Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Excerpts from films not child porn: judge
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Cub Reporter
Nov 10, 2011, 6:46:02 AM11/10/11
to
Convicted paedophile's trial abandoned after he tells court 'indecent'
videos of children were recorded from terrestrial television
Judge Tabor: 'I understand there was no question of them coming from
pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could have
seen'
By Hugo Gye
Daily Mail, UK: 10 November 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059729/Convicted-paedophiles-trial-abandoned-tells-court-indecent-videos-children-taken-terrestrial-television.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/7772nd5 ]
A man accused of possessing child pornography has been cleared after a
judge heard his videos were taken from terrestrial TV.
Police who raided the home of convicted sex offender Neil Waters, 50,
found a DVD containing forty excerpts from films which had been
screened on television.
None of the films was pornographic, and they could be legitimately and
legally viewed by the public, Gloucester Crown Court was told.
Judge Jamie Tabor ruled that whatever motive Waters had for gathering
the film clips together, they could not be regarded as indecent within
the meaning of the law.
On hearing his ruling, prosecutor Virgina Cornwall said the Crown
would not continue with the nine charges against Waters of making
indecent images of children between 2008 and 2011.
Waters has been on the sex offender register since 2006 when he was
jailed for child porn offences.
The court heard that following the raid on his home on February 28
this year Waters, who was on parole, was recalled to prison to
continue serving his sentence and he has remained behind bars since
then.
Ms Cornwall told Judge Tabor: 'We invite the court to rule on the
admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
circumstances.
'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
information received, officers attended his home and during a search
found a disc in his shed.
'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had been
taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were also
found and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from them.
They were perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
Judge Tabor said, 'I understand there was no question of them coming
from pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could
have seen.'
Ms Cornwall replied, 'Yes, they were films shown at any time without
restrictions on them which are not pornographic in nature at all. They
are innocuous, generally speaking.'
Waters' lawyer said: 'The defendant has not purchased these images. He
has just taped what has been on TV. Anyone could have recorded them.'
Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
semi-undressed state,' he said.
'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
indecent? They are not.'
Ms Cornwall offered no evidence on the nine charges in the light of
the judge's ruling and Waters was formally found not guilty.
videos of children were recorded from terrestrial television
Judge Tabor: 'I understand there was no question of them coming from
pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could have
seen'
By Hugo Gye
Daily Mail, UK: 10 November 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059729/Convicted-paedophiles-trial-abandoned-tells-court-indecent-videos-children-taken-terrestrial-television.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/7772nd5 ]
A man accused of possessing child pornography has been cleared after a
judge heard his videos were taken from terrestrial TV.
Police who raided the home of convicted sex offender Neil Waters, 50,
found a DVD containing forty excerpts from films which had been
screened on television.
None of the films was pornographic, and they could be legitimately and
legally viewed by the public, Gloucester Crown Court was told.
Judge Jamie Tabor ruled that whatever motive Waters had for gathering
the film clips together, they could not be regarded as indecent within
the meaning of the law.
On hearing his ruling, prosecutor Virgina Cornwall said the Crown
would not continue with the nine charges against Waters of making
indecent images of children between 2008 and 2011.
Waters has been on the sex offender register since 2006 when he was
jailed for child porn offences.
The court heard that following the raid on his home on February 28
this year Waters, who was on parole, was recalled to prison to
continue serving his sentence and he has remained behind bars since
then.
Ms Cornwall told Judge Tabor: 'We invite the court to rule on the
admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
circumstances.
'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
information received, officers attended his home and during a search
found a disc in his shed.
'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had been
taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were also
found and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from them.
They were perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
Judge Tabor said, 'I understand there was no question of them coming
from pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could
have seen.'
Ms Cornwall replied, 'Yes, they were films shown at any time without
restrictions on them which are not pornographic in nature at all. They
are innocuous, generally speaking.'
Waters' lawyer said: 'The defendant has not purchased these images. He
has just taped what has been on TV. Anyone could have recorded them.'
Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
semi-undressed state,' he said.
'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
indecent? They are not.'
Ms Cornwall offered no evidence on the nine charges in the light of
the judge's ruling and Waters was formally found not guilty.
Richard McKenzie
Nov 10, 2011, 6:55:31 AM11/10/11
to
On Nov 10, 11:46 am, Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Convicted paedophile's trial abandoned after he tells court 'indecent'
> videos of children were recorded from terrestrial television
>
> Judge Tabor: 'I understand there was no question of them coming from
> pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could have
> seen'
>
> By Hugo Gye
>
> Daily Mail, UK: 10 November 2011http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059729/Convicted-paedophiles...
> Convicted paedophile's trial abandoned after he tells court 'indecent'
> videos of children were recorded from terrestrial television
>
> Judge Tabor: 'I understand there was no question of them coming from
> pay-per-view TV, but from films any member of the public could have
> seen'
>
> By Hugo Gye
>
> [http://tinyurl.com/7772nd5]
do believe that people with these desires should have some form of
innocent release.
Hey Nigel, have you taken any of your 'dates' to see the Smurfs new
movie, any good? does it explain why Gargamel made Smurette after all
the Smrufs are asexual so its not as though he could of used 'her' in
a form of a honeypot trap.
Jethro
Nov 10, 2011, 6:59:14 AM11/10/11
to
comment. But wasn't one of the striking features of the "extreme porn"
bill, passed a couple of years ago, that it went out of it's way to
remove the defence that a seized image or clip was part of a legitimately
certified work ? Does this ruling impact on that ?
GB
Nov 10, 2011, 7:18:14 AM11/10/11
to
Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>
> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>
> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>
> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>
> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
> indecent? They are not.'
That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>
> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>
> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>
> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>
> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>
> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
> indecent? They are not.'
cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
So, this seems like a win-win situation all round. No children were harmed.
He gets his jollies.
A problem for the parole board, though: does this mean that he is slipping
back into his old ways, or does it mean that he has found a harmless outlet
for his desires?
Mentalguy2k8
Nov 10, 2011, 7:30:06 AM11/10/11
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4ebbc0b3$0$2970$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
> So, this seems like a win-win situation all round. No children were
> harmed. He gets his jollies.
Agreed.
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
> So, this seems like a win-win situation all round. No children were
> harmed. He gets his jollies.
> A problem for the parole board, though: does this mean that he is slipping
> back into his old ways, or does it mean that he has found a harmless
> outlet for his desires?
keeping an eye on him.
The Todal
Nov 10, 2011, 7:35:55 AM11/10/11
to
> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
He's lucky the images weren't violent within the meaning of the Criminal
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Under that act, a collection of extracts
from mainstream classified films (ie classified by the Board of Censors) can
be illegal. Outrageous but true.
64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1)Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
(2)An "excluded image" is an image which forms part of a series of images
contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3)But such an image is not an "excluded image" if-(a)it is contained in a
recording of an extract from a classified work, and(b)it is of such a nature
that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or
without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual
arousal.
(4)Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the
recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is
mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to-(a)the
image itself, and(b)(if the series of images is such as to be capable of
providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the
series of images;and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining
that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image
is pornographic.
Jethro
Nov 10, 2011, 7:41:38 AM11/10/11
to
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:18:14 +0000, GB wrote:
> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even if
> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>
>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>
>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>
>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>
>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>> indecent? They are not.'
>
>
> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
that image is a still from a certified film.
Nigel Oldfield
Nov 10, 2011, 8:44:41 AM11/10/11
to
> Though he did nothing wrong it suggests that he is slipping. Though i
> do believe that people with these desires should have some form of
> innocent release.
> Hey Nigel, have you taken any of your 'dates' to see the Smurfs new
> movie, any good? does it explain why Gargamel made Smurette after all
> the Smrufs are asexual so its not as though he could of used 'her' in
> a form of a honeypot trap.
See what I can do.
> do believe that people with these desires should have some form of
> innocent release.
> Hey Nigel, have you taken any of your 'dates' to see the Smurfs new
> movie, any good? does it explain why Gargamel made Smurette after all
> the Smrufs are asexual so its not as though he could of used 'her' in
> a form of a honeypot trap.
WM
jamesd1974
Nov 10, 2011, 9:58:40 AM11/10/11
to
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message news:j9gg4i$12m$1...@dont-email.me...
It means he is still not normal or rehabilitated,
think (which i presume you are), who knows how many hundreds, thousands or
even millions of blokes are out there, finding young girls sexually
attractive but not doing anything about it because they know its wrong?
james
Brave New Britain
Nov 10, 2011, 10:01:45 AM11/10/11
to
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:35:55 -0000, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
>He's lucky the images weren't violent within the meaning of the Criminal
>Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Under that act, a collection of extracts
>from mainstream classified films (ie classified by the Board of Censors) can
>be illegal. Outrageous but true.
>
>64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
>
>(1)Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
>(2)An "excluded image" is an image which forms part of a series of images
>contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
>(3)But such an image is not an "excluded image" if-(a)it is contained in a
>recording of an extract from a classified work, and(b)it is of such a nature
>that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or
>without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual
>arousal.
>(4)Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the
>recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is
>mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to-(a)the
>image itself, and(b)(if the series of images is such as to be capable of
>providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the
>series of images;and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining
>that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image
>is pornographic.
What is an 'extracted image'? What if a complete legal recording is
retained, accompanied by a set of bookmarks indicating where the
'juicy' stuff is? What if the bookmarks are (a) hand written, (b)
machine readable, or (c) machine readable so that a program can
automatically play out the 'interesting' portions of the legal
recording?
--
Brave New Britain
wrote:
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
>He's lucky the images weren't violent within the meaning of the Criminal
>Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Under that act, a collection of extracts
>from mainstream classified films (ie classified by the Board of Censors) can
>be illegal. Outrageous but true.
>
>64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
>
>(1)Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
>(2)An "excluded image" is an image which forms part of a series of images
>contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
>(3)But such an image is not an "excluded image" if-(a)it is contained in a
>recording of an extract from a classified work, and(b)it is of such a nature
>that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or
>without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual
>arousal.
>(4)Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the
>recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is
>mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to-(a)the
>image itself, and(b)(if the series of images is such as to be capable of
>providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the
>series of images;and section 63(5) applies in connection with determining
>that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image
>is pornographic.
retained, accompanied by a set of bookmarks indicating where the
'juicy' stuff is? What if the bookmarks are (a) hand written, (b)
machine readable, or (c) machine readable so that a program can
automatically play out the 'interesting' portions of the legal
recording?
--
Brave New Britain
GB
Nov 10, 2011, 10:14:59 AM11/10/11
to
Jethro wrote:
>>
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even if
> that image is a still from a certified film.
The judge in this case specifically ruled that the images were not indecent.
>>
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even if
> that image is a still from a certified film.
That ruling was based on the images, not on their source.
--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp
GB
Nov 10, 2011, 10:20:43 AM11/10/11
to
attractive. (I don't do anything about it, by the way. Besides, I'm under no
illusions.....) There must be some girls a bit younger than that that are
attractive, and in some countries perfectly legal, too. But I emphasise 'a
bit' younger.
The Todal
Nov 10, 2011, 11:19:24 AM11/10/11
to
news:4ebbea04$0$2968$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
images were on mainstream films/tv.
After all, the test of whether or not an image is indecent is: what's your
feeling about it, as a good upstanding member of society? There are no
guidelines. If you look at a picture of a naked Jenny Agutter in
"Walkabout", you can't honestly say whether that picture is indecent or not.
The word "indecent" has no objective meaning. What you can say is that if
the same picture was of your own daughter in your garden and a neighbour
took it with his camera, that would be considered indecent by most jurors.
> Jethro wrote:
>>>
>>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>>
>> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even if
>> that image is a still from a certified film.
>
> The judge in this case specifically ruled that the images were not
> indecent. That ruling was based on the images, not on their source.
True. But he may have been influenced to some extent by the fact that the
>>>
>>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>>
>> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even if
>> that image is a still from a certified film.
>
> The judge in this case specifically ruled that the images were not
> indecent. That ruling was based on the images, not on their source.
images were on mainstream films/tv.
After all, the test of whether or not an image is indecent is: what's your
feeling about it, as a good upstanding member of society? There are no
guidelines. If you look at a picture of a naked Jenny Agutter in
"Walkabout", you can't honestly say whether that picture is indecent or not.
The word "indecent" has no objective meaning. What you can say is that if
the same picture was of your own daughter in your garden and a neighbour
took it with his camera, that would be considered indecent by most jurors.
Big Les Wade
Nov 10, 2011, 1:12:28 PM11/10/11
to
Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net> posted
[prosecutor]
--
Les
[prosecutor]
>Ms Cornwall told Judge Tabor: 'We invite the court to rule on the
>admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
>circumstances.
>
>'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
>released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
>information received, officers attended his home and during a search
>found a disc in his shed.
>
>'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had been
>taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were also found
>and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from them. They were
>perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
So why did the loathsome, filthy, evil bastards bring the prosecution?
>admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
>circumstances.
>
>'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
>released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
>information received, officers attended his home and during a search
>found a disc in his shed.
>
>'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had been
>taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were also found
>and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from them. They were
>perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
--
Les
Zapp Brannigan
Nov 10, 2011, 4:35:12 PM11/10/11
to
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j9gg4i$12m$1...@dont-email.me...
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>>
>> So, this seems like a win-win situation all round. No children were
>> harmed. He gets his jollies.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> A problem for the parole board, though: does this mean that he is
>> slipping back into his old ways, or does it mean that he has found a
>> harmless outlet for his desires?
>
> It means he is still not normal or rehabilitated, but at least someone is
> keeping an eye on him.
Thirded.
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>>
>> So, this seems like a win-win situation all round. No children were
>> harmed. He gets his jollies.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> A problem for the parole board, though: does this mean that he is
>> slipping back into his old ways, or does it mean that he has found a
>> harmless outlet for his desires?
>
> It means he is still not normal or rehabilitated, but at least someone is
> keeping an eye on him.
Zapp Brannigan
Nov 10, 2011, 4:41:11 PM11/10/11
to
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:$v1lS6DM...@obviously.invalid...
with a recently released sex offender would be likely denounced as
negligence if it later came to light after a tragedy. Now the Judge has
that responsibility.
GB
Nov 10, 2011, 5:41:33 PM11/10/11
to
The Todal wrote:
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4ebbea04$0$2968$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Jethro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>>>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been
>>>> collected.
>>>
>>> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even
>>> if that image is a still from a certified film.
>>
>> The judge in this case specifically ruled that the images were not
>> indecent. That ruling was based on the images, not on their source.
>
> True. But he may have been influenced to some extent by the fact that
> the images were on mainstream films/tv.
>
> After all, the test of whether or not an image is indecent is: what's
> your feeling about it, as a good upstanding member of society? There
> are no guidelines. If you look at a picture of a naked Jenny Agutter
> in "Walkabout", you can't honestly say whether that picture is
> indecent or not.
'The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
> "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4ebbea04$0$2968$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Jethro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent
>>>> images cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been
>>>> collected.
>>>
>>> The extreme porn law makes it on offence to possess an image, even
>>> if that image is a still from a certified film.
>>
>> The judge in this case specifically ruled that the images were not
>> indecent. That ruling was based on the images, not on their source.
>
> True. But he may have been influenced to some extent by the fact that
> the images were on mainstream films/tv.
>
> After all, the test of whether or not an image is indecent is: what's
> your feeling about it, as a good upstanding member of society? There
> are no guidelines. If you look at a picture of a naked Jenny Agutter
> in "Walkabout", you can't honestly say whether that picture is
> indecent or not.
semi-undressed state,' he said.[the Judge]
He might have ruled differently if they had been naked. However, even then
IIRC these images would have been at the very lowest end of the 1-5 scale. I
can't remember the details of teh scale, but I did look briefly when it was
linked to on thsi NG about a year or two ago.
>The word "indecent" has no objective meaning. What
> you can say is that if the same picture was of your own daughter in
> your garden and a neighbour took it with his camera, that would be
> considered indecent by most jurors.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Nov 11, 2011, 6:40:38 PM11/11/11
to
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:12:28 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>So why did the loathsome, filthy, evil bastards bring the prosecution?
They didn't, the CPS did. But the loathsome filthy evil bastards will
take a crumb of comfort from it, to be sure.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
wrote:
>So why did the loathsome, filthy, evil bastards bring the prosecution?
take a crumb of comfort from it, to be sure.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
Alex Heney
Nov 13, 2011, 4:24:15 PM11/13/11
to
>"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:4ebbc0b3$0$2970$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>
>>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>>
>>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>>
>>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>>
>>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>>> indecent? They are not.'
>>
>>
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
>He's lucky the images weren't violent within the meaning of the Criminal
>Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Under that act, a collection of extracts
>from mainstream classified films (ie classified by the Board of Censors) can
>be illegal. Outrageous but true.
>
While the defence pointed out that the images were extracts of
>news:4ebbc0b3$0$2970$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>
>>> Giving his ruling, Judge Tabor said he had viewed a selection of the
>>> clips and they were undoubtedly of children but they would not be
>>> considered by the public to be indecent nowadays - and probably would
>>> not have been seen as indecent even 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> If the case went to trial, he said, the jury would not be allowed to
>>> consider the motivation for Waters making the recordings and the disc.
>>>
>>> The children shown in the clips were 'predominately of children in
>>> semi-undressed state,' he said.
>>>
>>> 'He may well have derived some form of gratification, sexual or
>>> otherwise, by looking at scantily clad young children - for example in
>>> an aboriginal cave talking to their mother.
>>>
>>> 'But if one removes the motivation for making these clips one is left
>>> with the images themselves and one asks oneself objectively are they
>>> indecent? They are not.'
>>
>>
>> That seems entirely reasonable to me. A collection of non-indecent images
>> cannot be made indecent just by dint of having been collected.
>
>He's lucky the images weren't violent within the meaning of the Criminal
>Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Under that act, a collection of extracts
>from mainstream classified films (ie classified by the Board of Censors) can
>be illegal. Outrageous but true.
>
broadcast programmes, and the report picked up on it, that was NOT the
reason for the judge's ruling.
The judge said he had viewed the extracts and did not think they could
be viewed as indecent in today's climate. And that is the reason the
trial was halted.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My hat covers my head... Just like hair used to!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Big Les Wade
Nov 15, 2011, 4:11:34 AM11/15/11
to
Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> posted
people are not compelled to exercise all their powers, and they cannot
escape moral censure for their disgusting actions by saying "I had the
power to do this".
>and any failure to do so with a recently released sex offender would be
>likely denounced as negligence if it later came to light after a
>tragedy.
Typical special pleading. Why are law enforcement officials allowed to
say "Look I had to do this otherwise somebody somewhere might have
criticised me in the future"; whereas the rest of us cannot use that as
an excuse, we are obliged to act *reasonably*.
>Now the Judge has that responsibility.
What tragedy could have ensued from the possession of images taken from
terrestrial TV?
--
Les
>"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:$v1lS6DM...@obviously.invalid...
>> Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net> posted
>> [prosecutor]
>>>Ms Cornwall told Judge Tabor: 'We invite the court to rule on the
>>>admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
>>>circumstances.
>>>
>>>'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
>>>released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
>>>information received, officers attended his home and during a search
>>>found a disc in his shed.
>>>
>>>'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had
>>>been taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were
>>>also found and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from
>>>them. They were perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
>>
>> So why did the loathsome, filthy, evil bastards bring the prosecution?
>
>They're entitled to put the matter before a court,
What you mean is that they had the *power* to put it before a court. But
>news:$v1lS6DM...@obviously.invalid...
>> Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net> posted
>> [prosecutor]
>>>Ms Cornwall told Judge Tabor: 'We invite the court to rule on the
>>>admissibility of these images. They were found in somewhat unusual
>>>circumstances.
>>>
>>>'The defendant was at the time a registered sex offender who had been
>>>released from prison and was living in the community. As a result of
>>>information received, officers attended his home and during a search
>>>found a disc in his shed.
>>>
>>>'That disc contained 40 clips of principally young girls that had
>>>been taken from films broadcast on terrestrial TV. VHS tapes were
>>>also found and it is clear that the excerpts on the disc came from
>>>them. They were perfectly legitimate terrestrial TV films.'
>>
>> So why did the loathsome, filthy, evil bastards bring the prosecution?
>
>They're entitled to put the matter before a court,
people are not compelled to exercise all their powers, and they cannot
escape moral censure for their disgusting actions by saying "I had the
power to do this".
>and any failure to do so with a recently released sex offender would be
>likely denounced as negligence if it later came to light after a
>tragedy.
say "Look I had to do this otherwise somebody somewhere might have
criticised me in the future"; whereas the rest of us cannot use that as
an excuse, we are obliged to act *reasonably*.
>Now the Judge has that responsibility.
terrestrial TV?
--
Les
0 new messages