Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Court of Appeal releases "terrorists"
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
zooloo |
The Cat wrote:
No offence Zooloo, but I think there's an element of idealistic nonsense in your post. It is not difficult to have a yes or no on whether images of naked children are indecent. There has to be a line which, when crossed, means a crime has been committed.
To add a specific, the case I referred to involved the man having just three images. If I owned three albums by U2 I would have three similar images but would not be breaking the law. One could argue that having the images on CD covers gives me a legitemate reason for having them, but did I buy the CDs purely for the images? Does a person have a mail order catalogue so that they can discreetly satisfy their lust for little girls in underwear, or does the catalogue just happen to have such images within? The law should not be about second guessing a person's intent.
Circumstances should always be considered in judgements, but the law must remain consistent.
My own opinion is that if one image of a shirtless boy is not illegal, then neither should a collection of one thousand, because it merely means you have a collection of legal images. The reason for having such a collection is no-one's business but the collector. Beyond this we take the law into the realms of presumption.
Are we approaching the stage when we begin to criminalise people because they are different from the norm, even though what they do is not specifically illegal? Some might find that question annoying, but it has to be asked.
Sorry to seemingly disregard your post Cat, I missed it.
If it is not difficult to have a "yes/no" answer to whether a picture is indecent please supply that answer.
On the CD covers etc, indeed there are numerous examples of children's images being used and ignored by the police. So if they have arrested somebody for having 3 pictures what caused them to do this? Why did they select that person in the first place, what lead up to this?
It seems unlikely they would visit people's homes at random and arrest them for pictures 1000s or more have. Perhaps the 3 pictures are part of the story and not the whole.
Owning a crowbar is perfectly legal but in some circumstances possession could lead to prosecution. |
|
zooloo |
Oh... W H Smith, mentioned in your link, still stock Hamilton
Perhaps this fellows conviction was a tad more to do with the other 19,000 images he had? |
|
zooloo |
In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:
Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.
Your evidence doesn't support your argument.
You read the policeman's comments yourself !!!!!!!!!!
A policeman's opinion is not necessarily the law.
The book is easily available from Amazon if it were de facto illegal it would not be.
You read the Amazon book listing yourself!!!!!!!!!! |
|
In The Know |
zooloo wrote:
Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.
Your evidence doesn't support your argument.
You read the policeman's comments yourself !!!!!!!!!! |
|
zooloo |
In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:
Hamilton's books are still available. QED
Just because some shops are still selling the book does not make it legal does it? It just means they haven't been raided YET.
A policeman - who had just won a case involving this particular book - says the law supports him (and the law seems to agree).
Selling the Cat in the Hat doesn't make it legal either, is it only being sold because they haven't been raided YET too?
The court case you refer to was in 2005, some 3 years later the book is still easily available on Amazon. Hardly a clandestine organisation.
Perhaps the prosecution involved a little bit more than possession of one book and you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.
Your evidence doesn't support your argument. |
|
|
|
