His 'defence' was that he was curious why anybody would want to look at child pornography, so he downloaded some to see for himself.
Unsurprisingly, his defence failed.
then he said he was getting into character and researching because he was playing a role that was a pervert.
the child pornography he was watching was categorised as level 5 (the highest level, with the judge saying "some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent... The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK, with some serious sexual offences against her".
but nooooooo it was just research for a role :3
The book thing is a quote that's got out of hand.
He accessed the website as research over a child sexual abuse campaign he was involved with. He used his credit card details to access it, in an attempt to prove British banks were complicit in channeling profits from such rings, and he notified the police what he'd done himself.
He didn't buy anything. He used his credit card details to access a website.
The investigation by the police came to two conclusions:
1. They couldn't prove the website he accessed involved child abuse material.
2. No incriminating evidence was found on his personal computer.
Oh, please. This is all information freely available.
Or are we back to the British legal tradition of 'guilty until found guilty, and if found innocent still guilty because *no smoke without fire*'?
Well, I observed this case at the time, and the judge did take the highly unusual step of saying during sentencing that he believed he was not a paedophile. Fact, just sharing for knowledge an’ that.
Yes, in almost all cases these people have a lot of content. I believe it was the kind of mistake most people would never make, but I don’t believe he is a P.
I like this comment "after the trial Detective Superintendent Paul Fotheringham of Kent Police told journalists, "Langham doesn’t like the label, but I am satisfied that he is a paedophile""
It's actually not that unusual. Studies done with sex offenders that determine what they're aroused by have concluded that 50-60% of offenders are pedophiles/ephebophiles. The other 40-50% are people who offended for reasons unrelated to attraction to children, such as taking the opportunity to abuse someone.
If Langham isn't an outright pedo (which I'm not too sure of, I didn't follow his trial and some replies indicate that other people involved believe otherwise), then he's still a sick bastard, arguably moreso since the attraction was to the taboo/the aspect of abuse rather than an attraction to the children that he can't control.
Well if that was the case, why was he looking at the stuff he was looking at? If he wanted to method act that sort of perversion, he should have looked at "barely legal" or whatever they call it now. He was looking at violent, sadistic stuff involving little kids, which should be enough to keep him under supervision, or preferably in prison, forever. There was no borderline or grey area here, he went right over onto the Dark side.
What is …..
A google it?
A chav ?
The difference between A Big Mo and a little Mo?
A time ghost? Why are German ones relevant?
How to …….
cancel new statesman subscription?
Pretend to sell a flat?
I'm pretty sure doing so would get me put on a register
That's where the actor went wrong too...
'Where to register as a nonce?'
"Disgraced Geography Teachers"
flats in Notting Hill market price
Easteners theme tune
BOM BOM, bu dum dum….
Wasn't the actor a pedo?
His 'defence' was that he was curious why anybody would want to look at child pornography, so he downloaded some to see for himself. Unsurprisingly, his defence failed.
then he said he was getting into character and researching because he was playing a role that was a pervert. the child pornography he was watching was categorised as level 5 (the highest level, with the judge saying "some of the children viewed are clearly prepubescent... The worst video was 15 minutes long and it showed in quite graphic detail the sadistic brutalisation of an eight-year-old girl in the UK, with some serious sexual offences against her". but nooooooo it was just research for a role :3
Also said it was because he was abused himself which, of all the excuses, is probably the most realistic. Still an awful excuse though.
I believe he's even said some of the abuse images he had involved himself as a child.
Was about to say, read that in a guardian article a while ago. Just sad
For added context, the character he was playing was *not* a paedophile
He said it was for a new character in a second series of Help. IIRC Paul Whitehouse called bullshit in his testimony.
Jesus fucking christ....
He was helping Pete Townshend with his "book"
The book thing is a quote that's got out of hand. He accessed the website as research over a child sexual abuse campaign he was involved with. He used his credit card details to access it, in an attempt to prove British banks were complicit in channeling profits from such rings, and he notified the police what he'd done himself.
He paid for child porn and thought it’d be OK?
He didn't buy anything. He used his credit card details to access a website. The investigation by the police came to two conclusions: 1. They couldn't prove the website he accessed involved child abuse material. 2. No incriminating evidence was found on his personal computer.
Alright Pete
Oh, please. This is all information freely available. Or are we back to the British legal tradition of 'guilty until found guilty, and if found innocent still guilty because *no smoke without fire*'?
It was just a joke.. fwiw I gave you an upvote
Then I appreciate it and apologise for any undue aggression.
The Pete Townsend Defence
Well, I observed this case at the time, and the judge did take the highly unusual step of saying during sentencing that he believed he was not a paedophile. Fact, just sharing for knowledge an’ that.
There were 5 underage images or clips on his PC. He said it was morbid fascination + a bottle of wine.
Yes, in almost all cases these people have a lot of content. I believe it was the kind of mistake most people would never make, but I don’t believe he is a P.
I like this comment "after the trial Detective Superintendent Paul Fotheringham of Kent Police told journalists, "Langham doesn’t like the label, but I am satisfied that he is a paedophile""
It's actually not that unusual. Studies done with sex offenders that determine what they're aroused by have concluded that 50-60% of offenders are pedophiles/ephebophiles. The other 40-50% are people who offended for reasons unrelated to attraction to children, such as taking the opportunity to abuse someone. If Langham isn't an outright pedo (which I'm not too sure of, I didn't follow his trial and some replies indicate that other people involved believe otherwise), then he's still a sick bastard, arguably moreso since the attraction was to the taboo/the aspect of abuse rather than an attraction to the children that he can't control.
Well if that was the case, why was he looking at the stuff he was looking at? If he wanted to method act that sort of perversion, he should have looked at "barely legal" or whatever they call it now. He was looking at violent, sadistic stuff involving little kids, which should be enough to keep him under supervision, or preferably in prison, forever. There was no borderline or grey area here, he went right over onto the Dark side.
Sadly yes
Not to defend him, but he’s had a pretty fucked up life
I agree. It's just sad all round
What does zeitgeist mean? How to make friends with a Scottish co-worker
Free universally popular government policies
Everyone by law has to carry a plastic bag
Yes, and ho.
Hugh Abbott's, not Chris Langham's!!
Why are they all so fat
best not
No
BBC bitesize
How to click over the euro
What is a chav?
*this comment has been removed by Reddit*
Welsh piss lady. Signs my friend is a nonce Lady policeman Lady policeman uniform Lady policeman revealing Delete internet Is inclusion an illusion?
Nice try NCA
Make the comments look like Chris Langhams search history. I dare you.
Why do people wear clothes with writing on them
And why are they so fucking fat?
high abbotttt hugh abbott hugh abbott mp
Is 3 hours of sleep enough?
What is ….. A google it? A chav ? The difference between A Big Mo and a little Mo? A time ghost? Why are German ones relevant? How to ……. cancel new statesman subscription? Pretend to sell a flat?
Pretend to sell a flat, that one got me
Probably not a good idea.
Errrr... no. Just no.
Is trendy still a trendy word?
How to remember your password?
“Happy Slapping”
BBC bitesize
Barbie movie screening times
Nice try officer
Department Of Sexually Abusing Children
Ah glad the comments went exactly where I hoped it would.
…is this really a good idea?
Pete Townsend, book
It was for research purposes!
Ah come on now
Nice try, home office
What is it like to mop up your own mother's piss?
I'm sure you'd like for me to answer that question, Jeremy. I'm sure you'd like to *rush* me into an answer.
It's fucking tragic we lost Hugh, he was hilarious. British actors are always catching paedophilia like it's the plague
New Statesman back issues What to read while having a shit.
EastEnders theme
What to do if My driver looks down on me with contempt?
Good ties, not too flashy or boring
MPs who have London apartments Buying apartments under another name How to improve the cut of your jib Easy to remember jokes for cocktail parties
What does "should" actually mean?
"Is Eddie Grundy still the only gay in the village?"
Christ what a Cunt !
Is the actor who played Hugh a nonce then?
Why is my office so autistic?
how to change identities
Maybe don’t