Reply With Quoteeaglem (10-10-16)
Am I Missing Something?
I guess I must be.........
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
eaglem (10-10-16)
| Look Here -> |
Wtf?
The law is an ass!!!! Technically, he is guilty, but... Why the (insert appropriate expletive here) did the coppers charge him???? The copper that made that decision needs to take a good, long and hard, look at himself. I just hope that he has a daughter and gets caught with "norty" photos of her. You know the sort, baby running around in the rain who has dropped her nappy somewhere, and so on.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Godzilla (10-10-16),LeroyPatrol (10-10-16)
The kid wasn't any direct relation to him. She was the young child of an ex-partner of his. He had no lawful carers responsibility for her at the time. He reported the matter to authorities who investigated and he was told to delete the photos - he didn't. Instead he made several copies and kept them on seperate drives - why?Originally Posted by lsemmens
There are many cases where the law is an ass, but this bloke made the conscious decision to keep (and make several copies of) naked photos of a child that was of no relation to him AFTER being warned he'd be committing an offence. Surely the only ass here is the convicted man?
Seymour Butts (11-10-16)
As peteramjet says, he did the correct thing in reporting the matter and it was then up to the Authorities to decide to keep them for further legal reasons or delete them but once he was told that if he kept them he was breaking the Law, then he should have done so.
If in the beginning he had any doubts that who he reported them to was either involved in someway or the complaint wouldnt be acted on, I would consider speaking to a Solictor first for a record to be kept of the complaint.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say, I just dont ever remember saying it !!
The law is an ass but if he wasn't convicted then a precedent would have been set.
XCRUISER HDSR600HD twin sat and terrestrial receiver $OOS *
XCRUISER HDSR385 Avant - sold out$OOS UltraPlus DVB-T and DVB-S2 tuners $49 Remotes $OOS
You can defend stupid inflexibility all you like....it's dumb. You make a distinction between your biological kids and a step child?
Mt step son is MY son, and I don't recognise any difference in either my treatment of him nor my responsibility to raise him to the best of my ability. Its called parenting.
This is typical stupid one-size-fits-all legislation written in panic to "protect the children"....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
The child was not his 'step-child'. The bloke wasn't married to the partner of the child, she was just someone he was seeing at the time. I'm sure you would agree that is a big distinction, especially as he was not with the partner at the time the photos were located saved over several of his hard drives.
Sounds to me like he kept demanding some sort of response from the 'authorities', who then took a dislike to the man because he demanded action be taken and the easiest way to end the hassle was to simply get rid of the person making the complaint
^ just my imagination running wild but for the 'law' to follow thru the way they did 'kin STINKS
enf (10-10-16)
She was 15, living in his house, does that not make him her principal carer? Poor guy he is dammed if he does and dammed if he does not
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
enf (10-10-16)
The reports do say that all parties were interviewed, and that all said photos were consensual between the two. Likely, because the involved kids were the same age, both were given warnings instead of both being charged. Seems reasonable.Sounds to me like he kept demanding some sort of response from the 'authorities', who then took a dislike to the man because he demanded action be taken and the easiest way to end the hassle was to simply get rid of the person making the complaint
^ just my imagination running wild but for the 'law' to follow thru the way they did 'kin STINKS
Agreed, but charging the guy is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over the top
I read the article too and for the life of me I could not think why he was convicted????????
Common sense would say that he is doing everything to protect his daughter and providing the evidence to prove it.
As some said "the law is an ass".
__________________________________________________ __
Statistically, if you wait long enough, everything will happen!
Tiny (10-10-16)
It appears the guy wanted to protect the girl, however, once he had handed over images to police he should have followed their directive to delete all images of her in his possession.
Technically, they could have charged him for possessing them at that time, but they appear to have understood his motives bringing their (police) attention to the matter and warned him how the law is an ass and that he could be charged if he didn't delete the images.
Stupidly, he ignored the advice and retained the images.
Godzilla (10-10-16)
The law is the law and I agree. But did the police delete them, or retain them as evidence in a ridiculously unjust and technical prosecution? IF they retained them for court, what is the difference?
The ineffective law shot the messenger......
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Meanwhile, in REAL kiddy fiddler land......
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks