• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Chris Langham - you decide

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Chris Langham - you decide

    Guilty of downloading child pornography after pleading Not Guilty and then admitting it. So, what do you think?

    a) Slapped wrist. Silly fellow. Didn't do too much harm. Fine and a suspended sentence.
    b) Light custodial sentance but enough to ruin his career for good.
    c) Max sentence of 10 years.
    d) Throw away the key.

    Discuss (would have done a poll but I can't be bothered to figure it out).
    Guy Fawkes - "The last man to enter Parliament with honourable intentions."

    #2
    d.
    Confusion is a natural state of being

    Comment


      #3
      nonce
      nonce!!
      nonce!!!!!!!!!!

      I weren't doing owt, I were just curious.

      D. Castrate the ...

      EDITED: sp
      Last edited by scotspine; 2 August 2007, 22:38.

      Comment


        #4
        Not followed it too closely but not sure why anyone would download any of this stuff, never mind as much as he did.......
        "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero

        Comment


          #5
          Three years.

          Comment


            #6
            It would have to be A for me.

            If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.
            The pope is a tard.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by SallyAnne
              It would have to be A for me.

              If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.
              pretty much agree......

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by SallyAnne
                If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.
                The "research" defence is bulltulip thrown about by actors/wirters when they get caught. Want to do some "research" then speak to the police dont download pitcures of children being abused.

                In any case:

                a) how do pictures of children being abused help you write a ******* comedy.
                b) The character "pedro" was not a paedophile.

                Originally posted by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6913530.stm
                He said he came up with the idea of a character called Pedro, for the second series of Help, as "some kind of sex offender, like a peeping Tom or a flasher or possibly even something worse".

                and

                "I can remember a couple of incidents where it was implied he had rubbed up against someone on a train," Mr Whitehouse replied.

                and

                Mr Langham stated that as a writer he was driven to "dig a little deeper into the darker and more fundamental places".
                So how do you get from rubbing up against someone on a train (can be easily made to be funny) to abusing children (can never be made to be funny).

                D for me.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Given the fact that people get so hysterical about paedophiles such that people get arrested for taking photos of their children in the bath - coupled with the fact that the reporting of his case has been so sympathetic rather than the usual witchhunt - leads me to think that there is at least a certain amount of "reasonable doubt". So therefore A.
                  Listen to my last album on Spotify

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The fact that the judge has decided to keep Langham under lock & key until he sentences him, does, IMHO, point to the court believing that Langham is a danger, and bang-to-rights guilty.

                    Throwing away the key always sounds so Victorian and glib, but, unless there's a bulletproof cure available for Langham and those like him, that's what I'd have to vote for.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X