Talk:Chris Langham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
A user added
Langham 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)
Someone else can decide where this fits in, but Dirk Maggs writes in the second volume Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio scripts that Chris (who appeared in the 6th episode of the 2004 Tertiary Phase) also played Arthur Dent in the May 1979 stage version of Hitchhiker's, directed by Ken Campbell - the famous version where all 80 members of the audience sat and rode around in an air car levitated ever so slightly above the surface. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Contents |
[edit] The news coverage is strange...
... it referred to 'internet-related crime' first of all, but now it's changed to child porn. This doesn't sound like Chris Langham to me - perhaps it's all some ghastly mistake. The only source I have seen is the BBC news one which quoted the police as referring to 'internet-related crime'. I hope they haven't jumped to conclusions. DavidFarmbrough 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Oh come on...he's been using child porn, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not like it really matters, anyway; it's not like he's a child murderer, as the media would probably have you believe.--CaptainSurrey
talk
- We can't say that for sure (innocent until proven guilty still applies), but even so it still doesn't sound like him - and yes they do give him the same treatment as a convicted child molester. cf Pete Townshend and Gary Glitter. DavidFarmbrough 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't heard enough about this case to be able to comment on it specifically, but the first thing that came to mind was the case of Massive Attack's Robert_Del_Naja, who was arrested on charges of downloading child pornography in 2003.
- Now, you can decide for yourself if his (very public) criticism of the war in Iraq had anything to do with it, or if the fact that the investigation was later terminated with no charges being brought seems suspicious.... but you can probably guess what I think was behind this.
- That's funny, I thought Massive Attack had decided to change their name just to Massive as they didn't want to be associated with the war in Iraq (the earlier one). Have they gone back on their principles? DavidFarmbrough 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- IIRC (and I may be wrong on this), this was more to do with the BBC's paranoia at the time (e.g. they didn't want to play Lulu's "Boom Bang a Bang"). Queen's "Innuendo" video didn't get played as much as it might have because it came out at around the same time, and featured war footage. Fourohfour 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's funny, I thought Massive Attack had decided to change their name just to Massive as they didn't want to be associated with the war in Iraq (the earlier one). Have they gone back on their principles? DavidFarmbrough 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Until sufficient genuine information in this case has become public, speculation is worse than meaningless. Fourohfour 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- We can't say that for sure (innocent until proven guilty still applies), but even so it still doesn't sound like him - and yes they do give him the same treatment as a convicted child molester. cf Pete Townshend and Gary Glitter. DavidFarmbrough 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh come on...he's been using child porn, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not like it really matters, anyway; it's not like he's a child murderer, as the media would probably have you believe.--CaptainSurrey
[edit] 15 Counts of Making Indecent Images of Children
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] "having a langham"
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)
This is unsourced. Minglex 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Court case
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)
[edit] Does anybody know what happened?
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)
[edit] Dubious reference
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)
Agreed - I've replaced it with a link to a news story in The Daily Mirror --J2thawiki 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Law lesson
Anyone else thing the "Arrest" section is overlong? There's very little we know of, we don't really need a blow-by-blow account of each hearing: the dates of when he was arrested, charged, and will be tried, and on what charges, would suffice. Further, I am unsure the value of several long paragraphs describing the law exactly. Morwen - Talk 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and had just come here to make the same two points. -- Beardo 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- what?, you think that that is too much information. I think that it is good to have a source of information for what is going on for Langham.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.200.186 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2007 UTC.
- I've shortened it a bit by removing some of the court appearences where he was just rebailed. I also removed the "law lesson"; although it was well written and referenced it belongs on pages for the offences rather than here.--J2thawiki 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- what?, you think that that is too much information. I think that it is good to have a source of information for what is going on for Langham.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.200.186 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2007 UTC.
