Chris Langham ?

[donnie]

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?

[bunchamunchycrunchycarrots]

'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.

[specialsubject]

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.

[TabithaStephens]

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

[cocolepew]

I agree the op and Lemon.

[GobbySadcase]

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?

[weirdthing]

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?

[weirdthing]

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?

[donnie]

Well said Lemon.

[LemonPeculiarJones]

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?

[Wonderstuff]

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..

[donnie]

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' .

[LemonPeculiarJones]

Me too donnie.

Bizarre.

[donnie]

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.

[wintera]

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

[Bowlersarm]

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

[LemonPeculiarJones]

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]

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]

Whoops! Sorry 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.

[MrsBodger]

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.

[Bowlersarm]

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?

[SwedishEdith]

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

[LemonPeculiarJones]

Jacks = Jacko

[LemonPeculiarJones]

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.

[CoTananat]

It is true, yes. He diarised his abuse.

[MorrisZapp]

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