Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:24:02 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>>> What is abusive about the children portrayed in the Klara and Edda
>>> photo? They were indulging in horseplay! The CPS said the photo was
>>> not indecent (let alone .ographic). And yet in another court you
>>> would be locked up without any shadow of a doubt.
>> Has it happened? I am still waiting for anyone with any evidence that
>> anyone has been found guilty for possessing images that are all
>> available on the shelves of WH Smiths.
>
> Do you or do you not recall the case of the man convicted a few months
> ago for taking photos of girls in bikinis at a public swimming pool
> that was discussed on this newsgroup?
This one?
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Community-order-for-diving-school.1485230.jp
>
> If not, I could search for the media article and provide you with the
> evidence you demand.
>
> Meanwhile, be assured that I know for a certainty that such
> prosecutions have taken place. Not very often, and it is not a
> significant proportion of prosecutions for this offence, but they have
> happened.
My tame CPS person doesn't know of such a case. It must be a very
insignificant proportion of prosecutions.
>
> It suits the industry to describe all illegal images as, "images of
> child abuse". But I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority
> of images that are available on the Internet which would be judged to
> be indecent in a UK court do *not* involve the slightest abuse to the
> child whatsoever, nor any .ual activity. The obvious reason being
> that such images are legal in many countries and so are bound to be
> more prolific than images that are illegal in every country of the
> World.
>
I would agree that the system does itself no favours by including images
which, on their own, would not result in conviction. The reason,
presumably, is to establish that the individual does have an unhealty
and sustained interest in children and the half a dozen really sick
images are not just a momentaty aberration.
I am told that the CPS would not charge based solely on the possession
of level 1 images. Irrespective of how many.
--
Sue
|