Chris Langham - you decide

[Alf W]

Guilty of downloading child pornography after pleading Not Guilty and then admitting it. So, what do you think?

a) Slapped wrist. Silly fellow. Didn't do too much harm. Fine and a suspended sentence.
b) Light custodial sentance but enough to ruin his career for good.
c) Max sentence of 10 years.
d) Throw away the key.

Discuss (would have done a poll but I can't be bothered to figure it out).

[Diver]

d.

[Nicky G]

nonce
nonce!!
nonce!!!!!!!!!!

I weren't doing owt, I were just curious.

D. Castrate the ...

EDITED: sp

[Waldorf]

Not followed it too closely but not sure why anyone would download any of this stuff, never mind as much as he did.......

[Scaroth of the Jagaroth]

Three years.

[SallyAnne]

It would have to be A for me.

If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.

[kirk]

It would have to be A for me.

If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.

pretty much agree......

[Sockpuppet]

If he wasn't currently involved in creating a show about a peado, and therefore could be believed about research, then it would be B or C, but as I cant say beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't doing research...it has to be A.

The "research" defence is bulltulip thrown about by actors/wirters when they get caught. Want to do some "research" then speak to the police dont download pitcures of children being abused.

In any case:

a) how do pictures of children being abused help you write a ******* comedy.
b) The character "pedro" was not a paedophile.

He said he came up with the idea of a character called Pedro, for the second series of Help, as "some kind of sex offender, like a peeping Tom or a flasher or possibly even something worse".

and

"I can remember a couple of incidents where it was implied he had rubbed up against someone on a train," Mr Whitehouse replied.

and

Mr Langham stated that as a writer he was driven to "dig a little deeper into the darker and more fundamental places".

So how do you get from rubbing up against someone on a train (can be easily made to be funny) to abusing children (can never be made to be funny).

D for me.

[Cowboy Bob]

Given the fact that people get so hysterical about paedophiles such that people get arrested for taking photos of their children in the bath - coupled with the fact that the reporting of his case has been so sympathetic rather than the usual witchhunt - leads me to think that there is at least a certain amount of "reasonable doubt". So therefore A.

[richard-af]

The fact that the judge has decided to keep Langham under lock & key until he sentences him, does, IMHO, point to the court believing that Langham is a danger, and bang-to-rights guilty.

Throwing away the key always sounds so Victorian and glib, but, unless there's a bulletproof cure available for Langham and those like him, that's what I'd have to vote for.