Am I missing something here?

Of course we all accept that a 22 year old lusting after 17 year olds deserves to be executed and I'm sure the dear old Sun will be carrying Kill Meehan headlines but since when has looking at pictures of naked 17 year olds been illegal where screwing them is not?

I really do get confused by our moral fascism these days.

And what about the Jews, I ask?

Ahem!

"Indecent images of children aged between four and 16"

I think you are missing something.

On the TV news on BBC TV they were quoting "under 18" all the time.
Anyway, "between 4 and 16" clearly includes 16 year olds - which are legal, aren't they?
But I have to admit - and I know I'm being really stupid here - I would find it very difficult to be able to differentiate between many 15 year olds and many 17 year olds if my life depended on it (which these days it does).

I can only gasp with admiration for those police who can instantly say "this girl is fifteen years, eleven months and thirty days old exactly, and, as such, we should prosecute this man".

Sex should only be undetaken with any girl who is under 21 ( Challenge 21 is the rule ) when she produces a Birth Certificate or some photo ID to prove that she is legally capable of giving consent.

There are problems - clubs operate an over 18 policy and check ID - yet I can assure you that Lilly Allen - Peaches and mates were all in the clubs from around 14 years old............I am sure they were very good and did nothing naughty......but ID/Age checks can be "fooled" by those who want to lie.

The whole WITCH HUNT aspect is what is disturbing. On the BBC there are 6 stories today about SEX OFFENDERS - why ? how many are there out there ? ( BBC said 31,000 on register and 250,000 others ) This means that there are MORE FOOTBALL FANS for EACH CLub in the Premier League and top part of the Championship. Yet those clubs ( bar Man Utd and Chelsea ) get no where near the coverage on the BBC News each day ( 6 stories )

Terrorism has gone - so this is the new witch hunt.

YAWN !!

I find it odd that this bloke faced Meehan 11 counts relating to the possession of 49 images. 49 isn't a lot although some may claim 1 is 1 too many. But then that cancels out the hysteria when someone is found with thousands,

I do find comments by judges odd at times..as quoted :

District Judge Jonathan Bennett told Meehan they were

If I recall my studies correctly, the law states that the "child" in the image does not have to be under-age so long as the jury believe them to be under-age. It is all about appearances. (Not sure where that leaves the tabloids with their page three girls.)

However, laws are changing all the time, and this government have made more changes than any other.

Gary Glitter's sentence was shorter than Meehan's probably because the severity of sentences for these offences have increased over the years.

On the age issue, I do find it strange that someone convicted of a sex offence can be banned from interacting with people aged 19 and under. The legal age of consent is 16, therefore the government are denying people who interact with the 'offender' their legal rights. Surely someone of legal age has the right to choose who they interact with, or this makes a mockery of the law regarding the age of consent.

The law, in all areas, must have stability if it is to be taken seriously.

Tony Blair has personally ordered the killing of THOUSANDS of IRAQUI children with his lies and cover up of the reason why we invaded IRAQ.

How he has not been on trial in the UK shows how corrupt our system has now become.

This bloke was found guilty. None of us know the full facts - so we have to trust the court in this case. Yes - it does seem strange that the Police have done this when they were "very angry" at the way in which their resources were abused by the MEEHAN family in the kidnap case.

I do hope that the constant stream of alleged abusers that the posters on this site consistently and blindly rally behind are deserving of the support, i really do.

So do I Godiver but sadly, as in the case of Sally Clark, our support isn't enough to save them.

Barry George seems to be surviving.

I also hope those who don't care about innocent men and women being wrongly convicted never find themselves in a similar position.

We should not confuse criticism of the system with support for all alleged offenders. It's important to ask important questions and to highlight weaknesses within any legal system. Any one of us could find ourselves accused of something and we need to know we have a safe legal process with safeguards against wrongful conviction.

Should we all keep quiet and bury our heads in the sand lest we are accused of supporting crime? If so, who will speak up for us when our time comes?

With new laws - and therefore new crimes - being created on a daily basis, our time could come tomorrow.

And did for this man Al - and Godiver

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056570...month-nightmare.html

Shocking that she only got three months when he could have got life. The false accuser should be made to serve the term that their victim would have served. Justice, Solomon style.

I found it interesting the way he said he was "put in prison with paedophiles and rapists." I wonder if he considerd that some of them might have been in the same position as him. It seems that, despite his personal insight he still judged the other prisoners to be guilty - or maybe that's just how it comes across.

I'm pleased that the truth became known. Some accusers never admit to their lie, and their victims suffer for life. At least this guy only had to endure 11 months.

Godiver wrote:
I do hope that the constant stream of alleged abusers that the posters on this site consistently and blindly rally behind are deserving of the support, i really do.
This brings to mind... "If I say we should understand cancer nobody would accuse me of being pro-cancer. If I say we should understand terrorists why am I accused of being pro-terrorist?"

Different subject, same point.

Thought i might suffer a backlash for daring to suggest one or two of these people may have actually committed the crime of which they are accused.

My comment is not related to the system at all but don't let me stop you all crowbarring your views on other subjects into the debate, you obviously enjoy yourselves.

There may even be a point to be made in there somwhere if you didn't all rally behind every case that breaks in the news.

Our justice system is weighted in favour of those who DO COMMIT offences. This is because they know the "system" and how to manipulate it. Hence the majority of abusers and real terrorists never get caught and usually get aquitted.

That is why our system is currently relying on SHOW TRIALS in order to convince the public that the system is working - when in fact it is broken in the same way that the economy is broken. This government is covering up all the time ( Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone )

I want to see MORE real abusers taken to court and charged and given help and/or prison. But equally I want to see innocent people who have a ) Mental Health problems or are b) Celebrities or c) Victims of Malicious Lies not put through proceedings.

The DAILY MAIL story is appalling today. That poor man. Lost everything because one women decided to lie and the Police decided to do this to him WITHOUT any evidence at all. Shocking and this surely paints the REAL picture of our justice system.

I spoke a few years ago to a Senior Lawyer and asked him - "surely a prosecution needs evidence to go to court , not just one person saying something because otherwise our courts will be full of cases brought by liars" - his answer was " the Police put these cases through because it is one person's word against another so they have a 50/50 chance of success whereas evidence can be challenged in court which leads to a smaller chance of success"

I understand exactly what he meant - and my whole view of our legal system is now coloured by that conversation.

Anyone else heard similar ?

I think you confuse genuine discussion with support.
( although in this particular case 10 months seems very harsh to me for the possesion of 49 photos !)

Personally-I do believe there is a witch hunt in relation to any crime (whether the person is innocent or guilty) that has a sexual angle.

That witch-hunt is defined by a general hysteria about the subject- intense media campaigns where all doubt flies out the window and guilt is inferred or implied.

ie : use of the word "victim" instead of "complainant"-victim already imples guilt.

Or the extraodinary and bizarre Jersey school case where we were led to believe by the police that a number of children's bodies were buried in the grounds and the media world-wide reported as much. All based upon a piece of coconut shell.

And the completely unfair continual denigrating of people convicted of sexual based crimes that continues long after they have paid the penalty. This is one of the worst aspects and denies the concept of fairness in British justice.

Gary Glitter is an example. No matter what one thinks of him-his return to the UK was not only a media circus with extraordinary lies being told-but I believe all rationality vanished with people forgetting that Glitter had actually been in jail for 2 years in Vietnam and served his time.

I've worked in the media and on newspapers-there used to be a general rule about reporting on persons who had convictions. If their conviction had nothing to do with the current story-say a notable businessman ( who may have been done for fraud) and was going out with some new date.. you didn't mention their crime as, having served their sentence, that was considered enough punishment.

Contrast that again with Glitter who is simply used by the media as a plaything-it has nothing to do with protecting children !

And sexual assault must be the easiest crime to accuse someone ( which doesn't also mean there are some horrible people out there who do dreadful things to others and children).

Give me enough details of a famous person-times , dates etc and I could accuse them of anything. It's my word against theirs.

If I win,I'd have access to great financial reward. If the other person wins I would most likely walk away with no penalty. If the other person wins because the burden of proof isn't enough-I could still get compensation.

If that person is convicted upon my word but later is found innocent by an appeals court (as has happened so many times) and I had received compensation I would not be required to pay it back,

(rant ends here !)

Well I'm currently following a trial in Sydney of a chauffeur accused of murdering his model girlfriend 8 years ago by throwing her over a cliff at the infamous suicide spot called The Gap.

I sit in on the trial as many days I can as I know some of the witnesses and he was the driver for a person I knew who committed suicide about 4 years ago.

It's been claimed by (mainly relatives of the dead girl) that the chauffeur ( who is tall, blonde, athletic) was having sex with his employer-a rich ,chubby,Jewish flaymboyant multi-millionaire stockbroker, and he killed the model as she was about to expose their affair on orders from his boss..

The stockbroker had incurred the wrath of the financial establishment-he drove numerous flashy cars-a Bentley convertible usually with 2 pretty grils beside him-had gold worry beads, smoked huge cigars, had a magnificent yacht with a helipad and copter on board-even appeared in Baywatch playing himself.

This was a guy going through a mid-life crisis who had re-invented himself from a nerd who made millions trading on "penny dreadful" stocks, morphing into a publicity seeking "celebrity". He started hanging out with "rough trade" like bikie gangs amd dodgy nightclub owners.

But he was also facing some fraud charges and was a manic depressive, eventually toping himself.

The tales I've heard in the court really boggle my mind-this guy wasn't gay or even interested in guys-but he was fascinated by the sort of people he'd never mixed with when young ( having emigrated from Russia to China and brought up by wealthy protective parents).

And as usual-bizarre evidence from police forensic teams that has changed 3 times..about where the unfortunate girl's body landed etc.

I instinctively know the truth-I believe the chauffeur is innocent ( the girl was suicidal-her mother committed suicide) and I doubt the driver nor the stockbroker could have given a stuff if people thought they were sexually involved anyway-as half their friends were gay. !

God only knows what the jury is making of it all !

The laws on these matters long since diverged from common sense and reality JK. Yes, it is illegal throughout Europe now to even look at a picture of a topless 30 year old woman if, for example, she has small breasts or is wearing a school tie and 'might' look like a 17 year old. How the hell these 'experts' determine that a female looks 17 and not 18 is quite beyond me when most 15 year olds have breasts larger than their mother's.
And of course you don't actually have to have such a picture on your computer. You might just have glanced at it for a microsecond in your browser than clicked another page. If the Police find a trace of it on your harddrive, you are looking at a place on the sex offenders register and a few months in prison.

What is so frightening about this particular crime is that it could happen so easily to people without their knowledge.

Photographs can now be encripted within another pic or a seemingly unnoticed advert and contain a worm that infiltrates your computer and places these pics out of your reach.

If like me, you have friends that send you every internet "joke" or fad that comes along-I have dozens of such messages in my email system. God only knows what could be contained within these messages especially as they pick them up elsewhere and forward them.

Kiddy porn, nuclear weapons plans, terrorist plots..you name it !

But then I think the idea is for everyone to have a criminal record anyway !

They may as well just take our DNA samples and fingerprints when born and have done with it.

I've always had my suspicions that this Meehan guy has been 'stitched up' because the Police wanted to get 'another body' banged up over this missing girl. Bunging porn onto a laptop, a PC, anything is so easy these days.
Just my opinion, but this whole case has never smelt right from the start.