I imagine for most people of a certain age their first encounter with Chris Langham was when he was part of the Not The Nine O'Clock News team. He appeared in the first series but was apparently considered too much of a free spirit and was replaced by Griff Rhys Jones, obviously being a free spirit was considered more of a liability than simply not being funny.
Langham has drifted in and out of the television viewing public's consciousness in the subsequent twenty five years until he resumed his place at the front of 'cutting edge' satire with his role as Roy Millard in The Thick Of It. He is back in the public gaze now as he is standing trial for the alleged abuse of a 14 year old girl.
Now I don't want to get into the trail itself as the details are pretty sordid and raking over them doesn't achieve much. However what concerns me is that the 14 year old girl is protected by law whilst Langham's face is plastered all over the television and newspapers. He's caught between a rock and a hard place, if he's guilty he deserves to go to prison and suffer the same consequences as any child molester, if he is innocent what sort of career does he face? Will fellow actors, producers, casting directors etc say he was found not guilty and so we should move on, or will he 'suffer' the same stigma as Michael Barrymore? I'm no fan of Barrymore's but there's no doubting the fact that, with the exception of the morals free Endemol Company who produce Big Brother, Barrymore has been kept well and truly out of the public eye. The other example is Matthew Kelly, who has been welcomed back into the entertainment world with open arms and who has carved himself a name on both stage and screen as a fine 'straight' actor.
Can we not have a judicial system that recognises the principal of innocent until proven guilty for both parties or are we as a society happy to collude in the nudge, nudge, wink, wink 'I bet he did it', 'I bet he's innocent' ritual that these high profile cases inevitably produce.
11 comments:
Tough question Paul and one that I cannot give a straight answer to because it is different depending on which side of the fence you happen to be sitting.
If anonymity was built into the system can you imagine it would actually work with the media being the way it is now? There would be heavy hints as to who it might possibly be on trial and perhaps other innocents might be mistaken and tainted. There would be more nudge nudge than there is now.
I heard on 5 Live today (not sure whether it was to do with this case or something else) the comment "well, until he proves his innocence..."
That blew me away. I thought that in this country one was assumed innocent unless proven guilty - NOT the other way round.
I should have said 'until' instead of 'unless' but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
I agree Mags, that is a tough one and I don't think a blanket blackout would work but it seems to me that we have the accuser who remains anonymous whilst the accused, his wife and two daughters are on show for all to see.
Sarnia - I've also heard that and its depressing.
Difficult indeed but you sum it up in your title. Yes, both parties should be covered by law; however 2 wrongs don't make a right so I'm for the anonimity i.e. I don't take 'the girl should be named just because the man is' attitude but that the man should not be named until guilt is proven nor should the girl. That said, if teh girl is the accuser then I cannot see a single reason why she should remain anonymous.
Span - I agree with the anonymity for both parties. Too often there is a media feeding frenzy when somebody is named/charged etc and when found not guilty they are left picking up the pieces of their lives whilst the media moves on. The events in Ipswich being a case in point where somebody was named and plastered all over the newspapers for a week but subsequently found to be not involved at all.
Probably less serious but on the back of this, the BBC7 board has tried to steer clear of the trial in case of sub judicy(sp)but they are asking what happens to the body of work he has built up over the years.
If things go a certain way, does that mean that work is no longer heard or seen? Not always because of the public reacton but because of what the tv and radio companies feel is the correct decision but then you also have all the other actors/writers/performers whose work then can no longer be played.
Possibly, losing money that might've been made from their work by being issued commercially.
Or simply lost and that means some body of works will not see the light of day.
As has been said, sometimes the public allows some performers back after some passing of time and others find themselves ostrasised for good.
Its a difficult one to call and I do dislike the tone some media take on these stories.
Hi Gildy, nice to hear from you. Interesting couple of points you make about the artists body of work. A new CD compilaton of 70's music has just been released with one omission which has been picked up by some music journalists - Gary Glitter. Now how you can release a CD of Glam rock without including GG is bizarre but his part in British music history has been written out because of his child sex offences. It opens up the whole debate, to which you have alluded, about seperating the artist from his work.
In response to your first paragraph - I worked with him in the 80s on Abracadabra: "A kids' science series for Channel 4, which combined scientific fact and information with 'off-the-wall' humour and comedy sketch. Filmed in Norway and England this adventurous and exciting series was produced by Jan Silkenstedt, with Clive Doig as the series director. It starred Chris Langham, Morwenna Banks, Steve Steen, Paul Shearer and Vicky Licorice."
That was a duplicate comment that I deleted - but Silchenstedt is not spelled as the cut n paste above...
Post a Comment