Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I just meant rubbish in general.
And, tbh, he's guilty as sin.
BUT, he was a brilliant comedy actor.
and not having sex with an underage girl
not of the sexual assault.
which is better, right?
anyone know what happened? Did the jury not believe her or something?
he admitted receiving a hand job when she was only 16, but believed his story that nothing else happened. Seems she took advantage of the porn allegations which occurred some months before she went to the police.
*over 16, over, over 16
She could easily be telling the truth but there was no way she would win it regardless.
right side of legal....his action was on the wrong side of ugly though, it might suggest he knew it was wrong, so just tiptoes around the edge of what he knew was not good, which does make him kind of culpable.
And does make him a 'dirty old man'
I hate it when older men behave like this because it makes everyone suspicious of my demographic group.
I'm not sure anyone can make a judgement like that unless they know the personality of the girl well enough.
Langham says she was 18 at the time of the acknowledged "incident"
the girl had been to see his show 50 times.....this should ring alarm bells that perhaps the girl (or her mum) had developed a rather unusual fixation for him........Im not defining what relationships should be allowed or not.......but it couldnt have been true love now could it....otherwise they would surely be battling for it now....Langham would be saying how wonderful she was and how much he loved her and stuff....but he isnt because he probably feels somewhat guilty......although this could have been misreported, so I could be being unfair
It's actually child abuse pictures and videos:
Ken Goss of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The images found on his computer were not child pornography. They were horrific images, still and video clips, of children being sexually abused. Chris Langham actively searched for those images."
Even though the title uses 'porn':
Excuse my innocence, what is the precise difference between child porn and photos of kids being sexually abused?
That's what it says.
what is child pornography then?
I cannot figure out what the distinction would be, though...
very, very odd. I'd be interested to know what this guy is trying to get at.
or root for the guy, when if it was somebody else we'd all be saying how vile he is. Just because he's funny doesn't mean he can't be a fucked up pervert
The man has an interest in the abuse of young children, be it sexual or otherwise. Can't we be glad that he's somebody like is now in prison, rather than gutted that it happens to be somebody amusing off the tele?
think people are just sad that it all seems to be true. There's nothing much wrong with that, I don't think.
No. I'm going to be gutted that someone amusing off the tele is now in jail.
as much as subconsciously wanting to hope it wasn't the case even though everything says it is. Jonathan King (hello, Jonathan!) and Gary Glitter are expendable career-wise; Langham's work was with stuff that people properly loved, and now to have it confirmed by a court of law that he had a stash of child abuse pictures is a complete letdown (not strong enough wording, I know, but I'm trying to elucidate what I'm getting at)
I believe this was the correct verdict.
Whatever. He has been found guilty by a jury and that is correct.
Apart from the verdict, I think the whole episode is quite tragic for all parties.
There's a quote from him where he thanks the press for not bothering him, his wife or children too much.......is his wife not bothered that he slept with an 18 year old or has disturbing pictures of children?
I'm sure if you scour the press, you'll find a direct quote from his wife: "I am very disturbed and unhappy that my husband slept with an 18 year old girl and downloads indecent images of children. It really is appalling."