Legally he is a paedophile hes on the Sex Offenders list along with the bloke out of the Who
Langham, can we forgive him? Page 4
Legally, but not morally. That is what i believe. Of course, i could be wrong. He may have derived pleasure from his downloaded material, but we don't know.
Quote: Fred Peters @ August 3, 2007, 7:47 PMNonce. No defence.
Not necesserily true, it's not right of course, it's horrible but in a lot of cases it's psychological, mental problems just like people suffer, who commit murders or rape etc. Obviously this is not a defence for every crime committed, but it's wrong to deny that people have serious problems and gang mentality and mob rules helps nothing, baying for someones blood and shouting "hang them" makes you just as sick and twisted. (not YOU has in YOU personally)
I hope some of the people who want him castrated etc blah blah have actually read the details of the trial.
It's all gone a bit reactionary.
I spent three years reading details of trials i'm ready to rely on what I read in the Daily Mail now 
Quote: Martin Holmes @ August 3, 2007, 8:26 PMNot necesserily true, it's not right of course, it's horrible but in a lot of cases it's psychological, mental problems just like people suffer, who commit murders or rape etc. Obviously this is not a defence for every crime committed, but it's wrong to deny that people have serious problems and gang mentality and mob rules helps nothing, baying for someones blood and shouting "hang them" makes you just as sick and twisted. (not YOU has in YOU personally)
I don't recall suggesting removing his testicles. Anyway, he's still a nonce. It's just that the sexual assault charge broke down 'cos the girl told some fibs.
The bloke knew the score when he started downloading so I can't forgive him however that does not mean I will stop watching something because he is in it.I still watched Pete Townsend with The Who at glastonbury this year.
Whatever happens in his life from now on he will be only remembered for this.
Quote: Walker @ August 3, 2007, 8:19 PMLegally, but not morally.
Legally but not morally guilty? I'm not sure that's a consolation to either the kids in the videos or langham.
The hanging comment was only a joke. I wouldn't lead a real witch hunt, can't even find me shoes in the morning. Honest.
That he was researching abuse is a pathetic argument. If it was research then do it in the open with company present, on a PC in the production office. Downloading to his laptop, all alone, was incriminating and stupid beyond belief.
That he was exorcising demons from his past by perpetuating the cycle of abuse onto another generation of children is an argument that doesn't befit his or our intellect. It was going for the sympathy vote. Not only that, it actually contradicts his first point that it was research. Suddenly he's now giving other reasons why it was there on his laptop. Was it purely for research? Not according to the man's own defence argument.
That he was abused when young wasn't a great idea for a defence. It put him straight into the police profile of a typical abuser. Would being mugged as a kid excuse the actions of the adult mugger? We cannot pass the buck or shift the focus of guilt. We are guilty for our own actions as adults, legally and morally.
HIS PAST ABUSERS (if there were any, we have to take his word on this) DID NOT PRESS THE DOWNLOAD BUTTON FOR HIM.
When he's paid the price then he is legally forgiven. If he is penitent then I already don't hold that much against him. We can forgive him but what do the public count for these days? If the heads of commissioning don't then his career is over.
None of us were on the jury so we all get our information from the biased nest of vipers called the media. So making a plea to reading the full facts depends on which paper you choose to read and your opinion of other newspaper readerships. So you pay your money and make your choice. If you were predisposed to like the guy then you're more likely to find him 'less' guilty despite the verdict, and the converse is also true.
However, the people of the jury who saw all the evidence, free from the distorting mirror of newspaper and TV reportage, did find him guilty of a lesser charge. But there has to be a degree of certainty in the jurors' minds which is (nearly) always in favour of the defendant.
Someone at work today was going on about him being a 'nonce', all he'd seen was the front cover of The Sun.
That's what I mean by reactionary. I already said only the jury or the guy himself know enough about the case to really have any relevant opinion.
Quote: zooo @ August 3, 2007, 10:02 PMThat's what I mean by reactionary.
Sorry Zooo I was too busy heating the tar and mixing in the feathers to see that earlier bit you mentioned.
All this talk...
What's wrong with randomly tarring, feathering, castrating and hanging folk anyway? It never did me any harm...
Feathering actually sounds quite nice.
I'm curious, did the people who seem to be defending Langham react the same way when Gary Glitter got caught with the images on his computer?
Quote: zooo @ August 4, 2007, 12:58 AMFeathering actually sounds quite nice.
We sometimes do the feathering first, if we like you...
Tar very much
**The sound of the whole world groaning at the Slagg's pun**
