![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteMe too. Very funny guy...shame he's a nonce.Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
I see he is running the Winona Ryder defence: "I was researching for a role I was going to do..."
Still, it worked for Pete Townshend, though I'm still not sure why.
I'm sad; in the radio series of People like us Chris Langham made me choke with laughter.
Idols with feet of clay, huh?
Me too. Very funny guy...shame he's a nonce.
Paul Whitehouse gave evidence yesterday, and his evidence was 'research? what research?'.
So much for that defence then...
I suspect Paul Whitehouse would love nothing more than for the earth to open up and swallow Chris Langham. How shameful for him to have to give evidence and be associated with an ODB.
It's not just about what was on his pooter though...what about all the under age sex and buggery he has been accused of. It can't all be lies, can it?
Shameful to be called as a witness ? Why ? He'll answer the questions and be done with it. Ive been in court twice as a witness - both times I annoyed the prosecution
Yes it could. Doesn't mean it is, but lets wait and seeIt can't all be lies, can it?
Yes. It could all be lies, except of course the computer expert is unlikely to be lying about what was found on his computer. What's important is whether any of it is lies, and if so, what.Yes it could. Doesn't mean it is, but lets wait and see
This would not by any means be the first time that a vindictive woman, nor even a very mixed-up woman, had got a man in court charged with a sexual offence, nor an offence of under-age sex.
'Buggery' as a legal term includes BJs, so it might not be as - um - sordid as it sounds.
No it isn't...it's what we call my grans parrot. He has a few issues with his identity.
I learn something new every day. I didn't know that. Well I'll be B****red!
Hmm. Re-reading my post I find myself wondering if I have confused 'buggery' and 'sodomy'...I learn something new every day. I didn't know that. Well I'll be B****red!
Yeah - not quite sure where you got that one (ie BJ is included in buggery) from Barry. (Though I bow to your superior legalese).
(And I thought buggery = sodomy......)
There is usually a demarcation of the words driven from the orifice in question, which kind of makes sense.
sodding hell you lot cant you get bugger all right.
Sodamy is buggery.
BJ is not.
Truth is not one of his many bedellows I suggest, given that he was abused as a child it's a well known that the abused often become the abuser....As the verdict, I suggest ,will tell...
Sod the buggery, I'll stick to the real thing.....
Uhm, popular, talented tv comedian is in court accused of underage sex and all the rest of it..seemed such a nice guy etc..
Its difficult to come to terms with and I have an inkling why..
I'm reminded of an 'off the cuff' remark made by Russell Keat, one of my philosophy lecturers at Lancaster University, when said that the idea of a single perssonality may be wrong - it may be that a better conception is 'multiple personality' on the grounds of greater explanatory scope..
If we conceived of humans as having more than one personality then the apparent contradictory behaviour of a "single" personality ( he seemed so nice but he/she did THAT) seems non contradictory and is more explicable.
Well, I think it's a lot easier than that. It's a simple matter of accepting that the chance that we understand the whole of someone's character is almost zero. We all have a public face, and idea of who we really think we are. For a few people, that is a truth. For most, it is an ideal, and we tend to downplay the sides of our character that don't chime with our public face. Hardly surprising if we find we don't know everything about someone.
I think I just feel - in this case - we have a talented and entertaining comic actor who has been destroyed by his darker urges.
I just heard that he's been convicted of downloading child porn but cleared of all the indecent assault charges.
Judging by the reports of the jurors' reactions to the 'clips' that they were shown, it sounds as though it was pretty damning stuff.
So, next episode of People like us comes from the Scrubs, it would seem.
In my ignorance I lean to that view, with hormones being one of the switching agents. I would guess that evolution has prepared us for fear and conflict by giving us one alternate character, and for finding and keeping a mate with another, whilst good old 9 to 5 gets us through the normal day.
Mr Langham was caught in Operation Ore, which I hadn't realised. Apparently he immediately contacted the police and notified them that he had been receiving child porn via spam emails. They did not call to look at his computer for three years.
Either the man is terminally stupid, or there's something else going on. In three years he had more than enough time to do something relatively simple like buy another computer, reliably destroy the old one - a bonfire would be good - and when the police turn up it would be "When no-one came around, I thought you weren't bothered; I needed to upgrade my PC anyway because the old one was getting too unstable."
The point is - did he want to get caught?
Also, I was reading that there's a problem with the names provided by Operation Ore - apparently the site operators were making more money out of card fraud than by the porn operation. They were buying huge lists of card details, then 'purchasing' a subscription to their own site, and pocketing the money. The FBI knew this - there were regular times when dozens of people 'subscribed' one after the other, and astonishingly once their subscription had been approved not one of them went onto the site to start downloading what they had purchased. The rest of the time, people would be signing up one here, a couple there.
But all those names, the credit card owners whose details had been nicked, they were all provided to the Met by the FBI as child porn subscribers.
(Did we talk about this already?)
Finally, I still want to know why Townshend got away with a caution and a general feeling of 'well, he's the founder of the Who, after all...', but Langham is prosecuted and crucified in the press. What up with that?
Partly it may be explained by Langham's plea of not guilty. You have to acknowledge the offence in order to take a caution.
I thought he pleaded guilty to looking at child porn, but not guilty to the other offences (sex with an underage girl and I think something else) - and was found not guilty of those other offences, but guilty of the downloading child porn?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks