the bestiality is available even on TPB
At a shop steward so to speak, could you refuse to defend him like a someone in the legal profession could?I'm not sure, I would imagine I could refuse and would.
Am I right in understanding that all this chap did was look at pictures in the privacy of his own home?
He didn't touch a horse, a child or a duck?
The crime is what, precisely?
Am I right in understanding that all this chap did was look at pictures in the privacy of his own home?He looked and downloaded them including video's, which then became illegal.
He didn't touch a horse, a child or a duck?
The crime is what, precisely?
That bit wasn't in the paper - for that he deserves to be shot, but I still can't quite get my head round what is wrong with looking at pictures.The on-line edition missed a lot of things out.
From the boss's wife, he actually went abroad and committed said crimes
That bit wasn't in the paper - for that he deserves to be shot, but I still can't quite get my head round what is wrong with looking at pictures.It's illegal to ...
illegal <> wrong: we have some really stupid laws, especially populist ones, that are passed because no one has the courage to point out that they are stupid.... it promotes exploitation.
This appears to be the nub of it, but buying Nike sneakers, DELL (or Apple) computers, or anything made in the far east also promotes exploitation but yet no-one is jailed for buying sneakers, are they? The law appears to be inaccurately targeted. I also note that he had "... 58 prohibited cartoon images depicting sexual activity with children", and I fail to see how a cartoon "promotes" anything.
I think that, in truth, the law is aimed at the distaste of the masses - he does stuff that i find distasteful, therefore he should be jailed. This is not good law.
(Please note: I agree that people that exploit children, adults, dogs, geese or goats deserve punishment, and the harsher the better - I simply cannot make the leap between "viewing on the internet" and "doing to kids").
I also note that he had "... 58 prohibited cartoon images depicting sexual activity with children", and I fail to see how a cartoon "promotes" anything.
It's hard to demonstrate conclusively that violence in video games results in crime any more than bondage videos causes disrespect for women.
The law is frantically trying to stay relevant with technology that is going too quickly for it: "making photographs" was the law, and someone decided that downloading a picture to a computer is the digital equivalent. This "crime" is generally applied to the downloader as well as to the photographer. (In truth more often to the downloader, as they are easier to catch)thanks for clearing that up,
The law is frantically trying to stay relevant with technology that is going too quickly for it: "making photographs" was the law, and someone decided that downloading a picture to a computer is the digital equivalent. This "crime" is generally applied to the downloader as well as to the photographer. (In truth more often to the downloader, as they are easier to catch)
Are celebrities excused child pornography in the UK?...
... and I really struggle with the conceptual difference between holding them on a local hard drive as opposed to a remote hard drive: does this mean that as long as you store your porn on Amazon or Dropbox's servers you are "looking", but on your own machine you "possess". The law truly is an ass.wouldn't this be classed as downloading them to your cloud hdd though.
It's hard to understand how a work of imagination intended to amuse only the creator can be harmful to society unless it is reproduced, displayed and the contents mimic the referent in a way that can be said to actively induce damage through instigating the harmful actions of others.
This stricture could be used to refer to all kinds of hate speech/imagery which is not protected and can include imagery intended to incite violence or harm to minorities or other vulnerable populations. That, the reining in of speech that is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, is the only circumstance in which this kind of expression should be limited.
The relevant law:QuotePossession of Prohibited Images of children
Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ('the Act') creates a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. This offence, came into force on the 6 April 2010 it is not retrospective and requires the DPP's consent.
Possession of a prohibited image is an either way offence and the maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or a fine or both. On conviction on indictment, the maximum sentence is 3 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.
This guidance is to assist prosecutors when making decisions on whether to prosecute for the offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice circular 2010/06 on the key provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The offence is targeted at non-photographic images (this includes computer generated images (CGI's), cartoons, manga images and drawings) and therefore specifically excludes indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs of children, as well as tracings or derivatives of photographs and pseudo-photographs.
This "offence" appears to me to be almost totally independent of exploitation.
This, to be honest, is the bit that troubles me.
I too have kids, and I too would have removed the testicles of someone who abused them - through his nostrils. Law or no law.
-- BUT --
I cannot make the leap to thought policing. For me someone that watches porn on the inside of his eyelids is as much of a threat (or maybe more) as someone that draws/ keeps/ looks at pictures on paper or a screen, but I am not ready for the prospect of arresting someone because of what he thinks. Same for terrorists, actually: I cannot justify arresting someone for reading about fertilizer bombs on the internet, or dreaming of blowing up his school, or drawing pictures of shooting her whole junior band - I am old school enough to desire to punish people for what they do, not what they may do, and I cannot really entertain the prospect of arresting someone because "some disputed indicator shows that he may be more likely to ..."
We are a gnat's whisker from a society that formalises beating someone up in the playground - or even killing them - because they looked at a kid "inappropriately". This already happens, and the law used to be on the side of the innocent party - it is heading toward a place where the law lays on the side of the (not-necessarily-correct) self-appointed vigilante. Even today what jury would convict me for killing a man that had child porn in his home - even when I had no (real) reason for so doing? we should remember that Boo Radley turned out to be a good guy.
I thought that it was only in Texas where "he needed killing" was a defence in law.
In what way? The same perverts are doing the same things to the same victims. The Daily Mail would have you believe that it happens more now than then (blame the internet, of course).
How has enshrining vigilante justice in law helped? How has criminalising the harmless old git that spent his days in doors making porn mags sticky made society safer? How many of the real criminals that have been caught over the last ten (twenty, thirty) years turned out to have stashes of kiddie-porn at home? It is notable for me that the authorities tell us that the streets will be safer because of these idiotic laws, but can offer no viable evidence to prove it - but then again they don't have to, because only a pervert would defend other perverts. So who will stand up to defend a man from a law designed to appeal to the prurient rather than the endangered, and who would stand up to argue that the law is unnecessary? Not politicians, that is who.
We hardly have any male primary school teachers any more. Why? Only a pervert (man) would want to spend his days in a room full of small children.
We hardly have any scout masters any more. Why? Only a pervert (man) would want to spend his days with a troupe of children.
It was bad enough when parents used to stone the groundsman for (allegedly) touching one of the dear darlings - well - he looked like he might have thought about touching them, anyway, and he has a squint. Now we are enshrining this attitude in law.
Which bit of the possessing/ looking at pictures was the headmaster guilty of?
Kiddie-fiddlers should be shot: I agree with that bit. How does making looking at pictures a crime help?