O/T Chris Langham: TV Licence?

[Trumpton]

photo-taker wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Having seen ITV court coverage of Mr. Langham , good to see
> money well spent on Comedy?

!confused!

> Not yet found guilty, so I guess he should be given a little
> respect, for now.

According to the BBC news website this trial is still continuing!

> Why do problems stem from a child hood ?

It might have something to do with a person being in a vunlerable state at that age?

> And why is this case seen on th ebox, where as others can't be
> seen eg the girl with the mp3 player?

!confused!
>
> So I say the TV licence should be ?500 for any others so they
> can get help once all over....

!confused!

Overall verdict:

Another classic post from photo-taker. I like the way he teases us as we attempt to decipher what he has written (typed).

[qwerty]

I see he's using the same crap excuse that got Pete Townsend off lightly. Why on earth would you need to view Child Porn in order to research an upcoming project connected to paedophillia. I think we all have a good idea of what child abuse is, we don't need to see it.

[Jacques]

You claim research as it is the only legal way of having child porn on your pc.

[qwerty]

> I think we all have a good idea of what child abuse is, we don't need to see it.

>>Personally, I don't - having never been abused, and not being an abuser. I would imagine, like most things, child abuse in reality is not quite what it is portrayed like in the red tops and on Eastenders.

If you don't know what the sexual abuse of children most probably entails you must be a retarded simpleton !tut! twat

[BeestonBoy]

warren zevon rip wrote:



> LOL, musta been a pretty good excuse/reason if it got him off.
> It's bad excuses that get you sent down.

!laugh! Wonderfully put Wazza.

Cheers

BB