Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:32:41 +0000, Cub Reporter
> 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?
>> ========================================================
>> Could this be the one?
>> ========================================================
>> Beach photo pest cases are 'rare'
>>
>> BBC News, UK: 10 September 2007
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6988336.stm
>
> Not the one I was thinking of - but should satisfy Sue that such
> convictions take place. Convicted for possession of *two* images of
> girls wearing bikinis.
>
> That and the other examples you gave have hopefully changed Sue's mind
> about such convictions being a figment of the imagination, and that
> perhaps I am not spouting as much nonsense as she obviously thought I
> had been.
>
I stand corrected.
To be fair, ISTM that he was convicted of "Acting pervy on a beach".
However, as the police and CPS couldn't find that offence (yet) on the
books - they used the kp one.
That prosecutors can introduce such entirely irrelvant (to the charge)
"evidence" is beyond me. Gems such as the (lawful) possession of used
knickers, (lawful) deletion of files, (lawful) unaltered pictures from
published magazines. It is all reminiscent of "walking in a suspicious
way" and "having a suspicious beard"..
Juries should be asked to decide whether images are indecent or not
based only on the images - not on the lawful but wierd/distasteful
activities of the accused.
--
Sue
|