Surprised this hasn't already made its way here :

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm

One image found on his computer. Level 1 severity - i.e the lowest, which is probably, as we all know, as a teenager in a bikini or swimming trunks.

He's hardly a hardcore peadophile or consumer of child porn if he had a single level 1 picture on his harddrive, intentionally downloaded or not.

Witchhunt.

Brilliant news and thanks for posting the link; Paul was one of the great early DJs and a decent man and I assumed he was just another caught up in and destroyed by the madness of the police/CPS attitude.

All the stress,and blackening of his name,surely this should never have got to court?

As you have discovered IA - they will go to any lengths and Paul was very lucky he wasn't prosecuted, convicted and jailed (normally they simply raise the bar by adding several extra false claims or charges).

They love a high profile success.

It makes them look as though they are doing something.

Many people have told me on forums like this that the police would not waste their time on chasing people for photos of teenagers in bikinis or underwear.

Now as JK says, they probably wanted a high profile 'victory', but the fact is here we have a person who only escaped prosecution for child porn because it was shown that it was unlikely he INTENTIONALLY downloaded just a SINGLE picture of such a relatively trivial nature.

A few days I tried to post a link regarding the EU's plans to bring in a minimum 6 month prison sentance for ANYBODY who has even LOOKED at a 'child porn' image on a webpage.

Now bear in mind that just one ISP in the UK - BT, has announced that it blocks 40,000 attempts to visit child porn webpages a day.

BT has around a quater of the ISP market share in the UK. So we can say that the total number of visits to cp websites each day in the UK would be 4 times BTs figure, so that makes 160,000.

I have also read that BT only blocks a fraction of the webpages that would be showing material that falls under current draconian definitions of child porn. Therefore we could quite easily multiply that figure by 10 or more, but even with just 160,000 visits each day to child porn websites, the number of people who will have to face the prospect of a dawn raid and 6 months in prison as a sex offender must be huge. In fact, clearly a very sizeable segment of the UK population. Probably at least 10% of the male population, possibly a lot more.

Some might say that this is acceptable. In fact some would say that putting 10% or even 50% of the population in prison and throwing away the key would be a good thing if it protected the kids.

I would say that this type of thinking would not have been acceptable even 20 years ago in the UK, or anywhere else in Western Europe, not with the events of the mid 20th century still a living memory.

I would also say that it is obscene that the government and police has this power over its population and that it is frightning how the majority of British people and the UK media have been so complicit in allowing it to happen.

I'd like to be able to say that we should expect the police and CPS to use common sense, but that seems something they are incapable of these days.

No wonder our police and legal system are becoming the laughing stock of the world.

Good news that Paul was cleared, but I'm sure the experience has scarred him for the rest of his life.

I would like to know how one solitary innocuous unopened image came to the attention of the police in the first place!

Having ANY PICTURE of someone under 18 on your computer is dangerous. Having ANY PICTURE of someone 18 who is not your own child is dangerous.

If you fall out with this GOVERNMENT or their POLICE they will use every means necessary to take you to court. An innocent holiday photo on a beach or by the resort swimming pool becomes a "Child Porn" event.

Notice that on BEBO there is "racey" photos of thousands of teens and pre teens - yet the POLICE do NOTHING about it.

Notice that the GOVERNMENT release a leaflet called PLEASURE for teens and pre teens to help them to learn how to enjoy sex. You do this and you get arrested for GROOMING !!!

The double standards are quite incredible. It shows once again that the GOVERNMENT are using TERROR and CHILD PROTECTION laws to further their own FASCIST and NAZI agenda.

People need to wake up and show non co-operation with the Government - like DARREN POLLARD ( Megaphone Man )

If we dont then things will get worse.

I really wouldn't like to comment on the number of people who view CP,but it would probally be impossible for any organisation to be accurate.
What I would question is are these seperate people,or just the number of attempts?
What do they class as CP,if a pic of a young girl in swimwear can count then most of us would be criminals after a visit to the beach or swimming baths.

One trick I did find out was that in about 1984 the USA,under pressure from the moral majority etc raised the age to 18,from 16,immediately able to show a staggering increase by the sweep of a pen.Regardless of the fact that at 16 the person is legally entitled to engage in sexual acts.

Now I am sure there are pedos out there,and probally quite a few given a quick glance at popular search words.Just how we deal with these things sensibly,and constructively is the key.How many people simply view something because it's illegal?

that is a puzzling question !

There are a dozen programs out there where you encrypt other photos within one picture..say of a sailing boat or some joke picture you found on the net.

That in turn could be distributed to anyone and everyone including members of parliament or police..that picture could include worms that implant that picture with porn on it deep inside anyone's computer.

Being connected to the net is like having your front door and windows wide open at all times for anyone to toss something offensive into your house.

The insanity of many of these prosecutions are mindless. I don't believe anyone who claims to be 'protecting children' and that includes police-if they really though that they would have fought bitterly to stop their own governments blasting to pieces or horribly crippling Iraqi and Afghani kids...they who preach the high moral road are gutless hypocritical creeps.

That said-again I hark back to the last 2 years of a fuckwit of an Aussie DJ who has been wiring up young teens to grill them on their sex lives to the delight of audiences and advertisers (who have now fled never to return anywhere near the man)

All the while under the noses of idiotic child protection cops who having been chasing 70 year old former teachers for supposed crimes that happened up to 40 years ago.

But I think the mood is changing..David Dale a former British writer on human behaviour and movements in the media has commented today on why Masterchef has been such a spectacular success everywhere it appears.

It's because -unlike the Idol/Big Brother/ BGT shows that tend to tear some people down-it does the opposite.

He reckons there has been a real shift in public mood everywhere and even dates in back to as close as 3/4 years ago.

There is only so much sordid sex tales the public can stomach after a while and the media. or tabloids still haven't perceived the change in tastes-anywhere.

That's while many will go down in a screaming heap and after dining with a News Ltd journalist tonight he mentions his despair at even working for the company which he reckons is doomed as it just can't get a grip on the coming changes and is dominated by an old fool who thinks in terms of 20/30/40 years ago.

I've never heard of this dj, however I was just wondering, how did the case ever get to court. I thought that the only way that they could discover what people have viewed through credit card payments like in operation Oar?

Blackit wrote:
Surprised this hasn't already made its way here :

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm

One image found on his computer. Level 1 severity - i.e the lowest, which is probably, as we all know, as a teenager in a bikini or swimming trunks.

He's hardly a hardcore peadophile or consumer of child porn if he had a single level 1 picture on his harddrive, intentionally downloaded or not.

Witchhunt.

I look on Facebook at friends, family etc, with pictures of their kids in the bath, or in swimming trucks or suits, is that child porn?

Wait a minute, could people be arrested, charged and perhaps convicted of looking at a photo of a relative enjoying the sun or enjoying water???

This is seriously crazy.

steveimp wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Surprised this hasn't already made its way here :

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm

One image found on his computer. Level 1 severity - i.e the lowest, which is probably, as we all know, as a teenager in a bikini or swimming trunks.

He's hardly a hardcore peadophile or consumer of child porn if he had a single level 1 picture on his harddrive, intentionally downloaded or not.

Witchhunt.

I look on Facebook at friends, family etc, with pictures of their kids in the bath, or in swimming trucks or suits, is that child porn?

Wait a minute, could people be arrested, charged and perhaps convicted of looking at a photo of a relative enjoying the sun or enjoying water???

This is seriously crazy.

errr...yes you could. If you are in one the US state of Maine it's now an offense to stare at a child for too long.

veritas wrote:
steveimp wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Surprised this hasn't already made its way here :

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm

One image found on his computer. Level 1 severity - i.e the lowest, which is probably, as we all know, as a teenager in a bikini or swimming trunks.

He's hardly a hardcore peadophile or consumer of child porn if he had a single level 1 picture on his harddrive, intentionally downloaded or not.

Witchhunt.

I look on Facebook at friends, family etc, with pictures of their kids in the bath, or in swimming trucks or suits, is that child porn?

Wait a minute, could people be arrested, charged and perhaps convicted of looking at a photo of a relative enjoying the sun or enjoying water???

This is seriously crazy.

errr...yes you could. If you are in one the US state of Maine it's now an offense to stare at a child for too long.

Yet in my case they've not been near my comp,a thing JK pointed out to use in my defence.

robbiex wrote:
I've never heard of this dj, however I was just wondering, how did the case ever get to court. I thought that the only way that they could discover what people have viewed through credit card payments like in operation Oar?

Maybe he took it into a shop for repair (some years ago Currys called the police when they found something on a machine didn't they?)