Chris Langham ?

(42 Posts)
donnie Mon 05-Aug-13 13:55:19

Isn't this man a convicted paedophile? yet there he was on TV the other night. There was a tribute to Mel Smith on TV and in it were various sketches from tv shows down the years, some of which featured CL. Personally I was v angry about this.
Am I overreacting?

Bowlersarm Mon 05-Aug-13 23:19:32

Yes, I'm not condoning what he did.

But I don't think his life should be made to stop. As far as I'm concerned, he did the crime (although didn't admit it) and served his punishment. Time to move on.

LemonPeculiarJones Mon 05-Aug-13 23:24:06

I disagree. Not about his life moving on - that's his business.

I just don't think he should be embraced back into the public eye, or the entertainment industry.

Bowlersarm Mon 05-Aug-13 23:26:55

Well Lemon that's fine and your opinion. I don't agree with you.

wintera Tue 06-Aug-13 14:14:03

Oh God, really shocked about the Eric Gill link. Love The Midland hotel in Morecambe so much as well.

donnie Tue 06-Aug-13 17:12:54

Looking at child pornography is providing a market for it. It is not a passive thing. How can accessing images and videos of children being raped and defiled be described as 'research'? It makes you complicit in that crime, an integral part of it.

Still shocked at the apologists for child pornographers on this thread.

LemonPeculiarJones Tue 06-Aug-13 17:24:36

Me too donnie.

Bizarre.

donnie Tue 06-Aug-13 17:42:01

The whole 'moving on' expression too Lemon - what does it actually mean? I don't suppose the children being raped and tortured in the level 5 category videos he downloaded and watched are able to 'move on' .

Wonderstuff Tue 06-Aug-13 22:52:03

So what should happen to him and others? What work should be open to them? What about other crimes? Should convicted rapists be banished forever? Should we never see on our screens anyone convicted of a violent crime? I'm watching Richard Bacon at the moment, he was found guilty of drugs offences, by no means victimless crime, he is quite funny though..

LemonPeculiarJones Wed 07-Aug-13 13:04:10

I don't want to see convicted rapists or child abusers on tv being all charming and getting approbation for their work. End of story. They should not be welcomed back into society to that extent, as if nothing had happened.

How they make their living is up to them. But those who engage in torture and abuse, or directly support it through use of child pornography, have lost the right to prance about on our tvs.

Drug offences are a little bit different, yes, Wonderstuff - surely you agree?

donnie Wed 07-Aug-13 15:28:02

Well said Lemon.

weirdthing Wed 07-Aug-13 15:35:08

I agree with you Op. It is an utter insult to their victims - who have to live with his crimes for the rest of their lives - to apparently see society 'accepting' this vile excuse for a human being. Sexual abuse destroys peoples' lives. His victims don't get a 'second chance to move on' - why the fuck should he?

weirdthing Wed 07-Aug-13 15:37:59

Bowlersarm - looking at images of child abuse is as bad as doing it IMO. He provided an audience for someone else to do it and celebrate it. How would you feel if it was your child?

GobbySadcase Wed 07-Aug-13 15:38:55

It's so inconsistent, that's what gets me.

Savile has been edited out, and rightly so. Stuart Hall doesn't get airtime, either.

They have also cut Rolf Harris when nothing has been proven or gone to trial yet.

But Townshend and Langham can be featured?

cocolepew Wed 07-Aug-13 15:44:06

I agree the op and Lemon.

TabithaStephens Sat 10-Aug-13 02:00:18

What about Roman Polanski? Should his films be banned from TV?

specialsubject Mon 12-Aug-13 11:31:19

if you believe various sources (and who knows), he was raped as a child, has a long history of alcoholism and drug abuse, and downloaded a few images as research for an acting role. He says he was so sickened by what he saw that he only looked at one image, and that he was very stupid to think he could access this material for an acting role without getting into trouble.

no, I don't know the truth. But if any of this is true, he's clearly had a terrible life.

bunchamunchycrunchycarrots Mon 12-Aug-13 11:43:53

'Time to move on'

That phrase seems so flippant considering the many victims of child pornography and how difficult it must be for them to just 'move on' from what they have endured. Doing your 'time' for your crime rarely acknowledges the much longer sentences the victims have to live with. Chris Langham is free to live his life how he chooses but I also do not want to see him on my TV thanks. Plenty of non high profile jobs he would be more than capable of doing, so wishing him to not be on TV isn't consigning him to a life of destitution. Frankly I wish the same for Pete Townsend, sickens me how he got nothing more than a slap on the wrist for doing the same thing as Langham - 'researching' child porn for a book. Nothing justifies downloading that stuff, given that it simply fuels those creating it, to supply more.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now