Re: Langham's disgrace

The Todal wrote:
"Your inheritance is comsic consciousness and mor" <grimus108@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5f41869d-e117-4016-b58e-f0e1499d7e86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 22, 5:19 am, judith <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:48:45 -0800 (PST), ecomania

<grimus...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article3179629.ece
I think he's just digging a hole for himself doing this sort of
thing...he's still in denial and I'm sure I'm not the only one to find
that annoying. Hes lying, he's propagating an illusion, I really don't
think he shoukd be allowed to appear in public like this. I wish he'd
just PISS OFF. I also think he probably raped that teenage girl.
Really - perhaps you can detail the evidence which makes you think
this?
Perhaps you have no experience of speaking etc in the Crown court (not
as a professional with experience of that setting) - I really think
that its takes a very brave person to go up there and denounce a
famous person like Langham.

Sometimes brave, sometimes mentally unbalanced, sometimes vengeful, sometimes manipulated by a parent who is indignant about an older person having sex with her child.


I don't think that people would make that
sort of stuff up - it would be the rare exception when people do that.

A friend of mine served on a jury recently and tells me the jury unanimously acquitted the middle aged man of having sex with an underage girl - they just didn't think she sounded credible.


Also he's lying about working on a child abuse TV project thing - he
claimed he'd been discussing this with a co worker.

No he didn't. The "co-worker" was Paul Whitehouse, who agreed that one of the comic characters they had jointly devised was a seedy sex offender, but said they had not discussed the possibility of that character using child porn.


The co worker had
to go and give evidence in the Crown Court for the prosecution to deny
this. He stated that this was horrific to have to be dragged through
that.

Not exactly but he wondered why he was expected to give evidence.

Langham did not in fact want the kiddy porn for research on a TV
show. He is lying. He is creating illusion, he is conning people, hes
compounding his error. Just admit it to yourself for start headcase!!,
please seriously, you fuking idiot, if you read this - then stop lying
in public like this, and then STAY THE *** OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE ARSEHOLE.

I find it easy to forgive him even though he has been extremely foolish and naive. I hope he soon returns to our screens.


The key thing to me is that the parents of any would-be child actor now know of his interests and will give any offers of "tutoring", "voice-training", lifts to the studio/location, etc., due regard.

A secondary factor is that, hopefully, producers won't cast him into any production alongside children.

A third factor is that, if ever he had any panto ambitions - they too have been killed stone dead. Or at least no parent is going to allow their kids invitations to go with him "backstage".

A fourth is that any teenagers considering accepting/wangling invitations from him know precisely what to expect. Headlines. A lot of money to either tell their story or not. He is going to have to be a very careful little bunny from now on.

So, if he ever did have any inclination to turn theory into practice*, I would hope that that has now been killed stone dead - in this country at least.

*Whether or not he has done so in the past....
--
Sue
.