Re: Langham: a victim of gross injustice

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:12:48 GMT, Palindrome <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MM wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:03:31 GMT, Palindrome <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MM wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:15:08 GMT, Palindrome <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Will early release from prison (assuming that is where he ends up)
depend on him accepting that he was "guilty"? That does seem requiring
him to admit that he really is sexually aroused by images of children
being abused..
So you are confirming what I have written elsewhere, and Cynic has
also mentioned, namely that it the *sexual arousal* per se that you
and others find objectionable, not the downloading and viewing in and
of itself?

IIUC, he made of a point of denying it. So, presumably he thought that.
I can see that he could perceive being made to admit that he did wrong
as being made to admit that his denials were lies.

Faced with the opinions that you and others share, coupled with the
other accusations made against him in court (of which he was aquitted)
which served to destroy his reputation and thereby worsen his chances
of a fair trial before a biased jury (biased because British, with
every connotation that that implies), plus comments from the judge,
the press and phone-in programmes, any denials he might have made are
going to have as much intrinsic worth as bat ***. What comes to mind
here is the demeaning way the then Governor George W Bush mocked Karla
Faye Tucker's plea for clemency: "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips
pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' A similar kind of wilful
Schadenfreude is presently at work in Britain. Denials just fall on
deaf ears because no one wants to listen.

Yet Bel Mooney can admit in writing to having seen, and therefore
downloaded and "made", very similar material and everyone believes she
has every right to do so, because she is somehow deemed immune from
prosecution.


Which particular opinion of mine do you object to?

Pretty much all of it, I'm afraid. You and I will never see eye to eye
on most things.

The one where I have
doubt as to whether he really is turned on by the images but should have
known better than to risk downloading the stuff, whatever his reason?

Yes, for example. You just don't believe him, do you! Moreover,
nothing he could say would ever convince you otherwise. Yet replace
Langham with a journalist or a police officer and your doubts
disappear like snow on a barbie, yes? No logic at play here, just raw
emoting. I suspect that it's in part because you know what the
received wisdom is and you wouldn't want to be seen or heard kicking
against the pricks.

Simply because he should have known that it was illegal to do so?

Why should he have? Last night on the BBC One show (I watch because I
find Mylene Klass devastatingly gorgeous) a group of children from
Hastings were asked various simple questions about history. For
example, when was the Battle of Hastings. Most got it right, 1066, but
one girl, who looked fairly bright (as they all did, actually; kudos
to Hastings), didn't know and guessed 1966. I would say there are vast
numbers of internet users in the UK, including new newbies going
online for the first time every week, who have not got a clue about
the dangers, financial or otherwise, that are prevalent on or via the
internet, and Langham seems just another naive contender, like all the
others who have been hauled into the stocks over the past five years.
Who can possibly say that he didn't download the images, was suitably
disgusted, but never thought in a thousand years that the police would
come knocking on his door? As far as I can tell from the press
reports, his Ore connection was merely like that of thousands of other
users who joined Landslide for adult porn. But I expect you still
believe that Landslide was a 100% "child porn" site, don't you,
because that is what the police want you to believe!

Now cast your mind back several weeks and Jim Gamble stated on
numerous TV and radio programmes that not all downloaders should be
sent to prison! The BBC reported him as saying: "We shouldn't be
sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the
viewing kind - to prison."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6710531.stm

So why is Langham sitting in jail right now? Because he's a luvvie and
the Establishment no longer likes luvvies? Think how The Thick of It
was very wounding for many top people in or associated with the
government and civil service. Think they've forgiven him, do you?

Or that either he, or his legal team are idiots for pleading not guilty
to the images charge?

I think they are exactly right for pleading not guilty, if that is
what he says.

What is the particular significance of it being a British jury?

I believe the British, generally speaking, and compared to most other
Europeans, are ill-educated, emotional, incapable of debate, cannot
apply logic, and are quickly swayed by meaningless twaddle that sounds
good, especially of the ranting kind from the likes of Tony Blair,
George Galloway, Robert Kilroy-Silk and others. In short, idiots. Look
at our governments we elect! Look at the state of our democracy! Look
at the state of the nation compared to other countries! By practically
any measure we are a basket-case, and you'll hopefully know what that
means.

That
some of them cry when shown images of child abuse?

Yes, for example. I couldn't understand the complete change in
attitude that befell the British nation when Diana was killed. Since
then, we routinely watch awful reality TV. as well as almost any other
documentary. where it is de rigueur for the camera to focus for a few
seconds in a close-up of the "victim's" eyes so that we can all see
the tears welling up. Some people should get a slap for being such
ninnies.

That they still
acquitted him of the other charges, based on the evidence? In spite of
any emotions they may have experienced as a result of the images?

Again, from the reporting, I think it was pretty clear from the outset
that those other charges were baseless to the point where not even
your average British juror could ignore it.

As to Bel Mooney, for all I know, it could have been at the appropriate
cop shop that she saw such material and she had some helpful police
officer assist her with the downloading and creating part. If so,

....i.e. pure conjecture

it
does

You mean "would" or "might" - conjecture, remember!

seem a bit unfair for said cop to turn around after and arrest her..

And suddenly you turn pure conjecture into pretty much fact! Question:
Are you a journalist?

MM
.