A new Meme?

Protection of Children Act 1978 (England & Wales)

The law on images of child abuse is clear. It is an offence to take,
permit to be taken, make, possess, show, distribute or advertise
indecent images of children in the United Kingdom. The word indecent
should be taken at its dictionary meaning; as a guide it means any
images of children, apparently under 18 years of age, involved in
sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative.

Please note; it is against the law to actively seek out such images
and doing so in order to report to the IWF would not be a defence in
court.

Section 1 of this act, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994, creates various offences of taking or distributing
indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child under 18 years
of age. It states:

1(1) It is an offence for a person -

To take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or
pseudo-photograph of a child; or to distribute or show such indecent
photographs or pseudo-photographs; or to possess such indecent
photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being
distributed or shown by himself or others; or to publish or cause to
be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying
that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or
pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.'

Section 160 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 made the simple
possession of indecent photographs of children an offence. This is an
Arrestable Offence carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years
imprisonment.

Making an indecent image of a child is a Serious Arrestable Offence
carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Note: The term "make" includes downloading images from the Internet
and storing or printing them out. R v Bowden (J) 1999.

 

My mate certainly didn't. He wouldn't/couldn't say what he was
looking for but he did say that it was one of the worst jobs he'd ever
had to do, and he'd certinaly had to do some nasty stuff in his time.

 

True, though in most cases there is going to be no defence as to get
the stuff you have to actively seek it - either by joining one of the
rings or by pay per view. So with very few exceptions it really is a
bang to rights moment the instant one hits the download button.

 

I'd imagine one might apply for a licence from the Home Office or
somesuch, much like the situation for growing weed.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.

 

Which is probably as it should be, though I always have slightly
niggling doubts about absolute offences; I can't help feeling the
government would love to introduce more and more of them.

I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability.

 

It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search. I've come
across a couple of sites in the past that looked very dodgy indeed,
although they might have been bait.
Annoyingly, the thumbnails on the front pages would have remained in my
cache, ready to be dragged out by a HD search if I'd been busted for
anything else at the time. Have you noticed how often the forces of
Laura Norder take away PC systems in furtherance of their investigations
these days?

Some years ago, out of curiousity I did a deep search of HD files and
was amazed to find dozens, if not hundreds, of references to 'pedophile'
and variations thereof. Afaics, most of them were newsgroup titles and
the like, but it gave me pause. The types of neanderthals who attacked a
paediatrician wouldn't hesitate to put in the windows of anybody who had
such text on their computer.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.

 

"Strict liability". That's the phrase I'd forgotten! Ta.

 

^^^^^^^^^


Say it ain't so!

 

Wikipedia reckons it is:

"The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though
to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular
traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the
defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is
irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant
was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit."

 

Cunts, the lot of them.

Oh well.

 

Tell me about it. Some five or six years ago I was trundling around
looking for Suzuki GSXR750 sites, of all things.

There was a *fabulous* Japanese one, and I started exploring the links
off it. Those led to some Japanese punk/goth site (I know: it made me
grin, too) and there was a newsgroup link off it. Fairu gazou something
or other. So I went to that.

It was a non-binary group, and BT carried it (I was with BT and not the
Goiman server then) so I deduced it wasn't too dodgy, and clicked on a
link on it. That took me to your common or garden porn site: again,
nothing dodgy, and I was about to go back to Gixxer 750s when I noticed
there was something really odd about it.

It had no links off it.

And *every* porn site is linked to something else, right?

So, curiosity now piqued, I deleted the back end of the url to see what
the main page looked like.....

and WHAM! My screen filled with KP.

Eek, quit out, take deep breath.

Right, another deep breath, and try the home page url again (it was
something incredibly simple - just a few characters and numbers) - and
yes, it was a silly thing to do - and I got a 'site under construction'
page, with a picture of a tree on it.

Odd.

So I backtracked, through the porn-site-wiv-no-links, and yes, got
there. But couldn't get there simply by typing in the home page url.

I didn't know about referrals then. I do now. And I'd never have
stumbled on it if the original porn site had added a few links. They'd
added the back door, but hadn't painted it to match its surroundings, as
it were.

So...... I passed all the details onto a ukrm-er who shall remain
nameless, but who was (and I believe still is) rather good at tracing
this sort of thing. Apparently it went through servers around the world,
but ultimately ended up coming out of Florida. So said ukrm-er quietly
passed all the details onto the FBI, and what happened after that I know
not.

One and only time I've encountered KP. Gave me one helluva shock.

 

Indeed. Paying to view however, a la Langham is bang to rights stuff.

That's making a copy, so yes.

 

Scary. Pleased to say I never have but then I'm very risk averse when
it comes to net surfing.

 

Indeed. There's no need to prove intent (mens rea or guilty mind) in
speeding etc, you speeded, you got caught, end of. Provided the
technicalities have been observed, all you can do is throw yourself
on the mercy of the court.

 

That surprises me. Were I asked to guess, I'd have said Russia and/or
Eastern Europe.

 

Or tell them it's not a real crime and that they ought to focus on
catching and convicting real criminals.

I just *don't* get it. I really cannot comprehend that speeding is a
'real' crime.

 

I don't like it either, but with a devil's advocate's head on I look
at it like this: speeding is deliberately acting in such a way that
you increase the risk of harm to others beyond a level deemed
acceptable by our lords and masters. There are other UK laws which
when broken do not IMO constitute a "moral" wrong, but simply mean you
haven't been a good little citizen and done as you were told. [1]

Personally I say "**** it" and do what feels right at the time.

[1] This is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

that would appear to include some of the sex-ed teaching materials used in
primary schools.

 

not paying taxes, for one.