Chris Langham

swears

swears

preppy-kei
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6928288.stm

It's a shame that he turned out to be so fucked up, isn't it?

The Thick of It was one of the few pieces of satire that I found funny and plausible in the last few years, (waaay better than the disappointing Nathan Barley) and what I'd seen of People Like Us and Help was really high quality, subtle comedy too.

Don't think I could bring myself to watch them now though.
 
hucks

hucks

Your Message Here
"HELP!" was brilliant. A second series would have cemented it in the Office/ Spaced/ Royle Family roll call of recent British comedy genius. People Like Us was the Office before the Office, too - kind of passed over, but much funnier.

I only ever thought the Thick of It was OK, not amazing, until the Xmas special, which Langham wasn't actually in. Nothing to do with Langham, who was always pretty good, I just thought it played too much to people's prejudices of what New Labour was like. There was a lack of universality to it, no real other themes apart from the particular nature of NuLab power. The special broadened it out a bit, made it better, imo.

Edit: But I could totally still watch any of them now. Couldn't watch the proposed and never made episode of HELP! about the paedo,tho, granted.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
So, looks as though he's going down then.... apparently saying it was "research" (and you were raped as a child and claiming to be a modern Dickens going to the dark places so that we don't have to) doesn't make it ok. Shame, I was planning to research an armed robbery and retire on the proceeds. When is Pete Townshend's book coming out by the way?
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
barry_abs said:
you were there?
Click to expand...

naaah, from the reports, he admitted what he did, said what he didn't do, admitted alot of stuff in public, and seems prepared to take his rap, I think that's comin over quite well. He went in depth into why he did it, and I can respect that, however dumb and fucked up he was to do it in the first place, i'm not defending it. But there's was a grace in the way he did it, unlike others who've been tried for similar stuff. Y'know, he didn't just say it was research for a book, he said his piece, and when he came out with that line 'each time I looked at them, it was me', I just thought, Ok, I believe that.
 
Last edited:
W

wonk_vitesse

radio eros
mistersloane said:
naaah, from the reports, he admitted what he did, said what he didn't do, admitted alot of stuff in public, and seems prepared to take his rap, I think that's comin over quite well. He went in depth into why he did it, and I can respect that, however dumb and fucked up he was to do it in the first place, i'm not defending it. But there's was a grace in the way he did it, unlike others who've been tried for similar stuff. Y'know, he didn't just say it was research for a book, he said his piece, and when he came out with that line 'each time I looked at them, it was me', I just thought, Ok, I believe that.
Click to expand...


True, but maybe this is the performance of his life, being an actor an all. I not saying the above isn't necessarily true to what he believes but perhaps only someone like him could really carry it off. Paul Whitehouse dismissed it all in court and gave no reason why he should be looking at the stuff.
 
E

Electric Angel

Guest
I can't understand the mindless stupidity which prompted him to download child pornography even if it was for research! Clearly Langham doesn't remember what happened to Pete Townshend of The Who when he said he'd been looking at child pornography for research as well - the excuse wasn't bought! Anyway, using such disgusting images as research does not actually condone downloading them in the first place - how graphic would one have to want your research to be before one touched such images?
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Electric Angel said:
I can't understand the mindless stupidity which prompted him to download child pornography even if it was for research! Clearly Langham doesn't remember what happened to Pete Townshend of The Who when he said he'd been looking at child pornography for research as well - the excuse wasn't bought! Anyway, using such disgusting images as research does not actually condone downloading them in the first place - how graphic would one have to want your research to be before one touched such images?
Click to expand...

What I got from what he said is that it was less research for the work and more an impulse to discover what had happened to him as a kid. I wasn't abused so I don't know what it's like, but from friends who were, it seems to be like this cud that they return to chew over again and again when they're depressed, and from that I can see how that depressive impulse would lead to looking up pics on the net - with abuse there's also this desire to clarify what happened, to make it seem less of a questioned memory. But like I said, I'm not defending what he did cos it was really dumb.

I think the question of needing to look at those sort of pics to relive and clarify what happened ( to oneself ) is an interesting one, and wonder if under analysis, it's legal to do so, I doubt it. In which case, he wasn't left much option other than to do it at home.
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Well, the judge said that the majority of these pictures were of little girls, so how would they have anything to do with dealing with memories of being abused as a small boy?
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
wonk_vitesse said:
True, but maybe this is the performance of his life, being an actor an all. I not saying the above isn't necessarily true to what he believes but perhaps only someone like him could really carry it off. Paul Whitehouse dismissed it all in court and gave no reason why he should be looking at the stuff.
Click to expand...

That was before all the stuff about him being abused came forth. The quote that caught my eye and made me follow th ecase closer was

"I talked to my wife about it. I'm one of the children in the photographs."

It's so weirdly worded that it feels like it has an element of truth in it, and from what I know from people I've met is that abuse really fucks up your boundaries, personal and psychic ones. The fact that he saw himself as one of the kids he was viewing - and confessed it in the present tense -made me think he wasn't acting, that's quite a fine strand to pick out.
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
swears said:
Well, the judge said that the majority of these pictures were of little girls, so how would they have anything to do with dealing with memories of being abused as a small boy?
Click to expand...

heh good point. I never been on those sites though, I dunno how they delineate their categories.
 
V

viktorvaughn

Well-known member
mistersloane said:
I think the question of needing to look at those sort of pics to relive and clarify what happened ( to oneself ) is an interesting one, and wonder if under analysis, it's legal to do so, I doubt it. In which case, he wasn't left much option other than to do it at home.
Click to expand...

What if photos could be realistically synthesised by IT nerds? Would it then be legitimate to us them to a) relieve and clarify and b) enjoy? No children would have been harmed in the making of the photos. An argument against b) is that it might shore up the pedophile's lust for children and therefore make him more dangerous upon release. What if he was banged up for life already?
 
M

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
viktorvaughn said:
What if photos could be realistically synthesised by IT nerds? Would it then be legitimate to us them to a) relieve and clarify and b) enjoy? No children would have been harmed in the making of the photos. An argument against b) is that it might shore up the pedophile's lust for children and therefore make him more dangerous upon release. What if he was banged up for life already?
Click to expand...

It would still be illegal in the UK.
 
M

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
mistersloane said:
Is it Martin? How does that work? Is it the case that even representations of such stuff is illegal? In that case how about writing about it? Or is it just visual representation?
Click to expand...

Both I believe. Isn't that what he's being charged with as well, making pictures? It's well known that pedo's make there stuff from catalogues and nappy adverts etc. I believe it's also illegal in the USA, didn't Peter Sotos get into trouble for his magazine Pure?

I really don't buy the line about research either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top