..for Chris Langham. Jurors were today shown images of pornography involving children found on Langham's laptop. In his defence Langham's lawyers said he was using child porn to conduct research for a new TV series.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6915417.stm

However his co-writer Paul Whitehouse claims Langham 'had no need whatsoever to download child porn for research.'

The BBC have already deleted Langham from the front cover of a DVD of The Thick Of It. A spokesman for the beeb says 'The decision to remove Langham from the cover has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations made against him.'



That's almost as funny as something from one of Langham's scripts!

Let's balance this,there's no excuse for underage porno pics on your comp.
Still they are only pics,while unpalatable,it could be a result of curiosity,and of course certainly stupidity.
Anyone thinking that in Britain you could keep stuff like that private didn't learn a thing from the Glitter episode.It's the law,and I'm sure it has the support of the majority of the population.If he's got that on his comp he'll need to be punished,but not excessively,just as perscribed by the law.
The other bit,well this supposed relationship with an underage lady.That's a few years ago,not easy to check it out.Comes down to who the jury want to believe,not necessary who tells the truth.
But don't please anyone fall into the basket of mass hysteria that seems to surround anything 'underage' these last 20 plus years.Too many innocent people have suffered from this to make it a completely fair,fact generated trial.
The tabloids have already made it imposible to find an unbiased jury.Should we look to have a complete media ban on these type of trials until the jury reach their verdict?

I'm all for anonymity for both parties - accuser and accused. The Court should treat the case as two sides in dispute, not as a victim and offender - until a verdict is reached. I do like the American presentation where the prosecution and defence are both on level terms, sitting with their lawyers throughout the trial, as opposed to in Britain where the accused (sometimes innocent) is on display in a box seperated from his legal advisers.

Solihull Exile wrote:
Let's balance this,there's no excuse for underage porno pics on your comp.
Still they are only pics,while unpalatable,it could be a result of curiosity,and of course certainly stupidity.
Anyone thinking that in Britain you could keep stuff like that private didn't learn a thing from the Glitter episode.It's the law,and I'm sure it has the support of the majority of the population.If he's got that on his comp he'll need to be punished,but not excessively,just as perscribed by the law.
The other bit,well this supposed relationship with an underage lady.That's a few years ago,not easy to check it out.Comes down to who the jury want to believe,not necessary who tells the truth.
But don't please anyone fall into the basket of mass hysteria that seems to surround anything 'underage' these last 20 plus years.Too many innocent people have suffered from this to make it a completely fair,fact generated trial.
The tabloids have already made it imposible to find an unbiased jury.Should we look to have a complete media ban on these type of trials until the jury reach their verdict?

Lets be honest about this, someone of Langhams' intelligence should surely know better than to download these appalling pictures and videos of underage children whether it be for research or to satisfy any twisted sexual urges he may have.
The law in this country is quite clear, any sort of activity in this country with underage children is rightfully unacceptable and for someone in Langhams' position would almost certainly leave his career in ruins if convicted.
As for the girl it seems a pretty certain bet she is telling the truth, why would'nt she be?
I think Langham would be the luckiest bugger(No pun intended) if he gets away with these charges.

"As for the girl it seems a pretty certain bet she is telling the truth, why would'nt she be?
I think Langham would be the luckiest bugger(No pun intended) if he gets away with these charges"

No wonder people get wrongfully imprisoned.You read the papers,and hey presto he's guilty because some journalist wants a flashy headline.
Let's see the full facts before making assumptions.Young people know the law and the press are on their side if they decide to make these type of allegations,and with little chance of being punished if they can't be backed up.While the accused will have to live with the stigma regardless of innocence or guilt.
He admitted the pics,well a price will have to be paid for that.Let's hope the judge is sensible enough to keep things in perspective,and not be influenced by the gross sensationalism surrounding this case.

Carl wrote:
As for the girl it seems a pretty certain bet she is telling the truth, why would'nt she be?
I think Langham would be the luckiest bugger(No pun intended) if he gets away with these charges.


She could be telling the truth, but her credibility was damaged once we learned that she'd made a previous allegation which turned out to be fantasy. Her own family call her a Drama Queen.

Why wouldn't she be telling the truth? Maybe because she's been caught lying before? Maybe because she might make some money out of it? I'm always amazed at the number of people who do lie about this kind of thing, and they each have different reasons for doing so.

Judge throws out 4 charges.

I have to tell you, the actual facts are frequently very, very different from both the media coverage and the police/prosecution case.

Not just bending the evidence but sheer invention and malicious creation.

And most people simply don't, or cannot, believe that.

And it's incredibly hard and often impossible to prove.

Someone says they met you 35 years ago. Prove they didn't.
And that you had sex with them. Prove you didn't.

But their story is "a great story" (as lurid as possible).
And yours ("I didn't do it") is boring as hell.

Well if she is telling lies then I believe that the law should work the same for both parties and she should be 'named and shamed' for the want of a better phrase.
As for her making up the whole story for financial gain only time will tell, if Langham is found guilty and she waives her right to anonymity and sells her story and goes through the civil courts for compensation etc then it could be argued that this was the reason for the accusations.
On the other hand if what she is saying is TRUE and Langham is found guilty then she deserves every penny she gets.
If he is innocent good luck to him.

That's fine Carl and we all agree but you assume the legal system always gets it right.

The thousands of overturned convictions implies it doesn't.

Sally Clark?

I would never assume that the legal system ALWAYS gets it right.
The case of Sally Clark was indeed a tragic one as was the case of the men convicted and then aquitted of the Carl Bridgewater murder and many more before and since.
However perhaps the only solution in these sort of high profile cases would be a complete media blackout until a verdict has been reached.
I do think there should be a time limit on allegations of historical child sex abuse as it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove that something actually happened. I read a story only recently about an 83 year old man being convicted of child sexual abuse offences dating back to 1948.
Another argument would be to have jurors in these cases who have some kind of expertise in the case being heard before them rather than ordinary members of the general public being selected.

JK2006 wrote:

Someone says they met you 35 years ago. Prove they didn't.
And that you had sex with them. Prove you didn't.

I can't think of ANY justification for delaying a complaint (other than maybe allowing the non existent evidence to "disappear").

BBC radio news... Judge instructs jury to find CL not guilty on four of the charges.

Carl wrote:
However perhaps the only solution in these sort of high profile cases would be a complete media blackout until a verdict has been reached.

A good idea ... after all why is anything reported (pre-verdict), it's bound to be selective (the salacious bits?) and despite being warned not to be influenced by the media the Jurors are bound to be influenced to some extent.

Innocent until proved guilty? .... or guilty (by media trial) until proved innocent?

I`m with Chrissy on this, but isn`t it sad that through others misfortunes, celebs have had to get to grips with how to not only stand a normal trial, but a media trial as well and play to both sets of judges/juries.

That is not a fair trial, that is a three ring circus.

Maybe he'd have been better off not saying anything about his childhood and his emotional downs. Society has been so conditioned to believe that the abused become abusers that some jury members might think it increases the likelihood of his guilt. Juries can also be overwhelmed by the number of charges. So, I'm not so sure that he's going to win this one .. even if he's innocent.

I hear where you`re coming from Al, but to balance conditioning as you say of abusers becoming abusers, this seriously needs to be considered against the fear installed IN the abused themselves that THEY themselves may become abusers.

Therefore,whatever "justice" is dealt out, he may well have been better off saying nothing, but braver to speak out.

It is always a bit predictable when the accused with their back against the wall, plays the 'I was abused as a child' card in order to get sympathy from the jury. We all know how victims come out with accusations many years after the event in order to get fame, money etc. It can happen both ways in order to sway a result.

We find that with some people with addictions that they tend to blame everyone else except themselves.

Another reason why this is going to be such a difficult case Foz.
To some people, Mr Langham`s comments will seem to suggest the question, of, why it has taken him this long to say he was abused?
It is of course obvious why he has chosen now to talk about this subject.
The whole case feels like a very grey, greasy area.

I also think , whilst we think about "innocent until proven guilty"(whatever that means these days), is the accuser "guilty until proven correct?" (ditto brackets)

There will be no victor, whatever the outcome.