Re: A new Meme?

ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece:
>That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to
>me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it
>rang any bells."

The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
project who backed up his story.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:23:07 +0100, Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1>
said

>ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece:
>>That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to
>>me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it
>>rang any bells."
>
>The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
>kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
>either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
>matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
>project who backed up his story.

Oh aye, not arguing that.

Langham's still a twat.

--
Snowleopard The cat >^..^< has no lair

"The natural world's holy grail"

Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece:
> >That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to
> >me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it
> >rang any bells."
>
> The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
> kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
> either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
> matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
> project who backed up his story.

Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
stuffed.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece:
>>> That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it
>>> happened to me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie
>>> porn to see if it rang any bells."
>>
>> The difference being Townsend really was working on a project
>> regarding kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about
>> the subject, either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or
>> videos, for that matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a
>> second person on the project who backed up his story.
>
> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
> stuffed.

I imagine even "research" into it has to be demonised. If we don't make it
the bogeyman people might look up momentarily and notice something real that
matters.

FWIW I had a quick scan on the net yesterday, I didn't go joining any chat
rooms mind. In 20 mins looking I didn't find any real kiddie porn. So www
has been pretty sanitised and the media hysteria is just that.
I don't use a binaries swerver or currently any P2P but perhaps it's all
lurking in there, or rather hooks to private data servers get promoted.

--
Hog

Hog wrote:
>
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> The difference being Townsend really was working on a project
> >> regarding kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about
> >> the subject, either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or
> >> videos, for that matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a
> >> second person on the project who backed up his story.
> >
> > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
> > stuffed.
>
> I imagine even "research" into it has to be demonised. If we don't make it
> the bogeyman people might look up momentarily and notice something real that
> matters.

If I go jacking up on smack, with a second person, for "research"
purposes, I'm still liable to be nailed for possession. Since when
was "research" a legitimate defence? Surely that's only one step up
from ignorance.

> FWIW I had a quick scan on the net yesterday, I didn't go joining any chat
> rooms mind. In 20 mins looking I didn't find any real kiddie porn. So www
> has been pretty sanitised and the media hysteria is just that.

Most ISPs will be implementing the IWF Watch List (not that any such
thing exists, of course) so genuine kiddie porn sites will generally
fail to load for most users in the UK. I have noticed that if you keep
following links for 'lolita' sites and their ilk, the girls do start
to look younger and younger until you start to wonder.

But I'd be absolutely astonished if there really was that much around.
What there is, will almost certainly have been forced underground by
now, and if the operators aren't covering their tracks as best they
can, they're not just nonces they're stupid nonces.

--
ogden
sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
> > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
> > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
> > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
> > project who backed up his story.
>
> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
> stuffed.

Because, though he might have had a valid reason/defence, he did
committ an offence so there has to be some outcome.

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
> > > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
> > > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
> > > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
> > > project who backed up his story.
> >
> > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
> > stuffed.
>
>
> Because, though he might have had a valid reason/defence, he did
> committ an offence so there has to be some outcome.

If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC.

No - the offence was committed, the mitigation in defence was
accepted so a remedy has to be found, which in this case was the
caution.

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC.
>
> No - the offence was committed, the mitigation in defence was
> accepted so a remedy has to be found, which in this case was the
> caution.

That's mitigating circumstances, which is different from a valid
defence.

Please trust me on this.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> That's mitigating circumstances, which is different from a valid
> defence.

Yeah, fair enough, but let's not get caught up in semantics over
mitigation/valid defence (LITSTPRU). The offence is absolute - he did
knowingly download child porn so there had to be an outcome.

The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> > > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding
>> > > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject,
>> > > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that
>> > > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the
>> > > project who backed up his story.
>> >
>> > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
>> > stuffed.
>>
>>
>> Because, though he might have had a valid reason/defence, he did
>> committ an offence so there has to be some outcome.
>
> If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC.

What the ..?

D.

--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>> > If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC.

>> No - the offence was committed, the mitigation in defence was accepted
>> so a remedy has to be found, which in this case was the caution.

> That's mitigating circumstances, which is different from a valid defence.
>
> Please trust me on this.

LOL!!

It's gotta be a troll ...

D.

--
des | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!'
BMW K100-LT

The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote the
following literary masterpiece:
>Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
>stuffed.

Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download kiddie
porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

Veggie Dave wrote:
> The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
> the following literary masterpiece:
>> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to
>> get stuffed.
>
> Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download
> kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it.

Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for *legal*
research.

--
Hog

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > That's mitigating circumstances, which is different from a valid
> > defence.
>
>
> Yeah, fair enough, but let's not get caught up in semantics over
> mitigation/valid defence (LITSTPRU). The offence is absolute - he did
> knowingly download child porn so there had to be an outcome.

I didn't actually know it was an absolute offence.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote the
> following literary masterpiece:
> >Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get
> >stuffed.
>
> Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download kiddie
> porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it.

Yes, Andy has explained it is an absolute offence, which I didn't know.

However, the fact remains that if one presents a valid (that is,
accepted by a jury, which is the only real test of validity here)
defence to a criminal accusation, then no offence has been committed.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

Hog <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote:

> Veggie Dave wrote:
> > The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
> > the following literary masterpiece:
> >> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to
> >> get stuffed.
> >
> > Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download
> > kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it.
>
> Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for *legal*
> research.

Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net
have some form of exemption.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net
> have some form of exemption.

I know someone in Customs who had to view files for content, so yes
there are certainly exceptions. I'd imagine "research" would have
more rigourous requirements though.

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:17:48 +0100,
chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net
>have some form of exemption.

And I don't suppose any of them enjoy it at all. The searching, at
least, even if not the finding.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

Ace wrote:

> >Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net
> >have some form of exemption.
>
> And I don't suppose any of them enjoy it at all. The searching, at
> least, even if not the finding.

My mate certainly didn't. He wouldn't/couldn't say what he was
looking for but he did say that it was one of the worst jobs he'd ever
had to do, and he'd certinaly had to do some nasty stuff in his time.

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> However, the fact remains that if one presents a valid (that is,
> accepted by a jury, which is the only real test of validity here)
> defence to a criminal accusation, then no offence has been committed.

True, though in most cases there is going to be no defence as to get
the stuff you have to actively seek it - either by joining one of the
rings or by pay per view. So with very few exceptions it really is a
bang to rights moment the instant one hits the download button.

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> > However, the fact remains that if one presents a valid (that is,
> > accepted by a jury, which is the only real test of validity here)
> > defence to a criminal accusation, then no offence has been committed.
>
>
> True, though in most cases there is going to be no defence as to get
> the stuff you have to actively seek it - either by joining one of the
> rings or by pay per view. So with very few exceptions it really is a
> bang to rights moment the instant one hits the download button.

Which is probably as it should be, though I always have slightly
niggling doubts about absolute offences; I can't help feeling the
government would love to introduce more and more of them.

I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hog" <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
saying something like:

>> Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download
>> kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it.
>
>Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for *legal*
>research.

I'd imagine one might apply for a licence from the Home Office or
somesuch, much like the situation for growing weed.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
> been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....

Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability.

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
> > been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....
>
>
> Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability.

"Strict liability". That's the phrase I'd forgotten! Ta.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> saying
something like:

>True, though in most cases there is going to be no defence as to get
>the stuff you have to actively seek it

It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search. I've come
across a couple of sites in the past that looked very dodgy indeed,
although they might have been bait.
Annoyingly, the thumbnails on the front pages would have remained in my
cache, ready to be dragged out by a HD search if I'd been busted for
anything else at the time. Have you noticed how often the forces of
Laura Norder take away PC systems in furtherance of their investigations
these days?

Some years ago, out of curiousity I did a deep search of HD files and
was amazed to find dozens, if not hundreds, of references to 'pedophile'
and variations thereof. Afaics, most of them were newsgroup titles and
the like, but it gave me pause. The types of neanderthals who attacked a
paediatrician wouldn't hesitate to put in the windows of anybody who had
such text on their computer.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.

AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<1186319419.191002.159730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups. com>:

>(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
>> been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....
>
>
>Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability.
^^^^^^^^^

Say it ain't so!
--
K75RT, K1100LT, ZXR750H1, 5TA.

I know I aint doing much,
doing nothing means a lot to me.

deadmail@burnt.org.uk wrote:
>
> AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <1186319419.191002.159730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups. com>:
>
> >(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's
> >> been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook.....
> >
> >Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Say it ain't so!

Wikipedia reckons it is:

"The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though
to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular
traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the
defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is
irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant
was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit."

--
ogden
sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

Hog <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote the following literary
masterpiece:
>Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for *legal*
>research.

When I wrote a feature on child exploitation, with the full knowledge
and backing of the mag, I was still told by the police that technically
I'd be breaking the law if I found any kiddie porn and that only court
and law officials were allowed to research/investigate the subject if
that research involved looking for child porn.

Obviously, it's not enforced to such an extent that they'll arrest
someone for printing a feature about it (and, therefore, someone who'd
(you'd hope) researched their feature), but they have to take action if
you're caught while researching it, even if it's for a legitimate
reason.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote the following
literary masterpiece:
>It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search. I've come
>across a couple of sites in the past that looked very dodgy indeed,
>although they might have been bait.

A solicitor friend told me that that would not be considered evidence as
it's possible to stumble across dodgy sites while looking for legal
porn.

However, if you then copied an image from your cache to somewhere else
on your hard drive, they'd consider that to be bang to rights.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:

> It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search.

Tell me about it. Some five or six years ago I was trundling around
looking for Suzuki GSXR750 sites, of all things.

There was a *fabulous* Japanese one, and I started exploring the links
off it. Those led to some Japanese punk/goth site (I know: it made me
grin, too) and there was a newsgroup link off it. Fairu gazou something
or other. So I went to that.

It was a non-binary group, and BT carried it (I was with BT and not the
Goiman server then) so I deduced it wasn't too dodgy, and clicked on a
link on it. That took me to your common or garden porn site: again,
nothing dodgy, and I was about to go back to Gixxer 750s when I noticed
there was something really odd about it.

It had no links off it.

And *every* porn site is linked to something else, right?

So, curiosity now piqued, I deleted the back end of the url to see what
the main page looked like.....

and WHAM! My screen filled with KP.

Eek, quit out, take deep breath.

Right, another deep breath, and try the home page url again (it was
something incredibly simple - just a few characters and numbers) - and
yes, it was a silly thing to do - and I got a 'site under construction'
page, with a picture of a tree on it.

Odd.

So I backtracked, through the porn-site-wiv-no-links, and yes, got
there. But couldn't get there simply by typing in the home page url.

I didn't know about referrals then. I do now. And I'd never have
stumbled on it if the original porn site had added a few links. They'd
added the back door, but hadn't painted it to match its surroundings, as
it were.

So...... I passed all the details onto a ukrm-er who shall remain
nameless, but who was (and I believe still is) rather good at tracing
this sort of thing. Apparently it went through servers around the world,
but ultimately ended up coming out of Florida. So said ukrm-er quietly
passed all the details onto the FBI, and what happened after that I know
not.

One and only time I've encountered KP. Gave me one helluva shock.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

Veggie Dave wrote:

> >It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search. I've come
> >across a couple of sites in the past that looked very dodgy indeed,
> >although they might have been bait.
>
> A solicitor friend told me that that would not be considered evidence as
> it's possible to stumble across dodgy sites while looking for legal
> porn.

Indeed. Paying to view however, a la Langham is bang to rights stuff.

> However, if you then copied an image from your cache to somewhere else
> on your hard drive, they'd consider that to be bang to rights.

That's making a copy, so yes.

(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

> One and only time I've encountered KP. Gave me one helluva shock.

Scary. Pleased to say I never have but then I'm very risk averse when
it comes to net surfing.

The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote the
following literary masterpiece:
>Apparently it went through servers around the world,
>but ultimately ended up coming out of Florida.

America is the world's capital for hosting KP.

If anyone happens to find anymore, then there's also
http://www.iwf.org.uk/ (Internet Watch Foundation) who seem to do a
pretty good job.

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> America is the world's capital for hosting KP.

That surprises me. Were I asked to guess, I'd have said Russia and/or
Eastern Europe.

--
K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60
The bells, the bells.....

The Older Gentleman wrote:
> Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> America is the world's capital for hosting KP.
>
> That surprises me. Were I asked to guess, I'd have said Russia and/or
> Eastern Europe.

Much of the stronger stuff might be produced there, but Dave's right
about the hosting of it. Or was a couple of years ago when I last
checked, anyway.

--
Rick
NT650V (still)
TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139

DR wrote:
> ... There are other UK laws which
> when broken do not IMO constitute a "moral" wrong, but simply mean you
> haven't been a good little citizen and done as you were told. [1]

not paying taxes, for one.
--
dog
sl1000 two#5

	#1
Veggie Dave	Re: A new Meme? ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to >me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it >rang any bells." The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject, either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the project who backed up his story. -- Veggie Dave UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08 IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

	#2
Snowleopard	Re: A new Meme? On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:23:07 +0100, Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> said >ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >>That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to >>me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it >>rang any bells." > >The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding >kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject, >either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that >matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the >project who backed up his story. Oh aye, not arguing that. Langham's still a twat. -- Snowleopard The cat >^..^< has no lair "The natural world's holy grail"

	#3
The Older Gentleman	Re: A new Meme? Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote: > ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece: > >That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it happened to > >me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie porn to see if it > >rang any bells." > > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject, > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the > project who backed up his story. Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get stuffed. -- K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 The bells, the bells.....

	#4
Hog	Re: A new Meme? The Older Gentleman wrote: > Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >> ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >>> That was also's Townsend's defence. Or, rather, "I think it >>> happened to me but I'm not sure, so I was looking at some kiddie >>> porn to see if it rang any bells." >> >> The difference being Townsend really was working on a project >> regarding kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about >> the subject, either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or >> videos, for that matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a >> second person on the project who backed up his story. > > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get > stuffed. I imagine even "research" into it has to be demonised. If we don't make it the bogeyman people might look up momentarily and notice something real that matters. FWIW I had a quick scan on the net yesterday, I didn't go joining any chat rooms mind. In 20 mins looking I didn't find any real kiddie porn. So www has been pretty sanitised and the media hysteria is just that. I don't use a binaries swerver or currently any P2P but perhaps it's all lurking in there, or rather hooks to private data servers get promoted. -- Hog

	#5
ogden	Re: A new Meme? Hog wrote: > > The Older Gentleman wrote: > > Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote: > > > >> The difference being Townsend really was working on a project > >> regarding kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about > >> the subject, either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or > >> videos, for that matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a > >> second person on the project who backed up his story. > > > > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get > > stuffed. > > I imagine even "research" into it has to be demonised. If we don't make it > the bogeyman people might look up momentarily and notice something real that > matters. If I go jacking up on smack, with a second person, for "research" purposes, I'm still liable to be nailed for possession. Since when was "research" a legitimate defence? Surely that's only one step up from ignorance. > FWIW I had a quick scan on the net yesterday, I didn't go joining any chat > rooms mind. In 20 mins looking I didn't find any real kiddie porn. So www > has been pretty sanitised and the media hysteria is just that. Most ISPs will be implementing the IWF Watch List (not that any such thing exists, of course) so genuine kiddie porn sites will generally fail to load for most users in the UK. I have noticed that if you keep following links for 'lolita' sites and their ilk, the girls do start to look younger and younger until you start to wonder. But I'd be absolutely astonished if there really was that much around. What there is, will almost certainly have been forced underground by now, and if the operators aren't covering their tracks as best they can, they're not just nonces they're stupid nonces. -- ogden sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

	#6
AW	Re: A new Meme? (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding > > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject, > > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that > > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the > > project who backed up his story. > > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get > stuffed. Because, though he might have had a valid reason/defence, he did committ an offence so there has to be some outcome.

	#7
The Older Gentleman	Re: A new Meme? AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote: > (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > > The difference being Townsend really was working on a project regarding > > > kiddie porn (it's not the first time he's written about the subject, > > > either); he didn't save any of the images to his PC (or videos, for that > > > matter, unlike Langham) and he was working with a second person on the > > > project who backed up his story. > > > > Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to get > > stuffed. > > > Because, though he might have had a valid reason/defence, he did > committ an offence so there has to be some outcome. If a defence is valid, then no offence has been committed, YTC. -- K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 The bells, the bells.....

	#14
Hog	Re: A new Meme? Veggie Dave wrote: > The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote > the following literary masterpiece: >> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to >> get stuffed. > > Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download > kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it. Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for legal research. -- Hog

	#17
The Older Gentleman	Re: A new Meme? Hog <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote: > Veggie Dave wrote: > > The Older Gentleman <chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com> wrote > > the following literary masterpiece: > >> Given all that, why did he accept a caution? I'd have told Plod to > >> get stuffed. > > > > Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download > > kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it. > > Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for legal > research. Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net have some form of exemption. -- K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 SL125 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 The bells, the bells.....

	#19
Ace	Re: A new Meme? On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:17:48 +0100, chateau.murrayTAKETHISOUT@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net >have some form of exemption. And I don't suppose any of them enjoy it at all. The searching, at least, even if not the finding. -- _______ ..'_/_\|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ \| /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10 `\\ \| //' `\\|/` `

	#20
AW	Re: A new Meme? Ace wrote: > >Well, yes. One assumes that coppers who hunt for KP offenders on the net > >have some form of exemption. > > And I don't suppose any of them enjoy it at all. The searching, at > least, even if not the finding. My mate certainly didn't. He wouldn't/couldn't say what he was looking for but he did say that it was one of the worst jobs he'd ever had to do, and he'd certinaly had to do some nasty stuff in his time.

	#23
Grimly Curmudgeon	Re: A new Meme? We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hog" <hogSPAM@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> saying something like: >> Because what he did is still illegal. It's an offence to download >> kiddie porn irrespective of the reasons for doing it. > >Quite. No doubt there is some official waiver obtainable for legal >research. I'd imagine one might apply for a licence from the Home Office or somesuch, much like the situation for growing weed. -- Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the river cleaned out in a day.

	#27
deadmail@burnt.org.uk	Re: A new Meme? AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote in message <1186319419.191002.159730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups. com>: >(The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > >> I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's >> been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook..... > > >Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability. ^^^^^^^^^ Say it ain't so! -- K75RT, K1100LT, ZXR750H1, 5TA. I know I aint doing much, doing nothing means a lot to me.

	#28
ogden	Re: A new Meme? deadmail@burnt.org.uk wrote: > > AW <andrew_wegg@hotmail.com> wrote in message > <1186319419.191002.159730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups. com>: > > >(The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > >> I'm trying to remember what other absolute offences there are - it's > >> been a few decades since I opened a criminal law textbook..... > > > >Speeding, drunk driving. Anything where there is strict liability. > ^^^^^^^^^ > > Say it ain't so! Wikipedia reckons it is: "The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit." -- ogden sv650 - surprisingly quick for a girl's bike

	#30
Veggie Dave	Re: A new Meme? Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >It sometimes pops up unexpectedly, by accident of search. I've come >across a couple of sites in the past that looked very dodgy indeed, >although they might have been bait. A solicitor friend told me that that would not be considered evidence as it's possible to stumble across dodgy sites while looking for legal porn. However, if you then copied an image from your cache to somewhere else on your hard drive, they'd consider that to be bang to rights. -- Veggie Dave UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08 IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

	#36
Badger	Re: A new Meme? The Older Gentleman wrote: > Veggie Dave <Veggie~Dave@127.0.0.1> wrote: > >> America is the world's capital for hosting KP. > > That surprises me. Were I asked to guess, I'd have said Russia and/or > Eastern Europe. Much of the stronger stuff might be produced there, but Dave's right about the hosting of it. Or was a couple of years ago when I last checked, anyway. -- Rick NT650V (still) TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139

	#37
dog	Re: A new Meme? DR wrote: > ... There are other UK laws which > when broken do not IMO constitute a "moral" wrong, but simply mean you > haven't been a good little citizen and done as you were told. [1] not paying taxes, for one. -- dog sl1000 two#5