Gary Glitter
Alex
real childporn.
However...
About the "Leader Of The Pack" being found "not guilty" of any real-life
offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged (who knows
what to believe in this case) "childporn".
I think there are lots of questions about this case.
Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
system.
How about the highly misleading phrase "making pictures" used
in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
fact the defendant never held a camera?
Perhaps people can make up their minds what scares them
more - Gary Glitter with his makeup downloading "dirty" pictures
and having a longlasting affaire with a girl/woman 2 years shy
of the age of consent _way back in the eighties_, or
self-appointed guardian of morality and opportunist Max Clifford,
who stated on Newsnight "now the world knows Gary Glitter for
what he really is" while paying tens of thousands of pounds to
mess up a case and presumably make hundreds of thousands of
pounds if not millions more by selling newspaper which runs the story.
The BBC at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_518000/518175.stm
has the following comments:
"Child care campaigners have criticised Gary Glitter's four
month jail sentence for downloading child porn from the
internet as too lenient".
Or
"Mike Taylor, director of childcare at <the NSPCC>, said:
'it sends a message that dealing in child pornography is
a convictable offence... but is not taken too seriously by
our courts".
Glen Smyth of the Metropolitan Police Federation said
"It seems you get more for animal cruelty than you do for
crimes against kids".
Even though neither (dealing or crimes against kids) were
seemingly perpetrated by the defendant.
I would like to question why anyone should go to jail
for downloading anything? Especially when downloading
can mean simply leaving your browser's cache on.
Having said that, it also seems that here in Holland
politicians have caught the bug of wailing against child
pornography to win votes, and want to make simple
posession a crime.
However, there is a strong streak of populism in there,
which _always_ makes for lousy policy which has to
be retracted down the road (usually amidst the payment
of lots of compensation).
"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
are you supposed to believe about this collection?
My opinions,
Alex
stevosbaldhead
Alex <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net...
Richard
persuading that someone who wants to collect pictures of children being
abused probably has a bit of a screw loose, but I don't see that any actual
harm has been done, the pictures "merely" serve as a record of the abuse
that occured. Bear with me!
Surely one should start proceedings if the defendant PAID to see these
images, or has received any payment for passing them on in some way. Its the
trade in this material that is abhorrent, surely? The original photographer
and any other accomplices are surely the guilty people here, more so if they
sold the material afterwards. Of course, some people do this just for fun;
whatever their motive it is they that have to been stopped. I don't really
see how Gary's downloading the stuff would encourage the perpetrators UNLESS
he paid for it.
Presumably the jury will be jailed too - they have seen all these vile
images one assumes? Is the difference that Gary got a kick out these images,
is that why he's been jailed?
Suppose I collected photographs of people being killed in wars, atrocities,
executions etc. I'd say that would indicate that I had a bit of a screw
loose, but would I be jailed for having them? I doubt it.
Are we actually locking people up because we have evidence of their frame of
mind?
Richard.
Arty Smokes
Alex <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net...
: Now I have to say that I don't even like the idea of
: real childporn.
:
: However...
<SNIPPED INTERESTING POINTS>
I'm not sure what an acceptable sentence would have been for such
a "crime" (it would be interesting to hear of other people who
have committed similar offences).
Obviously this case has suffered from the ridiculous laws in this
country about naming the accused. Our legal system needs to be
radically overhauled. With a tabloid press that decides to be the
judge, jury and sentencing magistrate, the only thing to do to
enable fairer trials would be to preserve anonymity of anyone
charged with an offence. The public does not need to know the
names of defendants. By all means print them once a defendant has
been found guilty, but while *any* trial is taking place I
believe there should be a blanket press ban on reporting it. We
pride ourselves on the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet, but
with a press as rabid as the one in the UK, it seems a defendant
is only innocent until his/her face is on page 1 of The Sun
(*spit*).
I reckon most people have got something of "questionable"
legality on their HDs somewhere. But if you took your computer to
PC World then they wouldn't root around looking for it. The
offending pictures were only found because someone at PC World
thought they'd do a search for *.jpg on Glitter's HD. Whether
this search is an invasion of privacy is debatable, but one thing
seems certain: fame can certainly have its drawbacks (ooh err,
missus).
--
Arty ; -//)
Smoker-in-residence, Banshee Magazine, Southend, UK
Shiny new Flash 'n' Frames site: http://www.banshee.fsnet.co.uk
Richard Miller
<vand...@yahoo.com> writes
>Now I have to say that I don't even like the idea of
>real childporn.
>
>However...
>
>offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged (who knows
>what to believe in this case) "childporn".
>
>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>
>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
>system.
AIUI, the pictures were found accidentally by the repair man when fixing
the computer. Having found the pictures, I think he was duty bound to
bring them to the attention of the authorities.
>
>How about the highly misleading phrase "making pictures" used
>in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
>fact the defendant never held a camera?
>
I understood that to be referring to digital manipulation. It does leave
it somewhat unclear as to what he actually did.
>Perhaps people can make up their minds what scares them
>more - Gary Glitter with his makeup downloading "dirty" pictures
>and having a longlasting affaire with a girl/woman 2 years shy
>of the age of consent _way back in the eighties_, or
>self-appointed guardian of morality and opportunist Max Clifford,
>who stated on Newsnight "now the world knows Gary Glitter for
>what he really is" while paying tens of thousands of pounds to
>mess up a case and presumably make hundreds of thousands of
>pounds if not millions more by selling newspaper which runs the story.
Frankly no one comes out of this with any credit.
>
>The BBC at
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_518000/518175.stm
>
>has the following comments:
>"Child care campaigners have criticised Gary Glitter's four
>month jail sentence for downloading child porn from the
>internet as too lenient".
Personally, on what I have heard of the pictures, I think the sentence
was about right.
>
>Or
>
>"Mike Taylor, director of childcare at <the NSPCC>, said:
>'it sends a message that dealing in child pornography is
>a convictable offence... but is not taken too seriously by
>our courts".
>
>Glen Smyth of the Metropolitan Police Federation said
>"It seems you get more for animal cruelty than you do for
>crimes against kids".
>
>Even though neither (dealing or crimes against kids) were
>seemingly perpetrated by the defendant.
Indeed. There is a lot of wilful misinterpretation going on here.
>
>
>I would like to question why anyone should go to jail
>for downloading anything? Especially when downloading
>can mean simply leaving your browser's cache on.
Because you cannot possess obscene material unless someone has created
it. And the material was created, it seems, by the sadistic abuse of
children. It is therefore legitimate - and important - to try to stamp
out the demand for these pictures in order to protect children.
I think your real question should be, why should it be a crime to
possess a picture which has been digitally created to simulate child
porn, where no real child has ever been involved. Sick it may be, but it
is more difficult to justify it as a criminal offence on a logical
basis.
>
>Having said that, it also seems that here in Holland
>politicians have caught the bug of wailing against child
>pornography to win votes, and want to make simple
>posession a crime.
>However, there is a strong streak of populism in there,
>which _always_ makes for lousy policy which has to
>be retracted down the road (usually amidst the payment
>of lots of compensation).
>
>"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
>
>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54 pictures. I
don't know if there were more counts TIC'd. If there were, you can
believe them too. As for the actual content, the BBC said bondage and
torture pictures of children from 2 to 10. You'll have to make up your
own mind whether you believe that.
--
Richard Miller
Marge Proops
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_518000/518175.stm
> has the following comments:
> 'it sends a message that dealing in child pornography is
> a convictable offence... but is not taken too seriously by
> our courts".
Dear Alex,
It certainly makes you wonder what he thinks is the meaning of
"charity". I thought it meant compassion and love, and not the
hatred that demanded that someone be sent to prison for life.
Perhaps he just thinks that such comments will be good for business
and that he will get more donations if he makes nasty comments about
Mr Gadd's mental illness.
Glen Smyth cannot help making the comments he does, and seems he was born
like that. But a director of the NSPCC should know better.
--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Marge, everyone's favorite agony aunt |
+------------------------------------------------+
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sam Butler
>Now I have to say that I don't even like the idea of
>real childporn.
>
>However...
>
>About the "Leader Of The Pack" being found "not guilty" of any
real-life
>offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged
(who knows
>what to believe in this case) "childporn".
For all we are likely to be told, it could be mostly nudist
material with one or two hardcore images mixed in, which would be
the only ones shown to the judge. I'm sure if you went through
any sizeable collection of computer images you would find one or
two 'dodgy' ones.
>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>
>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
>system.
I'm not sure that 'evidence' gathered by people other than the
police is either legal or illegal; it's just information provided
to the police who then have to obtain the proper evidence
according to the prescribed procedure. This might involve raiding
your house for Zip disks, perhaps.
I'm more interested in the motivation of the computer repairman.
It obviously requires a considerable amount of time and effort to
go through someone's hard disk; I suspect that he was looking for
'interesting stuff' for his own consumption and came across
something not to his taste.
>How about the highly misleading phrase "making pictures" used
>in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
>fact the defendant never held a camera?
I've got the idea from somewhere that Mr Glitter created some
'pseudo-images' in some way; maybe he was done for this rather
than 'possession'. Has anyone been following the story in more
detail? I've only heard the more sensational aspects (the 14yo
kiss-and-tell) on the (BBC) radio news.
>Perhaps people can make up their minds what scares them
>more - Gary Glitter with his makeup downloading "dirty" pictures
>and having a longlasting affaire with a girl/woman 2 years shy
>of the age of consent _way back in the eighties_,
Of course, she would only have been below the AOC for the first 2
years of the affair.
> or
>self-appointed guardian of morality and opportunist Max
Clifford,
>who stated on Newsnight "now the world knows Gary Glitter for
>what he really is" while paying tens of thousands of pounds to
>mess up a case and presumably make hundreds of thousands of
>pounds if not millions more by selling newspaper which runs the
story.
<snip>
--
Sam Butler
Paul C. Dickie
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net>, Alex
>>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer system.
>
>the computer.
If you care to think about it, you'll see that the above claim is utter
nonsense; examining images or other data files on a computer is not part
of the task or job of repairing that computer. In other words, the
antics of the putative repair man were less than wholly authorised, and
ISTR from the Computer Misuse Act that it is an imprisonable, criminal
offence to get unauthorised access to another's data.
>Having found the pictures, I think he was duty bound to
>bring them to the attention of the authorities.
Certainly, but it does rather beg the question of why the PC World
hacker wasn't also prosecuted. In American law -- and possibly at
European Law -- such searches would be a violation of human rights
and any evidence gained thereby would be considered inadmissible.
What does the European Convention on Human Rights have to say on such
searches or seizures? Isn't that now supposed to be part of UK statute
law? Even if that law is not yet fully in force, isn't the UK bound by
the terms of the Treaty of Rome to comply with the ECHR?
>>Perhaps people can make up their minds what scares them
>>more - Gary Glitter with his makeup downloading "dirty" pictures
>>and having a longlasting affaire with a girl/woman 2 years shy
>>of the age of consent _way back in the eighties_, or
>>self-appointed guardian of morality and opportunist Max Clifford,
>>who stated on Newsnight "now the world knows Gary Glitter for
>>what he really is" while paying tens of thousands of pounds to
>>mess up a case and presumably make hundreds of thousands of
>>pounds if not millions more by selling newspaper which runs the story.
>
>Frankly no one comes out of this with any credit.
I feel some small pity for the aged rocker though I am also revolted by
his actions and deeds. I feel nothing but loathing for the smug, smarmy
and self-satisfied publicist, who seems to make his money by wrecking
the lives of others.
It would serve Clifford right to be tried, convicted and imprisoned for
his part in this whole, sordid saga.
>>"Mike Taylor, director of childcare at <the NSPCC>, said:
>>'it sends a message that dealing in child pornography is
>>a convictable offence... but is not taken too seriously by
>>our courts".
>>Glen Smyth of the Metropolitan Police Federation said
>>"It seems you get more for animal cruelty than you do for
>>crimes against kids".
>>Even though neither (dealing or crimes against kids) were
>>seemingly perpetrated by the defendant.
>
>Indeed. There is a lot of wilful misinterpretation going on here.
Perhaps Mr Gadd should sue them? IMO, he should also sue the alleged
journalist who, on the BBC Weekend 24 programme, asserted that he had
"been let off" the charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
Not so -- he was acquitted of those charges.
>>I would like to question why anyone should go to jail
>>for downloading anything? Especially when downloading
>>can mean simply leaving your browser's cache on.
>
>Because you cannot possess obscene material unless someone has created
>it. And the material was created, it seems, by the sadistic abuse of
>children. It is therefore legitimate - and important - to try to stamp
>out the demand for these pictures in order to protect children.
As the law also extends to any work that depicts children in a state of
undress -- and hence would cover the work of Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and
Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson -- it becomes apparent that the above "reason"
is nothing more than pure Howardism. Not only does the law not succeed
in protecting children, it also makes illegal the possession of images
of children of the generation of your great-grandfather and who,
therefore, are not likely to need much protection these days.
>I think your real question should be, why should it be a crime to
>possess a picture which has been digitally created to simulate child
>porn, where no real child has ever been involved. Sick it may be, but it
>is more difficult to justify it as a criminal offence on a logical
>basis.
The "logic" is that as it is illegal to possess an indecent image of a
child, it is also illegal to possess an indecent image of someone made
to look like a child. ISTR that the idea was that it would make it
easier to deal with those cases where the subject of the image might or
might not be under 16, but laws designed to make prosecution easier are
usually rather bad laws -- and that law is no exception. In common with
the other UK laws concerning obscene publications, it needs be revised
and its scope rather more carefully limited so that whilst it still
proscribes child pornography, it does not cover old photographs or
snapshots taken by a parent of her daughter in the bath-tub.
--
< Paul >
Dave Bird
>
>> But a director of the NSPCC should know better.
>
>and potential future victims of the pervert?
Hello. Is English a second language for you, as this sentence a
little contorted and sounds up mixed. What person by is meant
"the prevert"? Mr Gadd was a popstar in his 20s tempted by
young teenage girl fans offering sex, he probably isn't the
only one who took advanatage in that era, a large number of
them (including e.g. members of the beatles) might find themselves
in trouble if those fans are bribed with large sums of newspaper
money to make trouble for them now.
Or do you mean the prevert who made the nasty pictures which Mr Gadd
downloaded, because I gather this person has not been caught and
punished yet so that version does not make sense either.
>Are you a big fan of torturing and raping two-year-olds?
No, are you a fan of exploding live rabbit in microwave ovens??
I merely ask as an equivalently stupid thing to ask.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
David G. Bell
p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk "Paul C. Dickie" writes:
> In article <ia6NgTAN...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>, Richard Miller
> <rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Because you cannot possess obscene material unless someone has created
> >it. And the material was created, it seems, by the sadistic abuse of
> >children. It is therefore legitimate - and important - to try to stamp
> >out the demand for these pictures in order to protect children.
>
> As the law also extends to any work that depicts children in a state of
> undress -- and hence would cover the work of Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and
> Charles Lutwidge Dodgeson -- it becomes apparent that the above "reason"
> is nothing more than pure Howardism. Not only does the law not succeed
> in protecting children, it also makes illegal the possession of images
> of children of the generation of your great-grandfather and who,
> therefore, are not likely to need much protection these days.
While this is certainly a valid general argument, unless the Judge in
the case was totally misled or misreported, there doesn't seem any
reason to think that the pictures in question were not clearly images of
child abuse.
However, I'm not sure that cases like this one will make any significant
difference to the demand for such images. The Internet provides a one-
to-many medium, whether for advertising or porn distribution, and the
distributors of this stuff, unlike the spammers who are so hard to
control, are trying to keep out of sight.
> >I think your real question should be, why should it be a crime to
> >possess a picture which has been digitally created to simulate child
> >porn, where no real child has ever been involved. Sick it may be, but it
> >is more difficult to justify it as a criminal offence on a logical
> >basis.
>
> The "logic" is that as it is illegal to possess an indecent image of a
> child, it is also illegal to possess an indecent image of someone made
> to look like a child. ISTR that the idea was that it would make it
> easier to deal with those cases where the subject of the image might or
> might not be under 16, but laws designed to make prosecution easier are
> usually rather bad laws -- and that law is no exception. In common with
> the other UK laws concerning obscene publications, it needs be revised
> and its scope rather more carefully limited so that whilst it still
> proscribes child pornography, it does not cover old photographs or
> snapshots taken by a parent of her daughter in the bath-tub.
It's also a difficult principle because there are differences between
children and adolescents, and yet the law pushes them all into the same
category. Some pictures of young children might be seen as innocent,
while a similar picture of an adolescent might be regarded as
pornographic. Equally, and disregarding age-of-consent questions for a
moment, anyone who is honest about their own schooldays has to admit
that adolescents are hardly sexually naive, and might well
enthusiastically welcome a sexual experience which, if it involved young
children, would be obviously child abuse.
Whether or not that adolescent enthusiasm is in itself acceptable is
another issue. but the law does make age-based distinctions in its
dealings with under-age sexual intercourse.
At least the UK child porn figures aren't based on the US age-limit,
although I suspect that Internet-wide figures are inflated by the extra
two years of illegality in US law.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Alex
Richard Miller heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>>"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
>>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
>>
>>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
>>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
>
>Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54 pictures.
That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I would
asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
It makes me think that it's very well possible he had a collection of porn
images of a thousand and that 54 of those might have been "childporn"
(with one or two being real childporn).
The reporters could still say that he had "a thousand large collection
of violent pornographic images including hardcore images of children
as young as 2 being tortured."
I'd like to think not, but considering the way the legalese phrase
"making photographs" (downloading graphics files) is used in the
media, including the BBC and is really passed off as plain English
(i.e., making photographs by holding a camera etc.), I wouldn't be
surprised at all.
The repeated use of the phrase "making photographs" by reporters
could show that they're willing to portray this case in the worst possible
light, just as happened in the Spanner case, simply in order to condemn
or seem to be against childmolesters.
Alex
josie farmer
I understand the phrase "making photographs" as printing out the porn onto
photo paper at home - isn't this what the police found in his house?
josie
--
SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN FOR UNMETERED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
http://www.unmetered.org.uk/
Alex
Paul C. Dickie heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>In article <ia6NgTAN...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>, Richard Miller
><rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net>, Alex
>><vand...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>>>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>>>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>>>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>>>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer system.
>>
>>AIUI, the pictures were found accidentally by the repair man when fixing
>>the computer.
>
>If you care to think about it, you'll see that the above claim is utter
>nonsense; examining images or other data files on a computer is not part
>of the task or job of repairing that computer. In other words, the
>antics of the putative repair man were less than wholly authorised, and
>ISTR from the Computer Misuse Act that it is an imprisonable, criminal
>offence to get unauthorised access to another's data.
Thinking about it, what if Gary Glitter wasn't some rocker, but the CEO
of a technology company with some highly valuable patents or ideas
or contracts on his HD.
Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
just in case and maybe engage in some insider trading, or some
good old business espionage?
Alex
Marge Proops
<j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:10:49 GMT, Marge Proops
><marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> But a director of the NSPCC should know better.
>
>Don't you think he may have been thinking of the greater number of past
>and potential future victims of the pervert?
>enjoy participating in the gang-rape of a 6 year-old girl? Are you
>afraid to use your real identity?
>Cunt.
Dear Cunt,
What a strange name you have! And you appear to have some confusion
about your own identity. Some people call you "Jaffa Orange" but you
sign yourself as "Cunt". You should get professional help before it
is too late.
Even if the director of the NSPCC was thinking of any "potential future
victims", his pronouncement was as unreasonable as demanding that every
driver be locked up for five years because of the "potential future victims"
of their careless driving! Much as you might want to, it is simply not right
to jail people for offences they may or may not commit in future.
I have heard no evidence to suggest that Mr Glitter took part in the
rape of anyone. You seem to think that he took part in the gang rape
of a girl of six. Perhaps you should take your evidence to the police
if you have any? Are you hoping to get the News of the Screws
interested first? I hope they will have learned their lesson at least
for a week or two.
Paul C. Dickie
>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
Not least of which would be the veracity (or otherwise) of rumours that
he is considering a "cover version" of Chuck Berry's celebrated classic,
"My Ding-a-ling"...
--
< Paul >
piscary
Alex wrote in message <382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>...
>Thinking about it, what if Gary Glitter wasn't some rocker,
Or some ordinary, if slightly weird, unknown punter who had been caught in
possession, so to speak. Would there then have been so much publicity or
debate? I think not.
but the CEO
>of a technology company with some highly valuable patents or ideas
>or contracts on his HD.
>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
It's human nature to snoop. Isn't that what most of us do for a living - to
greater or lesser degree - before passing on gathered info. to anyone else
who might be interested?
I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be defending
Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
satisfy depraved appetites.
Regarding the underage sex - unlawful intercourse happens every Saturday
night, somewhere - we've all met promiscuous fourteen year olds who look and
try to behave as if they were twenty five. This particular instance would
not have such sinister connotations had the perpetrator not been caught
dabbling in child pornography.
IMO, Gary Glitter needs psychiatric help. Have you seen those eyebrows!
Rosie
Mr Pig
proclaimed to the assembled masses:
>Now I have to say that I don't even like the idea of
>real childporn.
>
>However...
>
>About the "Leader Of The Pack" being found "not guilty" of any real-life
>offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged (who knows
>what to believe in this case) "childporn".
>
>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>
How does GG bonking a 14 y/o girl warrant prosecution while Bill
Whyman bonking a 13 y/o girl get ignored?
Just my 36 yen worth.
Mr Pig
<pis...@rosie92.freeserve.co.uk> proclaimed to the assembled masses:
>
>
>IMO, Gary Glitter needs psychiatric help. Have you seen those eyebrows!
>
>Rosie
Its the syrup that scares me !!!!!!
Gaspode
>How does GG bonking a 14 y/o girl warrant prosecution while Bill
>Whyman bonking a 13 y/o girl get ignored?
The other stupid thing is that if he had been bonking her in almost
any other European country, nobody would have thought anything of it.
stevosbaldhead
Paul C. Dickie <p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NOF2ECAu...@bozzie.f9.co.uk...
>
> he is considering a "cover version" of Chuck Berry's celebrated classic,
> "My Ding-a-ling"...
>
> --
> < Paul >
,there?" or "Remember me this way"
Andrew R. Gillett
> When/if you discern what I meant, you might like to think about how the
> victims portrayed in the photographs are just as much victims of Garry
> Glitter, and people like him, who purchase the material, as of the
> perpetrators themselves?
I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups - in
other words, he didn't pay for them, and probably didn't have any direct
dealings with the people who created them.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"I'm really depressed, Stew. It's Friday night - I shouldn't be out
working!" - Richard Herring
Macabi
>
>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
>system.
My understanding is that it was "PC World" who discovered child porn
on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the techie involved
was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this material. Does
this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for repair that one
of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff? No one can be sure
that such personal stuff is archived off the PC before it needs repair (e.g.
after a video card failure). I find this most worrying. What legal protection
do I have in the event of a repair techie reading commercially sensitive material
and passing it on to a third party? How can I protect myself (and my customers)
from this invasion of my personal and business confidence by nosey techies?
John O
piscary wrote in message <80m2a2$1e5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Alex wrote in message <382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>...
>
>>Thinking about it, what if Gary Glitter wasn't some rocker,
>
>Or some ordinary, if slightly weird, unknown punter who had been caught in
>possession, so to speak. Would there then have been so much publicity or
>debate? I think not.
>
>but the CEO
>>of a technology company with some highly valuable patents or ideas
>>or contracts on his HD.
>>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
>
>It's human nature to snoop. Isn't that what most of us do for a living -
to
>greater or lesser degree - before passing on gathered info. to anyone else
>who might be interested?
>
>I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be
defending
>Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
>curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
>would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
>satisfy depraved appetites.
And when did YOU stop beating your wife?
There is, I agree, a minority view meandering about this thread that is
trying to tackle the issue of whether certain issues of censorship are
themselves justified. One or two individuals may even be trying to justify
the extreme images that GG was alleged to have held.
However, the general theme that I am detecting rather more consistently is
a) people appalled at what he did coupled with b) a genuine concern at how
the evidence was obtained.
The whole point about legal principles is that they exist to protect....and
if we want a society in which it is NOT acceptable for any Tom, Dick or
Harry to go snooping around your affairs, fundamental principles of privacy
need to be defended.
Personally, I haven't decided in my own mind whether the line got
over-stepped here with regard to obtaining of evidence....different people
have come forward with different views as to how the evidence was obtained.
Bear in mind, however, that if you are really arguing that 'anything is
justified in the crackdown on child porn', then this means that no-one - not
you, me or anyone else should have any entitlement to privacy on their pc's.
Are you really arguing that?
Do you think it OK for plod to knock on your door at any time of day or
night, ask you to boot up your pc and do a search on *.jpg?
And Yes, I do have a six-year-old daughter - currently throwing a tantrum
because it is taking too long to download a .mov file from the Disney site.
I had a real dilemma not so long ago when a friend took a couple of very
cute photos of her just out of a bath.
We ended up having a long discussion of whether we ought to get the film
developed....you would understand why. Personally, I find it distressing in
itself that such a level of fear can exist now with regard to experiences
that are totally innocent.
John O
Marge Proops wrote in message <80m24r$nq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <iKQtOIg4MFAMI3...@4ax.com>, JAF
><j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> wrote:
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:10:49 GMT, Marge Proops
>><marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I have heard no evidence to suggest that Mr Glitter took part in the
>rape of anyone. You seem to think that he took part in the gang rape
>of a girl of six. Perhaps you should take your evidence to the police
>if you have any? Are you hoping to get the News of the Screws
>interested first? I hope they will have learned their lesson at least
>for a week or two.
It would appear not. I have just returned from the newsagent, where I
espied both the NoW and Sunday Mirror carrying lurid frontpage allegations
of underage sex that GG is meant to have had.
Question:
If they had this information before, why the hell did they not pass it to
the police?
If they have any interest in protecting children, why the hell publish,
thereby ensuring that he may well - again - get off if charged?
John O
JAF wrote in message <1qYuOEvqkjTkhY...@4ax.com>...
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 10:15:56 GMT, Marge Proops
><marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <iKQtOIg4MFAMI3...@4ax.com>, JAF
>><j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:10:49 GMT, Marge Proops
>>><marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Don't you think he may have been thinking of the greater number of past
>>>and potential future victims of the pervert?
>>>Are you a big fan of torturing and raping two-year-olds? Would you
>>>enjoy participating in the gang-rape of a 6 year-old girl? Are you
>>>afraid to use your real identity?
>>>Cunt.
>>
>>Dear Cunt,
>>
>>What a strange name you have! And you appear to have some confusion
>>about your own identity. Some people call you "Jaffa Orange"
>
>
> but you
>>sign yourself as "Cunt".
>
>JAF jaf@jaf .co.uk
>If you can't see that, your software is broken.
>
> You should get professional help before it
>>is too late.
>
>
>>Even if the director of the NSPCC was thinking of any "potential future
>>victims", his pronouncement was as unreasonable as demanding that every
>>driver be locked up for five years because of the "potential future
victims"
>>of their careless driving! Much as you might want to, it is simply not
right
>>to jail people for offences they may or may not commit in future.
>
>danger to society'?
There is a very important and very real debate about just this subject.
I did try and start a thread about it separately.
Do YOU believe that prison should be used to incarcerate people on the basis
of what they have done....or on the basis of what they might do?
grj
> real childporn.
>
> However...
>
> About the "Leader Of The Pack" being found "not guilty" of any real-life
> offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged (who knows
> what to believe in this case) "childporn".
>
I agree with your doubts about this case and given that GG has not been
convicted of real-life offences it is possible to argue that his collection
of images may well have enabled him to release his desires in a relatively
harmless way - maybe without them we would be hearing of a trial where he
abused real children.
I think it would be a sign of a great civilisation if we could at least
imagine a state where images could be used to release dangerous desires and
even lead to the healing of perverted inclinations rather than screaming and
punishing and perpetuating the suffering of all the people concerned
One more point: we have entered an age where images need have no basis in
reality other than 3d modelling and it may already be a mistake to refer to
real crimes that any images depict. Now where are the thought police?
Graham
Dave Bird
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
>>AIUI, the pictures were found accidentally by the repair man when fixing
>>the computer.
>
>If you care to think about it, you'll see that the above claim is utter
>nonsense; examining images or other data files on a computer is not part
>of the task or job of repairing that computer. In other words, the
>antics of the putative repair man were less than wholly authorised, and
>ISTR from the Computer Misuse Act that it is an imprisonable, criminal
>offence to get unauthorised access to another's data.
>
>>Having found the pictures, I think he was duty bound to
>>bring them to the attention of the authorities.
>
>Certainly, but it does rather beg the question of why the PC World
>hacker wasn't also prosecuted. In American law -- and possibly at
>European Law -- such searches would be a violation of human rights
>and any evidence gained thereby would be considered inadmissible.
>
>What does the European Convention on Human Rights have to say on such
>searches or seizures? Isn't that now supposed to be part of UK statute
>law? Even if that law is not yet fully in force, isn't the UK bound by
>the terms of the Treaty of Rome to comply with the ECHR?
Boz, you know law better than me, but I don't think this holds water.
The repairman could well just have been testing function and data
integrity on a hard drive, run it through some directories and see
that typical files open OK. If he sees MaryAge11.jpg or whatever
then he may well suspect what it is [or he may open it without
thinking and see what it is].
If he finds evidence of obvious criminal activity this voids his
duty of confidence to you: "there is no confidence in iniquity"
i.e. people don't have a duty of confidence to you once they
find out your conduct is unlawful.
Paul Burridge
| It's human nature to snoop. Isn't that what most of us do for a living - to
| greater or lesser degree - before passing on gathered info. to anyone else
| who might be interested?
Er, no.
| I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be defending
| Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
| curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
| would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
| satisfy depraved appetites.
I don't have any children (thank God) but wouldn't suffer anyone
else's to be abused in this way.
--
Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
Paul Burridge
opined thusly:
|
| Richard Miller heeft geschreven in bericht ...
| >In article <382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net>, Alex
| ><vand...@yahoo.com> writes
|
|
| >>"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
| >>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
| >>
| >>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
| >>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
| >
| >Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54 pictures.
|
| That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
| over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I would
| asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
|
| It makes me think that it's very well possible he had a collection of porn
| images of a thousand and that 54 of those might have been "childporn"
| (with one or two being real childporn).
| The reporters could still say that he had "a thousand large collection
| of violent pornographic images including hardcore images of children
| as young as 2 being tortured."
I'll think you'll find they were specimen charges. It's not uncommon
for defendants to be charged with a handful out of a large number.
Paul Burridge
<rough...@no1house99.freeserve.co.uk> opined thusly:
| Puts a whole new meaning on his song "do you want to touch me , where
| ,there?" or "Remember me this way"
Sadly, it appears we *will* remember him this way.
piscary
John O wrote in message <80mh85$nrc$3...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>defending
>>Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
>>curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
>>would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
>>satisfy depraved appetites.
>
>
>
Erm....actually, I don't have one....Rosie is a girl's name, you know -
usually. My husband is completely free from bruises, though, where they
could be spotted by the N.S.P.C.H, anyway:-)
>>However, the general theme that I am detecting rather more consistently is
>a) people appalled at what he did coupled with b) a genuine concern at how
>the evidence was obtained.
Call me an hysterical female but with regard to child cruelty/abuse it
should be far more important that the evidence WAS obtained - not how this
was achieved. Personally, I'd stoop as low as was necessary if that gave me
the power to prevent a child from undergoing a marked degree of suffering -
particularly if that suffering was a turn on for certain, sick individuals.
Wouldn't you?
>
>The whole point about legal principles is that they exist to protect....
Yes! That is precisely what they are supposed to do - innocent infants
included?
and
>if we want a society in which it is NOT acceptable for any Tom, Dick or
>Harry to go snooping around your affairs, fundamental principles of privacy
>need to be defended.
Are we to be selective, then, in the guarding of our coveted fundamental
principles of privacy? Or, would you say that there could possibly be a
couple of privacy principles we might be able to dispense with so that our
children can be protected by the legal ones?
>Bear in mind, however, that if you are really arguing that 'anything is
>justified in the crackdown on child porn',
Afraid I am, yes.
> then this means that no-one - not
>you, me or anyone else should have any entitlement to privacy on their
pc's.
>Are you really arguing that?
Do we have total privacy, anyway? And why would the lack of it be such a
terrible calamity? Unless one has dodgy material hanging about somewhere?
>
>Do you think it OK for plod to knock on your door at any time of day or
>night, ask you to boot up your pc and do a search on *.jpg?
Wouldn't bother me, mate. Most of what's on my p.c. has either been
published or is intended for public view, anyway:-) There are a couple of
very bad poems, written while under the affluence of incohol, which I could
be embarrassed by, but that's about it.
>
>And Yes, I do have a six-year-old daughter - currently throwing a tantrum
>because it is taking too long to download a .mov file from the Disney site.
>
>I had a real dilemma not so long ago when a friend took a couple of very
>cute photos of her just out of a bath.
>
>We ended up having a long discussion of whether we ought to get the film
>developed....you would understand why. Personally, I find it distressing
in
>itself that such a level of fear can exist now with regard to experiences
>that are totally innocent.
I totally agree with you, on that one. Friends of mine, who are teachers,
tell me that if a child falls over in the playground nowadays, it is
considered too much of a risk to offer comfort by giving the infant a cuddle
and a toffee - in case the parents accuse and subsequently sue for child
abuse. It's a great pity that a kind-hearted adult should feel restricted
in this way....and the kids lose out, too.
The reason the fear exists, BTW, in case you've lost sight of it, is because
of tossers like Mr. Glitter and his fellows - there seem to be quite a few
of them about. Must be something in the water.
Rosie >
>
Sue
<arga...@fatal-design.com> blethered:
>In uk.media.newspapers, JAF wrote:
>> When/if you discern what I meant, you might like to think about how the
>> victims portrayed in the photographs are just as much victims of Garry
>> Glitter, and people like him, who purchase the material, as of the
>> perpetrators themselves?
>
>I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups - in
>other words, he didn't pay for them, and probably didn't have any direct
>dealings with the people who created them.
Oh. So that makes it alright then.
Sue.
Mr Pig
masses:
>
>Puts a whole new meaning on his song "do you want to touch me , where
>,there?" or "Remember me this way"
>
>
>
Oh no. I really hoped I'd be able to resist the temptation to add, " I
love you love, 'cause you're only two love."
Bad taste I know but if I hadn't have said it, someone else would so I
saw no sense in prolonging the wait. Now we can all get back to
serious discussion.
Dead Mangled Pigeon
>>I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups - in
>>other words, he didn't pay for them, and probably didn't have any direct
>>dealings with the people who created them.
>
>Oh. So that makes it alright then.
No, but I take the guy's point that the case isn't quite as clear as has
been suggested.
Sex concerning young children is always a very emotive subject - as the
father of a young girl, I have very strong views that are against any
involvement whatsoever.
But there are always circumstances.
For example, should a 50 year old man be punished in the same way for the
same crime as a fourteen year old boy?
And what if the girl consented?
I think there comes a point when we have to trust the judges involved...
What am I saying - they're all a bunch of pervies, too, aren't they?
Anyway, isn't "Gary Glitter" cockney rhyming slang for ... er... something?
<sings>
Oh, it's uk.misc, it's uk.misc, it's uk.misc for me
Where the people are broad minded and the atmosphere is free
I can think of a million places where I would rather be
But I don't give a damn 'cos here I am
It's uk.misc for me.
<shuts the feck up>
John O
piscary wrote in message <80mp1p$ud0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>John O wrote in message <80mh85$nrc$3...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>>
>>piscary wrote in message <80m2a2$1e5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>>
>>>I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be
>>defending
>>>Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
>>>curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
>>>would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order
to
>>>satisfy depraved appetites.
>>
>>
>>
>>And when did YOU stop beating your wife?
>
>Erm....actually, I don't have one....Rosie is a girl's name, you know -
>usually. My husband is completely free from bruises, though, where they
>could be spotted by the N.S.P.C.H, anyway:-)
>
>
>>>However, the general theme that I am detecting rather more consistently
is
>>a) people appalled at what he did coupled with b) a genuine concern at how
>>the evidence was obtained.
>
Gosh, you do like to manipulate, don't you?
First the 'how would you like it if it were your children' ploy. Next the
'only a hysterical female' gambit.
What is the point of this observation meant to be? To set up an antithesis
between 'hysterical females' and 'emotionless males'? To play 'only me'
games, enabling you to make whatever points you like, then duck behind a
smokescreen of not really knowing much about the subject?
The question raised by this case is a pretty serious one.
If only Law were always clear cut and simple: if we knew that by abrogating
one set of rights, we would be preventing an equivalent harm, and not
hurting anyone in any way.
But that is rarely so.
Society needs to balance conflicting rights: the rights of children with the
rights of adults to privacy. There is no right answer as to where that
balance is drawn - though we may, as individuals, have different
views....sometimes, considerations of social pragmatism come into play.
>....with regard to child cruelty/abuse it
>should be far more important that the evidence WAS obtained - not how this
>was achieved. Personally, I'd stoop as low as was necessary
Really? Blackmail? Violence? False imprisonment? Do you really mean
that?
>if that gave me
>the power to prevent a child from undergoing a marked degree of suffering -
>particularly if that suffering was a turn on for certain, sick individuals.
>Wouldn't you?
Obviously not.
I believe, in the long run, that children benefit more from living in a
society where there is equality before the law and a number of fundamental
presumptions about individual rights, rather than in a society where justice
is arbitrary and amended whenever necessary in order to bring about the
'right' solution.
I think it is clear from the rest of your post that we do understand where
each other is coming from.
You would tear down certain laws: I believe that legal principles must be
supported ESPECIALLY where they lead to outcomes we may not wholly like.
The alternative, frankly, is anarchy, and a society in which mob rule
prevails and the strongest survive.
You might approve of some of the outcomes - the lynchings of suspected child
molesters, for one.
You would probably be a bit upset when one of your neighbours maliciously
accused you of outraging public decency and you found bricks hurtling thru
your window.
But, for consistency's sake, I do hope you would applaud the bruises that
they dealt to yourself, your husband and, of course, any children you might
have in the house at the time.
Appalled
I've read a lot of idiotic posts in the newsgroups, Rosie, but yours
really takes the biscuit for half-baked, badly thought-out nonsense.
Alex Buell
> Anyway, isn't "Gary Glitter" cockney rhyming slang for ... er...
> something?
It's slang for the rectum. "He kicked him right up his gary". My thanks to
the cockney girl who works with us (dunno why a girl like that is doing
down here in the 'hoofy sarf' instead of being in the East End!), she
likes to use rhyming slang in her company email.
http://www.accessv.com/~alderton/slang/sl_eng.htm
That should tell you more.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Legalise cannabis today! Got GnuPG? Ask me for public key.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - updated!
piscary
John O wrote in message <80mr9j$1059$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>
>>>>However, the general theme that I am detecting rather more consistently
>is
>>>a) people appalled at what he did coupled with b) a genuine concern at
how
>>>the evidence was obtained.
>>
>>Call me an hysterical female but ....
>
>Gosh, you do like to manipulate, don't you?
Whaaat?
>
>First the 'how would you like it if it were your children' ploy.
So, how would you? Is it O.K. if it's someone else's children, then?
Next the
>'only a hysterical female' gambit.
I didn't say I WAS one. I said that you would prob'ly think of me as such -
looks like I was right.
>
>What is the point of this observation meant to be? To set up an antithesis
>between 'hysterical females' and 'emotionless males'?
Crumbs! You're touchy. Hit a nerve, have I? Look, forget I'm female, O.K?
That's irrelevant. I'm not into all that girl power rubbish.
To play 'only me'
>games,
Don't understand the 'only me games' bit. Care to clarify that bit?
>enabling you to make whatever points you like,
Can I only make points that YOU like, then?
> then duck behind a
>smokescreen of not really knowing much about the subject?
Smokescreen? You inhaling something?
How much do YOU know about child pornography?
>
>The question raised by this case is a pretty serious one.
Too right.
>
>>
>>....with regard to child cruelty/abuse it
>>should be far more important that the evidence WAS obtained - not how this
>>was achieved. Personally, I'd stoop as low as was necessary
>
>Really? Blackmail? Violence? False imprisonment? Do you really mean
>that?
Of course not - now you're being silly. I meant that I'd shop anyone to
authority if I suspected that they were getting their rocks off by molesting
young kids. I don't think I'd achieve the desired end by slapping a child
abuser - at the risk of incurring your wrath that's as far as my
feeble....er....female frame would allow me to go - or being locked up for
my views.
>>if that gave me
>>the power to prevent a child from undergoing a marked degree of
suffering -
>>particularly if that suffering was a turn on for certain, sick
individuals.
>>Wouldn't you?
>
>
>Obviously not.
Not even if it was guaranteed that you could have a positive result?
>
>I believe, in the long run, that children benefit more from living in a
>society where there is equality before the law and a number of fundamental
>presumptions about individual rights, rather than in a society where
justice
>is arbitrary and amended whenever necessary in order to bring about the
>'right' solution.
I'd agree with that, to a point.
What I was trying to say - incoherently, obviously, judging by the
reaction -
was that we can't split privacy laws down the middle and have folk
investigated because we suspect them of foul deeds - but if a transgression
of this kind is discovered 'by accident' by a p.c. repairman then, surely,
it should be acted upon, regardless of any privacy law. If you are daft
enough to send your p.c. to a public company for repair without first wiping
off - or saving on to floppy - any incriminating material, then you deserve
to be prosecuted, wouldn't you say? You could hardly expect a privacy law
to protect you from stupidity.
>
>I think it is clear from the rest of your post that we do understand where
>each other is coming from.
>
>You would tear down certain laws:
No - you've missed the point entirely. Probably my fault for not explaining
myself and allowing a strange sense of humour to seep into what should be a
very serious discussion.
>
>You might approve of some of the outcomes - the lynchings of suspected
child
>molesters, for one.
Not lynching - far too quick.
>
piscary
Appalled wrote in message ...
>
>I've read a lot of idiotic posts in the newsgroups, Rosie, but yours
>really takes the biscuit for half-baked, badly thought-out nonsense.
>
Why? Because I have opinions that are not to your liking? Because I think
all convicted child molesters should be castrated before receiving
psychiatric help and being let loose on society? Or because I consider that
anyone dense enough to send their p.c. to a public company without first
deleting, or saving, any incriminating material deserves all they get?
Anyway, don't panic. I'm about to unsubscribe. You'll hear no more badly
thought out nonsense from me.
Rosie.
John O
piscary wrote in message <80n143$rag$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Appalled wrote in message ...
>>
>>I've read a lot of idiotic posts in the newsgroups, Rosie, but yours
>>really takes the biscuit for half-baked, badly thought-out nonsense.
>>
>
>
>Why? Because I have opinions that are not to your liking? Because I think
>all convicted child molesters should be castrated before receiving
>psychiatric help and being let loose on society?
Well....as I suggested in my first reply to you, you did appear to have put
your finger on a very live issue - that is, the point at which society needs
to balance the rights of the accused and of individuals in general against
the rights of potential victims.
This is a valid debate to be having, and one I would expect to see occurring
frequently on uk.legal
OTOH, if the sentiments expressed by yourself in the last sentence above are
truly representative of your thinking on the subject, then you do strike me
rather as being on the side of hysterical bigotry - and I would be much
happier not to see you having any influence whatsoever on public policy.
Sadly, since your views have so much in common with the writers and readrs
of the Sun, that is probably too much to hope.
>Or because I consider that
>anyone dense enough to send their p.c. to a public company without first
>deleting, or saving, any incriminating material deserves all they get?
>
????
>
>Anyway, don't panic. I'm about to unsubscribe. You'll hear no more badly
>thought out nonsense from me.
So: after the mildest of criticisms, you decide to withdraw. Does that mean
you concede the point? Or your just off in a sulk?
Paul C. Dickie
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What person by is meant "the prevert"?
^^^^^^^^^^^
After he has been released, will he be a postvert?
--
< Paul >
James Hammerton
So just exactly what would you do with *suspected* child molesters?
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
Dave Bird
<j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> writes:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 21:30:22 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Don't you think he may have been thinking of the greater number of past
>>>and potential future victims of the pervert?
>>
>> little contorted and sounds up mixed.
>
>Try reading it again.
What I thought was not that it is ungrammatical, but the piling up
of clauses has a very tortured syntax perhaps displaying the tortured
thought processes of a person given to screaming and ranting if they
don't take their stellazine; and, in the whole context, "the pervert"
(I just keep thinking of Dr Strangelove whenever I hear that word)
seems to lack a referent, again displaying some odd construction in
the whole context. If you had said "the prevert", or just "person",
"WHO MADE THE PHOTOGRAPHS" then it would have been intelligible.
It may be that you have some odd idea that everyone automatically
agrees with you and your assumptions, THEREFORE you don't have to frame
what you say in an understandable or explanatory way.
>When/if you discern what I meant, you might like to think about how the
>victims portrayed in the photographs are just as much victims of Garry
>Glitter, and people like him, who purchase the material, as of the
>perpetrators themselves?
Well, there are too ways of looking at it. Taken literally, the idea
is insane, and the idea that the judge was sentencing Paul Gadd
entirely for crimes committed by another person he had not
tried and convicted is offensive to the rule of law.
Taken another way there is a sense in which, metaphorically, buyers
shares some responsibility for images which took cruel or offensive
behaviour to make; because they were made commercially, and would not
have been made without buyers, so the buyers share some joint
responsibility for them having been made.
In article<80m24r$nq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>XeMu1, Marge Proops writes:
>Jaffa signs himself:
>>Cunt.
>
>Dear Cunt,
>
>What a strange name you have! And you appear to have some confusion
>about your own identity. Some people call you "Jaffa Orange" but you
>sign yourself as "Cunt". You should get professional help before it
>is too late.
>
>Even if the director of the NSPCC was thinking of any "potential future
>victims", his pronouncement was as unreasonable as demanding that every
>driver be locked up for five years because of the "potential future victims"
>of their careless driving! Much as you might want to, it is simply not right
>to jail people for offences they may or may not commit in future.
|~/ |~/
Dave Bird
>quote:
>>Even if the director of the NSPCC was thinking of any "potential future
>>victims", his pronouncement was as unreasonable as demanding that every
>>driver be locked up for five years because of the "potential future victims"
>>of their careless driving! Much as you might want to, it is simply not right
>>to jail people for offences they may or may not commit in future.
>
>danger to society'?
There are people currently detained because THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
OF INJURING OTHERS and are a danger to society because they have not
yet put that offense behind them but are likely to repeat it.
But Paul Gadd was not found guilty of rape, or indeed of willing sex
with a person deemed in law too young to properly understand.
Are you (or is that fuckwit who said it) asserting he must be kept in
prison because there is a danger he will, if released, repeat that of
which he was convicted i.e. download offensive pictures off newsgroups?
Dave Bird
>he is considering a "cover version" of Chuck Berry's celebrated classic,
>"My Ding-a-ling"...
He seems to be himself a cover version of Jerry Lee Lewis,
who had several "child brides".....
Dave Bird
>good old business espionage?
See my earlier article. You assume he deliberately went and looked
for wrongdoing, rather than was simply carrying out legitimate
repair work and stumbled across it (NOT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
HIS DISCOVERING CRIME MATTER MUCH).
He has a duty of confidentiality to you, right? Not to pry
unneccessarily and not do disclose what he finds. THE WHOLE
DUTY IS VOID WHERE YOU COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS. His duty then
is to report them.
In article<382eb6c2...@news.cwcom.net>XeMu1, Macabi
<mac...@cwcom.net> writes:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:16:29 +0100, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
>>question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
>>or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
>>when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
>>system.
>
>My understanding is that it was "PC World" who discovered child porn
>on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the techie involved
>was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this material. Does
>this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for repair that one
>of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff? No one can be sure
>that such personal stuff is archived off the PC before it needs repair (e.g.
>after a video card failure). I find this most worrying. What legal protection
>do I have
He owes you a duty of confidence: he shouldn't go looking and what
he sees accidentally he shouldn't disclose to others; failing which
you can sue him for breach of confidence. BUT NONE OF THE ABOVE
PROTECTS ANY CRIMINAL ACT. You can't sue someone for reporting you
to the police for a crime you really did permit, the courts don't
offer remedies in support of criminal acts.
They may protect the criminal from people trying to do other crimes and
wrongs against him, he has not forfeit protection of law as a person;
but his PARTICULAR ACTS WHICH WERE CRIMES have forfeit the protection
of law for those acts.
David G. Bell
g...@removejohnsong.dircon.co.uk "grj" writes:
> Alex <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net...
> > Now I have to say that I don't even like the idea of
> > real childporn.
> >
> > However...
> >
> > About the "Leader Of The Pack" being found "not guilty" of any real-life
> > offenses, but convicted for 4 months for downloading alleged (who knows
> > what to believe in this case) "childporn".
> >
> > I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>
> I agree with your doubts about this case and given that GG has not been
> convicted of real-life offences it is possible to argue that his collection
> of images may well have enabled him to release his desires in a relatively
> harmless way - maybe without them we would be hearing of a trial where he
> abused real children.
>
> I think it would be a sign of a great civilisation if we could at least
> imagine a state where images could be used to release dangerous desires and
> even lead to the healing of perverted inclinations rather than screaming and
> punishing and perpetuating the suffering of all the people concerned
>
> One more point: we have entered an age where images need have no basis in
> reality other than 3d modelling and it may already be a mistake to refer to
> real crimes that any images depict. Now where are the thought police?
I find myself thinking, at this point, of the "Dancing Baby"
screensaver.
As the law in the UK currently stands, we are wholly dependent on the
common sense of the Police and the prosecuting authorities. In general,
that's probably far more valuable than it might seem, but it is a
precarious safeguard, especially when a few police officers, etc., can
make a name for themselves by taking action.
Have we so soon forgotten that chappie French, from the Metropolitan
Police Clubs & Vice Squad, with his list of allegedly illegal
newsgroups?
And lets not forget the reason that has been given for treating faked
images in the same way as pictures of reality. The danger, it was
claimed, was that the faked images could be used to persuade children
that acts desired by the paedophile were alright, and not something
wrong. It's difficult to argue against that without professional
knowledge, but if that is the danger, why should simple _possession_ of
a faked image be criminal? It's the use the pictures are put to which
does the damage.
But that's the "Shane" argument, and I can't see the current government
accepting that principle for anything.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
David G. Bell
Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk "Paul Burridge" writes:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:10:38 +0100, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com>
> opined thusly:
>
> |
> | Richard Miller heeft geschreven in bericht ...
> | >In article <382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net>, Alex
> | ><vand...@yahoo.com> writes
> |
> |
> | >>"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
> | >>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
> | >>
> | >>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
> | >>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
> | >
> | >Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54 pictures.
> |
> | That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
> | over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I would
> | asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
> |
> | It makes me think that it's very well possible he had a collection of porn
> | images of a thousand and that 54 of those might have been "childporn"
> | (with one or two being real childporn).
> | The reporters could still say that he had "a thousand large collection
> | of violent pornographic images including hardcore images of children
> | as young as 2 being tortured."
>
> I'll think you'll find they were specimen charges. It's not uncommon
> for defendants to be charged with a handful out of a large number.
And between 1% and 2% of the claimed total.
We never get the full evidence in the press reporting -- did he ask for
the other 3950 offences to be "taken into consideration"?
It's a long time since that was explained to me, but I've long
understood that the reason for doing that was to close the file on the
other offences, without going through all the paperwork of charges for
each and every one.
Or do they do things differently now?
David G. Bell
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:36:56 -0000, Andrew R. Gillett
> <arga...@fatal-design.com> blethered:
>
> >In uk.media.newspapers, JAF wrote:
> >> When/if you discern what I meant, you might like to think about how the
> >> victims portrayed in the photographs are just as much victims of Garry
> >> Glitter, and people like him, who purchase the material, as of the
> >> perpetrators themselves?
> >
> >I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups - in
> >other words, he didn't pay for them, and probably didn't have any direct
> >dealings with the people who created them.
>
> Oh. So that makes it alright then.
I think it makes a difference.
If that is how the images were distributed, and how GG obtained them,
it's hard to see how he had any influence on the creation of the
pictures. It doesn't make it right, but it does make a different evil,
something worse than mere apathy but short of participating in the
crime.
David G. Bell
> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:16:29 +0100, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Was the "evidence" gathered by the computer repairman in
> >question even legal (there was no search warrant given)
> >or can people's files simply be gone through without necessity
> >when they have some hardware malfunction in their computer
> >system.
>
> My understanding is that it was "PC World" who discovered child porn
> on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the techie involved
> was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this material. Does
> this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for repair that one
> of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff? No one can be sure
> that such personal stuff is archived off the PC before it needs repair (e.g.
> after a video card failure). I find this most worrying. What legal protection
> do I have in the event of a repair techie reading commercially sensitive
> material
> and passing it on to a third party? How can I protect myself (and my customers)> from this invasion of my personal and business confidence by nosey techies?
Check the contract you have with whoever is doing your repairs.
There's no absolute guarantee -- from what I've seen posted today, you
can't expect a contract to be enforced so as to prevent a repair
technician telling the Police about a crime -- but I wouldn't want to
deal with a repair outfit which didn't make a clear statement about data
confidentiality. I'm not sure if they wouldn't need to be registered
under the Data Protection Acts too.
piscary
John O wrote in message <80n1nb$15ht$2...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>
>piscary wrote in message <80n143$rag$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>>Appalled wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>I've read a lot of idiotic posts in the newsgroups, Rosie, but yours
>>>really takes the biscuit for half-baked, badly thought-out nonsense.
>>>
>>
>>Anyway, don't panic. I'm about to unsubscribe. You'll hear no more badly
>>thought out nonsense from me.
>
>
>So: after the mildest of criticisms, you decide to withdraw. Does that
mean
>you concede the point? Or your just off in a sulk?
Neither - just can't be bothered any more. Deadlines to meet. And I don't
write for the Sun:-)
Sorry if I've bored the pants off anyone else with my inadequate outpourings
BTW
>
>
>
Dead Mangled Pigeon
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Dead Mangled Pigeon wrote:
>
>> Anyway, isn't "Gary Glitter" cockney rhyming slang for ... er...
>> something?
>
>It's slang for the rectum. "He kicked him right up his gary".
Yes.
I know.
It rhymes with Shitter.
James Hammerton
> On 14 Nov 1999 19:26:27 +0000, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >So just exactly what would you do with *suspected* child molesters?
> >
> >James
>
> Something only slightly less unpleasant than I'd do to someone who
> reposts 100 lines and then sticks a one line reply at the end of it.
Oops. Sorry about that. I normally do snip things down, but posted
that in a rush and forgot to do so.
Alex
Dave Bird heeft geschreven in bericht <2XwvgJCN...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>In article<382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>XeMu1, Alex
><vand...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
>>just in case and maybe engage in some insider trading, or some
>>good old business espionage?
>
> See my earlier article. You assume he deliberately went and looked
> for wrongdoing, rather than was simply carrying out legitimate
> repair work and stumbled across it (NOT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
> HIS DISCOVERING CRIME MATTER MUCH).
>
> He has a duty of confidentiality to you, right? Not to pry
> unneccessarily and not do disclose what he finds. THE WHOLE
> DUTY IS VOID WHERE YOU COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS. His duty then
> is to report them.
How does he know what's in a graphics file unless he opens it
(or perhaps Gary Glitter had a directory of files saying =>Childporn here<= )
Alex
Alex
Even so, it is very hard to imagine anyone going through all the
directories required whether graphically or in DOS and coming across
anything by accident.
Also, it always seems to be PC World too.
Alex
Arty Smokes
Macabi <mac...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:382eb6c2...@news.cwcom.net...
: On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:16:29 +0100, "Alex"
<vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: My understanding is that it was "PC World" who discovered child
porn
: on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the
techie involved
: was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this
material. Does
: this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for
repair that one
: of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff?
<SNIP>
IMO, this is one of the few interesting points made in this
thread (along with a question about our right to privacy). Since,
as far as I'm aware, none of the contributors were actually at
the trial, I feel it is a waste of time arguing about whether the
sentence was too harsh or too lenient. None of know exactly what
was on GG's hard disk, how exactly he got hold of it or what he
did with it. The media focus on the salacious aspect, when for
all we know, The images could have been downloaded by someone
else using the computer. I realise this is unlikely, but unless
you've heard all the evidence, you've got as much right to argue
about the guilt or innocence of a man as the editor of the Sun,
i.e., none.
In case you jump to the conclusion (wrongly) that I am in favour
of child porn or even a fan of GG's music (God forbid!), let me
clarify that all I am arguing for is a fairer legal system that
includes anonymity of the accused as well as the alleged victim,
and a press ban on reporting trials until their conclusion. The
privacy angle also needs clarifying. Unless someone else has
planted something dodgy on my computer (and it can happen when
you accidentally click on a web link to an unmarked porn site
especially sites with pop-up windows) then I don't think I've got
anything to fear. But if the police wanted to search my hard disk
for incriminating evidence they would need to apply for a
warrant. Why is it that if you take your PC elsewhere (e.g. PC
World) the authorities can do what they like? Does the law say
something like "If you take your computer to be mended, the
service engineer can have a good look at whatever you've got
stored on it."? I'm sure many people wouldn't want the bloke down
PC World seeing their personal or company accounts.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to get that off my chest.
Would appreciate a lawyer's comments.
--
Regards,
Arty ;-//)
Arty Smokes
John O <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80mhvr$ob5$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
:
: Marge Proops wrote in message <80m24r$nq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
: >In article <iKQtOIg4MFAMI3...@4ax.com>, JAF
: ><j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> wrote:
: >>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 14:10:49 GMT, Marge Proops
: >><marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:
:
: <snip>
:I hope they will have learned their lesson at least
: >for a week or two.
:
: It would appear not. I have just returned from the newsagent,
where I
: espied both the NoW and Sunday Mirror carrying lurid frontpage
allegations
: of underage sex that GG is meant to have had.
:
: Question:
:
: If they had this information before, why the hell did they not
pass it to
: the police?
:
They should have (and indeed may have - I didn't read them today)
but to publish them earlier could have been deemed prejudicial to
the ongoing case. It would have been in contempt of court, and
the case may even had to have been dropped. Whether some photos
of Glitter on holiday talking to children could be used as
"evidence" is debatable, but as I said, I haven't read the
articles. Maybe they contain sworn oaths or something, but it's
more likely to be the usual mixture of slur and innuendo that the
tabloids drag up.
--
Regards,
Arty ;-//)
Dave Bird
XeMu1, Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> writes:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Dead Mangled Pigeon wrote:
>
>> Anyway, isn't "Gary Glitter" cockney rhyming slang for ... er...
>> something?
>
>It's slang for the rectum. "He kicked him right up his gary".
Is the phrase about kicking him right up the shitter
a later derivation from "Gary Glitter",
or did Paul Gadd get his stage-name from that phrase?
Dave Bird
I just keep thinking of that scene in Dr Stangelove where
Sellers, as the British Airforce officer, asks the base guard
to break open a coa-cola machine and get a quarter for the
payphone, and the guard keeps calling him a "prevert".
Dave Bird
<j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> writes:
>In the case of Paul Gadd, the sentence should have been longer, IMO,
how long do you think is an appropriate sentence
for possession of obscene images?
>though for some so-called crimes, prison should only be seen as a last
>resort.
fried
>mind?
Of course we are, and where we haven't, we invent it.
The justification, which has already cropped up on this thread, is more to
do with economics than individual guilt (supply and demand).
The logical trend, of which this case is the augury, is to assess people's
states of mind by accessing their computer memories. If they step over a
certain line, the warning lights will flash.
The serious point made further up this thread is that individual volition is
becoming increasingly irrelevant. I expect we will find out if GG made good
on his fantasies in due course. I think I have already heard that he DID pay
for the porn. But if he hadn't, then any suppression of the expression of
his allegedly grotesque urges (again, from the sounds of his childhood, the
result of criminal irresponsibility towards him by the authorities in his
own childhood) would by this case be shown to be an entire waste of time on
his part. His life would be wrecked no matter how hard he tried to fight
them.
The sycophancy of this debate is to me pretty hard to take. Those who bleat
loudest about the sacrosanctness of the child's interests are normally those
who are involved in producing the conditions where monstrous urges develop
as a child grows up.
Julian
Andy Mabbett
<sam.b...@usa.net> writes
>I'm sure if you went through
>any sizeable collection of computer images you would find one or
>two 'dodgy' ones.
If you mean "illegal pedophile material", I doubt it; but I have seen
one police officer countering such a defence with the analogy that
possession of 100os of Aspirin does not mitigate the possession of an
ounce of Heroin.
--
Andy Mabbett
"If they censure you, they tell you to cut it out.
If they censor you, they just cut it out."
Andy Mabbett
>in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
>fact the defendant never held a camera?
Regardless of the serious nature of the images concerned, and the
offence committed, I'm concerned that someone has been convicted,
probably contrary to the intentions of Parliament when it passed the
law.
Also, isn't it likely that Glitter/ Gadd could have the conviction
quashed on appeal (possibly to Europe) whereas a lesser, yet still
serious, charge would stand?
Andy Mabbett
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes
[PC World "snooping"]
>In other words, the
>antics of the putative repair man were less than wholly authorised,
Today's Mail on Sunday claims that Glitter/ Gadd expressly forbade PC
World to examine his files.
> and
>ISTR from the Computer Misuse Act that it is an imprisonable, criminal
>offence to get unauthorised access to another's data.
>
>>Having found the pictures, I think he was duty bound to
>>bring them to the attention of the authorities.
>
>Certainly, but it does rather beg the question of why the PC World
>hacker wasn't also prosecuted. In American law -- and possibly at
>European Law -- such searches would be a violation of human rights
>and any evidence gained thereby would be considered inadmissible.
An interesting conundrum. Suppose a repair man is in someone's bedroom-
legitimately - and opens a drawer, finding a kilo of Heroin. Should they
report that to the Police, or not? Should the Police act in that
information, or not? Should the owner be convicted?
Andy Mabbett
freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>Bear in mind, however, that if you are really arguing that 'anything is
>>justified in the crackdown on child porn',
>
>Afraid I am, yes.
So, enforced castration of all males pre- puberty?
If not, perhaps you'd like to re-think your above answer, and tell us
where you draw your personal line.
[...]
>>Do you think it OK for plod to knock on your door at any time of day or
>>night, ask you to boot up your pc and do a search on *.jpg?
>
>Wouldn't bother me, mate.
Ever heard of Pastor Niemoller?
> Friends of mine, who are teachers,
>tell me that if a child falls over in the playground nowadays, it is
>considered too much of a risk to offer comfort by giving the infant a cuddle
>and a toffee - in case the parents accuse and subsequently sue for child
>abuse. It's a great pity that a kind-hearted adult should feel restricted
>in this way....and the kids lose out, too.
Quite. It's a direct result of the "anything is justified..." mentality.
>The reason the fear exists, BTW, in case you've lost sight of it, is because
>of tossers like Mr. Glitter and his fellows - there seem to be quite a few
>of them about.
How odes he and his like make teachers afraid to console?
Andy Mabbett
<Ric...@flatmodel.nospam.net> writes
>Suppose I collected photographs of people being killed in wars, atrocities,
>executions etc. I'd say that would indicate that I had a bit of a screw
>loose, but would I be jailed for having them? I doubt it.
No; but you could go and by them in HMV, or many other High Street
shops.
Andy Mabbett
<Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>| That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
>| over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I would
>| asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
>I'll think you'll find they were specimen charges.
My thoughts, too, initially, but why 54 - why not a round 50, or even,
say, 20?
Andy Mabbett
Gillett <arga...@fatal-design.com> writes
>I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups
The Mail on Sunday, today, "names" three websites where he supposedly
downloaded them - "Lolita" and "Pink Petals" [1] being he only two I can
recall.
[1] I'll surf gardening web sites with more care from now on...
Andy Mabbett
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes
>>What person by is meant "the prevert"?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>After he has been released, will he be a postvert?
No, an ex- convert
(Ithangyew)
Andy Mabbett
<j...@jaf.NOSPAMco.uk> writes
>He is an accessory to the rape, through the act of purchasing
>photographs of it.
Can you quote a statute to support that assertion? Or suggest why he was
not so charged?
ian potter
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:36:56 -0000, Andrew R. Gillett
><arga...@fatal-design.com> wrote:
>
>>In uk.media.newspapers, JAF wrote:
>>> When/if you discern what I meant, you might like to think about how the
>>> victims portrayed in the photographs are just as much victims of Garry
>>> Glitter, and people like him, who purchase the material, as of the
>>> perpetrators themselves?
>>
>>I was told by my radio that he downloaded the images from newsgroups - in
>>other words, he didn't pay for them, and probably didn't have any direct
>>dealings with the people who created them.
>
>I heard and read that he'd 'purchased them on the internet'.
You should probably bear in mind that in media-speak purchase/obtain
(in addition to brunette/blonde, alleged/guilty) are interchangable.
If anyone notices later, the correction with be in 2pt type at the
bottom of column four on p32.
ian.
Alex Buell
> Yes. I know. It rhymes with Shitter.
Ah OK. I was just hoping to benefit y'all with the depth of my knowledge.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Legalise cannabis today! Got GnuPG? Ask me for public key.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - updated!
Tim Martin
Arty Smokes <ar...@banshee.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80n5k5$q56$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Why is it that if you take your PC elsewhere (e.g. PC
> World) the authorities can do what they like? Does the law say
> something like "If you take your computer to be mended, the
> service engineer can have a good look at whatever you've got
> stored on it."?
A while ago, there were stories of photo developing services routinely
checking pictures for evidence of child pornography. One couple found that,
when collecting family pictures including some with dad bathing the baby,
they were met by the police who'd been alerted by the shop. (The police had
not seen the pictures before they arrived.)
Maybe these routine checks have now been extended to include simple checks
of computer disks returned for repair at large stores. If that were the
case, then the customer would of course being paying for the time the store
spends on these checks.
Tim
stevosbaldhead
"David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:942603...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
> In article <382ee101...@news.freeserve.co.uk>
> Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk "Paul Burridge" writes:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:10:38 +0100, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com>
> > opined thusly:
> >
> > |
> > | Richard Miller heeft geschreven in bericht ...
> > | >In article <382d1f02$0$23...@reader3.casema.net>, Alex
> > | ><vand...@yahoo.com> writes
> > |
> > |
> > | >>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
> > | >>
> > | >>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
> > | >>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
> > | >
> > | >Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54
pictures.
> > |
> > | That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
> > | over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I
would
> > | asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
> > |
porn
> > | images of a thousand and that 54 of those might have been "childporn"
> > | (with one or two being real childporn).
> > | The reporters could still say that he had "a thousand large collection
> > | of violent pornographic images including hardcore images of children
> > | as young as 2 being tortured."
> >
> > I'll think you'll find they were specimen charges. It's not uncommon
> > for defendants to be charged with a handful out of a large number.
>
> And between 1% and 2% of the claimed total.
>
> We never get the full evidence in the press reporting -- did he ask for
> the other 3950 offences to be "taken into consideration"?
>
> It's a long time since that was explained to me, but I've long
> understood that the reason for doing that was to close the file on the
> other offences, without going through all the paperwork of charges for
> each and every one.
>
> Or do they do things differently now?
>
>
>
> --
> David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
>
>
Correct me if im wrong.
stevosbaldhead
Tim Martin <comp...@compunola.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:382f47bd$0$24...@diablo.uninet.ee...
pictures to boots. she was cleared without going to court.
Alexander Baron
De...@Beat.com "Dead Mangled Pigeon" writes:
> For example, should a 50 year old man be punished in the same way for the
> same crime as a fourteen year old boy?
I believe there are special circumstances for men under 23.
>
> And what if the girl consented?
She can't consent, that's the point.
--
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
Alexander Baron
>How can I protect myself (and my customers)
> from this invasion of my personal and business confidence by nosey techies?
Repair the machine yourself. Presumably you keep regular backups so you
wouldn't lose much.
Richard Miller
<vand...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
>>>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
>>
>>Since he has pleaded guilty to 54 counts, you can believe 54 pictures.
>
>That's something else. If only 54 pictures were worth charging him
>over while he apparently had a "collection" of a thousand, then I would
>asume that most of those weren't "childporn", however defined.
>
count. You charge with sample counts. I for one certainly believe that
he had an extensive collection of which the majority at least were child
porn.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<Mr_...@porkies.com> writes
>>I think there are lots of questions about this case.
>>
>How does GG bonking a 14 y/o girl warrant prosecution while Bill
>Whyman bonking a 13 y/o girl get ignored?
Because Bill Wyman still (when it became public) earned millions in
revenue for the UK balance of payments, whereas GG is just a washed up
has-been. (Albeit a washed-up has-been whose gang show was one of the
best gigs I have been to.)
--
Richard Miller
shaun
<ar...@banshee.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> None of know exactly what
>was on GG's hard disk,
Yes we do....
He had a series of (about 4000) numbers which when represented in
base 10,would be a few thousand decimal digits long....
What has that to do with sexual offences.. ?
If he actually _has_ abused any kids, then chop of his bollocks or
worse I say....... But did he ? Has he ?
The only case where he _was_ accused of physical, actual abuse, he
was found *innocent* but he is now a sex offender, when it was not
proven that he sexually assaulted anyone himself.......
I am currently unsure of the wisdom of condemning an individual for
looking at the crimes of another.......
Regards,
Shaun.
Charles Bryant
piscary <pis...@rosie92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Call me an hysterical female but with regard to child cruelty/abuse it
>should be far more important that the evidence WAS obtained - not how this
>was achieved. Personally, I'd stoop as low as was necessary if that gave me
>the power to prevent a child from undergoing a marked degree of suffering -
>particularly if that suffering was a turn on for certain, sick individuals.
>Wouldn't you?
Well...
> Friends of mine, who are teachers,
>tell me that if a child falls over in the playground nowadays, it is
>considered too much of a risk to offer comfort by giving the infant a cuddle
>and a toffee - in case the parents accuse and subsequently sue for child
>abuse. It's a great pity that a kind-hearted adult should feel restricted
>in this way....and the kids lose out, too.
you already seem to think that the price for this protection is that
the kids lose out. How much are you willing to make the kids lose?
Richard Watts
Richard Miller <rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>How about the highly misleading phrase "making pictures" used
>>in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
>>fact the defendant never held a camera?
>>
>it somewhat unclear as to what he actually did.
Given the court of appeals case which, I think, was the previous day or so,
as I understand it (IANAL), for him to plead not guilty to producing them
but guilty to posession would simply be to invite a higher sentence.
[snip]
>>The BBC at
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_518000/518175.stm
>>
>>has the following comments:
>>"Child care campaigners have criticised Gary Glitter's four
>>month jail sentence for downloading child porn from the
>>internet as too lenient".
>
>Personally, on what I have heard of the pictures, I think the sentence
>was about right.
Agreed.
[snip]
>>Glen Smyth of the Metropolitan Police Federation said
>>"It seems you get more for animal cruelty than you do for
>>crimes against kids".
.. and this is entirely typical of the kind of bollocks spouted by the
police on these occasions. I'm not sure why the mention of the phrase `child
pornography' turns sensible, sober police officers into foaming-mouthed
maniacs, but it does seem to (I recall, in particular, a report on one of
the early internet porn conferences, where some European (Dutch?) police
officer showed a series of child porn pictures in an attempt to persuade
people to censor the 'net, after which it was pointed out that none of them
had, in fact, come from the 'net at alll..).
>>
>>Even though neither (dealing or crimes against kids) were
>>seemingly perpetrated by the defendant.
>
>Indeed. There is a lot of wilful misinterpretation going on here.
Agreed.
>>
>>
>>I would like to question why anyone should go to jail
>>for downloading anything? Especially when downloading
>>can mean simply leaving your browser's cache on.
>
>Because you cannot possess obscene material unless someone has created
>it. And the material was created, it seems, by the sadistic abuse of
>children. It is therefore legitimate - and important - to try to stamp
>out the demand for these pictures in order to protect children.
You're going to have to have a very strange sense of causation to
avoid having this argument apply to violent TV cop shows and murder,
though.
[snip]
>porn, where no real child has ever been involved. Sick it may be, but it
>is more difficult to justify it as a criminal offence on a logical
>basis.
Quite.
[snip]
>>"... jailed for four months after admitting to a collection
>>of 4,000 hardcore photographs of children being abused."
>>
>>If you can't believe reports about "making pictures", what
>>are you supposed to believe about this collection?
Anything from:
1. He had 4k pictures of child porn, and the CPS decided not
to bring 4k charges because that would be silly.
to
2. Some muppet at PC World found the pictures and reported
him to the police. The police wasted a lot of time and effort
publicising and investigating this high-profile case before
it was pointed out to them that this was pretty much all
`normal' hardcore stuff. They then found the 54 pictures that
featured models with small breasts who might look like children,
and charged him on that basis because they needed to justify
the cost of their investigation (cf. Spanner).
I suspect it's 70% (1)/30% (2).
[snip]
>believe them too. As for the actual content, the BBC said bondage and
>torture pictures of children from 2 to 10. You'll have to make up your
>own mind whether you believe that.
.. especially given that I imagine it comes from a police press
release. I'm afraid that given the police's record so far, I'm not
overly inclined to take it as gospel.
Richard.
--
Death to false nettles !
Richard Watts
>>
>>piscary wrote in message <80m2a2$1e5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>>
[snip]
>>>However, the general theme that I am detecting rather more consistently is
>>a) people appalled at what he did coupled with b) a genuine concern at how
>>the evidence was obtained.
>
>Call me an hysterical female but with regard to child cruelty/abuse it
>should be far more important that the evidence WAS obtained - not how this
>was achieved.
The trouble with this argument, as Neimoller observed, is that
you inevitably end up with a pile of dead bodies, rivers running
red with innocent blood and a rather embarrassed police officer
muttering `but I was _sure_ they were trying to corrupt the world'.
In this particular case, I think it's pretty spurious - implicit
authority was arguably given. If the files were in a folder marked
`private/really/no don't go in here' and the tech did without
a need to do so, a telling-off is probably in order.
>Personally, I'd stoop as low as was necessary if that gave me
>the power to prevent a child from undergoing a marked degree of suffering -
>particularly if that suffering was a turn on for certain, sick individuals.
That is, of course, your right. But there has to be a price, or everyone
will go around doing anything they like in the name of preventing potential
suffering.
>Wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. And then I'd spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't
think there's any better way. And incidentally, once the photos have been
taken, that's not causing suffering (unless, of course, you walk up to the
child in question, start shoving these photos in his face and tell him to
feel bad about it, whereupon he (or she) will).
[snip]
>>if we want a society in which it is NOT acceptable for any Tom, Dick or
>>Harry to go snooping around your affairs, fundamental principles of privacy
>>need to be defended.
>
>Are we to be selective, then, in the guarding of our coveted fundamental
>principles of privacy?
Do we have a choice ?
>Or, would you say that there could possibly be a
>couple of privacy principles we might be able to dispense with so that our
>children can be protected by the legal ones?
That's how it usually starts, yes. And then we get new offences
aimed solely at making prosecution easier, and pretty soon we're at
the stage where I'm honestly starting to wonder when I'm going to find
the police at my front door to arrest me for some spurious offence
because one of them objected to one of my usenet posts.
[snip]
>>Bear in mind, however, that if you are really arguing that 'anything is
>>justified in the crackdown on child porn',
>
>Afraid I am, yes.
Fine. I suspect you of abusing your children, and demand that you
be imprisoned for six months whilst I conduct an investigation.
[snip]
>>Do you think it OK for plod to knock on your door at any time of day or
>>night, ask you to boot up your pc and do a search on *.jpg?
Or ask you to prove that you don't have a particular piece of
information :-).
>
>Wouldn't bother me, mate.
Really ? Maybe les could pop 'round at 6pm every day just in case,
then :-).
>Most of what's on my p.c. has either been
>published or is intended for public view, anyway:-) There are a couple of
>very bad poems, written while under the affluence of incohol, which I could
>be embarrassed by, but that's about it.
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear except people
who think that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear :-).
[snip]
>and a toffee - in case the parents accuse and subsequently sue for child
>abuse. It's a great pity that a kind-hearted adult should feel restricted
>in this way....and the kids lose out, too.
But, by your own arguments, this is anything and therefore it's
justified.
>The reason the fear exists, BTW, in case you've lost sight of it, is because
>of tossers like Mr. Glitter and his fellows - there seem to be quite a few
>of them about. Must be something in the water.
Actually, I think that if anything there are probably fewer of them than
there used to be - it's just that paedophilia is the subject of current
social hysteria. Next decade it'll be something else - computer viruses,
probably.
Alex
Alexander Baron heeft geschreven in bericht <942607...@abaron.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <382eb6c2...@news.cwcom.net> mac...@cwcom.net "Macabi" writes:
>
>
>>How can I protect myself (and my customers)
>> from this invasion of my personal and business confidence by nosey techies?
>
>Repair the machine yourself. Presumably you keep regular backups so you
>wouldn't lose much.
I agree with your alternative, but certainly there is a point about the
unauthorized access to data files when access isn't specifically
authorized?
Of course, if you want to keep files secret, there is such a thing
as EMF or Scramdisk, but the point is, why was this repairman not
reprimanded for checking private files or why were his "findings"
allowed as evidence?
Alex
shaun
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:36:56 -
>I heard and read that he'd 'purchased them on the internet'.
The beneficiary to his "purchases" perhaps being a company such as
British Telecom, etc. at 1p per minute......... Or someone owning a
news server maybe......
I have two children, a girl aged 5 (named Sarah) and boy, (aged 8)
named Nathan. It seems Everyone is currently in a gross panic about
the fact that kids like mine cannot be left away from those closer to
them, because they may be abused by the likes of Gary Glitter (who
incidentally has never been proven to have physically abused anyone)
is bloody barmy....
Especially as the state itself is doing NOTHING about it, apart from
instilling unhelpful fear and panic in people, and then promiting
that as an excuse to impose greater restrictions on what people may,
or may not do, with the media.......
I remember a time when the government really DID seemed to care about
children.... I remember a time, when they paid money to broadcast the
'Say No to Strangers'/ 'Green Cross code' films on ITV (and the BBC
also broadcast them as 'public information films...) I remember when
school buildings used to looked respectable, instead of some large
scale epitome of a slum you'd expect to see in a ghetto.. The state of
our local primary school buildings.... I sometimes wonder if I am
doing the right thing allowing my kids to stay there on health
grounds..
I remember a time, when people where punished for _what they did_
rather than what they looked at........
Hey, all you fellow parents out there..... PLEASE REMEMBER
if was legal to do what gary glitter (for whatever reason) was
convicted of doing, then we could (if we wished to) freely analyse
and judge the situation for ourselves.... and then contribute to a
more democratic consensus about the scale of what must be a problem.
and how best to deal with it... As it stands, we would be put in
prison instead, if we tried to judge the situation for our(individual)
selves... Even though the means to do so, is within the grasp of all
those who are likely to read this before the end of this week........
Regards,
Shaun.
Richard Watts
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:16:29 +0100, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
[snip]
>on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the techie involved
>was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this material. Does
>this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for repair that one
>of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff?
IANAL, but frankly, I don't think any contract is going to protect
you from this: even if they were in breach of contract, suing isn't
really a viable option (and the damages you'd get likely wouldn't
compensate you anyway), and if they get convicted of a criminal
offence, your data's still been nicked.
PGP and its free cousin GPG are the obvious solutions: quick,
easy, fairly bullet-proof and cheap.
If you're feeling really paranoid, buy a new hard disk and swap
hard disks before taking the machine in for repair[1].
Richard.
[1] And if you're _really_ paranoid, have a look at Peter Gutmann's
paper on deleting information from magnetic disks[2] :-).
[2] Executive summary: put disk in hole. Add explosive. Cover with
earth. Detonate.
Ian Shuttleworth
(Alex) wrote:
> How about the highly misleading phrase "making pictures" used
> in the media - isn't that prejudicial in and of itself, when in
> fact the defendant never held a camera?
It's used in the law, which as far as I can see is phrased in such a way
that merely decoding bog-standard MIME-type data in order to view it as an
image can come under the definition of "making a picture".
Ian S.
Alex
piscary heeft geschreven in bericht <80m2a2$1e5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Alex wrote in message <382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>...
>
>>Thinking about it, what if Gary Glitter wasn't some rocker,
>
>Or some ordinary, if slightly weird, unknown punter who had been caught in
>possession, so to speak. Would there then have been so much publicity or
>debate? I think not.
>
>but the CEO
>>of a technology company with some highly valuable patents or ideas
>>or contracts on his HD.
>>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
>
>It's human nature to snoop. Isn't that what most of us do for a living - to
>greater or lesser degree - before passing on gathered info. to anyone else
>who might be interested?
>
>I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be defending
>Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
>curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
>would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
>satisfy depraved appetites.
I suppose they wouldn't be remotely as concerned by anyone viewing
these images as they would be about the manufacture of them.
And I think that's what gets lost along the line - you don't ever seem
to hear about any _real_ child pornographers (i.e., makers and sellers of)
prepubescent child pornography being caught/jailed/persued, which should
be _the priority_.
Instead, they opt for easy targets and answers. And what has been
achieved by the jailing of Gary Glitter?
What I personally dislike is that the media worldwide never contextualize
the extent of the threat statistically - what percentage of society are
murderers, what percentage of those who are kill more than once and
how many kill children (horrific enough).
Instead, they go for a "reds under the bed" type of hysteria and anyone
who tries to contextualize the threat is hit with the "one case is too many" line
or becomes supsected of "being one of them" (fill in: communist, witch, etc.).
>Regarding the underage sex - unlawful intercourse happens every Saturday
>night, somewhere - we've all met promiscuous fourteen year olds who look and
>try to behave as if they were twenty five. This particular instance would
>not have such sinister connotations had the perpetrator not been caught
>dabbling in child pornography.
But if he was really a pedophile, wouldn't he have ditched her when or before
she turned 18, instead of continuing their relationship until she was 26?
Just more questions, I suppose.
Alex
Dave Mayall
Baron) wrote:
>In article <80mr07$auc$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>
> De...@Beat.com "Dead Mangled Pigeon" writes:
>> And what if the girl consented?
>
>She can't consent, that's the point.
Of course she can consent, it is merely that a girl under 16 is deemed
incapable of giving valid consent.
--
Dave Mayall
David Swarbrick
<aud...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>Well....as I suggested in my first reply to you, you did appear to have put
>your finger on a very live issue - that is, the point at which society needs
>to balance the rights of the accused and of individuals in general against
>the rights of potential victims.
The change is due to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Before
that, the law was intended (contrary to what was said in the judgement
on which GG pleaded) not, as it were, to catch the wankers, but to catch
those who originated the material. This was discussed at length in
parliament.
CJPOA altered this so that an image created which had not involved a
child could be the subject of prosecution. In effect, the change was
fundamental, allowing the prosecution of the said unfortunates.
--
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.
Alexander Baron
rough...@no1house99.freeserve.co.uk "stevosbaldhead" writes:
> I believe Dr Shipman has only been charged with a percentage of his crimes.
> Correct me if im wrong.
You are wrong; he has been charged with 16 alleged crimes including 15 murders.
Alexander Baron
ar...@banshee.fsnet.co.uk "Arty Smokes" writes:
>
> Macabi <mac...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> news:382eb6c2...@news.cwcom.net...
> : On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:16:29 +0100, "Alex"
> <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : My understanding is that it was "PC World" who discovered child
> porn
> : on Glitter's PC when he took it in for repair. Presumably, the
> techie involved
> : was riffling through the PC's file system and discovered this
> material. Does
> : this mean that if I take my business PC to "PC World" for
> repair that one
> : of their techies might read commercially sensitive stuff?
What if you take in your car for repair and the mechanic finds a body
in the boot. Is he supposed to ignore it?
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>In article<382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>XeMu1, Alex
><vand...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
>>just in case and maybe engage in some insider trading, or some
>>good old business espionage?
>
> See my earlier article. You assume he deliberately went and looked
> for wrongdoing, rather than was simply carrying out legitimate
> repair work and stumbled across it (NOT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
> HIS DISCOVERING CRIME MATTER MUCH).
Er, uh, why would he need to be looking at cached .jpg files in order
to carry out repairs?
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indis-
tinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<ar...@banshee.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Why is it that if you take your PC elsewhere (e.g. PC
>World) the authorities can do what they like? Does the law say
>something like "If you take your computer to be mended, the
>service engineer can have a good look at whatever you've got
>stored on it."? I'm sure many people wouldn't want the bloke down
>PC World seeing their personal or company accounts.
>Sorry for the long post, but I had to get that off my chest.
>Would appreciate a lawyer's comments.
I'm sure you're right. But PC World apparently think they have a
right not merely to explore your cache for their own entertainment,
but to recover deleted material as well, from all reports.
I'd certainly like to know _all_ the details of the case to find out
just how many of these images were retrieved rather than merely found
by the tech, where they were, how they were (claimed to have been)
acquired by GG, and of course what they actually were.
I wouldn't take my computer to PC World for repairs under any
circumstances; thank god there are ways to avoid this sort of thing.
When you think about it, it's ironic that the only reason the tech was
likely to have been looking at GG's cache in the first place was for
his own prurient interest....
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<pis...@rosie92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Alex wrote in message <382e0e07$0$28...@reader1.casema.net>...
>
>>Thinking about it, what if Gary Glitter wasn't some rocker,
>
>Or some ordinary, if slightly weird, unknown punter who had been caught in
>possession, so to speak. Would there then have been so much publicity or
>debate? I think not.
Quite right - another recent conviction of a teacher under similar
circumstances certainly hasn't garnered this sort of press.
>but the CEO
>>of a technology company with some highly valuable patents or ideas
>>or contracts on his HD.
>>Would it be acceptable for some repairman to snoop through those,
>
>It's human nature to snoop. Isn't that what most of us do for a living - to
>greater or lesser degree - before passing on gathered info. to anyone else
>who might be interested?
If I get a plumber in to fix my heater, I don't expect him to be
riflling through my underwear drawer. Yes, it may occur to him that I
might have some very sexy underwear, but should that be his excuse in
court? "But your Honour, it's human nature to snoop!" Yeah, right.
>I'd like to know if the participants of this thread who seem to be defending
>Mr. Gadd's right to view, have any children of their own. Just out of
>curiosity...you understand.....just trying to work out if they think it
>would be O.K. for *their* kids to be photographed being abused in order to
>satisfy depraved appetites.
So, you won't mind if we go through all your things, will you?
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<pis...@rosie92.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I totally agree with you, on that one. Friends of mine, who are teachers,
>tell me that if a child falls over in the playground nowadays, it is
>considered too much of a risk to offer comfort by giving the infant a cuddle
>and a toffee - in case the parents accuse and subsequently sue for child
>abuse. It's a great pity that a kind-hearted adult should feel restricted
>in this way....and the kids lose out, too.
But it's just this sort of hysteria that is creating that situation.
We are going to raise a generation of children who don't get cuddled
and comforted, who feel unloved, because we have promoted that fear.
>The reason the fear exists, BTW, in case you've lost sight of it, is because
>of tossers like Mr. Glitter and his fellows - there seem to be quite a few
>of them about. Must be something in the water.
No, it's _not_ because of "Mr. Glitter", it's because of people who
think that absolutely anything goes when it comes to chasing down
child porn.
I'm speaking as someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, and I
tell you three times that _there are worse things_, and what is
happening in the name of "protecting children" is one of them.
There is simply no point in protecting children if adults don't also
deserve to have their rights and freedoms protected. If our children
are going to grow up to be oppressed, they might as well learn how to
cope with it early.
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>I had a real dilemma not so long ago when a friend took a couple of very
>cute photos of her just out of a bath.
>
>We ended up having a long discussion of whether we ought to get the film
>developed....you would understand why. Personally, I find it distressing in
>itself that such a level of fear can exist now with regard to experiences
>that are totally innocent.
So do I. You should be able to cherish your daughter's childhood
instead of worrying what some prude will think about it.
I think someday, if you get them developed, your daughter will be very
glad to have those pictures when she grows up. I know I prize every
photo my parents took of me and I wish I had more of them - and more
with no clothes on.
I suggest finding a friend who has a darkroom and getting the film
developed and prints made.
ave...@thirdworld.uk
Bell") wrote:
>> I'll think you'll find they were specimen charges. It's not uncommon
>> for defendants to be charged with a handful out of a large number.
>
>And between 1% and 2% of the claimed total.
>
>We never get the full evidence in the press reporting -- did he ask for
>the other 3950 offences to be "taken into consideration"?
>
>It's a long time since that was explained to me, but I've long
>understood that the reason for doing that was to close the file on the
>other offences, without going through all the paperwork of charges for
>each and every one.
>
>Or do they do things differently now?
I think you'll find that the reverse also happens. Remember that guy
who supposedly had "900 pieces of child porn"? He had a huge
collection of ordinary porn, and a couple of the images were what
could be called "kiddie porn", it turned out. But we never heard that
part, did we?
I put it to you that someone who is a collector of ordinary adult porn
and has an enormous collection that contains only a few child porn
images may have acquired the latter inadvertently as a by-product of
trying to find adult material.
I wonder how easy it would be to accidentally encounter all sorts of
material one might not be looking for if it was being conflated with
other material that was similar in some respects but dissimilar in
those respects that were important to you. If you were looking for
sexual images of ten-year-olds, say, how many images of toddlers and
young teenagers (or even older teenagers) might you also find? If you
were looking for pictures of 14-year-olds, how carefully would they be
classified to distinguish them from images of toddlers or older
teenagers? I note that some porn dealers use the terms "teen" or
"teenies" to indicate that he women pictured are under 30; I suspect
that a lot of dealers may be similarly vague in how they classify
their material. Maybe I'd need to download 4,000 images in order to
find 54 samples of the rarer sort of thing I was looking for, but I
might also find that I inadvertently was downloading 54 images I
definitely did not want anything to do with while looking for
something else altogether.
If you think about it a minute, how long do you expect it would take
to locate 4,000 separate images of extreme child porn?
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dxeX3.14116$bp3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net>, Sam Butler
><sam.b...@usa.net> writes
>
>>I'm sure if you went through
>>any sizeable collection of computer images you would find one or
>>two 'dodgy' ones.
>
>If you mean "illegal pedophile material", I doubt it; but I have seen
>one police officer countering such a defence with the analogy that
>possession of 100os of Aspirin does not mitigate the possession of an
>ounce of Heroin.
Really? Did he know where people buy aspirin?
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>The sycophancy of this debate is to me pretty hard to take. Those who bleat
>loudest about the sacrosanctness of the child's interests are normally those
>who are involved in producing the conditions where monstrous urges develop
>as a child grows up.
You are, I'm afraid, exactly right.