Chris Langham

[jj]

I think Carol Sarler's view that the 'under-age' stuff was added by the
police/CPS in order to try and present Langham as a general 'perv' is
correct.
This blatant attempt to subvert the premise that a defendant should be
tried only on the charges before the court and not on his reputation is
typical of the attacks currently being made in this country on a thousand
years of legal evolution [not to mention Roman Law]. What is it that makes
these arseholes think that they know better than all that hard-won
experience?

[Trumpton]

Over the past decade or so we have seen a sinister and pernicious transformation by the Police and law enforcement agencies from that of enforcing the law, to that of making/advocating change and/or commenting on the law!

[Coolcat]

Entirely agree with Carol Sarler, thanks dynatech for posting the link.
No question for me that the actions for which Langham was convicted were both 'sick' and 'thick' on his part.
But Sarler rightly makes the distinction between looking and touching - Langham was NOT convicted of underage sex, and it appears the evidence was nowhere near strong enough to have secured a conviction for this under any circumstances. The two matters should not have been decided within the same trial because it muddies the water: bringing in questions of 'reputation', rather than being solely about the facts.
And I'm with both jj and Trumpton. Police officers and the CPS have no place commenting on the law, on the conviction, indeed on anything at all to do with the case. Those are Home Office matters.

[jj]

magoo wrote:
> So using the same argument you will also be against jurors
> being told of a defs previous convictions?
Yes. Absolutely. What made you think I wouldn't be?

And, yes, let Langham rot. Sick fuck.
I'm not that bleeding liberal.