Topic: What a Shock

[goldshirt*9]

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-man-jailed-having-animal-sex-extreme/story-18400645-detail/story.html#axzz2NcmkMCa4

This news broke on Monday 11/3/13. The above accused worked where i work. although not a close friend, and as many do you speak at work exchanging peasantries and such.
O M G then this came out.
What makes it worse is his son works with him as well.Needless to say he is off with stress.
CAt 5 is the strongest offence for this type of activity.
My immediate boss's wife works with the police and more information appears everyday.
Apparently he logged into a site under his mistresses name and info firstly accordingly to find more sites and information.She had a shock when the police came a knocking.
According to Boss, the police track the 3 main sites for this activity ( including other illegal sex sites under UK law) and log your IP address and follow what you do.A couple of visits they ignore you , mistake and such but then they follow you.Apparently he was followed for 2 years.
You hear and read about it but to work with someone is shocking.
As a Union rep I am being constantly asked about whether he can come back to work as his job is being held open.As i am about to finish a employment law course you can guess, I have had a few arguments about this.
Rightly or wrongly the company have in law to keep the job open, just a nightmare in law trying to release someone from his contract who is in prison. ( if interested its called Frustration of Contract )

This is the second time where i work this has happened.The first was worse what the father did.

Spoiler (hover to show)

If this is moved / deleted then i understand why

[6pairsofshoes]

There must be something wrong with his brain.  How else to explain why someone would do this?

[mishca09]

wow. I can't even imagine what his son is going through. I wonder why governments can't shut these sites down… do they leave them up to just to catch others? . stories like these always make me cringe...

[smokester]

That is heavy poo! the bestiality is available even on TPB so that (although vulgar) isn't much to talk of, but the child related stuff is just abominable.

At a shop steward so to speak, could you refuse to defend him like a someone in the legal profession could? 

[xtopave]

Even the thought of children being sexually abused is so abhorring it makes me physically ill. I'd go with the severest of punishments for those people.

the bestiality is available even on TPB

 

[goldshirt*9]

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.
He got 8 months in prison, the same as hume and ex wife  something wrong here dont you think.
apparently he started to go to counselling when he got caught, so the judge gave him a lenient sentence. 

[Discover99]

it's good though that people get exposed and sent to prison. 8 months doesn't seem like a long time in prison though.. I mean counseling should be a given in this situation

[smokester]

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?

It's illegal to possess child porn (that's a law) but far worse it promotes exploitation. 

[townie2]

that's where the real crime is, the more people watch child porn, the more demand for it, therefore more children are sexually abused, this doesn't really have to do with what you do in the privacy of your home.

[goldshirt*9]

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?

He looked and downloaded them including video's, which then became illegal.
Not sure, The printed news paper had more information written of what he actually did abroad ??
Possession of illegal pornography "  Protection of Children Act 1978, " and for Animals
" Sexual Offences Act 2003"

As for 'did he actually do it himself  ?' I have no idea, just rumours and they are not worth listening to.
More information is forthcoming. 
But the actual act does repulse people.

From the boss's wife, he actually went abroad and committed said crimes

[goldshirt*9]

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.
Wasn't the fact he looked, He Downloaded them !


'10 counts of making indecent photographs of children, by downloading them'
can someone explain this ??
did he take the photos and edit or download and edit photos ?

[mishca09]

I found this http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/indecent_images_of_children/

seems like it demands on the age and what is being done in the photo...

[smokester]

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").

Personally, I will never buy Nike because of their behavior in S.A during apartied,  I won't buy DELL because they're crap (but now I know they are also exploiting folk I'll add that to the list), and I wouldn't buy and iPhone because of the exploitation it would do to my bank balance.

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.

Actually, I was in Japan in the mid 90's when the cartooned depiction of schoolgirls being molested and whatnot were commonplace, while the public seemed oblivious and didn't seem to understand the implications.  4chan, /b/ and pedobear later...

[goldshirt*9]

Japan has funny laws on sex 

[6pairsofshoes]

There was a group of radical feminists in the U.S. who were trying to pass stringent laws on pornography that depicted women in bondage, being tortured, etc. on the basis that such imagery promoted degrading attitudes toward women and posed a de facto threat to their equal protection under the law.

I think that laws against child pornography have the same intention, protection of groups that either cannot protect selves, or that are already in a practical status of inequality that the pornography helps bolster.  This is more problematical in the case of children or animals in that they cannot make decisions in their own best interest (under the law).  It's harder to make the argument against women who are complicit in making pornography in which they are mistreated.  As for what one does about the consumption of such images is another odd question.  I'd prefer not to have the government tell me what I can and can't watch on tv, but at the same time, I can understand how a private entity like Disney might not want porn shown on their networks.  Customer groups are self selecting, they go to the purveyor of the entertainment they want.

It's hard to demonstrate conclusively that violence in video games results in crime any more than bondage videos causes disrespect for women.  However, the link between fantasy and preparatory intent can be powerful evidence as was the case in this recent trial against a police officer in NYC who fantasized about killing women, dismembering and eating them.  The causal link there was sufficiently grave as to result in a conviction. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[tarascon]

It's hard to demonstrate conclusively that violence in video games results in crime any more than bondage videos causes disrespect for women. 

Concerning game play.
The consequence of all of this "play" is that the men, women, and children involved in ultra-violent games are being desensitized, that empathy is eroded or never developed, and the effect of a violent action in-game is hardly ever--if at all--traced back to the cause. Not that most games present a causal chain--but I trust what I'm trying to say makes sense. As a gamer I feel that there should be an age restriction placed on certain games. For example, I'm thinking of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I have played and actually enjoyed the game--the car chases were a blast--but then, I was 40 something when it came out and possessed an ethical code and was cognizant that I was playing a stupid game and that I wasn't going to carry its values out into the world with me.* In this game, the idea that a young black male could only make his living by mugging people, etc, is offensive on many levels which I need not go into now. I suspect that the primary players of the game are young white males... ignorant of the (not so subtle?) message presented by the marketing department and its affiliated corporations. This is bad enough to expose youngsters to and doesn't even touch on the violence in the game. A child of 10, 12, or 19 may perceive this in-game behavior as a viable, real life option at a later time. That's my concern and we may well be creating future sociopaths; I do not trust that the young and undeveloped minds of the "target consumers" are in a mental space to realize that their actions will have consequences if they attempt to practice these sorts of game ethics in the world. A Buddhist could argue that the game behavior is real because the full intention of the action makes it so.
And gaming of this type represents a mere fraction of the inundation of senselessness, violence, racism, and disrespect of other human beings with which we are finding ourselves increasingly swamped.
That's all I wanted to say. End of rant.

*Unfortunately, I did contribute financial support to the corporation which sold, not a game, but an idea, to the public.

[goldshirt*9]

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,

[6pairsofshoes]

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)

Actually, isn't downloading here being made equivalent to taking possession of an illegal form of pornography?  Even if the accused downloaded printed and distributed the images, they aren't the author/maker, just the distributor.  I'd assume that defining downloading as a crime is the equivalent to saying that if the police came to your house and found a stash of 8 x 10 prints of child pornography, it's the same as having downloaded them.  Normally, laws try to tie new forms of technology to existing legal strictures, no?

[smokester]

It is rather odd though, that regarding narcotics you can argue "personal use".  It has always confused me when celebrities come out and admit a long term cocaine dependency, which more often than not they combine with some heartfelt promise to clean up their act that brings a tear to the eye of the listeners. Everyone then applauds them and the paparazzi set up camp outside the Betty Ford clinic ready to supply the magnitude of magazine stories that will run for a couple of months.

No one mentions the law breaking involved in a drug dependency even when the said 'sleb falls off the wagon and probably has a few grams in his/her pocket during the next TV interview (for personal use of course).  I'm not saying that anyone should be able to use the same argument regarding child pornography, but a little consistency would be nice.

[xtopave]

You're talking about celebs and media. The only consistent thing is money. 

[6pairsofshoes]

Are celebrities excused child pornography in the UK?  Because I don't think they are in the U.S.  Roman Polanski is a case in point.

[smokester]

Are celebrities excused child pornography in the UK?...

Pete Townshend tried played the "white knight syndrome" card, and that seemed to work.  Interestingly, and also in line with christ's comments: Townshend didn't download them but quite obviously viewed them.  So the crime would be possession and not "looking at pictures".

[6pairsofshoes]

My comment re: Roman Polanski was a typical stupidity on my part.  He was accused of statutory rape, not possession of child porn.

I think that consumption of the images is regarded as the same as trade in ivory, as a defacto commission of a crime by creating a market for exploitation.  Elephants are endangered, while children are a protected group of people unable to fend for themselves.  Apparently obtaining or possessing the images, electronic or otherwise, is akin to buying ivory as far as the law is concerned.

Apparently the law does not see this as a thought crime as much as a behavior that supports an outlawed activity, the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.  As it stands, the law does not find this a victimless crime.  This seems to be the basis for the apparently draconian policy.

[8ullfrog]

There is a rating system regarding Video games, just as there is one regarding Films.

One common argument is that parents are "Too busy" to keep their kids from playing M rated (M18) games. To which I say. "golly you, get less busy."

Also, don't equate some duck bless'ed weirdo with my video game habits. I know not to golly a duck.

Just realized you said CJ's journey was an unfortunate take on black culture.

The name of the game is GRAND THEFT AUTO SAN ANDREAS. The game cover shows gang culture, driveby shootings, and hookers.

Your rant is bad, and you should feel bad.

[6pairsofshoes]

I think 8ully was referring to tarascon's self-described "rant."

Yes, parents should impose limits.  But teenagers are crafty, and specifically seek the forbidden, sometimes, despite their guardian's best efforts.  It's hard to know what to do with respect to this.  And, agreed, playing a video game is a far cry from having biblical knowledge of a duck.

tarascon is currently without internet access.  I'm sure he'll respond when he returns next week.

[goldshirt*9]

... 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.
cannot be argued to type so here is the info
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a02

[Beatrix]

To be honest, I get ChrisT.  I understand finding it incredible people can be prosecuted for looking at pictures, no matter what they are of. 
As a mom, I have to admit I want him jailed, possibly beaten.  Not because he has done anything wrong, but because I am self centered. To have my child in a neighborhood with him, I would want him to know there is a consequence to him looking at someone in one of those pictures.  God, what if it was your child made to make them.. That is a tired comment, but you see where I was going with it.
I'm not one to say if a person is wrong.  I believe that sexuality towards children is wrong, no matter how.  I don't believe in jailing people unless they have committed a crime, though.  I will also point out that because it is a law, does not make it a crime to me. 
But I will never condone putting people under psychiatric care as punishment, make them hurt, don't give them meds and cause a conscious coma, allowing them to forget the pervert they were.  Make them remember what they are, and make them recognize the disgust others have for them. /end

[6pairsofshoes]

There are two parts to this "looking" so let me break them down.  One is not and should not be illegal.

Say you are walking down the street and somebody has posted a photo containing illegal content.  You look at it.  That is not and should not be a crime.  Your gaze simply falls on something in your environment.  The person who made and posted the photo should be prosecuted.
Or you are in an educational course where someone shows such an image in order to educate you as to what constitutes child pornography.  That's not a crime either.

But say, you are a pedophile and want to look at photos to get your jollies.  No photo is available to you, so you have to go seek one out.  To obtain the photo, you have to actively acquire it, either by downloading it or paying for one in hard copy.  There is a crime here, I believe, because your active seeking creates a market that requires the exploitation of a vulnerable class of people.  The laws seem aimed at stamping out the illegal manufacture and distribution of those images on the premise that their production hurts children.  Most reasonable people think children should be protected from that sort of exploitation.

[6pairsofshoes]

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.

[6pairsofshoes]

That does seem a bit of an overreach.  If the aim is to avoid harm to society, what is the basis for this kind of draconian prohibition?  Is there a presumption of magical harm via the existence of such images?

[smokester]

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:

Possession 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.

I for one support that amendment to the law even if it does "patrol peoples' imaginations".  Not particularly because it is punitive, but because it will expose to me those who get off on depictions of children being violated (this topic as evidence) and I'd rather know who they are among us.  I realise that may be selfish, but when it comes down to the realities of life, the law, political opinion, your opinion, her opinion, everybody's opinion, means little to me in the defence of my children.

[6pairsofshoes]

In the U.S. there was a group of radical feminists who sought to impose restrictions on the production of pornography that depicted bondage, violation of women's bodies, depictions of cruelty or demeaning treatment of women on the basis that this would lead to those who viewed such images acting out the behaviors depicted in the real world.

I'm not sure there is a clear link between these things.  While it troubles me that there are people who get off on images of sexualized children, or women being beaten, I'm not sure it's appropriate to outlaw the imagery completely.  Why?  Because for some people it may simply remain in the realm of fantasy and prevent them from acting on such impulses.  Parallel arguments have been made against video games that depict violence.

The question is this:  the power we give to images and the perceived need to regulate them.  I am reminded of the iconoclasms in which mosaics or altarpieces that represented Christian deities and saints were destroyed in a sweep that excluded them as graven images or false idols that confused the faithful regarding the true source of divinity.  While, by contrast, in the Orthodox church, icons are viewed as conduits to the divine.  These are situations where images are acknowledged for their power, but the mechanisms and potentials for good or evil are regarded differently.

Who can say what the existence of a tracing or a CGI might do in terms of real world effects?  You can't stop a person's imagination from manifesting the images psychically.  Does the externalization of those images really make a big difference if you are thinking in terms of pedophilia?  That's the crux of the issue, and I'm not quite sure how to feel about it, although feelings of protectiveness toward one's children that would outlaw such images are completely understandable. 

This is a grey area and the big issue is where/when we as a society can begin reaching into other people's heads in order to insure the safety of the collective.  Where and how does one define privacy and the right to entertain one's own thoughts?  I think that's what troubles chris about this.

[smokester]

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.

I cannot begin to tell you how many "inappropriate" looks and worse kids had to contend with when I was at school.  The headmaster in my secondary school interfered with many children and eventually moved on to a primary where he did much worse and was finally caught.  He was released, did it again, was caught again and then hanged himself.

The groundsman at the same school (who was a personal friend of mine), used to oo and ah about the girls in their leotards doing P.E and we (boys of about 14) used to agree with him. It was only when I grew up that I looked back and thought: "what was a 57 year old man doing fantasising about 13 year old girls?". He ended up molesting some boys that he used invite to his house to watch blue movies on 8mm.

Outside the school in parks and the like, there always was some dodgy bloke flashing himself to us and making lewd suggestions, and admittedly, pre Esther Rantzen's Childline we used to laugh it off.  My point though is that if these things were to happen today those men would probably be stoned to death.  That might not be right, and the law may truly be an ass, but I certainly prefer now to the bad old days.

[smokester]

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.

I think you are overcooking it a bit.  For example: I mentioned my old headmaster earlier and apparently the hanging himself bit is an urban myth which I have just discovered after I went about trying to find more on the story.  I couldn't find him anywhere even though at the time I was interviewed by the C.I.D. (as were many of my friends due to out name in his caning book) and the News of the World ran a story on him  - this was 1986 by the way. Eventually I found a single page about him on ukpaedos-exposed.com and he supposedly now lives in Hertfordshire.

Here is a real paedophile that has managed to slip back into the general public after spending just 5 years inside.  There was no stone throwing, no beatings, no banning of inappropriate looks, he just served his time and is probably enjoying the internet as we speak.

The law and the vigilantes don't seem to be doing enough. 

[smokester]

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?

Surely it's just a blanket law.  It's like banning the manufacturing of bombs but allow the unmonitored study of their assembly.  Do that and sooner or later someone will ignore the original law.

Best just criminalise it all.  It's a no-brainer.