Yawn...
David G. Bell
Why can't we just discuss something interesting, like the sort of
obscene filth you can buy in the UK?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Shaun Hollingworth
Bell") wrote:
>Some of these threads seem to be going around in circles.
>
>Why can't we just discuss something interesting, like the sort of
>obscene filth you can buy in the UK?
Try Carnival, 'The International Version'.....
Or, alternatively a picture of Mrs Margaret Thatcher, or
any book by Mrs Mary Whitehouse..... (Even more obscene with her
picture on the front....)
Some discussions by the House of Lords, and even the Elected
politicians, on how further to repress and restrict the ostensibly
free British People, also get a bit obscene don't they ?
Regards,
Shaun.
Anonymous
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> writes
>Some of these threads seem to be going around in circles.
>
>Why can't we just discuss something interesting, like the sort of
>obscene filth you can buy in the UK?
What sort of obscene filth? Where can you buy it? Why not get it free
from the Internet?
Witt
>obscene filth you can buy in the UK?
>David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
>
An interesting point, and one which has been much on my mind of late.
I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children
Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is
likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard,
simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.
Two things bother me:
(i) I went to Bath this afternoon, and saw some of the images available in
books on
sale by the Royal Photographic Society & Waterstone's - which are no
different in content
from the images in relation to which I now face a maximum of two years'
imprisonment. Yet
these images, no different before the law, are apparently lawfully on sale
on our High
Streets. If anyone can explain this anomaly to me, I'd be grateful;
alternatively, if you
know of a decent lawyer....
(ii) When I was forced to plead guilty, the Court made an Order under
Section 43 of the
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 forfeiting my computer and (I quote) "all
other indecent
material possessed by the defendant". This includes, as I see it, adult porn
video tapes which
are not illegal to simply possess via a vis the OPA 1959, and my collection
of pics from
mags such as "Mayfair" and "Penthouse". I can see no way in which my
possession of these
items "facilitated" the offences to which I have been forced to plead
guilty. If anyone can explain this anomaly to me, I'd be grateful;
alternatively, if you
know of a decent lawyer....
Michael Mansfield, are you out there?
PHN
Pete Mitchell
>
>My problem is twelve people picked at random from the streets who, let's
>face it, need not
>even be able to read, let alone follow complex and subtle arguments.
I understand your dilemma but believe you are underestimating people. I
was rather impressed by the juries I served on; on each, there were at
least three or four people who had a very healthy scepticism of the
received wisdom and morality, and were not prepared to convict without a
lot more evidence than was being presented.
Of course we have to assume that what you have posted is true; can you
provide more details of the case?
Pete Mitchell <real address= newsposter(at)dmed.demon.co.uk>
Witt
>One joyful day (Sat, 17 Apr 1999 00:56:26 +0400 to be precise), "Witt"
><wi...@omega.com> decided that the Usenet community would benefit from
>this remarkable comment:
>
>Obviously you have my sympathies but I must ask why on Earth you pled
>guilty if you knew similar images can be bought legally?
Legal advice and public prejudice, combined with my somewhat flaky
psychological condition, basically. I was put on the spot at very short
notice
whilst being certified as medically unfit to work (and given the nature of
my work,
to also reason properly).
>What did your lawyer say exactly?
That any jury would consider those images to be indecent. I disagree, of
course.
The problem is that "indecent" is such a vague term, despite having been
deprecated by the Williams Commission twenty years ago. As a qualified and
former practising lawyer, it is
my firm belief that the criminal law has a duty to be certain, otherwise
those
who may fall foul of it cannot know "a priori" whether they are guilty of
crime or not.
My counsel was quite clear that I was likely to face imprisonment if I
contested the case,
despite the relativistic arguments about this sort of image of which I am
aware; I am also
aware that similar images have been either acquitted or not prosecuted in
the past
(e.g. R -v- Moule, R -v- Ovenden).
But it becomes slightly more complicated when, having pleaded guilty, I have
myself
overridden the "beyond reasonable doubt" test set forth as a cardinal
principal of
English legal responsibility, yet I am likely to be sentenced on the basis
of
myth, hysteria, propaganda, and some degree of hypocrisy.
I will never consider myself to have been guilty, except with relation to
the "prevailing
standards", but as we should all be aware here, those standards may not, in
the long term,
turn out to be objectively correct. Until 1625, for example, the prevailing
standard, and the
conventional wisdom, was that the Sun rotated around the Earth. Were it not
for
Galileo, and his stance against traditional ignorance, perhaps we might
still be forced to
believe that. I am no Galileo, but I have spent enough time and effort
delving into this
topic to be as certain of my position as was he.
My problem is twelve people picked at random from the streets who, let's
face it, need not
even be able to read, let alone follow complex and subtle arguments.
Witt
ave...@thirdworld.uk
>Mark Wright wrote in message <371a3f0f...@194.159.73.14>...
>>One joyful day (Sat, 17 Apr 1999 00:56:26 +0400 to be precise), "Witt"
>><wi...@omega.com> decided that the Usenet community would benefit from
>>this remarkable comment:
>>
>>Obviously you have my sympathies but I must ask why on Earth you pled
>>guilty if you knew similar images can be bought legally?
>
>Legal advice and public prejudice, combined with my somewhat flaky
>psychological condition, basically. I was put on the spot at very short
>notice whilst being certified as medically unfit to work (and given the nature of
>my work, to also reason properly).
Are you saying you felt unable to say in court that you didn't think
the pictures were indecent?
>>What did your lawyer say exactly?
>
>That any jury would consider those images to be indecent. I disagree, of
>course.
If the pictures were, as you say, "simple nudity", it was more than a
little presumptuous for your lawyer to assume that "any jury would
consider those images to be indecent." Your lawyer was either
incompetent or under pressure to shrug your case off. There's a lot
of that going around.
>I will never consider myself to have been guilty, except with relation to
>the "prevailing standards", but as we should all be aware here, those
>standards may not, in the long term, turn out to be objectively correct.
[...]
>My problem is twelve people picked at random from the streets who, let's
>face it, need not even be able to read, let alone follow complex and subtle
>arguments.
There's nothing particularly complex or subtle about the concept
"simple nudity is not de facto indecency." Most people understand it
pretty well. Perhaps it was your lawyer who did not.
--
Avedon Carol Feminists Against Censorship
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
R. Mark Clayton
Witt wrote in message
<924224264.22848.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
This thread, which mysteriously the original post is missing from my
newsgroup misses the point.
First you have to trust juries. They are there to cast a common sense
assessment of the law (as explained by the judge) and in most cases to
decide who is telling the truth out of the various witnesses - even the
expert ones.
Juries are not stupid and they are likely to look rather more at WHY you
possessed such images of children.
When I was a kid my parents had a picture of my sister in the bath aged
about three, but this was for entirely non sexual reasons.
A jury is likely to decide that the reason you downloaded and kept such
images on your computer is so that you could j**k off over them.
Therefore their assessment of the obscenity of the images is likely be
determined by a subjective assessment of what you intended to use them for
rather than an objective assessment of whether they were obscene (e.g.
showed criminal sexual acts with children). Your solicitor was therefore
probably right to recommend a guilty plea since the sentence after a
contested conviction at Crown Court would be severe.
Reading between the lines these images were for the purpose of getting your
j*****s off and whoever passes sentence is likely to consider prison.
You don't have my sympathy at all and I hope you enjoy your time under rule
43.
R. Mark Clayton
MCla...@btinternet.com
As for censoring the Internet, well more paedophiles have idiotically given
themselves away in this media than by any other method. Long may this
continue!
Shaun
<MCla...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Witt wrote in message
><924224264.22848.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>This thread, which mysteriously the original post is missing from my
>newsgroup misses the point.
>
>First you have to trust juries. They are there to cast a common sense
>assessment of the law (as explained by the judge) and in most cases to
>decide who is telling the truth out of the various witnesses - even the
>expert ones.
>
>Juries are not stupid and they are likely to look rather more at WHY you
>possessed such images of children.
>
>When I was a kid my parents had a picture of my sister in the bath aged
>about three, but this was for entirely non sexual reasons.
I hope they have got rid of it if it was indecent...They might be now
be prosecuted for possessing it......... It seems that currently some
British people are guilty until proven to be innocent.....
>
>A jury is likely to decide that the reason you downloaded and kept such
>images on your computer is so that you could j**k off over them.
I don't think it would matter what he was using them for.
It matters if *they* were considered to be 'indecent'..... This word
is arbitrary and undefined, and therefore unjust.
Would he have been prosecuted for keeping classic oil paintings
incorporating frontal nude children ? I somehow don't think so......
>
>Therefore their assessment of the obscenity of the images is likely be
>determined by a subjective assessment of what you intended to use them for
>rather than an objective assessment of whether they were obscene (e.g.
>showed criminal sexual acts with children).
I Don't think so.... The law restricting possession of such pictures
does not specify anything about the use they are to be put.
It does not say you may possess 'indecent' pictures of kids, provided
you don't w***k over them.... If illegal possession of these pictures
is his only crime, the jury would have had to decide on the status of
the pictures, not the use they were put to by the defendant..
>Your solicitor was therefore
>probably right to recommend a guilty plea since the sentence after a
>contested conviction at Crown Court would be severe.
All this may contravene the European Convention of Human rights, which
implies that laws restricting free expression (however distasteful)
must be clear, so an *ordinary* citizen can find out exactly what
restrictions are placed upon him and why they exist. As such it
clearly cannot differentiate between possession of pictures to j**k
off, and those kept for other purposes, such as old family snapshots
etc, or classic oil paintings..
The words:
"Indecent" and "obscene" have no clear or fixed definition, are
entirely arbitrary, and are therefore of no use in any law, which
restricts freedom of expression, even if that restriction is widely
supported as this is for the protection of children.
It is interesting to note that adoption of the European Convention of
Human Rights has now been delayed. Perhaps the politicians were
unaware that we had so many arbitrary and often hard to justify laws
on our statute.
Laws prohibiting the possession of nude images of children may
possibly be easy to justify to most people in society, but
nevertheless, exactly what can and cannot be possessed by an
individual citizen must be made clear, according to the interpretation
of the ECHR, by Lord Bingham.
>
>Reading between the lines these images were for the purpose of getting your
>j*****s off and whoever passes sentence is likely to consider prison.
I would suggest professional help, rather than prison, for anyone who
needs such pictures for this purpose.
If the fellow has actually abused some REAL children (rather than
observe some collections of two dimensional arrays of coloured pixels
on a computer VDU) then prison would of course be appropriate.....
>
>You don't have my sympathy at all and I hope you enjoy your time under rule
>43.
>
This seems a little presumptuous. We have not seen the images, and
therefore can only go by the description given, which is simple
nudity.....
If these kind of pictures are illegal to possess, why are many
classic oil paintings which have nude children in them not
criminalised, along with a statue of a boy found on the front of
Broadcasting House in London ?
Shaun.
Witt
>was rather impressed by the juries I served on; on each, there were at
>least three or four people who had a very healthy scepticism of the
>received wisdom and morality, and were not prepared to convict without a
>lot more evidence than was being presented.
Due to my legal experience, I am exempt from jury service, hence have never
served on one; my received wisdom is that they can be capricious, and also
prejudiced, particularly in relation to the kind of material involved in my
case.
Without going into too much detail, I've seen the full range of images of
children
that are available on the Internet, and it is my opinion that those with
which I have
been charged are, if indecent, towards the lower end of the scale, or are
otherwise borderline, and in comparison to legally available images, do not
cross the line into illegality.
With respect to juries, I don't know in which Crown Court you served upon a
jury,
but when my case was called on on 1st March, the learned Judge called the
entire jury
panel into court to hear the proceedings and ensure them that their time had
not been
wasted. Of that panel, the vast majority was female and somewhat
middle-aged. I don't
wish to stereotype, but I didn't feel I would in any event have received a
fair trial at the
hands of any sensible subset of that panel, given that the right to
challenge jury members
has been much attenuated in recent years. That's not to say that I reject
jury trial, in fact
I still regard it as one of the few remaining bastions of freedom of the
individual against
state oppression (see, e.g. R -v- Ponting).
Mathematically speaking, of course, I would only have needed three of the
jury to decide
in my favour to be acquitted; however, I didn't feel that my Counsel had his
heart in
arguing the point, and more specifically, I yet haven't seen Section 69 PACE
certificates
in relation to the alleged paths between my PC and that of the police office
r who claims to
have download postings apparently originating from me. In particular, we
served essentially
a three-pronged defence statement on the Prosecution (as required), and my
legal advisers
concentrated on the first of those prongs. I have always been prepared to
deal with the other
two prongs, but my lawyers don't seem interested in pursuing those.
Particularly, in relation to "indecency", it's a vague term at best, and I
would look at the
Hansard debates wrt the Protection of Children Act 1978 to try and find out
exactly
what our legislators thought they were prohibiting. If I had the time and
resources to
defend myself, that's what I would do. Sadly, I don't.
>
>Of course we have to assume that what you have posted is true; can you
>provide more details of the case?
Sorry, I'm not going to go into specifics, but if you are interested in the
type of images
involved, go to Foyle's, Waterstone's, or Zwemmer's on Charing Cross Road;
all are,
apparently, on legal sale there. Is it any wonder I am confused and somewhat
angry?
Witt
Simon Arnold
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Witt wrote in message
> <924224264.22848.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> This thread, which mysteriously the original post is missing from my
> newsgroup misses the point.
>
> First you have to trust juries. They are there to cast a common sense
> assessment of the law (as explained by the judge) and in most cases to
> decide who is telling the truth out of the various witnesses - even the
> expert ones.
>
> Juries are not stupid and they are likely to look rather more at WHY you
> possessed such images of children.
>
> When I was a kid my parents had a picture of my sister in the bath aged
> about three, but this was for entirely non sexual reasons.
I have a photograph of myself, aged about 18 months old, standing ina paddling
pool wearing nothing other than a smile and a Mickey
Mouse T-shirt. If this guy is guilty under the 1978 POCA then surely
so must I be? If I published this photo of myself could I be imprisoned
too?
> A jury is likely to decide that the reason you downloaded and kept such
> images on your computer is so that you could j**k off over them.
This is a bit presumtious, to say the least - for all you know the guy could
bea naturist, or a photographer, or an artist.
Simon
R. Mark Clayton
Shaun wrote in message <371d63fb...@news2.newscene.com>...
>On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 03:16:41 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
>
>>
>>Witt wrote in message
>><924224264.22848.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>Juries are not stupid and they are likely to look rather more at WHY you
>>possessed such images of children.
>>
snip
>>
>>A jury is likely to decide that the reason you downloaded and kept such
>>images on your computer is so that you could j**k off over them.
>
>I don't think it would matter what he was using them for.
Well in a perfect world, the jury would decide the issue on a purely
objective grounds. The main point of my post is that in the real world the
jury would be likely to convict or not based on the non legal question of
the intended purpose for which the pictures were held. It is this reality
that was presumably the basis of his solicitor's advice. Pictures for
artistic, medical or clothing design use would be unlikely to lead to
conviction by a jury.
>
>It matters if *they* were considered to be 'indecent'..... This word
>is arbitrary and undefined, and therefore unjust.
Indeed it is and this is the biggest defect of the OBA (1958). Juries get
to decide, based on current morres what is likely to deprave and corrupt.
Their discretion is less in the case of "child porn" (covered by later law),
but nevertheless they essentially form a view on the moral acceptability of
the material in question.
snip
>The words:
>
>"Indecent" and "obscene" have no clear or fixed definition, are
>entirely arbitrary, and are therefore of no use in any law, which
>restricts freedom of expression, even if that restriction is widely
>supported as this is for the protection of children.
Adult pornography is essentially judged by what it is likely to do to the
consumer. The contributors are presumed to have a free choice in whether
they participate or not. Presuming real or simulated harm is not
portrayed, UK censorship is hard to justify on logical grounds.
Child pornography is essentially judged by what it is likely to do to the
contributors, who are presumed by law not to be able to excercise free will
adequately in relation to sex. Clearly a "free" market in child pronography
would incite / encourage the commission of child sex offences either here or
abroad.
snip
>
>I would suggest professional help, rather than prison, for anyone who
>needs such pictures for this purpose.
or possibly both
>
>If the fellow has actually abused some REAL children (rather than
>observe some collections of two dimensional arrays of coloured pixels
>on a computer VDU) then prison would of course be appropriate.....
But if he pays a man by credit card to send him pictures of this happening
in Rio de Janero, or worse can only join the "club" by posting an image he
obtains himself...
snip
>Shaun.
>
>