Dr Hackenslash 25 Posted September 13, 2006 Surely Chris Langham should be on suicide watch for a few weeks/months? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5342878.stm Sure, an outside bet - but would any of you really be surprised if he topped himself? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted September 14, 2006 An outside chance of a suicide is Chris Langham, who has now been charged with 8 counts of indecent assault. Quite so, he must be under an intense strain, whether guilty or innocent these kind of charges irrevocably damage a celebrity's persona. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,700 Posted September 14, 2006 Obviously justice must be seen to take it's course etc but; Making indecent images 7 counts of indecent assualt 1 other charge Man, I can't see the fire for all that smoke but I have a hunch it's there. Hasn't he had depressive problems before? I think we send him good wishes and Christmas cards, pick him and then start the hate mail on January 1st. Just an idea, like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Hackenslash 25 Posted September 14, 2006 Been doing a bit of research into the law and it appears that "making" images is the legal term for downloading - ie if you download you create a new file (not that sort of file). If he doesn't top himself, and he is found guilty, I can't see him coping very well inside. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Godot 149 Posted September 14, 2006 Talking of the law, don't want to sound a fuddy duddy but this is a publication I guess and publishing comments on a case after an individual has been charged is generally regarded as contempt of court that can carry a prison sentence for the publisher and the writer. I'm not sure there's any case law for a web site but, assuming the DL is registered in the UK, there is always a first time. Contempt would cover anything that might be considered prejudicial to the outcome of the case. A "there's no smoke without fire" comment would usually fit the bill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarolAnn 926 Posted September 14, 2006 Talking of the law, don't want to sound a fuddy duddy but this is a publication I guess and publishing comments on a case after an individual has been charged is generally regarded as contempt of court that can carry a prison sentence for the publisher and the writer. I'm not sure there's any case law for a web site but, assuming the DL is registered in the UK, there is always a first time. Contempt would cover anything that might be considered prejudicial to the outcome of the case. A "there's no smoke without fire" comment would usually fit the bill. Without a specific suppression/gag order? In the US, gag orders are routinely handed down in high profile cases and are applied to specific individuals (lawyers, people or organizations directly involved in the case) or the media, but the rest of us shoot off our mouths routinely. They can be used to limit freedom of the press, but I don't know if the DL would be considered media. It could also be argued that the scope of the DL is not likely to make it prejudice a jury pool. Of course, I'm an American, so what do I know about the UK justice system? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,700 Posted September 14, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,552 Posted September 14, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted September 14, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. I read that the charges are concerning a girl under the age of 16.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,552 Posted September 14, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. I read that the charges are concerning a girl under the age of 16.... It could be a number of girls under the age of 16, as he is alledged to have made a number of indecent images, but the reports I've read do not state if it's one child or more. I guess as the trial moves on, we'll find out more details. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus of Odstock 2,218 Posted September 14, 2006 re. suicide, I'm not so sure. He's quite determined to clear his name, either pre or post trial, where if he felt he was truly guilty, a la Huntley, he might have topped himself already. I say it's too much of an outside bet, but would understand if people differed with that opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,700 Posted September 14, 2006 It's ONE girl, over 16 now, under sixteen then. Clearly it was a while back, her memory might be confused, allegedly. Or summat, not that I'd want to be equivocal on owt you understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 214 Posted September 14, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. Chris Langham is a kid fiddler, is a kid fiddler, is a kid fiddler. (by kid, I of course mean a young goat) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Hackenslash 25 Posted September 14, 2006 Just to clarify the situation... The word allegedly does not make anything any better - it's a myth that it does. But, as far as reporting restrictions go, and if this was a newspaper.... We can name him, say what he is charged with, give his date of birth (ie age) and address but we have to be careful about specifics. So there you go. PS. Go on, Chris, top yourself! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted September 14, 2006 The phrase 'Sexual Assault' can also mean anything from a tap on the knee to goodness knows what... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Hackenslash 25 Posted September 14, 2006 The phrase 'Sexual Assault' can also mean anything from a tap on the knee to goodnessknows what... Indecent assault can mean anything from hands over the top to hands down the bottom... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,700 Posted September 14, 2006 He's obviously a good actor cos MPFC jr said he looked innocent. A collision of his mouth and a large quantity of soap was arranged within seconds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Godot 149 Posted September 15, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. No, as Hack/ says that's no get out. Also libel and contempt are two different things. Also it's not just about newspapers. It's about publishing and that covers anything from notes on billboards to, well, this site. The test is whether anything said could be deemed prejudicial to the outcome of the case. It might be amusing, however, to see the GR hauled up before the bench in order to explain the behaviour of his organ. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted September 15, 2006 why didn't you just call them about it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TLC 9 Posted September 16, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. No, as Hack/ says that's no get out. Also libel and contempt are two different things. Also it's not just about newspapers. It's about publishing and that covers anything from notes on billboards to, well, this site. The test is whether anything said could be deemed prejudicial to the outcome of the case. It might be amusing, however, to see the GR hauled up before the bench in order to explain the behaviour of his organ. Isn't that pretty much what Mr Langham has got to do? Anone else notice UKTVG2 still showed the repeat episode of him guest presenting 'Have I Got News For You?' last night? Not that I'm passing judgement, just commenting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted September 16, 2006 We could - of course - avoid any legal action by matching any negative post with a positive one. Chris Langham for next Prime Minister I say! Or add the word "allegedly" at the end of each comment. I believe it's when you make libelous comments that you come unstuck. No, as Hack/ says that's no get out. Also libel and contempt are two different things. Also it's not just about newspapers. It's about publishing and that covers anything from notes on billboards to, well, this site. The test is whether anything said could be deemed prejudicial to the outcome of the case. It might be amusing, however, to see the GR hauled up before the bench in order to explain the behaviour of his organ. Isn't that pretty much what Mr Langham has got to do? Anone else notice UKTVG2 still showed the repeat episode of him guest presenting 'Have I Got News For You?' last night? Not that I'm passing judgement, just commenting. Puts the alledged trouble which led to Angus Deyton getting sacked into perspective then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,700 Posted September 16, 2006 Aye but it also shows some double standards. Gary Glitter - working class trash made good - was guilty the second the guy at PC World showed the boss there what was coming up ob screen. Pete Townsend argued art, his own pain and the fact he was working on his - yet to appear - autobiography. Chris Langham seems somewhere in the middle of these two so far as I can see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest me Posted September 16, 2006 JUST BECAUSE U LOOK AT CHILD PORN DONT MAKE U A PEDOPHILE.ITS LIKE IF U LOK AT DEAD BODIES PEOPLE CALL U A MURDERER! ITS DUMB! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anubis the Jackal 77 Posted September 16, 2006 Anyone else want a laugh before I rip it to shreds...? Ah forget it. I'm off to shoot fish in a barrel instead. JUST BECAUSE U LOOK AT CHILD PORN DONT MAKE U A PEDOPHILE.ITS LIKE IF U LOK AT DEAD BODIES PEOPLE CALL U A MURDERER! ITS DUMB! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,552 Posted September 16, 2006 Anyone else want a laugh before I rip it to shreds...? Ah forget it. I'm off to shoot fish in a barrel instead. JUST BECAUSE U LOOK AT CHILD PORN DONT MAKE U A PEDOPHILE.ITS LIKE IF U LOK AT DEAD BODIES PEOPLE CALL U A MURDERER! ITS DUMB! Actually, if you look at child porn for the purposes of pleasure, then yes it does make you a paedophile. As far as I'm aware "pedophile" is now the mis-spelt way that is often used, although I believe it actually implies someone who has a foot fetish. Having worked alongside the police from Manchester to help trace a customer who was subscribed to the ISP that I was working for at the time, I can tell you there are some pretty sick people out there. One more recently who was caught a couple of years ago, was a man in Scotland posing as an airline pilot to entice young children and was eventually arrested for the attempted rape of an 8 yr old girl. Strangely enough he started off "looking at child porn" that he had downloaded from the internet. If you look at dead bodies, it could depend on your profession (sp?) whether you're a mortician, coroner, etc. However if you are sexually aroused by a dead person, then I believe necrophiliac is the term used in this case. So, mysterious "guest" if you wish to debate this, please post further comments in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
