Chris Langham

[expatinscotland]

is guilty of downloading child porn.

news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1278369,00.html?f=rss

Will he get off more lightly if it is his first criminal offence?

I personally hope he has to spend at least a few nights in prison, lying in a bed feeling terrified, in the same way that the children he paid to watch being raped must have felt.

Oh god, those poor children

He was actually cleared of the under-age sex charge:

(From the Guardian)

15 isnt a huge amount of images, going by 'normal' cases.

WRT to one person's word against another - I suspect this is why a great many cases dont make it to court at all. Classed as "Not Enough Evidence".

He's just the tip of the iceberg, i feel.

15 are prob. specimen charges VVV.

but it does pale into insignificance at the Uk's largest number of images...in my neck of the woods couple of years ago........45 million.

Oh, Guardian and BBC saying different things, then. BBC story I read said judge directed jury to find not guilty on the rape charges.

Right I'm going to show how ignorant I am by this question.

If there was a charge of buggery does that mean a boy was involved?

there must be more to the not guilty charges, a judge wouldn't direct a jury to find not guilty just for the hell of it - could there be something re the girl? perhaps she'd made this sort of accusation before? or perhaps there was something that wasn't submitted? Just because she said it happened doesn't necessarily mean it did, and bearing in mind he was found not guilty, so to post on here that he'd raped a young girl is actually libellous, regardless of peoples' opinions.

As for the indecent images - does that include things like doctoring pictures, ie putting one face on to a different image etc? does that constitute making an image?

nah, buggery means anal sex in this case

BBC also says he was cleared of the indecent assault & buggery charges, edam, but maybe there was another charge (or charges) of having sex with her which was/were dropped?

Message withdrawn

Erm. Good question Pruni. I thought it was legal over the age of 18.

But I could have just made that up.

It is if it's with an underage child, Pruners.

darent google to find out tbh.

Message withdrawn

no but I presume it was because she was underage

it used to be 18 - was changed to 16 a few years ago I think (?)

I had a wry chortle at the detail of Langham having called one of his luvvie mates to testify that the girl hadn't spent as much time as she claimed with him (Langham} in his dressing room at the theatre.
I think his mate was supposed to say that he barely recognised her.

One of the court officials gave evidence during the trial (according to press reports) to say that she had seen the luvvie friend 'embracing and greeting the girl like an old friend.'

yes it used to be 18, now its 16, the same for heterosexual sex.

same here, there's nothing he's been in that I haven't really liked, mainly because he was in it, so this has come as a horrible shock.

Message withdrawn

ah, but anal sex with a woman was illegal up until the last Sexual Offences Act that rid that particular anomaly off the criminal code.

Was he Spud (annoying scarecrow) in Bob The Builder?