Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:52:44 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

I agree. It is unfortunate and potentially unfair. However, continuing
denial of the partner's guilt ("he's on the sex offenders' register
for credit card fraud") is probably not the best way to make friends
and influence people.
So unless the wife/husband/children joins the lynch mob, they are also
guilty and deserving of punishment?

I can only imagine how you came to that conclusion from that statement.

There are so many arguments about what is unfair about the way in which
those that have been caught with child abuse images (and their families)
are treated, so why even mention the bad luck that caused the police to
investigate the computer, if that is what it was? That wasn't unfair -
it was bad luck.

Arguments about how unfair pressure can be brought in order to get the
accused to plead guilty, for example. Arguments about the definition of
which images should be legal and which illegal. Arguments about how
juries are not the best people to judge whether images are indecent, or
not. Arguments about who should, or should not, go on the SOR. Arguments
about who should know who is on the SOR. The list goes on and on.

But arguing that "credit card fraud" is in anyway responsible seems to
be arguing that it was unfair that he was caught..

But that had nothing whatsoever to do with my post, in which I was
questioning whether the *family* of a convicted sex-offender should be
treated as if they were also offenders if they support the offender or
do not believe in his guilt.


Arguing that it was unfair that he was caught isn't supporting the
offender. Arguing that is was unfair that he was caught isn't arguing
that he was not guilty.

--
Sue

MM wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:30 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 28 Aug, 03:31, wrote:
Todal
are you being intentionally thick, or do you not understand the term
'unemployable'? I, for example, have committed no crime, but am
considered 'unemployable'. Why? Guilty by association with someone
accused. 20 year career shot to hell because of a misrepresentation,
guilt by association and false allegations.
And a plea of guilty to possessing fifty five (or was it fifty seven?)
indecent images of children, of course.

But not the woman! Since when did we hang wives and girlfriends of
alleged murderers? This "guilt by association", if the woman knew
nothing, is a form of "justice" invented by fascists.

MM

Surely we don't have "fascists" in our gloriously equal Socialist
society? We do have bloody witch hunts though!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Almost exactly correct. The phrase has been deliberately created by the
child protection industry as a preferred alternative to "child
pornography" or "indecent images". The agencies concerned (IWF, CEOP,
NSPCC and so on) are quite open about it - their websites explicitly
instruct journalists to use the special phrase in order to emphasise the
"fact" that Every Illegal Image Is A Crime Scene.

I have taken delivery of boxes of old photos from my mother's house
including some crime scenes of me as a child playing on the beach nekkid.
Since this is a child abuse image and I am the subject am I entitled to
victim compensation?
Who do I sue?

Andy

AndyW wrote:
"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Almost exactly correct. The phrase has been deliberately created by
the child protection industry as a preferred alternative to "child
pornography" or "indecent images". The agencies concerned (IWF, CEOP,
NSPCC and so on) are quite open about it - their websites explicitly
instruct journalists to use the special phrase in order to emphasise
the "fact" that Every Illegal Image Is A Crime Scene.

I have taken delivery of boxes of old photos from my mother's house
including some crime scenes of me as a child playing on the beach
nekkid. Since this is a child abuse image and I am the subject am I
entitled to victim compensation?
Who do I sue?

You appear to be in possession of an indecent photograph of a child. You
should pack your bags, not forgetting your toothbrush, and surrender to the
nearest constable. You may as well try to involve your mother as well,
especially if you don't really like her.

On Sep 3, 6:49*pm, "The Todal" wrote:
AndyW wrote:
"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Almost exactly correct. The phrase has been deliberately created by
the child protection industry as a preferred alternative to "child
pornography" or "indecent images". The agencies concerned (IWF, CEOP,
NSPCC and so on) are quite open about it - their websites explicitly
instruct journalists to use the special phrase in order to emphasise
the "fact" that Every Illegal Image Is A Crime Scene.

I have taken delivery of boxes of old photos from my mother's house
including some crime scenes of me as a child playing on the beach
nekkid. Since this is a child abuse image and I am the subject am I
entitled to victim compensation?
Who do I sue?

You appear to be in possession of an indecent photograph of a child. You
should pack your bags, not forgetting your toothbrush, and surrender to the
nearest constable. *You may as well try to involve your mother as well,
especially if you don't really like her.

I agree. See the post about my son being brought home from the NICU..
first bath... veiwed as a child abuse image... by the plod, that is.
TC

Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
Different countries have different laws
and different rules apply. Live with the UK ones or go to a country
which has rules you approve of.
A little thought should show that that principle is morally
indefensible. There is a third option of trying to change the rules.
Where the rules are wrong, that is morally the best course.
`
Of course. But criminals that commit crimes and then argue that it was
unfair that they got caught don't deserve much sympathy.

That depends on whether it actually was unfair. In many cases that
depends on the circumstances, but I would regard it as being
automatically unfair for someone to be caught breaking a law that was
itself unfair. I would also generally regard it as unfair if a person
was caught because of the police breaking the law, or if the person
was one of many breaking the law and singled out for an unfair reason.

But the only people that
seem to want this particular rule changed are criminals that have been
caught and convicted as a result of the present rules.

Well now you know someone else. The current rules are completely
insane. Far from making it an offence to possess or make pictures
of children being abused, there should be an incentive to get people
to distribute such material widely. Which is more likely to prevent
the LAPD from beating suspects: making it illegal to film them or
making such film seen around the world? Which do you think is more
likely to prevent sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: making it
illegal to make and possess pictures of it or publishing pictures in
the world's newspapers?

You are thinking of something rather different - the rule in question is
the "exclusionary rule" that prevents "fruit of the tree" evidence being
inadmissible in the US to a far greater extent than in the UK.

As to whether the law regarding possession of child abuse images are
concerned, it is clearly fair and reasonable. Juries have no difficulty
in finding people that do so guilty - if they thought the law unfair or
unreasonable, they would surely not do so.

As to whether evidence that is found after the police have made a minor
procedural error, I see no problem with that being admissible, at all.
If they break the law, they should be prosecuted for breaking the law,
the same as any other person should be.

--
Sue

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:35:47 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
Different countries have different laws
and different rules apply. Live with the UK ones or go to a country
which has rules you approve of.
A little thought should show that that principle is morally
indefensible. There is a third option of trying to change the rules.
Where the rules are wrong, that is morally the best course.
`
Of course. But criminals that commit crimes and then argue that it was
unfair that they got caught don't deserve much sympathy.

That depends on whether it actually was unfair. In many cases that
depends on the circumstances, but I would regard it as being
automatically unfair for someone to be caught breaking a law that was
itself unfair. I would also generally regard it as unfair if a person
was caught because of the police breaking the law, or if the person
was one of many breaking the law and singled out for an unfair reason.

But the only people that
seem to want this particular rule changed are criminals that have been
caught and convicted as a result of the present rules.

Well now you know someone else. The current rules are completely
insane. Far from making it an offence to possess or make pictures
of children being abused, there should be an incentive to get people
to distribute such material widely. Which is more likely to prevent
the LAPD from beating suspects: making it illegal to film them or
making such film seen around the world? Which do you think is more
likely to prevent sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: making it
illegal to make and possess pictures of it or publishing pictures in
the world's newspapers?

You are thinking of something rather different - the rule in question is
the "exclusionary rule" that prevents "fruit of the tree" evidence being
inadmissible in the US to a far greater extent than in the UK.

As to whether the law regarding possession of child abuse images are
concerned, it is clearly fair and reasonable. Juries have no difficulty
in finding people that do so guilty - if they thought the law unfair or
unreasonable, they would surely not do so.

To what extent have they been "groomed" by public opinion, especially
of the kind promulgated by the Sun and News of the World, in order to
make anything other than a guilty verdict impossible? Think for a
moment if a jury decided the pictures were all in the category of
"Klara and Edda", a useful yardstick since the newspapers published
the actual photo (before some started to censor it) and thus everyone
had/has a chance to view it, and came to the same conclusion as the
CPS over K & E, namely that there was no case to answer? Within
minutes of a not guilty verdict the Sun would be screaming for its pet
lynch mob to "hunt these friends of paedos" down. The Sun would have
to mount a vicious attack, since it would fear its meal ticket would
be coming to an end.

So it's not really all that surprising when juries find as they do.
Also, are juries selected completely at random or does vetting go on
like in the States? In other words, if you had a jury comprised mainly
of representatives for the various "do-gooder" factories, then you
could forget "not guilty" if the pictures showed even just a bare
ankle.

MM

Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
You are thinking of something rather different - the rule in question is
the "exclusionary rule" that prevents "fruit of the tree" evidence being
inadmissible in the US to a far greater extent than in the UK.

I think that should be stronger in the U.K. Without it there is
too much temptation for police to succumb to "noble cause" corruption.
It's far too easy for police to do something which breaks the rules
but not sufficently for them to be prosecuted for it. If it was likely
to make evidence inadmissable there would be a strong incentive on
invividuals to stick to the rules and for supervisors to make sure
their people did everything right.

Thank you for being kind and not pointing out my incorrect double
negative

I take your point, but it does rather rely on the rules being spot on,
if they are to be kept so religiously. We seem to be adding more and
more rules at an astonishing rate, making it more difficult for the
police to do their job whilst not bending any of them. I find it hard to
believe that rules that are changed and added to so frequently can meet
the quality criteria needed for blind adherence.

I would suggest that there is a difference between a rule being broken
deliberately, with a view to gaining a conviction that otherwise would
not be possible, and one broken accidently and incidentally.

--
Sue

On Sep 4, 9:55*pm, Palindrome wrote:
Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Palindrome wrote:
You are thinking of something rather different - the rule in question is
the "exclusionary rule" that prevents "fruit of the tree" evidence being
*inadmissible in the US to a far greater extent than in the UK.

I think that should be stronger in the U.K. Without it there is
too much temptation for police to succumb to "noble cause" corruption.
It's far too easy for police to do something which breaks the rules
but not sufficently for them to be prosecuted for it. If it was likely
to make evidence inadmissable there would be a strong incentive on
invividuals to stick to the rules and for supervisors to make sure
their people did everything right.

Thank you for being kind and not pointing out my incorrect double
negative

I take your point, but it does rather rely on the rules being spot on,
if they are to be kept so religiously. We seem to be adding more and
more rules at an astonishing rate, making it more difficult for the
police to do their job whilst not bending any of them. I find it hard to
believe that rules that are changed and added to so frequently can meet
the quality criteria needed for blind adherence.

I would suggest that there is a difference between a rule being broken
deliberately, with a view to gaining a conviction that otherwise would
not be possible, and one broken accidently and incidentally.

--
Sue

"making it more difficult for the police to do their job whilst not
bending any of them"

I have corrected this for you:

"making it more difficult for people to live their lives whilst not
breaking or bending any of them"

WM