictures were right at the extreme end of depravity when it comes to child porn. Let's not nit-pick, you know what I mean.
Finnegan Posted 3 August 2007 Posted 3 August 2007 Probably would have been more accurate if I had said child abuse pictures were right at the extreme end of depravity when it comes to child porn.Let's not nit-pick, you know what I mean. Bit of an expert, are you?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.