Chris Langham - you decide

[SallyAnne]

Been banged up a few times, here and abroad, but nothing criminal

Football hooliganism?

[Diver]

Can't stand football

[Diver]

Or football hooligans
Or people who commit senseless violence
Or vandals
Or thieves
Or perverts
Or drug dealers
I especially dont like people who harm children or hit women

I would condone violence on any of the above however, and have been arrested several times for what you would call vigilantiism
Never been found guilty though so have a clean record.

[Ardesco]

Smart too, speaks two languages and is learning a third.. at 6 yrs old

Not trying to pick on you specifically, but why do people always say kids are smart if they know more than one language?

Most kids from multilingual families know more than one language and it's not so much because they are smart, but beacause they hear multiple languages all the time so they pick up words from all the languages that they hear as they grow up.

My 3 year old knows a mixture of 2 languages (sometimes confuses the hell out of me asking me to do stuff in another language), but it is not because he is any cleverer than your average kid, he has just grown up hearing two languages and picked up words from both of them.

Most truely bilingual people I have met have come from families where they speak more than one language.

[Diver]

Oh! and her favorite game is Chess

[barely_pointless]

back to Chris Langham, you cannot expect a reasonable person to accept the "research" suggestion of his activities when he was secretive and paid for them and indeed had some suspect history with a prospective minor from a few years earlier.

Perhaps he does need to exorcise his personal "demons" , perhaps he is indeed an alcoholic struggling with the monkey on his back, (plenty of those in my family) but why oh why did he pay for images that are clearly illegal and show a fundamental lack of basic respect for the subjects in those images, i.e. the vulnerability of children.

I don't suggest throwing away the key, counselling and a criminal offence mitigated by the quantity of images would be sufficient, you see the curiosity is the killer here and I;m reminded of a horrible movie I once saw with my wife on our anniversary at a london hotel , 8mm with Nicholas Cage, there a porno shop owner warns the main protaganist Cage, that "There are some things you cannot unsee".

that's my browsing rule, "there are somethings you cannot unsee"

serious stuff!! Which Langham seemed to have ignored for reasons only known to him.

[SallyAnne]

Oh! and her favorite game is Chess

You're a total wind up merchant Diver - I believe you are actually Duder's creator and this is your new "character"!

A bouncer style vigalanti grandad with a chess playing child prodigy in the family, is a bit too much of a stretch as an IT Contractor!

I will however, continue to pretend to believe you (much like I did with Duder).

[Dog_Yoghurt]

Didn't Pete Townsend from The Who get caught doing something similar with dodgey pics and got cautioned for offering the same defence of research? I'm confused about the consistency in the way the law deals with this.

Ok, Langham also had indecent assault charges against him which clearly had to be put before a jury. But he was acquitted of those leaving just the possession of these pics. Which leads me back to the original question; how come Pete Townsend gets a lighter response than Langham for essentially the same thing?

Or have I missed out an essential caveatte here?

[thunderlizard]

Langham v townsend

One difference is that RL was in possession of some images, whereas PT was not.

[Dog_Yoghurt]

One difference is that RL was in possession of some images, whereas PT was not.

You're right - I just googled PT and he was done for accessing peado sites. Without the risk of going slightly surely accessing sites and possession are just as bad as each other - the viewer still gets to view these awful pictures.