Advanced search

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?

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 05-Aug-13 13:56:08


Floralnomad Mon 05-Aug-13 13:57:16

Yes you are .

yop Mon 05-Aug-13 13:58:36

I think you are over-reacting. But by all means feel free to write a stiffly-worded letter of complaint about how v angry you are. In green ink

SpanishFly Mon 05-Aug-13 14:01:51

Hmm, but other convicted paedophiles are never given airtime now. Was it a repeat of an older programme that maybe slipped through the net?

donnie Mon 05-Aug-13 14:08:36

wow. I am quite shocked at your tolerance. Given the BBC's handling of the Jimmy Saville paedophile scandal you all seem pretty ok about a convicted sex offender being on tv.

FWIW I have complained to the BBC. Out of interest I would like to hear from those of you who think I am overreacting - why am I?

yop Mon 05-Aug-13 14:09:52

Tolerance is shocking to those that have none.

Pan Mon 05-Aug-13 14:13:08

I think possibly the difference is that CL was a 'character actor' in situations where he 'acted' and not in a situation where he 'courted' vulnerable people. JS wasn't acting and deliberately sought out victims in plain view of the nation, and many of the nation didn't get a handle on what was happening. So poss JS reminds us of a collective guilt. CL doesn't present in that same light.

donnie Mon 05-Aug-13 14:14:19

Hmmm. Why the venom yop? I was asking a genuine question about a pretty serious matter - sex offenders - I didn't realise it was a topic to make jokes about (your comment on writing a letter).

SwedishEdith Mon 05-Aug-13 14:16:03

I was a bit puzzled about the inconsistency but I suppose he was integral to the NTNO'CN programme? But I'm pretty sure Pete Townshend still appears on tv so, hmm, I suppose it's all discretionary

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 05-Aug-13 14:16:23

YANBU. CL has written a new show that he both wrote and is starring in. It's supposed to be a comedy. I won't be watching.

It just leaves a nasty taste in my mouth that I am supposed to be entertained by someone who has convictions for using child porn.

testedpatience Mon 05-Aug-13 14:28:20

It just underlines how insignificant crimes against children are rated within the entertainment world. Jimmy Savile was a prime example.

It doesnt surprise me that CLs on TV, we've all seen how leniently child abusers are treated within the legal system when you look at Stuart Halls ridiculous sentence so why should a broadcaster care who they may offendconfused

If it was the BBC then it fits with their whole attitude towards Child abuse and their total contempt towards victims so i wouldnt expect anything else from themangry

I Cant believe we have to pay for a TV licence to this vile corporation.

I dont think convicted paedophiles should be on the telly even if its clips from the past and paid using our enforced TV licence money to do it.

JakeBullet Mon 05-Aug-13 14:30:14

I think this was a one off tribute to Mel Smith though with whom CL worked for a significant period of time. I don't have an issue with him contributing to a tribute show to a talented man.

Wonderstuff Mon 05-Aug-13 14:35:44

But what exactly are you proposing, people who have been found to have accessed child porn should never be seen on TV again? Should we extended that to all crimes? There are two things here, JS used his celebrity to access children he saw nothing wrong with what he was doing, other people suspected he was abusing his position and no one called him, he preyed on vulnerable children for years. CL accessed child porn, which is awful, but not related to his work, there are hundreds and hundreds of men like CL out there, he got caught, he was sentenced, he will have a lifelong ban on working with children, but he should be allowed to earn a living, I see no issue with him appearing after the watershed.

Pan Mon 05-Aug-13 14:39:55

The sketches referred to are probably from a time previous to his offences. He's also in 'treatment' via therapy and part of this was broadcasted on tv. His victims are not being further 'victimised' through his appearances on tv.

I still wouldn't wish to pay money for his work now as I'd feel v ambivalent about it.

Davros Mon 05-Aug-13 19:12:04

I don't have a problem with CL appearing in the context of a tribute programme and old sketches pre-convection having limited showing. I'm not sure I like the idea of OUR BBC paying him for new stuff. If it was on elsewhere that's different, I just wouldn't watch. JS did not get convicted very wrongly and really n used his position on TV and with charities. It's not the same magnitude but both are vile regardless.

SinisterBuggyMonth Mon 05-Aug-13 19:27:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MorrisZapp Mon 05-Aug-13 19:32:46

Good greif. Is that true, about the font designer? How do you know this?

CoTananat Mon 05-Aug-13 19:35:56

It is true, yes. He diarised his abuse.

LemonPeculiarJones Mon 05-Aug-13 19:36:52

I'm with you OP.

I never want to see a convicted paedophile on tv in a positive light. Child porn is child abuse, remember.

It isn't tolerance being 'meh' about it. It's inadvertently reinforcing the notion that child porn and child abuse shouldn't be shouted down at every opportunity.

Using a typeface is different to a convicted paedophile being shown on tv in a positive light.

Jacks and CS Lewis weren't proven abusers.

LemonPeculiarJones Mon 05-Aug-13 19:37:42

Jacks = Jacko

SwedishEdith Mon 05-Aug-13 22:58:46

I'm pretty sure the old TOTP editions with Savile and DLT have them edited out now.

Bowlersarm Mon 05-Aug-13 23:04:35

I think you're over reacting.

He's been punished for looking at child pornography which he maintains was research. It wasn't physical abuse in which he was the perpetrator.

Are you saying no one should get a second chance?

MrsBodger Mon 05-Aug-13 23:12:30

Alice in Wonderland was written by Lewis Carroll, not CS Lewis. There's never been any suggestion of paedophilia about CS Lewis, and there is no evidence of any kind about Lewis Carroll.

LemonPeculiarJones Mon 05-Aug-13 23:16:06

Whoops! Sorry blush Apologies to the memory of CS! Got my Lewises muddled.

Bowlers the porn he was using must have contained images of actual abuse, right?

Also he was found to be grooming a young girl.

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