Gary Glitter - The law is an ass?
val...@newsguy.com
media coverage has become farcical. In the absence of the above then perhaps I'm
commenting from a position of ignorance but(!):
The Gary Glitter case surely raises some basic questions regarding justice in
England and Wales.
1) From the perspective of the "man in the street" whose knowledge of the law is
based on a sense of justice rather than a university degree in law, it seems
wrong that the simple act of clicking on a hypertext link on a web page which
results in a picture being saved in a cache directory on his hard disk should
result in the commission of a criminal offence? I could easily include a
hyperlink on this newsgroup posting entitled "How to look after your potted
geraniums" which would take the unsuspecting gardener to an image of a naked
child. Is it right that the simple act of clicking on that link makes you a
criminal? Where should the line be drawn (from the perspective of a sense of
justice based on principle)?
2) If one has any sense of the injustice of censorship (sadly, even these days,
a big "if" I admit) then where should paedophilic images fit? My personal belief
is that the offence is committed when the pictures are shot. The subsequent
dissemination of the material should be free of censure. This derives, not from
any tolerance on my part of paedophilic activity, but from a sense that there is
a more basic principle involved here.
3) Gary Glitter may be a paedophile but that of itself shouldn't make him a
criminal. Should his criminal status change if he were to verbally express his
fantasies to another paedophile? Should it change if he were to write them down
on a piece of paper for his own use? (or the use of others?) Should it change if
he were to draw or paint pictures of naked children? Should the possession of
photgraphic paedophilic material change his status? I think not? If I'm wrong
then where should the line be drawn? I myself am gay and know only too well how
the law (in the past in this country and elsewhere as I write) can unjustly
proscribe an activity not because it adversely affects any third party but
simply because it doesn't appeal to the sensitivities of The Great and The Good.
As a society becomes more civilised there is an evolution towards better justice
and more freedom. Possession of paedophilic material (as opposed to paedophilic
acts) is surely an area that is ripe for reform. If not then which basic
principle of justice am I neglecting here?
4) I acknowledge the rights of children to be left to mature sexually without
exploitation and I further acknowledge the fact that if the law were to be
changed with regard to possession then the financial rewards associated with the
production of paedophilic material would result in more people taking the risk
of doing so. That is to be regretted but, again, is there not a higher principle
involved here? In any case the Internet negates this consideration since it
knows no political borders. If there is a market for material which can be
produced and disseminated digitally then it WILL be produced and it WILL be
disseminated. In regard to this type of material the lowest common denominator
in terms of global systems of justice will inevitably prevail.
5) If the criminal law is not to be an ass then it must be seen to be just. Its
provisions and its proscriptions must be seen to conform to a principle of
justice. Committing a criminal offence should require a ‘serious’ and
premeditated set of actions and a necessary (note that I didn’t say
“sufficient”) condition for the proscription of an activity should be that the
activity itself adversely affects a third party. These requirements were not
satisfied yesterday.
For what it's worth I'm of the belief that if there is any offence for which
capital punishment should be used then it is the sexual exploitation of children
but I still feel that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place here. The
offences for which Gary Glitter was convicted didn’t adversely affect any third
party. Furthermore they were "trivial" and "every day" in their nature and
shouldn't be covered by the criminal law. When the law fails to take account of
the changing practicalities of everyday life then it becomes an ass.
I'm withholding my name to avoid it being associated with my point of view on
this issue (internet search engines never forget!). Unfortunately I have to live
and work in this unjust society for the foreseeable future. If anyone has any
reason to contact me directly then do so by e-mail.
Mr Pig
assembled masses:
>The Gary Glitter case surely raises some basic questions regarding justice in
>England and Wales.
>
>1) From the perspective of the "man in the street" whose knowledge of the law is
>based on a sense of justice rather than a university degree in law, it seems
>wrong that the simple act of clicking on a hypertext link on a web page which
>results in a picture being saved in a cache directory on his hard disk should
>result in the commission of a criminal offence? I could easily include a
>hyperlink on this newsgroup posting entitled "How to look after your potted
>geraniums" which would take the unsuspecting gardener to an image of a naked
>child. Is it right that the simple act of clicking on that link makes you a
>criminal? Where should the line be drawn (from the perspective of a sense of
>justice based on principle)?
I suppose it depends whether the files are in a directory called
'cache' or a directory called 'kiddy f*ck pics.'
>
Vicky and Tony
young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
urination upon these poor children.
This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide erotic
stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
children.
Tony
Mr Pig <Mr_...@porkies.com> wrote in message
news:382fbc40...@news.lineone.net...
val...@newsguy.com
>
>Vicky and Tony wrote:
>
>>Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
>>young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
>>urination upon these poor children.
>>
>>This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide erotic
>>stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
>>for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
>>abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
>>children.
>
>whether or not he wanted to see them. I do think he committed an abuse on
>the children though.
>
>The poster who originated this thread, a queer who chose the pseudonym of
>"valiant",
My "pseudonym" is a function of my e-mail address which is itself a function of
the name of the block of flats I live in in London and has nothing to do with
the issue I chose to address and is nothing but a red herring in this context.
Your choice of the word "queer" is nothing but a function of your prejudice and
prejudices your view accordingly.
suggested that merely enjoying looking at these pictures is not
>wrong. I disagree; the enjoyment of this filth is an abuse of the victims
>because it adds to their humiliation. The knowledge that the terrible
>things done to them has become the fuel for the sexual fire in perverts
>must be very hurtful.
Did you really read the rest of my posting? I suspect not.
>
>The offences have not, as the "valiant" queer whined, already been
>committed. They are still being committed every time someone like Gary
>Glitter leers at the pictures.
>
Please read what I wrote. The Internet's power cannot be ignored. A criminal
offence should not be committed when one clicks on a hyperlink either once or
4000 times. The principle remains the same.
>Having said all that, I suggest that prison isn't the right place for
>Glitter. Sexual perversion, be it paedophilia or homosexuality, is an
>illness. Glitter should have been treated in a secure mental hospital
>with his "valiant" defender in the next bed.
I think my use of a "pseudoynm" is justified when dealing with a society which
lumps homosexuality with paedophilia when identifying an "illness". It's amazing
to think that this is 1999!!!
val...@newsguy.com
>
>On 13 Nov 1999 10:07:07 -0800, val...@newsguy.com proclaimed to the
>assembled masses:
>
>
>>The Gary Glitter case surely raises some basic questions regarding justice in
>>England and Wales.
>>
>>1) From the perspective of the "man in the street" whose knowledge of the law is
>>based on a sense of justice rather than a university degree in law, it seems
>>wrong that the simple act of clicking on a hypertext link on a web page which
>>results in a picture being saved in a cache directory on his hard disk should
>>result in the commission of a criminal offence? I could easily include a
>>hyperlink on this newsgroup posting entitled "How to look after your potted
>>geraniums" which would take the unsuspecting gardener to an image of a naked
>>child. Is it right that the simple act of clicking on that link makes you a
>>criminal? Where should the line be drawn (from the perspective of a sense of
>>justice based on principle)?
>
>I suppose it depends whether the files are in a directory called
>'cache' or a directory called 'kiddy f*ck pics.'
>>
>
Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake can we have
some constructive replies from non-airheads.
Richard Miller
<vickya...@cwcom.net> writes
>Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
>young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
>urination upon these poor children.
>
>This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide erotic
>stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
>for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
>abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
>children.
No. Not quite. He is definitely one step removed. But I do not share the
view of a lot of posters that he has effectively done no wrong simply by
downloading pictures which someone else had already created. It is a
crime. I think it is right that it is a crime. And for the extreme
nature of these pictures, I think four months is about right.
--
Richard Miller
josie farmer
> Vicky and Tony wrote:
>
> >Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
> >young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
> >urination upon these poor children.
> >
> >This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide erotic
> >stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
> >for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
> >abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
> >children.
>
> I can't agree that he's as guilty, the photographs would have been taken
> whether or not he wanted to see them. I do think he committed an abuse on
> the children though.
>
> The poster who originated this thread, a queer who chose the pseudonym of
> "valiant", suggested that merely enjoying looking at these pictures is not
> wrong. I disagree; the enjoyment of this filth is an abuse of the victims
> because it adds to their humiliation. The knowledge that the terrible
> things done to them has become the fuel for the sexual fire in perverts
> must be very hurtful.
>
> The offences have not, as the "valiant" queer whined, already been
> committed. They are still being committed every time someone like Gary
> Glitter leers at the pictures.
>
> Having said all that, I suggest that prison isn't the right place for
> Glitter. Sexual perversion, be it paedophilia or homosexuality, is an
> illness. Glitter should have been treated in a secure mental hospital
> with his "valiant" defender in the next bed.
Would he not be cured FASTER if that guy 'valiant' was in the SAME bed?
josie farmer
--
SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN FOR UNMETERED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
http://www.unmetered.org.uk/
Vicky and Tony
<val...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:80l568$16...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake can we
have
> some constructive replies from non-airheads.
Stop hitting him with your hand bag ducky. He made a constructive reply -
his point was valid.
Garry Glitter deliberately downloaded child pornography in a coded fashion
and "hid" it on his hard drive. When he took the computer for a repair he
left strict instructions that the files should not be opened - why was that
??? Because he didn't want anyone to see what a sick bastard he was.
Thankfully the engineer at PC world had to open files to check if the repair
had worked, now the pervert is locked up - good!! (Shame its not on the
lifers ward at Parkhurst nick, the prisoners there would surely love to
re-educate Mr. Glitter)
This was not a case of accidentally downloading something, but a case of
someone spending hours at a time searching out and then downloading sick and
evil child pornography. These photos (numbering 4000 in total) contained
scenes of rape, buggery, bondage, torture and urination on boys and girls as
young as 2 years old. If you think that this is fine then you are as sick
as Gary Glitter.
Tony
Mr Pig
assembled masses:
>In article <382fbc40...@news.lineone.net>, Mr_...@porkies.com says...
>>
>>On 13 Nov 1999 10:07:07 -0800, val...@newsguy.com proclaimed to the
>>
>>I suppose it depends whether the files are in a directory called
>>'cache' or a directory called 'kiddy f*ck pics.'
>>>
>>
>
>Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake can we have
>some constructive replies from non-airheads.
>
The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between
the files cached by browser while you visit sites and those
deliberately stored for further viewing.
You asked where the line should be drawn and on the subject of child
porn there should be no distinction; If you visit those sort of sites
you get everything you deserve. Where the problem lies, is as you
said, if you follow a faked hyperlink that leads to an unsavoury
picture being stored in the cache. This is obviously very different to
deliberately downloading and storing.
Lets face it, if you or I were daft enough to take a computer into PC
World for repair anyway, regardless of the contents of the hard drive,
do you think that the technicians would bother checking every single
.gif or .jpg hidden in the cache? If they found a folder called 'porn
pics' then that would be different. Human nature suggests that most
blokes would want to take a quick peek at the totty pics.
Mr Pig. Holder of HND and currentluy studying for BSc (Hons) which I
hope absolves me from the definition of air-head.
David Quinton
wrote:
> Sexual perversion, be it paedophilia or homosexuality, is an
>illness.
Grow up please.
--
I'm currently reading:
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558703322/bizorginternetse>
FREE Personal Numbers: 0709 119 1500
<http://www.ThisBritain.com/personalnos.htm>
Paul C. Dickie
>Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
>young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
>urination upon these poor children.
Yecch! I'd not seen the full list of perversions; might one ask whence
you came by it?
>This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide
>erotic stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have
>the desire for the material, it would not exist and the children would
>not have been abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who
>actually abused the children.
Your logic is flawed and here's how:
"These children were abused" -- past tense and, hence, it happened;
nothing whatever can alter that fact. They were not abused to order.
"Perverts such as Glitter" -- there are other persons who would also
take perverse delight in such horrid images, so jailing Mr Gadd won't
have much effect on the providers of the pornography.
"If they did not have the desire for the material" -- but those perverts
do. As my dear old Granny used to say -- though in English rather than
French -- "Si ma tante en avait, elle s'appellerait mon oncle!"
One might also claim that the sentence would deter others in the UK from
doing as Mr Gadd did, but that will also not have a significant effect
on a trade that is global and which has customers across the world.
The only remaining rationalisation for the sentence is retribution.
--
< Paul >
In2Home User
> the files cached by browser while you visit sites and those
> deliberately stored for further viewing.
> You asked where the line should be drawn and on the subject of child
> porn there should be no distinction; If you visit those sort of sites
> you get everything you deserve. Where the problem lies, is as you
> said, if you follow a faked hyperlink that leads to an unsavoury
> picture being stored in the cache. This is obviously very different to
> deliberately downloading and storing.
The law does actually distinguish. If you have no reason to know that the
picture you download is indecent, then no offence is committed at that
point. Of course, once you see the picture, you commit an offence if you do
not remove it pronto.
Andrew McGee
Alexander Baron
> I think my use of a "pseudoynm" is justified when dealing with a society which
> lumps homosexuality with paedophilia when identifying an "illness". It's amazing> to think that this is 1999!!!
The paedophile movement in this country grew out of and was endorsed by the
Organised Homosexual Movement. Both want to lower or remove the age of consent
for the purpose of corrupting young boys.
--
Alexander Baron,
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
stevosbaldhead
Paul C. Dickie <p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C+y14PAx...@bozzie.f9.co.uk...
> In article <%tjX3.1268$C4.55575@news1-hme0>, Vicky and Tony
> <vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
> >young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape
and
> >urination upon these poor children.
>
> Yecch! I'd not seen the full list of perversions; might one ask whence
> you came by it?
>
> >This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide
> >erotic stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have
> >the desire for the material, it would not exist and the children would
> >not have been abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who
> >actually abused the children.
>
> Your logic is flawed and here's how:
>
> "These children were abused" -- past tense and, hence, it happened;
> nothing whatever can alter that fact. They were not abused to order.
Yes they were, someone wanted piccys of kids in sexual poses.
Vicky and Tony
Ian Newman <doo...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
> One
> of the news servers he paid for was Newsguy which boasts a totally
> uncensored newsfeed. Take a look at the headers of "valiant". He seems
> to have paid for the "extra" Newsguy service. Hmmm.
I think one can draw one's own conclusions re: valiant.
Tony
Tim Martin
Vicky and Tony <vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:%tjX3.1268$C4.55575@news1-hme0...
> Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
> young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape
and
> urination upon these poor children.
>
erotic
> stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
> for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
> abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
> children.
Would you object to ownership of similar computer-generated pictures which
were created without the involvement of any children?
Tim
Vicky and Tony
Tony
Tim Martin <comp...@compunola.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:382ec785$0$62...@diablo.uninet.ee...
Mr Pig
proclaimed to the assembled masses:
>Mr Pig wrote:
>
>>Mr Pig. Holder of HND and currentluy studying for BSc (Hons) which I
>>hope absolves me from the definition of air-head.
>
>An airhead, by his definition, is anyone who is too smart to agree with
>him.
>
>
I merely wished to point out that the dimension between my ears is not
as vacant as the interior of my wallet :)
John O
Mr Pig wrote in message <382e7ba5...@news.lineone.net>...
>On 13 Nov 1999 18:01:44 -0800, val...@newsguy.com proclaimed to the
>assembled masses:
>
>>In article <382fbc40...@news.lineone.net>, Mr_...@porkies.com
says...
>>>
>>>On 13 Nov 1999 10:07:07 -0800, val...@newsguy.com proclaimed to the
>
>>>
>>>I suppose it depends whether the files are in a directory called
>>>'cache' or a directory called 'kiddy f*ck pics.'
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake can we
have
>>some constructive replies from non-airheads.
>>
>the files cached by browser while you visit sites and those
>deliberately stored for further viewing.
>You asked where the line should be drawn and on the subject of child
>porn there should be no distinction; If you visit those sort of sites
>you get everything you deserve. Where the problem lies, is as you
>said, if you follow a faked hyperlink that leads to an unsavoury
>picture being stored in the cache. This is obviously very different to
>deliberately downloading and storing.
>World for repair anyway, regardless of the contents of the hard drive,
>do you think that the technicians would bother checking every single
>.gif or .jpg hidden in the cache? If they found a folder called 'porn
>pics' then that would be different. Human nature suggests that most
>blokes would want to take a quick peek at the totty pics.
One aspect of this case that has me genuinely puzzled is the way in which he
was found out.
Not the actions of the techy - but of Mr GG himself.
I mean...was he simply arrogant....stupid....computer illiterate?
If any of us reading this ng had downloaded things from the net that we felt
might cause us trouble....would we not take every effort NOT to allow
evidence of that to fall into the hands of others.
Does anyone here honestly believe that if they had such material, it could
safely be allowed out the door on the hard drive ?
What on earth did he think he was doing?
David Quinton
Baron) wrote:
>The paedophile movement in this country grew out of and was endorsed by the
>Organised Homosexual Movement. Both want to lower or remove the age of consent
>for the purpose of corrupting young boys.
That is totally untrue, and you know full well that it is. It has been
demonstrated *many* times to you in this NG by countless different
people; many of whom unlike I, have no agenda.
Unless and until you start to accept facts then, IMHO, your life will
continue to be full of unnecessary court cases and heartache.
And you have the cheek to get upset when you think that someone
stitched _you_ up?
weewullie
concerns me is the fact that we now have a law which effectively
punishes people for what they have in their heads; the downloading
of pornographic files of whatever nature for private perusal is no different
from purchasing the same material in printed form. Certain publications are
not permitted in the UK, and this bad law is an amateurish attempt at
posting a Customs officer at every computer.
The real problem in the Glitter case is the people actually making and
distributing these things, and, rather than trawl through ISP's looking for
downloaders (no doubt Jack Straw has considered this already), time and
money would be better spent in working with other countries' police agencies
to stop the abuse of children, e.g. in Brazil.
weewullie.
Ian Newman <doo...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:199911141235...@nym.alias.net...
> Mr Pig wrote:
>
> >>>I suppose it depends whether the files are in a directory called
> >>>'cache' or a directory called 'kiddy f*ck pics.'
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake can we
have
> >>some constructive replies from non-airheads.
> >>
> >The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between
> >the files cached by browser while you visit sites and those
> >deliberately stored for further viewing.
> >You asked where the line should be drawn and on the subject of child
> >porn there should be no distinction; If you visit those sort of sites
> >you get everything you deserve. Where the problem lies, is as you
> >said, if you follow a faked hyperlink that leads to an unsavoury
> >picture being stored in the cache. This is obviously very different to
> >deliberately downloading and storing.
>
> Agreed. In this case, Glitter subscribed to several porn sites and paid
> for them by credit card. The records were used in court as evidence. One
> of the news servers he paid for was Newsguy which boasts a totally
> uncensored newsfeed. Take a look at the headers of "valiant". He seems
> to have paid for the "extra" Newsguy service. Hmmm.
>
> >Lets face it, if you or I were daft enough to take a computer into PC
> >World for repair anyway, regardless of the contents of the hard drive,
> >do you think that the technicians would bother checking every single
> >.gif or .jpg hidden in the cache? If they found a folder called 'porn
> >pics' then that would be different. Human nature suggests that most
> >blokes would want to take a quick peek at the totty pics.
>
> Especially if you told them not to look.
Paul C
<942578028.29198...@news.in2home.co.uk>, In2Home User
wrote
>The law does actually distinguish. If you have no reason to know that the
>picture you download is indecent, then no offence is committed at that
>point. Of course, once you see the picture, you commit an offence if you do
>not remove it pronto.
From where it may get stored in the recycle bin or a deleted files
folder (possibly without a prompt or a notification).
Paul
--
email: meagai...@hotmail.com
Put out the fire to email me :-)
Gary Jackson
I might be wrong, but I think Tim meant something like two innocent
pictures cut and pasted together by computer to look realistically
like kiddie porn.
Am I right?
Gary
The message <enAX3.1429$C4.68664@news1-hme0>
from "Vicky and Tony" <vickya...@cwcom.net> contains these words:
> I have no objection to pornography featuring consenting adults.
> Tony
> Tim Martin <comp...@compunola.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:382ec785$0$62...@diablo.uninet.ee...
Paul C. Dickie
<vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Garry Glitter deliberately downloaded child pornography in a coded fashion
>and "hid" it on his hard drive. When he took the computer for a repair he
>left strict instructions that the files should not be opened - why was that
>??? Because he didn't want anyone to see what a sick bastard he was.
Whatever the reason might or might not have been, that instruction
formed part of the contract with PC World. It is thus all the more
apparent that the putative "engineer" at PC World was not authorised to
open any files on the computer and, indeed, it was not part of the
repair to open or inspect any of the files on the system. Hence, the
engineer exceeded his authority and may well have committed an offence
contrary to the Misuse of Computers Act 1990.
Why has he not been prosecuted? Do the police or the CPS normally
compound a felony when it is convenient for them to do so?
The nature of the files accessed is irrelevant. The fact remains that
the alleged "engineer" opened files for which authorisation to open was
specifically withheld and, by doing so, he broke the law.
--
< Paul >
Graeme Nicholson
Vicky and Tony <vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:GXtX3.1129$lZ.48538@news2-hme0...
> Garry Glitter deliberately downloaded child pornography in a
coded fashion
> and "hid" it on his hard drive. When he took the computer for a
repair he
> left strict instructions that the files should not be opened -
why was that
> ??? Because he didn't want anyone to see what a sick bastard
he was.
If this is true how odd does it sound?
Imagine if you were a really famous rock star with a perversion
for kiddie pics. Would you really be taking a hard disk with
thousands of said pics to a shop to get repaired? and leaving
*strict* instructions that the files were not to be opened,
especially "JPEG's".
I mean if you were just Joe smoe and you done this you'd be an
idiot, for someone as famous as Glitter to do this is "odd", what
could he have possibly been thinking?
--
Yours Faithfully Graeme Nicholson
David Swarbrick
>Firstly, does anyone know where I can get a court transcript for this case? The
>media coverage has become farcical. In the absence of the above then perhaps I'm
>commenting from a position of ignorance but(!):
>
>England and Wales.
GG pleaded guilty to the charges. His case decides nothing. Instead
there is the CACD decision of the day before:
http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/rvbowden.htm
(an excellent site)
R v JONATHAN BOWDEN (1999)
CA (Otton LJ, Smith J, Collins J) 10/11/99
Summary: The downloading and/or printing out of computer data of
indecent images of children from the Internet was capable of amounting
to an offence within the meaning of s.1(1)(a) Protection of Children Act
1978.
An appeal against conviction and sentence imposed at Cambridge Crown
Court before HH Judge Haworth.
Facts: The appellant had been charged with 12 counts of having "made an
indecent photograph" contrary to s.1(1)(a) Protection of Children Act
1978, and nine other offences of possessing an indecent photograph of a
child under the age of 16 years contrary to s.160 Criminal Justice Act
1988. The appellant was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for the
1978 Act offences and three months' concurrent for the 1988 Act
offences. The appellant had downloaded photographs containing indecent
images of young boys from the Internet and either printed them out or
stored them on computer discs, for his own personal use. One of the
photos existed only as data. The appellant had pleaded not guilty to the
12 counts on the 1978 Act offences but changed his plea after a ruling
from the judge that the appellant's behaviour had amounted to taking or
making an indecent photograph and he was not merely in possession of
them. The issue on appeal was whether downloading and/or printing out of
computer data of indecent images of children from the Internet was
capable of amounting to an offence within the meaning of s.1(1)(a) of
the 1978 Act.
HELD: (1) Section 1 of the 1978 Act had been amended by s.84 Part VII
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to read "It is an offence for
a person: (a) to take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent
photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child..." It was held in R v
Fellows & Anor (1997) 1 CAR 244 that the scope of the definitions of
indecent photographs in ss.1 and 7 of the 1978 Act was wide enough to
include a form of technology not anticipated when the Act was passed,
and that a disc containing data of a photograph represented the original
photograph in another form and was capable of coming within the
definition of "photograph". It was accepted in the instant case that
s.1(1)(a) of the 1978 Act covered those involved in the creation of
pseudo-photographs who may have had no contact with the subjects of the
images. (2) The wording in s.1 of the 1978 Act as amended was clear and
unambiguous. It rendered unlawful the making of a photograph or a
pseudo-photograph. The words "to make" had to be given their natural and
ordinary meaning, and in the instant context that was "to cause to
exist; to produce by action, to bring about". By virtue of s.7 of the
1978 Act that meaning applied to negatives, copies of photographs and
data stored on computer disc. A person who either downloaded images on
to disc or who printed them out was making them. To download or print
the images within the jurisdiction was to create new material. The
reproduction of indecent material to be found on the Internet was within
the mischief aimed at by the legislation when the 1978 Act was amended
by adding the words "to make". (3) The amendment to the 1978 Act
occurred in 1994 and the presumption that Parliament had intended to
legislate in conformity with the Convention, and not in conflict with
it, applied. The right to respect for private and family life under
Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights could be legitimately
interfered with where necessary "for the protection of health or morals
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". (4) The
appellant was of good character and there was no breach of trust nor any
evidence of risk to the public. There was also no further dissemination
of the material. Therefore, in the circumstances a custodial sentence
was not the only appropriate course and the sentences had been
manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. A conditional discharge of
12 months for all counts was substituted.
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence allowed.
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor 01484 722531 - da...@swarb.freeuk.com
www.swarb.co.uk - law-index of 10,100+ uk case summaries and uk.legalFQA
The Law Society regulates our investment business. IP / IT Law and Contracts.
Philip Walton
Vicky and Tony wrote in message ...
>have
>> some constructive replies from non-airheads.
>
reply -
>his point was valid.
>
>and "hid" it on his hard drive. When he took the computer for a repair he
>left strict instructions that the files should not be opened - why was that
>??? Because he didn't want anyone to see what a sick bastard he was.
repair
>had worked, now the pervert is locked up - good!! (Shame its not on the
>lifers ward at Parkhurst nick, the prisoners there would surely love to
>re-educate Mr. Glitter)
>
>This was not a case of accidentally downloading something, but a case of
>someone spending hours at a time searching out and then downloading sick
and
>evil child pornography. These photos (numbering 4000 in total) contained
>scenes of rape, buggery, bondage, torture and urination on boys and girls
>young as 2 years old. If you think that this is fine then you are as sick
>as Gary Glitter.
>
>Tony
>
files, and that he should not have got away without censure. Would you lile
emailed love letters to be read by a nosy engineer.... I do agree without
demand child porn would not be produced however... Philip
>
Philip Walton
Vicky and Tony wrote in message
>young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
>urination upon these poor children.
>
>This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide
erotic
>stimulation for perverts such as glitter. If they did not have the desire
>for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
>abused. In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
>children.
>
For once I have to agree with you without reservation (as my lawyer friends
say).. Philip
>
>Mr Pig <Mr_...@porkies.com> wrote in message
>news:382fbc40...@news.lineone.net...
>> On 13 Nov 1999 10:07:07 -0800, val...@newsguy.com proclaimed to the
>> assembled masses:
>>
>>
>> >The Gary Glitter case surely raises some basic questions regarding
>justice in
>> >England and Wales.
>> >
>> >1) From the perspective of the "man in the street" whose knowledge of
the
>law is
>> >based on a sense of justice rather than a university degree in law, it
>seems
>> >wrong that the simple act of clicking on a hypertext link on a web page
>which
>> >results in a picture being saved in a cache directory on his hard disk
>should
>> >result in the commission of a criminal offence? I could easily include a
>> >hyperlink on this newsgroup posting entitled "How to look after your
>potted
>> >geraniums" which would take the unsuspecting gardener to an image of a
>naked
>> >child. Is it right that the simple act of clicking on that link makes
you
>a
>> >criminal? Where should the line be drawn (from the perspective of a
sense
>of
>> >justice based on principle)?
>>
Vicky and Tony
:-)
Tony
Philip Walton <xd...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:80nb78$l9g$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Vicky and Tony
> the alleged "engineer" opened files for which authorisation to open was
> specifically withheld and, by doing so, he broke the law.
Big Deal. In light of the ridiculously short sentance received by Mr.
Glitter I can imagine that the engineer would at most receive 5 mins in
jail. That said, some of the strange people that use this newsgroup
probably think that Mr. Glitter should be freed and the engineer locked up
for life.
Tony
Richard Miller
>This was not a case of accidentally downloading something, but a case of
>someone spending hours at a time searching out and then downloading sick and
>evil child pornography. These photos (numbering 4000 in total) contained
>young as 2 years old. If you think that this is fine then you are as sick
>as Gary Glitter.
This list gets longer and more lurid with every repeat.
The only non-Usenet source I have seen (The Guardian) referred to
children tied up and in sexual poses. No actual sex acts. No urination.
No actual acts of torture.
Does anyone actually have any definitive information from a source they
can quote?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<doo...@nym.alias.net> writes
>Agreed. In this case, Glitter subscribed to several porn sites and paid
>for them by credit card. The records were used in court as evidence. One
>of the news servers he paid for was Newsguy which boasts a totally
>uncensored newsfeed. Take a look at the headers of "valiant". He seems
>to have paid for the "extra" Newsguy service. Hmmm.
Again this story seems to be getting embellished by the day.
Where did the suggestion appear that he subscribed to sites and paid by
credit card? Were any of those sites exclusively or predominantly child
porn sites? So what that he subscribes to a news server which is
uncensored - many people would do that out of principle anyway,
regardless of their tastes.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Watts
In article <%tjX3.1268$C4.55575@news1-hme0>,
Vicky and Tony <vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Gary Glitter possessed more than 4000 pornographic images of children as
>young as 2 years of age. These photos included images of bondage, rape and
>urination upon these poor children.
>
>This is no "victimless" crime - these children were abused to provide erotic
>stimulation for perverts such as glitter.
IMO, the crime of taking the photographs, I agree, was definitely not
victimless. The crime of downloading them is a good question. The
act of looking at them probably was.
Note, incidentally, that the most recent act (whose name I forget)
makes a crime of producing pseudo-photographs, so it's quite possible
to be convicted of producing photographs that simply look as if they
might repesent children, even though producing such photographs might
never have involved people at all. At what stage a drawing becomes a
photograph is a very interesting question ...
>If they did not have the desire
>for the material, it would not exist and the children would not have been
>abused.
This is arguably true, but I don't think it's an argument: you can
say the same about fraud and copyright infringement - if the public
didn't demand the result, the crime wouldn't happen so often. Frankly,
I think the proscription on child pornography goes well beyond what
can be justified by anything other than public hysteria.
>In my book he is as guilty as the people who actually abused the
>children.
I think this a matter of opinion. Certainly, I think he ought to have
been done for possession.
What does worry me about the other recent judgement (whose name I forget,
but the judgement was posted by David Swarbrick in this thread) is not the
result, but the cause: with one stroke, the trial judge seems to have
effectively erased the legal distinction between sellers and consumers of
(child) pornography, thus greatly confusing the issue both of who is allowed
to do what and of the appropriate sentence for the offence.
Luckily, I don't think the natural extension (to `conventional' indecent
images) is valid (since I don't think there's an offence of making indecent
images per se, just of distributing them), but if it does get made, it's
going to be odd living in a world where it's perfectly legal to buy
pornography in sex shops, but illegal to download it[1] (very lucrative for
the porn industry, of course, but odd nevertheless). I really do think that
appeal ought to have been allowed.
[snip]
Richard.
[1] Excepting for a moment the telecomms acts, which already make this
the case.
--
Death to false nettles !
Alexander Baron
> What puzzles me is the mention of the Organised Homosexual Movement.
> Is this real or does it just exist in Baron's head? Do they have a
> newsletter and day trips to the seaside?
It exists in the same way as the Green Movement, the Radical Right, the
Anarchist Movement, Organised Jewry, the Trade Union Movement, and so on.
The term is not necessarily pejorative although most of the things these
people do are objectionable.
ps...@hotmail.com
A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <80l4ch$15...@edrn.newsguy.com> val...@newsguy.com writes:
>
> > I think my use of a "pseudoynm" is justified when dealing with a
society which
> > lumps homosexuality with paedophilia when identifying an "illness".
It's amazing> to think that this is 1999!!!
>
by the
> Organised Homosexual Movement. Both want to lower or remove the age
of consent
> for the purpose of corrupting young boys.
>
discovered where your confusion lies. You just made this up, didn't you?
Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel Smith
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes
>Whatever the reason might or might not have been, that instruction
>formed part of the contract with PC World. It is thus all the more
>apparent that the putative "engineer" at PC World was not authorised to
>open any files on the computer and, indeed, it was not part of the
>repair to open or inspect any of the files on the system. Hence, the
>engineer exceeded his authority and may well have committed an offence
>contrary to the Misuse of Computers Act 1990.
>
mechanic that he must fix the car but is not authorised to start the
engine.
Has I understand it (and I may be wrong!) the nature of the fault (or at
least part of it) was a problem with opening image files. Fix my
problem with opening images but do not open an image file under any
circumstances.
If I were to fix a problem of this nature I would certainly open
different files across the disk and not just the standard Windows files.
--
Daniel Smith
Andy
Vicky and Tony wrote in message ...
>
>Big Deal. In light of the ridiculously short sentance received by Mr.
>Glitter I can imagine that the engineer would at most receive 5 mins in
>jail. That said, some of the strange people that use this newsgroup
>probably think that Mr. Glitter should be freed and the engineer locked up
>for life.
They're being all intellectual and right on, or plain old trolls.
Weird, detracting from the main issue, denial etc.
Charles Bryant
>What puzzles me is the mention of the Organised Homosexual Movement.
>Is this real or does it just exist in Baron's head? Do they have a
>newsletter and day trips to the seaside?
Trips to the seaside? Would those be outings?
J R Walsh
rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk says...
I read the Express on Saturday morning. Their description of the images
clearly stated that they involved childeren as young as two being
tortured, blindfolded and gagged. Don't recall any mention of buggery
or urination, but that doesn't mean that that wasn't what happened.
Regards, Jim.
Matt Gibson
Dan...@capricorn1.demon.co.uk says...
> Has I understand it (and I may be wrong!) the nature of the fault (or at
> least part of it) was a problem with opening image files. Fix my
> problem with opening images but do not open an image file under any
> circumstances.
Indeed. There was an interview with the chap that found the images in
the Bristol Evening Post the other day; he said that the problem was with
opening image files, and while GG had said that the computer contained
"sensitive information", he didn't give instructions not to look at any
files.
M
--
"It's the gaps between the rain that count,
and learning how to live amongst them"
-- Jeff Noon, _Pixel Juice_
Matt Gibson http://www.gothick.dial.pipex.com
Richard Miller
<J.R....@shef.ac.uk> writes
>I read the Express on Saturday morning. Their description of the images
>clearly stated that they involved childeren as young as two being
>tortured, blindfolded and gagged. Don't recall any mention of buggery
>or urination, but that doesn't mean that that wasn't what happened.
Thanks for that.
"That doesn't mean that wasn't what happened." My point exactly. Too
many people have read the definitive reports such as you have quoted,
and then have come up with all sorts of lurid expansions on it and then
defend it with that sort of phrase. Let's stick at least somewhere near
to known facts and reasonable inferences.
--
Richard Miller
Terry Harris
Not forgetting that no one really knows if children were abused in the
making of these pictures.
The film industry can create convincing full motion wide screen animation
of creatures dead a million years, is it really so hard to knock up a few
low res stills of kiddy porn?
Even if they were not completely synthetic it doesn't necessarily mean
children were abused. The film and TV industry manages to convincingly kill
thousands without really killing anyone - if the law was rational then we
should all be doing 4 months for accessory to murder in the last cowboy
film we watched.
I am dubious that what he did should even be a crime so a 4 month prison
sentence seems extremely harsh. Even the worst of the lynch mob here have
described him as sick...
"If you think that this is fine then you are as sick as Gary Glitter."
Is that what we do to sick people - lock them up for 4 months because we
particularly don't like their illness?
Personally I don't think the peadophile's perversion is much worse than
being gay and I don't expect they have any more choice about being or not
being so perverted.
The difference is the potential harm done indulging their perversion. I
can't think of any acceptable 'real' indulgence in this perversion so you
would think we might be more tolerant of synthetic or simulated indulgence
which is their only acceptable relief.
You are not going to 'cure' peadophiles by locking them up, or taking away
their pictures or newsgroups. What is locking up GG going to do other than
ensure no one else takes their kiddy porn pics to PC World?
The problem needs to be managed not viciously driven even deeper
underground, but, dealing with the problem is much harder than pretending
it doesn't exist and stamping on anything that spoils your illusion.
What really scares me is how long I had to think before deciding to post
what I believe here in the face of anti-peadophile hysteria especially with
the full and apparently equally hysterical weight of the law behind it.
Cheers Terry...
Richard Miller
<terry....@iname.com> writes
>What really scares me is how long I had to think before deciding to post
>what I believe here in the face of anti-peadophile hysteria especially with
>the full and apparently equally hysterical weight of the law behind it.
I know what you mean. Even I have found myself "tippy-toeing" round some
aspects of the subject for fear of being seen to be "defending child
abuse" - and I'm one of those who actually does agree with his sentence
in this case. But I do acknowledge the logic of your arguments.
--
Richard Miller
fried
One argument that I have not seen made is that if GG was either habitually
dowloading this stuff or spending significant amounts of time doing it, then
he was effectively conditioning himself to think a lot about it, a dangerous
habit to reinforce. Although we can all talk about free will, most of us
know that as creatures of habit and often of compulsive habit, indulging in
the opportunity to rehearse this particular trait was perhaps not a good
idea.
I am not sure that this particular aspect can be encompassed in law.
Julian
>--
>Richard Miller
Charles Bryant
fried <fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>One argument that I have not seen made is that if GG was either habitually
>dowloading this stuff or spending significant amounts of time doing it, then
>he was effectively conditioning himself to think a lot about it, a dangerous
>habit to reinforce. Although we can all talk about free will, most of us
>know that as creatures of habit and often of compulsive habit, indulging in
>the opportunity to rehearse this particular trait was perhaps not a good
>idea.
That argument has probably not arisen because nobody is particularly
worried that he would go out and buy a faster modem.
fried
<n176990...@chch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Good point. Fast living can be equally damaging.
Julian
master...@my-deja.com
"Vicky and Tony" <vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> <val...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:80l568
$16...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> > Does it really? Surely the principle is the same? For gawd's sake
can we
> have
> > some constructive replies from non-airheads.
>
> Stop hitting him with your hand bag ducky. He made a constructive
reply -
> his point was valid.
Maybe, but does that mean that you need to be insulting about someones
sexuality? You really do appear small minded and living in a world of
your own! Do us all a favour and restrict your postings to the
homophobic news groups only. Leaving us, the ones who can tackle such
sensitive subjects, without insulting others!
Dean Masters
(sorry, no silly tag message to waste your time on)
>
> Garry Glitter deliberately downloaded child pornography in a coded
fashion
> and "hid" it on his hard drive. When he took the computer for a
repair he
> left strict instructions that the files should not be opened - why
was that
> ??? Because he didn't want anyone to see what a sick bastard he
was.
> Thankfully the engineer at PC world had to open files to check if the
repair
> had worked, now the pervert is locked up - good!! (Shame its not on
the
> lifers ward at Parkhurst nick, the prisoners there would surely love
to
> re-educate Mr. Glitter)
>
> This was not a case of accidentally downloading something, but a case
of
> someone spending hours at a time searching out and then downloading
sick and
> evil child pornography. These photos (numbering 4000 in total)
contained
> scenes of rape, buggery, bondage, torture and urination on boys and
girls as
> young as 2 years old. If you think that this is fine then you are
as sick
> as Gary Glitter.
>
> Tony
master...@my-deja.com
interesting, some valid points and some plain stupid, it seems that
many have missed the point raised in the original posting.
What Glitter did is surely pathetic and dispicable. But giving him a
four month sentence will not serve justice on the children concerned.
A longer sentence may have done so, either way it would not change the
circumstances of children being abused for photographic pleasures etc.
The main point of the posting is surely the concern that, but for the
grace of god, it could happen to any of us. Don't think for one moment
that if you have one picture downloaded by default, that you would be
excused from appearing in court.
During 1998 and the early part of 1999 the Walt Disney web site was
corrupted/hacked. So, when you clicked on certain links, expecting
them to transport you to other areas within the Disney site, you
instead found yourself viewing child porn! How would you argue that in
court, it was an accident, you did not intend to view it, but as far as
the law is concerned you downloaded it and that is that?
There have been many recent convictions on this matter, mostly in the
UK. Not all have been as high profile as Glitters, and most have been
the result of a few stray pictures.
It appears to me that several of those posting here, do so without any
real thought, perhaps they are the type who would lynch some innocent
person, with a whiff or rumour of scandal, and then discover them to be
innocent. That seems to be our society today. Just remember this....
YOU COULD BE NEXT!
Another point that needs consideration is that of the number of people
who have posted here, and seem to know so much about the content of
these pictures? Did they view them? Or did they read the Sun or News
of the World? Two publications known for their accurate accounts of
todays breaking news! Need I say more?
Just food for thought.
Dean Masters
(sorry, no silly tag message to waste your time on)
In article <80k9cb$2r...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
val...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Firstly, does anyone know where I can get a court transcript for this
case? The
> media coverage has become farcical. In the absence of the above then
perhaps I'm
> commenting from a position of ignorance but(!):
>
> The Gary Glitter case surely raises some basic questions regarding
justice in
> England and Wales.
>
> 1) From the perspective of the "man in the street" whose knowledge of
the law is
> based on a sense of justice rather than a university degree in law,
it seems
> wrong that the simple act of clicking on a hypertext link on a web
page which
> results in a picture being saved in a cache directory on his hard
disk should
> result in the commission of a criminal offence? I could easily
include a
> hyperlink on this newsgroup posting entitled "How to look after your
potted
> geraniums" which would take the unsuspecting gardener to an image of
a naked
> child. Is it right that the simple act of clicking on that link makes
you a
> criminal? Where should the line be drawn (from the perspective of a
sense of
> justice based on principle)?
>
> 2) If one has any sense of the injustice of censorship (sadly, even
these days,
> a big "if" I admit) then where should paedophilic images fit? My
personal belief
> is that the offence is committed when the pictures are shot. The
subsequent
> dissemination of the material should be free of censure. This
derives, not from
> any tolerance on my part of paedophilic activity, but from a sense
that there is
> a more basic principle involved here.
>
> 3) Gary Glitter may be a paedophile but that of itself shouldn't make
him a
> criminal. Should his criminal status change if he were to verbally
express his
> fantasies to another paedophile? Should it change if he were to write
them down
> on a piece of paper for his own use? (or the use of others?) Should
it change if
> he were to draw or paint pictures of naked children? Should the
possession of
> photgraphic paedophilic material change his status? I think not? If
I'm wrong
> then where should the line be drawn? I myself am gay and know only
too well how
> the law (in the past in this country and elsewhere as I write) can
unjustly
> proscribe an activity not because it adversely affects any third
party but
> simply because it doesn't appeal to the sensitivities of The Great
and The Good.
> As a society becomes more civilised there is an evolution towards
better justice
> and more freedom. Possession of paedophilic material (as opposed to
paedophilic
> acts) is surely an area that is ripe for reform. If not then which
basic
> principle of justice am I neglecting here?
>
> 4) I acknowledge the rights of children to be left to mature sexually
without
> exploitation and I further acknowledge the fact that if the law were
to be
> changed with regard to possession then the financial rewards
associated with the
> production of paedophilic material would result in more people taking
the risk
> of doing so. That is to be regretted but, again, is there not a
higher principle
> involved here? In any case the Internet negates this consideration
since it
> knows no political borders. If there is a market for material which
can be
> produced and disseminated digitally then it WILL be produced and it
WILL be
> disseminated. In regard to this type of material the lowest common
denominator
> in terms of global systems of justice will inevitably prevail.
>
> 5) If the criminal law is not to be an ass then it must be seen to be
just. Its
> provisions and its proscriptions must be seen to conform to a
principle of
> justice. Committing a criminal offence should require a ‘serious’ and
> premeditated set of actions and a necessary (note that I didn’t say
> “sufficient”) condition for the proscription of an activity should be
that the
> activity itself adversely affects a third party. These requirements
were not
> satisfied yesterday.
>
> For what it's worth I'm of the belief that if there is any offence
for which
> capital punishment should be used then it is the sexual exploitation
of children
> but I still feel that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place
here. The
> offences for which Gary Glitter was convicted didn’t adversely affect
any third
> party. Furthermore they were "trivial" and "every day" in their
nature and
> shouldn't be covered by the criminal law. When the law fails to take
account of
> the changing practicalities of everyday life then it becomes an ass.
>
> I'm withholding my name to avoid it being associated with my point of
view on
> this issue (internet search engines never forget!). Unfortunately I
have to live
> and work in this unjust society for the foreseeable future. If anyone
has any
> reason to contact me directly then do so by e-mail.
Alexander Baron
> The main point of the posting is surely the concern that, but for the
> grace of god, it could happen to any of us.
Speak for yourself.
> Don't think for one moment
> that if you have one picture downloaded by default, that you would be
> excused from appearing in court.
What about 54 pictures by design?
> During 1998 and the early part of 1999 the Walt Disney web site was
> corrupted/hacked. So, when you clicked on certain links, expecting
> them to transport you to other areas within the Disney site, you
> instead found yourself viewing child porn! How would you argue that in
> court, it was an accident, you did not intend to view it, but as far as
> the law is concerned you downloaded it and that is that?
Glitter didn't simply view it he stored it. There is the little matter of
intent. If a man runs out in front of your car on the motorway that's a
different proposition from your mounting the kerb and killing him.
> There have been many recent convictions on this matter, mostly in the
> UK. Not all have been as high profile as Glitters, and most have been
> the result of a few stray pictures.
Such as?
> It appears to me that several of those posting here, do so without any
> real thought, perhaps they are the type who would lynch some innocent
> person, with a whiff or rumour of scandal, and then discover them to be
> innocent. That seems to be our society today. Just remember this....
>
> YOU COULD BE NEXT!
Again, speak for yourself.
Paul C. Dickie
<A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> writes
>> grace of god, it could happen to any of us.
>
Here's a thought, old chap: if the plods are truly as evil as you claim
them to be, why didn't they plant (and "find") child pornography on your
computer?
--
< Paul >
Alexander Baron
p...@bozzie.force9.co.uk "Paul C. Dickie" writes:
>
> Here's a thought, old chap: if the plods are truly as evil as you claim
> them to be, why didn't they plant (and "find") child pornography on your
> computer?
Don't put ideas into their tiny heads. What they "found" was something
potentially worse but they lost their bottle probably because if they'd gone
ahead with the prosecution they would have had to call a judge to give evidence.
That's what a friend in high places told me anyway.