Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Interesting interview. What do you think? Could you watch him again?
I thought the point about acting, specifically if you can't convince as another person then you've failed, was really interesting. It's a shame (and I think of myself as a liberal guy) but I'm not sure I could ever watch him in anything and not think of his situation. That's not to say I think he's a massive paedo; I don't know the full details, and it seems like he's had quite a tough life.
It's the same with Jeffrey Jones (aka the teacher in Ferris Bueller)
That article highlights what a tricky issue rehabilitation is - the crime he was convicted of was not hugely serious in the grand scheme of things (the prison sentence is indicative of this) but allegations of paedohpilia are probably the single most tarnishing and unforgivable thing that can happen to a public figure. Should he never be allowed to have a career again? Maybe as a comic performer that is something of a big ask, but presumably he could carry on writing even if it were under a pseudonym.
Incidentally, compare the severity of his crime with what happened with Pete Townsend, who seems to have largely dodged that bullet.
wasn't his case largely identical with Langham's? (haven't bothered to check but operate on basis on sweeping generalisations): man believes/claims to have been abused as a child, downloads material to research/self-help purposes. Yet Townshend seems to be working still.
...I think the main difference is that Townsend looked at images online while Langham actually downloaded 15 images. The downloaded of an image is a specific crime I believe as it counts as generating a peadophilic image yourself rather then just passively viewing one. On a real level, not much different...
and Langham is a comedian with an audience mainly in a small section of British society (nothing he was ever in barring The Life of Brian was *that* popular at the time).
I'd guess if you've spent 30 years of your life loving the music of The Who it's easier to forgive this sort of thing.
In the case of both of them I think they're likely entirely innocent of paedophilic stain. Doesn't mean they both weren't incredibly stupid.
He is very honest about the stupidity of what he did - I believe his explanation, but its not an excuse. He has served his time, and deserves a 2nd chance
I could certainly watch him again, and this film does sound very good
Also, the police officer who announced Langham was a paedophile after the court, judge and police force said he wasn't should be named and shamed - what a total bellend
But good effort
I wasn't in the least bit convinced by Langham's explanation for downloading those films. How can anyone with an imagination need to see a child being molested to develop a character. Utter utter bollocks.
Burn him - or, you know, don't.
people commit crimes all the time for 'art' which, as he says, he was working on. and there appears to be little peadophilic resonance elsewhere in his life. i mean, sure he's a criminal and convicted of a pretty rough crime, but i don't think he's a peado.
It's not been the same without him really.
irrespective of the nature - 5 images does not really constitute a paedophile.
and yep, I do have a greater understanding as I work with offenders and am currently mentoring a 'PAEDO'
...Langham is no exception.
I personally think the British comedy landscape is weaker for Langham not being in it. God bless Britain, and it's eternally hysterical reactions to anything around the idea of paedophilia...