IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Topic History of: Chris Langham Interview in the Guardian Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
bh
Well we know one allegation by a troubled woman aka Karin Ward...And probably all the others that went to that certain school. And various others that hid their selves in groups of similar.
The rather stupid thing I can't get my head around is that such people would be described as "non compas mentus" (which I've probably spelt wrong) though in which case they could never be taken seriously, as they tend to make up or exagerate, anyway. Though this could go against them, in the moment they do speak the truth, no one believes 'em. Like the kid that always tells fairytales. The story of the kid's cat that fell down a well. She told the story 3 times. On a 4th time, the cat did fall down the well. Not surprisingly, how could anyone believe her? She was a compulsive liar.
When I went to work, their was this chap (slightly backward) who came out with the stupidest reasons for not going to work. One of which was "I can't come to work, I've been arrested". He was caught out, when the manager turned up at his house & caught him watching the cricket!
Chris Retro
...and with so many little girls growing up without reliable father figures, the number of 'troubled women' (ie still 'broken little girls') will only rise
Everyday life is a minefield even if you aren't an ageing Tory-endorsing celebrity of Yesteryear.
MCR Media
QUOTE FROM LINKED ARTICLE ABOVE In court he was also charged with sexual assault on a minor. When news of his arrest broke, a young woman had come forward claiming they'd had a sexual relationship when she was 14. Langham admitted to the affair, but said she was 18 at the time, and her evidence was dismissed as unreliable, with court reports describing his accuser as "troubled". He says his wife had already known about the affair - but if the woman was so troubled, why did he get involved with her?
"I don't know," he replies in a low voice. "I don't know. I don't know. Cos she was attractive. I've made lots of mistakes in my life and that's one of them and I'm very sorry that I did that."
I wonder how many of the recent allegations are all by "troubled women".
TED
Witchfinder General? I think you mean Pedofinder General.
Ascanio Condivi
robbiex wrote: steveimp wrote: Makes you think though, if you were renovating a house and found some old copies of The Sun from the 1980s underneath an old carpet and these featured 16 year olds topless, would they be classed as child porn?
No of course they wouldn't, don't be ridiculous. There is a big difference between 16 year old young women voluntarily posing topless in a national newspaper, to pictures of children been sexually abused and tortured
Knowone has been convicted for having old copies of page 3 lying around.
Yes, pictures of topless 16 year old girls are now classified as child porn and the official guideline for sentancing for possession for child porn makes no reference to age. According to these guidelines a topless picture of a 16 year old girl is the same (level 1) as a 5 year old toddler being posed naked in a sexual manner.
People are now regularly being convicted of downloading pictures of clothed teenagers (in 'sexual' poses), or as somebody else pointed out, for looking at cartoon pictures - even the Simpsons.
You might not go to jail for having old copies of the Sun in the attic, but you might if you have cut out and kept the page 3 pics of sam fox at 16.
Now I wonder why these middle-aged feminist activist groups such as the NSPCC that pose as child protection societies want to make no distinction between pornographic pictures of a 5 year old girl and, as you say, a beautiful 16 year old buxom young woman?
Forums 
