Chris Langham

Scapegoat?

Part 2

(Part 1 is here.)

 it is these very same groups who actually promote paedophilia, but they get away with doing this

In this second part I hope to demonstrate that the paedophile hysteria being generated by so many groups of people has nothing to do with protecting children. On the contrary, by and large, it is these very same groups who actually promote paedophilia, but they get away with doing this because they masquerade - very vociferously - as being 'concerned for children'. And, somehow, this self-serving hysteria successfully blinds the public to their own culpability when it comes to promoting paedophilia, and, indeed, to promoting many other forms of child abuse; e.g. as a result of family breakdown, drug abuse, poor education, violence, teenage pregnancy etc etc. 

So much has already been said on this website demonstrating that organisations such as the NSPCC, the various women's victim groups, the feminists and the government are major promoters of child abuse that I will refrain from talking about these particular culprits again. Instead, I want to look at other areas where this is happening and so put into a more realistic context Chris Langham's crime.

By downloading illicit pictures, it is argued by many, Chris Langham helped to promote child sexual abuse, because he added to the demand for the product - at least in some small way.

But when one looks more closely at those activities which promote not only child sexual abuse, but also other kinds of serious child abuse, Chris Langham's crime pales into insignificance.

 the editor of the Sun newspaper has done far more to promote paedophilia and other types of child abuse than has Chris Langham.

For example, the editor of the Sun newspaper has done far more to promote paedophilia and other types of child abuse than has Chris Langham.

Here are some examples of how she does this.

If you look at the Sun's website, one of the first things that you will notice is that 'young women dressing and behaving sexily' figures very largely indeed. 

Woman 

Slideshows

Page 3 

Superbabes

Celebs Uncovered 

Sunday Online 

Bearing in mind that this newspaper has the widest circulation in the UK (some 3 million readers, I think) and that copies of it will be lying around a significant number of households, the Sun is sending out a very strong message to young girls that 'dressing and behaving sexily' is something that will win them attention, admiration and, possibly, much money and fame. And, indeed, hundreds of thousands of young girls have taken this message on board - because, as is typical of youngsters, they want to grow up as soon as possible. And whatever 16-year olds are trying to emulate, 14-year olds, and then 12-year olds, right down the age groups, will follow suit.

And here, for example, is the woman who, for the past decade or so, has probably been one of the most influential role models for young women in the UK.

Notice the near see-through top?

Victoria Beckham

The Sun newspaper not only promotes young sexuality by the way in which it portrays 'celebrities', it also encourages ordinary young women to take up 'dressing and behaving sexily' - as can be seen in all the photographs on its page entitled Ibiza Exposed.

(Ibiza is a Spanish holiday resort to which thousands of UK youngsters flock every year. It is renowned for heavy drinking and promiscuity.)

And the only point that I am trying to make here is that when it comes to promoting child sexual abuse, the Sun's editor is far more culpable than Chris Langham - by a very long way.

The Sun will be encouraging millions of youngsters - on a daily basis -  to become sexual.

Here is another example of the Sun newspaper promoting child abuse - in this case by encouraging youngsters to take cocaine - a highly-addictive drug which, for example, has led to many underage girls taking up prostitution to pay for their addiction.

Notice how this short piece goes out of its way to glamourise the taking of cocaine in young minds

Notice how this short piece goes out of its way to glamourise the taking of cocaine in young minds - Naomi, coke & lesbo romp - and how it associates fame, excitement, sexuality and wealth with the drug. (The Sun appears now to have removed this piece from its website - but the text - without the associated pictures - can be seen below.) 

And yet the Sun newspaper is forever claiming to be vehemently anti-drugs - protesting loudly, for example, whenever there are calls to tone down the 'war on drugs'. 

And so, once again, as in the case of paedophilia, what we see going on here is another example of this newspaper claiming that it is very concerned about something (in this case, the taking of drugs) while at the very same time it actually promotes it.

And so readers need to ask themselves why it is that the public seems unconcerned about what the Sun's editor is doing. Why is there no outrage over her promotion of child sex abuse? - given that, apparently, the public is so concerned about children.

And, in my view, the answer to this question is as follows.

Firstly, the public - and the Sun's editor - is not really very concerned about child abuse at all. As Mick Hume so often says, the hysteria over child abuse is more to do with, "Look at me, and see what a good person I am, as demonstrated by my publicly-exhibited 'outrage'," and less to do with any real concern for children.

Secondly, the public's attention toward those factors that really are conducive to child abuse (fatherlessness, family breakdown, teenage pregnancies etc) is continually being diverted - by the feminist-dominated media - towards the perpetrators themselves - men mostly. In other words, as is absolutely typical inside today's feminist-induced climate of man-hatred, the environment is suddenly disappeared from view, and the problems (in this case, paedophilia) are deemed to stem entirely from the evilness of men - with, of course, the Sun bearing no responsibility whatsoever.

And so, for example, it seems that if the Sun prints on Page One that it is hotly opposed to 'illicit' sex and hotly opposed to drugs etc, then it can get away with actually promoting both of these things on Page Two!

(The same sort of tactic is engaged in by many other groups that fuel 'abuse hysteria'. For example, the NSPCC professes to be very concerned about child abuse, but its activities actually promote it very strongly.)

Further evidence that the Sun's editor cares very little about children comes from her heavy promotion of gambling

Further evidence that the Sun's editor cares very little about children comes from her heavy promotion of gambling. Indeed, there are four links on the Sun's front page to its own gambling pages Bingo, Casino, Poker, Betting.

And yet, here in the UK, it is well-known that gambling has become a serious problem for many families - with close to one million adults professing to being addicted to gambling. Furthermore, gambling addiction is responsible for a significant amount of family unhappiness and breakdown, domestic violence, child abuse, loss of family property and drug and alcohol abuse.

Well, I could probably go on, and find many other ways in which the highly-influential Sun newspaper undoubtedly contributes very significantly to the harm that is caused to children (such as its campaign against speed cameras - despite the fact that some 300 children are killed and many thousands of children are seriously injured on the roads every year in the UK) but I think that the point is made. The Sun newspaper - and, of course, others like it - has promoted serious child 'abuse' in one way or another to an extent that makes Chris Langham's promotion of child abuse almost entirely insignificant. 

As such, while it is true that Chris Langham did, indeed, in some small way contribute to the promotion of child abuse by downloading those images, it is also true that anybody who hands money over to the Sun newspaper promotes child abuse far and wide, and on a scale that dwarfs what Chris Langham did.

I want now to try to home in on the point that the child-abuse hysteria is no different from all the other forms of 'abuse' hysteria that are forever being generated these days. In other words, the child-abuse hysteria is, by and large, simply one aspect of the attempt - by various groups - to profit by demonising men, and it has precious little to do with any concern for children.

 I noticed a heavily pregnant woman of about 25 smoking.

A few days ago, as I was walking along the high street in my neighbourhood, I noticed a heavily pregnant woman of about 25 smoking. She looked like a cheerful soul, and she was chatting away quite merrily to another mother who was pushing a pram.

Clearly, she had no concern that members of the public would start shouting words of abuse at her.

Well, why not?

Surely, we all know by now that the chances are that this woman was actively harming her yet unborn child. And so if the public is so concerned about 'child abuse', then why is there no public outrage directed at this woman?

And then I asked myself this rather strange question.

If it was men who became pregnant, would they, nowadays, be able to smoke in public if they were pregnant

If it was men who became pregnant, would they, nowadays, be able to smoke in public if they were pregnant, without being assaulted and verbally abused hither and thither?

And I think that the answer is, No. They would not be allowed to smoke. And men would probably be arrested if they smoked while pregnant.

And the reason for this is that the 'outrages' over child abuse are largely manufactured in order to demonise men - not to protect children.

And, hence, this is why this young woman can happily smoke in the street without fear of any public rebuke.

Quite simply, she is not a man.

And if all this sounds rather far-fetched, then let us recall that the Sun newspaper can, seemingly, promote as much child abuse as it likes - through various avenues - and yet there is no outrage.

Well, why not?

the outrage expressed over Chris Langham's crime is phony.

None of this makes any sense; until, that is, you realise that the outrage expressed over Chris Langham's crime is phony.

Indeed, when it comes to the promotion of smoking, it is surely the case that all children might, some day, be adversely affected by it. (It is true that they will mostly be adults should this happen; but, even as adults, they will still remain your children.) And so why is it that those who, for example, sell cigarettes are not hotly abused by members of the public - particularly those who hate smoking? After all, millions of the public's children might, one day, end up facing truly horrible consequences from taking up smoking.

And the same types of argument can be made when it comes to alcohol. Indeed, the consumption of alcohol is known to have hugely detrimental effects on society. It causes a large number of serious road accidents, a great deal of violence and inter-personal disharmony - domestic and otherwise - and it also lowers the likelihood that people will refrain from doing inappropriate sexual things - and this includes inappropriate sexual things with youngsters. In short, alcohol consumption increases very significantly the amount of harm done to children throughout the nation in many different ways.

We all know this.

But where is the outrage?

Why are people not saying that, "Every time that you buy a drink you increase the demand for a product that leads to more child abuse"? - just as they say with regard to Chris Langham's images.

Indeed, with regard to gambling and alcohol, Tony Blair's Labour government has actually attempted to increase their availability and their consumption through the relaxation of various restricting laws. And given that this government also seems to have continued to do its very best to encourage family breakdown and fatherlessness - factors that increase hugely the amount of harm experienced by children - one has again to ask the question; Where is the outrage to all this? - given that, apparently, those people who are so outraged over Chris Langham's crime profess to be so concerned about the welfare of children.

Their 'outrage' is a sham. And they manufacture it simply in order to profit themselves in some way.

And my answer to this question is, basically, that there is no outrage because, quite simply, those people who are 'outraged' by Chris Langham's crime are not concerned about the welfare of children at all. Their 'outrage' is a sham. And they manufacture it simply in order to profit themselves in some way.

Perhaps they work in the abuse industry and they want to justify more funding. Perhaps they are feminists who will always seek to demonise men in order to grow their empires. Perhaps they are wanting to say, "Look at how wonderful I am. I am outraged by Chris Langham." Perhaps they want to sell newspapers.

But the point is this.

These people only seem to be 'outraged' when they can successfully - and specifically - target and demonise 'men'.

Here is another example, ...

The image above is of the singing group that was the UK's entry into last year's Eurovision Song Contest; a contest that was watched by about 200 million people throughout Europe.

Notice something?

The young women were all dressed like schoolgirls

The young women were all dressed like schoolgirls, and the various dance manouvres that they performed throughout their routine was, as might be expected from the above image, 'cheeky' and mildly 'provocative'.

Where was the outrage?

There was none at all.

And what about this? ...

Parents will be denied the right to know if their child is having under-age sex under controversial guidelines for doctors unveiled yesterday. 

Doctors were told they should not tell parents if children up to three years below the age of consent approach them for contraceptives or an abortion.

On and on it goes.

For example, here is how pharmacists contribute to child abuse ... Girls as young as 12 are being given the morning-after pill without their parents' knowledge at chemist shops.

people, in general, only care about child abuse provided that their various freedoms ... are not infringed upon.

Of course, one possible reason for the lack of outrage over all those factors (mentioned above) which promote child abuse is that people, in general, only care about child abuse provided that their various freedoms (to drink, to smoke, to gamble, to dress sexily, to ogle at pictures of young women, to divorce, to drive without speed cameras, to buy the Sun newspaper etc etc) are not infringed upon.

Fair enough, in a free society, one might justifiably think.

But then let us not pretend that such people are particularly concerned about child abuse; because, quite clearly, they are not.

Now, of course, what has been said above does not apply to everybody.

After all, not everybody is clamouring for Chris Langham's blood. 

Far from it.

And, indeed, there are millions of people who are, in fact, genuinely concerned about the negative effects on society and, hence, on children, that smoking, drinking, gambling, speeding, and so on, bring about - particularly, perhaps, if they have had the misfortune to be badly affected by such things.

But yet, for the most part, these particular people do not launch into verbal abuse, open hostility and threats of violence against those whom they believe 'promote' such things. And they do not tend to demonise them hotly.

For example, they do not mostly threaten to lynch those who sell tobacco or alcohol. They do not mostly terrorise those who promote gambling, or those who buy the Sun newspaper.

Indeed, there are millions of people who believe that abortion is the actual killing of children. But, yet again, no continual publicly-expressed outrage, verbal abuse or outright hostility is hurled towards those who are involved with abortions. Well, why not? - if these particular people are really concerned about the killing of children.

And I can only give you the same answer.

People seem only to be 'outraged' when they can successfully - and specifically - target and demonise 'men'.

And, of course, the same applies when it comes to car accidents. Thousands of youngsters are killed or maimed every year.

And yet the public moans about speed limits, speed cameras, speed bumps and anything that interferes with their liberty to drive as they wish.

Where has their concern for children suddenly gone?

the blame for many of society's various social ills has simply been pinned instead on to the various alleged deficiencies in men

And what seems to have happened over the years since the arrival of the feminists of the 60s and 70s and their left-wing friends in government is that, through a process of what can only be described as very strong indoctrination accompanied by heavy penalties for those who express opposing (politically-incorrect) views, the public has been largely blinded to the hugely negative effects on society - and on children - that arise from feminist-promoted politically-correct rhetoric and policies - e.g. as per The Benefits of Feminism.

And the blame for many of society's various social ills has simply been pinned instead on to the various alleged deficiencies in men - with, further, these deficiencies mostly being proclaimed to be inherent to men, rather than arising from the situations (environmental) in which society nowadays places men, and, of course, in which it places everybody else - including the children. 

In essence, the notions being expressed are, "The kind of society that we have created and continue to endorse does not promote child abuse. The inherently bad nature of 'men' is, alone, responsible for it."

And this ludicrous, self-contradictory combination of notions can, surely, only be pervasive throughout a society in which the people have been well and truly suckered and brainwashed to the point of stupidity.

As we have seen, many others promote child abuse on a very wide scale

Finally, with regard to Chris Langham himself, I have no hesitation in confessing that I feel very sorry for him. He has been sent to prison for ten months, he has been vilified throughout the country, and his entire career is in tatters. And yet, essentially, this has all happened because he looked at some illicit images, not because of his alleged 'promotion' of child abuse. (As we have seen, many others promote child abuse on a very wide scale, and yet barely a peep of protest is heard about them.)

And for those of you who have watched Chris Langham  - appearing in various comedy programmes over the past three decades or so - it must have been fairly obvious that here was a man who was insecure, depressed, confused, not amazingly talented, whose career was rarely getting anywhere - until recently - and who gave the distinct impression that he often did not even know whether he was coming or going. 

In other words, psychologically, socially, emotionally and professionally, Chris Langham was always something of a major shambles.

A mess.

And, for some reason or other, Chris Langham became fascinated by some images. He broke the law - a law which we do need to have - but let us not pretend that he is an evil demon of some sort.

Chris Langham looked at images. He did not abuse anybody. But, unfortunately for him, we continue to live in a feminist-dominated society. And in such a society, one psychological force is continually being fomented and fuelled above all others.

The hatred of men.

every tiny malefaction or transgression by men that can somehow be portrayed as being 'abusive' towards women or children is exaggerated and amplified to a ridiculous degree

And every tiny malefaction or transgression by men that can somehow be portrayed as being 'abusive' towards women or children is exaggerated and amplified to a ridiculous degree by various people, simply in order to maintain and to promote this hatred - and, further, to profit from this in some way.

But Chris Langham looked at pictures. He did not abuse anybody. And nor did he promote child abuse to even a small fraction of the extent that is promoted by anyone who, for example, buys the Sun newspaper or, indeed, by anyone who visits a doctor who prescribes contraceptives to youngsters.

And, of course, anybody who endorses, promotes or implements feminist policies that are conducive to family break ups or single motherhood - which are, in fact, most of the main policies advocated by feminists - clearly promotes child abuse on a truly vast scale.

Dear Harry

I was alerted to your site recently by a work colleague and am glad to see that you link to the Manifesto Club.

Last week the club received the following email from a Mr Parker. ...

'Last week I was watching some building work on an empty old school building near me being renovated when two police officers came and demanded my details and photo ID. They said it was because in their judgement I had displayed "an unhealthy interest in children", which was amazing because there was not a single child to be seen, anywhere. The children were all at a brand new building which can't even be seen from where I was standing."

K

... perhaps men should not be allowed to walk in any street in which children are about.

Here is Vogue magazine surely promoting a million times more child abuse than Chris Langham ever did ...

She reclines among leopard print pillows, her rouged lips pouting at the camera. But shockingly the model in these highly sexualised pictures is only 10 years old.

And pregnant women smoking ...

One in three women in Blackpool smoke while pregnant...and mothers in the North East aren't much better

Where is the outrage?

KATE Moss indulged in a massive cocaine binge with fellow supermodel Naomi Campbell — during their charity trip to honour Nelson Mandela.

She also had a drug-fuelled lesbian romp with an American A-list catwalk queen on the same visit to South Africa, The Sun can reveal today.

Kate and Naomi made sure they were well supplied for their partying — by ordering THIRTY grams of cocaine for just ONE night.

It was bought from a British dealer who was ushered into Naomi’s luxury hotel suite.

The pair had jetted to Cape Town for a Versace charity fashion show organised by Naomi in aid of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund.

Kate’s close pal Gavin Maselle met both models at their hotel during the trip in February, 1998. He revealed: Naomi never greeted me. She is downright rude, but Kate was like ‘This is my friend Gavin’. She was really nice to me.

Naomi had a meeting with the people from the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund so we all went up to Naomi’s suite.

I was sitting with Kate on the sofa chatting while Naomi was talking with the people from the fund.

But both Kate and I were quite nervous because Naomi is very loud and overpowering and even people like Kate Moss are scared of her.

Next thing there is a knock at the door and this British guy who had been living in Cape Town arrived.

Naomi just shooed him into the bedroom and disappeared in there after him.

I couldn’t believe it because the people from the charity were still in the suite.

Then Naomi came out. She came up to Kate and said that ‘he’s the guy with the drugs. We have got to get rid of him’.

So he was thrown out. Then the Mandela fund people left.

Then it turns out that they had ordered 30 grams of coke.

Naomi went into the bedroom and one of the other models who were in the room followed her. It was really obvious that they had done a line when they came out. Kate then went into the bathroom and called me to come in too. There was just loads of coke, lines everywhere, just racked up but not chopped properly.

There were these huge rocks of coke just in big thick huge lines. I don’t even know how Kate got it up her nose, but she snorted lines of it.

We all ended up lying on Naomi’s bed. Naomi was being very dramatic. She would go into the bathroom, snort, come out and change into this fabulous Pucci kaftan and rant and rave about her fabulous life.

Gavin Maselle ... witnessed hotel coke binge

Kate spent a night of lust with the American model on the same trip, Gavin revealed.

The pair snorted line after line of cocaine before slipping between the sheets of the king-sized bed in Kate’s hotel suite.

Model booker Gavin said: “Cocaine can make people sexually adventurous to say the least, sometimes even depraved. I was in the suite with a few others and Kate and this American girl were clearly very interested in each other.

“Kate rang me next day to tell me about their night together.”

The model — 24 at the time — contacted Gavin the moment she arrived in Cape Town and asked him to visit her. He revealed: “I went straight over to a hotel. Kate was there with two other models.

“Straight away it was ‘can we get coke?’ So we piled into my car and went to the dealer.

“We went back to Kate's suite, the coke was chopped out into lines on the top of the TV in her sitting room because it was a nice surface.

“Kate was snorting the lines from the top of the TV. It was really just a teaser of a night by comparison of what was to come.”

The Sun yesterday revealed Kate — who now has a three-year-old daughter, Lila Grace — snorted coke at the home of then President Mandela during a glittering reception. But she nearly did not make it at all. The Croydon-born model PASSED OUT the previous evening after taking cocaine and date rape drug Rohypnol in front of gay Gavin — who stayed the night with her. The pair woke next day with just one hour to go before Kate was due to meet Mandela at his mansion.

She dashed into the shower — and begged Gavin to join her. He said: “So I stripped off and jumped in. I will probably be the envy of every straight man in the world.

“But it was one of those innocent things between friends.”

Kate joined up with Naomi at the prestigious event, which included an auction. But after meeting Mandela, Kate had more cocaine delivered to the party there.

Gavin said: “Kate did a line with some other models after the show, right there in Mandela’s place. Naomi was not around by then.”

Kate continued partying back at her hotel suite, with Gavin and two other girls.

The model booker said: “She had the cocaine and went with the others into her ensuite bathroom. She was chopping lines and snorting.”

But, bizarrely, there was a knock on the door — as actress Mia Farrow and three of her kids showed up, wanting to meet the supermodel.

Gavin said: “Kate and the others suddenly came out of the bathroom in a line.

“It was so obvious what had gone on but Kate was sweet as pie chatting to Mia and her kids.” Later, the party continued, with Kate in a wild mood. Gavin said: “She did a big line of coke and made like she was swinging from the chandeliers.”

He also revealed other models had a bitchy pet name for Naomi — Wagon.

Gavin added: “Kate was saying to Naomi, ‘Wagon, what do you think about this’? I said, ‘why do you call her that?’ and Kate laughed, 'She is on and off the wagon all the time’.”

(Return to where you were reading.)

Also see, ...

The Curse of the NSPCC