View Full Version : Chris Langham arrested.
I hate to do the shitty "news ticker" thing but just heard this about Chris Langham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4533812.stm) on the BBC news.
dvtimes
12-16-05, 11:28 AM
I hate to do the shitty "news ticker" thing but just heard this about Chris Langham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4533812.stm) on the BBC news.
Untill somone is charged or better still been found guilty, people should not be named.
We have seen a few stars who have been arrested but not charged on such cases.
This will affect his work.
I didn't realise he did so much.
Yeah I agree about naming people and I have always said that no one should be named until they have been found guilty.
The majority of people will believe it just because he has been arrested, "no smoke without fire" and all that bollocks.
It's like when blokes are nicked for rape, their names are all over the place but the woman is protected, even when the woman has made it all up.
I didn't realise he did so much.
Yeah I agree about naming people and I have always said that no one should be named until they have been found guilty.
The majority of people will believe it just because he has been arrested, "no smoke without fire" and all that bollocks.
It's like when blokes are nicked for rape, their names are all over the place but the woman is protected, even when the woman has made it all up.
True, true, and the "I was researching for my book" bullshit excuse number one has already been used as well.
Untill somone is charged or better still been found guilty, people should not be named.
We have seen a few stars who have been arrested but not charged on such cases.
This will affect his work.
The BBC page has been updated with the "porn arrest" since I posted the link. Before it was just an internet arrest story but quite obvious none the less.
Remeber Mathew Kelly a couple of years ago, he was accused of toching up a boy. He was taken off of Stars in Their Eyes and has not really been on the TV much since. He played the part of a child murderer recently and he is in Bleak House.
He was NEVER charged with anything but his career was...well lets say put on hold for a couple of years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2796355.stm
the part i find highly annoying, as usual, is that there is a screaming headline
TV comedian in 'net porn' arrest
but only in the small print it's pointed out there is CP involved. nice of them to yet again mix up legit adult material and illegal shit. asshats.
OK I'll bite.. For those saying shouldn't be named until guilty.. what excuse can someone possibly have for having CP on their computer that makes "sense"?
Don't forget "police investigations" lead them to these people's computers in the first place, to even check if the stuff is there. So 99.9% of the time they will have followed credit-card or other downloading/visiting illegal site information. It's not like they just turn up on any of our doorsteps to "check" if we have anything on our computers (stop and search type scenario). And I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a cache of an accidental landing on a page, and images actually saved/collected.
Yes I am a "smoke without fire" person in these situations. There is NO EXCUSE for having this stuff saved to you computer.
Yes I am a "smoke without fire" person in these situations. There is NO EXCUSE for having this stuff saved to you computer.
Correct... except in my case 5 people have access to my computer........
CP stinks I think everyone is agreed on that... but there is a right way and wrong way to investigate these things..... If someone is guilty then throw the book at them... but dont pillory them until guilt is proven...
If someone is guilty then throw the book at them... but dont pillory them until guilt is proven...
Unless you say you are writing a book then you just get a police caution and go on the sex offenders list before going back out on tour.
xcite-tv
12-16-05, 06:09 PM
well its simple
anyone and i mean ANYONE with CP on the pc gets their bollocks cut off even if they are female
dvtimes
12-16-05, 07:03 PM
OK I'll bite.. For those saying shouldn't be named until guilty.. what excuse can someone possibly have for having CP on their computer that makes "sense"?
Don't forget "police investigations" lead them to these people's computers in the first place, to even check if the stuff is there. So 99.9% of the time they will have followed credit-card or other downloading/visiting illegal site information. It's not like they just turn up on any of our doorsteps to "check" if we have anything on our computers (stop and search type scenario). And I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a cache of an accidental landing on a page, and images actually saved/collected.
Yes I am a "smoke without fire" person in these situations. There is NO EXCUSE for having this stuff saved to you computer.The thing is, they let him go on bail.
Also just because its his pc does not mean he downloaded it.
These days if you have wifi, somone next door could download cp using your net conevtion.
These days if you have wifi, somone next door could download cp using your net conevtion.
crap. that data would only be passed through your system, not saved on your drive. also, if you are running a wireless network and are too much of a cunt to close it for others and thereby help them access illegal material anonymously, you are just as guilty in my books.
OK I'll bite.. For those saying shouldn't be named until guilty.. what excuse can someone possibly have for having CP on their computer that makes "sense"?
Don't forget "police investigations" lead them to these people's computers in the first place, to even check if the stuff is there. So 99.9% of the time they will have followed credit-card or other downloading/visiting illegal site information. It's not like they just turn up on any of our doorsteps to "check" if we have anything on our computers (stop and search type scenario). And I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a cache of an accidental landing on a page, and images actually saved/collected.
Yes I am a "smoke without fire" person in these situations. There is NO EXCUSE for having this stuff saved to you computer.
But untill its proven guilty you are still innocent.
Looks like there will not be another series of The Thick Of It.
xcite-tv
05-11-06, 03:29 PM
I love this quote frm the article
His statement added: "I ask that you respect the privacy of my family for whom this event has been extremely traumatic.
the words .....BOLLOCKS TO HIS FAMILY spring to mind
what about the family's of the children in the filth he was looking at doesnt he think they might be a little traumatised
I love this quote frm the article
His statement added: "I ask that you respect the privacy of my family for whom this event has been extremely traumatic.
the words .....BOLLOCKS TO HIS FAMILY spring to mind
what about the family's of the children in the filth he was looking at doesnt he think they might be a little traumatised
Exactly. Protect the pedo but not the victims.
Sarah_Maxcash
05-11-06, 04:28 PM
I love this quote frm the article
His statement added: "I ask that you respect the privacy of my family for whom this event has been extremely traumatic.
the words .....BOLLOCKS TO HIS FAMILY spring to mind
what about the family's of the children in the filth he was looking at doesnt he think they might be a little traumatised
well, assuming he is guilty and that his family was in no way involved I don't see why his kids or partner should be branded in the same way. Of course, protect this kids that are victims but why should innocent members of his family be open to be treated as if they are pedophiles?
What is the charge 'making' child porn about? I notice normally the word is 'producing'. Could it be photoshopping and stuff rather than being involved with actual production?
mOBSCENE
05-11-06, 04:58 PM
What is the charge 'making' child porn about? I notice normally the word is 'producing'. Could it be photoshopping and stuff rather than being involved with actual production?
Dunno, legally if you have downloaded an image you have created/made/produced a copy of it...
OK I'll bite.. For those saying shouldn't be named until guilty.. what excuse can someone possibly have for having CP on their computer that makes "sense"?
according to AOL news, he has been charged with MAKING child porn! LINK! (http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article.adp?id=20060511102809990001)
That's what I love about this board sometimes. Nobody would dream of assuming the accused is guilty before they even go to trial.
"Making" child porn images means he is charged with downloading child porn or apparent child porn, as the law considers you to have published an image as soon as you download, copy, or upload an image.
mOBSCENE
05-11-06, 05:55 PM
The term "make" includes downloading images from the Internet and storing or printing them out. R v Bowden (J) 1999.
And that is the problem with law - as any non-legal person would automatically assume that this has involved actual production in terms of abusing children, rather than downloading (whether he has or not)
well i never knew that!, thanks for clearing that up, rosie and mobscene
ApacheAnderson
05-11-06, 07:07 PM
Exactly. Protect the pedo but not the victims.
I belive the request was to protect his family. Not him.
Leave his family out of this I say, if they had done anything wrong they would be in court as well.
I belive the request was to protect his family. Not him.
Leave his family out of this I say, if they had done anything wrong they would be in court as well.
His request means shit to be honest and no one was bothering his family.
dvtimes
05-11-06, 08:28 PM
I remember him doing a spot on the Muppets Show years back.
Sarah_Maxcash
05-11-06, 08:56 PM
I bet you the press will indeed bother his family. Does he have kids? I bet they have reporters in their face in the morning.
I bet you the press will indeed bother his family. Does he have kids? I bet they have reporters in their face in the morning.
He should have though of that himself then?
Sarah_Maxcash
05-11-06, 10:13 PM
For sure but it certainly doesn't mean that they have their own rights taken away from them because of something he did. Not apart from the fact that he hasn't stood trial yet.
It does suck if he did do it as I have enjoyed his work but then I like the Who as well.
One thing I am always suprised at is how old these people are when they say their ages on the news. I didn't think he was as old as he is.
Sarah_Maxcash
05-11-06, 10:16 PM
I often think of the false rape charges that were made against Craig Charles. He could have had his life ruined by them and he didn't work for a while because of them. I am not saying these are false claims but it does show that sometimes there is smoke where there isn't fire.
For sure but it certainly doesn't mean that they have their own rights taken away from them because of something he did. Not apart from the fact that he hasn't stood trial yet.
It does suck if he did do it as I have enjoyed his work but then I like the Who as well.
One thing I am always suprised at is how old these people are when they say their ages on the news. I didn't think he was as old as he is.
I could have worded my post better but I really think that these so-called celebrities who have an inside working knowledge of how the press works must have absolutely zero regard for their families when they get involved with this crap. Of course no one wants to see his or her families harassed but the bottom line is that these people should know better.
xratedblue
05-11-06, 11:40 PM
As has already been said, Matthew Kelly was accused and aquitted, John Leslie was publicly accused without any form of evidence except that prick Matthew "Sherlock" Wright reading a book and jumping to conclusions. Innocent until proven guilty, so lets just wait and see what, if any, evidence there is. Because we all know the police never make mistakes and everything on the internet is true
mOBSCENE
05-12-06, 11:11 AM
A friend of a friend who once dealt in pirate porn CD's got arrested because the police said there was some CP on his computer when they looked through it for the pirate stuff. If he had been a celeb it would have been all over the papers and he would have been hanged drawn and quartered by the public. In the end his defence team proved (I don't know how, but they did) that the cp had been added to his computer at a date AFTER it had been taken into the custody of the police. If he had been a celebrity it would have been all over the papers about how evil the police were to frame this innocent guy(after they had publicly ruined him).
This proves that in this case the police were not only corrupt, but also completely inept at planting computer evidence in a manner that would be convincing.
Frighteningly times move on, perhaps they are getting better at it...
The cock ups with operation Ore are a case in point of the mistakes that can be made, see
http://www.crime-research.org/analytics/1453/
Watch out if any processors are used to sell anything dodgy, because you could be tarred with the same brush...
Pedophiles should be at the least locked away with no rights whatsoever, but I am with the innocent until proven guilty camp, rather than the no smoke without fire camp...
dvtimes
05-12-06, 11:25 AM
As has already been said, Matthew Kelly was accused and aquitted, John Leslie was publicly accused without any form of evidence except that prick Matthew "Sherlock" Wright reading a book and jumping to conclusions. Innocent until proven guilty, so lets just wait and see what, if any, evidence there is. Because we all know the police never make mistakes and everything on the internet is trueTo be fair to Matthew "Sherlock" Wright, I think he just said John Leslie was arrested. Plus in John Leslie case he had a reputation for being a bad boy even before this case. And did not help himself with that porn film he made.
In Matthew Kelly case, its killed his carea dead. Mabe they will put him back on TV, but we will see.
Persanaly I belive that unless somone is convicted of a crime that they should not be named, only when convicted should they be named.
Not just because its unfair on those who have been arrested but then let go or be found inicent. But also becase it could affect the case.
The only exeption to naming somone would be where say they have gone on the run.
But its easy to simply arrest somone and charge them.
A model who did B/G work had her letters sent to the wrong PO Box address. Somone opened it, and it was asking how much for boy/girl work. They presumed it was asking for how much with children, thus the police charged her.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.