Quote: Tursiops @ August 14 2013, 6:47 PM BSTI never thought I would say this, but could george post something?
Who do you fancy? Page 1,001
Quote: Tursiops @ August 14 2013, 6:47 PM BSTI never thought I would say this, but could george post something?
Quote: Tursiops @ August 14 2013, 6:47 PM BSTI never thought I would say this, but could george post something?
I can do it:
Quote: zooo @ August 14 2013, 12:18 PM BSTShe has since married Matt Willis from off of Busted.
What did she do to deserve that? 
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ August 13 2013, 10:29 PM BSTHhmm...now we know how Pete Townshend would look with a wig.
Ah Pete Townsend
Have you noticed he STILL hasn't released the book he was 'researching' on paedophilia?
Funny that
It's almost as if...
Well.
That's a good point.
Fabulous defence though - even though it isn't actually a defence.
What would be a legitimate defence for his actions? Is there any?
Quote: Ben @ August 14 2013, 10:28 PM BSTWhat would be a legitimate defence for his actions? Is there any?
The only defence to possession of indecent images is that they were sent to you on the back of another file (I don't know the technical term) and you didn't know you had them.
Of course, the police need a reason to search your computer anyway..but hey.
The reasons for looking at them are irrelevant.
What interests me is that most of my clients for this kind of thing are aged 18 - 30. I'm no expert, but I honestly believe it is a psychological disorder.
I actually think there should be more out there for people who have these kind of thoughts before they are minded to act upon them. It is so taboo in our society, that these people simply cannot reach out for help.
Anyway, I've gone a bit off topic!
Quote: Jennie @ August 14 2013, 10:33 PM BSTThe only defence to possession of indecent images is that they were sent to you on the back of another file (I don't know the technical term) and you didn't know you had them.
Of course, the police need a reason to search your computer anyway..but hey.
The reasons for looking at them are irrelevant.
What interests me is that most of my clients for this kind of thing are aged 18 - 30. I'm no expert, but I honestly believe it is a psychological disorder.
I actually think there should be more out there for people who have these kind of thoughts before they are minded to act upon them. It is so taboo in our society, that these people simply cannot reach out for help.
That's very interesting. A lot of the people you see prosecuted are quite young as opposed to the traditional 'dirty old man'.
Maybe it's us who are wrong. Maybe an attraction to children is no different to being specifically turned on - or off - by a particular hair colour, foot fetishists, or even just being gay or straight. Just a predeliction, that a hysterical society over-reacts to in the way we used to kill, and then 'cure', gays.
Quote: Jennie @ August 14 2013, 10:33 PM BSTOf course, the police need a reason to search your computer anyway..but hey.
They don't need much excuse. I have told this story before:
Quote: Tursiops @ June 16 2009, 5:26 PM BSTA mate of mine, who is a keen photographer, was testing out a new lens, taking candid people shots in Trafalgar Square, when he was approached by a man in plains clothes who demanded that he hand over his camera. When my mate declined to do so, he was arrested and frog marched to a police station.
It turned out he had walked into a police honey trap. Apparently Trafalgar Square is well known as a place where pervs go to take upskirt shots of young girls with mobile phones. Since an event was on where a lot of children were expected, the police were staging a sting operation. This was apparently well known in the paedo community, who were staying well away, but the police had spent a lot of money on the op and needed to nab someone - though how they thought my mate was going to take upskirt shots with an SLR is a bit of a puzzle.
The police 'lost' the film, but, under new laws introduced to counter terrorism, once you are under arrest the police do not need a warrant to search your house. His computer and all his photograph albums were seized. Amongst all these thousands photographs the police found two pictures of toddlers in bathing costumes splashing around in the fountains, and one of an underage teenage girl which a judge later described as "immodest bit not indecent".
It took a few of months, but after a couple of aggressive interviews the police charged him with taking an "indecent photograph sometime between 2000 and 2006". His employer was notified, and he was suspended from work for the six months it took for the case to come to trial.
On the day of the trial the case was thrown out when the defence barrister successfully argued that, even if the jury were to find my mate guilty, the judge would not be able to pass sentence, as the photograph did not meet the criteria for the minimum tarrif.
A happy ending, but my mate, had been put through hell. So, I would be very careful about what you store on your computer. The police do not need much excuse to wreck your life these days.
Quote: Aaron @ August 14 2013, 10:45 PM BSTMaybe it's us who are wrong. Maybe an attraction to children is no different to being specifically turned on - or off - by a particular hair colour, foot fetishists, or even just being gay or straight. Just a predeliction, that a hysterical society over-reacts to in the way we used to kill, and then 'cure', gays.
The difference is that an attraction to children, if acted upon, can/probably will ruin that child's life.
Quote: Aaron @ August 14 2013, 10:45 PM BSTMaybe it's us who are wrong. Maybe an attraction to children is no different to being specifically turned on - or off - by a particular hair colour, foot fetishists, or even just being gay or straight. Just a predeliction, that a hysterical society over-reacts to in the way we used to kill, and then 'cure', gays.
It is an interesting argument. Ancient civilisations saw no problem with it. I'm fairly convinced it is not a choice (although acting on it obviously is). Until a few hundred years ago you could get married at 9,10,11.
But ultimately, like all sex crime, it is about power, not sex. Using power over others in a harmful way must always be wrong.
That is an awful story, Tursiops. 
What a horrible experience for your friend. I am so pleased he had a decent brief. The judge must have thought it was totally ridiculous.
That prosecution would have cost upwards of £30,000 too.
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ August 14 2013, 10:51 PM BSTThe difference is that an attraction to children, if acted upon, can/probably will ruin that child's life.
But that is only because the child is a mentally, emotionally, and/or physically underdeveloped, unmatured person.
It doesn't matter how old a person is; if for some reason they are unmatured, it could equally scar them. 18, 34, 55. Mentally ill, learning disabilities. And yet whilst there may be a sexual assault crime in such cases, they do not carry nearly the social stigma of paedophilia.
Action is very different from attraction.
Quote: Jennie @ August 14 2013, 10:58 PM BSTIt is an interesting argument. Ancient civilisations saw no problem with it. I'm fairly convinced it is not a choice (although acting on it obviously is). Until a few hundred years ago you could get married at 9,10,11.
But ultimately, like all sex crime, it is about power, not sex. Using power over others in a harmful way must always be wrong.
Ah, but it's only a crime because we - modern society - have decided it is a crime. Crime is an ever-evolving, totally false construct of the human mind, differing in time, culture and country.
And is it always about power? Perhaps a majority of cases, yes. But always?
Quote: Aaron @ August 14 2013, 11:02 PM BSTB
Ah, but it's only a crime because we - modern society - have decided it is a crime. Crime is an ever-evolving, totally false construct of the human mind, differing in time, culture and country.
And is it always about power? Perhaps a majority of cases, yes. But always?
Totally agree on the crime point - 60 years ago being gay was a crime, and 20 years ago a man could lawfully rape his wife. Criminal law is only a reflection of society.
I once had a rape case that involved a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. Rape? Really?