what the hell...
is this guy on bail. its not just for owning pics but you say making them. this is a much more serious offence and im surprised he isnt remanded
Welsh auditor in court over child abuse images
Jeremy Colman, the ex-Auditor General for Wales, has appeared before magistrates on 14 charges of making and possessing child sexual abuse images and failing to disclose a password. He has been charged with making and possessing 429 images, 126 of which were level four - the most serious images, sadism and bestiality, are …
-
-
Wednesday 17th March 2010 15:59 GMT bolccg
They use a dubious definition...
If I recall, some tech illiterate judge was once prevailed upon by a slick prosecutor to consider the viewing of an image in a computer as involving the "creation" of that image (since it didn't exist on the computer before you copied it there for viewing). Since there is zero public outcry about the law in this area being so blatantly abused (those affected by it not being a particularly popular demographic) this has become standard practice (again, if I recall correctly - if I'm wrong no doubt someone will correct me below).
Which is utterly brain dead but that may well explain why he's allowed to walk around despite that apparently serious charge being levied against him (which in itself is to admit that the creating images charge probably isn't justified).
-
Wednesday 17th March 2010 16:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
re: They use a dubious definition
From what I remember, it wasn’t a case of a luddite judge being tricked, but there was a feeling that if you’ve accessed an image on the Web and then downloaded it onto your computer, then you have not merely viewed it but consciously made a copy – and as such, some distinction should be made.
But the real reason – which is to do with the example you cited – that there was also a feeling that ‘I just looked at it online but didn’t save a copy, therefore I did nothing wrong’ argument didn’t wash. Prior to the law being changed, I believe it wasn’t illegal to view obscene images, but it was to possess them – of course, these laws were to do with a physical product, not digital ones. Arguably, the change in the laws were changed to take into account how people were accessing this type of material.
This isn't to say that it was all well thought out...
Although I think people have been done for what was found in their browser cache, I’m fairly certain that there was one recentish case that was thrown out of court.
-
-
-
Thursday 18th March 2010 00:08 GMT Iamfanboy
Wait, Bestiality is WORSE than CP?
Let me get this straight.
The child abuse images this guy had are level 4, whatever that means.
Bestiality and sadism are level 5?
So, uhhh... going outside your species is worse than molesting a child?
PLEASE tell me that I'm wrong, and you meant to say that bestiality + child pornography is level 5. If not.... I mean, they're both fairly sick, but I, like most humans, tend to value my own species more highly than another.
I'd rather the sickies humped chickens instead of kiddies.
-
Thursday 18th March 2010 00:08 GMT John Smith 19
Legal English
Limping into the 20th Century.
Who knows? In another 100 years it might make it into the 21st.
Might I nominate "Originated" to identify the person who 1st created these images, and (presumably) actually abused (or recorded) the abuse of children.
That would imply *many* creators, but 1 originator. which seems to describe the actual events better and leaves the current definition intact. Still not very good however.
thumbs down for such behavior.
-
Thursday 18th March 2010 04:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
To clarify
Making means making a copy on your computer.
Creating means actually creating.
The two different charges only have one word different and both are almost identical.
Which is why the common response is like the first post here.
I think its deliberate and they have no plan on changing to clarify.
For those that think that nothing should be changed and the worst should happen to people of these charges think on this.
"How great a society is can be measured by how it treats the worst rather than the best among them"
-
Thursday 18th March 2010 10:50 GMT Malcolm Boura 2
Making and possessing
The real reason for charging with 'making' instead of 'possessing' is that it is easier to convict. There are defences available agaisnt possessing which are not available for making.
At least in this case the images were allegedly at level 4 and hence pornographic. Illegal images at level 1 are often just quite quite unremarkable images of children, the sort of thing to be found in many family photo albums.
The authorities love the present law because in many, probably most cases, they can decide whether to prosecute according to the nature of the defendant rather than the nature of the photographs. We are rapidly approaching the situation where the only safe photograph of a child is no photograph. What is even worse, by treating children as if they are inherently sexual they are causing people to believe that they are inherently sexual.
-
Thursday 18th March 2010 23:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Level what?
This Man From Wales didn't manage to fuck a goat then?
That's the Real Reason he's up on charges, obviously.
Oh, and to be perfectly PC: While I personally don't like even ``hard core'' but otherwise mundane porn, and will be quite happy if I never see any of the more extreme stuff, I don't feel threatened by knowing of its existence, nor do I think it effectual to ``make war on naughty pictures''. I do think mistreating anyone, animals and children especially, for the purpose of sexual gratification or otherwise, is a crime. But I don't see the ``extreme porn laws'' or prosecuting this guy doing anything for the victims. What's next, thought police?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
