Langham, can we forgive him? Page 5

Somebody mentioned Pete Townshend

I was a big WHO fan (still am ... of their music)

Hard to imagine the guy who wrote 'My Generation' as downloading kiddy porn...

The Stranglers probably had it right... 'No more heroes'

I think with all creatives, you need to judge the work, not the man as the man is often weak and flawed.

I still like Chris Langhams work and Pete Townshends work (never was a Gary Glitter fan!) but you can't forgive the man a crime like this just because of his great work elsewhere...

Quote: catskillz @ August 4, 2007, 5:18 AM

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?

View original

Nope, because I do genuinely believe that Langham wasn't turned on by the kiddie pics.
And yes, of course I might be wrong, just as you might by believing he was.

Quote: catskillz @ August 4, 2007, 5:18 AM

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?

View original

Well Im not defending him, hell get the punishment he deserves for his crime, but it wont stop me enjoying some of his past output, and you wont find me calling for his blood and for some reason revelling in the idea of him being castrated or whatever; that sort of thing I just find bizzare.

And as for someone mentioning Pete townsend, as far as I remember the case against him didnt even go so far as a trial, and though he was an idiot for looking at what he did, the police obviously felt that he wasnt a pervert. The only reason he had to sign the sex offenders register is because that is an automatic thing you have to do if you have looked at those sort of images, whatever your motives for doing so are. Lets not mention Townsend in the same breath as people like Glitter or Langham, they are clearly very different cases, and the police obviously agree.

This is such a sensitive area, anything to do with kids and people seem to lose their minds and lose all objectivity, and it stops the crimes being looked at properly and on an individual basis. Everyone whos name comes up is an inhuman monster who should be hung in public, whether they were found with one picture on their computer, or they are found to have a twenty year history of sexually abusing children.

Yep, I think Frankie and Matt sum it up in that you can diverge the body of work from the mind that created it.

My only worry is the inconsistency with which we tend to treat these cases. If Langham was an unemployed pot bellied wannabe writer with long greasy hair and National Health glasses, on exactly the same charges, would we have be more or less inclined to believe his innocence? If our opinion has shifted then our impression of Langham, the celebrity, is getting in the way of truth.

Other celebrity nonces; Michael Jackson, I think his pre-90's stuff was great and still listen.

*Starts a new thread* - Favourite Celebrity Nonce?

*Edited, 'cause someone else edited. And so on. Etc.*

I'm not going to lock this thread (because I can't ) but can we let it fade away, like Chris's career?

It's only going to aggravate people, with such strong views being thrown back and forth.

My job as a mod is to make sure things run smoothly and if you don't want us Mods to appear like shadowing censors, then try some self moderating, use your common sense and choose your words and threads carefully.

Thanks.

Quote: Kent Pete @ August 3, 2007, 4:15 AM

I don't know what all the fuss is about. My Aunt Doreen is always downloading pictures of minor's to satisfy her sexual needs........Her favourite is Scargill. She loves his helmet.

View original

(Bloody Communists...)

Quote: Michael Monkhouse @ August 3, 2007, 6:26 PM

Agree 100%. Heard the new take on the Good Samaritan? The guy sees the bloke bleeding to death, says that's awful, gotta help the person who did this.

View original

That should probably be a left-wing motto of some kind.

Quote: ajp29 @ August 3, 2007, 8:14 PM

Legally he is a paedophile hes on the Sex Offenders list along with the bloke out of the Who

View original

But the law, as we well know, is more often than not a load of bollocks.

Quote: zooo @ August 4, 2007, 12:58 AM

Feathering actually sounds quite nice.

View original

Have you never seen Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoons?

Quote: catskillz @ August 4, 2007, 5:18 AM

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?

View original

Yes.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 3, 2007, 6:45 PM

I dont think his output should be wiped from the slate as if it never existed.

View original

I find it quite interesting how others judge people and situations. For instance, Bernard Manning, very dead and on a handcart to hell because of how he was perceived as a racist. His guilt was based on personal opinion and not a guilty verdict in a court of law.

Alternatively Chris Langham, purveyor of kiddie porn and found in possession of downloaded images of young children being abused and raped still manages to garner support and a level of sympathy and understanding, even though he was found guilty in a court of law.

I liked Chris Langham from the first time I saw him on ‘Not the 9 O’clock News’. He was and is a funny man. On the other hand, and although I did laugh at some of his jokes, I didn’t actually care for Bernard Manning but despite my own opinion, to some he was a traditional comic and a funny man. But one thing Bernard Manning was not found to have done was to get his kicks from looking at images of children being abused and raped. I’ll repeat that. Abused and RAPED.

Alright, so some might think why bring Bernard Manning into this. He was an alleged racist - hearsay and private opinion - who shouldn’t be given the time. Maybe there’s something in it but so long as there are people out there who are prepared to display compassion to the likes of Chris Langham, then I feel it is right to make an important comparison. Bernard Manning did say many, many racist things but at least it was only ears and not other area of the body that were being violated by those who chose to vilify him.

To those of you using the term "nonce", it sounds like the kind of word that a "nonce" would use themselves.

Anyway. I whole-heartedly agree with those who've said that there needs to be a distinction made between a person, their actions, and whatever they may produce. I'll personally quite happily watch anything Chris Langham has had involvement in; past, present, and future. (As long as it's funny of course.) What we also need to remember is that in this case, and others like it, the media will only report the most sensationalist and interesting aspects of the trial (and indeed there may be stuff which they're not allowed to report). We have no way of knowing the full extent of the evidence both for and against Chris.

As others have said, I'm not really too sure about this research excuse, but I find myself inclined to be a bit more liberal and give people the benefit of the doubt. We're presented with such a black-and-white single-sided argument by the media that (especially in our extracted-and-press-fed position) that's the only sane stance which one can take.

Interestingly, I think I'd feel far less easy about watching his shows if I found out that he was a supporter of the Labour Party. Make of that what you will...

(Oh, and Matthew, the CPS probably just decided that there wasn't enough evidence to try for a convinction in the other cases. I expect that the police treat them all equally.)

The difference between how people might react to Manning and Langhams output, and still be willing to watch programmes Langham has appeared in, is that Mannings output was the thing he was derided for; he told racist gags. Langhams work, on the other hand, wasnt jokes and sitcoms about bumming eight year old girls, and so can still be looked at seperately from the man himself and his crimes, and appreciated for the quality products they are. Its not about being soft on Langham, or excusing him, I hope he is punished fully, its just that he made some good shows; for me the shows are seperate and me enjoying them isnt the same as me condoning what he gets up to in his private life. Manning may well have been a good old fashioned gag-smith, but a lot of his material is questionable.

Quote: Aaron @ August 6, 2007, 8:07 AM

But the law, as we well know, is more often than not a load of bollocks.

View original

Took me three years and one Law degree to find that out

'Yes, if it was a nationally broadcast hanging.'

I would be in the front row for that.

'you can understand that for some of the characters he'd have to do research.'

He could have used his own experience or contacted any agency involved in this type of thing, from the Police to support groups. All without resorting to what he did.