www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5109415...jail-child-porn.html


Is it possible for the police to actually put the images on the computer? Not suggesting it happened in this case, but I hope they have ways to prevent it?

I don’t know about that Honey, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they did. I say this because I read here that undercover detectives were posting and sharing child sexual abuse images for a full year: theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/07/australian-police-sting-brings-down-paedophile-forum-on-dark-web. There is even a photograph in the article of one of the ‘distributors’, possibly in the act of distributing, John Rouse.

So ... pedophiles who share child-porn are condemned because, apparently, "every time a victim's image is shared, the child is re-victimized." That's what LEA and the victimology industry preach. The Australian Police are therefore, according to their own mantra, re-victimising children.

One has to wonder whether John Rouse and Task Force Argos sought the consent of the child 'victims' that appeared in the 'porn', before they used their images to catch pedos? If they didn't, could the original 'victims' now sue the Police for distributing such images of them?

In sum, the cops spent a year distributing child porn images to catch guys who distribute child porn images.

If the police really did believe the bullshit about how much harm child pornography causes, they would not have run a child pornography site. The fact that they were quite willing to administer a child porn website and distribute child pornography through it for twelve months, means they know full well that: it does not cause any significant harm to those who watch it, and every time a victim's image is shared, the child is not re-victimized.

Something stinks about the entire system; not just that it is broken but that it is somehow vindictive too.

Correct JK, but in addition the system has found a way to mine the rich vein of policing human thought. Just imagine how much additional resources the FVEY ThinkPol are securing to manage the huge task of thought policing.

Clearly a disturbed individual. Given his record at such a young age, even if he does have anonymity the authorities presumably have him under close scrutiny.

Also what could they be ? Possibly girls in underwear bikini etc aged 17 and 364 days would be an indecent image of a child I'm guessing it's going to be based on what they were.
Police in the UK share images 24 hours a day it's done so that they can get ip addresses etc to make it easy to arrest.

Not necessarily Jo; I don't know about you but I only know anything about him by what I read in the media and they always exaggerate and invent. One of the brilliant things about being in prison was meeting notorious criminals and discovering, as expected, that they are far more complex and different than the media image.

one question I have always asked but never had a response:

If viewing an image is considered a further abuse each and every time..something coppers etc claim..what happens when police, judge, prosecutor, jury view illicit images?

Are they therefore also abusing the person in the images and if not, how does this abuse become suspended and by whose authority?

And if anecdotes are real..that much of the child porn on the net is from Scandinavian countries when it was legal, those in the images could be in their 70s by now or even dead..really looking even at an image of yourself as an 8 or 10 year old it's very difficult to reconcile that that person was you once (well it is for me but it was before the Boer War)

## also has anyone ever seen, or claimed to, these infamous 'snuff movies" often talked about? Anyone? (apart from ISIL's atrocities)
On that subject the victors after WW2 filmed executions of Nazi war criminals etc and even some US states film executions..snuff movies?

### answers on a postcard addressed to Hedda..please include a fiver. Thank you.

“one question I have always asked but never had a response ...”

No surprise there Hedda - no response in discussion forums I take it. Debate abounds when discussing law enforcement’s despicable role in the false allegations industry, but when it comes to the topic of child porn, the whole world and his wife clams up. A perfect scenario for corrupt law enforcement agencies operating in countries that claim to promote free speech and freedom of expression, to continue to have their cake and eat it too.

Will a 100 Baht note do?

hedda wrote:
one question I have always asked but never had a response:

If viewing an image is considered a further abuse each and every time..something coppers etc claim..what happens when police, judge, prosecutor, jury view illicit images?

Are they therefore also abusing the person in the images and if not, how does this abuse become suspended and by whose authority?



I think I've posted before about the contention that viewing an image harms the subject of the image, but not about the other half of your question: what happens when police, judges etc view the material?

The important word in your question is the very first one: if. It's a false premise straight away that people can be harmed by looking at a picture of them. The subject of a photo is (usually) ignorant of whether John Venables or anyone else has looked at it. So the viewer can't harm the subject that way. If there is worry about repeat viewing, that worry is present whether or not anyone does actually view the pictures, so there is no causal link between the behaviour of the viewer and any negative effect on the subject.

A third possibility is that the subject isn't bothered if anyone sees the pictures. As you point out, cultures differ by geography and history. Some material out there online was legal when and where it was produced. This includes now illegal videos of some of our very own page 3 girls at the age of 16, freely available online, the material having been produced perfectly legally under the laws in force at the time. As JK often says, it's incorrect to judge yesterday's behaviour by today's norms.

So the answer to your conundrum is that police and others no more harm people by viewing them in pictures than the men they are prosecuting. It's very difficult to make a rational argument for prohibiting and punishing the viewing of illegal material (not just child porn) in the context of a liberal democracy.

Peter & Randall get Gold Stars for sensibility.

On reflection both are reduced to Silver Stars only..Peter's outrageous offer of 100 Baht when he knows that's not worth a fiver...
and Randall didn't even include that fiver with his postcard.

Both spot on though

But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense.

The answer to this one is touched on by Peter, above. At the lowest end of the scale, so-called indecent images of children can be 17.5 year olds, fully clothed but doing 'erotic' posing. This includes myriad pouty selfies from teenagers, or young lads flexing their emerging biceps. In fact, there are pictures of 16 and 17 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger doing what could be described as erotic posing... in his autobiography, which I don't doubt is in many prison libraries. And of course, the 16 and 17 year old page three girls from our very own country, less than 20 years ago.

Several decades ago, indecent imagery or publication legislation was challenged in an appeal. Can't remember the citation, sorry. The ground of appeal was that the indecency element of the offence was not adequately defined (as it must be for a man to know in advance which actions of his will be legal and which will not). The decision of the judges was to assert that an ordinary dictionary definition was adequate.

OED definition: Not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters.

So given that posed, somewhat sexualised selfies are now a prevalent mode of personal presentation online, particularly for girls, such images can no longer be categorised as indecent according to the standard set by the judges in the case law.

I suspect Mr Venables has been 'caught' with nothing more than a few pictures of women who might possibly be mistaken, by a blind and mentally retarded jury, for erotically posing 17 and 3/4 year olds, rather than what they actually are: 17 year olds pulling duckface or 38 year old boilers in pigtails and an Ann Summers sexy schoolgirl outfit.

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But why would an intelligent person put child pornography on a computer that they know is going to be checked every so often?
It makes no sense.

The answer to this one is touched on by Peter, above. At the lowest end of the scale, so-called indecent images of children can be 17.5 year olds, fully clothed but doing 'erotic' posing. This includes myriad pouty selfies from teenagers, or young lads flexing their emerging biceps. In fact, there are pictures of 16 and 17 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger doing what could be described as erotic posing... in his autobiography, which I don't doubt is in many prison libraries. And of course, the 16 and 17 year old page three girls from our very own country, less than 20 years ago.

Several decades ago, indecent imagery or publication legislation was challenged in an appeal. Can't remember the citation, sorry. The ground of appeal was that the indecency element of the offence was not adequately defined (as it must be for a man to know in advance which actions of his will be legal and which will not). The decision of the judges was to assert that an ordinary dictionary definition was adequate.

OED definition: Not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters.

So given that posed, somewhat sexualised selfies are now a prevalent mode of personal presentation online, particularly for girls, such images can no longer be categorised as indecent according to the standard set by the judges in the case law.

I suspect Mr Venables has been 'caught' with nothing more than a few pictures of women who might possibly be mistaken, by a blind and mentally retarded jury, for erotically posing 17 and 3/4 year olds, rather than what they actually are: 17 year olds pulling duckface or 38 year old boilers in pigtails and an Ann Summers sexy schoolgirl outfit.

As I understand it from the reports (which might be nonsense) the images were similar to the last offence, which were pictures of young children being raped. (again, might be rubbish)
But wouldn't you just have no images of anybody any age ever if your computer is being checked?
My worry is that the type of police officer who coaches "victims" and tells them details of front doors etc could "helpfully" tamper with the computer. Especially if loads of it is (outrageously in my opinion) being viewed and used by officers all the time.

Given Jamie Bulger's age when he was murdered, I see no reason to assume that these images would be of individuals just below legal age.