We all know Gary Glitter only had kiddie porn and has been demonised and hounded out of the country and records banned.

So lets in today's LEGAL BRIEFING look at this case

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11823779


A : it seems if you are POLICEMAN you only get a caution and get quietly pushed out of the way without the CPS even being presented with the file.

I am shocked.

But I hope every person who is now arrested for this crime uses this case in their defence - even if guilty - because we cant have one rule for the BOYS IN BLUE and another for the rest of us.

Thanks Locked Out, you write:

"[A] caution for 50 images {provided that it's your first offence} is pretty much standard."

For someone not familiar with the standard way the police handle suspected cases of child pornography possession, can you cite another similar case where the suspect was not prosecuted but merely given a caution?

Best Wishes,
Jim

BR will you stop your anti police crusade. Read the details of the case, particularly the highligted lines

Most of the images were graded level one - the mildest level - although some were above that.

Hampshire Constabulary said earlier that it had carried out an internal investigation and had decided not to refer the matter to the CPS but instead give a caution.


In a statement, the force said: "The consequences for the officer in this case are grave - he is no longer a police officer and is on the sex offenders register.

"The decision to caution in this case was not taken lightly and was based on the level of offending. Hampshire Constabulary followed standard force practice and guidelines.

You're becoming a parody of yourself

We don't know much about these pics anyhow.It could be the girls involved were around the 16 yo mark for example.Silly though this sounds it is now child porn!

Nobody is more anti police than me,they framed me,but being idiots couldn't make it stick.However there are enough good reasons to go after the police,without needing to invent ones,all this does is make the board,and us look stupid.

Hi, Jim. A quick Google ]http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=caution+for+child+pornography&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=caution+for+child+pornography&gs_rfai=&fp=527d27a62c7d4ec9 brings up, among many other results, this:

www.theadvertiserseries.co.uk/chesterles...tion_for_child_porn/

You only asked for one, but there are many and it's pointless to compile a large list.

You may also remember Pete Townshend's caution.

This is actually in line with Jim Gamble's thinking described in this article.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459150/...les-let-caution.html

And it thoroughly pains me to cite the Daily Mail.

May I also lend my support to the view posted by Jaded and Bored. The thread title is suggestive of a substantial cache of images possessed by Mr Oliver. Such an impression is misleading in the best traditions of sensationalist tabloid journalism and can only be taken as a sign that while BR is completely sympathetic when it comes to gun toting desperados who kill, his charity extends not one inch when it comes to fallen policemen. Just another indicator that BR's motivations at the moment are largely driven by a hatred of the police which is in danger of becoming pathological {if it isn't there already}. Apologies for screwing up the page formatting.

Jim wrote:
Thanks Locked Out, you write:

"[A] caution for 50 images {provided that it's your first offence} is pretty much standard."

For someone not familiar with the standard way the police handle suspected cases of child pornography possession, can you cite another similar case where the suspect was not prosecuted but merely given a caution?

Best Wishes,
Jim

anecdotally Jim I do believe several people have been cautioned (and they were not policeman) and in fact, despite my misgivings about CEOPS and Mr Gamble (mainly because of his bizarre association with the McCanns) he has said that he believes a caution could be the best way to go. Also the Ore appeal currently under way could prove fascinating.

I think the real problem with this whole "kiddie porn " business is that media reports do not differentiate between what may be hideous cases of babies being abused and 15/16 year old nude pics.

It all gets lumped in together and as an example-here in Sydney a 14 year old very straight Catholic school girl recently got cautioned for sending a topless pic via text to her 15 year old boyfriend.

They had never done anything physical and were obviously exploring teen sexuality in a modern way and suddenly this poor little girl finds herself thrown before the law (and imagine what her poor boyfriend felt who only escaped a charge of possession because he had deleted the photo)

To me-this is utterely obscene to put kids through this sort of torment. But it is quite common.

So you believe that they are LEVEL ONE ? and what is LEVEL ONE ? just ordinary pictures ? and how are the words EXTREME PORN and level one to be clarified - seems to be a conflict in language from the "statement".

I am not anti Police - I am anti CORRUPT POLICE. It is like saying that If I felt there was too much football hooliganism in the 1980s I am not allowed to speak about it because being ANTI something that is bad is wrong ?

This forum highlights YOUR VIEWS and JK himself highlights FALSE ALLEGATIONS - and VERITAS highlights excesses in the World Press and particularly RUPERT's empire - and I highlight CORRUPT POLICE and CONSPIRACY THEORIES.........

That is why we are here - just dont read my posts if you are only say interested in say FALSE ALLEGATIONS or MURDOCH;s activities or the TV and FOOD threads which we all enjoy.

My belief is that this SHOULD have been referred to the CPS to let them DECIDE whether because this man was in the Police it was in the Public Interest to prosecute. Because of his POSITION that surely is the case.

I think you will find that there 100s of people in court who have less images and NO extreme porn where most of the images are described as Level One. Just press google and I am sure within minutes you will find out that you are wrong.

Yes some people are cautioned - but possibly all of them are either in the Police or Justice system or friends of these people. You would be suprised at how corrupt the system has become in the last 15 years.

A caution seems to be "an appropriate non-custodial sentence" as prescribed in the sentencing guidelines www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/web_Se...OffencesAct_2003.pdf (page 114)

The more pertinent question is why more heavy penalties are quite often sought and imposed for a similar level of possession. In addition, the technical/computing aspects of these case are often shaky. Likewise the content of the pictures: a few bikini/boxer shorts/boyfriend/girlfriend pics viewed in any number of facebook or myspace profiles is hardly worthy of the courts' time, unless of course the statistics are considered more important than the justice system serving society in a worthwhile way.

BR wrote:
So you believe that they are LEVEL ONE ?

The BBC says they are Level One. That's the evidence that you present here {quote "Most of the images were graded level one - the mildest level - although some were above that."}, You certainly cite no other sources as having informed your judgment, and if your own personal belief is any different maybe you'd like to share what it is - and the evidence that has led you to that conclusion - with us. Even if we are to doubt the force's own statement {and I see no reason to do so} that is enough evidence for me if it's enough evidence for you {and if it's not enough for you I'd invite you to provide some evidence to the contrary}. So yes, I believe that they are Level One. You're not suggesting the BBC is lying when it says "most of the images were graded level one", are you?

BR wrote:
and what is LEVEL ONE ? just ordinary pictures ?

The SAP {Sentencing Advisory Panel} Scale - that is the scale used as the legal benchmark - describes 5 grades of images. It defines Level One images as "Nudity or erotic posing with no sexual activity"

BR wrote:
and how are the words EXTREME PORN and level one to be clarified - seems to be a conflict in language from the "statement".

Well you can {and should} "clarify" Level One using the guidelines above. The more "extreme" images might have a highly sadistic theme in terms of graphic depiction or show acts of bestiality. Those are the sorts of things the Law defines as "extreme". There's no "conflict" here, any more than there would be "conflict" in the statement "the drinks cabinet contained around 50 bottles of beer and two bottles of Jamaican White Rum". What "conflict"? You're grasping at straws.

BR wrote:
I am not anti Police - I am anti CORRUPT POLICE.

Here's a case where someone has been kicked out of the Police, been placed upon the Sex Offenders' Register and received a caution. The Police statement says;

"The decision to caution in this case was not taken lightly and was based on the level of offending. Hampshire Constabulary followed standard force practice and guidelines.

"This is based upon the number of images, the level of those images and the previous convictions of the offender.

"The individual involved in this case had no previous convictions".

It doesn't look to me like he's received any kind of preferential treatment, as his punishment tallies with the legal guidelines, and the interpretation quoted dovetails seamlessly with what I said here a couple of days ago. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Mr Oliver has been treated any differently because of his former employment. Quite apart from the legal sanctions incurred his life is now in ruins, his neighbours will probably treat him like a leper or try to burn his house down and it's fairly likely that he'll never work again in any job that will attract good remuneration. All things taken together it doesn't look like he's got away with very much, does it? Yet you choose to present this as a case of a corrupt policeman being the recipient of undue leniency due to his {former} profession. No pleasing you, is there?

BR wrote:
It is like saying that If I felt there was too much football hooliganism in the 1980s I am not allowed to speak about it because being ANTI something that is bad is wrong ?

No it isn't. Of course you're perfectly entitled to say whatever you like. Just as I'm perfectly entitled to point out to you that you are presenting a perfectly good example of the law being applied - without fear or favour - as being something it patently isn't.


BR wrote:
This forum highlights YOUR VIEWS and JK himself highlights FALSE ALLEGATIONS - and VERITAS highlights excesses in the World Press and particularly RUPERT's empire - and I highlight CORRUPT POLICE and CONSPIRACY THEORIES.........

But I've already pointed out to you that there has been no Police corruption here. For there to be any evidence of that Mr Oliver would have to have been the beneficiary of preferential treatment. That he hasn't is evidence that he has been treated in a correct manner. Your thread title - " When is having loads of child porn and extreme porn NOT referred to the CPS" is clearly suggestive of nepotism. The evidence makes clear that exactly the opposite is true.
So you're not "highlighting" either corruption or conspiracy. And while you claim you are "not anti Police", you have badly misjudged your interpretation - a truer word would be misrepresentation - of this case.


BR wrote:
That is why we are here - just dont read my posts if you are only say interested in say FALSE ALLEGATIONS or MURDOCH;s activities or the TV and FOOD threads which we all enjoy.

I quote your own words "...This forum highlights YOUR VIEWS...". These are mine, thank you. And you should know by now that if you present something like this as something it isn't then I, at least, will hold you to account for it. One has to be responsible for the things one writes.

BR wrote:
My belief is that this SHOULD have been referred to the CPS

I think we're all thankful that such decisions are not in your particular gift.

BR wrote:
... to let them DECIDE whether because this man was in the Police it was in the Public Interest to prosecute. Because of his POSITION that surely is the case.

So now all of a sudden, because this man was a policeman he should be treated differently? Oh, I see. So throw out the law, due process and all the guidelines because he should have known better? God save us from the kind of twisted biblical legislation based on punitive retribution you would draw up for anyone who dares to disagree with your own particular dystopian view. Let me remind you that only two weeks ago you were extolling the virtues of anarchy here. Do you want fair and proportionate law enforcement or do you want legislation driven by riotous assembly? You can't have it both ways no matter how many times you try.


BR wrote:
I think you will find that there 100s of people in court who have less images and NO extreme porn where most of the images are described as Level One. Just press google and I am sure within minutes you will find out that you are wrong.

There are? Then it should be easy for you to find just one example, shouldn't it? Go on. Give it a go. Incidentally, try and spot the "conflict" between your last statement and the next one.


BR wrote:
Yes some people are cautioned {did you spot it?} - but possibly all of them are either in the Police or Justice system or friends of these people.

"... possibly all of them are either in the Police or Justice system or friends of these people". Do you have even the vaguest idea of how limp that sounds?
"Possibly" they're all Freemasons. "Possibly" they were all at school together. "Possibly" they're all members of the Illuminati. There is no end to the things these people might "possibly" be.
It's also "possible" that their punishments were simply the result of guidelines {more than adequately illustrated for you here}, fairly interpreted and correctly applied.

BR wrote:
You would be suprised at how corrupt the system has become in the last 15 years.

As usual you're being more than a little patronizing. Why would you know any better than I the state of the justice system? I certainly seem to have a better grasp of things than you, but that doesn't appear to be saying very much. Run off and play, little boy. Your reasons appear to be more than a little swayed by your more than apparent lack of reason.