I see a policeman said outside court that he 'knew Langham was a pedo'. There really should be rules regarding police making these sweeping statements. They should be banned from saying nothing that has not been proved.

He may as well have said he knew he was a bank robber as no evidence of either was produced.

brave of the newspaper running this interview. Mr Glitter next ? That would be fascinating.

Langham's a great talent and I just hope he gets the chance to work regularly again.

He had a small quantity of CP on his comp,not exactly a heavy user.He was unlucky to be found guilty,paid the penalty,did his time,then found out he'd gone from being a productive contributing member of the public to being as good as useless,due to the fact he's not allowed to do what he does so well!

The meejah has a lot to answer for!!

I was disappointed in Paul Whitehouse, he seemed so eager to distance himself from Langham.

The same media that does it themselves but that's OK until you are found out and convicted of it!

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?

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.

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.

I wouldn't like to test that out. people have been charged with having pornographic cartoons of the Simpsons.

did the Daily Mail run an interview with Langham only to pull it in the afternoon ?

Anyone else see it ?

sam wrote:
did the Daily Mail run an interview with Langham only to pull it in the afternoon ?

Anyone else see it ?

This one?

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-20...onduct-research.html

That looks like they've just pinched the info from the other paper.

You're quite right LO - it's not actually the (predictable) media coverage of these things but their accurate assessment of a small chunk of their readers. Where they make their mistake, though, is in assuming the silent majority is a minority.
The Internet has helped us delude ourselves that we loudmouths are the only ones that matter. No; we're the only ones foolish enough to spout our opinions as though we are informed and intelligent.
This is reflected by the shouty haters who pop up so much. I've often wondered who the mad folk are who contribute to these polls, vote on these topics, consider every word a valuable contribution. Then I realised - it's us!
That's why, for example, I monitor all You Tube comments before putting them up on the numerous videos uploaded there. It amuses me to watch the frustration of the tiny quantity of barmy trolls who cannot understand why "You Tube" are censoring their bile. These mental freaks have hit the headlines recently ("Online bullies taunt bereaved parents" type stuff).
Since we started King Of Hits, I've always had board keepers checking the posts before they go up. We've weeded out most of the trolls but they try every now and again. But even at the height of my demonisation, the vast majority of posters have been supportive, positive, intelligent.
That's why I try to erase personal insults. They are simply not necessary.
My conclusion is - most human beings are decent and kind. Even Mail readers (I am one - it's the best - and the nastiest - of the 6 daily papers I read) are, I believe, overwhelmingly decent. I think they despise the haters just as much as the rest of us.

It is most surprising that The Daily Mail re-printed Langham's interview without condemnation and that is what we should expect and receive from tabloids.

The comments are most interesting and being under 200 couldn't possibly reflect the majorities view one way or another.
My experience of the general public is that they put their heads down and get on with their own lives and actually filter out most information they do not wish to bother themselves about.

Thus Gary Glitter could probably walk around in full glitter gear and few people would actually remember who he was except for tabloids constantly harping on the subject.

I've just read Rupert Everett's book and he still, as he said in a recent interview, gets mistaken for Hugh Grant.

Most of the comments against Langham are ill-informed even on facts.

'It was just hubristic and arrogant of me to think I'm above the law because I'm an artist.'

Yeah who was he kidding? Artists are the favorite targets for this type of stuff, especially if you're an actor or musician, because it really feeds the tabloids.

sam wrote:
It is most surprising that The Daily Mail re-printed Langham's interview without condemnation and that is what we should expect and receive from tabloids.

Yesterday the Mail was back to its cynical worst, sneering at Langham's supporters and outraged that its mad Witchfinder General mentality isn't shared by everyone else in the UK. Horrible paper.

Yes that was a thoroughly nasty spread, wasn't it, right down to the least possible flattering photo!

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?

Hmmmmmm.....can't think why.

Witchfinder General? I think you mean Pedofinder General.

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".