It wouldn't stop him being a comedy genius though, would it?

People Like Us, the best thing in Kiss Me Kate by a mile and The Thick Of It are all exceptional pieces of work. If he was a burglar or a murderer, would it stop the scripts being funny?

If found guilty, I can understand the impact of his face being there, but at the end of the day it could have been anybody playing those characters and in retrospect, won't stop the comedies being funny.

If you stop find yourself watching something that you found enjoyable before and now watch it thinking "I don't find this funny any more cos he's in it!" then I would say yes, that is very Sun!

Nick

Have you seen Brass Eye's paedophilia episode? What did you think?

Dan

Precisely my point.

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 1:40 PM

'Not entirely favourable'?????

View original

I was talking generally there, not specifically to the charges brought against Chris Langham.

Well let's open this up and talk about the Gary Glitter situation as he is somebody who has been found guilty of a heinous crime. Can you honestly say that if you were to hear one of his hits now that you would be able to judge it purely on how good a song it is? If you saw a greatest hits album for sale in the shops would you consider that to be acceptable? If yes then fine but I think that you'll find that you're in the minority. I think that most people wouldn't be able to forget that he spent decades raping children around the world. That is not about the Sun, it's about human decency.

This debate has nothing to do with the Sun. It has everything to do with what can happen to a person's popularity when details about their private life emerge. Take a look at what happened to Barrymore's career. Did he suddenly become a bad TV host when Stuart Lubbock died? No, but he did become very unpopular and that meant that TV stations wouldn't touch him. If Langham is found guilty then his popularity will undoubtedly nosedive and the BBC will be well aware of that.

Did I watch the Brass Eye special? Yes and I thought it was great but that wasn't written and didn't star any paedophiles (except for one who wasn't in on the joke). It was a satire on how the media print paedophiles addresses and try to suggest that there are easy answers to this problem. I'm not saying that the BBC deciding not to release 'The Thick of It' will make children any safer because of course it won't. The Brass Eye comparison isn't really relevant though.

If he was a burglar or a murderer then would it stop the scripts being funny? I hope that you can see that there is a world of difference between somebody being a burglar and somebody doing what he has been accused of. If anybody was found guilty of murder then I wouldn't expect their show to be released either. Would you?

I say this as somebody who has liked a lot of the work that Chris Langham has done. I hope that he is found not guilty of all the charges and then that the DVDs are released. If he is found guilty though it will mean that he has been a very sick individual for some time, including when he was working on these shows, and it will be impossible for most people to forget that. You might not feel similarly but an awful lot of the DVD buying public would and so would people at the BBC.

One final question, if an old script written by someone like Ian Huntley was found now and filmed for TV then how would you feel? Would you seriously be able to view it purely on its own merits?

I'm a big fan on Carl Orff's music despite him being a Nazi and think that Oshima made some wonderful films despite his views on women. There is a Curb episode where Larry David explores similar themes. I did raise an eyebrow when I rewatched The Thick of It and Langham says, "she probably thinks I'm a nonce"

...but back to the special - I thought this was really good and shows how good Armando and his team can be. I am particularly fond of how the camerawork, improvisation and language are used to heighten the comedic effect -as opposed to a lazy gimmick. I get a real impression that the scripts are laboured over to ensure a degree of quality I don't see in a lot of other shows. And without meaning to be negative, I've just looked over the list of new shows for 2007 and there seems to be very little in there that would exhibit the same degree of care (or dare I say it passion).
I was also impressed at how it was paced - it never felt like a long hour, or as if it was running out of steam and instead built to a good climax. And I had plenty of laugh out moments throughout the series - my favourite probably being "Glen's son could have fooled you" but the dates segment the other night had me in chuckles as well.

Again I find myself agreeing with Nick, to say watching a convicted paedophile wouldn’t put you off a sit-com is like saying having a steaming shit on your plate wouldn’t put you off your food.

Sorry for the degusting analogy.

They should release this show on DVD no matter what the outcome of the court trial.

Look at the people that (who knows why) still flock to the store and give Michael Jackson money--and he's guiltier than anything!

But Michael Jackson wasn't found guilty and the people who buy his CDs think he is innocent. I'm not saying that they're correct but they're not intentionally buying a paedophile's music.

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 7:30 PM

Well let's open this up and talk about the Gary Glitter situation as he is somebody who has been found guilty of a heinous crime. Can you honestly say that if you were to hear one of his hits now that you would be able to judge it purely on how good a song it is? If you saw a greatest hits album for sale in the shops would you consider that to be acceptable? If yes then fine but I think that you'll find that you're in the minority. I think that most people wouldn't be able to forget that he spent decades raping children around the world. That is not about the Sun, it's about human decency.

View original

Your accusation that he has "spent decades raping children around the world" is, quite frankly, disturbing in itself. He was found with paedophilic images on his computer, and then some years later found guilty in Vietnam (I think?) of sleeping with a girl. Or whatever it was exactly.

Anyway, my point is that whilst there may have been suggestion that he has "spent decades" doing this kind of thing, he has not been found guilty of that as far as I'm aware, so your comments are VERY Sun. (Despite anything else, I would question the sanity of anyone who takes that court case at face value. With the media involvement, it was pretty much on a par with the trial of Saddam Hussein for judicial integrity.)

And in answer to your question, I've got no problem with seeing his stuff in the shops, and every year I enjoy Another Rock 'n' Roll Christmas. What that says about my taste in music I'm not sure, but that's a whole other topic.

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 7:30 PM

This debate ... has everything to do with what can happen to a person's popularity when details about their private life emerge. Take a look at what happened to Barrymore's career. Did he suddenly become a bad TV host when Stuart Lubbock died? No, but he did become very unpopular and that meant that TV stations wouldn't touch him. If Langham is found guilty then his popularity will undoubtedly nosedive and the BBC will be well aware of that.

View original

A good point certainly, but the popularity of someone in the public eye always goes up and down, so it's not just a case of that. And on the topic of Barrymore, I have no problem with him either. But again, a whole other debate.

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 7:30 PM

If he was a burglar or a murderer then would it stop the scripts being funny? I hope that you can see that there is a world of difference between somebody being a burglar and somebody doing what he has been accused of. If anybody was found guilty of murder then I wouldn't expect their show to be released either. Would you?

View original

No. But for exactly the same stupid reasons as The Thick of It would probably not see a release if Langham is found guilty. Yes, there's a difference between these accusations and a burglar, but the basic principle is the same. It's a crime, and it doesn't mean the scripts suddenly change. If they were funny, then they still are. People may not appreciate them in quite the same way (unfortunately), but they're still just as funny in their own right.

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 7:30 PM

If he is found guilty though it will mean that he has been a very sick individual for some time, including when he was working on these shows, and it will be impossible for most people to forget that.

View original

Again, I'm shocked by your implication that, if he is guilty, Chris Langham has been doing it "for some time". I'm not necessarily saying that the following is what is supposed to have happened in the Langham case, but from what I have seen explained elsewhere, something as simple as one wrong mouse click could result in the charges which he is facing. One just can not go around making assumptions that he's been into kiddie porn for as long a time period as you imply!

Quote: Nick @ January 4, 2007, 7:30 PM

One final question, if an old script written by someone like Ian Huntley was found now and filmed for TV then how would you feel? Would you seriously be able to view it purely on its own merits?

View original

In all honesty, yes. I'd probably go into it being a bit cautious, but as far as I'm concerned, if something's funny, then it's funny. Doesn't matter to me if Hitler, Huntley, Hindley or Hanratty wrote it. One may look at it from a different perspective to otherwise, but it doesn't make it suddenly unfunny.

I think you need to accept Aaron that your feelings on the subject of Gary Glitter are certainly not felt by the majority. When George Bush mistakenly used one of his songs on his campaign trail there was outcry and he was forced to issue an apology.

Gary Glitter was indeed found guilty of having child pornography on his computer and after that he was kicked out of 2 East Asian countries because he was a danger to the children there and believed to be using them as his sex toys. There have also been allegations that he sexually abused children in this country from the 1970s onwards and these allegations don't come from the Sun newspaper. They come from a wide range of sources.

Are you seriously saying that you think that there is any possibility that Glitter was innocent of his crimes? He paid off the family of the girl who he was found guilty of raping and if it hadn't been for that he would have been executed. Because that trial took place in Vietnam it was actually more likely that he would be acquitted but it was only due to the overwhelming evidence that he was found guilty.

Anyway, there's probably no need to discuss him anymore is there?

Do you understand the charges that Chris Langham is facing Aaron? He was charged on 15 counts of making illegal images of children, with 8 counts of indecent assault and 1 other sexual offence. Now how could all of those charges result from a mouse click? If he is guilty then this isn't just one moment of madness that we're talking about here and it didn't just take place after The Thick of It was filmed.

Your comments about Ian Huntley are honest Aaron but you must concede that the rest of the population wouldn't feel the same way that you do here and that is the important thing. If A DVD was issued shortly after a guilty verdict then the BBC would face strong criticism, the retailers would face strong criticism and the DVD probably wouldn't sell. With that in mind, why would the BBC issue it?

Finally, and this is what the whole crux of the argument hinges on, I probably don't need to say that people enjoy watching television shows in which they like the star. If they don't like the star then the show will be less entertaining for them and probably less funny as well. Now if Chris Langham is found guilty of the charges that I mentioned, people won't just dislike him, they will find him absolutely repugnant. With that in mind, how can the shows not be altered in the minds of the viewers?

I hope that you will read those last 2 paragraphs closely Aaron because I think that you'll see there is an awful lot of truth in them. Just because a celebrity's private life doesn't bother you, it doesn't mean that it doesn't bother other people. Those people aren't bothered because they read The Sun or because they are politically correct. They're bothered because they have values which, even if they are different to yours, are still valid.

No, no, I agree. I don't dispute that for a moment. That's exactly why they would hesitate to put out a new DVD. I'm just disagreeing with the reasoning behind it.

Anyway. In regards to Gary Glitter, I'm sure that there have been allegations, but at the moment, that's all they are - and we all know how any high profile case can bring up people looking for fame, possible compensation, and so on. (Not that I'm trying to imply that that is necessarily what any or all of the allegations here are, but one really should be cautious.)

And his innocence - or lack thereof - is not for me to decide. I'm simply saying that his trial was, from what I saw, far too influenced by the media (mainly British tabloids such as The Sun) for it to be, in my opinion, anything close to fair.

As for Chris Langham's charges, yes, I am aware of what he is facing. But the words aren't all as clear as they appear to be. As I understand it - and I could have been advised incorrectly here, in which case, nevermind - the "making" charge is especially misleading.

Contrary to the kinds of mental images which it encourages, it does not mean that the accused has set up a studio in their garage and dragged young girls off the street to be raped and photographed. In fact, 'making' can be as simple as having something on your computer - since it 'makes' a file! It doesn't mean that the owner of the computer is the originator of the data which that file contains, but their computer has still made a new file. God knows, for example, how many times in the days of Napster I downloaded a zip file and found it contained porn rather than the mp3 or whatever which I thought I was getting - and strictly speaking, in doing so, I was apparently making indecent images! (Not of children, I might add, but images nonetheless.) Well, I'm sure you get the picture (no pun intended).

Like I said though, I could have been advised incorrectly, in which case I will stand corrected. But to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it were indeed the case. And I'm sure that the other charges can be similarly misleading in their own ways.

Anyway, I'm simply putting forward a possibility in regards to the charges theoretically, not their specifics in Chris Langham's case. No matter what he may or may not have done, he's obviously a very talented man, and I for one hope that he is both innocent and found to be so by the courts.

At the end of the day, I can understand why celebrities in these kinds of situations may fall out of favour with the public, whether they're found guilty or not, I just don't agree with it. I'm very passionate about comedy (as I'm sure you'll have guessed), and I know what I like, so the point which I was trying to make is that for me, if a programme is funny, then it's funny no matter what else may happen. I just don't personally believe that accusations (proven or not) against one person should reflect on the whole production in that way.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree though.

Nick

I genuinely wanted to know your opinion on the Brass Eye special. It wasn't meant to make any point nor was it meant to be provocative, as it may have read. Sorry if it did read like that.

Quote: Nick @ January 5, 2007, 1:36 AM

I think you need to accept Aaron that your feelings on the subject of Gary Glitter are certainly not felt by the majority. When George Bush mistakenly used one of his songs on his campaign trail there was outcry and he was forced to issue an apology.

View original

Bizarrely enough, we've come full circle as this would be typical of an episode of The Thick Of It! Well done, Nick!

Quote: Nick @ January 5, 2007, 1:36 AM

I hope that you will read those last 2 paragraphs closely Aaron because I think that you'll see there is an awful lot of truth in them. Just because a celebrity's private life doesn't bother you, it doesn't mean that it doesn't bother other people. Those people aren't bothered because they read The Sun or because they are politically correct. They're bothered because they have values which, even if they are different to yours, are still valid.

View original

I think you may be naive about people's attitudes when they read The Sun. To be honest, I'll read it as it's the easiest newspaper to read but you have to take a lot of what they report with a pinch of salt and a lot of people take their propaganda as read. In fact, the main reason the BBC would not release The Thick Of It and withdraw People Like Us in the event of a guilty verdict for Chris Langham would probably be through a campaign led by The Sun or News of the World calling for 'Dirty Paedophile's DVDs Still On Shelves!'

I'm saying that you're right on what would actually happen, but I personally think it's wrong. You're previous legitimate and legal life should not be affected by any wrongdoing you do. Yes, you should be punished for your crimes, but not your legal life.

Dan

I find it quite worrying that we have to start purging our DVD and record collections if somebody involved was involved in a crime. Does that mean I have to chuck out all my Phil Spector records? And my Sex Pistols albums? Sid Vicious stabbed his girfriend, that's not very nice. Or how about getting rid of any films starring Paul Rueben's because he was once caught jerking off in a cinema? And wasn't one of the cast of Rab C Nesbit convicted of a pretty unpleasant offence? Should I burn those DVD's as well? And who could forget The Naked Gun films starring OJ Simpson? And if you want to talk about child abuse, Charlie Chaplin had a pretty unhealthy interest in underage girls, should he be written out of history as well? Ditto for Jerry Lee Lewis - didn't he marry a fourteen year old?

Wow - talk about an in-depth debate!

Firstly this latest Thick of It special was excellent in my opinion - it's nice to see that whatever the fate of Langham the show will be able to continue.

I've got mixed views about the whole ethics of the DVD though... I'm probably wrong to do so but I'm assuming here Langham must be guilty otherwise he'd have been cleared of the charges by now (then again though I though Michael Jackson was going down). Let's not go into that debate any more though or pick apart the intricacies of the charges - I'll have libel lawyers on my case!

I can see why people wouldn't want to re-watch watch S1 + S2 of "The Thick of It" if Langham is found guilty but, then again, I don't think it fair to banish the episodes to some bin never to see seen again as a result - as was said above, a lot of hard work went into them and it wasn't just the 'Chris Langham Show'. It'd probably be harder to laugh but good lines are good lines no matter who spoke them IMHO.

Quote: chipolata @ January 5, 2007, 10:54 AM

I find it quite worrying that we have to start purging our DVD and record collections if somebody involved was involved in a crime. Does that mean I have to chuck out all my Phil Spector records? And my Sex Pistols albums? Sid Vicious stabbed his girfriend, that's not very nice. Or how about getting rid of any films starring Paul Rueben's because he was once caught jerking off in a cinema? And wasn't one of the cast of Rab C Nesbit convicted of a pretty unpleasant offence? Should I burn those DVD's as well? And who could forget The Naked Gun films starring OJ Simpson? And if you want to talk about child abuse, Charlie Chaplin had a pretty unhealthy interest in underage girls, should he be written out of history as well? Ditto for Jerry Lee Lewis - didn't he marry a fourteen year old?

View original

Well quite! Just for starters, that's a quite a bit of Beatles content, a hell of a lot of Beach Boys, and that excellent Christmas album, the songs of which we hear year-in, year-out. Can't see it happening, personally!

Seriously though, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. We shouldn't be changing our likes based on what one person may have done. It just strikes me as reactionary, weak and spineless. Nevermind extremely McCarthy.

(And I think the fourteen year-old may have been his cousin, too!)

In what way is it a hell of a lot of Beach Boys? You mean because he influenced them I presume because, aside from a cover version of 'I Can Hear Music' he had no other contribution to make.