Chris Langham

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

Child rape videos allegedly in his possession, this does NOT look good. Paul Whitehouse weighs in today.

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

Paul Whitehouse knew nowt about the porn and says the character research Langham was using as his main alibi is bullshit, sort of thing. They were working on a mild perv character who did a bit of frottage here and there, not a full-blown paedo nightmare. Barring the Dalai Llama making a last minute appearance as a character witness I think he's knackered now.

 

Sticking me neck out I say: guilty, banged up, a bit of articulate blather bags him a medium security and/or open prison stretch where he avoids turds in his tea and cutlery weilding assualts by lunatic inmates. He'll survive jail but his career is dead. Suicide; nah. Attacked when he's free, mebbe.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Possibly a Gadd-style flit to South-East Asia on release to disappear for a few months?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Paul Whitehouse knew nowt about the porn and says the character research Langham was using as his main alibi is bullshit, sort of thing. They were working on a mild perv character who did a bit of frottage here and there, not a full-blown paedo nightmare. Barring the Dalai Llama making a last minute appearance as a character witness I think he's knackered now.

 

Sticking me neck out I say: guilty, banged up, a bit of articulate blather bags him a medium security and/or open prison stretch where he avoids turds in his tea and cutlery weilding assualts by lunatic inmates. He'll survive jail but his career is dead. Suicide; nah. Attacked when he's free, mebbe.

Jail time and a good old fashioned prison kicking should be on the cards. Maybe something Medieval involving red hot irons and pointed sticks.

 

Alas, British justice will see something soft and cuddly and I can only concur with MPFC to the outcome.

 

Burn the nonce at the stake.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Mr Langham said: "Yes, that's absolutely correct."

 

Now taking odds on a suicide attempt...

[jmh8300 2]

Langham is running a modified Townshend defence, namely "I was conducting research."

 

The difference being that old big nose, despite having 15 (!) computers seized and searched, was not found to have downloaded a single image of child abuse. He was tracked through his credit card and admitted to viewing sites, however his subsequent caution must surely have been made possible since he had made previous anti-porn statements and conducted work on behalf of child care charities.

 

The police did not have that option in Langham's case.

 

Anyone who has seen his work, will know that he's not a stupid man but he was reckless in the extreme to think he could visit porn sites, download images of child abuse and not be tracked down. There have been numerous cases where downloading such files leads to arrest, humiliation and ruin - he did not learn that lesson and will no doubt pay heavily and rightly.

 

"Burn the nonce at the stake," is in my book a little harsh, you never know when you might set fire to some passing paediatrician, but if he is found guilty he should serve his time and seek treatment. It appears as if the circle of abuse continues, if his claims of abuse are true.

 

Very sad for all concerned, especially the child victims.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

It's been at least 24 hours since Harvester of Souls logged on to remind us how much he hates peadophiles. I can therefore only deduce that he must have changed his mind about them and come to the conclusion that they are all jolly decent chaps after all.

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

It's been at least 24 hours since Harvester of Souls logged on to remind us how much he hates peadophiles. I can therefore only deduce that he must have changed his mind about them and come to the conclusion that they are all jolly decent chaps after all.

 

Yes, this Harvester chap seems to be protesting just a little bit too much. Mmm ..

 

Regarding the Langham case, it seems that apart from a mentally unstable girl who he was trying to help (and has now invented some allegations 11 years on), and apart from the fact he accessed some porn websites which while distasteful (simulated rape) are hardly related to paedophilia, there doesn't seem much to link him to any of the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines that have ruined his career. Indeed they've already started clearing him of some charges.

 

Will the Mail apologise? Of course not.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

It's been at least 24 hours since Harvester of Souls logged on to remind us how much he hates peadophiles. I can therefore only deduce that he must have changed his mind about them and come to the conclusion that they are all jolly decent chaps after all.

I have nothing against peas or those that are sexually involved with peas, providing that the all involved are consenting and of legal age.

 

Yes, this Harvester chap seems to be protesting just a little bit too much. Mmm ..

F**k YEAH! CUT HIS HEAD OFF!

 

Regarding the Langham case, it seems that apart from a mentally unstable girl who he was trying to help (and has now invented some allegations 11 years on), and apart from the fact he accessed some porn websites which while distasteful (simulated rape) are hardly related to paedophilia, there doesn't seem much to link him to any of the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines that have ruined his career. Indeed they've already started clearing him of some charges.

 

Will the Mail apologise? Of course not.

We won't know for definite until Langham is convicted or acquitted. However if he's convicted of manufacturing, downloading or possessing child porn then I can't quite understand how that isn't related to paedophilia. If kids are being abused for the sexual gratification of adults then there should be zero tolerance. "I was only looking at pictures" isn't a defence, and you will hang, once convicted by Judge Harvester, when the new world order arrives.

 

If he's acquitted and there is absolutely no chance that he did any of the crimes he's charged with then he'll receive an official "NOT A NONCE" graphic from me. It'll also please yourself, and DDT, to know that I won't be posting in Langham's Nonce Thread again, unless he 1) admits/is convicted of interfering with children 2) is close to death because his career is now totally f*****.

 

If he's found guilty then he should be paraded around the city, in a bright orange jump suit, wearing a sandwich board that reads "I AM A CHILD MOLESTER." He should then be put in the stocks, where an angry mob will throw stones (of varying size)at him from a pre-determined distance. What's left of his kiddy-diddling carcass will then be burnt at the stake... twice (this is because I haven't logged in for 24 hours and is to ensure that there is no confusion as to my feelings about paedophiles.)

 

Regardless of the outcome people shouldn't read the Daily Mail as it's f****** shite.

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

Top post above, Harvester. Pretty much sums up how any right minded person feels.

 

Youth In Asia wrote:

 

Regarding the Langham case, it seems that apart from a mentally unstable girl who he was trying to help (and has now invented some allegations 11 years on), and apart from the fact he accessed some porn websites which while distasteful (simulated rape) are hardly related to paedophilia, there doesn't seem much to link him to any of the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines that have ruined his career. Indeed they've already started clearing him of some charges.

 

Will the Mail apologise? Of course not.

 

Mentally unstable girl? Has she been proven as such? Trying to help? What? By banging her (underage or 18 as admitted by Langham)? Strange idea of help.

 

I was under the impression that the websites he accessed were very much related to paedophilia- is that not why Paul Whitehouse was called to the dock, to rubbish Langham's claims that his accessing the pictures were for script writing research?

 

The Daily Mail might well be guilty of many things, but I think it's a bit much to attempt to dump the blame for the demise of Langham's career upon their doorstep.

 

We'll see in days to come, I guess, but I think that the authorities have been waiting for a high profile paedophile other than the holidaying Glitter & unrepentant King to make an example of and Langham could well be it.

 

And if he's done what he's been accused of doing then they should cut his cock off and feed it to him. Simple as that. I'm with Harvester every step of the way on this one.

 

Cheers,

 

BHB

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,684]

It's been at least 24 hours since Harvester of Souls logged on to remind us how much he hates peadophiles. I can therefore only deduce that he must have changed his mind about them and come to the conclusion that they are all jolly decent chaps after all.

I have nothing against peas or those that are sexually involved with peas, providing that the all involved are consenting and of legal age.

 

Yes, this Harvester chap seems to be protesting just a little bit too much. Mmm ..

F**k YEAH! CUT HIS HEAD OFF!

 

Regarding the Langham case, it seems that apart from a mentally unstable girl who he was trying to help (and has now invented some allegations 11 years on), and apart from the fact he accessed some porn websites which while distasteful (simulated rape) are hardly related to paedophilia, there doesn't seem much to link him to any of the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines that have ruined his career. Indeed they've already started clearing him of some charges.

 

Will the Mail apologise? Of course not.

We won't know for definite until Langham is convicted or acquitted. However if he's convicted of manufacturing, downloading or possessing child porn then I can't quite understand how that isn't related to paedophilia. If kids are being abused for the sexual gratification of adults then there should be zero tolerance. "I was only looking at pictures" isn't a defence, and you will hang, once convicted by Judge Harvester, when the new world order arrives.

 

If he's acquitted and there is absolutely no chance that he did any of the crimes he's charged with then he'll receive an official "NOT A NONCE" graphic from me. It'll also please yourself, and DDT, to know that I won't be posting in Langham's Nonce Thread again, unless he 1) admits/is convicted of interfering with children 2) is close to death because his career is now totally f*****.

 

If he's found guilty then he should be paraded around the city, in a bright orange jump suit, wearing a sandwich board that reads "I AM A CHILD MOLESTER." He should then be put in the stocks, where an angry mob will throw stones (of varying size)at him from a pre-determined distance. What's left of his kiddy-diddling carcass will then be burnt at the stake... twice (this is because I haven't logged in for 24 hours and is to ensure that there is no confusion as to my feelings about paedophiles.)

 

Regardless of the outcome people shouldn't read the Daily Mail as it's f****** shite.

 

Guilty, m'lud. The floor is yours Judge Harvester... u go gurl!

[Windsor 2,233]

HoS will probably disappear for a while now.

He only really sticks around when paedophiles are up for discussion.

 

By the way, Langham never actually produced any child porn. I'm led to believe that this charge means that by downloading such material, he created the images on his computer. Not that this makes the charge any lighter, you understand.

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

It's been at least 24 hours since Harvester of Souls logged on to remind us how much he hates peadophiles. I can therefore only deduce that he must have changed his mind about them and come to the conclusion that they are all jolly decent chaps after all.

 

Yes, this Harvester chap seems to be protesting just a little bit too much. Mmm ..

 

Regarding the Langham case, it seems that apart from a mentally unstable girl who he was trying to help (and has now invented some allegations 11 years on), and apart from the fact he accessed some porn websites which while distasteful (simulated rape) are hardly related to paedophilia, there doesn't seem much to link him to any of the sensationalist Daily Mail headlines that have ruined his career. Indeed they've already started clearing him of some charges.

 

Will the Mail apologise? Of course not.

 

 

I hate to say "I told you so" but ...

 

Acquitted of all the main charges

 

Guilty of what he admitted from the beginning, that he downloaded some freely available images / vids from the internet. He didn't pay any money for them, so the "fuelling demand" argument is nonsense. Or nonce-sense to quote Chris Morris. How soon we forget.

 

Who's next for the paedo-witchhunt? Maybe we should set up a poll.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

Who's next for the paedo-witchhunt? Maybe we should set up a poll.

Please let's not. They seem to be getting a hard enough time in England as it is.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Guilty, m'lud. The floor is yours Judge Harvester... u go gurl!

 

 

HoS will probably disappear for a while now.

He only really sticks around when paedophiles are up for discussion.

Now come on Windy. You know that isn't true. While I don't share the obsessiveness of some posters I do tend to read this site most days. The fact that I don't post much anymore reflects the shadow of it's former glory. This site used to be genuinely witty and funny, with some superb threads and material from many contributors. Now it isn't.

 

We had a similar discussion, to this, in April 07 and now that it's official DL policy to condence everything into a master list I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the comments I made some time ago.

 

By the way, Langham never actually produced any child porn. I'm led to believe that this charge means that by downloading such material, he created the images on his computer. Not that this makes the charge any lighter, you understand.

I totally agree. Children were abused in the making of these pictures and if he was genuinely researching child abuse then why didn't he enlist the help of the various police investigation departments and children's charities? They openly encourage researchers and are willing to provide information to assist research without the need to commit a criminal offence. This is common knowledge. Townshend made it headline news across the world.

 

I hate to say "I told you so" but ...

 

Acquitted of all the main charges

Okay. He's not a child molester. Excellent foresight.

 

Guilty of what he admitted from the beginning, that he downloaded some freely available images / vids from the internet. He didn't pay any money for them, so the "fuelling demand" argument is nonsense.

So he admitted downloading child porn. He was convicted of downloading child porn.

 

He shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

 

It doesn't matter whether cash or credit card details were exchanged or not. It doesn't matter that he's trying to say it was for research. Any normal person wouldn't download child porn or would be pretty f***ed off at someone who does.

 

I hope you can clarify your post as the context I'm reading it in sounds like you're saying because he didn't pay, he's okay?

[Windsor 2,233]

We had a similar discussion, to this, in April 07 and now that it's official DL policy to condence everything into a master list I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the comments I made some time ago.

 

Well that saved an argument I suppose.

Not being a writer, I don't know the channels one has to go through to get some legal child porn for research purposes. Quite frankly, he has been charged by mere technicality if that is the case. Is it not the case that child porn is child porn? What exactly is it , from a research point of view, that can be learned from photos of children being abused? Perhaps entering a cyber community of such people would count, but if such a community did exist, surely it would be shut down?

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Oh Windsor, sometimes you are so old fashioned.

[Monoclinic 39]

Who's next for the paedo-witchhunt? Maybe we should set up a poll.

 

We have a winner!

[Lady Die 63]

I heard on the radio news this morning that Langham is on suicide watch.

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

As far as I am concerned <20 child pornography pics or vids for a p2p user does not even establish paedophilia on a balance of probabilities never mind beyond reasonable doubt. People get curious. People download job lots of files on p2p. Frankly most serious internet users have seen child pornography (including i'm sure everyone on this board) and only a very small minority are actually paedophiles. Many have downloaded by accident or on purpose videos of iraqis being beheaded. Does that make them murderers? To understand Langhams case we need context and details. What media outlet is providing that? None as far as I can see. Because most readers are just buffoons shouting "string 'im up and rip off his goolies".

[Dead O'Gonner 1]

Im not just worried about children but as came to light this morning it seems that furry fictional characters are also at huge risk from mr langham.

 

If anyone here has the chance to look at todays SUN page 4, you will clearly see a picture of the accused in a compromising position with Gonzo from the muppets. The smile is very disconcerting and also one hand is out of view!!!

 

I will leave this for you to make your own conclusions, lets just hope he trys it on with miss piggy then there may be no need to keep him on suicide watch!!!

[Monoclinic 39]

As far as I am concerned <20 child pornography pics or vids for a p2p user does not even establish paedophilia on a balance of probabilities never mind beyond reasonable doubt. People get curious. People download job lots of files on p2p. Frankly most serious internet users have seen child pornography (including i'm sure everyone on this board) and only a very small minority are actually paedophiles. Many have downloaded by accident or on purpose videos of iraqis being beheaded. Does that make them murderers? To understand Langhams case we need context and details. What media outlet is providing that? None as far as I can see. Because most readers are just buffoons shouting "string 'im up and rip off his goolies".

 

No and no.

 

Curious - bollox, research purposes - bollox. A high percentage of the population have morals and know right from wrong without having check that wrong is in fact wrong. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with most things you've said and if any download was by accident I hope people would have the gaul to report the relevant sites to the authorities.

 

I guess I'm not a serious internet user if what you say is true but I hope I am not the only one. I am of the mind that NOT everyone on this board has downloaded such filth as you suggest. I cannot be sure as that would involve assuming, which as I've said before makes an ass of u and me.

[Lady Grendel 139]

As far as I am concerned <20 child pornography pics or vids for a p2p user does not even establish paedophilia on a balance of probabilities never mind beyond reasonable doubt. People get curious. People download job lots of files on p2p. Frankly most serious internet users have seen child pornography (including i'm sure everyone on this board) and only a very small minority are actually paedophiles. Many have downloaded by accident or on purpose videos of iraqis being beheaded. Does that make them murderers? To understand Langhams case we need context and details. What media outlet is providing that? None as far as I can see. Because most readers are just buffoons shouting "string 'im up and rip off his goolies".

 

No and no.

 

Curious - bollox, research purposes - bollox. A high percentage of the population have morals and know right from wrong without having check that wrong is in fact wrong. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with most things you've said and if any download was by accident I hope people would have the gaul to report the relevant sites to the authorities.

 

I guess I'm not a serious internet user if what you say is true but I hope I am not the only one. I am of the mind that NOT everyone on this board has downloaded such filth as you suggest. I cannot be sure as that would involve assuming, which as I've said before makes an ass of u and me.

 

You are definitely not the only one Monoclonic, I have never seen these vile images either, I've never even come across a link to them on anything I have viewed on the internet.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

As far as I am concerned <20 child pornography pics or vids for a p2p user does not even establish paedophilia on a balance of probabilities never mind beyond reasonable doubt. People get curious. People download job lots of files on p2p. Frankly most serious internet users have seen child pornography (including i'm sure everyone on this board) and only a very small minority are actually paedophiles. Many have downloaded by accident or on purpose videos of iraqis being beheaded. Does that make them murderers? To understand Langhams case we need context and details. What media outlet is providing that? None as far as I can see. Because most readers are just buffoons shouting "string 'im up and rip off his goolies".

I can only concur with the above two posts from Mono and LG.

 

The excuses you have offered simply do not wash.

 

'Probability' is a bullshit apologist tool to attempt to downgrade the seriousness of the offence commited.

 

Langham downloaded child porn. He admits it. He was convicted of it. Anyone seriously researching child abuse knows full well that there are specialist places that will, legally, provide all the information you need without needing to illegally download the stuff.

 

You can blame the right wing media all you wish, but face the fact that what has happend sickens normal people and most normal people know that for child porn to be manufactured, children have to be raped and videotaped to supply this vile market. Downloading pictures may not make someone an actual paedophile but it's hardly the victimless crime you're attempting to portray it as.

 

I agree that we don't know the full details about Langham and his dubious research. We probably never will until he attempts to sell his story when his work dries up. Does that mean we shouldn't criticise and condemn his behaviour? What possible positive reason could he have had from illegally downloading child porn?

 

Can we understand Langham? Can he be rehabilitated? I hope so. I'd like to think that these problems are fixable however many years of cynicism suggest other wise. If he can't be rehabilitated then Judge Harvester will don the Black Cap and Langham should dangle from the end of a rope. Cure first... if that fails then euthanise the dirty bastard.

 

I cannot be sure as that would involve assuming, which as I've said before makes an ass of u and me.

With the need to keep this in context I can only assume that apologists, for these crimes, have no real understanding of what actually happens.

[Handrejka 1,903]

As far as I am concerned <20 child pornography pics or vids for a p2p user does not even establish paedophilia on a balance of probabilities never mind beyond reasonable doubt. People get curious. People download job lots of files on p2p. Frankly most serious internet users have seen child pornography (including i'm sure everyone on this board) and only a very small minority are actually paedophiles. Many have downloaded by accident or on purpose videos of iraqis being beheaded. Does that make them murderers? To understand Langhams case we need context and details. What media outlet is providing that? None as far as I can see. Because most readers are just buffoons shouting "string 'im up and rip off his goolies".

 

No and no.

 

Curious - bollox, research purposes - bollox. A high percentage of the population have morals and know right from wrong without having check that wrong is in fact wrong. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with most things you've said and if any download was by accident I hope people would have the gaul to report the relevant sites to the authorities.

 

I guess I'm not a serious internet user if what you say is true but I hope I am not the only one. I am of the mind that NOT everyone on this board has downloaded such filth as you suggest. I cannot be sure as that would involve assuming, which as I've said before makes an ass of u and me.

 

You are definitely not the only one Monoclonic, I have never seen these vile images either, I've never even come across a link to them on anything I have viewed on the internet.

 

You're not the only two. I've never even seen a link and I agree with Monoclinic that if I did I'd report the site to the police. I don't go as far as HOS in his death to peados belief but anything involving children being abused in anyway is indefensible and I'm sick of otherwise intelligent people trying to defend it.