Reply to: Chris Langham - you decide

[xoggoth]

If you are playing Jack The Ripper can you do research by slicing prossies and throwing their intestines over their shoulders? Fun.

[BoredBloke]

Nicked from the Beeb

"Actor Chris Langham has been jailed for 10 months for downloading indecent videos of children from the internet."

No doubt he'll be out in 5. I wonder if he got a lob on when the Pampers ads came on.

[Dundeegeorge]

Hey Sas

How's the 'research' for that Dale Winton biography going?

[BoredBloke]

The one in the states

[Churchill]

Queen Mary - had a really cr@p meal on that once.

The one moored on the Thames or the one in the states?

[BoredBloke]

Queen Mary - had a really cr@p meal on that once.

[DBA_bloke]

He'll have an arse you could steam the Queen Mary up by then...

Sideways-on!

[DBA_bloke]

3 years; out in 18 months; then back home and fire-up the PC.

[Troll]

So... Chris Langham is due for sentencing today...whaddyathink? 9 months? a year?

[thunderlizard]

DogYog:

I suppose it's about proof. The offence is "making images". In copyright law, and I assume it's the same here, that includes "making" an image appear on your screen, from a file. Very hard to prove in court that that happened, if there weren't any files on the beast's computer. If PT had refused the caution in the first place, it would probably never have gone to court.

[richard-af]

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?

Yes. Wasn't PT supposed to have been researching (that now elderly, wizened chestnut) for his autoboigraphy? Come on Pete, where's the book, then? Or is Garry Glitter still proofreading it?

[Diver]

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).

1. el duder insulted and abused (even you) I don't
2. I am not solely in the IT business Ref: Diving & Marine Civil's

Besides you have my express permission to ask SP to confirm or deny your suspicions.

I know SP

PS. See my posts for last week or so in TPD

[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.

[thunderlizard]

Langham v townsend

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

[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?