Badness-browsing Belgian busted on Brit break

A Belgian man last week week pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children while on a visit to Manchester. According to a spokeswoman for Manchester Magistrates Court, where Tim Verrydt appeared on Monday 10 January, the 23-year-old of Kappellestraat, Mol, Belgium, owned up to 21 separate charges. The majority of …

[Patrick R]

Let's all go and hang him now.

I'm sure his parents will be gratefull you stopped before the door number. Next time you can even provide his mobile phone and number plate surely?

[Anonymous Coward]

<shrug>

I don't think he'll be at home for a while.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Pics or we shall be unable to judge!

He may just have browsing a catalogue of eager-to-please cheerleader hopefuls.

We know that these days, there is a major disconnect between what children are actually allowed to wear and the burqua they are supposed to wear.

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

Probably images that are perfectly legal in the rest of Europe, but banned in Victorian Britain by Gordon the moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC

>>"Probably images that are perfectly legal in the rest of Europe, but banned in Victorian Britain by Gordon the moron."

Probably so.

For some values of 'probably'

Though the article does say "(most being contrary to s160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988)"

The provisions in that act (Thatcher) have been amended by parts of 'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994' (Major) and 'Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000' (Blair)

Major's stuff appears to have been largely including pseudo-photographs and changing penalties, and Blair's stuff changing penalties.

But what's information that takes a few minutes to find worth, when set against years of fined-honed prejudice?

[Prodigal Rebel]

eeeum

not that i particularly care about this fella but why publish his whole address?

Is El Reg leveling more and more with other red tops?

[Marvin the Martian]

full address?

No, they failed to add the exact house number. Though the graffitied insults on the front door are a giveaway.

[Suburban Inmate]

Well he's owned up so....

... Perhaps should be "formerly of Kappellestraat, Mol, Belgium"

[Maty]

er ...

'....possessing indecent images of children while on a visit to Manchester.'

Shouldn't we be told why the children were visiting Manchester?

[JaitcH]

Kind of dumb doing it in a public place & what of the much vaunted filtering?

Two things:

Anyone using a laptop should do in private or with their back to the wall;

I guess the UK filter wasn't working too well that night, either.

[crowley]

I call bullshit...

...if he's openly browsing the content in a bar, he obviously think the pics are legit.

(human stupidity may be infinite, but please...)

Rather leads me to think that PC Plod can make accusations about borderline images that place the burden of proof on the viewer - who no doubt has great difficulty contacting the porn sites administrators and persuading them to supply an audited trail of documentary evidence that leads back to the fresh-faced, flat-chested, oiled-up lady with the shaven minge's birth certificate.

Given that my 30+ girlfriend can still occasionally get ID'd when buying alcohol, I'm pretty damn sure that if there were any dodgy pics of her at a porno-legitimate 18 years of age (shall I ask the exes?! ;-) they would lead to prosecution if the Plods were sufficiently motivated to press a charge.

[Anonymous Coward]

crowley

A lawyer probably told the guy that he is fucked , proper. Oh and I would delete those pics of your girl friend . these days unless she is under 70 they can get you for kiddie porn. If she is over 70 it's extreme porn. Yep it's best not to have any porn. Oh wait isn't that what they wanted all along ?

[Malcolm Boura 2]

Define child pornography

The present law is fundamentally unjust. It is:

* A law so vague that nobody can actually tell you what is illegal

* A law known as "child pornography" that makes much more than just pornography illegal

* A law so so widely drawn that some people can not even comprehend that a photograph they possess could be illegal

* A law which is inherenly enforced in secret. It is illegal to show the public what has been made illegal in their name.

* A law which results in many photographs in quite ordinary family albums being illegal. The Ministry of Justice even admits to that. The CPS has to decide not to prosecute. Is it really safe to leave decisions which can destroy the life of the accused, sometimes literally, to the bureaucrats in the CPS?

NB. Child pornography should be illegal, no question about that, but that is not what the law says. The law itself is dishonest and many of those entrusted with enforcing it quite wilfully misrepresent it.

[Equitas]

And the lessons to be learned are .....

* Don't go anywhere near the Britannia Hotel

* Don't go anywhere near Manchester

* Don't on any account take any pictures of children or have in your possession any pictures of children

* Do not on any account let any child cross your line of vision lest you be accused of lewd looks

* Do not allow yourself to be suspected of being of the male sex, because all males are perverts and heterosexual males are doubly perverted

Child abuse is evil, but the trouble is that we're living in a society run by politically-correct idiots who are looking for perverts under the beds. They'd be better looking in a mirror.

Though taking pleasure in looking at something evil being done is undoubtedly a sin, it's very questionable whether the mere looking at something which was done at some point in the past should be regarded as a crime. If, for example, the shooting of JFK be deemed a crime, should the watching of a film record of that shooting be construed to be evidence of having committed the crime of shooting JFK? Madness! And while we're at it, surely the individual reporting the alleged offence was guilty of watching the said material as well? And as far as "possession" is concerned, there's a great deal of material stored on any computer that's connected to the world -- material that hasn't consciously been stored yet is technically deemed to be stored in caches that haven't been flushed etc. The individual in question may have been in breach of the law and he may have been watching and even storing such images intentionally. He may be of evil intent. But on the basis of the information available, any harm to children is merely potential, rather than actual.

[david wilson]

@Equitas

>>"Though taking pleasure in looking at something evil being done is undoubtedly a sin, it's very questionable whether the mere looking at something which was done at some point in the past should be regarded as a crime."

Quite.

There's a pretty good justification for saying that people directly paying for images of actual criminal abuse happening are meaningfully helping to fund/promote such abuse.

It's an understandable argument that people acquiring images and providing positive feedback to a perpetrator might be helping to encourage future abuse.

But surely, there's some point at which any encouragement (financial or otherwise) an individual may be giving in return for images becomes of negligible effect?

Some people who were viciously unpleasant gangsters in the past seem to end up being treated as celebrities and being allowed to tell their stories on TV for entertainment, but that doesn't seem to be illegal even if it might make criminal violence seem more attractive to one or other impressionable youth.

While child abuse may be reprehensible, so is nailing someone to the floor, or melting their face off by pushing it onto a hot stove, yet as well as seemingly tolerating past transgressors, we also have plenty of films using such things as entertainment.

I really don't understand the logic behind childhood being mindlessly sanctified, since it seems to suggest that even in the most horrific cases of one adult doing unspeakable things to another, that's somehow substantially the fault of the victim.

Unless, perhaps, someone is looking for something to get upset and angry about where they're free from even the slightest need to think?

Personally, I don't recall feeling a great mantle of angelic goodness fall from my shoulders on my 16th or 18th birthday.

[Jane Fae]

Address

Just for the record, since i have receved several comments on this issue - some direct to my inbox.

It is fairly standard practice to publish an indiviual's address details. They are a matter of public record and in most cases are given out freely by the courts.

The reasons for doing so are not some peculiar vindictiveness on the part of our publication (or any other): they are purely legal. To wit...publish jus a name, and it is open to any other individual of the same name to claim that they have just been libelled.

Unlikely. But in a career of writing up court reports, chances are that if one is continually careless over such details, sooner or later someone WILL sue.

That may be tough for the individual concerned: but it is also a fundamental principle of English justice: that not only should justice be done, but it should be seen to be done,which means that individuals found guilty of particular offences should be openly and publically identified in court - and that the press may report on this.

jane