I think we should criticise the photographer more than Langham. Especially as many of the photographs were out of focus.
Langham, can we forgive him? Page 10
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 18 2008, 6:51 PM BSTI still don't think you should go to prison for downloading pictures of anything.
I also agree.
Quote: garyd @ April 18 2008, 7:23 PM BSTQuote from Union president Ben Tansey
"We were recommended Chris Langham and we thought he was a very respected figure in his profession being a Bafta winner.
Really?!
"I know some people might have a few reservations but he has served his time in jail.
Oh, so a paedophile who serves his time can be allowed to live unchecked, can he?
Yes.
Quote: zooo @ April 18 2008, 7:25 PM BSTHe's not a paedophile.
Anyway, they've had a BNP leader give a talk there already. Which is worse?
Neither!
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 18 2008, 8:02 PM BSTI think we should criticise the photographer more than Langham. Especially as many of the photographs were out of focus.
LOL.
Quote: Aaron @ April 18 2008, 9:09 PM BSTI also agree.
Quote: Aaron @ April 18 2008, 9:09 PM BSTYes.
What, he's respected? Still?
"Oh, so a paedophile who serves his time can be allowed to live unchecked, can he?"
should have read
"Oh, so a paedophile who serves his time SHOULD be allowed to live unchecked, should he?"
Still a 'Yes'?
Quote: Aaron @ April 18 2008, 9:09 PM BSTNeither!
Oh dear, looks like I'm a minority. I just don't get it, I really don't. This f**king world is definitely absobleedinlutely mad!
Quote: garyd @ April 19 2008, 12:35 AM BST"Oh, so a paedophile who serves his time SHOULD be allowed to live unchecked, should he?"
Still a 'Yes'?
Depends on the individual case I suppose, but yes.
Have you read more into the details of Langham's case? Or have you just heard the word paedophile and reacted.
Which is almost understandable. Of all the things to be accused of that's pretty much the worst. And real paedophiles need some severe amounts of jailtime or therapy, but mainly monitoring and keeping well away from the chitlings for the rest of their lives.
The world hasn't gone mad! I just don't think Langham is one.
it's not just downloading - it is paying to download - which is fueling the economics behind this deeply unpleasant trade. It's participating in and funding the crime.
I seem to remember it was debateable whether he did actually pay or not...
He admitted to that. Twice on credit cards.
Well, I can't be arsed reading back through the whole thing. You could be right, or I could.
It will be interesting to see how the Union talk goes, anyway.
I've always suspected he'll get accepted back into the comedy industry quicker than we think, and this might be an indication of how that will go.
Quote: zooo @ April 19 2008, 11:23 AM BSTYou could be right, or I could.
I'm always right.
Me too!
What a coincidence! 
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was stated, by him and by the court, that he did NOT pay.
Quote: Griff @ April 19 2008, 12:52 PM BSTFrom what I remember of the case, the whole reason he got let out early on appeal was that although the prosecution said in court that he had paid, the truth was that he hadn't.
Damn you Langham. Why couldn't this have been someone I really hated, like Vernon Kay ?
I seem to remember that too; plus he was made to see a couple of shrinks who all stated that he wasnt a paedo. Just an idiot.
Also, didnt it show that although he had several files, most hadnt even been opened? Or something? Or? Anyway, hes been to prison for what hes done; so thats that i would have thought.
Quote: Marc P @ April 19 2008, 11:11 AM BSTit's not just downloading - it is paying to download - which is fueling the economics behind this deeply unpleasant trade. It's participating in and funding the crime.
You need to read the whole thread. It's been established that Langham did not even harm children indirectly because the commercial sites that offer paedophillic material leech it off of newsgroups where it is posted by the paedophiles themselves. They post to trade. The people who set up these sites are not paedophiles either, just capitalists with fewer than usual scruples. No part of their activities or those or their credit card registered members increases the total sum of paedophilic material available. They do not make it. It might be argued that they help to make it more easily available. But even this is moot.
Sorry my mistake.