8:03pm Tuesday 30th September 2008

A finance director at Bradford Cathedral Centre who plunged down a quarry 
three days before he was to stand trial on child pornography charges has 
been spared jail.

Brian Charlton, 61, was found critically injured at the bottom of Chellow 
Dene Quarry, Bradford, in September, 2006.

He was about to stand trial at Bradford Crown Court charged with 21 offences 
of possessing more than 300 indecent images of children.

At the court yesterday, Charlton, of Leyside Drive, Allerton, Bradford, 
pleaded guilty to 13 of the offences.

He was sentenced to 20 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 18 months and 
ordered to register as a sex offender for seven years.

Prosecutor Giles Bridge said the remainder of the alleged offences would lie 
on file. The Crown accepted Charlton's case that the illegal images appeared 
on his computer as he accessed adult pornography.

Mr Bridge said Charlton was arrested in February, 2005, on suspicion of 
possessing indecent images of children. He was suspended as finance director 
of Bradford Cathedral Centre.

Mr Bridge said Charlton, who lived with his wife, had his home computer 
seized and examined.

One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court heard.

Most of the 322 photographs were in the least serious category which is 
level one but 23 were level two, 18 level three and five level four.

Mr Bridge said that in April, 2003, Charlton was cautioned by the police as 
part of the Operation Ore crackdown on child pornography.

He told them he was unaware that disks he brought from work contained 
illegal material.

On September 1, 2006 - three days before he was due to stand trial - 
Charlton plunged down the quarry and lay undiscovered for up to 24 hours.

Charlton, who walks with a stick, suffered broken bones, hypothermia and 
bleeding on the brain. He was treated in the intensive care unit at Bradford 
Royal Infirmary.

Charlton's barrister Richard Giocerano said he suffered a life-threatening 
brain injury when he fell into the quarry. He made a remarkable recovery but 
still suffered memory loss. Mr Giocerano said: "This is a man whose case is 
technical guilt. He did not seek out the material. It came as automatic 
'pop-ups'."

He said Charlton was on incapacity benefit and had not worked since he was 
suspended in 2005. Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge 
Stephen Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn 
sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had 
failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/3716373.Cash_chief_spared_jail_on_child_porn/

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 +0100, Airmax wrote:

> Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
> Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
> sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
> failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.

Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
"risk of downloading illegal child material"?

--

Airmax wrote:

> Charlton's barrister Richard Giocerano said he suffered a
> life-threatening brain injury when he fell into the quarry. He made a
> remarkable recovery but still suffered memory loss.

How convenient...

Airmax  posted
>
>One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court heard.
>

Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that 
happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got an 
image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be 
illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.

-- 
Les
"See, he admits he doesn't know the law, and yet he claims he's innocent! You
can't reason with a man like that."

On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 퍝, Airmax wrote:
> > Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
> > Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
> > sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
> > failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.
>
> Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
> "risk of downloading illegal child material"?
>
> --

No, because they have to be downloaded.

WM

On Sep 30, 10:23 pm, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> Airmax  posted
>
>
>
> >One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court heard> Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that
> happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got an
> image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be
> illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.
>
> --
> Les
> "See, he admits he doesn't know the law, and yet he claims he's innocent! You
> can't reason with a man like that."

I have said, many times, that some level 3 and 4s are much more
potentially damaging (theoretically) than almost all Level 5s.

But, of course, it is not a matter of harm ... it is a matter of
indecency.

Just one of the many confusions and myths, in this area.

WM

"Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message 
news:57796a5d-cd75-414e-a927-7ed9a0634f80@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 +0100, Airmax wrote:
> > Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
> > Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
> > sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
> > failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.
>
> Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
> "risk of downloading illegal child material"?
>
> --

No, because they have to be downloaded.

WM

Well that's the point with pop-ups or images at the bottom of a window they 
can be downloaded but not requested or even seen. Some argued on here a few 
weeks ago that a charge requires intent but clearly in this case the crown 
and the judge accept that he did not seek out or download indecent images of 
children with intent.

On Sep 30, 10:37 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
> "Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message
>
> news:57796a5d-cd75-414e-a927-7ed9a0634f80@64g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 퍝, Airmax wrote:
> > > Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
> > > Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
> > > sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
> > > failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.
>
> > Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
> > "risk of downloading illegal child material"?
>
> > --
>
> No, because they have to be downloaded.
>
> WM
>
> Well that's the point with pop-ups or images at the bottom of a window they
> can be downloaded but not requested or even seen. Some argued on here a few
> weeks ago that a charge requires intent but clearly in this case the crown
> and the judge accept that he did not seek out or download indecent images of
> children with intent.

He pleaded guilty. However, if it had gone to jury ....

*****

Mr. Justice Cranston:

# The appellant was convicted on 8th November 2006 at the Crown Court
at Taunton of one count of possessing indecent photographs of a child.
At the same time he was acquitted of 7counts of making indecent
photographs of a child. HH Judge Griggs had ordered his acquittal of a
further 3 counts of the latter offence. He was sentenced to pay a fine
of £400 or serve 14 days imprisonment in default. Having been
convicted of this offence he was required to comply with the
provisions of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act (notification to the
police) for five years. He now appeals to this court on the grounds
first, that the judge misdirected the jury on both the factual and
mental elements of the offences; and secondly, that the conviction is
unsafe because of the inconsistencies between what the jury did in
acquitting him of the making offences but convicting him of the
possession offence.

Conclusion

# We reject the notion that with automatic "pop up" type activities it
is the web site's designer, not the user, who makes the image. It is
contrary to authority and to the ordinary meaning of language.
Moreover, the jury must have been taken to heave decided against the
appellant, as the appellant now concedes, about the existence and
function of the computer in storing material automatically. In other
words the jury must be taken to have decided that the appellant knew
that any images he accessed would be copied - made in terms of
legislative language - and stored automatically.

# It was common ground that, as the appellant admitted he knew,
automatic "pop ups" or redirections to other sites would occur when
accessing legal pornographic sites. The issue the jury then had to
decide was whether the appellant knew the likelihood that in accessing
certain sites, illegal material would in this way be accessed. The
appellant complains that the judge failed to make the distinction
between the likelihood that "pop up" type activity would occur on the
one hand and the likelihood that, if it did, illegal material would be
accessed on the other. He also complains that there was no evidence
that it was possible to predict, before accessing any particular site,
whether or not "pop up" type activity would occur and that, further,
it would be of illegal images.

# There are passages in the Judge's summing up where this distinction
was not drawn as clearly as I might have been. But we are in no doubt
that, in the context of the summing up as a whole the jury knew what
they had to be sure not only about and that the appellant knew about
automatic "pop up" activity when he accessed adult pornographic sites,
but that he knew that in accessing certain sites there was a
likelihood that these "pop ups" would be illegal images.

# In our view there was also enough evidence for the jury to decide
the issue of the likelihood that sites, if accessed, would lead to
illegal "pop up" activity. Images in the possession count can be
associated with particular sites. Thus there was an (evidential) basis
for the jury to be sure, based on the appellant's previous use of
particular sites, that it was likely to contain illegal images.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2976.html

****
WM

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Airmax  posted
>>
>> One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court
>> heard.
>
> Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that
> happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got an
> image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be
> illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.

Indeed. It's here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its photographer, Nick Ut: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%E1%BB%B3nh_C%C3%B4ng_%C3%9At and created 
outrage against the Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturers of napalm.

The image is freely available with attribution to the copyright owner, 
Associated Press.

It's an image that makes the proponents of child protection measures 
uncomfortable, because it is specifically an image of child nudity, 
certainly pain, arguably child abuse and certainly, by any rational 
standard, an "indecent image of a child" under the Protection of Children 
Act 1978. It certainly is not intended to be sexually titillating, although 
I suppose some might find it so. However, the law is that the intention of 
the author of an image is irrelevant- as is the intention of the viewer. 
"Indecency" is in law an intrinsic quality of an image, but it seems to me 
that juries tend to be swayed more by the use to which an image is put- 
presumably masturbation- than the image itself. Only that can explain why 
the CPS tend to categorise images in levels, the minimum is of, say children 
in underwear or swimming clothes. In any other context, say a clothing 
catalogue, not an eyebrow would be raised. Or would it?

The proponents of child protection, as far as I can tell, have not raised 
such an eyebrow against that image specifically. Why not? Its age is not an 
issue; according to them, "it is a permanent record of child abuse" amd "a 
crime scene". There is no defence in POCA78 of "historical journalism" or 
"not sex, but violence". There isn't even a defence, as there is in section 
3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, of "public good". So I cannot see 
any reason why this image, and anyone who possesses it, in the UK, should 
not be prosecuted, and I invite such a prosecution. I'm ready to defend, but 
I will apply to the court for a voluntary indictment for my co-accused, The 
Wikimedia Foundation, and any newspaper or website who has ever published 
that image in the last forty years. They have more money than do I, but I'm 
certain the outcome will be interesting.

On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> Big Les Wade wrote:
> > Airmax  posted
>
> >> One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court
> >> heard.
>
> > Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that
> > happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got an
> > image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be
> > illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.
>
> Indeed. It's here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
> and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its photographer, Nick Ut:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%E1%BB%B3nh_C%C3%B4ng_%C3%9Atand created
> outrage against the Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturers of napalm.
>
> The image is freely available with attribution to the copyright owner,
> Associated Press.
>
> It's an image that makes the proponents of child protection measures
> uncomfortable, because it is specifically an image of child nudity,
> certainly pain, arguably child abuse and certainly, by any rational
> standard, an "indecent image of a child" under the Protection of Children
> Act 1978. It certainly is not intended to be sexually titillating, although
> I suppose some might find it so. However, the law is that the intention of
> the author of an image is irrelevant- as is the intention of the viewer.
> "Indecency" is in law an intrinsic quality of an image, but it seems to me
> that juries tend to be swayed more by the use to which an image is put-
> presumably masturbation- than the image itself. Only that can explain why
> the CPS tend to categorise images in levels, the minimum is of, say children
> in underwear or swimming clothes. In any other context, say a clothing
> catalogue, not an eyebrow would be raised. Or would it?
>
> The proponents of child protection, as far as I can tell, have not raised
> such an eyebrow against that image specifically. Why not? Its age is not an
> issue; according to them, "it is a permanent record of child abuse" amd "a
> crime scene". There is no defence in POCA78 of "historical journalism" or
> "not sex, but violence". There isn't even a defence, as there is in section
> 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, of "public good". So I cannot see
> any reason why this image, and anyone who possesses it, in the UK, should
> not be prosecuted, and I invite such a prosecution. I'm ready to defend, but
> I will apply to the court for a voluntary indictment for my co-accused, The
> Wikimedia Foundation, and any newspaper or website who has ever published
> that image in the last forty years. They have more money than do I, but I'm
> certain the outcome will be interesting.

Not in the public interest.

Phan Thị Kim Phúc turned out to be a successful, happy and balanced
woman.

So ... all is well for those who are 'abused' :)

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> Airmax  posted
>>
>>>> One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court
>>>> heard.
>>
>>> Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that
>>> happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got
>>> an image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be
>>> illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.
>>
>> Indeed. It's
>> here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
>> and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its photographer, Nick
>> Ut:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%E1%BB%B3nh_C%C3%B4ng_%C3%9Atand
>> created outrage against the Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturers
>> of napalm.
>>
>> The image is freely available with attribution to the copyright
>> owner,
>> Associated Press.
>>
>> It's an image that makes the proponents of child protection measures
>> uncomfortable, because it is specifically an image of child nudity,
>> certainly pain, arguably child abuse and certainly, by any rational
>> standard, an "indecent image of a child" under the Protection of
>> Children
>> Act 1978. It certainly is not intended to be sexually titillating,
>> although
>> I suppose some might find it so. However, the law is that the
>> intention of
>> the author of an image is irrelevant- as is the intention of the
>> viewer. "Indecency" is in law an intrinsic quality of an image, but
>> it seems to me
>> that juries tend to be swayed more by the use to which an image is
>> put-
>> presumably masturbation- than the image itself. Only that can
>> explain why
>> the CPS tend to categorise images in levels, the minimum is of, say
>> children
>> in underwear or swimming clothes. In any other context, say a
>> clothing
>> catalogue, not an eyebrow would be raised. Or would it?
>>
>> The proponents of child protection, as far as I can tell, have not
>> raised
>> such an eyebrow against that image specifically. Why not? Its age is
>> not an
>> issue; according to them, "it is a permanent record of child abuse"
>> amd "a
>> crime scene". There is no defence in POCA78 of "historical
>> journalism" or "not sex, but violence". There isn't even a defence,
>> as there is in section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, of
>> "public good". So I cannot see
>> any reason why this image, and anyone who possesses it, in the UK,
>> should
>> not be prosecuted, and I invite such a prosecution. I'm ready to
>> defend, but
>> I will apply to the court for a voluntary indictment for my
>> co-accused, The
>> Wikimedia Foundation, and any newspaper or website who has ever
>> published
>> that image in the last forty years. They have more money than do I,
>> but I'm
>> certain the outcome will be interesting.
>
> Not in the public interest.
>
> Phan Th? Kim Phúc turned out to be a successful, happy and balanced
> woman.

Having been adoped into an American family, with assured income for the rest 
of her life, and has been specifically reported as having "forgiven the 
American war machine".

> So ... all is well for those who are 'abused' :)

I'd have hoped for a deeper analysis from you in particular. Whilst I 
understand your cynicism based on your own experience, this image, in 
reality, should be the test case that defines "indecency" with respect to 
images of children, or at least sets out some criteria. . However, my strong 
feeling is that it isn't going to be. Too many frightened people out there, 
not enough thinkers, not enough people concerned about their rights, and 
certainly not enough policy-makers who are not cowed by the media. 
Complacency and tabloid journalism have a lot to answer for; this country, 
if it ever was otherwise, has stopped thinking for itself and regurgitates 
unimportant pap promulgated by others without even realising it. Tragic 
beyond belief.

On Sep 30, 11:49 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> >> Big Les Wade wrote:
> >>> Airmax  posted
>
> >>>> One image showed a girl aged ten to 13 bound and gagged, the court
> >>>> heard.
>
> >>> Is that illegal then? I've seen several Hollywood movies where that
> >>> happens. Maybe I even have one on video. In fact, I think I've got
> >>> an image somewhere of a naked girl with napalm burns. That *must* be
> >>> illegal to possess, if the bound-and-gagged-girl picture is.
>
> >> Indeed. It's
> >> here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
> >> and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its photographer, Nick
> >> Ut:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu%E1%BB%B3nh_C%C3%B4ng_%C3%9Atand
> >> created outrage against the Dow Chemical Company, the manufacturers
> >> of napalm.
>
> >> The image is freely available with attribution to the copyright
> >> owner,
> >> Associated Press.
>
> >> It's an image that makes the proponents of child protection measures
> >> uncomfortable, because it is specifically an image of child nudity,
> >> certainly pain, arguably child abuse and certainly, by any rational
> >> standard, an "indecent image of a child" under the Protection of
> >> Children
> >> Act 1978. It certainly is not intended to be sexually titillating,
> >> although
> >> I suppose some might find it so. However, the law is that the
> >> intention of
> >> the author of an image is irrelevant- as is the intention of the
> >> viewer. "Indecency" is in law an intrinsic quality of an image, but
> >> it seems to me
> >> that juries tend to be swayed more by the use to which an image is
> >> put-
> >> presumably masturbation- than the image itself. Only that can
> >> explain why
> >> the CPS tend to categorise images in levels, the minimum is of, say
> >> children
> >> in underwear or swimming clothes. In any other context, say a
> >> clothing
> >> catalogue, not an eyebrow would be raised. Or would it?
>
> >> The proponents of child protection, as far as I can tell, have not
> >> raised
> >> such an eyebrow against that image specifically. Why not? Its age is
> >> not an
> >> issue; according to them, "it is a permanent record of child abuse"
> >> amd "a
> >> crime scene". There is no defence in POCA78 of "historical
> >> journalism" or "not sex, but violence". There isn't even a defence,
> >> as there is in section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, of
> >> "public good". So I cannot see
> >> any reason why this image, and anyone who possesses it, in the UK,
> >> should
> >> not be prosecuted, and I invite such a prosecution. I'm ready to
> >> defend, but
> >> I will apply to the court for a voluntary indictment for my
> >> co-accused, The
> >> Wikimedia Foundation, and any newspaper or website who has ever
> >> published
> >> that image in the last forty years. They have more money than do I,
> >> but I'm
> >> certain the outcome will be interesting.
>
> > Not in the public interest.
>
> > Phan Th? Kim Phúc turned out to be a successful, happy and balanced
> > woman.
>
> Having been adoped into an American family, with assured income for the rest
> of her life, and has been specifically reported as having "forgiven the
> American war machine".
>
> > So ... all is well for those who are 'abused' :)
>
> I'd have hoped for a deeper analysis from you in particular. Whilst I
> understand your cynicism based on your own experience, this image, in
> reality, should be the test case that defines "indecency" with respect to
> images of children, or at least sets out some criteria. . However, my strong
> feeling is that it isn't going to be. Too many frightened people out there,
> not enough thinkers, not enough people concerned about their rights, and
> certainly not enough policy-makers who are not cowed by the media.
> Complacency and tabloid journalism have a lot to answer for; this country> if it ever was otherwise, has stopped thinking for itself and regurgitates
> unimportant pap promulgated by others without even realising it. Tragic
> beyond belief.

I have argued this specific image, as an issue, for some years (and
others).

When 'they' are challenged, there are two main responses:

(1) We sit and watch the tumbleweed roll pass,
(2) "Ah, but that is 'news', it is not the same as pornography. We
allow these images, to make sure such things do not happen again."

I am sure you can create a response to the latter - I can and do, and
then 'they' revert to (1).

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:49 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
>> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
>>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>> Airmax  posted
>>

<snip repeated content>

> I have argued this specific image, as an issue, for some years (and
> others).
>
> When 'they' are challenged, there are two main responses:
>
> (1) We sit and watch the tumbleweed roll pass,
> (2) "Ah, but that is 'news', it is not the same as pornography. We
> allow these images, to make sure such things do not happen again."
>
> I am sure you can create a response to the latter - I can and do, and
> then 'they' revert to (1).

As regards (2), that is blatantly at odds with their purpose, the 
"protection of children"; surely  that objective is indivisible? Violence is 
surely no different from sexual exploitation, except that whereas violence 
is direct, sexual exploitation by means of photographs is by no means 
necessarily the same. If these numbskulls had a consistent intellectual 
position, they would defend neither (2), nor (1). They don't accept any 
middle ground, however, between the two points, nor accept any legitimate 
image; if they did so, the obvious question would be "OK, this one, you 
accept is not abuse- what about this one...?", and you'd find it hard not to 
take them along a path towards actually accepting that an image which 
appeared in a Danish child porn magazine 35 years ago is actually legal. I 
could, from my experience, construct such a situation, but would they accept 
its intellectual rigour? Of course not. Would they even accept the 
challenge? Of course not. They are too used to being believed by the 
credulous police and media. As to (1), if they actually are concerned with 
real child protection, they wouldn't dare to let the "tumbleweed pass by", 
lest someone detect that and accuse them of relying more on public ignorance 
and complacency than any rationally defensible position.


>
> WM

On Oct 1, 12:27 am, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 11:49 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> >> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> >>> On Sep 30, 11:04 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> >>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
> >>>>> Airmax  posted
>
> <snip repeated content>
>
> > I have argued this specific image, as an issue, for some years (and
> > others).
>
> > When 'they' are challenged, there are two main responses:
>
> > (1) We sit and watch the tumbleweed roll pass,
> > (2) "Ah, but that is 'news', it is not the same as pornography. We
> > allow these images, to make sure such things do not happen again."
>
> > I am sure you can create a response to the latter - I can and do, and
> > then 'they' revert to (1).
>
> As regards (2), that is blatantly at odds with their purpose, the
> "protection of children"; surely  that objective is indivisible? Violence is
> surely no different from sexual exploitation, except that whereas violence
> is direct, sexual exploitation by means of photographs is by no means
> necessarily the same. If these numbskulls had a consistent intellectual
> position, they would defend neither (2), nor (1). They don't accept any
> middle ground, however, between the two points, nor accept any legitimate
> image; if they did so, the obvious question would be "OK, this one, you
> accept is not abuse- what about this one...?", and you'd find it hard not to
> take them along a path towards actually accepting that an image which
> appeared in a Danish child porn magazine 35 years ago is actually legal. I
> could, from my experience, construct such a situation, but would they accept
> its intellectual rigour? Of course not. Would they even accept the
> challenge? Of course not. They are too used to being believed by the
> credulous police and media. As to (1), if they actually are concerned with
> real child protection, they wouldn't dare to let the "tumbleweed pass by"> lest someone detect that and accuse them of relying more on public ignorance
> and complacency than any rationally defensible position.
>
>
>
> > WM

I believe you are correct.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>> Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
>>> Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
>>> sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
>>> failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.
>> Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
>> "risk of downloading illegal child material"?
>>
>> --
> 
> No, because they have to be downloaded.
> 
> WM

   What is meant by "downloaded" in this context? If an illegal pop up 
popped up but was immediately deleted or escaped from asap would that 
constitute downloading or possesion?

Janitor of Lunacy  posted
>
>Indeed.

I thought you were planning to die this week?

>It's here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc
>and it won a Pulitzer Prize for its photographer, Nick Ut:

snip
>
>The proponents of child protection, as far as I can tell, have not raised
>such an eyebrow against that image specifically. Why not? Its age is not an
>issue; according to them, "it is a permanent record of child abuse" amd "a
>crime scene". There is no defence in POCA78 of "historical journalism" or
>"not sex, but violence". There isn't even a defence, as there is in section
>3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, of "public good". So I cannot see
>any reason why this image, and anyone who possesses it, in the UK, should
>not be prosecuted, and I invite such a prosecution.

Of course they never will, and nor will they ever try to codify POCA etc 
to make sense, even though that could and should be done. Although I 
often disparage and ridicule the law as it stands, I believe it is evil 
to distribute humiliating pictures of real children being sexually 
assaulted, and I believe the authorities could and should try to control 
it.

However, I do *not* believe that is the real purpose of the current law. 
It is very convenient for the authorities to have laws that make 
virtually everybody into a criminal, while they themselves retain 
complete discretion on who they choose to investigate. It gives them 
incredible power, effectively equivalent to that of a police state.

-- 
Les
"Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns
out to be linked to other offences."

On Oct 1, 8:34 am, Fred  wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 9:37 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:44:58 퍝, Airmax wrote:
> >>> Sentencing him, the Honorary Recorder of Bradford, Judge Stephen
> >>> Gullick, said that although Charlton was accessing legal adult porn
> >>> sites, he ran the risk of downloading illegal child material and he had
> >>> failed to heed the warning given by the police when they cautioned him.
> >> Surely that makes accessing adult porn sites illegal because there's a
> >> "risk of downloading illegal child material"?
>
> >> --
>
> > No, because they have to be downloaded.
>
> > WM
>
>    What is meant by "downloaded" in this context? If an illegal pop up
> popped up but was immediately deleted or escaped from asap would that
> constitute downloading or possesion?

That is ...

(1) If you knew you had the popup
(2) You knew how to delete it.

See the case, cited above.

WM

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:37:20 +0100, "Airmax"
 wrote:

>Well that's the point with pop-ups or images at the bottom of a window they 
>can be downloaded but not requested or even seen. Some argued on here a few 
>weeks ago that a charge requires intent but clearly in this case the crown 
>and the judge accept that he did not seek out or download indecent images of 
>children with intent. 

The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
them as soon as he realised their nature.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:37:20 +0100, "Airmax"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Well that's the point with pop-ups or images at the bottom of a window they 
>> can be downloaded but not requested or even seen. Some argued on here a few 
>> weeks ago that a charge requires intent but clearly in this case the crown 
>> and the judge accept that he did not seek out or download indecent images of 
>> children with intent. 
> 
> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
> them as soon as he realised their nature.
> 

In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to 
make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short 
period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but 
having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession, 
even though having them for a second is technically possession though 
probably involves no intent to possess them.

-- 
Robbie

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
wrote:

>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
>> them as soon as he realised their nature.

>In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to 
>make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short 
>period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but 
>having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession, 
>even though having them for a second is technically possession though 
>probably involves no intent to possess them.

If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.

I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
(possess) the images.

-- 
Cynic

On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 퍝, Robbie 
> wrote:
>
> >> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
> >> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
> >> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
> >> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
> >> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
> >> them as soon as he realised their nature.
> >In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
> >make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
> >period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
> >having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
> >even though having them for a second is technically possession though
> >probably involves no intent to possess them.
>
> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>
> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
> (possess) the images.
>
> --
> Cynic

Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
>>>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
>>>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
>>>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
>>>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
>>>> them as soon as he realised their nature.
>>> In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
>>> make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
>>> period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
>>> having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
>>> even though having them for a second is technically possession though
>>> probably involves no intent to possess them.
>> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
>> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
>> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
>> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
>> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>>
>> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
>> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
>> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
>> (possess) the images.
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
> 
> Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
> ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
> 
> WM

It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's 
not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says 
otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act 
which could lead to a charge of handling).

Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in 
theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as 
it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc 
images). I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.

-- 
Robbie

"Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message 
news:bc7cfe0c-cbfd-492e-a49c-b7baf77365cd@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
> wrote:
>
> >> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
> >> more common "making" offence. This suggests that the prosecution were
> >> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
> >> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
> >> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
> >> them as soon as he realised their nature.
> >In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
> >make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
> >period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
> >having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
> >even though having them for a second is technically possession though
> >probably involves no intent to possess them.
>
> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
> prove a "possession" charge. The only way a person would stand a
> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>
> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images. The fact
> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
> (possess) the images.
>
> --
> Cynic

Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.

WM

By *fully* do you mean you mean wiped ?

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
>>>>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
>>>>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
>>>>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
>>>>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
>>>>> them as soon as he realised their nature.
>>>> In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
>>>> make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
>>>> period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
>>>> having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
>>>> even though having them for a second is technically possession though
>>>> probably involves no intent to possess them.
>>> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
>>> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
>>> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
>>> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
>>> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>>>
>>> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
>>> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
>>> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
>>> (possess) the images.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cynic
>>
>> Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
>> ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>>
>> WM
>
> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's 
> not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says otherwise 
> (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act which could 
> lead to a charge of handling).
>
> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in theory, 
> be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as it is 
> disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc images). 
> I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.
>
> -- 
> Robbie

If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ?

Airmax wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
>>>>>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution 
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
>>>>>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
>>>>>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than 
>>>>>> deleting
>>>>>> them as soon as he realised their nature.
>>>>> In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such 
>>>>> images to
>>>>> make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
>>>>> period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
>>>>> having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
>>>>> even though having them for a second is technically possession though
>>>>> probably involves no intent to possess them.
>>>> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
>>>> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
>>>> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
>>>> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
>>>> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>>>>
>>>> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
>>>> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
>>>> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
>>>> (possess) the images.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Cynic
>>>
>>> Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
>>> ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>>>
>>> WM
>>
>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something 
>> it's not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says 
>> otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act 
>> which could lead to a charge of handling).
>>
>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in 
>> theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as 
>> it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading 
>> etc images). I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this 
>> though.
>>
>> -- 
>> Robbie
> 
> If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ?

someone pleading guilty to doing it? There's no need for proof beyond 
the fact that the police / CPS know it was downloaded. A prosecution 
wouldn't happen anyway.

-- 
Robbie

On Oct 1, 5:36 pm, Robbie  wrote:
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 퍝, Robbie 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
> >>>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
> >>>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
> >>>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
> >>>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
> >>>> them as soon as he realised their nature.
> >>> In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
> >>> make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
> >>> period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
> >>> having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
> >>> even though having them for a second is technically possession though
> >>> probably involves no intent to possess them.
> >> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
> >> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
> >> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
> >> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
> >> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>
> >> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
> >> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
> >> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
> >> (possess) the images.
>
> >> --
> >> Cynic
>
> > Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
> > ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>
> > WM
>
> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's
> not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says
> otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act
> which could lead to a charge of handling).
>
> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in
> theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as
> it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc
> images). I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.
>
> --
> Robbie

Regina V Ross Warwick Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560
http://www.xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/library/90/law.htm

***
WM

On Oct 1, 8:26 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
> "Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message
>
> news:bc7cfe0c-cbfd-492e-a49c-b7baf77365cd@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 퍝, Robbie 
> > wrote:
>
> > >> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
> > >> more common "making" offence. This suggests that the prosecution were
> > >> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
> > >> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
> > >> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
> > >> them as soon as he realised their nature.
> > >In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
> > >make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
> > >period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
> > >having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
> > >even though having them for a second is technically possession though
> > >probably involves no intent to possess them.
>
> > If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
> > to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
> > prove a "possession" charge. The only way a person would stand a
> > chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
> > had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>
> > I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images. The fact
> > that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
> > difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
> > (possess) the images.
>
> > --
> > Cynic
>
> Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
> ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>
> WM
>
> By *fully* do you mean you mean wiped ?

Sorry about that, I did not mean wiped.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Oct 1, 5:36 pm, Robbie  wrote:
>> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 4:32 pm, Cynic  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:33:06 +0100, Robbie 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The report says that he was charged with "possession" rather than the
>>>>>> more common "making" offence.  This suggests that the prosecution were
>>>>>> unable to prove that he had any intent to download ("make") the
>>>>>> images, but could prove that having accidentally downloaded them, he
>>>>>> made the deliberate decision to *keep* the images rather than deleting
>>>>>> them as soon as he realised their nature.
>>>>> In your view, for how long would someone have to possess such images to
>>>>> make it possession? I'd imagine that having the images for a short
>>>>> period of time would cover a defence of accidentally downloading, but
>>>>> having them beyond a short period would probably make it possession,
>>>>> even though having them for a second is technically possession though
>>>>> probably involves no intent to possess them.
>>>> If the prosecution could show that you had seen the images but failed
>>>> to delete them immediately, I should think it would be sufficient to
>>>> prove a "possession" charge.  The only way a person would stand a
>>>> chance of a not guilty decision would be to convince the court that he
>>>> had never seen the images and had no idea of their nature.
>>>> I am talking about "normal" deletion, not wiping the images.  The fact
>>>> that the police were able to recover the deleted images later makes no
>>>> difference - it still shows that here was no intention to keep
>>>> (possess) the images.
>>>> --
>>>> Cynic
>>> Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
>>> ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>>> WM
>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's
>> not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says
>> otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act
>> which could lead to a charge of handling).
>>
>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in
>> theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as
>> it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc
>> images). I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.
>>
>> --
>> Robbie
> 
> Regina V Ross Warwick Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560
> http://www.xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/library/90/law.htm
> 
> ***
> WM

Interesting. Thanks for this.

This part from your link is of interest:

"Therefore, the court interprets the word 'possession' in this sense; 
that the defendant possessed the files within his computer whether they 
were in an active category or a deleted category. The single point in 
this submission, therefore, fails…..""

This goes against advice the IWF give, which is to delete files if 
stumbling across kiddy porn. It shows that deleting doesn't remove the 
fact of possession of a file. It doesn't prove that securely deleting a 
file has the same effect though.

-- 
Robbie

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:28:16 +0100, "Airmax"
 wrote:

>"Robbie"  wrote in message 
>news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...

>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's 
>> not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says otherwise 
>> (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act which could 
>> lead to a charge of handling).
>>
>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in theory, 
>> be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as it is 
>> disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc images). 
>> I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.

>If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ? 

Presence of a program called "Evidence Eliminator" on the machine,
coupled with web searches for 'Lolita'.

-- 
Dissenter

Dissenter wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:28:16 +0100, "Airmax"
>  wrote:
>
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>> news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something
>>> it's not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law
>>> says otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the
>>> Theft Act which could lead to a charge of handling).
>>>
>>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in
>>> theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice
>>> as it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making,
>>> downloading etc images). I doubt many, if any, people have been
>>> charged with this though.
>
>> If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ?
>
> Presence of a program called "Evidence Eliminator" on the machine,
> coupled with web searches for 'Lolita'.

Circumstantial,. but not conclusive. EE isn't that great at removing 
"evidence" anyway; and you'd have to show that it had been run. If it's run 
from within an encrypted sub-environment of Windows such that its footprint 
wasn't in the usual places, nothing would even be apparent.

Web searches for "Lolita"? No. There's the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and 
two films based on his story; there's a fashion designer Lolita Lempicka, a 
whale called Lolita, an actress, Lolita Davidovitch. All of which are 
perfectly innocent. There would have to be more. Although I have access to a 
database of search terms used by people interested in child porn images, for 
obvious reasons, I'm not going to post it here; suffice it to say that it's 
not that naive, no way.

On Oct 1, 10:57 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> Dissenter wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:28:16 퍝, "Airmax"
> >  wrote:
>
> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >>news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something
> >>> it's not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law
> >>> says otherwise (eg possession and then disposal which under the
> >>> Theft Act which could lead to a charge of handling).
>
> >>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in
> >>> theory, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice
> >>> as it is disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making,
> >>> downloading etc images). I doubt many, if any, people have been
> >>> charged with this though.
>
> >> If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ?
>
> > Presence of a program called "Evidence Eliminator" on the machine,
> > coupled with web searches for 'Lolita'.
>
> Circumstantial,. but not conclusive. EE isn't that great at removing
> "evidence" anyway; and you'd have to show that it had been run. If it's run
> from within an encrypted sub-environment of Windows such that its footprint
> wasn't in the usual places, nothing would even be apparent.
>
> Web searches for "Lolita"? No. There's the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, and
> two films based on his story; there's a fashion designer Lolita Lempicka, a
> whale called Lolita, an actress, Lolita Davidovitch. All of which are
> perfectly innocent. There would have to be more. Although I have access to a
> database of search terms used by people interested in child porn images, for
> obvious reasons, I'm not going to post it here; suffice it to say that it's
> not that naive, no way.

Suffice-it-to-say, that both issues have been enough to sway juries.

WM

"Dissenter"  wrote in message 
news:ohr7e4hpu4s4skei9p56v5ilenf8e7ospj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:28:16 +0100, "Airmax"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Robbie"  wrote in message
>>news:6khn89F7l8suU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> It's highly likely I would imagine. If you don't possess something it's
>>> not possible to get charged for possession, unless the law says 
>>> otherwise
>>> (eg possession and then disposal which under the Theft Act which could
>>> lead to a charge of handling).
>>>
>>> Though a person securely deleting images of child abuse could, in 
>>> theory,
>>> be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as it is
>>> disposing of evidence of a crime (taking, making, downloading etc 
>>> images).
>>> I doubt many, if any, people have been charged with this though.
>
>>If they are securely deleted how can they prove they ever existed ?
>
> Presence of a program called "Evidence Eliminator" on the machine,
> coupled with web searches for 'Lolita'.
>
> -- 
> Dissenter

doesnt  "Evidence Eliminator" type software delete the searches as well ?

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:57 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:

>> Web searches for "Lolita"? No. There's the novel by Vladimir
>> Nabokov, and two films based on his story; there's a fashion
>> designer Lolita Lempicka, a whale called Lolita, an actress, Lolita
>> Davidovitch. All of which are perfectly innocent. There would have
>> to be more. Although I have access to a database of search terms
>> used by people interested in child porn images, for obvious reasons,
>> I'm not going to post it here; suffice it to say that it's not that
>> naive, no way.
>
> Suffice-it-to-say, that both issues have been enough to sway juries.

I very much doubt that either would have been a deciding factor, or should 
have been; perhaps as part of a larger picture, but simply not good enough 
on their own, given a good lawyer... oops! sorry, that's where the arguments 
fails, really, isn't it?


> WM

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
 wrote:

>Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
>ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.

Fairly obviously, because in that case how can it be determined BRD
that (a) the image was ever "made" or that (b) the image was illegal?

-- 
Cynic

On Oct 2, 12:10 am, Cynic  wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
>  wrote:
> >Interestingly, if one has *fully* deleted the images and has no
> >ability to recover them, 'at hand', it is possible to be acquitted.
>
> Fairly obviously, because in that case how can it be determined BRD
> that (a) the image was ever "made" or that (b) the image was illegal?
>
> --
> Cynic

See correction above.

WM