uk.yahoo.com/news/jailed-man-49-tried-im...k-prosecution-kind-1

George Orwell's thought crime is now a reality, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Better link...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-40383627

"Prosecutor Peter Hussey said a forensic physician and paediatric consultant examined the doll and suggested its size would be consistent with a child of between four and six years old.

He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

Dobson pleaded guilty to importing an indecent object, two charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent images of children."
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/wistaston-perver...#EQt2Uz4ZEb2ugTYj.99

It seems reasonable to me that he should be punished for this. He was consuming child abuse material, thus contributing to the demand for it and helping to fuel actual abuse. And it's hard to see why they should wait until he had progressed from the doll to abducting/abusing a child. That would be like considering online discussion of terrorist plans as mere "freedom of expression" and not taking action until after an actual attack had taken place.

Looks like the doll was used as leverage for getting access to the files in his computer.
A bit of an iffy practice.
If the jails are not to be overcrowded, and police not too diverted from real serious crime, it would be better if such minor offences were treated the same as casual cannabis use. Go after the guys who create the illegal material and don't waste time and resources on the small fries.

Jo wrote:
"Prosecutor Peter Hussey said a forensic physician and paediatric consultant examined the doll and suggested its size would be consistent with a child of between four and six years old.

He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

Dobson pleaded guilty to importing an indecent object, two charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent images of children."
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/wistaston-perver...#EQt2Uz4ZEb2ugTYj.99

It seems reasonable to me that he should be punished for this. He was consuming child abuse material, thus contributing to the demand for it and helping to fuel actual abuse. And it's hard to see why they should wait until he had progressed from the doll to abducting/abusing a child. That would be like considering online discussion of terrorist plans as mere "freedom of expression" and not taking action until after an actual attack had taken place.

I agree,Jo. although I hope it is very clear what the difference is between a sex thing, and a mannequin or ordinary doll with a realistic body?

I agree that he should be punished for possession of and making of child abuse images as this is a crime.
I don't necessarily agree that it should be a crime to just look at the images, if they are paid for then you could argue that it promotes such things. The vice squad after all look at these images every day.

However I don't agree with the importing of an obscene object. If a doll that looks very like a child, then you could say that a child is obscene. The doll is an inanimate object. It could be the case, although highly unlikely in this case that such a doll is purchased by a lonely man who never had any children and wants a doll as a replacement child. If someone does have a sexual interest in children, then it is far better than he takes out this interest on an inanimate object rather than an actual child.
In Sweden where the use of prostitutes has been made illegal, incidents of rape have gone up.

Jo wrote:
"Prosecutor Peter Hussey said a forensic physician and paediatric consultant examined the doll and suggested its size would be consistent with a child of between four and six years old.

He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

Dobson pleaded guilty to importing an indecent object, two charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent images of children."
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/wistaston-perver...#EQt2Uz4ZEb2ugTYj.99

It seems reasonable to me that he should be punished for this. He was consuming child abuse material, thus contributing to the demand for it and helping to fuel actual abuse. And it's hard to see why they should wait until he had progressed from the doll to abducting/abusing a child. That would be like considering online discussion of terrorist plans as mere "freedom of expression" and not taking action until after an actual attack had taken place.

I don't agree with the anology that owning a "child-like" doll is similar to discussing planning a terrorist attack. If there was an online discussion on planning an actual abduction of a child then it would be fair enough to intervene, however there was no evidence that this man was planning to go beyond porn and abducting a real child. I would say that it was akin to owning some of those Japanese anime dvds with lots of school girl images. Sad and perverted, but not necessarily a danger to anyone.

robbiex wrote:
Jo wrote:
"Prosecutor Peter Hussey said a forensic physician and paediatric consultant examined the doll and suggested its size would be consistent with a child of between four and six years old.

He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

Dobson pleaded guilty to importing an indecent object, two charges of making indecent images of children and one of possessing indecent images of children."
www.stokesentinel.co.uk/wistaston-perver...#EQt2Uz4ZEb2ugTYj.99

It seems reasonable to me that he should be punished for this. He was consuming child abuse material, thus contributing to the demand for it and helping to fuel actual abuse. And it's hard to see why they should wait until he had progressed from the doll to abducting/abusing a child. That would be like considering online discussion of terrorist plans as mere "freedom of expression" and not taking action until after an actual attack had taken place.

I don't agree with the anology that owning a "child-like" doll is similar to discussing planning a terrorist attack. If there was an online discussion on planning an actual abduction of a child then it would be fair enough to intervene, however there was no evidence that this man was planning to go beyond porn and abducting a real child. I would say that it was akin to owning some of those Japanese anime dvds with lots of school girl images. Sad and perverted, but not necessarily a danger to anyone.


But those are not illegal (I think?) and the dolls are.

If it was up to me I would ban blow up dolls of women too, and have those who parade them around the streets flogged. (Liverpool is hen and stag do Mecca )

"Hazel Stewart, from the National Crime Agency Child Exploitation and Online Protection Specialist Operation Team, said: "Importation of the life-like dolls is a relatively new phenomenon and there is no offence of possession, only importing an obscene article."

This sounds very odd.
So the doll is not illegal but importing it is..weird or what?

The allegation is that an article can or cannot be used for illegal purposes..is there such a law?

What if someone used, say a Cabbage Patch Doll (showing my age) for sexual purposes?

As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.

The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported.

While I may think what this man did sounds distasteful, the important aspect here is this : he landed in jail for purchasing an entirely legal object.
However importing that object was the crime that led to other matters.

And that sort of sums up broken British law and why the rest of Europe (if not the world) now sees the country as a laughing stock in so many ways.. a country that fell for an atrocious buffoon like Nigel Farage and acted against it's best interests...a nation with the most fucked-up morals with weird sexual inhibitions while just a few miles across the Chanel the residents rightly think Brits are ..tossers.

## trying to find new countries to visit now. I have to go to the UK next year but I'm utterly bored with the place and watching the awful Grenfell fire has sickened me as it is inductive of what Britain has become..a badly run business by clueless small time business people posing as politicians and then... a frigging Westfield almost next door..they plague Australia with one in almost every suburb. Vast shopping malls that resemble each other in every single aspect.

Used to love New York but it's now an homogenized rat race and any country where half the people could vote for a cretinous monster like Trump (who owes me money) , well....bingo !!

CUBA here I come !!!

hedda wrote:
...As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.

The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported….
"He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

This seems rather different from the images of adults apparently found on Rolf Harris's computer. And Rolf Harris didn't go to the lengths of obtaining a life-size doll from Hong Kong that looked like a 4-6-year-old.

Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
...As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.

The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported….
"He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

This seems rather different from the images of adults apparently found on Rolf Harris's computer. And Rolf Harris didn't go to the lengths of obtaining a life-size doll from Hong Kong that looked like a 4-6-year-old.

still puzzled by the fact the doll is legal but importing it is not. There is zilch proof of what he was going to use it for..absolutely zilch but of course we can all have suspicions but that is how today's law works- they can twist anything to mean what they want..as they did with Rolf Harris where you have oddly ignored the fact police claimed he had child porn on his computer which seems like a deliberate attempt to demonize Harris in the eyes of the public and it worked as a 1000 bloggers now believe.

# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage and they were not downloaded by Harris but a visiting young teen relative which is why the matter was quietly dropped after the damage was done. Facts, inconvenient facts.

Anyone can go to a toy shop and buy a fairly lifelike doll..some are even anatomically correct.

Perhaps they need to have a Pedo watch Brigade at all the UK toy shops.

Maybe boot sales as well.. pedos snapping up old dolls.

This is an interesting case. I tend towards the position of PaulB and robbiex and away from Jo and Honey.

The key question here is whether the law is a means to disincentivise causing harm or loss to others OR a means of describing and enforcing a moral standard. I strongly believe the former. Morals are a private matter for each man's individual conscience, not something to be imposed by the state.

It's not possible to harm someone by looking at a picture of them. Harm - if any - is caused by the events that were photographed. The events may have been perfectly legal in the jurisdiction of origin, of course. It's not correct to assume that viewing creates demand unless there is evidence of payment, requests or trading. Much of this type of material is open source and free, like everything else on the internet. I've little doubt that the material was heavily talked up as usual, and I think punishing someone for private viewing is pointless, but it is currently illegal so there it is.

I've much more of a problem with the doll charge. Possession of the doll isn't illegal so the man should be allowed to indulge his preferences privately: it can't possibly be argued that he's harming anyone by doing anything with his doll. Also, it's not correct to assume that he will necessarily progress to child kidnap/abuse. We wouldn't assume the adult equivalent of the owner of an adult-style sex doll.

As robbiex mentioned, it's problematic to designate a child-style doll as obscene. What exactly is it that makes it obscene? The quality of lifelikeness or the presence of a model vagina perhaps. But this is just anatomical accuracy. Robbiex has already pointed out that this makes children obscene too. Or is it the apparent age of the doll? Presumably it is legal to import adult-style sex dolls, so there are now unwritten, unlegislated stylistic parameters for obscenity of sex dolls. So what if the manufacturer makes dolls with a toy-style flat groin, and then separately supplies a vagina unit the user can fit themselves? That would be legal right? This feels an awful lot like persecuting a man for having the wrong sexuality. The rationale is I don't like it, so you can't do it.

hedda wrote:
# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage
"Harris’s legal team told Mr Justice Sweeney in previously unreportable legal argument that the models in the photographs were over 18, according to their identity documents provided by website bosses in the Ukraine."
www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/rolf-ha...ual-images-1.1855473

hedda wrote:
Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
...As for anyone claiming this was OK as it led to the discovery of illicit material on his computer- they ignore how police & CPS will use even the tamest of material to batter the accused into submission..as they did with their false claims that Rolf Harris had such material.

The lesson : even people who comment on King of Hits still do not understand how the police are so manipulative - despite so much evidence that 100s of innocent people are falsely accused and jailed - aided by a compliant media that use child abuse as a no-win situation for anyone accused so they still cherry-pick cases in which they then blindly accept as truthful as reported….
"He added: "Some of those movies, as is evidenced, are of quite clearly the worst type of abuse of innocent, young and defenceless children that there could be."

This seems rather different from the images of adults apparently found on Rolf Harris's computer. And Rolf Harris didn't go to the lengths of obtaining a life-size doll from Hong Kong that looked like a 4-6-year-old.

still puzzled by the fact the doll is legal but importing it is not. There is zilch proof of what he was going to use it for..absolutely zilch but of course we can all have suspicions but that is how today's law works- they can twist anything to mean what they want..as they did with Rolf Harris where you have oddly ignored the fact police claimed he had child porn on his computer which seems like a deliberate attempt to demonize Harris in the eyes of the public and it worked as a 1000 bloggers now believe.

# and they were not adult snaps, rather questionable teen girl pics who may or may not have been underage and they were not downloaded by Harris but a visiting young teen relative which is why the matter was quietly dropped after the damage was done. Facts, inconvenient facts.

Anyone can go to a toy shop and buy a fairly lifelike doll..some are even anatomically correct.

Perhaps they need to have a Pedo watch Brigade at all the UK toy shops.

Maybe boot sales as well.. pedos snapping up old dolls.


Do you remember how it was implied that Michael Jackson was doing something unspeakable with his perfectly ordinary china dolls?
It said more about the journalists minds than Jackson's, I think.

Randall wrote:
This is an interesting case. I tend towards the position of PaulB and robbiex and away from Jo and Honey.

The key question here is whether the law is a means to disincentivise causing harm or loss to others OR a means of describing and enforcing a moral standard. I strongly believe the former. Morals are a private matter for each man's individual conscience, not something to be imposed by the state.

It's not possible to harm someone by looking at a picture of them. Harm - if any - is caused by the events that were photographed. The events may have been perfectly legal in the jurisdiction of origin, of course. It's not correct to assume that viewing creates demand unless there is evidence of payment, requests or trading. Much of this type of material is open source and free, like everything else on the internet. I've little doubt that the material was heavily talked up as usual, and I think punishing someone for private viewing is pointless, but it is currently illegal so there it is.

I've much more of a problem with the doll charge. Possession of the doll isn't illegal so the man should be allowed to indulge his preferences privately: it can't possibly be argued that he's harming anyone by doing anything with his doll. Also, it's not correct to assume that he will necessarily progress to child kidnap/abuse. We wouldn't assume the adult equivalent of the owner of an adult-style sex doll.

As robbiex mentioned, it's problematic to designate a child-style doll as obscene. What exactly is it that makes it obscene? The quality of lifelikeness or the presence of a model vagina perhaps. But this is just anatomical accuracy. Robbiex has already pointed out that this makes children obscene too. Or is it the apparent age of the doll? Presumably it is legal to import adult-style sex dolls, so there are now unwritten, unlegislated stylistic parameters for obscenity of sex dolls. So what if the manufacturer makes dolls with a toy-style flat groin, and then separately supplies a vagina unit the user can fit themselves? That would be legal right? This feels an awful lot like persecuting a man for having the wrong sexuality. The rationale is I don't like it, so you can't do it.

Loss of privacy and dignity is still a loss.
I cant imagine most adults would want people watching their own brutal rape ? Would you?



It has always seemed to me to be more harmful to have a blank space on (ordinary) toy dolls. What message is that sending to children?
I remember some neighbours were disgusted when relatives sent over some anatomically correct dolls for my friends and me in 1969. Mine was (worryingly) called Paul McCartney and I still have him.