Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 1:32 PMThus proving that the law is bollocks.
Chris Langham Page 5
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?
Imagine seeing the jury, 11 of them disgusted, covering their eyes, but one sat there smiling with glee.
Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 12:21 PMAs much as we'd like to think to ourselves that it is significantly lower, I can't say I'm too surprised. IMO - highly argued against previously, but I stick by it - being attracted to children is just the same as any other fetish or fantasy.
But people can choose whether they act on that attraction. You can get counselling for it but you certainly don't have to look at images of children even if you'd like to.
You can also show genuine remorse after the event. In court, Langham lied about his actions to try to get himself off as Paul Whitehouse has basically said. It's only now that he desperately wants to get his career back on track that he is contrite.
Quote: Nick @ January 16, 2008, 1:39 PMBut people can choose whether they act on that attraction. You can get counselling for it but you certainly don't have to look at images of children even if you'd like to.
Oh no, exactly. I agree 100%, and think I said that later on. And if I didn't, I certainly meant to, and hopefully implied so. 
Quote: Nick @ January 16, 2008, 1:39 PMBut people can choose whether they act on that attraction. You can get counselling for it but you certainly don't have to look at images of children even if you'd like to.
I think the point is that looking at freely available pornography could be seen as a lighter shade of black than buggering a toddler.
And if it's just up on Youtube or whatever it's simply going to be too much of a temptation for anyone with that affliction. And remember, the sexual drive is a powerful one; I'm sure after Langham looked at the images he felt guilty as hell immediately after satisfying his sexual 'need', vowed never to do it again, etc. It's sex. People don't 'like' having sex and can't just give it up on a whim. It's a hard-wired and almost irrisistable drive.
Quote: James Williams @ January 16, 2008, 1:44 PMI think the point is that looking at freely available pornography could be seen as a lighter shade of black than buggering a toddler.
And if it's just up on Youtube or whatever it's simply going to be too much of a temptation for anyone with that affliction. And remember, the sexual drive is a powerful one; I'm sure after Langham looked at the images he felt guilty as hell immediately after satisfying his sexual 'need', vowed never to do it again, etc. It's sex. People don't 'like' having sex and can't just give it up on a whim. It's a hard-wired and almost irrisistable drive.
Sure looking at child porn is different from child rape. People still have control over their actions though. Langham's a big boy and could have resisted the urge if he'd wanted to.
Yeah, I'm sure he could, and he did deserve some form of punishment.
Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 1:41 PMOh no, exactly. I agree 100%, and think I said that later on. And if I didn't, I certainly meant to, and hopefully implied so.
You probably did actually Aaron. My bad.
My main point was the one that I made afterwards though. It's very easy for celebrities (or anyone for that matter) to be contrite after they have been found guilty. Shame he couldn't have shown more guilt before though.
I'd just like to remind everyone at this point that - supposedly anyway - Chris Langham did NOT view these images or videos (whatever they were) for sexual gratification, but out of his own curiosity to address and make sense of what happened to him as a child, alongside the 'research' aspect of writing the second series of Help. And after watching - and loving - the first series, I can and do 100% believe that he was writing a paedophile character for the show.
So curiosity and confusion at best, not sexual.
Quote: Nick @ January 16, 2008, 1:51 PMMy main point was the one that I made afterwards though. It's very easy for celebrities (or anyone for that matter) to be contrite after they have been found guilty. Shame he couldn't have shown more guilt before though.
I dunno, going by what we learnt last night, he had been fully open and honest that he'd looked at these paedophilic images, but was forced to plead innocent because of the way the court system works when they lumped the other charges against him in the same case. Charges which involved actually having sex with a minor, and which did not make sense in terms of chronology and for which he was found totally innocent regarding.
Either way though, I'm not sure about the lying accusation because I've neither seen/heard Whitehouse's comments, and probably not whatever he was referring to either.
So on the whole guilt/innocence, admission/denial, contempt/contrite line of discussion, it largely comes back to the lovely impartial folks we call the press, and what they choose to report to us and how.
The trouble is, as I said in an earlier post, the reasons he gave could well be justification for something quite different. It kind of seemed so to me in the light of that interview. And the sexual urge is the only thing I can think of that would be strong enough to make one want to see such disturbing stuff.
I think this is fair comment.
It's nice to see a discussion on here such as this remain a discussion and not an excuse for a slanging match.
Until the unreasonable, reactionary members come online anyway. 
(But I agree. Very nice. Thanks guys. )
And there are some decent members of the press out there. I'm one, honest. God though, there are some real c**ts. Some unbelievable c**ts. Who have the nerve to moralise while stitching someone up. Unbelievable. Completely unrelated but I felt the need to vent there.
Quote: Aaron @ January 16, 2008, 1:59 PM(But I agree. Very nice. Thanks guys.
Maybe it was worth Langham going through all this, just to prove we can be polite and civilized on here.
Quick, close the thread!