DJ cleared of child porn charge

BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm

A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.

Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
2008.

The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.

The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.

Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
lowest level of severity, had been created.

Judge Anthony Scott-Gall recorded a not guilty verdict and formally
discharged Mr Hollingdale.

The DJ was the first voice on Radio 2 in 1967 and went on to work for
a string of local radio stations.

Speaking outside the court, he said he was "relieved" at his
acquittal.

He added: "I just want to get on with my life."

"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>
> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>
> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>
> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
> 2008.
>
> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>
> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>
> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>
If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a prosecution

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
>news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
>> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>>
>> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>>
>> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
>> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>>
>> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
>> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
>> 2008.
>>
>> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>>
>> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
>> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>>
>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>
>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a prosecution

one count of posession? What a monumental waste of time and money.

"ted"  wrote in message 
news:0pkl75hn1s47sepjma80lhma7t6o3mjckl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
>>> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>>>
>>> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>>>
>>> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
>>> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>>>
>>> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
>>> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
>>> 2008.
>>>
>>> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>>>
>>> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
>>> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>>>
>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>
>>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a 
>>prosecution
>
> one count of posession? What a monumental waste of time and money.

If it saves one child!!

I've often wondered the scale of resources used in prosecuting offenders who 
don't directly abuse children together with the cost of prison etc, couldn't 
be better spent in helping families that need assistance.  But hey its not 
such a sexy headline I guess.

"ted"  wrote in message 
news:0pkl75hn1s47sepjma80lhma7t6o3mjckl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
>>> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>>>
>>> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>>>
>>> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
>>> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>>>
>>> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
>>> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
>>> 2008.
>>>
>>> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>>>
>>> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
>>> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>>>
>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>
>>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a 
>>prosecution
>
> one count of posession? What a monumental waste of time and money.


Especially when the prosecution say that it's likely that the defendant 
hadn't actually done anything!

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "ted"  wrote in message 
> news:0pkl75hn1s47sepjma80lhma7t6o3mjckl@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>> news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
>>>> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>>>>
>>>> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>>>>
>>>> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
>>>> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
>>>> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
>>>> 2008.
>>>>
>>>> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>>>>
>>>> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
>>>> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>>>>
>>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>>
>>> If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a 
>>> prosecution
>>
>> one count of posession? What a monumental waste of time and money.
> 
> 
> Especially when the prosecution say that it's likely that the defendant 
> hadn't actually done anything!
> 

His name is in the public arena, perhaps that's what the prosecution 
were after.

In message , ted 
 writes
>On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>
>>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a prosecution
>
>one count of posession?

And of a level 1 image.

>What a monumental waste of time and money.

Completely OTT.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:11:23 +0100, "Fredxx"  wrote:

>
>"ted"  wrote in message 
>news:0pkl75hn1s47sepjma80lhma7t6o3mjckl@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>>news:ibvj75d2hg9hd9n32uu3all1h7ssnku60c@4ax.com...
>>>> DJ cleared of child porn charge
>>>>
>>>> BBC News, UK: 5 August 2009
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
>>>>
>>>> A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child pornography
>>>> after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his trial.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Hollingdale, 75, of Western Road, Hailsham, East Sussex, denied
>>>> one count of possessing an indecent photograph of a child on 27 July
>>>> 2008.
>>>>
>>>> The 75-year-old appeared at Hove Crown Court.
>>>>
>>>> The court heard a computer expert found there was no evidence of
>>>> anyone viewing the photograph found on his computer.
>>>>
>>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>>
>>>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a 
>>>prosecution
>>
>> one count of posession? What a monumental waste of time and money.
>
>If it saves one child!!
>
>I've often wondered the scale of resources used in prosecuting offenders who 
>don't directly abuse children together with the cost of prison etc, couldn't 
>be better spent in helping families that need assistance.  But hey its not 
>such a sexy headline I guess.

Last night's Who Do You Think You Are with David Mitchell revealed how
a distant relative of his (great grandfather I believe), a reverend of
the cloth, was thought, up to about half-way through the programme, to
be squeaky clean and an all-round good egg. Then David met up with a
distant cousin who read out the reverend's will, in which the reverend
royally slagged off his wife for being a drunkard all their lives etc
etc. Then papers came to light at  one of the places of abode of this
person (the rev), who had presided over some kind of court sessions.
David read extracts from the handwritten record of the sessions (we're
talking 19th century here, BTW) about how this person or that had
fornicated here, and someone else had done the business somewhere else
and so on. This went on for pages and pages and pages! (Not the
reading out during the programme, but David had obviously studied the
record in some detail in the preliminary.) He concluded that the whole
thing was about sex, sex and yet more sex! All disguised with various
euphemisms that were typical of the era, but the salacious content
could not be mistaken.

So, British (this was actually Scottish, on Skye) prurience hasn't
been going for just a few decades, but more like a few centuries! It
seems we as a nation are fixated on finding and reading about, then
condemning the most prurient stories we can. Hence the tabloids' avid
whipping up of the national paedosteria at every opportunity.

MM

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:19:56 +0100, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message , ted 
> writes
>>On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>><AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>>
>>>If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a prosecution
>>
>>one count of posession?
>
>And of a level 1 image.
>

How utterly Orwellian!

rebel

rebel@freeplace.com wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:19:56 +0100, Richard Miller
>  wrote:
> 
>> In message , ted 
>>  writes
>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:33:18 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Prosecutor David Harounoff said that the user had probably been
>>>>> unaware that the file, which was classed as a level one image, the
>>>>> lowest level of severity, had been created.
>>>>>
>>>> If that's the case it does seem an odd decision to bother with a prosecution
>>> one count of posession?
>> And of a level 1 image.
>>

You'll have cub reporter wanking all over the place.