On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:59:35 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>OK, so you seem to have conceded that a person with loads of kp on their
>computer is worthy of *investigation*.
*If* it is found that there is any significant correlation in that
direction. If not, then there is as much justification for
investigating a person for having kp as there is for investigating a
person for wearing trousers. But whatever the case, *if* he is
investigated and found very unlikely to have committed any child
abuse, then there is no need to take precautions that are necessary
only if he is a child abuser.
>But totally ignored my point that statistics can never be applied when
>investigating an individual.
No, but they could be used to decide who to bother investigating in
the first place. Especially if it is completely unknown whether any
child has been abused.
> The average person isn't a murderer - so no
>need to ask questions of the wife with a bloody pair of scissors in her
>hand...
No, there is no need whatsoever to investigate a person just because
they happen to have a pair of bloody scissors, whatever makes you
think that she should be investigated? I'd tend to assume that she'd
been cutting the fat off some steak or similar. And there is
certainly no need to investigate a woman for having a *photograph* of
a pair of bloody scissors.
Of course, *if* her husband is found stabbed to death or inexplicably
gone missing, *then* the bloody scissors would be a *clue* as to who
might be responsible, and *then* would be worth investigating.
>If that investigation shows that the person presents no real risk to
>children, then, of course, no SOR. No limitation of unsupervised access
>to children. No employment limitations.
How about some indication in the first place that he *might* be a risk
to children?
>However, I am still waiting for someone to point me to where a jury has
>found someone guilty purely on the basis of stuff on the shelves of WH
>Smiths.
I already have, but the case was not reported in the media AFAIAA.
But you surely recall the case discussed a while back on this
newsgroup of the man convicted of taking photographs of girls wearing
bikinis at a public swimming pool, which is at a similar (if not
lower) level?
>If I drove along with a mobile phone (I'd have to buy one first..) glued
>to my ear - then I would expect to be prosecuted and never get work as a
>bus driver again. Plus get a 2500GBP fine. Plus lose my licence. Even if
>I was driving with the thing switched off. But I am not stupid enough to
>deliberately do something that breaks the law. Especially when the
>consequences would be so drastic.
Yet again you are joining together two completely separate issues.
Shortly after Mugabe took over power in Zimbabwe, it would have been
extremely foolish to have cracked political jokes or made critical
comments about the government in public. That does not mean that I
thought it was *wrong* to do such things or agreed that asking a
barman to pour you a "Cain and banana" should result in two broken
arms and a severe beating.
>I just cannot fathom out why people download kp - unless they are so
>addicted to the stuff that they cannot behave rationally. Which, in
>itself, is cause for concern for someone looking after children.
You might also think about the fact that some people who have been
convicted had material discovered that was downloaded or cached onto
their HDDs in the 1980's, when the law and the penalties were not so
widely known or thought about and people would not be so paranoid
about an image of a naked child that they would immediately destroy
their HDD with a power drill. HDDs have longer memories than their
owners.
--
Cynic
|