Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Do you think he'll ever return to television? Or is it wrong of me to think it'd be a real shame if he didn't?
He's completely ruined. He'll never ever be accepted again.
He might as well have been in a death squad in the SS. Everyone will mutually detest him from now on.
With good reason.
Who'd take that big a risk on him?
There'd also be mass outrage, rallied by The Sun or some similar outlet, and a hell of alot of complaints/viewer boycotts
just let him retire quietly somewhere.
They should put him in stocks for a week in the middle of London.
it's hard enough to walk around with all the newspaper distributors taking up the pavement, let alone this.
Punishing someone twice for the same offence would be legally impossible and make no logical sense.
ITV are planning to bring back Fun House.
Although that might be a better suggestion.
I think he would be based on the Grand Prix handing out the massive tokens and generally making a nuisance of himself.
another series of 'The Thick Of It' though. Frankly I can forgive him for looking at pictures of kids, but I wouldn't be able to forgive him for it if it meant no more 'The Thick of It' (although I guess they can just write him out of the show).
if someone commits a crime and serves a sentence in full then their debt should be considered repaid to society.
Chris Langham's done what he's done and it's obviously rather awful but nonetheless he's served the sentence the legal system considered appropriate and he should now be able to get on with his life as before. That's my understanding of how the legal system is supposed to work anyway...
but when filling in job applications don't you legally have to declare criminal convictions? And i'm guessing employers are allowed to 'discriminate' against those who have them.
would, say, Armando Iannuci do that?
And its so true about the sentence-debt repaid thing. I hate people have to put their criminal record on job applications, it just implies you're likely to re-offend. I mean, statistically you are more likely, but still... it begs the question of: what is the point of the prison system, if you take the view that someone who has violated the legal system is unlikely to change after release.
I think you have to start from the basis that someone won't re-offend and go from there.
And the people on the Thick of It etc. will have knonw Chris Langham for years so it won't be the same as someone applying for a job, rather resuming their current one following their sentence.
my point doesn't really apply to chris langham.
And you do of course need to disclose it in job applications which employers would consider.
I'm not sure if there's a law regarding what you can consider - i.e. whether the offence is relevant to the job. Clearly Chris Langham couldn't get a job working with kids and you wouldn't want a convicted fraudster to be your accountant but I'm not sure if you'd be allowed to deny someone an accountancy job on the grounds of a conviction looking at child porn (although I'm sure few people would employ such a person due to their revulsion of the crime)
People will be dubious about watching him. And networks will be dubious about putting on a programme with him on, as people have said.
Pete Townshend is still doing fine so who knows.
Although I guess what Chris Langham has in his favour was that his target audience tended to be fairly 'liberal' so might have a more sympathetic view of accepting someone as having served their sentence than the Sun or Daily Mail would.
whilst cracking off?
but he definitely wasn't talking about his generation.
I wonder if asked why he did it he just shrugged and said "the kids are alright".
but perhaps he should just retire if he has the wedge to do it - look at Barrymore, he's ruined and nothing was ever proved in his case