Perfect point Godiver - most of us wouldn't want someone fascinated by fundamentalism and terrorism to babysit either, but should they be locked up?

Godiver wrote:
Would any of the posters who can see nothing wrong with someone viewing child abuse sites let this same someone look after their children for the night? No, i didn't think so!! you are all talking absolute rubbish.

The point that you fail to see, Godiver, is that for years we have been lied-to and "sold" dodgy dossiers / phoney convictions etc in order to "cover" this government for its increasing totalitarian legislation.

If people commit genuine crimes its only right that they should be punished (according to the law - not according to the government's latest spokesman !).

At weddings, they used to say "until death do you part" ... I'm increasingly convinced that convictions should also have a tag-line - "Guilty - until the Court of Appeal !"

You have to look at each case on it's own merits don't you. There can be no general sweeping rule on this. I have always taken a very keen and active interest in the Israel/Palenstine conflict (i'm not commenting on my personal views for fear of expanding this thread to new records) and probably have some websites on my computer that through the right eyes could mean i was a threat to someone or other. I am a gentle man and can barely kill a spider without it staying with me for a few hours.

ITK wrote:

'The point that you fail to see, Godiver, is that for years we have been lied-to and "sold" dodgy dossiers / phoney convictions etc in order to "cover" this government for its increasing totalitarian legislation.'

Don't try and crowbar your constant point about nanny state into this. That is a completely irrelavant comment and to try an patronise me with a lack of understanding of how the government works whilst I am debating a completley seperate point is idiotic.

Godiver wrote:
ITK wrote:

'The point that you fail to see, Godiver, is that for years we have been lied-to and "sold" dodgy dossiers / phoney convictions etc in order to "cover" this government for its increasing totalitarian legislation.'

Don't try and crowbar your constant point about nanny state into this. That is a completely irrelavant comment and to try an patronise me with a lack of understanding of how the government works whilst I am debating a completley seperate point is idiotic.

This post WAS about terrorism - therefor my comment is relevant.

Godiver wrote:
You have to look at each case on it's own merits don't you. There can be no general sweeping rule on this. I have always taken a very keen and active interest in the Israel/Palenstine conflict

Can't there?

Please explain WHY it is right to evict Saddam when he invades Kuwait - but not right to evict the Jews when they invaded Palestine ?

Could it be that one kow-toes to the USA (and can therefor invade whoever they like) and the other used to kow-tow but stopped - so must be dealt with ?

My goodness ITK, we finally stumble into the blinding and disorientating light of agreement.

I however, having looked at each of those cases individually, would have come up with the same conclusion for both but would never have applied a sweeping rule before looking into each case, which was my original point.

Godiver wrote:
My goodness ITK, we finally stumble into the blinding and disorientating light of agreement.

Godiver

EVERYONE joins the ITK fan club (eventually !)

Considering certain parts of this thread, and how a newsreader was criminalised for having a photo of a baby in the bath, and how recently I read about a man being convicted for having photos of a young boy from the waist up because the prosecution believed that it suggested the boy might have been totally naked when the shot was taken, I thought I'd mention how AOL have a picture of a naked baby on some scales on their main welcome page today. The newsreader probably had her photo for personal use. AOL have theirs on the internet for millions to see.

I find nothing offensive about AOL's photo, but to us mere mortals it seems like double standards if AOL are not prosecuted.

Maybe this is what some people are getting at on this thread. Not that child porn should be made legal, but that the law should be much clearer on what qualifies as porn, and that common sense should be applied.

I also saw an advert on peak time TV where women were kissing naked baby's bottoms. Meanwhile the local paper reported how a man was in trouble becuase the photo of his girlfriend had fully clothed children in the background. I think some of mine probably have children in the background too.

It's quite clear that the law is a shambolic mess, based on emotional knee jerk reactions and tabloid frenzy.

The Cat wrote:
Considering certain parts of this thread, and how a newsreader was criminalised for having a photo of a baby in the bath, and how recently I read about a man being convicted for having photos of a young boy from the waist up because the prosecution believed that it suggested the boy might have been totally naked when the shot was taken, I thought I'd mention how AOL have a picture of a naked baby on some scales on their main welcome page today. The newsreader probably had her photo for personal use. AOL have theirs on the internet for millions to see.

I find nothing offensive about AOL's photo, but to us mere mortals it seems like double standards if AOL are not prosecuted.

Maybe this is what some people are getting at on this thread. Not that child porn should be made legal, but that the law should be much clearer on what qualifies as porn, and that common sense should be applied.

I also saw an advert on peak time TV where women were kissing naked baby's bottoms. Meanwhile the local paper reported how a man was in trouble becuase the photo of his girlfriend had fully clothed children in the background. I think some of mine probably have children in the background too.

It's quite clear that the law is a shambolic mess, based on emotional knee jerk reactions and tabloid frenzy.
The existence of the adverts you refer to shows there isn't some fanatical legal stand on this issue.

The cases you refer to - without references to the source, not newspapers, we cannot comment on the wisdom of them or not.

Finding examples that can be portrayed as bizarre doesn't help. These cases may or may not be reasonable, I don't know and in the absence of proper references I maintain others here don't know either. I am perfectly willing to consider the evidence, I am not willing to consider newspaper hearsay as the unvarnished truth.

Information without perspective is merely a higher form of ignorance.

Totally agree, Cat

It's all back to "thought crimes" again. Prosecutors are "guessing" what may be in the mind of someone who has such a photo, and assuming the worst.

Didn't The Sun - so "strong" and forceful against perverts !!! - once start a trend for having young girls' tits published? And wasn't one Sam Fox only 16 at the time?

I think its a case of "who shouts "pervert" first" !

zooloo wrote:
[quote
The existence of the adverts you refer to shows there isn't some fanatical legal stand on this issue.
[/quote]


That is pretty much the main point I was making. There should be a clear legal stand on this issue, but there is not. I studied law a few years ago and do have an interest in certain issues. When I hear of a case which interests me I look further into it. I have actually helped a couple of people to prepare their appeals, although that is not my profession. But if we dismiss serious concerns as fantasy, and elect to do nothing then, naturally, nothing gets done and the cancer in society spreads unchallenged.

One thing that you will not find in a newspaper is a report on a court case which never took place. So we know that the basic description of the charges are accurate, but then we must look deeper to learn the circumstances and reasonings, etc. I never rely entirely on newspapers.

The case I mention where the man was convicted for photos of topless boys was one where the accused was personally known to me. I attended the trial and I helped with some of his preparation. He received a fine and was placed on the register for five years. This contrasts entirely with the freedom of AOL to publish a naked baby on their main page. No criticism of AOL, just of a system which has double standards. Either something is illegal or it is not. We cannot have one law for some and another for the rest. This is a matter of principle, not something which needs a source before it can be considered.

It is a fact that people have been convicted for posession of images of semi naked children. It is also a fact that we can legally own and sell DVDs such as 'Lord Of The Flies' or 'Angela's Ashes' which contain images of entirely naked children.

Evil indeed triumphs when good men do nothing, or when good men refuse to see, hear or believe in that evil, or to even consider the possibility of it. Evil also triumphs when nobody questions it, or when those who do are put down for doing so.

No system should be afraid of scrutiny, nor should those who serve that system. If they are conducting themselves with honour, they will emerge without spot or blemish and will be stronger for the experience.

The Cat wrote:
zooloo wrote:

The existence of the adverts you refer to shows there isn't some fanatical legal stand on this issue.



That is pretty much the main point I was making. There should be a clear legal stand on this issue, but there is not. I studied law a few years ago and do have an interest in certain issues. When I hear of a case which interests me I look further into it. I have actually helped a couple of people to prepare their appeals, although that is not my profession. But if we dismiss serious concerns as fantasy, and elect to do nothing then, naturally, nothing gets done and the cancer in society spreads unchallenged.

One thing that you will not find in a newspaper is a report on a court case which never took place. So we know that the basic description of the charges are accurate, but then we must look deeper to learn the circumstances and reasonings, etc. I never rely entirely on newspapers.

The case I mention where the man was convicted for photos of topless boys was one where the accused was personally known to me. I attended the trial and I helped with some of his preparation. He received a fine and was placed on the register for five years. This contrasts entirely with the freedom of AOL to publish a naked baby on their main page. No criticism of AOL, just of a system which has double standards. Either something is illegal or it is not. We cannot have one law for some and another for the rest. This is a matter of principle, not something which needs a source before it can be considered.

It is a fact that people have been convicted for posession of images of semi naked children. It is also a fact that we can legally own and sell DVDs such as 'Lord Of The Flies' or 'Angela's Ashes' which contain images of entirely naked children.

Evil indeed triumphs when good men do nothing, or when good men refuse to see, hear or believe in that evil, or to even consider the possibility of it. Evil also triumphs when nobody questions it, or when those who do are put down for doing so.

No system should be afraid of scrutiny, nor should those who serve that system. If they are conducting themselves with honour, they will emerge without spot or blemish and will be stronger for the experience.
The question that comes to mind is "Why was he fined for having these pictures?". I mean this in a direct sense not rhetorical.

As obviously pictures of nude children are in themselves not illegal there must be a reason why it was considered punishable in this instance. In the same way it is not illegal to own a crowbar but in some circumstances possession would lead to prosecution.

ETA - I'm not actually asking for details of your friend's case here. It's a more general issue of some people taking a one-sided view and decrying a Court's decision without referencing why that decision was made.

ETA 2 blimey a two page thread... don't get may of them

This is developing into a very interesting debate.

I await more - and applaud Cat on his post above.

There are several levels of indecent images, level 1 being the less serious with no sexual content. The prosecution can claim that images of a boy's naked top half could suggest that the child is also naked on the parts not shown in the photo. If the jury is convinced more by the argument of the prosecution than by that of the defence, the jury can decide to convict. The judge must then pass sentence. Where there has been no previous conviction a fine is the most likely decision, although inclusion on the sex offenders register is mandatory.

As his barrister explained, juries are unpredictable and can be influenced by media. Where there has been a great deal of publicity regarding the dangers of sex offenders, a guilty verdict is more likely in this kind of case.

Most often this kind of case occurs where a complaint has been made by either a photo lab assistant or a computer technician. Once the complaint is made, the police must act, and this is where the confusion come in, since the law is so unspecific. The high level of public unrest over the subject of child sex offenders makes the police feel obliged to prosecute in the majority of cases.

As you said previously, Information without perspective is merely a higher form of ignorance.

The public rely on the media to help them form opinions, but very seldom get the whole story. A jury is made up of members of the public who often rely more on the media angle of the issue than on the facts of a case. Until the public are more fully informed, then this situation will continue.

Meanwhile Elton John publicly displays a large photograph of a young girl exposing her genitals, and despite complaints, the authorities declare this to be not an indecent image.

So much contradiction and confusion. So little clarity.

zooloo wrote:

As obviously pictures of nude children are in themselves not illegal there must be a reason why it was considered punishable in this instance.

I have to pick you up on a point, sooloo - nude pictures of ANYONE under the age of 18 ARE illegal in the UK !

This is a point I was making earlier - its utterly bizarre that you can have sex with someone at 16, but cannot take nude photos of them until they are 18.

In The Know wrote:
zooloo wrote:

As obviously pictures of nude children are in themselves not illegal there must be a reason why it was considered punishable in this instance.

I have to pick you up on a point, sooloo - nude pictures of ANYONE under the age of 18 ARE illegal in the UK !

This is a point I was making earlier - its utterly bizarre that you can have sex with someone at 16, but cannot take nude photos of them until they are 18.
British law, in as far as I can find out, prohibits indecent photographs of a person under 16.

(Ref: Protection of Children Act 1978, amended 1988)

Being nude appears not to be mentioned, nor anything relating to under 18 (under 16, yes).

Do you have a reference to it being illegal to posses a nude photograph of anyone under 18? I have been unable to find one myself.

The Cat wrote:
There are several levels of indecent images, level 1 being the less serious with no sexual content. The prosecution can claim that images of a boy's naked top half could suggest that the child is also naked on the parts not shown in the photo. If the jury is convinced more by the argument of the prosecution than by that of the defence, the jury can decide to convict. The judge must then pass sentence. Where there has been no previous conviction a fine is the most likely decision, although inclusion on the sex offenders register is mandatory.

As his barrister explained, juries are unpredictable and can be influenced by media. Where there has been a great deal of publicity regarding the dangers of sex offenders, a guilty verdict is more likely in this kind of case.

Most often this kind of case occurs where a complaint has been made by either a photo lab assistant or a computer technician. Once the complaint is made, the police must act, and this is where the confusion come in, since the law is so unspecific. The high level of public unrest over the subject of child sex offenders makes the police feel obliged to prosecute in the majority of cases.

As you said previously, Information without perspective is merely a higher form of ignorance.

The public rely on the media to help them form opinions, but very seldom get the whole story. A jury is made up of members of the public who often rely more on the media angle of the issue than on the facts of a case. Until the public are more fully informed, then this situation will continue.

Meanwhile Elton John publicly displays a large photograph of a young girl exposing her genitals, and despite complaints, the authorities declare this to be not an indecent image.

So much contradiction and confusion. So little clarity.
We're now drifting into the question of how reliable is the Jury system. Can the average person sit through 2 weeks of legalese and come to an enlightened decision?

On the question of is something indecent or not there will always be a grey area, the clarity you seek is unattainable.

Can you suggest a clear-cut definition of indecent that is 100% reliable? If there were only identical circumstances then clarity can be achieved otherwise the issue has to be open to consideration. I cannot think of any other way to conduct this.

Personally I agree the Elton John picture is not indecent in isolation - if somebody had 5000 pictures of boys showing their torso I think I could be steered towards considering the collection indecent even though the individual pictures I would not.

The absence of a strict "yes or no" is the product of a fair justice system - although not a perfect justice system, nevertheless a fair and just justice.

I hope you never have to experience a miscarriage of justice, Zoo, but I can assure you, from personal observation, the system is neither fair nor just.

It currently provides for every kind of manipulation.

And police and CPS have learned how to use loopholes, how to bend evidence, how to assist witness statements, how to interpret laws...

A decent, fair minded juror would convict innocent people when baffled by detail. I would probably have convicted Sally Clark. An expert told me to. Or Barry George - DNA is infallible, isn't it? Or Jonathan King - so many different people getting so many details similar (police could not have helped them, could they? Not in a fair and just system).

My eyes have been opened so wide in the past 8 years. I swear to you, as an intelligent, educated man of the world, I would never have believed what goes on... until it happened to me.

And the consequence is... whoever murdered and raped little 14 year old Millie Dowler is walking around free to do it again, because police get better results "assisting" historical false claims.

JK2006 wrote:
I hope you never have to experience a miscarriage of justice, Zoo, but I can assure you, from personal observation, the system is neither fair nor just.

It currently provides for every kind of manipulation.

And police and CPS have learned how to use loopholes, how to bend evidence, how to assist witness statements, how to interpret laws...

A decent, fair minded juror would convict innocent people when baffled by detail. I would probably have convicted Sally Clark. An expert told me to. Or Barry George - DNA is infallible, isn't it? Or Jonathan King - so many different people getting so many details similar (police could not have helped them, could they? Not in a fair and just system).

My eyes have been opened so wide in the past 8 years. I swear to you, as an intelligent, educated man of the world, I would never have believed what goes on... until it happened to me.

And the consequence is... whoever murdered and raped little 14 year old Millie Dowler is walking around free to do it again, because police get better results "assisting" historical false claims.
For that very reason I wrote it is not a perfect system.

It was one particular aspect of the system that I refer to as being the product of a fair system - that the issues are not black and white - on the broader question you raise I didn't comment.

If a fair and just system is misused the system remains [relatively] fair and just.