“During the three-week trial the court heard that detectives had raided Langham’s home in Golford, Kent, in November 2005 after a tip-off that his credit card had been used to access child pornography websites. They had removed three computers and police experts found a series of graphic images including some rated level 5 by child protection officers.Last night Ken Gross, the crown prosecution’s solicitor in the case, said the most serious clips included “sadism and penetrative sex between children and adults”. “These were not ‘child pornography’ images, they were very serious child abuse images and anyone who downloads this sort of thing is responsible for the suffering of real children.“”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2140721,00.html

bit in bold is the important bit imo.

well, we got there in the end, gang.

now don’t hang around here waffling, light some torches and rouse the villagers!

>:(

i get off on proxy outrage as much as the next man, i just like to feel it’s well founded, rather than just Murdoch pressing my buttons, getme.

yes i do.

just had this same argument with someone else on another forum saying ‘it’s just sensationalist tabloid reporting’

well yes they do, obviously.

but sometimes someone is actually just a bit of a wrongun.

/dons anti nonce balaclava and goes a burnin..

I did really like The Thick Of It though. Couldn’t we cut him a bit of slack? He’s a celeb after all.

How do you come back from this type of thing? Are there agencies willing to take on rebranding a paedo?

Or do you just give up and move to Timbuktoo?

i remember there was some tv awards ceremony shortly after langham’s initial arrest, and The Thick Of It were nominated in some category.

they read out the other 5 shows that were nominated to rapturous applause, but the words The Thick Of It were greeted with utter, stony silence, the camera cut to the cast and crew members who looks shocked and deeply embarrassed.

i wonder if any one had clapped whether they would have been bottled out of the room to shrieks of noncelover!

re: rebuilding your career after something like this, i dunno, pete townsend seems to be doing ok by just Pretending It Never Happened, but if you’ve actually done prison time for it the options seem to be move to thailand, or brazen it out as a celebrity nonce, a la Jonathon King.

there is still something that makes me uneasy about sending people to prison for looking at an image on a computer screen though, it is a touch ThoughtCrime, isn’t it? i understand the arguments regarding the corrupting nature of the material and that without a market for it, it wouldn’t exist.

but at the same time, i’ve seen some terrible stuff (none paedophile related, i hurry to add!) on the internet, like russian soldiers being decapitated for instance.

does having viewed that material make me a murderer? should i do prison time for murder?

kinda off topic but what would happen if a 13 year old was found viewing child porn is that acceptable???

wasnt he found guilty of, making images of child porn?

or is that just a fancy term for looking?

dirty bugger, ‘in the thick of it’ is the greatest comedy of the last 5 years though. that thing with paul whitehouse was amazing as well

Yeah Help was good too. In fact, I’m a bit of a Chris Langham fan. (Perhaps I should say ‘was a fan’. I wouldn’t want to appear to be supporting a ‘vert)

@Hyb – I’ve never quite believed in Snuff films. As a genuine genre I mean. As an occasional oddity perhaps, but I don’t think there are places you can go to browse the shelves. Well, I’ve never found one anyway :crazy:

wot about those ‘faces of death’ things?

One thing that is going to be quite worrying is the arrival of new laws that make it illegal to look at or download stuff that is technically level 5 but is actually consensual..

I know that it’s causing quite some concern in the S&M/Fetish scene given that a lot of the stuff that is passe to them could quite easily have jurors in tears.. but, it is consensual and that is the problem, one person’s meat being another’s poison..

The worrying thing is that in the name of protecting the innocent we could end up criminalising people and having ludicrous situations like the Bolton Seven again..

There’s even debate going on right now as to whether virtual noncery is actualy noncery as such, with things like Second Life and that getting quite a lot of flak for letting people indulge in “age play”, but again, there’s serious contradictions here, for what about those that get their rocks off on being “babies”, if it becomes ilegal for someone to pretend to be another age or that, then that form of behaviour is also going to be made illegal too.. and that’s going to look great in court..

“Yes M’lud, we arrested the accused dressed in a dirty diaper, with serious nappy rash and biting on an oversized teething ring..”

Well, one-off oddities maybe, like I said. Then there was that documentary with executions too wasn’t there?

But Wikipedia tells me FOD were collections of (some faked) pre-recorded deaths, filmed not directly for the series itself. i.e., not Snuff as an abduct someone off the streets and kill them on camera type thing. Which is what I always thought it was supposed to be.

It depends on your definition of Snuff I suppose.

I’ve always thought that snuff was a bit of an urban myth to be honest..

quoteth Wiki

“The most common definition of a snuff film is of a motion picture showing the actual murder of a human being that is produced, perpetrated, and distributed solely for the purpose of profit. This definition thereby excludes recordings of murders caught by accident, and videotapes of actual murders that were never intended to be released as entertainment films. Given these criteria, the existence of snuff films is highly questionable, and commercial snuff films have long been relegated by skeptics to the realm of urban legend and moral panic. To date, no film generally accepted as fitting this definition has been found.[“