Peter Finklestone
Alan S. Wales
Gosforth, a court heard.
The 39-year-old Dr Who buff filmed a number of women and young girls who used
the toilet during visits to his home over a four-year period.
He pleaded guilty at Newcastle Magistrates' Court to nine counts of making
indecent images of children.
None of the victims were registered to Gosforth Memorial Medical Practice where
the GP worked.
Footage found
When police were given information about the doctor's activities, they raided
his home on 17 April this year.
They recovered a number of video images involving several different visitors.
After the hearing a Northumbria Police spokesman said: "Video footage and some
discs were seized from his house.
"He admitted filming the scenes of people using his toilet."
He has not worked as a GP since the allegations came to light and he left the
practice more than two months ago.
Dr Who expert
The case was adjourned for three weeks after a short hearing, for the
preparation of pre-sentence reports.
The doctor has been put on the sex offenders register.
The offences happened between November 1998 and October 2002.
Finklestone was commissioned by the BBC to carry out his labour of love -
restoring Dr Who footage.
He spent his spare time as part of a team paid by the corporation to restore
old episodes of the show, some of which had gathered dust locked away in
archives for decades.
A spokesman for Newcastle Primary Care NHS Trust said: "The GP has resigned and
we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate authorities
have been informed, including the General Medical Council.
She said the charges related to incidents outside work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3116887.stm
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
Fett
"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
Question one: Which DVD realease will this footage be featured as extras on?
Question two: Did the footage of the crap in the toilet look better than the
footage of the crap that was the McCoy era?
-Fett
Cameron Mason
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20030801150759...@mb-m13.aol.com...
<snip>
Oh dear...
(So how long until "the usual suspects" show up to have fun with this?)
Cameron
--
New Laptop, New Signatures
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
http://members.fortunecity.com/jpcovers/
Nick Cooper
this is not a laughing matter. you may think it is funny but i doubt
his victims see it that way.
making indecent images of children. sick, very sick.
Nick Cooper
and the article draws attention to him being a doctor who fan. so not
only does he destroy the show when he tampers with it he makes us all
look like nerds and losers. i hope he goes to jail for a very long
time. what he has done is a gross intrusion into peoples privacy.
quite frankly why anyone gets a kick from watching women have a crap
is beyond me. perhaps when he is in the slammer in solitary
confinement for fear of getting a beating off the other prisoners who
hate sex cases, especially where kids are involved, he can reflect on
it.
in the meantime roberts must sack him from the pt and cut all links
with him. i wonder how the derby whoovers feel about him now ?
Fett
Nick Cooper wrote:
Get down off your high horse.
> making indecent images of children. sick, very sick.
No shit.
-Fett
Framester
OK, that was completely tasteless, but of course I laughed pretty hard
at that.
>
>Question two: Did the footage of the crap in the toilet look better than the
>footage of the crap that was the McCoy era?
Might not "look" better, but was more interesting, and the shit did
not roll the r's for no reason.
>
>-Fett
>
ZC TGS
Cooper) wrote:
I said the same thing elsewhere. Personally speaking I think he should
have is willy cut off and then be locked up for ever for what he did.
He certainly shouldn't be allowed to work on Doctor Who again after
this.
ZC TGS
wrote:
Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is over
6 minutes long...
Luke_Curtis
>On 1 Aug 2003 22:29:17 -0700, nicholas...@hotmail.com (Nick
>Cooper) wrote:
>
>this.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3116887.stm
>>
>>and the article draws attention to him being a doctor who fan. so not
>>only does he destroy the show when he tampers with it he makes us all
>>look like nerds and losers.
>
>
>I said the same thing elsewhere. Personally speaking I think he should
>have is willy cut off and then be locked up for ever for what he did.
this is all getting OTT.
Did he abduct, sexually abuse, murder & eat the remain of children?
no.
Did he murder them? no
Did he rape them? no.
Did he molest them? no.
Did he ply them to take photos of them in sexual positions? no
He took secretly took photos of them without their knowledge in the
toilet.
It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
incurable pedophile.
I am not defending him, it was a *extremely* stupid thing to do but he
should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
--
e-mail to aoxr19[AT]dsl[DOT]pipex[DOT]com
*All e-mail to "reply to" adrress will*
*automatically be deleted*
rld
it would have even made the news. Doesn't mean he was right to do it of
course, it was pretty bad to spy on his friends like that.
"Luke_Curtis" <mfl...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:kk0nivsonr1vf0v55...@4ax.com...
Alan S. Wales
>Did he abduct, sexually abuse, murder & eat the remain of children?
>no.
Agreed.
>Did he murder them? no
Agreed.
>Did he rape them? no.
Doubtful.
>Did he molest them? no.
Doubtful.
>Did he ply them to take photos of them in sexual positions? no
How do you know? Have you seen the videos? You think he has a toilet fetish? He
took videos of women and young girls. I'm guessing there was a sexual content,
at least for him. I'm pretty sure he knows how females go to the bathroom. If
there were no sexual content to his videos why were they deemed indecent?
Wouldn't merely taking films of people sitting on the toilet be voyeurism?
>He took secretly took photos of them without their knowledge in the
>toilet.
No. Not photos. He filmed them when they "used the toilet". I doubt that was
some sort of market research project on a new toilet seat design. He pleaded
guilty at Newcastle Magistrates' Court to *nine* counts of making indecent
images of children. Under English law does that mean that there are no charges
against him for filming "women", only the "young girls"? Or even more
sickening, considering his work on the RT, did he film the young girls
innocently using the toilet and then alter the videos to make them indecent?
The police said they recovered some disks in their raid of his house.
>It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
>easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
>could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
>incurable pedophile.
No, the article says "The 39-year-old Dr Who buff filmed a number of women and
young girls who used the toilet during visits to his home over a four-year
period."
>I am not defending him, it was a *extremely* stupid thing to do but he
>should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
>get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
It sounds like you are defending him. Luke, you're a parent. Imagine being the
father of those young girls. Maybe you'd be more indignant.
Nine counts over 4 years? I'm no criminal psychologist but I'd say he was
addicted to the behaviour.
Alan S. Wales
>this looks to me like a pretty small offence, if he was not a doctor i doubt
>it would have even made the news. Doesn't mean he was right to do it of
>course, it was pretty bad to spy on his friends like that.
No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and he
also made indecent images of young girls. If all he did was spy on guests using
the bathrooms, where do the indecent images enter into the charges? Wouldn't he
only be charged with being a peeping tom?
Put two and two together people. They found videos and disks during their raid.
Why would he have the videos transferred to disks? I'm going to guess that he
was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the images to
make them indecent. After all, what's indecent about one person urinating?
Framester
wrote:
The only way those "young girls" (we don't know the real age) would
experience any real harm is:
A - The videos were circulated.
B - Their names were released.
The only reason I take this stance is when some idiot says we need to
cut the guys dick off. That's just flat out moronic and draconian.
Those people suffered no physical or psychological harm in any way.
Yes they were violated and the sad thing is that most, if not all of
them, are going to find out now and feel that shame. It's too bad
that there is no way around that. The public has a right to know, but
the victims could have lived the rest of their lives not knowing and
been better for it.
I'm glad the man was caught, he needed to be caught, don't get me
wrong about that, he should be punished to full extent of the law.
But the trauma that they may experience now knowing that their privacy
was violated is far greater than not knowing that you were videotaped
taking a piss.
And punished he will be, by the law and more. Can you imagine what
his family and friends think, not to mention the Who community. His
very minor celebrity status certainly backfired on him. His life is
going to suck for a long time. So lets back off the calls for
castration, shall we?
One last thing, we still don't know all the details. He may just be
an equal opportunity pervert, not a pedophile per se, as it sounds
like he taped everyone who used the bathroom, but I could easily be
wrong about that.
Framester
wrote:
>>"rld" r...@spamblockbtinternet.com
That's a good point, but it's still speculation.
Ian Edmond
> No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and
he
> also made indecent images of young girls.
How ridiculous. It's getting the prominence it has because he was a GP. The
Doctor Who element is convenient for the media because it is always easy to
depict DW fans as wierdos. They've done that to many a sane and balanced
person in the past.
> Put two and two together people.
Oh, that's always a good idea without all of the facts. Surely nothing bad
can come of it?
>They found videos and disks during their raid.
> Why would he have the videos transferred to disks?
The reports say that they confiscated disks - not that anything was found on
them.
>I'm going to guess
Oh, there's another good idea. You guess away. And within a few days, this
story changes from what has actually been reported to "I read on rawd
that...".
>that he
> was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the
images to
> make them indecent.
And thus the phenomenon of tabloid hysteria is perpetuated.
Love,
Ian
Martin Hoscik
> should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
> get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
Well said that man.
Martin Hoscik
"rld" <r...@spamblockbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bgg0tq$bma$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> this looks to me like a pretty small offence, if he was not a doctor i
doubt
> it would have even made the news.
Yup. The headline mentions he was a GP even though it had nothing to do with
his work as a GP. More media witch hunts!
Alan S. Wales
>>powr...@aol.compost wrote
>> No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and
>he
>> also made indecent images of young girls.
>How ridiculous. It's getting the prominence it has because he was a GP. The
>Doctor Who element is convenient for the media because it is always easy to
>depict DW fans as wierdos. They've done that to many a sane and balanced
>person in the past.
>> Put two and two together people.
>Oh, that's always a good idea without all of the facts. Surely nothing bad
>can come of it?
>>They found videos and disks during their raid.
>> Why would he have the videos transferred to disks?
>The reports say that they confiscated disks - not that anything was found on
>them.
The story said they confiscated disks. If there was nothing incriminating on
the disks why would they be mentioned? Why would the police seize disks and not
the computer? Could it be that he kept indecent images on the disks and not his
computer?
>>I'm going to guess
>Oh, there's another good idea. You guess away. And within a few days, this
>story changes from what has actually been reported to "I read on rawd
>that...".
The guy pled guilty. Obviously they've got something on him.
>>that he
>> was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the
>images to
>> make them indecent.
>And thus the phenomenon of tabloid hysteria is perpetuated.
The police took videos and disks. Finklestone is skilled at altering videos via
computer. Why is my conjecture unreasonable?
Martin Hoscik
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> >Luke_Curtis mfl...@dsl.pipex.com
>
> If
> there were no sexual content to his videos why were they deemed indecent?
> Wouldn't merely taking films of people sitting on the toilet be voyeurism?
Under UK law almost anything can be deemed as indecent or obscene. I don't
know the content of the images but as he's not on remand while he awaits
sentancing I think it's unlikely that there's any element of physical or
sexual abuse.
Martin Hoscik
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> >"rld" r...@spamblockbtinternet.com
After all, what's indecent about one person urinating?
>
> --
lot!
Martin Hoscik
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> The story said they confiscated disks. If there was nothing incriminating
on
> the disks why would they be mentioned? Why would the police seize disks
and not
> the computer? Could it be that he kept indecent images on the disks and
not his
> computer?
They'd have taken the computer too - it's standard practice.
> The police took videos and disks. Finklestone is skilled at altering
videos via
> computer. Why is my conjecture unreasonable?
I disagree with you, but I don't go as far as saying it's unreasonable. Just
that the result of that conjecture is unproven.
Framester
wrote:
>>"Ian Edmond" i...@spacemen3.co.uk
>
>
>>>powr...@aol.compost wrote
>
>>> No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and
>>he
>>> also made indecent images of young girls.
>
>>How ridiculous. It's getting the prominence it has because he was a GP. The
>>Doctor Who element is convenient for the media because it is always easy to
>>depict DW fans as wierdos. They've done that to many a sane and balanced
>>person in the past.
>
>>> Put two and two together people.
>
>>Oh, that's always a good idea without all of the facts. Surely nothing bad
>>can come of it?
>
>>>They found videos and disks during their raid.
>>> Why would he have the videos transferred to disks?
>
>>The reports say that they confiscated disks - not that anything was found on
>>them.
>
>The story said they confiscated disks. If there was nothing incriminating on
>the disks why would they be mentioned? Why would the police seize disks and not
>the computer? Could it be that he kept indecent images on the disks and not his
>computer?
The police takes lots of things that may or may not be pertinent to
the crime.
>
>>>I'm going to guess
>
>>Oh, there's another good idea. You guess away. And within a few days, this
>>story changes from what has actually been reported to "I read on rawd
>>that...".
>
>The guy pled guilty. Obviously they've got something on him.
I think we can agree that is true.
>
>>>that he
>>> was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the
>>images to
>>> make them indecent.
Do you realize what you are saying here? Just how is that done? Did
he CGI some breasts? Airbrush away clothes?
All I can say is that is a stupid statement.
>
>>And thus the phenomenon of tabloid hysteria is perpetuated.
Very true.
>
>The police took videos and disks. Finklestone is skilled at altering videos via
>computer. Why is my conjecture unreasonable?
You are right, it is not unreasonable for a hysterical person to come
to that conclusion, and you are also right, it is CONJECTURE, not
fact. Could just be copies, or edited copies. WE DON'T KNOW.
Altering videos. Usually in the removal of dust and small vans. I
would like to hear your theories on how you alter a video to make it
indecent.
interested_observer
career as a doctor but also got him a criminal record.
His behaviour is such that we condemn what he has done and rightly so. We
look to doctors as pillars of our communities and people of trust.
The newsgroup has been awash with all manner of speculation about the
details which have been released and much that has not.
Peter Finklestone is unlikely to be giving any interviews about this and
only he can tell you why he did it.
I have no problem with people being disgusted and outraged by what he did
because it is absolutely unacceptable behaviour.
What I do object to is people using this as an excuse and a stick with which
to attack the Restoration Team and the work it does.
Somehow I imagine that Steve Roberts and his colleagues are as appalled as
we are and almost certainly had no idea that Peter Finklestone was making
these illicit videos.
By all means debate the issues but don't use it as an excuse for a witch
hunt against the other members of the RT.
"Martin Hoscik" <mr...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:105984114...@despina.uk.clara.net...
Martin Hoscik
"interested_observer" <intereste...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bggqh0$ibg$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> By all means debate the issues but don't use it as an excuse for a witch
> hunt against the other members of the RT.
I wasn't!
Representative Trantis
standing joke with Electricians that whenever anyone has done anything
wrong, the man convicted is always an electrician.
Framester
wrote:
>
>"interested_observer" <intereste...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:bggqh0$ibg$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>> By all means debate the issues but don't use it as an excuse for a witch
>> hunt against the other members of the RT.
>
>I wasn't!
I think he is referring to the stupid posts by nick cooper and Phil
Packer. Those two morons can just be ignored.
interested_observer
Apologies for the confusion.
Those who seek to bitch and whine about the work of the RT know who they
are.
"Martin Hoscik" <mr...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:105984282...@despina.uk.clara.net...
Representative Trantis
> addicted to the behaviour.
>
4 over 9 years, making 2.25 per year, an average of once every four or five
months. Hardly an addiction.
Nick Cooper
> it would have even made the news. Doesn't mean he was right to do it of
> course, it was pretty bad to spy on his friends like that.
>
as a doctor in society he has a position of trust which he has
destroyed with his actions. he will never be trusted again and i can
see why. what he did was disgusting and the fact it affected girls
under 16 is abominable. i am in the same camp as zygon curry. lock him
up and throw away the key. i reckon he is bound to go to jail and
probably get 5 years out in 3.
Nick Cooper
>
> >On 1 Aug 2003 22:29:17 -0700, nicholas...@hotmail.com (Nick
> >Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >this.
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3116887.stm
> >>
> >>and the article draws attention to him being a doctor who fan. so not
> >>only does he destroy the show when he tampers with it he makes us all
> >>look like nerds and losers.
> >
> >
> >I said the same thing elsewhere. Personally speaking I think he should
> >have is willy cut off and then be locked up for ever for what he did.
>
> this is all getting OTT.
>
> Did he abduct, sexually abuse, murder & eat the remain of children?
> no.
> Did he murder them? no
> Did he rape them? no.
> Did he molest them? no.
> Did he ply them to take photos of them in sexual positions? no
>
> He took secretly took photos of them without their knowledge in the
> toilet.
>
> It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
> easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
> could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
> incurable pedophile.
they are children in the eyes of the law. that is all that matters.
>
> I am not defending him, it was a *extremely* stupid thing to do but he
> should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
> get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
as he is on the register for 5 years he will be haunted by it. i agree
with your general principle on his legal punishment but i do think
that this is more serious. many offenders apparently start off
harmlessly enough and then graduate to worser and worser offences. i
hope in prison (i think he is a cert to go to jail) or as part of his
sentencing he gets therapy and help to cure him of his problem. in
part i pity him and i pity his friends even more.
John Pertwee
wrote:
But it only took once to tell him if he liked it.
He made a choice to do this, and now he must pay for that choice. I
thought it was a joke when I first read it. Now I just wish it was. I
had alot of respedt hor him and what he was doing for us fans. Now all
I feel is hatred.
"Rainbows are pretty. I don't know why I shoot at them."
John Pertwee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2003 APWW Slammy Award winner
I'm Really John Smith
(Best Real Name Poster)
Representative Trantis
> > It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
> > easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
> > could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
> > incurable pedophile.
>
> they are children in the eyes of the law. that is all that matters.
>
>
and 364 days he has legally commited a sex offence.
Jack Bristow
Alan S. Wales said:
>Put two and two together people. They found videos and disks during their raid.
>Why would he have the videos transferred to disks? I'm going to guess that he
>was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the images to
>make them indecent. After all, what's indecent about one person urinating?
If you possess images of naked, underage girls they could be perceived
as indecent.
Where does it say in the police report that these images were anything
to do with the camera footage? You don't know. In fact, you know fuck
all about the whole situation apart from gleefully shouting about it
all over here.
--
Jack Bristow
To contact me, bypass SD6
Jack Bristow
Alan S. Wales said:
>It sounds like you are defending him. Luke, you're a parent. Imagine being the
>father of those young girls. Maybe you'd be more indignant.
Oh, so are you the parent of one of the girls? In fact, is this
anything to do with you other than the link that the poor bastard
invented vidfire?
Why not look up the word "compassion" in the dictionary.
This is yet another example of Doctor Who fans making me ashamed to be
one of them. No, not Mr Finklestone's "crimes" but in the way you all
seem to be intolerant, inconsiderate bastards when it comes to the
crunch. Azaxyr, John Long, fucking Monkeyboy's many aliases? You're
all as bad as each other.
When I was growing up, reading Who novels taught me a moral code which
was the opposite of the kind of sensationalist, knee-jerk shit I've
seen posted today. What did you get from them?
Alan S. Wales
>>Alan S. Wales said:
>>They found videos and disks during their raid.
>>Why would he have the videos transferred to disks?
>Where does it say in the police report that these images were anything
>to do with the camera footage?
Oh, I don't know.....IN THE ARTICLE THAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/3116887.stm
GP 'had secret toilet camera'
A family doctor has admitted making obscene pictures of young children, who he
filmed while they used the toilet at his home. Dr Peter Finklestone rigged up
secret video cameras in his former home in Gosforth, a court heard.
>You don't know. In fact, you know fuck
>all about the whole situation apart from gleefully shouting about it
>all over here.
Well, the article says that Finklestone made "obscene pictures" from footage
gleaned from "secret video cameras". Seems to me that he transferred video
images to computer and then to disk.
I'm not gleefully doing anything. I'm appalled and am trying to make sense out
of the whole thing.
Alan S. Wales
>>Alan S. Wales said:
>>It sounds like you are defending him. Luke, you're a parent. Imagine being
>the
>>father of those young girls. Maybe you'd be more indignant.
>Oh, so are you the parent of one of the girls? In fact, is this
>anything to do with you other than the link that the poor bastard
>invented vidfire?
Show me where I've ripped Peter Finklestone's work with the Restoration Team.
I'm trying to work out what he did and the news article is sort of vague.
Others have claimed that the story would never have been published if he
weren't a GP; I'm claiming that the story got published because he's was using
videos, computers, and pictures, to create these images, the same tools he uses
to work on BBC projects. That is relevant. That is why (though in a roundabout
way) the article got published is my contention.
>Why not look up the word "compassion" in the dictionary.
I'm trying to fact find, not denigrate anyone.
>This is yet another example of Doctor Who fans making me ashamed to be
>one of them. No, not Mr Finklestone's "crimes"
Mr. Finklestone is a Dr. Who fan too. He admits to being a criminal yet you are
not ashamed.
>but in the way you all
>seem to be intolerant, inconsiderate bastards when it comes to the
>crunch. Azaxyr, John Long, fucking Monkeyboy's many aliases? You're
>all as bad as each other.
Chill out. I loathed Azaxyr, tolerated John Long, have "Monkeyboy" killfiled.
BTW, if "Monkeyboy" didn't post here, would you?
>When I was growing up, reading Who novels taught me a moral code which
>was the opposite of the kind of sensationalist, knee-jerk shit I've
>seen posted today.
Sensationalist knee-jerk shit? The man made indecent images from videos. Sort
of an illicit spin-off activity to his work for the BBC. He admitted to it.
Give it a rest.
>What did you get from them?
I don't look to Dr. Who novels for morality instructions, so nothing.
S.M. Jenkins
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
<nonsensical, baseless tabloidesque speculation snipped>
> I'm no criminal psychologist but I'd say he was
> addicted to the behaviour.
Sorry, no, the correct ending to that sentence should read "I'm no criminal
psychologist, so I'll refrain from making any comment."
The Doctor
I smell a trolling rat!
--
Member - Liberal International On 11 Sept 2001 the WORLD was violated.
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Extremists must dissolve.
Nova Scotians on 5 August 2003 VOTE Liberal!!
Framester
Then change your underwear.
Nick Cooper
wrote:
>Show me where I've ripped Peter Finklestone's work with the Restoration Team.
>I'm trying to work out what he did and the news article is sort of vague.
>Others have claimed that the story would never have been published if he
>weren't a GP; I'm claiming that the story got published because he's was using
>videos, computers, and pictures, to create these images, the same tools he uses
>to work on BBC projects. That is relevant. That is why (though in a roundabout
>way) the article got published is my contention.
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. A unaltered picture
of a kid in the bath can be deemed to be "indecent" under English law.
You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of "creating
images" as it applies to this sort of case. Taking a screen-grab from
raw video material without the slightest processing or alteration
counts as "creating an image" in this context.
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." [Rudyard Kipling]
http://www.625.org.uk
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal
The Head of Orpheus
> But it only took once to tell him if he liked it.
> He made a choice to do this, and now he must pay for that choice. I
> thought it was a joke when I first read it. Now I just wish it was. I
> had alot of respedt hor him and what he was doing for us fans. Now all
> I feel is hatred.
>
a person has done in their life?
Martin Hoscik
"Nick Cooper" <nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:3f2c2ddc...@news.virgin.net...
> On 02 Aug 2003 19:05:21 GMT, powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales)
> wrote:
> You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of "creating
> images" as it applies to this sort of case. Taking a screen-grab from
> raw video material without the slightest processing or alteration
> counts as "creating an image" in this context.
> --
As would scanning an unaltered image of your own kid sans pants by a
swimming pool.
Alan S. Wales
>>powr...@aol.compost
>>Show me where I've ripped Peter Finklestone's work with the Restoration
>Team.
>>I'm trying to work out what he did and the news article is sort of vague.
>>Others have claimed that the story would never have been published if he
>>weren't a GP; I'm claiming that the story got published because he's was
>using
>>videos, computers, and pictures, to create these images, the same tools he
>uses
>>to work on BBC projects. That is relevant. That is why (though in a
>roundabout
>>way) the article got published is my contention.
>You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. A unaltered picture
>of a kid in the bath can be deemed to be "indecent" under English law.
I admit I don't know the English legal definition of "indecent".
>You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of "creating
>images" as it applies to this sort of case. Taking a screen-grab from
>raw video material without the slightest processing or alteration
>counts as "creating an image" in this context.
I understand that. I also now understand that he didn't necessarily need to
alter anything to make indecent images, according to your explanation of
"indecent" images.
May I ask your opinion as to why this particular person pleading guilty made
the news? Was it the fact that he was a doctor or that he worked for the BBC
restoring a national treasure of sorts? What made this newsworthy?
Martin Hoscik
"Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> >nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper)
> >
> May I ask your opinion as to why this particular person pleading guilty
made
> the news? Was it the fact that he was a doctor or that he worked for the
BBC
> restoring a national treasure of sorts? What made this newsworthy?
A general media hype about all things involving the words 'child',
'computer', 'sex' & 'internet'.
That he's a GP will have added to the spice.
Nick Cooper
wrote:
>>nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper)
Him being a GP, most likely. The DW angle isn't newsworthy enough,
although the tabloids might still have latched onto it in the "Dr Who
Fan = Automatic Weirdo" way they have:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003350852,00.html
NOTE: I do not endorse the existance of 'The Scum' in any way, shape
or form, and only cite the above URL as illustrative of their prurient
and sensationalist reporting.
Fett
Framester wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:51:35 GMT, Fett <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
> >
> >> Dr Peter Finklestone rigged up secret video cameras in his former home in
> >> Gosforth, a court heard.
> >>
> >> The 39-year-old Dr Who buff filmed a number of women and young girls who used
> >> the toilet during visits to his home over a four-year period.
> >>
> >> He pleaded guilty at Newcastle Magistrates' Court to nine counts of making
> >> indecent images of children.
> >>
> >> None of the victims were registered to Gosforth Memorial Medical Practice where
> >> the GP worked.
> >>
> >> Footage found
> >>
> >> When police were given information about the doctor's activities, they raided
> >> his home on 17 April this year.
> >>
> >> They recovered a number of video images involving several different visitors.
> >>
> >> After the hearing a Northumbria Police spokesman said: "Video footage and some
> >> discs were seized from his house.
> >>
> >> "He admitted filming the scenes of people using his toilet."
> >>
> >> He has not worked as a GP since the allegations came to light and he left the
> >> practice more than two months ago.
> >>
> >> Dr Who expert
> >>
> >> The case was adjourned for three weeks after a short hearing, for the
> >> preparation of pre-sentence reports.
> >>
> >> The doctor has been put on the sex offenders register.
> >>
> >> The offences happened between November 1998 and October 2002.
> >>
> >> Finklestone was commissioned by the BBC to carry out his labour of love -
> >> restoring Dr Who footage.
> >>
> >> He spent his spare time as part of a team paid by the corporation to restore
> >> old episodes of the show, some of which had gathered dust locked away in
> >> archives for decades.
> >>
> >> A spokesman for Newcastle Primary Care NHS Trust said: "The GP has resigned and
> >> we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate authorities
> >> have been informed, including the General Medical Council.
> >>
> >> She said the charges related to incidents outside work.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3116887.stm
> >
> >Question one: Which DVD realease will this footage be featured as extras on?
>
> OK, that was completely tasteless, but of course I laughed pretty hard
> at that.
In the end, that's all that matters.
> >
> >Question two: Did the footage of the crap in the toilet look better than the
> >footage of the crap that was the McCoy era?
>
> Might not "look" better, but was more interesting, and the shit did
> not roll the r's for no reason.
The annoyance the rolling r's cannot be understated..
-Fett
Fett
ZC TGS wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:37:37 GMT, Framester <chris...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:51:35 GMT, Fett <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
> >>
> >>Question one: Which DVD realease will this footage be featured as extras on?
> >
> >OK, that was completely tasteless, but of course I laughed pretty hard
> >at that.
>
> Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is over
> 6 minutes long...
Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
-Fett
Fett
Luke_Curtis wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 08:41:29 +0100, ZC TGS <pri...@spam.junk> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Aug 2003 22:29:17 -0700, nicholas...@hotmail.com (Nick
> >Cooper) wrote:
> >
> >this.
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/wear/3116887.stm
> >>
> >>and the article draws attention to him being a doctor who fan. so not
> >>only does he destroy the show when he tampers with it he makes us all
> >>look like nerds and losers.
> >
> >
> >I said the same thing elsewhere. Personally speaking I think he should
> >have is willy cut off and then be locked up for ever for what he did.
>
> this is all getting OTT.
>
> Did he abduct, sexually abuse, murder & eat the remain of children?
> no.
> Did he murder them? no
> Did he rape them? no.
> Did he molest them? no.
> Did he ply them to take photos of them in sexual positions? no
>
> He took secretly took photos of them without their knowledge in the
> toilet.
>
> It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
> easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
> could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
> incurable pedophile.
>
> I am not defending him, it was a *extremely* stupid thing to do but he
> should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
> get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
Good points. True, he's a big scummy but there's a difference in looking at
video of that stuff and actually touching people. One's bad. One's worse.
-Fett
Fett
"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
> >"rld" r...@spamblockbtinternet.com
>
> >this looks to me like a pretty small offence, if he was not a doctor i doubt
> >it would have even made the news. Doesn't mean he was right to do it of
> >course, it was pretty bad to spy on his friends like that.
>
> No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and he
> also made indecent images of young girls. If all he did was spy on guests using
> the bathrooms, where do the indecent images enter into the charges? Wouldn't he
> only be charged with being a peeping tom?
>
> Put two and two together people. They found videos and disks during their raid.
> Why would he have the videos transferred to disks? I'm going to guess that he
> was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the images to
> make them indecent. After all, what's indecent about one person urinating?
*warning: possibly inappropriate comment following*
Will his video be vidfired?
*end of warning*
-Fett
Fett
Framester wrote:
> On 02 Aug 2003 15:41:36 GMT, powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales)
> wrote:
>
> >>Luke_Curtis mfl...@dsl.pipex.com
> >
> >>Did he abduct, sexually abuse, murder & eat the remain of children?
> >>no.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >>Did he murder them? no
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >>Did he rape them? no.
> >
> >Doubtful.
> >
> >>Did he molest them? no.
> >
> >Doubtful.
> >
> >>Did he ply them to take photos of them in sexual positions? no
> >
> >How do you know? Have you seen the videos? You think he has a toilet fetish? He
> >took videos of women and young girls. I'm guessing there was a sexual content,
> >at least for him. I'm pretty sure he knows how females go to the bathroom. If
> >there were no sexual content to his videos why were they deemed indecent?
> >Wouldn't merely taking films of people sitting on the toilet be voyeurism?
> >
> >>He took secretly took photos of them without their knowledge in the
> >>toilet.
> >
> >No. Not photos. He filmed them when they "used the toilet". I doubt that was
> >some sort of market research project on a new toilet seat design. He pleaded
> >guilty at Newcastle Magistrates' Court to *nine* counts of making indecent
> >images of children. Under English law does that mean that there are no charges
> >against him for filming "women", only the "young girls"? Or even more
> >sickening, considering his work on the RT, did he film the young girls
> >innocently using the toilet and then alter the videos to make them indecent?
> >The police said they recovered some disks in their raid of his house.
> >
> >>It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
> >>easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
> >>could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
> >>incurable pedophile.
> >
> >No, the article says "The 39-year-old Dr Who buff filmed a number of women and
> >young girls who used the toilet during visits to his home over a four-year
> >period."
> >
> >>I am not defending him, it was a *extremely* stupid thing to do but he
> >>should be allowed to face his legal punishment and then be allowed to
> >>get on with his life, hopefully having learned his lesson.
> >
> >It sounds like you are defending him. Luke, you're a parent. Imagine being the
> >father of those young girls. Maybe you'd be more indignant.
>
> The only way those "young girls" (we don't know the real age) would
> experience any real harm is:
>
> A - The videos were circulated.
> B - Their names were released.
>
> The only reason I take this stance is when some idiot says we need to
> cut the guys dick off. That's just flat out moronic and draconian.
> Those people suffered no physical or psychological harm in any way.
> Yes they were violated and the sad thing is that most, if not all of
> them, are going to find out now and feel that shame. It's too bad
> that there is no way around that. The public has a right to know, but
> the victims could have lived the rest of their lives not knowing and
> been better for it.
>
> I'm glad the man was caught, he needed to be caught, don't get me
> wrong about that, he should be punished to full extent of the law.
> But the trauma that they may experience now knowing that their privacy
> was violated is far greater than not knowing that you were videotaped
> taking a piss.
>
> And punished he will be, by the law and more. Can you imagine what
> his family and friends think, not to mention the Who community. His
> very minor celebrity status certainly backfired on him. His life is
> going to suck for a long time. So lets back off the calls for
> castration, shall we?
>
> One last thing, we still don't know all the details. He may just be
> an equal opportunity pervert, not a pedophile per se, as it sounds
> like he taped everyone who used the bathroom, but I could easily be
> wrong about that.
The main lesson to be learned here is to take your shits at home if at all possible.
-Fett
Fett
Ian Edmond wrote:
> "Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> news:20030802114613...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > No, it made the news because he works with images of Doctor Who videos and
> he
> > also made indecent images of young girls.
>
> How ridiculous. It's getting the prominence it has because he was a GP. The
> Doctor Who element is convenient for the media because it is always easy to
> depict DW fans as wierdos. They've done that to many a sane and balanced
> person in the past.
>
> > Put two and two together people.
>
> Oh, that's always a good idea without all of the facts. Surely nothing bad
> can come of it?
>
> >They found videos and disks during their raid.
> > Why would he have the videos transferred to disks?
>
> The reports say that they confiscated disks - not that anything was found on
> them.
>
> >I'm going to guess
>
> Oh, there's another good idea. You guess away. And within a few days, this
> story changes from what has actually been reported to "I read on rawd
> that...".
>
> >that he
> > was probably filming the women and young girls and then altering the
> images to
> > make them indecent.
>
> And thus the phenomenon of tabloid hysteria is perpetuated.
Would that be Alan's fault? No. That would be the fault of idiot readers who
can't tell the difference between speculation and fact even though it was made
clear by reading.
-Fett
Jack Bristow
Alan S. Wales said:
>>Why not look up the word "compassion" in the dictionary.
>
>I'm trying to fact find, not denigrate anyone.
Why? WTF has it got to do with you?
>Chill out. I loathed Azaxyr, tolerated John Long, have "Monkeyboy" killfiled.
>BTW, if "Monkeyboy" didn't post here, would you?
No, I'd stick to the mod group. But Monkeyboy insists on attacking
friends of mine so I'll respond.
>Sensationalist knee-jerk shit? The man made indecent images from videos. Sort
>of an illicit spin-off activity to his work for the BBC. He admitted to it.
You're very confused about what he does for the BBC I think.
>I don't look to Dr. Who novels for morality instructions, so nothing.
I rest my case.
Fett
Martin Hoscik wrote:
> Well said that man.
Nice to see you posting again, Yoda. :)
-Fett
Fett
Martin Hoscik wrote:
> "Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> news:20030802114136...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > >Luke_Curtis mfl...@dsl.pipex.com
> >
> > If
> > there were no sexual content to his videos why were they deemed indecent?
> > Wouldn't merely taking films of people sitting on the toilet be voyeurism?
>
> Under UK law almost anything can be deemed as indecent or obscene.
Too bad they didn't apply these laws to seasons 24-26.
-Fett
> I don't
> know the content of the images but as he's not on remand while he awaits
> sentancing I think it's unlikely that there's any element of physical or
> sexual abuse.
Jack Bristow
Alan S. Wales said:
>May I ask your opinion as to why this particular person pleading guilty made
>the news? Was it the fact that he was a doctor or that he worked for the BBC
>restoring a national treasure of sorts? What made this newsworthy?
You tell us, you posted the whole sordid story here in the first
place.
My opinion is give the poor guy a break, his life's already ruined,
what more do you want?
And of course Monkeyboy's going to be tossing himself off for months
here about this so expect to see plenty more of me.
Martin Hoscik
"Fett" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3F2C3731...@verizon.net...
Yoda? Fair do's - I hadn't thought it was all that Yoda-like but I guess I
do have a non-standard speech pattern :)
Fett
Representative Trantis wrote:
Been there dont that eh? :)
-Fett
Martin Hoscik
>
>
> Martin Hoscik wrote:
>
> > "Alan S. Wales" <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> > news:20030802114136...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > > >Luke_Curtis mfl...@dsl.pipex.com
> > >
> > > If
> > > there were no sexual content to his videos why were they deemed
indecent?
> > > Wouldn't merely taking films of people sitting on the toilet be
voyeurism?
> >
> > Under UK law almost anything can be deemed as indecent or obscene.
>
> Too bad they didn't apply these laws to seasons 24-26.
All you have to do is take a copy of the video, picture etc to a local (UK)
police station and state you find it offensive or obscene. And what is or
isn't deemed offensive is a fairly mixed bag. For example, until VERY
recently no pictures of erect penisis <sp?> could be published in the UK.
Fett
Jack Bristow wrote:
Bravo!!!! Bravo!!!!! When the Oscar's come around, they better not forget good ol
Jake Bristow here!
-Fett
Fett
"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
Question: Who's Monkeyboy?
-Fett
Fett
"S.M. Jenkins" wrote:
God forbid the guy be allowed to have an OPINION.
-Fett
Fett
Nick Cooper wrote:
> On 02 Aug 2003 19:05:21 GMT, powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales)
> wrote:
>
> >Show me where I've ripped Peter Finklestone's work with the Restoration Team.
> >I'm trying to work out what he did and the news article is sort of vague.
> >Others have claimed that the story would never have been published if he
> >weren't a GP; I'm claiming that the story got published because he's was using
> >videos, computers, and pictures, to create these images, the same tools he uses
> >to work on BBC projects. That is relevant. That is why (though in a roundabout
> >way) the article got published is my contention.
>
> You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. A unaltered picture
> of a kid in the bath can be deemed to be "indecent" under English law.
> You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of "creating
> images" as it applies to this sort of case. Taking a screen-grab from
> raw video material without the slightest processing or alteration
> counts as "creating an image" in this context.
I think it's pretty much deemed indecent everywhere. It is in the US I know. Heck,
it's child porn.
-Fett
Fett
No. It doesn't invalidate the actions themselves. But it sure as means that that
person isn't a good one anymore.
-Fett
Fett
Martin Hoscik wrote:
It was fine. I'm just in a messin around mood cause I've been cooped up in my
house since Tuesday. :)
-Fett
Fett
Jack Bristow wrote:
> Previously, in rec.arts.drwho:
>
> Alan S. Wales said:
>
> >May I ask your opinion as to why this particular person pleading guilty made
> >the news? Was it the fact that he was a doctor or that he worked for the BBC
> >restoring a national treasure of sorts? What made this newsworthy?
>
> You tell us, you posted the whole sordid story here in the first
> place.
Er, he didn't WRITE the story.
> My opinion is give the poor guy a break, his life's already ruined,
> what more do you want?
Oh yeah. The poor guy. I feel so bad for him. His life is now ruined. Too bad.
And gee, let me think, who ruined his life? Oh yeah, that's right. IT WAS HIM!
> And of course Monkeyboy's going to be tossing himself off for months
> here about this so expect to see plenty more of me.
What and what?
-Fett
Fett
Martin Hoscik wrote:
That's progress for ya. :)
And I think it's "penises".
-Fett
Jack Bristow
Fett said:
>> You tell us, you posted the whole sordid story here in the first
>> place.
>
>Er, he didn't WRITE the story.
That's right. He didn't. He posted it here in the first place. Your
point being?
>> My opinion is give the poor guy a break, his life's already ruined,
>> what more do you want?
>
>Oh yeah. The poor guy. I feel so bad for him. His life is now ruined. Too bad.
>And gee, let me think, who ruined his life? Oh yeah, that's right. IT WAS HIM!
Again, you're right on the money. If you read my post again before
firing off any more hilarious retorts, the meaning you may get from it
is that we might have some compassion for this man because he's in a
lot of trouble and although he's done something wrong, he's being
punished so perhaps those of us who are entirely unaffected by the
situation (ie EVERYBODY) might leave the guy alone.
Sorry if this is difficult for people.
Asbergers Syndrome. Look it up.
>> And of course Monkeyboy's going to be tossing himself off for months
>> here about this so expect to see plenty more of me.
>What and what?
If you're having trouble following me, why not stfu.
Jack Bristow
Fett said:
>No. It doesn't invalidate the actions themselves. But it sure as means that that
>person isn't a good one anymore.
OK, I'll follow that thinking through. I profoundly disagree with that
statement and so that makes you (in my eyes of course) a cretin.
Forever.
Nick Cooper
No, the point is that it isn't what is actually in the image that
makes it indecent anymore. The aforementioned bath-time picture would
be "innocent" until it's found in the hands of someone who possesses
it for non-so-innocent resasons. If someone took a picture of general
view of a beach in a magazine, but only scanned/cropped a tiny part of
it showing a 8 year old child in a swimsuit, and e-mailed it to
someone or put it on a web-site, that could be deemed to be
"indecent," while the original magazine picture would not be. Content
is now less important than intent. We now have the uber-paranoid
situation in the UK of parents being banned from videoing or
photographing school plays or sports days, not because there is a
chance of them capturing anythig inherently "indecent," but rather the
"risk" that it might fall into the "wrong hands."
ZC TGS
That was in bad taste .
Martin Hoscik
How comes? You ill or trapped under something? ;)
Nick Cooper
wrote:
IIRC, still true for magazines, allowable in R18-rated videos (i.e.
only to be sold in licensed sex shops - see www.bbfc.co.uk for
details).
Martin Hoscik
> > All you have to do is take a copy of the video, picture etc to a local
(UK)
> > police station and state you find it offensive or obscene. And what is
or
> > isn't deemed offensive is a fairly mixed bag. For example, until VERY
> > recently no pictures of erect penisis <sp?> could be published in the
UK.
>
> That's progress for ya. :)
LOL.
>
> And I think it's "penises".
Ahh well - you live and learn :)
Martin Hoscik
"Nick Cooper" <nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net> wrote in message >
>
> >All you have to do is take a copy of the video, picture etc to a local
(UK)
> >police station and state you find it offensive or obscene. And what is or
> >isn't deemed offensive is a fairly mixed bag. For example, until VERY
> >recently no pictures of erect penisis <sp?> could be published in the UK.
>
> IIRC, still true for magazines, allowable in R18-rated videos (i.e.
> only to be sold in licensed sex shops - see www.bbfc.co.uk for
> details).
Then I consider my point strengthened :)
Cameron Mason
<snip>
> > Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is over
> > 6 minutes long...
>
> Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
Actually, that's an Easter Egg on The Curse of Fenric...
Cameron
--
New Laptop, New Signatures
http://members.fortunecity.com/masomika/
http://members.fortunecity.com/jpcovers/
John Pertwee
<kl...@zeitguest.com> wrote:
>>
>> But it only took once to tell him if he liked it.
>> He made a choice to do this, and now he must pay for that choice. I
>> thought it was a joke when I first read it. Now I just wish it was. I
>> had alot of respect hor him and what he was doing for us fans. Now all
>> I feel is hatred.
>>
>Interesting reaction. Does one crime invalidate every good or creative thing
>a person has done in their life?
>
No, not at all. I can still enjoy VIDFIRE, but it will remind me of
the pervert that invented it.
I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
how a victim feels after the fact. People in the family look at you
like YOU are the criminal. They taunt you daily. It is that type of
public degradation that could make another victim hide and never tell
when they are hurt. That is why they don't release the name of a rape
victim, it makes the next one feel like they should hide what happened
to them. When you are made a victim, you are damaged for life. It
comes back when you think you have it buried.
We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
crime. I don't care if they were 3 or 15, it is a sick thing to do.
There are only two reasons to record indecent images of children.
One is for sale to others, and two is for "personal use"
They were using his toilet, and who knows what was on the tape. I am
sure that it was more than a "bare ass" or two.
"They recovered a number of video images involving several different
visitors."
All that means is that there could have been more than nine people
recorded. There could have been a hundred adults recorded, but they
could only charge him with the recording of the children.
"He admitted filming the scenes of people using his toilet."
That is just sick. I hate to judge, but this is a clear case of one
sick MF'er getting what he deserves.
And if you wonder if I think he should get a second chance after he
pays his dues, yes I do. There is not one man alive that can not be
redeemed. As long as he is truly repentant about what he did, he
should be able to return as a productive member of society.
"Rainbows are pretty. I don't know why I shoot at them."
John Pertwee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2003 APWW Slammy Award winner
I'm Really John Smith
(Best Real Name Poster)
Nick Cooper
wrote:
>
You're okay as long as you don't take a picture....
John Pertwee
Exactly.
A man may find a cure for cancer, but if he is found to be a killer as
well, that means he is a killer first and the inventor of the cure
second.
Nick Cooper
<JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
>how a victim feels after the fact.
Then you have my deepest sympathy, but it hardly makes you an
impartial commentator.
>We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
>nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
>crime.
But it's not child abuse in the accepted sense of the term. Try not
to project your own unfortunate experineces onto a totally different
case.
John Pertwee
nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:41:18 GMT, John Pertwee
><JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>
>>I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
>>how a victim feels after the fact.
>
>Then you have my deepest sympathy, but it hardly makes you an
>impartial commentator.
Must I really be impartial? He plead guilty. He did it. He will always
be remembered for this, and not for the good he did. Is that wrong,
sure it is. But life is not fair.
>>We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
>>nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
>>crime.
>
>But it's not child abuse in the accepted sense of the term. Try not
>to project your own unfortunate experineces onto a totally different
>case.
Sure it is child abuse. They know they were taped going to the
restroom. Who knows what they did while in there? What is on those
tapes? We will never know, but what we do know is that there are up to
nine underage victims, and there could be many more adult victims out
there.
Any time a child loses their innocence this way, it is abuse.
End of debate.
Fett
Jack Bristow wrote:
> Previously, in rec.arts.drwho:
>
> Fett said:
>
> >> You tell us, you posted the whole sordid story here in the first
> >> place.
> >
> >Er, he didn't WRITE the story.
>
> That's right. He didn't. He posted it here in the first place. Your
> point being?
You bitched at him for asking why the media payed attention to that story. You told
him to tell us. Well, he wasn't the one in the media who wrote the story. Try and
follow along here.
> >> My opinion is give the poor guy a break, his life's already ruined,
> >> what more do you want?
> >
> >Oh yeah. The poor guy. I feel so bad for him. His life is now ruined. Too bad.
> >And gee, let me think, who ruined his life? Oh yeah, that's right. IT WAS HIM!
>
> Again, you're right on the money. If you read my post again before
> firing off any more hilarious retorts, the meaning you may get from it
> is that we might have some compassion for this man because he's in a
> lot of trouble and although he's done something wrong, he's being
> punished so perhaps those of us who are entirely unaffected by the
> situation (ie EVERYBODY) might leave the guy alone.
How about some compassion for the poor people who have become victims here?
> Sorry if this is difficult for people.
It's just difficult for you, apparently.
> Asbergers Syndrome. Look it up.
I know someone who has it. They don't put cameras in toilets.
> >> And of course Monkeyboy's going to be tossing himself off for months
> >> here about this so expect to see plenty more of me.
>
> >What and what?
>
> If you're having trouble following me, why not stfu.
I don't know who the hell Monkeyboy is and why you've got a hard on for him. THAT'S
what I'm saying, junior.
-Fett
Fett
Jack Bristow wrote:
> Previously, in rec.arts.drwho:
>
> Fett said:
>
> >No. It doesn't invalidate the actions themselves. But it sure as means that that
> >person isn't a good one anymore.
>
> OK, I'll follow that thinking through. I profoundly disagree with that
> statement and so that makes you (in my eyes of course) a cretin.
> Forever.
OK, I'll follow your thinking through. Who cares if some great humanitarian kills 20
people in cold blood. He's still a great guy! Let's throw him a parade!
-Fett
Fett
Nick Cooper wrote:
Now that's pretty fucked up. It's like so-called "hate crimes" over here where if kill
someone for rascist or sexist reasons it's deemed worse than killing them for another
reason (other than self-defense of course).
-Fett
Fett
ZC TGS wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:15:29 GMT, Fett <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >ZC TGS wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:37:37 GMT, Framester <chris...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:51:35 GMT, Fett <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Question one: Which DVD realease will this footage be featured as extras on?
> >> >
> >> >OK, that was completely tasteless, but of course I laughed pretty hard
> >> >at that.
> >>
> >> Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is over
> >> 6 minutes long...
> >
> >Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
>
> That was in bad taste .
Not at all.
-Fett
Fett
Martin Hoscik wrote:
> "Fett" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3F2C3C0B...@verizon.net...
> >
> >
> > Martin Hoscik wrote:
> >
> > > "Fett" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F2C3731...@verizon.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Martin Hoscik wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well said that man.
> > > >
> > > > Nice to see you posting again, Yoda. :)
> > > >
> > > > -Fett
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yoda? Fair do's - I hadn't thought it was all that Yoda-like but I guess
> I
> > > do have a non-standard speech pattern :)
> >
> > It was fine. I'm just in a messin around mood cause I've been cooped up in
> my
> > house since Tuesday. :)
>
> How comes? You ill or trapped under something? ;)
I have a herniated disk in my neck that I re-agrivated on Tuesday afternoon.
When this happens I'm pretty much out of commission for a few days.
-Fett
Fett
Cameron Mason wrote:
> "Fett" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3F2C3500...@verizon.net...
> <snip>
> > > Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is over
> > > 6 minutes long...
> >
> > Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
>
> Actually, that's an Easter Egg on The Curse of Fenric...
Add it all up and that's a lot of shit for your money.
-Fett
Cameron Mason
> > <snip>
> > > > Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is
over
> > > > 6 minutes long...
> > >
> > > Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
> >
> > Actually, that's an Easter Egg on The Curse of Fenric...
>
> Add it all up and that's a lot of shit for your money.
Seriously, the rumour is that the Easter Egg is of Mark A. talking about the
work done on the extended version.
J.J. Chambers
>
> Cameron Mason wrote:
> > Actually, that's an Easter Egg on The Curse of Fenric...
>
> Add it all up and that's a lot of shit for your money.
Isn't that what he was videotaping?
Alan S. Wales
>>powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales) wrote:
>>>nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper)
>>>>powr...@aol.compost
>>>>Show me where I've ripped Peter Finklestone's work with the Restoration
>>>Team.
>>>>I'm trying to work out what he did and the news article is sort of vague.
>>>>Others have claimed that the story would never have been published if he
>>>>weren't a GP; I'm claiming that the story got published because he's was
>>>using
>>>>videos, computers, and pictures, to create these images, the same tools he
>>>uses
>>>>to work on BBC projects. That is relevant. That is why (though in a
>>>roundabout
>>>>way) the article got published is my contention.
>>>You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. A unaltered picture
>>>of a kid in the bath can be deemed to be "indecent" under English law.
>>I admit I don't know the English legal definition of "indecent".
>>>You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of "creating
>>>images" as it applies to this sort of case. Taking a screen-grab from
>>>raw video material without the slightest processing or alteration
>>>counts as "creating an image" in this context.
>>I understand that. I also now understand that he didn't necessarily need to
>>alter anything to make indecent images, according to your explanation of
>>"indecent" images.
>>May I ask your opinion as to why this particular person pleading guilty made
>>the news? Was it the fact that he was a doctor or that he worked for the BBC
>>restoring a national treasure of sorts? What made this newsworthy?
>Him being a GP, most likely. The DW angle isn't newsworthy enough,
>although the tabloids might still have latched onto it in the "Dr Who
>Fan = Automatic Weirdo" way they have:
>http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003350852,00.html
>
>NOTE: I do not endorse the existance of 'The Scum' in any way, shape
>or form, and only cite the above URL as illustrative of their prurient
>and sensationalist reporting.
Hmmm... OK, I don't have knowledge of the subtext of English culture and legal
definitions regarding indecency, I admit that, but what struck this American
was that he was tranferring his technical expertise from work into the home
arena to produce indecent images. Maybe I'm misinterpreting why the media ran
with the story, but my impression is that he's a technical expert at restoring
old videotape and he used similar technical skills to peep on young ladies. The
fact that he's connected with Dr. Who, a British TV institution seemed to seal
it for me.
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
Fett
Cameron Mason wrote:
> "Fett" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3F2C5AED...@verizon.net...
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Well I do hear that one of the easter eggs on The Two Doctors is
> over
> > > > > 6 minutes long...
> > > >
> > > > Six minutes long? Are you shitting me?? :)
> > >
> > > Actually, that's an Easter Egg on The Curse of Fenric...
> >
> > Add it all up and that's a lot of shit for your money.
>
> Seriously, the rumour is that the Easter Egg is of Mark A. talking about the
> work done on the extended version.
I don't get Easter Eggs. Why don't they just make it part of the main special
features menu?
-Fett
Fett
"J.J. Chambers" wrote:
I'm talking about that AND the Curse of Fenric story itself.
-Fett
Fett
"Alan S. Wales" wrote:
Isn't it amazing that all these people in here are so focused and obessessed on
your opinion of this matter while there's barely been any responses about your
Frontios post? Yet many of these same people will bitch about the lack of on topic
posts in here. Oh, the irony.
-Fett
HDF is the best.
> > >
> > > It also has to be said that it only says children - this could just as
> > > easily be a girl of 15 years and 11 months - my 11 year old niece
> > > could *easily* pass for 18, it does not mean he is some murderous
> > > incurable pedophile.
> >
> > they are children in the eyes of the law. that is all that matters.
> >
> >
> If a boy aged 16 years and one day has sex with his girlfriend aged 15 years
> and 364 days he has legally commited a sex offence.
what would you prefer ? that the law made no distinction and said any
age is fair game ? then drooling slavering nonces would be free to
abuse at will.
HDF is the best.
> On 02 Aug 2003 21:52:30 GMT, powr...@aol.compost (Alan S. Wales)
it is down to him being a gp and therefore being in a position of
trust which he has callously abused with his vile acts.
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003350852,00.html
>
> NOTE: I do not endorse the existance of 'The Scum' in any way, shape
> or form, and only cite the above URL as illustrative of their prurient
> and sensationalist reporting.
> --
still if they are to be believed he is off to crown court and a long
spell inside. ha ha. serves him right. there is no excuse for what he
has done.
HDF is the best.
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:41:18 GMT, John Pertwee
> <JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>
> >I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
> >how a victim feels after the fact.
>
> Then you have my deepest sympathy, but it hardly makes you an
> impartial commentator.
it makes him more knowledgable than you, fatty. you blubber around
trying to stick your nose in where it is not wanted and generally
being offensive. why dont you fuck off and try to shag your flatmate.
i saw her the other day and she told me that she was your flatmate and
you were her fatmate.
lol
>
> >We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
> >nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
> >crime.
>
> But it's not child abuse in the accepted sense of the term. Try not
> to project your own unfortunate experineces onto a totally different
> case.
oh so there is an accepted sense of the term is there. accepted by
apologists for finklescum like you probably. abuse covers many forms
not just touching. what he has done is abuse and it will leave a scar
on those affected. perhaps you would like to tell the victims that
they have not been the victims of abuse. just a proctological
examination.
you sicken me.
HDF is the best.
> Previously, in rec.arts.drwho:
>
> Fett said:
>
> >No. It doesn't invalidate the actions themselves. But it sure as means that that
> >person isn't a good one anymore.
>
> OK, I'll follow that thinking through. I profoundly disagree with that
> statement and so that makes you (in my eyes of course) a cretin.
> Forever.
like he is bothered what a kevin like you thinks.
Nick Cooper
best.) wrote:
>nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote in message news:<3f394fb9...@news.virgin.net>...
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:41:18 GMT, John Pertwee
>> <JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
>> >how a victim feels after the fact.
>>
>> Then you have my deepest sympathy, but it hardly makes you an
>> impartial commentator.
>
>
>it makes him more knowledgable than you, fatty. you blubber around
>trying to stick your nose in where it is not wanted and generally
>being offensive. why dont you fuck off and try to shag your flatmate.
Why don't you try to attain maturity at last? Nah! Silly idea to
expect so much of someone so emotionally-retarded....
>i saw her the other day and she told me that she was your flatmate and
>you were her fatmate.
Claire says: "Bollocks." Anyway, she wouldn't dead in scummy
Camberley.
>> >We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
>> >nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
>> >crime.
>>
>> But it's not child abuse in the accepted sense of the term. Try not
>> to project your own unfortunate experineces onto a totally different
>> case.
>
>oh so there is an accepted sense of the term is there. accepted by
>apologists for finklescum like you probably. abuse covers many forms
>not just touching. what he has done is abuse and it will leave a scar
>on those affected. perhaps you would like to tell the victims that
>they have not been the victims of abuse. just a proctological
>examination.
Like you actually give a shit. There are enough child abuse cases
reported in the media for people to judge the level of severity in
each. Someone walkign up to a complete stranger and threatening to
hit them is classed as an assault, but it's not the same as if they
proceeded to beat them around the head with a baseball ball, is it?
Nick Cooper
<JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:58:52 GMT,
>nick.coope...@DETONATORvirgin.net (Nick Cooper) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:41:18 GMT, John Pertwee
>><JohnP...@APWWchat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I was a victim of child abuse, and I have a unique understanding of
>>>how a victim feels after the fact.
>>
>>Then you have my deepest sympathy, but it hardly makes you an
>>impartial commentator.
>
>Must I really be impartial? He plead guilty. He did it. He will always
>be remembered for this, and not for the good he did. Is that wrong,
>sure it is. But life is not fair.
>
>>>We may not have all the facts, but we have enough. He plead guilty to
>>>nine counts of making indecent images of children. That is a serious
>>>crime.
>>
>>But it's not child abuse in the accepted sense of the term. Try not
>>to project your own unfortunate experineces onto a totally different
>>case.
>
>
>Sure it is child abuse. They know they were taped going to the
>restroom. Who knows what they did while in there? What is on those
>tapes? We will never know, but what we do know is that there are up to
>nine underage victims, and there could be many more adult victims out
>there.
>
>Any time a child loses their innocence this way, it is abuse.
The irony being, of course, that had this never come to light, they
would never have known. If they are subsequently traumatised, then
it's by the process of what he did being discovered, not by what he
actually did. He pleaded guilty to taking illicit pictures. He
didn't get anyone to pose for him; he didn't try to lure anyone into
his car of his bed; he never laid a finger on anyone.
Nick Cooper
best.) wrote:
Read the article again, dumbo. They werte vistors to his house; none
were his patients.
>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003350852,00.html
>>
>> NOTE: I do not endorse the existance of 'The Scum' in any way, shape
>> or form, and only cite the above URL as illustrative of their prurient
>> and sensationalist reporting.
>
>still if they are to be believed he is off to crown court and a long
>spell inside. ha ha. serves him right.
How unsurprising that you fall for the 'Scum's hyperbole. I would be
very surprised if this resulted in a custodial sentence.
>there is no excuse for what he has done.
No-one says there is, but then you don't really give a toss - you're
just using this as a stick to beat the RT with.
--