Saturday, June 16, 2012
Child porn images found on computer during raid
"A COLLECTION of indecent pictures of children were found on a man's computer by police who raided his home.
The 55-year-old from Beeston was arrested on Monday as part of a national crackdown on paedophiles [sic] holding computer images.
Officers who ran a forensic search of the man's computer found around 20 images.
They were graded from one to three, on a scale which goes to a maximum of five for the most serious [sic] images.
He was cautioned and placed on the sex offenders' register [sic] for two years after admitting the offence. He is now being monitored by the force's Dangerous Persons [sic] Management Unit.
A second Beeston man was arrested on Tuesday as part of the operation. The 28-year-old's computer was also seized for further examination and he has been released on bail pending further inquiries.
Both arrests were made as part of the UK-wide Operation Tharsley, co-ordinated by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
It involved more than 40 police forces and led to the arrest of 76 people.
The men arrested in Beeston are not thought to be connected to each other and neither is thought to be part of a wider ring of offenders.
Detective Inspector Martin Hillier said: "These men are now on our radar – we have sent them a very clear message that we are watching."
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Child-porn-images-raid/story-15943087-detail/story.html
*****
Comment:
During a public relations exercise, we think you will find.
We are certain, Detective Inspector Martin Hillier should compare the law to reality, before he goes around creating his made-up, incorrect and dangerous departmental titles.
As we have stated, before, and we will confirm, again-and-again, there is nothing Sexual (even as defined, in other Statutes) about owning (i.e. possessing, making=downloading, printing, viewing, or even taking) an image, and, because a statute defines a term, for usage within than Statute, it does not make it reality.
Everyone is potentially-dangerous, and an operational definition, within a Statute, does not make them actually-dangerous.
Even the draconian USA would not allow such defamation and persecution of ex-offenders:
"United States
The "dangerous offender" approach is unconstitutional in the United States where a person convicted of a crime must be released from criminal incarceration at end of sentence. If there is a question that the person may continue to be dangerous, he can be civilly committed if, through a judicial hearing, it is determined that a concurrent mental disorder makes it likely that he will continue to be dangerous because he lacks any self control. [see MHA 2007, in England and Wales]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender
We will also make it quite clear, right now, that the futile and damaging past-time, of busting P2P users, is like shooting fish in a barrel; be prepared to hear how 'successful' Operation Tharsley has been.
Then be prepared to note how few 'victims' are reported; except, that will not be splashed all over the media.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment