Talk:Chris Langham

message: A user addedLangham gave his name to the Langham, the stalk on top of Berets.This will require detailed substantiation. --Phil | Talk 15:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Ken Campbell (actor) told this story of Chris, which  happened during the long production of Illuminatus, IIRC. The context was that Chris commented one day that a person simply has to find something that doesn't have a name and then give his name to it. He said that one day he would find something without a name and give his name to it. Some time later he announced that he had found just such an item, being the stalk on the beret, which was henceforth known as a 'Langham'. I always refer to it as such, but how many people need to use this word in this way for it to be considered substantiated? I would have thought one was sufficient.David Farmbrough 09:00 (GMT) 15 Jun 2005
::This is what should be in the article. The point is that that's what he calls them. I have put some of it into the article. A source would be nice too. Tim Ivorson 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To follow this up, is it significant that his first wife was responsible for the popularisation of the slang expression the 'Judith' named after her appearance naked in the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian? DavidFarmbrough 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info! I've added it after merging the two mentions of Not the Nine O'Clock News, since it all happened around the same time. I think it all flows a bit better now, but there's still room for improvement. -- Guybrush 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thought too, to put his stage appearance back in the H2G2 article! I went back and added the bit about his appearance in the last episode of the third series. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc.

message: What exactly does "making indecent images" mean? Is that a legal term for downloading?Or is it actually taking photos and storing them on a PC?  172.139.59.169 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a deliberately open term, usually applied to downloading, to make prosecution easier. Technically, downloading is creating another image file; thus "making indecent images". We could get into a Foucauldian discussion here about discourse and power... The JPS talk to me 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, the charge of 'making indecent images of children' suggests that he had lured them to his house with sweets, undressed and photographed them. I think that this ought to be explained in the article. It's mysterious how this co-incided with his BAFTA award. Are the police just cherry-picking high profile people? DavidFarmbrough 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the term is problematic and provokes dangerous misinterpreation. As far as I understand, though, "making indecent images" is the official charge -- which is what we are accurately reporting. We don't know any further details. Is there an article we could link to that discusses the complexities of the charge? The JPS talk to me 12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that, if convicted, he could serve 13 years upwards in jail. Nowadays that seems more than some people get for killing. Whatever anyone's views on the controversial subject of pedophilia, I find it mind-boggling that he could serve so long for merely LOOKING AT A PICTURE. This signifies the kind of out-of-proportion moral panic ridiculed by Chris Morris in Brass Eye, around the whole subject of pedophilia. Merely BEING a pedophile has become the crime, rather than any form of child-molestation. Even if you view pedophilia as an illness (dubious scientifically), this is like making schizophrenia illegal. Even when Oscar Wilde went to jail, it was for the ACT of gay sex rather than BEING homosexual or looking at pictures of naked men. 13 years for looking at a JPEG... am I the only one who finds that a bit absurd?-Neural 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is based on the presumption that end consumers of commercial child pornography create a demand for material which results in the abuse of children. DavidFarmbrough 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the official line. It probably has more to do with people like Chris Langham being an easier target than child pornographers themselves, who almost never find themselves before a court. As for the rationale... have these extreme sentences reduced the amount of child porn floating around? By all accounts, both supply and demand are growing rapidly. Even teenagers are being arrested for sending sexual images to each other on mobile phones. I read about one 13 year old girl in America who posted naked/sexual pictures of herself on the internet - bizarrely enough, she was arrested on a charge of "making indecent images of children" and "sexually abusing herself"! Society is in a bit of a muddled panic, I do believe. I realize this is no place for my subjective observations, however, so I'll leave my comments there. Sorry everyone. -Neural 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize! You have displayed brilliant idealism and very cultured thought. Two things that seem to be lacking in this environment. --CaptainSurrey 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Having organised video files of children being raped and tortured were plenty evidence to the jury that he was a pervert... --Fredrick day 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pervert" is a very downmarket, rather immature term. Please appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and approach it with slightly more professionalism. The JPStalk to me 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  what a strange statement - Pervert is a perfectly sensible and mature term to use. Unless someone wants to argue that wanting to watch children being raped is a normal behaviour. Just because downmarket papers use it in a rather loose manner does not mean it's not still a perfectly fit descriptive term.  --Fredrick day 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is a talk page, you are making publishing lots of unsourced statements on the internet. I disagree with the status of 'pervert'. It is an inherently subjective term too: although, of course, share your subjectivities. The JPStalk to me 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As an objective legal term, that is preferable. The JPStalk to me 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 counts of making indecent images of children 

message: Subsequently, having a langham became accepted as a term for a culpable glitter, or perve, on the internet
Assuming this is not a spoof, I think we could do with so e kind of reference here. Flapdragon 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "having a langham" 

message: Have removed "Langham did not attend this hearing.", which followed "The case was then adjourned again till 26 July 2006.", seeing as it's only the 21st of July now, making it somewhat impossible to have missed the hearing. Alexrushfear 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read a section above. The JPStalk to me 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court case

message: What has happened? The last I heard was that the case had been adjourned to the 30th August 2006. That date has come and gone with no news coverage whatsoever. Does anybody know whether it was re-adjourned, or whether the case is now being heard, or what? 06 September 2006.
: That we haven't heard anything suggests, I think, that the proceedings are now underway. --81.103.216.19 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anybody know what happened?

message: I also think Retuers is encyclopaedic, but I'm unconvinced about this rather informal souce. The JPStalk to me 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious reference

message: Now that the verdicts are out, I thought it appropriate to merge and reorganise the arrest and trial sections. I have heavily cut the description of the charges for which he was acquitted. --Peter cohen 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation of arrest and trial 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7027554.stm - needs adding to article, I'm a bit busy at the moment, so am bringing it to the attention of others. --Fredrick day 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making an appeal against gaol term 

message: The section on his conviction is clearly POV, written from a pro-Langham stance.  No mention is made of the fact that a police officer concerned with the case "told reporters outside [the court], "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile"." [ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview]; no evidence is presented to counter the information in the article that Langham doesn't consider himself a paedophile (plenty of people mentioned in the press reports do); no mention is made that he downloaded 15 videos on four separate occasions; no mention is made that his friend Paul Whitehouse appeared as a witness for the prosecution and said that Langham's defence was nonsense and that you don’t need to do that sort of research for a comedy show. [ref http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile-TV-pariah-plotting-comeback.html?ito=feeds-newsxml]
The giveaway is the 'however' in the section "Whitehouse stated that he was unaware that the character was intended to be a paedophile, nor was he personally aware of Langham obtaining such material for the development of the programme's script. However, a script was read out in which Pedro ogles young women and says: "God sent these young girls to me as temptation and I failed."."  The "however" shows that this has been edited from a pro-Langham point of view, as if to "correct" the anti-Langham evidence cited.  Too much weight is placed on trying to clear Langham's name even thoughh he was convicted of the crime of possessing child pornography. 86.134.91.83 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the Guardian interview make clear that the judge did not consider Langham a paedophile, and that the police officer decided to ignore that judgment and made a statement that the right-wing press obligingly followed? Paedophilia is slightly more complicated than name-calling by some tabloid journalist. The JPStalk to me 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Expert witnesses testified that he was not a paedophile, and appeared to convince the judge, who told Langham: "Paedophilia is not an issue in this case. You are not a sexual predator." But a police officer told reporters outside, "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile," [...]'  The JPStalk to me 18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Appeal Judge's summary in R. v Langham (Christopher) [2007] EWCA Crim 3004 (emphasis added): "You claimed that you down loaded these images for the purpose of research. You knew that did not give you a defence. You asserted in your evidence that your reason for contesting this case was that you did not wish to be labelled a paedophile. I made it absolutely clear to both you and the jury at your trial that that was never the issue the jury had to consider. On the evidence before me, it is right that I should make this observation, that there is nothing in the papers before me to indicate that you are a sexual predator, in the sense that it is ordinary used. You accept it in your evidence that you had been arrogant in thinking that you were above the law in downloading these images. With that sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree." 87.112.4.40 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section on prosecutions - ridiculously pro-Langham 

message: I agree with the post above, this has been written as a defence of what he did. Can we add this to the section please:
The graphic footage, downloaded on four separate occasions, contained Level Five child abuse - the most severe end of the scale. It was so repulsive that during his trial a juror was physically ill after viewing it.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile.html
 (Dave006 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Not only is the source [[WP:RS|not reliable] - per many, many discussions - but the claim by a policeman is not of encyclopedic value and probably violates WP:BLP as well.  It should stay out.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail 

message: you said "Plenty of actors have convictions for plenty of things, but we don't roll them into the opening sentence." However, this ended his career, and he was jailed obviously. So the lead sentence is misleading without mentioning it. Any reason why it shouldn't be restored? zzz (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is covered sufficiently in the lead. It is not a notable occupation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: 12 years since acted in anything at all. Time to state as former actor? Giant-DwarfsTalk 18:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he said he has retired though? He was in Vengeance (2020)  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still an actor? 

message: This section is a jumbled mess. I propose splitting this into decade sections. And then anything after subjects release into another section at the end of the article. Will look and read much better. I will wait to see if anyone has thoughts and/or objects before doing this. I will not be adding or removing anything, just redoing it Giant-DwarfsTalk 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits didn't make it any less jumbled. You changed "discussed" to "claimed" and added a couple of headings. I disagree with those headings, which I believe show that you are not approaching this BLP neutrally. You appear to wish to highlight information about his conviction and to make it much more prominent than anything else in his career. I suggest that if you continue to wish to assert your edits, you may want to consider WP:3PO to get a third opinion, or to post an a noticeboard to bring in more eyes on this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, again, assume good faith. I literally just started these new sections. And there is obviously a break in career when the subject was convicted. If you can suggest a better way to break this and a title please do so? Most other articles have a section for career after release? I will post as you suggest and get other opinions, thanks for that. But OR is still not allowed. The sources state what he was convicted of, you want to change that to what you want to state, that is OR. Please do not revert until a source is found that states the subject was convicted of the working you want Giant-DwarfsTalk 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career update