Langhams excuses get more & more ridiculous.
I have said my piece on him in a previous thread so no point repeating.
I will not watch anything he is or has ever been in. It would be like supporting his disgusting & vile conduct.
Chris Langham Page 3
I dunno what to say really as I'm not sure what is going on (that's most of the time for me anyway). But if he is innocent, it was still a really dumbass thing to do to log onto those sites. Did he really think it would be okay and that people would actually believe him? He could have researched into reports and articles if he wanted to know more about the subject. But I can't really say whether I think he did it or not because I don't know all the facts.
He was accused & sentenced for watching child porn. Child rape & abuse by adults. He has admitted watching it but has said it was for research, or to help him get over his own apparent abuse blah blah.
So he is defo not innocent. The discussion I believe is about wether he watched it to get off or for less disgusting reasons.
I can not think of a single reason that would justify anybody sitting through something as depraved as that. Be it for 5 seconds or hours!
I just hope his inner child is unharmed
I heard they had to stop showing the images to the jury, during the court case, because they were so disturbing. Oh, and by the way, didn't he, like Pete Townsend before him, have to give his credit card details, in order to see these images?
Quote: ajp29 @ January 16, 2008, 3:22 AMI just hope his inner child is unharmed
Quote: catskillz @ January 16, 2008, 3:23 AMI heard they had to stop showing the images to the jury, during the court case, because they were so disturbing. Oh, and by the way, didn't he, like Pete Townsend before him, have to give his credit card details, in order to see these images?
Yes he did. Thus also by paying for it he is handing over cash for more vile videos to be made.
I don't believe that any sex attacker should ever be returned to the community, even if they intend to change. I can't remember where this is but in some country, they send all sex offenders to jail as we do and after they finish their sentance in a regular prison, instead of being released, they get sent to these centres with other abusers for the rest of their lives, if it's not a life sentance. They get a little flat and there are regular therapy sessions, community garden, they can have regular vistors and make phone calls (all monitored), and make crafts items for charity, etc. The main thing they can't do is leave - they are in this mini community for the rest of their lives to protect themselves and to protect those they may hurt. I think this is the best solution really. I believe that it's not fair to release anyone like that into the community. Even if they are "reformed", it's not fair to put people at risk and temptation in the way. In my Mother's hometown, they released a sex offender and housed him next door to a 12 year old girl. In the house a few doors down was a rape victim who had to be moved from her last home because she was terrified her attackers would break in and hurt her again. I can't begin to imagine how awful it must have been for her to find out this man was nearby. Things like this happen sadly. Why take the risk?
I think for People Like Us its clear this guy needs some Help. He's hit the Bottom and is in The Thick Of It. Is It Legal? I've heard some Comedians Do It On Stage. I hear The Preventers saying "Look What State We're In!" when guys like this can go aroung saying Kiss Me Kate and Gimme, Gimme, Gimme. Murder Most Horrid is the only way to make Happy Families Not The Nine O'Clock News. So if theres Room To Rent in your heart maybe you should forgive The Big Tease. That or just slash his BooBah off.
Thanks to IMDB for all the references 
Very Cleve AJP.I didn't even know he had been in most of all that.
Agreed with all Ruby!
Quote: Eat_My_Shirts @ January 16, 2008, 12:25 AMAt the end of the day, there's a difference between looking up paedophilic images on the net, and actually committing a paedophilic act.
Without making any apologies for directing this towards EMS but as you appear to be quite understanding towards Chris Langham, what I would like to know is whether or not you would feel as pragmatic towards a member of your family or circle of friends who looked but didn't touch. Would you allow that person to watch over your children?
There is no fine line between the two acts because it is very much a black and white issue. Chris Langham should not be allowed a platform to explain in much the same way as Gary Glitter wasn’t, or is there a wave of sympathy towards him also? Or maybe there isn’t because people don’t respect his work as a glam rock entertainer and is, by definition, guilty as charged.
What Chris Langham did was to tear apart one of the few acts of humanity which is to protect those who are unable to defend themselves and that is unforgivable.
I don't quite understand why people are still getting angry about Chris Langham. It's not like any channels are going to commission any new shows with him in. His career is effectively over, and his reputation is in tatters, so why bother wasting ire on him? Unless you particulary enjoy gloating over somebody's downfall.
Quote: catskillz @ January 16, 2008, 1:09 AMOh, and that story he came out with about looking at the site because he was doing a story about child abuse on 'Happiness', has been proven to be a load of bollocks.
And the proof is...?
Quote: catskillz @ January 16, 2008, 3:23 AMOh, and by the way, didn't he, like Pete Townsend before him, have to give his credit card details, in order to see these images?
No.
Having watched the interview I think that if as a result more victims of such abuse feel empowered to come forward and consequently more abusers are caught then that is a good thing. That, I felt was the aim of the interview.
Quote: RubyMae - Glamourous Snowdrop at large. @ January 16, 2008, 3:33 AM*snip*
Why take the risk?
Why take the risk with anyone? I'd much rather have people out in the larger community than taking up my taxes keeping some nice little community going, taking funds from the NHS etc. Subject to certain assessments and so on, of course.
Quote: Mannikin Bird @ January 16, 2008, 11:19 AMHaving watched the interview I think that if as a result more victims of such abuse feel empowered to come forward and consequently more abusers are caught then that is a good thing. That, I felt was the aim of the interview.
I agree. Ditto alcoholics and so on. I thought it wasn't so much the intention purely to make him more 'acceptable', but to illustrate how all these different factors can link into one another if one doesn't address them, so to speak.
He said on the program that he didn't use his credit card and didn't pay for the images - that they were freely available over the net.
So is he lying in the interview or are people making things up? I don't know a lot about the case.
I found it a little chilling the way he freely admitted to being a 'congenital liar' (or perhaps just a genital liar in the circumstances) but said he was telling 100% truth in court and in the interview. Seems fairly unlikely to me. Seems far more likely that, when sitting down to look at the images, he thought to himself: "A. I'm a bit curious (for whatever reason) and I'm in my own f**king home so who's going to stop me; B. If for some insane reason the police do storm my house for looking at a few images then I've always got the excuse of 'research', and C. Who is it really hurting? Noone. If I am curious about touching up kids (for whatever reason) then it's infinitely better to look at stuff on the web rather than do it in real life and actually hurt someone."
I imagine that went through his head - in other words, because the excuses were already formulated, he can himself 'buy into' them more easily. I think he thought that was enough. The whole "I was abused as a child myself" seems to me to be an after-thought (whether true or not) to get sympathy/support from people/the court.
The whole thing smacks of a well-thought out and reasoned excuse that he had ready the whole time, to me. I think he's kidding himself as well as everyone else. Partly because it will be *partly* true. I don't think he fooled Pamela Stephenson either.
Having said that, I really do find it a bit abrupt to label him a 'sicko' and move on. If he does have paedophilic tendencies, or a fascination with it, or whatever, then whose fault is that? How irrisistable is the urge to have sex? If you are born with or somehow develop this condition, how irrisistable is the urge to f**k kids? Of course if you have a soul you wouldn't actually go ahead and do it, but if your urge was that great, would you really be thinking that much of the consequences of looking at child porn on the internet? I imagine if you have any sort of extreme 'fetish' or whatever like this, it must make you feel very alienated and alone, unable to communicate with people effectively.
Of course, this is exactly how Langham appeared in the interview. He said a number of things that made me think he may actually be a paedophile (but not a practising one), none of which I'll bore you with here.
I'm not being an apologist for that sort of behaviour, but I can imagine it would be bloody tempting to use the internet as a more 'acceptable' outlet for desires society, obviously correctly, deems wholly unacceptable.
Where the hell do these horrific desires come from? *Shudder*. I felt a mixture of uneasiness, revulsion and pity for the man, in truth.
(Gary Glitter, on the other hand, is a sick f**k who has chosen to fully exercise his mental illness. I've no pity for him.)