news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7577806.stm

Interesting article on the BBC website about a man who was caught in a police sting.He joined a website specialising in CP,and also was found to have taken pictures of neighbouring kids from his office.
He got 3 years,a bit steep in my opinion as he had never actually done any physical damage to a child,and he fully co-operated with the police investigation.
Compare this to the frightening situation where people found armed with knives in public are often not sent to prison.Presumably because the prisons are already full of innocent people set up,or with people like the above chap who liked to view unsuitable materials.

erm... not quite as you portray it.

"The court heard he downloaded almost 270,000 images of child pornography.
The pictures covered all five categories of seriousness - ranging from sadism and bestiality to abuse of babies."

Pretty sure I did mention he was also caught with website pics.

However the point of the post was not to defend some pretty nasty actions on his part....but to show the discrepancy between people avoiding jail for knife carrying,and someone getting 3 years for viewing material from the net.

Yes and let me add here - the exaggeration and invention by police, to start with, when they don't have much of a case, then the CPS, who want even more to convince the jury, and then the media - who want a GREAT STORY, remember, that is all that matters - means things like a dozen innocent pictures are inflated again and again.

I know for an absolute fact that these media reports are nowhere near the truth. As for the victims, they usually just give up - the facts and figures grow to such extraordinary proportions, they become exhausted by the lies.

How do you prove you didn't do something?

And your own defence team are saying "Plead Guilty for a shorter sentence - every jury convicts after hearing these details".

You begin to feel you're in Wonderland.

He will only serve half the sentence apparently and 270,000 images sounds more to me like an obsession-but how can a judge make this conclusion?:

He said: "You pose an elevated risk of live abuse against children which is plainly evidenced by material seized from your home.
"That material shows the depths and extent of your perverted sexual thinking."

This sort of thinking disturbs me..was the judge speaking with a knowledge of psychiatry or after reading a psychiatric report ? It sounds like the judge is imposing a sentence on any possible future crime-although his original statement may have been more complex and the BBC could just be choosing the most sensational part.

This idea that viewing child porn equals the original crime is extremly dodgy to my way of thinking.

If you think about terrible crimes like the 9/11 atrocity or suicide bombers..and even back to the IRA bombs in London ( where I heard 3 go off and had one friend killed by the Harrod's bomb)-they are commited as propaganda events.

My friend who had been married a month before- was a young journalist who had got his first job on the Daily Express and sensing trouble had sadly rushed into his death. The pressures of his newspaper work meant he was on the job 24 hours a day. Should the Express have been considered guilty because of the pressure it put on this young man to perform ?.

These bombings are done for maximum impact and much media exposure is expected-that is the way of terrorism.

Are we then all considered guilty because we view images of the aftermath of a crime ?.

Particularly 9/11 which is shown over and over again but I well remember the horrible front page photos of the IRA bombings-the one in the Mall which killed several guardsmen and their horses-these images were played over and over again on TV and in print media.

I found them horrific and they most certainly had the desired effect-massive publicity for the IRA cause-they most certainly had impact on IRA fundraising in the USA, Lybia etc.

Are we then considered criminal because we viewed all this imagery ?-and if the media refused to show them would that mean the impact was lost and terrorism would lose much of it's propaganda value ?
Someone please explain !

An interesting article on this subject here :

Fetishising images
Viewing child pornography is coming to be equated with criminal responsibility for rape. This has worrying implications for liberty and the law.
by Barbara Hewson

www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DC06.htm

The article exposes some myths-such as much of the material being 30 or 40 years ago and the idea of someone viewing images of a crime commited that long ago being somehow implicated as a participant in the crime, is pretty ludicrous.

And are those who posess such material really just fantasy merchants ?-there are some psychiatrists who actually say it is better for people to indulge in fantasy thinking rather than turn those fantasies into reality.

This doesn't detract of course from possesion being a crime but I believe it is yet just another example of the hysteria surrounding the whole subject.

Will we ever get to the point where society can discuss these things as adults-without opportunistic newspapers and politicians putting their oar in ?

you are absolutely correct on that one:

2 years ago in NSW the most senior police prosecutor ( who ironically had prosecuted many for the same offence) was busted with child porn when he took his laptop to a court technician for repairs.

You can image the extra-ordinary publicity and sensation this became..he supposedly had thousands upon thousands of images of the worst kind-according to police reports.

Catching one of their own didn't deter the exagerations-perhaps as this prosecutor was considered one of the most honest and fair by defence counsels may have had something to do with it.

He received a 6 month sentence and his career was over-disbarred etc. But how many images did he have ?..as it turned out it was actually more like 150..there were thousands of pics but they were all legal aged porn of men well over the legal age which he claimed was the type of person he fancied. But we only heard that after the clamour died down.

Additionally-a daily newspaper ( no guesses-owned by Rupert Murdoch) went on a frenzied attack on those who supplied references to the court-retired policeman, retired judges, noted musicians, leading QCs, a Priest, an Anglican minister, a headmaster.

They allowed on on-line forum to rage for about a week where everyone of these people was villified in the most alarming way.

In the end-Murdoch had to pay each person $40,000 in compensation after a threatened libel suit ( from some of the best legal minds !..completely unwinable for the newspaper) but the fact such a huge organisation like News Ltd could make such a mistake is astounding. That was the day Murdoch lost the support of the entire legal fraternity and has never got it back.

When a local teacher was arrested after allegations by pupils, the media reported how images of naked children had been taken from his home. The charges were later dropped after it emerged that the allegations were that he molested the girls in front of the whole class and no other pupils had noticed anything. Also, the only image of a naked child taken from his home was a painting of the Madonna and child - he was Catholic.

Of course his career was over. Very sad incident.

Even TV shows like The Bill help to perpetuate the myth that people viewing porn go on to become rapists. The reality is that millions of adults view porn without committing rape or sexual assault. I'm sure the same must be the case with those who look at child porn. That is probably the furthest they will go, and it might just be curiosity.

Legal judgements today involve far too much speculation and assumption of future activity. The courts should stick to known facts.

You cannot compare adult and child porn. Its generally considered that those who perform in the adult sex industry are consenting adults. The same cannot be said for CP. Some of which involves rape. If you are caught viewing such material, you are endorsing such behaviour and therefore deserve all that the courts throw at you.

Angel wrote:
You cannot compare adult and child porn. Its generally considered that those who perform in the adult sex industry are consenting adults. The same cannot be said for CP. Some of which involves rape. If you are caught viewing such material, you are endorsing such behaviour and therefore deserve all that the courts throw at you.

Totally beside my point actually. I was addressing the fact that few people who view porn, whether adult or otherwise, go on to commit sexual assalut or rape. This has nothing to do with whether viewing porn is accaptable, or with the wider issue of the age of consent.

some pychiatrists are claiming that viewing child porn could actually prevent abuse in that it provides an outlet for fantasists.

That brings up the sticky problem of the material having been made in the first place but then despite what the media says-the vast majority of child porn is 30 to 40 years old. To say you are responsible for the original crime is clearly rediculous in this case.

The police and media will always exagerate things when charging a person-they do it over this crime and they do it about almost every crime.

Real pedophiles can also be collectors of legal children's clothing catalogues and such-do we treat them the same as those with pics of naked children ?

Also remember the hysteria created by the media can result in terrible miscarriages of justice-what about Pete T. of the famous rock group ?. As investigative journalist Duncan Campbell found he should never have been charged and was innocent.( but there were 100s of others charged as well who were innocent but had their lives destroyed)

I find there is a very real problem that the concept of someone viewing a photograph (of anything) can be considered unlawful.

This is essential thought crime although it's a complex matter.

The solution ?-I haven't got a clue except the tabloid media needs to be removed from the process so the subject can be discussed sensibly.

Some shrinks now say people collecting porn ( child or otherwise) often have obsessional behaviour--it's the "collecting" part that is their problem ( not the child porn in itself).

The media continues to exagerate ( along with police pr & media units who create a rod for their own backs by doing so) the whole matter of "sex offendors" and offences.

Worldwide the figures are pretty well the same-less than 5% of those arrested , charged and jailed for sex offences go on to commit another crime. That is the least of all recidivism rates and way below any other type of crime.

So viewing images implies what, exactly? That you're condoning? Endorsing? Encouraging? Enjoying? Committing (presumably by some magical process) an act of further abuse?

It seems to me those ideas are based on some massive assumptions which aren't necessarily borne out by reality.

Just about everyone viewed images of what happened on 9/11. On TV, online, in the press. Probably viewed them several times. Probably, legally speaking, downloaded some of them.

What they depicted was every bit as horrible as images of child abuse (which is what they are, not pornography). I've seen both, and been prosecuted and imprisoned for the latter.

I've never abused or thought of abusing a child in my life.

Explain, please.

If you look at child porn online you are guilty of an offence and should be punished. I do not understand why people on here would try to muddy the water surrounding this issue?

Did you watch the beheadings that were online? the death videos? the torture sites? No, and you surely would not watch images of an innocent child being abused would you? The people who are found with these images on their computers deserve all that they get.

During the war in the former Yugoslavia, snipers intentially target young children. I recall being saddened by one picture published in a newspaper of a small child laying dead in the road while other people ran past him. A pool of blood was flowing from his head.

I do not see the difference between publishing and viewing a photo of a child murdered by a sniper and one suffering a different form of abuse. Is a photo of a naked child more offensive than that of a dead one? If so, why? The image of the young naked girl running scared in Vietnam has been published many times over the past decades, yet with no complaints or threats of prosecution.

It is not a clear black and white issue. Intentional abuse of children is wrong, whether they are being sexually assaulted or shot in the head. Looking at photos of them is unpleasant, but it does not harm the children. If it is illegal to look at a photo of one kind of child abuse it should be illegal to look at photos of all kinds of child abuse.

BTW, I believe many people did watch the beheading videos online before they were removed. It was not illegal for them to do so.

I have seen films of the horrid abuse in Nazi death camps. They were unpleasant but my viewing them made no difference to what happened there. Images are just images.

The massive difference is one image is taken to report news and the other is taken for the gratification of weirdos.

It is black and white. porn versus abuse.

Why are people on this site so keen to excuse the offences of people caught with child porn images on their computers??? intriguing.

Denise wrote:

I do not see the difference between publishing and viewing a photo of a child murdered by a sniper and one suffering a different form of abuse. Is a photo of a naked child more offensive than that of a dead one? If so, why? The image of the young naked girl running scared in Vietnam has been published many times over the past decades, yet with no complaints or threats of prosecution.

Very good points, Denise.

Amen to that Godiver.

I believe ALL porn is wrong - as is prostitution. It is exploitation of people. It also cheapens sex into an "act of business" rather than an "act of love".

The Police lie. We all know that. This is what muddys the water and why I believe those who commit offences of a sexual nature against Children ( including obsessional behaviour of collecting this stuff - how the hell can anyone look at 250,000 images for instance ) should be dealt with by medical professionals to assess their state of mind and then they should only be jailed if they pose a risk to Children and if not then they should receive some sort of help for their problem.

Sending REAL paedos to jail does not work. It does not correct their behaviour. If the stats are true then 95% of those jailed have been jailed wrongly. The 5% who continue to reoffend are paedos who genuinely have a problem. These are the ones that society needs to sort out - our children deserve to be protected against them NOT against rock stars or luvvies or people who are inquisitive about anything around them.

The UK Justice system is designed to be blunt - it is designed to be a system where evidence should be the only test of whether someone should be charged. It should never ever happen when it is one person's word against another. That by its very nature cant be tested in court. It is impossible to prove.

I think the unfairness of our system is clouding judgement of some posters about this porn stuff.

Even if the stuff is 30 years old - it is an offence to view it. Everyone in the UK knows that - so if someone looks at it intentionally ( rock stars included ) they should expect the consequences. However, false allegations against famous people and for score settling should not even be investigated unless there is hard evidence of an offence being committed. None of these should ever come to court.

I mentioned about close family going to court having been abused. In that instance some of the abuse was witnessed by several others. Therefore it was right to prosecute in my opinion. It if had just been the victim's word - then it should not have gone to court.

We need to protect people AGAINST false allegations just as much as potential victimes. The lives of too many people who are totally innocent have been blighted by Police actions on behalf of "score settlers" and those who "Like to complain to get attention - in itself a mental condition"

JK through his appeals and through his honesty in dealing head on with his past - has attracted many people onto this forum who want to see JUSTICE and want to see proper protection by the system which for many of us seems to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.

The BBC series earlier this year hit the nail on the head - and it should be shown again - and debates should take place on the BBC TV and Radio about the issues it raises.

Too many people from Ethnic Minorities - with Mental Health conditions - and famous people - are discriminated against by our legal system. In addition truly innocent people get rolled over by lawyers and police in a system they dont know or understand.

My advice to anyone who for whatever reason is stopped or searched or arrested by the Police is to "Remain Totally Silent" and be polite and sweet to the police. Targets mean that the Police are out to "stitch up" anyone they come into contact with. Even when reporting crime I have heard of the Police trying to stitch people up ( classic Daily Mail examples - ring police to complain about incident only to have those committing incident complain about you and find yourself embroiled in legal system which the criminals know better than you !! so though you have only complained you get charged with things based on the "word" of the criminals - dont laugh - I estimate that 20% of crime stats are inncocent people who are stitched up by the criminals/police working together !!! " You must have all read the examples with disbelief - now you KNOW how these things happen.

I agree BR that we need a fairer justice system. What do you suggest we do with " paedo's " if sending them to jail is not the answer? Additionally, 95 percent of stats are balderdash.

So 95% of stats tell us...