Chris Langham

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

It matters not about personal opinion concerning Langham's gifts as a writer or comedian- it doesn't change the fact that he's a nonce. Serial killers get more respect in jail than nonces.

An excellent post BHB.

 

I wonder which part of Langham masturbating, to videos of children being raped, they don't understand?

[Star Crossed 33]

No, he's worse than a serial killer.

'All he did was download some pictures off the net.' WTF? The very nature of what he was downloading and wanking over makes him a beast of the highest nature. The whole scenario fills with me with a rage and the wish to vomit.

First things first... he certainly is not "worse than a serial killer", BHB. Your hysterical ranting is reminiscent of illiterate chavs, marching through the streets with placards demanding "Peedofiles Owt!" The British criminal justice system is thankfully, whilst far from perfect, run by people eminently more qualified than yourself to pass judgement on others.

 

Secondly, in order to know he was "wanking" over the images he downloaded, you must have been spying on him. What's worse, a man wanking over some kiddy-porn or a man wanking as he watches another man wank over kiddy-porn? See, you don't like it when I assume your implicit masturbation, do you?

 

I wonder which part of Langham masturbating, to videos of children being raped, they don't understand?

Masturbating, was he? I don't think that came out in the court case... it's your half-cocked masturbatory assumption, possibly fuelled by BHB's delusionally-paranoid rant, that we don't understand.

 

You're both more intelligent and rational than these posts make you appear, surely?

[DevonDeathTrip 2,358]

I really hate this thread.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Masturbating, was he? I don't think that came out in the court case... it's your half-cocked masturbatory assumption, possibly fuelled by BHB's delusionally-paranoid rant, that we don't understand.

 

You're both more intelligent and rational than these posts make you appear, surely?

What can I say? Someone assumes I read the Daily Mail and all manner of sh*t goes off.

 

You'll be telling us next, SC, that he downloaded the porn to help him overcome his own childhood abuse?

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

No, he's worse than a serial killer.

'All he did was download some pictures off the net.' WTF? The very nature of what he was downloading and wanking over makes him a beast of the highest nature. The whole scenario fills with me with a rage and the wish to vomit.

First things first... he certainly is not "worse than a serial killer", BHB. Your hysterical ranting is reminiscent of illiterate chavs, marching through the streets with placards demanding "Peedofiles Owt!" The British criminal justice system is thankfully, whilst far from perfect, run by people eminently more qualified than yourself to pass judgement on others.

 

Secondly, in order to know he was "wanking" over the images he downloaded, you must have been spying on him. What's worse, a man wanking over some kiddy-porn or a man wanking as he watches another man wank over kiddy-porn? See, you don't like it when I assume your implicit masturbation, do you?

 

I wonder which part of Langham masturbating, to videos of children being raped, they don't understand?

Masturbating, was he? I don't think that came out in the court case... it's your half-cocked masturbatory assumption, possibly fuelled by BHB's delusionally-paranoid rant, that we don't understand.

 

You're both more intelligent and rational than these posts make you appear, surely?

 

Blimey, where do I start?

 

Reminiscent of illiterate chavs, am I? An endorsement of the British criminal justice system from your good self?

 

I don't think any sane minded individual with the slightest sense of value can argue that what Langham did was appalling. Even if we stick with what he was actually sent down for, downloading indecent images and forget about the other charge of grooming and having sex with an underage girl, it's a no-brainer that what he did was disgusting. It's a given.

 

As I understand it he paid to see children being raped on his credit card, which in turn fuels and provides the sick bastards who produce this filth. Do not forget, Star Crossed, that whilst you, Dave & Youth In Asia, seem to be of the opinion that he was merely looking at pictures, those pictures were of some poor parent's traumatised children.

 

You seem to take much issue with the assumed masturbatory angle, which I don't really understand. If he wasn't looking at them for sexual kicks, well, what other reason is there? In fact, I don't care if he did for therapy, curiousity or out of boredom- the fact that he did it was wrong, end of story.

 

I'll treat your bizarre and, frankly, childish comment about me spying on him with the contempt it deserves.

 

I have a theory concerning the apparent Langham appreciation society camped in this thread. I think it's because he's a middle classed media luvvie (or rather was). If this case involved, for the sake of arguement, a Premiership footballer then you'd all be tripping over yourselves to be in here slating them and making snide comments. Yet, because it was the 'creative genius' that is Langham, certain members seem to be in denial and actually appear to defending and making excuses for his actions.

 

Well, I'm sorry, but as far as nonces go there are no class distinctions. He is what he is, he did what he did and, SC, I don't think it's a question of intelligence to be appalled by that.

 

Call me delusionary-paranoid, ranting, irrational, a Daily Mail reader, whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're the one appearing to be publicly defending convicted nonces.

 

I'll say it again, yes, he is worse than a serial killer. At least the victims of a serial killer are beyond pain, whereas the victims funded by Langham's credit card face a lifetime of harrowing pain.

 

I take it that none of those defending Langham here are parents? If they are then my total disbelief has doubled.

 

BHB

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Be a laugh, like, if the stress produced a debilitating stroke in Langham and he was moved - Dickie O stylee - to Brinsworth House where BHB could look over the fence and speak for most of us hereabouts.

[Jimh 4]

[snip] some drivel [/snip]

Go on, since I'm a parent now I'll bite.

 

The victims of serial killers are beyond pain. Ah yes, because the victims of serial killers were all childless orphans with not a friend in the world. Did you read that line after you wrote it? You seem to love playing the parent card when it comes to child abuse but not when someone has been raped, strangled and thrown in a ditch. I suppose their parents are glad to have the slag off their hands. Or something.

 

Defending Langham? No. Suggesting that people regain a sense of perspective? Go on, I'll have a nickel's worth of that.

[Youth in Asia 1,086]

[snip] some drivel [/snip]

Go on, since I'm a parent now I'll bite.

 

The victims of serial killers are beyond pain. Ah yes, because the victims of serial killers were all childless orphans with not a friend in the world. Did you read that line after you wrote it? You seem to love playing the parent card when it comes to child abuse but not when someone has been raped, strangled and thrown in a ditch. I suppose their parents are glad to have the slag off their hands. Or something.

 

Defending Langham? No. Suggesting that people regain a sense of perspective? Go on, I'll have a nickel's worth of that.

 

 

There's no point in getting into an argument with the paedophiles-under-the-bed brigade, they are incapable of rational thought. The fact that the media-sponsored paranoia has stopped huge numbers of children stepping outside their homes, or getting exercise, leading to obesity and stunted emotional growth has also passed them by. They're just happy to have someone to rant at and offload their complexes onto.

[Jimh 4]

There's no point in getting into an argument with the paedophiles-under-the-bed brigade,

BFOD

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

There's no point in getting into an argument with the paedophiles-under-the-bed brigade, they are incapable of rational thought. The fact that the media-sponsored paranoia has stopped huge numbers of children stepping outside their homes, or getting exercise, leading to obesity and stunted emotional growth has also passed them by. They're just happy to have someone to rant at and offload their complexes onto.

 

This has got f**k all to do with children playing outside, getting exercise and developing obesity but it's got everything to do with crimes being commited against these children. Crimes being commited against children, in videos, owned by Chris Langham. This isn't widespread paranoia about paedophiles under the beds, as you claim, it's a genuine want to see crimes like this punished.

 

Incapable of rational argument? Go back and re-read this thread. You appear to think it's acceptable to download and distribute child porn. You appear to think it's some kind of victimless crime. You seem to think that everyone has, at some time, stumbled across child porn and that it's somehow a normal, everyday, occurance. You've offered no counter argument apart from the occasional random post that appears almost apologetic...

 

... that and the countless references to me reading the Daily Mail... I really do think you need to look closer to home before you beat the rational thought drum any further.

 

Langham has been tried, convicted and sentenced. His career is in tatters and he'll struggle getting work again. That is good. I hope he can be rehabilitated, if he can't then it's time for the gallows.

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

I really hate this thread.

 

I feel the same way now. I'm also beginning to hate the side of characters being slowly revealed by certain members in it, so I think this will be my last entry hereabouts.

 

HOS' post above pretty much somes it all up.

 

BHB

[Jimh 4]

Incapable of rational argument?

 

...if he can't then it's time for the gallows.

Yeah, incapable of rational argument.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Langham has been tried, convicted and sentenced. His career is in tatters and he'll struggle getting work again. That is good. I hope he can be rehabilitated, if he can't then it's time for the gallows.

 

 

Career wise and life wise high profile paedos never get it properly together again. Peter Adamson and Gary Glitter being two obvious cases who knew/know the pain of a very thin address book. Lots of time to rehabilitate themselves then.

[Guest Survivor]

First of all can I say that what Langham has done is absolutely vile and I think he should have got a longer sentence.

However to say he's worse than a serial killer is ridiculous. Are you really saying he's worse than Fred West, Jeffrey Dahmer and Harold Shipman?

 

Also BHB I'm quite disturbed that you think it's better to be dead than to be raped. Sadly quite a lot of people think that. Have you any idea how insulting that is to survivors of rape and abuse?

 

I was sexually assaulted once when I was a student. It was horrible but at at no point did I wish I'd been the victim of a serial killer instead, at no point did I wish I'd been killed and family and friends would certainly not wish I'd been killed.

 

If you think rape and abuse survivors are better off dead BHB you have some serious issues.

 

Also the class thing works two ways. Kate and Gerry McCann? If Kate had been a single, working class mother she would have been villified by the press a lot sooner.

 

Mods, you'll have realised I'm a regular poster . Please can you preserve my anonymity I don't want PMs from certain quarters philosphising about my experience.

[Guest been there]

Ditto.

 

Thank you for a great post.

[dave 0]

someone insinuated earlier in t his thread that being a serial kiler is more acceptable than downloading certain pictures from the internet-presumably thats unless one of the serial killers victims is a child of course-if theyre adults then thats ok.Wierd sense of logic!

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

Also BHB I'm quite disturbed that you think it's better to be dead than to be raped. Sadly quite a lot of people think that. Have you any idea how insulting that is to survivors of rape and abuse?

 

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread.

 

Apologies to the anonymous member who posted the above. In hindsight yes, my analogy was screwed. However, I don't think I ever said that I think it's better to be dead than raped. I'm sorry if it was misconstrued that way. It would never be my intention to belittle the plight of rape victims.

 

All I have been trying to convey is my incredulity and disgust at some posters in this thread who seem to hold the opinion that Langham was only looking at images of children being raped and that they appear to think that's okay.

 

Somewhere along the line I seem to have come out as the bad guy here, which to be honest surprises me more than a little. To be labelled as an illiterate chav etc. purely because I have voiced the opinion that any form of child abuse and its perpetrators disgust me strikes me as bizzare. It actually strikes me as a whole lot more than merely bizarre, but then perhaps I shouldn't elaborate for fear of upsetting anyone else.

 

As for the suggestion that I think rape and abuse victims are better off dead, well, I don't think that and I didn't actually say that. I apologise again if I have offended the member concerned, it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. Like I said, I made one sh*t analogy, but hey, let's not forget that there are at least three members in this thread who seem to be justifying and excusing what Langham did. They were who I was questioning and expressing disgust at. I certainly make no apologies to them.

 

Anyway, I made my point and I still stand by my opinions. Except the sh*t serial killer analogy, obviously. In finishing, I'd just like to stick two virtual fingers up at the posters here who think Langham's misunderstood as I leave this horrible f*****g thread forever. How you can begin to sympathise with or defend him is totally beyond me- I'd sooner be irrational than sick.

 

BHB

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

I'd sooner be irrational than sick.

 

Me too, but I seem to be stuck with both. I envy you BHB.

[macabre13 0]

Also BHB I'm quite disturbed that you think it's better to be dead than to be raped. Sadly quite a lot of people think that. Have you any idea how insulting that is to survivors of rape and abuse?

 

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread.

 

Apologies to the anonymous member who posted the above. In hindsight yes, my analogy was screwed. However, I don't think I ever said that I think it's better to be dead than raped. I'm sorry if it was misconstrued that way. It would never be my intention to belittle the plight of rape victims.

 

All I have been trying to convey is my incredulity and disgust at some posters in this thread who seem to hold the opinion that Langham was only looking at images of children being raped and that they appear to think that's okay.

 

Somewhere along the line I seem to have come out as the bad guy here, which to be honest surprises me more than a little. To be labelled as an illiterate chav etc. purely because I have voiced the opinion that any form of child abuse and its perpetrators disgust me strikes me as bizzare. It actually strikes me as a whole lot more than merely bizarre, but then perhaps I shouldn't elaborate for fear of upsetting anyone else.

 

As for the suggestion that I think rape and abuse victims are better off dead, well, I don't think that and I didn't actually say that. I apologise again if I have offended the member concerned, it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. Like I said, I made one sh*t analogy, but hey, let's not forget that there are at least three members in this thread who seem to be justifying and excusing what Langham did. They were who I was questioning and expressing disgust at. I certainly make no apologies to them.

 

Anyway, I made my point and I still stand by my opinions. Except the sh*t serial killer analogy, obviously. In finishing, I'd just like to stick two virtual fingers up at the posters here who think Langham's misunderstood as I leave this horrible f*****g thread forever. How you can begin to sympathise with or defend him is totally beyond me- I'd sooner be irrational than sick.

 

BHB

 

yeah i have to agree with this quote because whoever the sick bastards who said that charles langham was only looking at images of children being raped and weren't doing no harm should be shot down....

 

heh i said that

[Star Crossed 33]

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread.

Thank heavens for small mercies. Allow me to play Richard Dawkins to your Kent Hovind...

 

Apologies to the anonymous member who posted the above. In hindsight yes, my analogy was screwed. However, I don't think I ever said that I think it's better to be dead than raped. I'm sorry if it was misconstrued that way. It would never be my intention to belittle the plight of rape victims.

Housekeeping done, then...

 

All I have been trying to convey is my incredulity and disgust at some posters in this thread who seem to hold the opinion that Langham was only looking at images of children being raped and that they appear to think that's okay.

Which posters in this thread hold the opinion that child abuse, or the perusal of images thereof, is ok? Which ones, BHB? As I'm sure your mathematics teacher once told you, show your working...

 

Somewhere along the line I seem to have come out as the bad guy here, which to be honest surprises me more than a little.

It's because you behave as though there is only one level of paedophilia-related crime, as though this issue is completely black and white, with no shades of grey. You implicate anyone who offers a rational, educated viewpoint on the matter in some sort of middle-class, Langham-adulating conspiracy, to wit;

 

I have a theory concerning the apparent Langham appreciation society camped in this thread. I think it's because he's a middle classed media luvvie (or rather was). If this case involved, for the sake of arguement, a Premiership footballer then you'd all be tripping over yourselves to be in here slating them and making snide comments. Yet, because it was the 'creative genius' that is Langham, certain members seem to be in denial and actually appear to defending and making excuses for his actions.

Laughable, paranoid, class-inferiority-complex-laden claptrap, BHB.

 

To be labelled as an illiterate chav etc. purely because I have voiced the opinion that any form of child abuse and its perpetrators disgust me strikes me as bizzare.

Nobody "labelled" you an illiterate chav; I said that your rants are "reminiscent of" illiterate chavs (who don't/can't understand the issues at hand and who parade thourgh the streets demanding draconian punishments for crimes they scarcely understand), which they are.

 

... I made one sh*t analogy, but hey, let's not forget that there are at least three members in this thread who seem to be justifying and excusing what Langham did.

Which three members, at least? Show your working...

 

How you can begin to sympathise with or defend him is totally beyond me- I'd sooner be irrational than sick.

The ability and willingness to sympathise with someone who may or may not have a psychosexual predeliction for children, through no fault of their own is, I think you'll find, one which is gained only through maturity.

 

I take it that none of those defending Langham here are parents? If they are then my total disbelief has doubled.

Is it even possible to double disbelief that is already total? You're fond of reminding us that you have kids of your own, as if that gives you some unique wisdom or perspective, but by "maturity", I don't mean sexual maturity. I'm talking about sociological maturity, something you clearly lack in spades.

 

I don't think any normally-adjusted person would say that child abuse is good, or right, or acceptable but the rational, mature people in our society accept that it is a problem, one with many permutations and levels of severity and offender interaction, and with many possible punishments/treatments, and are able to discuss or debate these issues as the "shades of grey" that, in common with most things in life, they are.

 

In your sig, you ask any editors who may be reading your posts to "gissa a job" (fyi, no need for the second "a" in "gissa a job"; "gissa" is a contraction, albeit a poor one, of "give us a"). It beggars belief who'd give you a job on the strength of your contributions in this thread, or what sort of publication they edit.

 

Yours, never ever afraid to speak his mind, defend his opinion, defend rational and sane discourse, or be contrite when he's wrong,

SC

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Yeah, incapable of rational argument.

Nice use of selective editting there Jim.

 

I see you managed to quote the end bit without out the quote in it's entirety 'I hope he can be rehabilitated, if he can't then it's time for the gallows.'

 

I really can't be arsed going through the numerous posts I've made, on this matter, in order to clarify, my stance on it. It's all freely available using the Search feature where my rants are both passionate and extensive. By all means use the personal messaging facility if you wish to pursue your abhorrence of the death penalty, to un-rehabilitated sex offenders.

 

In order to keep this reply concise I'd like to ask you a question. This can go to yourself, Youth In Asia and anyone else that wishes to trivialise Langham's crime.

 

What rational argument can you provide, in support of Langham, for the illegal downloading, possession, and distribution of child porn?

[Jimh 4]

Trivialise? Defend? Don't think anyone is doing that.

 

I think the general feeling was that comparing the offence with that of murder was a little on the hysterical side, to say bone headed things like "the victims of a serial killer are beyond pain" was, well, bone headed and ignorant and arrogant opinions regarding the victims of sexual abuse are not very helpful.

 

One thought for those so fond of playing the parent card. Would it be churlish to point out that if a child is to be murdered, abused (sexually or otherwise) or used in the creation of images "enjoyed" by Mr Langham then the most likely people to do it are the parents?

[Bald rick 9]

if a child is to be murdered, abused (sexually or otherwise) or used in the creation of images "enjoyed" by Mr Langham then the most likely people to do it are the parents?

As indeed was the eight year old girl in one of the very videos viewed by Mr Langham. I read in the BBC report of his conviction (I think) that the father (and perpetrator of the abuse) had now been convicted of it, partly as a result of the police finding the images on Mr Langham's computer.

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

Taunted in jail, more than a man can bear? We can only hope so. His wife has given an interview, do any of our Kent posters have a copy, sounds like she's more likely to say 'he's suffering terribly' than 'I'm divorcing the sick bastard.'

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

Taunted in jail, more than a man can bear? We can only hope so. His wife has given an interview, do any of our Kent posters have a copy, sounds like she's more likely to say 'he's suffering terribly' than 'I'm divorcing the sick bastard.'

 

Hopefully the Kent Prison Service will adopt the Dahmer self-containment policy and lock him in the same room as a convicted murderer and a weight bar.

 

this guy's available for a transfer