hang the minister
thedarkman
they'll do their best to make this poor Kelly woman resign. All the
usual hysteria; they keep referring to this bloke as a convicted sex
offender; his "crime" was to look at pictures. In view of some of the
adverts we've had for toilet rolls and the like - does anyone remember
them? - we could all be put on the sex offenders' register. You can
even find such pictures in the odd medical journal.
Sigh
Ken
is rather amusing, when the behavior of those that have been abusing
for years goes unnoticed, and is in amny cases covered up by the public
bodys they work for!
k
ian henden
"Ken" <autosugg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137132200.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
(Residents of Paulsgrove hounding a peadiatrician.... )
On a more serious note, the administration and procedures of the SOR and
List 99 both need to be revised drastically. Being put on them is very
serious, NO-ONE should be on them who did not ought to be on them; there
must be a proper set of criteria which are applied before someone is put on;
ther must be an appeal process; and a process for removal of an individual's
entry; perhaps a Court order would berequired at least to be put on.
"Accepting a caution" should be just that: accepting a caution. This process
AIUI is for minor crimes where it is more nuisance than crime, and would be
wasteful of police/court resources to deal with it in court. But where a
crime is serious, then it should go to court.
Just my three quids-worth. (used to be 2p worth, but thats inflation...)
---
IanH
The Todal
"thedarkman" <A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:1137110052.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I agree with you.
Parliament decides to criminalise (and demonise) those who download indecent
photos of children. They are put in the same category as predatory
paedophiles. And so logically, anyone who has done that should be forced to
abandon any career that involves working with children or with vulnerable
people. That's what happens when you criminalise human behaviour that
happens to be on the outer spectrum of what is normal. Let's face it, huge
numbers of people who are in responsible jobs and doing their jobs well,
have downloaded child porn onto their computers and have never posed any
risk to children at all.
It seems reasonable to me that the guy was allowed to continue working with
children (I'd think the same if he had been convicted, let alone cautioned)
unless there was a psychiatrist's report saying that he posed a danger to
children. The decision by a minister to let him work as a teacher should
have been accepted as a reasonable and proportionate decision.
I am simply amazed that this saga is still headline news and the lead story
on radio bulletins. I feel sorry for the teacher, who must be so fed up of
hearing his name quoted in the media that he might be close to suicide.
JT
> on radio bulletins. I feel sorry for the teacher, who must be so fed up of
> hearing his name quoted in the media that he might be close to suicide.
>
>
likelihood that he is not even guilty of 'just looking at pictures'.
I find it disturbing that not one media outlet has raised the
possibility that the evidence against this man was bogus, even though
the concerns about Operation Ore have been in the public domain for some
time. Particularly galling in the week that the BBC, quite rightly, blow
open the 'Satanic abuse' scandal, whilst blithely ignoring, indeed
contributing to the 2006 version of the same mentality that had such a
devastating effect on these kids and their parents.
PeteM
>> I am simply amazed that this saga is still headline news and the lead story
>> on radio bulletins. I feel sorry for the teacher, who must be so fed up of
>> hearing his name quoted in the media that he might be close to suicide.
>>
>>
>I agree entirely with the added proviso that there is a very strong
>likelihood that he is not even guilty of 'just looking at pictures'.
>
>I find it disturbing that not one media outlet has raised the
>possibility that the evidence against this man was bogus, even though
>the concerns about Operation Ore have been in the public domain for some
>time.
Actually there have been a few hints - from interviewees rather than
journos. On Channel 4 news last night the head of the Commons Education
Select Committee (Barry Shearman I think) made a very broad hint to this
effect.
The reason journos don't want to ask about this is that it would be The
Question That Kills The Story - something they are all taught never to
ask. If it ever becomes clear to the public that many people on the SOR
are not a danger to children, never have been and never will be, the
whole pack-hunt is shown up for the hysteria it is.
>Particularly galling in the week that the BBC, quite rightly, blow
>open the 'Satanic abuse' scandal, whilst blithely ignoring, indeed
>contributing to the 2006 version of the same mentality that had such a
>devastating effect on these kids and their parents.
>
Ironic isn't it.
--
PeteM
Paul Robson
>> I agree entirely with the added proviso that there is a very strong
>> likelihood that he is not even guilty of 'just looking at pictures'.
>>
>> I find it disturbing that not one media outlet has raised the
>> possibility that the evidence against this man was bogus, even though
>> the concerns about Operation Ore have been in the public domain for some
>> time.
>
> Actually there have been a few hints - from interviewees rather than
> journos. On Channel 4 news last night the head of the Commons Education
> Select Committee (Barry Shearman I think) made a very broad hint to this
> effect.
>
I have tried to correct our local paper who have been quoting the Police
- the usual "everyone on Landslide looked at Child Porn definitely"
line. With a little success, I think, but not much.
I particularly liked the local line which appeared on Teletext "Ore is a
great success so we're closing it even though we haven't finished". Yeah.
> The reason journos don't want to ask about this is that it would be The
> Question That Kills The Story - something they are all taught never to
> ask. If it ever becomes clear to the public that many people on the SOR
> are not a danger to children, never have been and never will be, the
> whole pack-hunt is shown up for the hysteria it is.
>
Well, it wrecks it. The *idea*, presumably is a list of people who are
"dangerous" so they can be monitored. Putting 16 year olds who grope 15
years olds on it for life just trashes it.
>> Particularly galling in the week that the BBC, quite rightly, blow
>> open the 'Satanic abuse' scandal, whilst blithely ignoring, indeed
>> contributing to the 2006 version of the same mentality that had such a
>> devastating effect on these kids and their parents.
>
> Ironic isn't it.
>
It was really a waste of time ; nothing will happen as a result of it.
It's still happening.
Ken
>
> Parliament decides to criminalise (and demonise) those who download indecent
> photos of children. They are put in the same category as predatory
> paedophiles. And so logically, anyone who has done that should be forced to
> abandon any career that involves working with children or with vulnerable
> people. That's what happens when you criminalise human behaviour that
> happens to be on the outer spectrum of what is normal. Let's face it, huge
> numbers of people who are in responsible jobs and doing their jobs well,
> have downloaded child porn onto their computers and have never posed any
> risk to children at all.
>
> It seems reasonable to me that the guy was allowed to continue working with
> children (I'd think the same if he had been convicted, let alone cautioned)
> unless there was a psychiatrist's report saying that he posed a danger to
> children. The decision by a minister to let him work as a teacher should
> have been accepted as a reasonable and proportionate decision.
>
> I am simply amazed that this saga is still headline news and the lead story
> on radio bulletins. I feel sorry for the teacher, who must be so fed up of
> hearing his name quoted in the media that he might be close to suicide.
if those who download kiddie porn are now felt to be "criminals" its
lucky that the Hampshire judge who enjoyed the very same, was able to
retain his index linked pension, and walk away with little more than a
slap round the wrist!
k
Steve Walker
> I find it disturbing that not one media outlet has raised the
> possibility that the evidence against this man was bogus
The evidence was his own admission, entered into freely and after being
provided with free legal advice. If admissions are no longer legitimate
evidence, then we'll be able to close an awful lot of prisons.
Paul Robson
the threat of a trial with lots of publicity is used. A lot. And
anything relating to "save the chillun" is a sure fire guarantee of an
unfair trial.
"Paedophiles" are convicted in the press whatever the story ; haven't
you read a paper recently ?
ed
I've read cases where the solicitors have advised their client to
accept the caution even when the client had wanted to go to court
instead.
There have been several successful prosecutions where literally the
only evidence had been the name on the list.
It's really just another excuse for journalists to use the word
paedophile and they seem to be in a pedo frenzy at the moment.
PeteM
It depends what you mean by "freely". IIRC Stefan Kisko freely entered
into an admission of his own guilt, in one of the most disgustingly
shameful examples of police practice ever seen in Britain. I take it you
aren't defending that?
People are bullied into accepting cautions for offences they never
committed, simply for fear of something worse. It's a question of
pressure. Look up the Redman case. There are probably hundreds more in
Operation Ore alone.
--
PeteM
marc_CH
> People are bullied into accepting cautions for offences they never
> committed, simply for fear of something worse. It's a question of
> pressure. Look up the Redman case. There are probably hundreds more in
> Operation Ore alone.
Yeah. Sure. Probably. The police can bully you into admitting you are a
paedophile.
Absolute *crap*.
marc
marc_CH
> The problem with Ore "admissions" is they aren't entered into freely ;
> the threat of a trial with lots of publicity is used. A lot. And
> anything relating to "save the chillun" is a sure fire guarantee of an
> unfair trial.
What absolute *drivel*. You'll get oublicity whether you turn up for a
trial following a 'not guilty' plea or turn up for a sentencing
following a 'guilty' plea. If what you spout was true then there would
have been no Op Ore trials at all.
marc
marc_CH
> Parliament decides to criminalise (and demonise) those who download
> indecent photos of children. They are put in the same category as
> predatory paedophiles.
Bollocks they are. What you call 'predatory paedophiles' are chrged with
an entirely different range of offences.
Why do you all want to protect the rights of the poor Internet
paedophile? Do you think his is a 'victimless crime'?
> That's what happens when you criminalise human behaviour that
> happens to be on the outer spectrum of what is normal.
In case you have never realised it, children are abused to provide the
material for these pictures. Categorising this as 'the outer spectrum of
what is normal' leads me to suspect that you'd not be pleased with
anyone having a look through your computer.
marc
Alex Panda
"marc_CH" <marc...@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:1186.2...@crumhorn.org...
No, they can bully people into accepting a caution which will garner no
publicity, or alternatively turning up to court in the glare of local
press - where they might be acquitted, but by then it's too late.
The Todal
> In article <42pas0F...@individual.net> deadm...@beeb.net wrote...
>
>> Parliament decides to criminalise (and demonise) those who download
>> indecent photos of children. They are put in the same category as
>> predatory paedophiles.
>
> Bollocks they are. What you call 'predatory paedophiles' are chrged with
> an entirely different range of offences.
I think you do actually understand the point. We are talking about
individuals who, in the privacy of their own home, download certain images
onto their computers. They are portrayed in the Press and in Commons debates
as paedophiles. It really isn't very different from saying that those who
download pictures of guns are likely to be terrorists and those who download
pictures of naked ladies over 18 are likely to be rapists.
>
> Why do you all want to protect the rights of the poor Internet
> paedophile? Do you think his is a 'victimless crime'?
I am saying that it is an unreasonable and oppressive step to take, to
deprive someone of their career as a teacher because they have a stash of
pornography of a particular type.
>
>> That's what happens when you criminalise human behaviour that
>> happens to be on the outer spectrum of what is normal.
>
> In case you have never realised it, children are abused to provide the
> material for these pictures.
Children are abused to provide some of the material for some pictures but in
case you have never realised it, a picture can be unlawful even if the child
was playing happily on a beach or in a garden, oblivious of the
photographer.
> Categorising this as 'the outer spectrum of
> what is normal' leads me to suspect that you'd not be pleased with
> anyone having a look through your computer.
I thought you probably would suspect that, and it did indeed occur to me
that in this free country of ours there is a slight possibility that my post
would result in a police raid and a careful search of my entire house, and
confiscation of every computer in my house to check whether I am in
possession of (what, explosives? terrorist manuals? no) any photographs of
naked or scantily clad children. Any assurance I might give that I don't
have such material and that I am debating this issue only because I have an
interest in legal affairs, is of course valueless. So perhaps it would be
best not to debate these things and to trust the authorities to make the
best decisions in the interest of the nation. Napoleon Is Always Right, as
they say in Animal Farm.
Richard Miller
writes
>In case you have never realised it, children are abused to provide the
>material for these pictures.
This is the key link in the chain that I have never accepted.
Children are abused because child abusers get their kicks that way. They
take pictures of the abuse to get further, later thrills.
But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
*solely for the purpose of producing child porn*. Yet this assumption -
that children have been abused to produce this material who would not
otherwise have been abused - is at the heart of many of the arguments
about the criminality, the sentencing for, and the risk assessment of
those who view child porn. That plus an assumption that anyone who ever
looks at a photo of a naked seventeen year old is likely to rape any
children they are left alone with.
This whole area is riddled with hysterical nonsense that is getting in
the way of a sensible assessment of degrees of culpability and risk.
--
Richard Miller
Paul Robson
I suspect there are, somewhere, but it is vastly exaggerated. It is also
my understanding (which may be wrong) that much of it is (i) endlessly
recycled and (ii) very old.
Paul Robson
Err.... why ?
You are making my point Marc. You get the publicity anyway, you are
labelled "Pedo" in the press, c/w with picture of the "Pervert".
Also the allegation will appear on your CRB check irrespective of guilt
or innocence which will make you a "risk" ; I'm quite surprised Hewitt
took that risk. It is not the nicest of schools, and they were probably
desperate for a PE teacher.
(Acquittals are not heavily PRed by the Police, needless to say)
If you accept a caution there will inevitably be no publicity. I live
close to Norwich ; there have been Ore trials publicised in the local
press, never seen a caution publicised - until this case.
Harry The Horse
> JT wrote:
>
>> I find it disturbing that not one media outlet has raised the
>> possibility that the evidence against this man was bogus
>
> The evidence was his own admission, entered into freely and after
> being provided with free legal advice.
'not-guilty' verdict were recorded, his career and possibly his life would
be destroyed. Of course it is quite possible that he did view child
pornography but simply concluding from the his acceptance of a caution that
must have done it is dangerous and naive.
> If admissions are no longer
> legitimate evidence, then we'll be able to close an awful lot of
> prisons.
Admissions without corroborating evidence should NOT be admissible. That is
if we wanted to eliminate the scourge of miscarriages of justice, which I
accept no one in the government is remotely interested in doing.
Harry The Horse
would not do so if there were strong physical evidence of accessing child
pornography and if the images were sufficiently 'vile'. For someone where
the only evidence is a credit card receipt, accepting a caution may be the
least worst option, even if he entirely innocent of accessing child
pornography. This is a perfectly plausible scenario. It has been admitted
by the FBI that they mixed up the records of adult porn subscribers in the
'Ore' list.
Of course this man may be guilty of accessing child porn but the other
scenario is just as likely. I think this case just underlines the utter
uselessness of the SOR in determining whether or not someone is a risk to
children.
Harry The Horse
of the likely consequences if they go to trial. People do admit to crimes
that they have not committed. The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six had
their confessions beaten out of then; Strphan Kisko was bullied into makiung
his. In the case of innocent people caught up on the Ore list, the loss of
reputation that will happen if a trial goes ahead will be enough to persuade
most to accept a caution. We know that there is a strong chance that this
may have happened as the FBI has admitted that adult porn subscriber records
were mxed up with the Ore list.
Besides, even if you are guilty of accessing indecent images of 'children',
that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as a child in this
context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual man who is not aroused by
a picture of a naked 17 year girl is probably sexually dysfunctional.
MM
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This whole area is riddled with hysterical nonsense that is getting in
>the way of a sensible assessment of degrees of culpability and risk.
The fundamental question I have is, WHY are the police so emphatically
vindictive and obtain such malicious satisfaction? Is it the
corruption of their power? Is it merely to obtain further funding? Or
is there something basically, intrinsically mischievous, kinky even,
in the character of your average British plod?
MM
MM
wrote:
Indeed. The implied threat from marc_CH is as despicable as the
Gestapo was when trumping up charges against the Jews.
MM
Ken
porn, but strangely all the really nasty stuff that he had paid for by
credit card had dissappeared before piggies came snuffling
about.................guess its very helpful to be a member of the
judciary and a freemason, if you are into kiddie porn!
k
Paul Robson
Various things ; clean up rates are everything ; the Police do not get
credit for an excellent expensive investigation which concludes no-one
is guilty ; but they do for a crap one with lots of convictions.
Various Police persons, such as the mouthy Mr Gamble, are empire building.
Investigating Ore is a much more pleasant activity than chasing criminals.
Richard Miller
<deadm...@beeb.net> writes
>I am saying that it is an unreasonable and oppressive step to take, to
>deprive someone of their career as a teacher because they have a stash
>of pornography of a particular type.
I think the problem is that the law, and the hysteria, does not
distinguish between those that have a "stash" of child pornography -
which might be evidence of a tendency that could be a legitimate cause
for concern - and those that can be shown to have viewed at some point
one or two images of under-18s among a range of other material.
--
Richard Miller
Paul Robson
Ever sensible. Someone who is into child porn has more than a couple of
thumbnails.
Most of the posters here have what the Police "experts" is supporting
evidence of child porn. Your file which is a list of newsgroups, of
which uk.legal is one. It also contains things like alt.schoolgirls.
The Todal
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wz0RxIyR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
That blurs the issue, with respect. When prosecuting a person for possession
of indecent pictures of children, motive is regarded as irrelevant and no
evidence is admissible about the defendant's sexual orientation or motive.
I think realistically we should accept that the police don't make a fuss
about a computer with two or three unlawful images on it, and tend to go
after those with a "stash" (whether there is any definition I don't know but
I'd assume maybe a dozen or more) pictures. Although this person (the PE
teacher in the news) was apparently cautioned and not prosecuted, the police
have leaked the information that he purchased some of the images with his
credit card.
It goes without saying, I hope, that having a handful of unlawful pictures
on your computer is evidence only of curiosity. Having rather more, and
placing them carefully in a folder where they can easily be found when
required, suggests that the person has sexual fantasies that at times
involve children.
But (and I suppose this will be difficult for many people to accept) a
fantasy life does not necessarily get translated into reality. A person with
a collection of indecent photographs isn't a threat to anyone unless other
criteria are met - that might for instance include trading the photos with
other people or making efforts to persuade children to pose for photographs
or behaving inappropriately with children in other ways or making a
psychologist believe that the person might be a danger to children. In the
case in point, the Minister made the decision on the basis of expert medical
advice. That ought to be the end of it. I think it is deplorable that even
those who don't work with children nevertheless sometimes lose their
livelihood as judges, police officers or doctors merely because of a
collection of photos they use to feed a particular private fantasy. I might
change my mind if I was shown statistics that indicate that most people who
collect such pictures go on to abuse children, but I don't believe that is
the case.
Paul Robson
>
> I think realistically we should accept that the police don't make a fuss
> about a computer with two or three unlawful images on it, and tend to go
> after those with a "stash" (whether there is any definition I don't know but
> I'd assume maybe a dozen or more) pictures. Although this person (the PE
> teacher in the news) was apparently cautioned and not prosecuted, the police
> have leaked the information that he purchased some of the images with his
> credit card.
>
This is almost entirely inaccurate. Norfolk Police are claiming that
they *know* he accessed the images because of his Credit Card and that
it definitely wasn't adult porn. This is simply not the case.
Nor is it true that they "don't make a fuss" about 2 or 3 unlawful
images. They make a fuss about *zero* images, relying on an incitement
charge. See Dr Grout.
But I do agree with the general thrust of your post.
JT
> about a computer with two or three unlawful images on it, and tend to go
> after those with a "stash" (whether there is any definition I don't know but
> I'd assume maybe a dozen or more) pictures. Although this person (the PE
> teacher in the news) was apparently cautioned and not prosecuted, the police
> have leaked the information that he purchased some of the images with his
> credit card.
>
The 2 or 3 unlawful images aspect is exactly the scenario that often
leads to a caution and SOR. "Not making a fuss" simply means not ending
up in court.
The police found no images on Reeves PC. He was cautioned for
'Incitement to Distribute' indecent images. They believed he had done so
but was the site he had signed up to 'known' to contain indecent
images or just 'assumed' to do so. It is known that the evidence on
which the based these charges (often in good faith) was deeply flawed in
several aspects. In particular, only 16 of the 350 Keyz sites were
proven to contain indecent images, the contents of the others were
surmised by a mixture of suppostion and third party reports.
Harry The Horse
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:30:09 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
> <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Besides, even if you are guilty of accessing indecent images of
>> 'children', that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as
>> a child in this context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual
>> man who is not aroused by a picture of a naked 17 year girl is
>> probably sexually dysfunctional.
>
> anyhow?
>
A paedophile is a person who has an unnatural sexual attraction for
pre-pubescent children. Being a 'paedophile', as such, is not illegal, but
most expressions of that attraction would be illegal. It is normal sexual
behaviour for a 30 year old man to want to have sex with an attractive 15
year old girl, but we would rightly see such a coupling as being damaging
and abusive. A man convicted of such an offence would be denounced as a
'paedophile' but he wouldn't be.
Derek Hornby
>. It is essential that people of your ability and knowledge debate
> this subject to bring it to the attention of the many who do not
> realise just how stupid this nonsense is.
But you are part of the stupid nonsense.
Who was it that claimed to have reported me to the police?
you!
So you are part of the nonsense.
Hoever, the police clearly saw you for what you are, just someone
that like sto make up stories for fun.
After all, you are old, lnoely, and unhappy, and lead sad life.
And jealous of those that jave a far better life than you could ever have.
Paul Robson
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:30:09 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
> <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as a child in this
>> context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual man who is not aroused by
>> a picture of a naked 17 year girl is probably sexually dysfunctional.
>
> anyhow?
>
A Paedophile, in Police terminology is anyone whose credit card has been
used to access a service that may also, without their knowledge, allow
access to child pornography.
MM
I think it would be a huge wheeze to send pictures of 17-year-olds
(fully clothed, but in slightly provocative positions such as one
might see in a women's mag) to various broadcasters, especially if
they are male, and suggest that if such pictures were found on *their*
computers, they might have some explaining to do. Might actually give
them pause to go and start investigating the backstory a bit deeper.
The Today programme presenters are all as naive as cows.
MM
MM
wrote:
>.............Although this person (the PE
>teacher in the news) was apparently cautioned and not prosecuted, the police
>have leaked the information that he purchased some of the images with his
>credit card.
Careful! You're falling for the slack and sloppy tabloidese in the
gutter press. The Times reported that they found *no evidence* of
downloaded porn. Instead, they did him for incitement to download. So
effectively they did him because of his credit card details being
found.
MM
MM
>The police found no images on Reeves PC. He was cautioned for
>'Incitement to Distribute' indecent images.
Also wrong. The Times reported that it was incitement to *download*.
MM
JT
"Incitement to distribute or show indecent photographs of children"
http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/incitement.html
marc_CH
> > Bollocks they are. What you call 'predatory paedophiles' are chrged with
> > an entirely different range of offences.
>
> I think you do actually understand the point. We are talking about
> individuals who, in the privacy of their own home, download certain images
> onto their computers. They are portrayed in the Press and in Commons debates
> as paedophiles. It really isn't very different from saying that those who
> download pictures of guns are likely to be terrorists and those who download
> pictures of naked ladies over 18 are likely to be rapists.
Utter rubbish. You can do other things with guns than be a terrorist and
you can do other things with naked ladies over 18 than simply rape them.
On the other hand I'm at a loss to understand what you are likely to
want to do with child porn images. Maybe you can illuminate this for me.
> > Why do you all want to protect the rights of the poor Internet
> > paedophile? Do you think his is a 'victimless crime'?
>
> I am saying that it is an unreasonable and oppressive step to take, to
> deprive someone of their career as a teacher because they have a stash of
> pornography of a particular type.
Hang on a second - schools have a duty of care to their pupils. Do you
*really and seriously* think that it is at all sensible to have adults
who may be sexually aroused by children to be exercising that care?
Would you put a monkey in charge of a box of bananas?
> > In case you have never realised it, children are abused to provide the
> > material for these pictures.
>
> Children are abused to provide some of the material for some pictures
> but in case you have never realised it, a picture can be unlawful even
> if the child was playing happily on a beach or in a garden, oblivious
> of the photographer.
Sure they can. And they are also abused to provide the material for
these pictures.
> I thought you probably would suspect that, and it did indeed occur to me
> that in this free country of ours there is a slight possibility that my post
> would result in a police raid
I'm suggesting that I find your defence of paedophiles to be unusual at
best, suspicuious at worst.
marc
marc_CH
> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
> That plus an assumption that anyone who ever looks at a photo of a
> naked seventeen year old is likely to rape any children they are left
> alone with.
I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
*much* younger children than that. Forget the bagaries of the law -
think about what has happened in reality so far.
(As an aside, has anyone been convicted yet of being in possession of
indecent images of a seventeen year old? I would imagine that it would
be next to impossible to accurately estimate the age of the subject by
that time)
marc
marc_CH
> It's not so much a question of 'bullying' as someone taking a
> pragmatic view of the likely consequences if they go to trial. People
> do admit to crimes that they have not committed. The Guildford Four
> and Birmingham Six had their confessions beaten out of then; Strphan
> Kisko was bullied into makiung his.
This would make much more sense if you took any of this into context. Do
you seriously think you can browbeat someone into admitting they are a
paedophile when they are unlikely to have come into contct with the
police ever in the past? (I recall reading that most of the Ore targets
were 'white collar' without previous criminal histories) Maybe you do,
of course. I sure know that I wouldn't be for caving in to that.
> In the case of innocent people caught up on the Ore list, the loss of
> reputation that will happen if a trial goes ahead will be enough to
> persuade most to accept a caution.
You talk about these 'innocent people caught up on the Ore list' quite a
lot. just to settle the situation, how big was the Ore list and how many
of them were innocent people?
> Besides, even if you are guilty of accessing indecent images of 'children',
> that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as a child in this
> context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual man who is not aroused by
> a picture of a naked 17 year girl is probably sexually dysfunctional.
I would be *amazed* if you could ever get a conviction on the strength
of only looking at pictures of seveteen year olds.
marc
marc_CH
> I think the problem is that the law, and the hysteria, does not
> distinguish between those that have a "stash" of child pornography -
> which might be evidence of a tendency that could be a legitimate cause
> for concern - and those that can be shown to have viewed at some point
> one or two images of under-18s among a range of other material.
Point me to a conviction secured for someone who was 'shown to have
viewed at some point one or two images of under-18s among a range of
other material' and we'll start talking.
marc
marc_CH
> Indeed. The implied threat from marc_CH is as despicable as the
> Gestapo was when trumping up charges against the Jews.
Yeah, that's it. Mention WWII and the Nazis for effect. Forget that it's
meaningless. It makes for a reasoned debate.
marc
marc_CH
> (Acquittals are not heavily PRed by the Police, needless to say)
I thnk you'll find that all court activity is 'PRed' by the press
sitting in the gallery.
marc
marc_CH
> Most of the posters here have what the Police "experts" is supporting
> evidence of child porn. Your file which is a list of newsgroups, of
> which uk.legal is one. It also contains things like alt.schoolgirls.
How is that evidence of anything?
marc
ed
wrote:
>
>You talk about these 'innocent people caught up on the Ore list' quite a
>lot. just to settle the situation, how big was the Ore list and how many
>of them were innocent people?
It seems that most forced only charged about 30-40% of people
arrested.
The 7200 names always gets quoted but is just not correct. The police
themselves admitted a big number had only paid to view adult sites
(after they'd already arrested about 1500 people) and that some names
would be removed.
Even then that still included sites with questionable names but no
proof they were illegal.
And of course the list was originally stated as having 2000 names on
it which I reckon is the real figure.
ed
>
>The fundamental question I have is, WHY are the police so emphatically
>vindictive and obtain such malicious satisfaction? Is it the
>corruption of their power? Is it merely to obtain further funding? Or
>is there something basically, intrinsically mischievous, kinky even,
>in the character of your average British plod?
>
>MM
All of the above.
JT
> The 7200 names always gets quoted but is just not correct. The police
> themselves admitted a big number had only paid to view adult sites
> (after they'd already arrested about 1500 people) and that some names
> would be removed.
I see from the More4 news report that the NCS are now quoting 5,000 on
the list.
ed
wrote:
>In article <dyjKBFxN...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk wrote...
>
>> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
>> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
>
>Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
>situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
>into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
>
I think the OP was talking of commercial use. They were a bunch of
sickos sharing with each other.
>> That plus an assumption that anyone who ever looks at a photo of a
>> naked seventeen year old is likely to rape any children they are left
>> alone with.
>
>I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
>have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
>*much* younger children than that. Forget the bagaries of the law -
>think about what has happened in reality so far.
>
Bullshit. There is a guy in Ireland charged with downloading child
porn when the pics were of a skinny 21 year old famous porn star.
There have been numerois other cases of 'teen' images being used to
charge people. IIRC someone was charge and convicted for having images
by the photographer David Hamilton, who uses teenage girls.
You clearly believe the tabloid definition of child porn.
>(As an aside, has anyone been convicted yet of being in possession of
>indecent images of a seventeen year old? I would imagine that it would
>be next to impossible to accurately estimate the age of the subject by
>that time)
>
>marc
Ha! It wont be long.
The Todal
"marc_CH" <marc...@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:63521....@crumhorn.org...
> In article <42rvhgF...@individual.net> deadm...@beeb.net wrote...
>
>> > Bollocks they are. What you call 'predatory paedophiles' are chrged
>> > with
>> > an entirely different range of offences.
>>
>> I think you do actually understand the point. We are talking about
>> individuals who, in the privacy of their own home, download certain
>> images
>> onto their computers. They are portrayed in the Press and in Commons
>> debates
>> as paedophiles. It really isn't very different from saying that those
>> who
>> download pictures of guns are likely to be terrorists and those who
>> download
>> pictures of naked ladies over 18 are likely to be rapists.
>
> Utter rubbish. You can do other things with guns than be a terrorist and
> you can do other things with naked ladies over 18 than simply rape them.
> On the other hand I'm at a loss to understand what you are likely to
> want to do with child porn images. Maybe you can illuminate this for me.
I suppose people look at photographs to admire them. Otherwise there
wouldn't be much point in photographs, would there?
>
>> > Why do you all want to protect the rights of the poor Internet
>> > paedophile? Do you think his is a 'victimless crime'?
>>
>> I am saying that it is an unreasonable and oppressive step to take, to
>> deprive someone of their career as a teacher because they have a stash of
>> pornography of a particular type.
>
> Hang on a second - schools have a duty of care to their pupils. Do you
> *really and seriously* think that it is at all sensible to have adults
> who may be sexually aroused by children to be exercising that care?
I think it is inevitable that some teachers will find their pupils sexually
attractive, but most won't have any intention of doing anything about it.
>
> Would you put a monkey in charge of a box of bananas?
>
>> > In case you have never realised it, children are abused to provide the
>> > material for these pictures.
>>
>> Children are abused to provide some of the material for some pictures
>> but in case you have never realised it, a picture can be unlawful even
>> if the child was playing happily on a beach or in a garden, oblivious
>> of the photographer.
>
> Sure they can. And they are also abused to provide the material for
> these pictures.
Nonsense.
>
>> I thought you probably would suspect that, and it did indeed occur to me
>> that in this free country of ours there is a slight possibility that my
>> post
>> would result in a police raid
>
> I'm suggesting that I find your defence of paedophiles to be unusual at
> best, suspicuious at worst.
Your staunch defence of our nation's values is a credit to you, comrade.
Paul Robson
>
> I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
> have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
> *much* younger children than that. Forget the bagaries of the law -
> think about what has happened in reality so far.
>
> (As an aside, has anyone been convicted yet of being in possession of
> indecent images of a seventeen year old? I would imagine that it would
> be next to impossible to accurately estimate the age of the subject by
> that time)
>
> marc
They aren't required to be 17, they're required to look as if they might
be for a prosecution. You have no idea how desperate Plod is, have you ?
Paul Robson
>
>> In the case of innocent people caught up on the Ore list, the loss of
>> reputation that will happen if a trial goes ahead will be enough to
>> persuade most to accept a caution.
>
> You talk about these 'innocent people caught up on the Ore list' quite a
> lot. just to settle the situation, how big was the Ore list and how many
> of them were innocent people?
In the Uk, 7,200 odd. No-one knows how many are innocent, because no-one
actually knows what any of them have done.
>
>> Besides, even if you are guilty of accessing indecent images of 'children',
>> that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as a child in this
>> context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual man who is not aroused by
>> a picture of a naked 17 year girl is probably sexually dysfunctional.
>
> I would be *amazed* if you could ever get a conviction on the strength
> of only looking at pictures of seveteen year olds.
You don't need to look at pictures. You merely need to "incite
(Landslide) to provide those pictures". Even though they didn't.
Paul Robson
Err.... Paul Reeve. No, okay, he was shown to have viewed no material at
all.
MM
>On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:41:54 GMT, marc...@crumhorn.org (marc_CH)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <dyjKBFxN...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk wrote...
>>
>>> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
>>> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
>>
>>Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
>>situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
>>into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
>>
>
>I think the OP was talking of commercial use. They were a bunch of
>sickos sharing with each other.
>
>
>>> That plus an assumption that anyone who ever looks at a photo of a
>>> naked seventeen year old is likely to rape any children they are left
>>> alone with.
>>
>>I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
>>have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
>>*much* younger children than that. Forget the bagaries of the law -
>>think about what has happened in reality so far.
>>
>
>Bullshit. There is a guy in Ireland charged with downloading child
>porn when the pics were of a skinny 21 year old famous porn star.
>
>There have been numerois other cases of 'teen' images being used to
>charge people. IIRC someone was charge and convicted for having images
>by the photographer David Hamilton, who uses teenage girls.
Does marc_CH know that he could, right now, go to www.amazon.co.uk and
order any one of a number of freely available art books from David
Hamilton and others which the police have already deemed to contain
child porn? Then there was the brouhaha over Tierney Gearon's pictures
of her children displayed at the Saatchi gallery. I remember the
outcry in the press when this was last aired. Several bookshops said,
following yet more hysteria, they'd pull these titles, but Amazon
stuck to their guns. So why weren't they prosecuted?
MM
Paul Robson
It's a smear tactic. It's the same kind of approach ; having that file
(which you probably do) is evidence you have accessed alt.schoolgirls or
whatever.
Rather like, say, the existence of PGP Encryption (almost mandatory on
Linux) or Cleanup Applications *proooves* you did it really.
It's a jury ; they make smears and hope they don't realise it is crap.
MM
>MM wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:39:34 GMT, JT <J...@petml.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The police found no images on Reeves PC. He was cautioned for
>>> 'Incitement to Distribute' indecent images.
>>
>> Also wrong. The Times reported that it was incitement to *download*.
>>
>> MM
>I'm pretty sure the offence is "Incitement to distribute"
I am quoting from The Times. Perhaps it is wrong.
MM
MM
wrote:
So why did you attempt character assassination with the words: "leads
me to suspect that you'd not be pleased with anyone having a look
through your computer"?
MM
MM
wrote:
>I'm suggesting that I find your defence of paedophiles to be unusual at
>best, suspicuious at worst.
Ah, more character assassination! You don't stop, do you!
MM
Derek Hornby
> I suppose people look at photographs to admire them. Otherwise there
> wouldn't be much point in photographs, would there?
Agreed!
However, if say there was a press report about porn on the internet,
some people will go and take look simply to see what the fuss is all about.
It's like saying if someone walks into the pub and says:
"it's unbelievable what's going on out there, it's disgraceful"
I am sure there would then be a rusth to the door to see what the guy was
on about.
Derek
marc_CH
> > Utter rubbish. You can do other things with guns than be a terrorist and
> > you can do other things with naked ladies over 18 than simply rape them.
> > On the other hand I'm at a loss to understand what you are likely to
> > want to do with child porn images. Maybe you can illuminate this for me.
>
> I suppose people look at photographs to admire them. Otherwise there
> wouldn't be much point in photographs, would there?
I'm still at a loss. Keeping pictures of ten year old boys and girls
being fucked by overweight middle aged men doesn't really fit in with my
ideas of 'admiration'. Maybe it does yours. Perhaps you can explain to
me why you think it is the case.
> > Hang on a second - schools have a duty of care to their pupils. Do you
> > *really and seriously* think that it is at all sensible to have adults
> > who may be sexually aroused by children to be exercising that care?
>
> I think it is inevitable that some teachers will find their pupils sexually
> attractive, but most won't have any intention of doing anything about it.
And yet you'd take the risk that it just might hppen and place them in
the way of their temptation, would you? Why?
> > Sure they can. And they are also abused to provide the material for
> > these pictures.
>
> Nonsense.
Are you saying that at no time have children ben abused for the benefit
of pornography? Faced with reasoning like that I'm surprised I'm even
engaging in any kind of debate with you at all.
marc
marc_CH
> They aren't required to be 17, they're required to look as if they might
> be for a prosecution. You have no idea how desperate Plod is, have you ?
So how do th cops tell a 17 year old from a 19 year old?
marc
marc_CH
> > Point me to a conviction secured for someone who was 'shown to have
> > viewed at some point one or two images of under-18s among a range of
> > other material' and we'll start talking.
>
> Err.... Paul Reeve. No, okay, he was shown to have viewed no material at
> all.
Not a great example then, is it. Do you have any others or is this all
just more of your wind?
marc
marc_CH
> Does marc_CH know that he could, right now, go to www.amazon.co.uk and
> order any one of a number of freely available art books from David
> Hamilton and others which the police have already deemed to contain
> child porn?
I'm vaguely familir with the story. Why would anyone want a book of
images of naked children?
> Then there was the brouhaha over Tierney Gearon's pictures
> of her children displayed at the Saatchi gallery.
That one was clearly nonsensical.
> Several bookshops said,
> following yet more hysteria, they'd pull these titles, but Amazon
> stuck to their guns. So why weren't they prosecuted?
You tell me.
marc
marc_CH
> You don't need to look at pictures. You merely need to "incite
> (Landslide) to provide those pictures". Even though they didn't.
As I understand it, just 'looking' at the pictures is not enough. You
have to possess it.
marc
marc_CH
> It's a smear tactic. It's the same kind of approach ; having that file
> (which you probably do) is evidence you have accessed alt.schoolgirls or
> whatever.
No it's not, any more than having the word 'Osama Bin Laden' on a hard
disk is evidence that you are a Moslem trrorist. Maybe you can tell me
where the possession of the newsgroup name *alone* was used to secure a
charge, let alone a conviction.
> Rather like, say, the existence of PGP Encryption (almost mandatory on
> Linux) or Cleanup Applications *proooves* you did it really.
That's also evidence of nothing. Again, give me an example of where
unbreakable encryption *alone* led to anything in a court.
marc
marc_CH
> >Yeah, that's it. Mention WWII and the Nazis for effect. Forget that it's
> >meaningless. It makes for a reasoned debate.
>
> So why did you attempt character assassination with the words: "leads
> me to suspect that you'd not be pleased with anyone having a look
> through your computer"?
If I were to defend the BNP have utterly no doubt whatsoever that the
'right-on' denizens of this newsgroup would accuse me of being a
neo-Nazi. I've already found that my defending the police leads people
to accuse me of being a cop which I am not), so it's not that much of a
leap to make. By the same token, I have to assume that anyone who
defends paedophiles to th extent that he was is doing so for a good
reason.
marc
Harry The Horse
>
> This would make much more sense if you took any of this into context.
> Do
> you seriously think you can browbeat someone into admitting they are a
> paedophile when they are unlikely to have come into contct with the
> police ever in the past? (I recall reading that most of the Ore
> targets
> were 'white collar' without previous criminal histories) Maybe you do,
> of course. I sure know that I wouldn't be for caving in to that.
>
Jesus, you really can't fucking read can you. I did not claim that anyone
could be browbeaten in admitting that they were a paedophile. I said that
someone who was innocent might choose to accept a caution as a least worst
option.
Harry The Horse
> In article <33qhs197o13hkqbm4...@4ax.com>
> kyli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote...
>
>> Indeed. The implied threat from marc_CH is as despicable as the
>> Gestapo was when trumping up charges against the Jews.
>
> it's meaningless. It makes for a reasoned debate.
>
Harry The Horse
have 'made' it.
Richard Miller
<marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
>In article <dyjKBFxN...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
>ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk wrote...
>
>> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
>> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
>
>Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
>situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
>into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
You miss my point entirely. Sure, the club wanted new material and
swapped it. But are you seriously claiming that the paedos didn't enjoy
abusing those children for the photos and would not have done it without
the demands of the club?
>
>> That plus an assumption that anyone who ever looks at a photo of a
>> naked seventeen year old is likely to rape any children they are left
>> alone with.
>
>I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
>have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
>*much* younger children than that.
Looking too closely into just what they are dealing with and what is
landing people in jail could land us in jail too. But frankly, based on
what I have read and heard, both in the media and from colleagues in the
profession, I think you show altogether too much trust in the
authorities applying the same common sense standards that you would.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
>> Besides, even if you are guilty of accessing indecent images of 'children',
>> that does not necessarily mean you are a paedophile, as a child in this
>> context could be a 17 year old. Any hetereosexual man who is not aroused by
>> a picture of a naked 17 year girl is probably sexually dysfunctional.
>
>I would be *amazed* if you could ever get a conviction on the strength
>of only looking at pictures of seveteen year olds.
Why, bearing in mind that the law is very clear in making that a
criminal offence?
I presume you would also be amazed if you could ever get a conviction of
a 16 year old boy who had consensual sex with his girlfriend of 15 and a
half. But there are such cases.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<marc...@crumhorn.org> writes
>In article <wz0RxIyR...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
>ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk wrote...
>
>> I think the problem is that the law, and the hysteria, does not
>> distinguish between those that have a "stash" of child pornography -
>> which might be evidence of a tendency that could be a legitimate cause
>> one or two images of under-18s among a range of other material.
>
>Point me to a conviction secured for someone who was 'shown to have
>viewed at some point one or two images of under-18s among a range of
>other material' and we'll start talking.
>
Can I take that as a promise that you *won't* talk at me otherwise? :-)
--
Richard Miller
Harry The Horse
>
> I would be *amazed* if you could ever get a conviction on the strength
> of only looking at pictures of seveteen year olds.
>
Harry The Horse
instead.
The Todal
"marc_CH" <marc...@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:77232....@crumhorn.org...
> In article <42t0qnF...@individual.net> deadm...@beeb.net wrote...
>
>> > Utter rubbish. You can do other things with guns than be a terrorist
>> > and
>> > you can do other things with naked ladies over 18 than simply rape
>> > them.
>> > On the other hand I'm at a loss to understand what you are likely to
>> > want to do with child porn images. Maybe you can illuminate this for
>> > me.
>>
>> I suppose people look at photographs to admire them. Otherwise there
>> wouldn't be much point in photographs, would there?
>
> I'm still at a loss. Keeping pictures of ten year old boys and girls
> being fucked by overweight middle aged men doesn't really fit in with my
> ideas of 'admiration'. Maybe it does yours. Perhaps you can explain to
> me why you think it is the case.
Maybe an oil painting showing the rape of the Sabine Women wouldn't fit in
with your idea of "admiration" either, but fortunately we don't have to
share your taste.
Yes, some paintings and photographs are considered to be "great art" because
someone has designated them so, and maybe you wait for that reassurance
before you look at pictures of naked people. Other paintings and photographs
are without any real artistic merit but the fact remains, it is bizarre to
criminalise people for owning photographs even if you believe they have base
motives for looking at said pictures. Presumably an elderly lady
masturbating over a picture of cherubs in an oil painting wouldn't really
bother you because your kids can easily run away from her or kick her Zimmer
frame away.
>
>> > Hang on a second - schools have a duty of care to their pupils. Do you
>> > *really and seriously* think that it is at all sensible to have adults
>> > who may be sexually aroused by children to be exercising that care?
>>
>> I think it is inevitable that some teachers will find their pupils
>> sexually
>> attractive, but most won't have any intention of doing anything about it.
>
> And yet you'd take the risk that it just might hppen and place them in
> the way of their temptation, would you? Why?
Because by picking on a handful of people who have downloaded pictures, you
are not addressing the problem. Hell, you might as well sack all teachers
who have been to male boarding schools, on the basis that they have probably
had homosexual experiences there and are therefore more of a risk to
children than other teachers - why not be on the safe side and sack the lot?
>
>> > Sure they can. And they are also abused to provide the material for
>> > these pictures.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Are you saying that at no time have children ben abused for the benefit
> of pornography? Faced with reasoning like that I'm surprised I'm even
> engaging in any kind of debate with you at all.
Well, it's obviously an effort for both of us, eh?
I am saying that plenty of unlawful pictures do not involve any "abuse" of
children unless you adopt a circular definition of abuse whereby looking at
a picture of a naked child, even your own naked child, is a form of abuse.
The Todal
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:42td1gF...@individual.net...
>
>
> Yes, some paintings and photographs are considered to be "great art"
> because someone has designated them so, and maybe you wait for that
> reassurance before you look at pictures of naked people. Other paintings
> and photographs are without any real artistic merit but the fact remains,
> it is bizarre to criminalise people for owning photographs even if you
> believe they have base motives for looking at said pictures.
I should add, for the sake of clarity, that on balance I am in favour of
having a law which makes it unlawful to possess indecent pictures of
children (even though such a law is in some ways bizarre and oppressive),
because the production of those images (especially the extreme images) does
at times involve the abuse of children. Those who ought to be punished and
shamed are those who take the pictures and sell them. Those who merely
download them should be treated with far more leniency than they have been
hitherto. It is idiotic to subject people to public shame and deprive them
of their jobs, merely for being in possession of such images. It's like
bombing Iraqi civilians in the hope that by so doing, you can kill all the
insurgents.
MM
wrote:
A good enough reason would surely be to try to ensure justice is done?
MM
MM
Or you can stand in any crowded square (as in, Trafalgar Square) and
point and look upwards. Within a minute, several other people will
start looking upwards. Eventually practically the whole crowd will be
looking upwards. Try it! It's great fun. Especially when you then
pretend it was a bird and that bird that has just crashed to earth -
you follow its arc with your moving, pointing finger - and you shriek,
"Oh no, not THAT!" Then you just walk off with a shrug, and the rest
of the crowd looks kinda puzzled.
MM
marc_CH
> >You talk about these 'innocent people caught up on the Ore list' quite a
> >lot. just to settle the situation, how big was the Ore list and how many
> >of them were innocent people?
>
> It seems that most forced only charged about 30-40% of people
> arrested.
Well, given that the offences were historical does that surprise you? Do
you think that what you did 2 years ago on your PC would necessarily
persist? I think I've changed my hard drives about twice in that period.
marc
marc_CH
> >I would be *amazed* if you could ever get a conviction on the strength
> >of only looking at pictures of seveteen year olds.
>
> Why, bearing in mind that the law is very clear in making that a
> criminal offence?
Because I very much doubt that the prosecution could ever prove that the
subject of the images is seventeen years old. Given that most Internet
porn is all but anonymous how would you do it?
> I presume you would also be amazed if you could ever get a conviction of
> a 16 year old boy who had consensual sex with his girlfriend of 15 and a
> half. But there are such cases.
Not the same at all. In this case you'd be able to demonstrate the exact
ages of both parties as one will be a witness and the other the accused.
marc
marc_CH
> >> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
> >> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
> >
> >Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
> >situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
> >into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
>
> I think the OP was talking of commercial use. They were a bunch of
> sickos sharing with each other.
I think the OP made no such claim.
> >I don't really think that people who look at nude seventeen yar olds
> >have made it into jails yet. I think you'll find they are dealing with
> >*much* younger children than that. Forget the bagaries of the law -
> >think about what has happened in reality so far.
>
> Bullshit. There is a guy in Ireland charged with downloading child
> porn when the pics were of a skinny 21 year old famous porn star.
And was he convicted?
> You clearly believe the tabloid definition of child porn.
And you clearly believe whatever slop is getting thrown about in here.
> >(As an aside, has anyone been convicted yet of being in possession of
> >indecent images of a seventeen year old? I would imagine that it would
> >be next to impossible to accurately estimate the age of the subject by
> >that time)
>
> Ha! It wont be long.
I'll take that as an unequivocal 'no' then.
marc
marc_CH
> > As I understand it, just 'looking' at the pictures is not enough. You
> > have to possess it.
>
> Then you understand wrong. And you won't have merely possessed it,
> you will have 'made' it.
How can you 'make' it only by looking at it? If you send me an
unsolicited e-mail with a picture attached to it is that the same thing?
I think not!
marc
marc_CH
> >By the same token, I have to assume that anyone who
> >defends paedophiles to th extent that he was is doing so for a good
> >reason.
>
> A good enough reason would surely be to try to ensure justice is done?
Justice for whom, exactly? Are you suggesting that you styart a 'fair
play for paedophiles' campaign?
marc
marc_CH
> > So how do th cops tell a 17 year old from a 19 year old?
>
> They can't; that's the job of the jury. So they offer you a caution
> instead.
So what would *you* do? I'm certain i know what I'd do, but I'd like to
hear what your view is.
marc
marc_CH
> Those who ought to be punished and
> shamed are those who take the pictures and sell them. Those who merely
> download them should be treated with far more leniency than they have been
> hitherto.
Do you understand the general concepts behind 'supply and demand'?
> It is idiotic to subject people to public shame and deprive them of
> their jobs, merely for being in possession of such images.
So what would you do with them?
marc
marc_CH
> >> But I do not think there is any evidence of children being abused
> >> *solely for the purpose of producing child porn*.
> >
> >Then you need to open your eyes an shut up until you understand the
> >situation. The one that comes to mind immediately is the investigation
> >into the 'Wonderland' Club. Have a read at that and get back to me.
>
> You miss my point entirely. Sure, the club wanted new material and
> swapped it. But are you seriously claiming that the paedos didn't enjoy
> abusing those children for the photos and would not have done it without
> the demands of the club?
Maybe you can tell me how to produce child abuse images without abusing
children, Richard.
Aside from that, they were passed about within the group - and not all
of them were active abusers. (I seem to recall this from a 'Panorama'
programme about them)
marc
marc_CH
> > I'm still at a loss. Keeping pictures of ten year old boys and girls
> > being fucked by overweight middle aged men doesn't really fit in with my
> > ideas of 'admiration'. Maybe it does yours. Perhaps you can explain to
> > me why you think it is the case.
>
> Maybe an oil painting showing the rape of the Sabine Women wouldn't fit in
> with your idea of "admiration" either, but fortunately we don't have to
> share your taste.
Wow. You think that it's a matter of taste, do you? Do you think that
pictures of ten year old boys and girls being fucked by overweight
middle aged men might have some artistic merit?
Wow.
> > And yet you'd take the risk that it just might hppen and place them in
> > the way of their temptation, would you? Why?
>
> Because by picking on a handful of people who have downloaded pictures, you
> are not addressing the problem. Hell, you might as well sack all teachers
> who have been to male boarding schools, on the basis that they have probably
> had homosexual experiences there and are therefore more of a risk to
> children than other teachers - why not be on the safe side and sack the lot?
Teachers downloading sexual images of children are clearly shoinjg an
interest in this illegal activity. Placing them in a position where they
can act out their previous fantasies with a large supply of the raw
materials (ie, children) is downright dangerous.
On the other hand I do not view homosexuals as a threat to children at
all. I'm surprised that you think they might be, given the tone of your
remarks.
> I am saying that plenty of unlawful pictures do not involve any "abuse" of
> children
Really? Wow Part Two. I can't say that because I haven't seen them. I
take it that you have, have you? Wow. No wonder you post under an alias.
marc
marc_CH
> Jesus, you really can't fucking read can you. I did not claim that anyone
> could be browbeaten in admitting that they were a paedophile. I said that
> someone who was innocent might choose to accept a caution as a least worst
> option.
Jesus, you really can't fucking write can you?
Anyone accepting a caution is ipso facto admitting liability for the
offence and hence absolutely *is* being browbeaten in admitting that
they are a paedophile.
marc
Paul Robson
>
> How can you 'make' it only by looking at it? If you send me an
> unsolicited e-mail with a picture attached to it is that the same thing?
> I think not!
>
Because by the act of viewing it on your computer you cause a copy to be
made ; at least once. It is copied from the target machine onto your PC.
Of course, by reading a book, you make a copy by allowing the light to
travel and contact the lenses on your eyes, but hell, this is the
conviction rate you are looking at.
Though actually, in Plodland, you don't need to look at it, the receipt
of the picture is enough to hang you.
Paul Robson
>
> I'm still at a loss. Keeping pictures of ten year old boys and girls
> being fucked by overweight middle aged men doesn't really fit in with my
> ideas of 'admiration'. Maybe it does yours. Perhaps you can explain to
> me why you think it is the case.
>
You have no idea what the definition of Child Pornography is ; it could
involve (say) a 23 year old woman having sex with a 23 year old man. Or
a travel brochure. Or a copy of the Sun from 1980. Or photos of your
children in the bath.
Paul Robson
> In article <42tdisF...@individual.net> deadm...@beeb.net wrote...
>
>> Those who ought to be punished and
>> shamed are those who take the pictures and sell them. Those who merely
>> download them should be treated with far more leniency than they have been
>> hitherto.
>
> Do you understand the general concepts behind 'supply and demand'?
>
One of which is if there is no market for your product, you won't have
any demand.
Unfortunately, the concept of economic supply and demand tends to
involve money, and despite what the vested interests say, it's almost
impossible to sell Child Pornography on the Internet.
Paul Robson
>
>> I am saying that plenty of unlawful pictures do not involve any "abuse" of
>> children
>
> Really? Wow Part Two. I can't say that because I haven't seen them. I
> take it that you have, have you? Wow. No wonder you post under an alias.
>
Oh, you almost certainly have seen them. I rarely read the Sun, Star or
the Mirror, and I rarely read it in the 1980s when they regularly had
Child Pornography in them, but I did read it sometimes.
The mistake you are making, Marc, is in assuming that "Child
Pornography" is pornography with children in it.
Paul Robson
> In article <dqbmco$sj7$4...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> auti...@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk wrote...
>
>> It's a smear tactic. It's the same kind of approach ; having that file
>> (which you probably do) is evidence you have accessed alt.schoolgirls or
>> whatever.
>
> No it's not, any more than having the word 'Osama Bin Laden' on a hard
> disk is evidence that you are a Moslem trrorist. Maybe you can tell me
> where the possession of the newsgroup name *alone* was used to secure a
> charge, let alone a conviction.
>
Oh it isn't, it doesn't. However , with the "evidence" of your accessing
the "Child Porn" operation Landslide, with a few thumbnails, it's all
jury manipulation.
A lawyer (of all people) told me the other day that you have to prove
someone guilty to get a conviction ; this is nonsense, you have to
convince a jury they're guilty.
So what we increasingly get is very little *actual* evidence combined
with a lot of smears and trawled up evidence.
Paul Robson
> In article <0enis1p4ttr6pvlft...@4ax.com> kyli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote...
>
>>> Yeah, that's it. Mention WWII and the Nazis for effect. Forget that it's
>>> meaningless. It makes for a reasoned debate.
>> So why did you attempt character assassination with the words: "leads
>> me to suspect that you'd not be pleased with anyone having a look
>> through your computer"?
>
> If I were to defend the BNP have utterly no doubt whatsoever that the
> 'right-on' denizens of this newsgroup would accuse me of being a
> neo-Nazi. I've already found that my defending the police leads people
> to accuse me of being a cop which I am not), so it's not that much of a
> defends paedophiles to th extent that he was is doing so for a good
> reason.
>
Depends. If people were accused of Nazism because they liked "The
Producers" - which is OBVIOUSLY pro-Nazi propaganda, hell there's people
singing about how great Hitler was for god's sake, then you'd have a point.
I loathe the BNP, but I think the treatment of them stinks.
Paul Robson
Lesser of two evils. I think nitpicking over "Browbeaten" is ridiculous
; they are still admitting guilt when they may in fact have done nothing
at all.