Showing posts with label POCA 1978. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POCA 1978. Show all posts

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

How Much 'Normality' Is Needed For Freedom?





Hardly No Paedophiles - just normal men, in the main.

*****

24 October 2017

Police chief appalled at ‘horrifying’ scale of child porn [IIOC] voyeurism 


http://www.itv.com/news/central/2017-10-24/police-chief-appalled-at-horrifying-scale-of-child-porn-voyeurism

24 October 2017

Child abuse images [IIOC] viewed by ‘horrifying’ number of people

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/24/police-chief-number-of-uk-child-abuse-voyeurs-horrifying

24 October 2017

Paedophiles [sic] who view child abuse images [IIOC] could escape prosecution because of 'breathtaking' scale of offending, police chief suggests

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/24/paedophiles-view-child-abuse-images-could-escape-prosecution

Wednesday 25 October 2017 12:31 BST 

'Horrifying' number of men view child sex abuse images online, police warn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-sex-abuse-images-video-online-men-uk-police-pornography-west-midlands-home-affairs-committee-a8019201.html

Published: 08:00, 25 October 2017 | Updated: 12:03, 25 October 2017

'Paedophiles [sic] need THERAPY [sic] not jail': One of Britain's top police chiefs says scale of child sex abuse [sic] is so 'horrifying' prosecution alone is not the answer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5015105/Police-chief-says-scale-child-sex-abuse-horrifying.html

Published time: 25 Oct, 2017 10:42; Edited time: 26 Oct, 2017 09:33

Child-porn images [IIOC] so widespread, police can’t prosecute everyone – chief constable 



https://www.rt.com/uk/407711-child-sex-online-police

12:00, 25 OCT 2017; Updated14:38, 25 OCT 2017

Police chief asks if people who view child porn [IIOC] should be offered counselling instead of prosecution 
 

The answer is much more simple and correct.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-chief-calls-13809544

10th August 2017

Visits to child porn [IIOC] addiction website double in a month

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15462789.Visits_to_child_porn_addiction_website_double_in_a_month

*****

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/Formal-Minutes-2017-19/Formal-Minutes-Home-Affairs.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/formal-minutes/

*****

Medieval Puritanism will only lead to Medieval Responses.

Never fight a battle, you cannot win; you have been told enough.

Decriminalise the possession of any image, or text, now.

The OSC

*****

First They Came For The 'Terrorist' Books ...

https://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/first-they-came-for-terrorist-books.html

Because You Cannot Believe Something, Does Not Preclude You From Being Ignorant And/Or Stupid And/Or Incorrect

https://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/because-you-cannot-believe-something.html

 https://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Censorship

Saturday, 13 December 2014

First They Came For The 'Terrorist' Books ...



*****



*****

(Embedded Tweets - click date)

*****

Serious Crime Bill [HL] 2014-15 

"Summary of the Serious Crime Bill [HL] 2014-15 

A Bill To amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006; to make provision about involvement in organised crime groups and about serious crime prevention orders; to make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of drug-cutting agents; to make it an offence to possess an item that contains advice or guidance about committing sexual offences against children; to make provision approving for the purposes of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 certain draft decisions under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to serious crime; and for connected purposes."

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/seriouscrime.html

Serious Crime Bill - Commons Library Research Paper 




http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-67/serious-crime-bill

Protection of Children Act 1978 

 

'Abusing Children Sexually'

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37

*****

Collection of information (Terrorism Act 2000 s58)

http://as.exeter.ac.uk/it/regulations/regs/terrorismcoc/

Terrorism Act 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006

Providing material support for terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for_terrorism

*****

We require these questions to be answered; in this Bill ...

What is the statutory definition of 'abuse'?

What is the statutory definition of 'child'?

What is the statutory definition of 'sexually'?

What is the statutory definition of 'paedophile'?

Something on 'advice' and 'guidance', would also be useful.

 *****


"The 120 Days of Sodom is the Marquis de Sade's masterpiece. A still unsurpassed catalogue of sexual perversions and the first systematic exploration of the psychopathology of sex, it was written during Sade's lengthy imprisonment for sexual deviancy and blasphemy and then lost after the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution in 1789.

Later rediscovered, the manuscript remained unpublished until 1936 and is now introduced by Simone de Beauvoir's landmark essay, 'Must We Burn Sade?' Unique in its enduring capacity to shock and provoke, The 120 Days of Sodom must stand as one of the most controversial books ever written, and a fine example of the Libertine novel, a genre inspired by eroticism and anti-establishmentarianism, that effectively ended with the French Revolution."

Will these (or anything like them) come under The Act?

The 120 Days of Sodom 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodom

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

Will anyone linking to them, do so?

*****
(Embedded Tweet - click date)

*****

What can we say? ...
(Embedded Tweets - click date)

*****

More to follow.

Friday, 16 May 2014

Why 'Making' (Downloading - POCA 1978)/'Possessing' (CJA 1988) Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence And Never Can Be (Well, Not In A Rational World)

(1) From Home Office Classification


Source:

Trending - Trends of indecent images of children and child sexual offences between 2005/2006 and 2012/2013 within the United Kingdom

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/trending.html

Released: 17 October 2013 

Sexual Offences in England and Wales - year ending June 2013 

Part of Crime Statistics, period ending June 2013 Release ...


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-june-2013/info-sexual-offenses.html

With effect from April 2014

Home Office Counting Rules For Recorded Crime


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340312/count-crimes-society-july-2014.pdf

*****

(2) From The SOA 2003

2 (a) The Requirement To Notify



Source:

Trending - Trends of indecent images of children and child sexual offences between 2005/2006 and 2012/2013 within the United Kingdom

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/trending.html

i.e. for the purposes of notification requirements (i.e. the, so-called, 'sex offender registration') ...

Part 2: Notification and orders; Notification requirements

80 Persons becoming subject to notification requirements

(1) A person is subject to the notification requirements of this Part for the period set out in section 82 (“the notification period”) if—

(a) he is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3;

(b) he is found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity;

(c) he is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence; or

(d) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, he is cautioned in respect of such an offence.

(2) A person for the time being subject to the notification requirements of this Part is referred to in this Part as a “relevant offender”."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2 

SCHEDULE 3

Sexual offences [sic] for purposes of Part 2

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/schedule/3

For the record, not only those who are required to notify, are subject to SOPOs. 

2 (b) What is 'Sexual' About A 'Sexual' Offence?


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/78 

7 February 2003

Sex, crime and seduction - The new Sexual Offences Bill could screw us all. 

"A striking feature of the proposed new legislation is its reliance on the concept of ‘a reasonable person’. According to clause 80: ‘penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if ..."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6776#.VN5VpiyW4pN

1st August 2015 

Kissing a woman’s hand was ‘chivalry’ not sexual assault – the case of Vidas Cernevicius 

"Does this create a precedent? Can I go and kiss womens hands and not get in trouble?

In a word ‘no’. In a few more words ‘of course not, don’t be ridiculous’.

Firstly, as stated above – even if you were to not be convicted of sexual assault, you would still be liable to be found guilty of common assault. This is a serious offence in its own right, for which you can go to prison.

But more importantly, a future court may well not find that there is was no sexual motivation in it all.

In any event, a decision of a Magistrates’ Court is not binding on anybody. It is wrong to see this as anything other than what it is – a decision on its own facts, based on the evidence that Mr Cernevicius gave.

I am not suggesting in any way that Mr Cernevicius is guilty, but he clearly has his own set of beliefs about the world and it is far from guaranteed (to put it mildly) that a different Court would come to the same conclusion with a different person."

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/kissing-a-womans-hand-was-chivalry-not-sexual-assault-the-case-of-vidas-cernevicius

More to follow.

*****

(3) From Reality

Why Owning Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence, In Reality (Part 2) 

http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/why-owning-indecent-images-of-children_19.html

Why Owning Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence, In Reality (Part 1) 

 

click to enlarge

 http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/why-owning-indecent-images-of-children.html

 *****

I Looked 

"I looked at the vicious crowd, pushing and jostling, and I did nothing, now I am a hooligan.

I looked at the calm soldier, slicing his enemy with his bayonet, and I did nothing, now I am a war criminal.

I looked at the disembowelled refugee children, and I did nothing, now I am a participator.

I looked at the stick-like bodies, as they were pushed into the trench, and I did nothing, now I am Nazi.

I looked at the shattered remains of the crash victim, and I did nothing, now I am a manslaughterer.

I looked at the voluptuous body of the seductive model, and I did nothing, now I am a rapist.

I looked at the distant scientists, collecting the remains of the murdered schoolgirl, and I did nothing, now I am a murderer.

I looked at the taboo sexual practices of others, and I did nothing, now I live the rest of my life as a child sexual offender,

... and then, I shutdown the computer."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206085307/http://www.madbadorsad.org/arttherapy.htm

*****

December 26, 2010

"“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt."

*****


 click to enlarge

*****

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science

*****

The Madness of 'Gillotti' (USA)

July 11, 2014 - 7:14 PM 

Sex offender loses bid to reduce rating 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/all-niagara-county/sex-offender-loses-bid-to-reduce-rating-20140711 

Decided on June 10, 2014;

People v. Gillotti 

Summary: 

"Both Defendants in this case were required to register as a sex offenders pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).

At issue in these cases was the SORA risk assessment guidelines promulgated by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders.

The Court of Appeals held:

(1) guidelines factor 3, which is based on the number of victims [sic] involved in an offender’s crime [sic], permits the scoring of points based on the number of different children depicted in the child pornography files possessed by a child pornography offender;

(2) a position statement issued by the Board on the evaluation of child pornography cases under SORA does not prohibit a SORA court from assigning points to an offender under factor 3 and factor 7 (which accounts for the increased risk of sexual recidivism posed [sic] by an offender whose crime is directed at a stranger [sic]);

and (3) where an offender requests a downward departure in a SORA case the offender must prove the facts supporting a downward departure by a preponderance of the evidence."

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2014/97-0.html 

***** 


Posted on June 29, 2014

9 Reasons Why Child Porn Laws Are Evil

1. Child abuse images are completely legal, while child porn images are not
2. Child porn is not child abuse
3. Child porn is a thought crime
4. Criminalising any image is an affront to democracy
5. Banning one thing leads to the ‘slippery slope’ effect of banning everything
6. Child porn laws undermine the rule of law
7. Child porn laws are so excessively broad that they effectively rape children of their childhood
8. Banning child porn allows child rapists and child abusers to walk free
9. Those who seek to ban child pornography are all paedophiles themselves anyway

https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/9-reasons-why-child-porn-laws-are-evil/

*****

21 August, 2014

Banning us from watching this video of a criminal act is a step too far 

"There is a difference between individuals exercising their right not to view or share a video, and companies such as Twitter -- or indeed the police force -- denying people the right to view it."

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/08/james-foley-isis-media-blackout-twitter-met-police/
(Embedded Tweet - click date)

*****

More to follow.

Monday, 12 May 2014

Yes Ian, You May - But There Is No Need For Any Defence

(Embedded Tweet - click date)

****

20 specimen charges, of making (DL) IIOC, under POCA 1978 - not a Sexual Offence ... much else is unsubstantiated rumour, disinformation and lies.

For the greater good.

Hope that assists.

Nigel, The OSC

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

We Know, We Know - Why Do You Think So Many Ore Victims Were Found Guilty?

2:10pm UK, Monday 07 April 2014

Hackers Put Child Abuse Images On Computers

"Malware and viruses are being bundled with child abuse images to discourage people from having their computers repaired.

Cyber crime is becoming a bigger threat to companies

The number of pages containing child abuse images has risen in the UK

Hacking attacks which lodge child abuse images and malware on a computer user's hard drive are on the rise, it has been warned.

In its annual report, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) said there has been a significant increase in the number of legitimate websites being compromised.

First, the hackers infiltrate a site before planting the child abuse images and malware in folders on a hidden URL.

The folders are then inadvertently accessed by unsuspecting web surfers through a redirect link on a legitimate adult site.

When the link is clicked, the files are downloaded to the user’s computer."

http://news.sky.com/story/1238455/hackers-put-child-abuse-images-on-computers

Monday 7 April 2014

Pictures of child sex abuse are hidden in UK sites

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/pictures-of-child-sex-abuse-are-hidden-in-uk-sites.23881400

*****

The Appalling Vista


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLqtvccvME

The Appalling Vista – the fight back against Operation Ore

http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=111

Sunday, 5 January 2014

POCA 1978 - There Were Some Good, Wise And Honest People, At The Time

The Guardian, 21st June 1978 

‘Conceived in hysteria’ 


http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/conceived-in-hysteria-21-06-78

*****

Douglas Houghton, Baron Houghton of Sowerby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Houghton,_Baron_Houghton_of_Sowerby

Obituary: Lord Houghton of Sowerby

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-lord-houghton-of-sowerby-1345486.html

*****

Shami Chakrabarti - Hypocrite - Apologising For A Legal Activity, Which Paved The Way For Minorities, Just Like Her - Female, Gay, Straight Or British-Asian 

http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/shami-chakrabarti-hypocrite-apologising.html

1978 briefing: The NCCL legal officer Harriet Harman wrote this briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography. She argued that it would lead to an 'increase in censorship' 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html

Monday, 28 October 2013

The Persecution Of Human Sexuality - How Did This Deadly And Sorrowful Mess Begin?

Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:48 pm

"A very interesting piece with Judith Levine. Well worth a watch if you have a spare hour.

What she says at 18.25 is frightening and absolutely correct."

Computer Sex Criminality
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4r490-CWEA

*****

Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:30 pm

"A most courageous discussion – thanks for the link, ptt13. Unfortunately, it has sponsored a lengthy bray from yours truly, but rarely have Orwell’s prophetic words been more apt:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
As Levine makes clear, anyone who owns a computer – and certainly anyone who has looked at any form of erotica - is almost certainly at risk of being done for child porn and having their lives destroyed, irrespective of whether they’ve personally searched for the stuff or even seen it. If the filth have any pretext for seizing your device, a pretext which can be as trivial as getting caught growing a little whacky-baccy in your garden shed, they’ll almost certainly be able to find something on it that qualifies as child porn, because the net they use is so insanely wide (and don’t forget to include your kids in this category of computer porn viewers, even if you’ve never looked at a digital growler or willie).

While her observations are deeply alarming (or should be – everyone’s at risk of police terrorism in this area), it’s nonetheless encouraging to see some prominent voices in what is laughingly called the Land of the Free daring to challenge the madness and ferocious cruelty which has always driven these despicable laws – laws which make a mockery of the presumption of innocence, are impossible to defend and will nearly always result in ruinous sentences and permanently destroyed lives.

Levine tackles head-on the corrupt con-trick perpetrated by the Punitive State and its paedo-obsessed cops, who are, for the most part, badly-educated provincial nobodies, chillingly like the guards who humiliated millions of helpless captives in the Nazi death camps before herding them into gas chambers. As the director of the Institute of Ideas, Claire Fox once asked, “Who (the fu*k) are they to tell us what we can and can’t look at?” (OK, I added “the fu*k”). Amongst Levine's many courageous and truthful observations, these two seem worthy of particular mention:

At 35.02 onwards:
"How can they do a prosecution if no one can look at these (images)? The police can look at them (laughter in audience). And so now we’re all in a situation where … we are forced to somehow submit to the opinions of these dirty-minded little two-bit sheriffs – that’s really who’s making decisions about people’s lives."
At 37.29 onwards:
“Even guilty people deserve justice. The sex laws in this country amount to banishment. Even people who do the worst crimes get to pay their debt and go on with their lives - except for sex criminals.”
Repeating the brilliant dissection she conducted in her book of 2002, Harmful to Minors, Levine also reminds everyone that these laws were from day one based on barefaced lies and nutty exaggerations – child psychiatrist Judianne Densen-Gerber and LAPD cop Sgt Lloyd Martin careened from coast to coast promulgating the deranged whopper that over two million US children were being forced into photographed sex acts by a sinister, multi-billion dollar industry; Martin even claimed to a congressional committee in 1977 that the sexual molestation of children was “worse than homicide”, an absurdity no one demurred from in the hysterical heat of the moment. In one of his evangelically thunderous outbursts on an American Christian TV show, he warned his fellow citizens that:
"… pedophiles (sic) actually wait for babies to be born so that, just minutes after birth, they can grab the post-fetuses and sexually victimize them.”
(I lifted both these examples from Levine’s book).

All their claims, after thorough investigation, turned out to be pure, 22-carat bullshit. What happened to these paragons of sexual morality (malicious nutjobs, in plain language, who perversely exploited their powerful positions in order to spread lies and disinformation to their fellow citizens for their own aggrandizement)? Densen-Gerber was shortly afterwards disgraced, after it emerged she had been using degrading and dehumanising methods in her private residential treatment facility for drug-using adolescents, Odyssey House (she was also found guilty of embezzling money). Martin was sacked by LAPD after being found guilty of intimidating witnesses and falsifying evidence – quite a turn-up for the books, given how assiduously the cops protect their own no matter how foully they have behaved, so my reading is that the evidence against him was pretty massive.

But, shockingly, these corrupt, swivel-eyed headbangers got their come-uppance after they had succeeded in planting a malignant legal tumour – the Protection of Children Act – in the US statute book, a move which we eagerly followed in the UK courtesy of an equally hysterical and lying propaganda campaign launched by that moralistic pervert Mary Whitehouse, who saw sexual depravity everywhere she looked without once questioning what was going on in her mind to twist erotic beauty into wicked filth. She was aided and abetted by the media and by the moralistic former Tory, Sir Cyril Townsend, who against all odds got his nutty private member’s bill onto the statute book. To be fair, we owe the Protection of Children Act 1978 – the malignant primary tumour from which so many equally malignant legal metastases have spread - not to informed parliamentary debate, but to its abrogation: the minority Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, forced leftist Labour MP Ian Mikardo to back down on his plans to kill this stupid, unnecessary and hysterical bill by filibustering it, as a result of a shabby backroom compromise with the Tory opposition. They agreed to ease up on opposing the remainder of Labour’s legislative programme so long as the Townsend Bill went through. So much for parliamentary democracy – it’s inherently corrupt and corrupting, as Ed Miliband’s father, Ralph, knew well (just read his superb book "Parliamentary Socialism").

So two corrupt, half-bonkers zealots played a big part in getting a crazy and wicked law enacted, a law copied by pretty well all the legislatures in the Anglophone world thereafter. And we went on copying the American trend as this tumour metastasized into ever more extreme, destructive and indefensible laws. The truth, of course, is that the only multi-billion dollar industry involved in child porn is the child protection industry itself, and its punitive, police puppet masters.

Densen-Gerber and Martin, Whitehouse and Townsend: both these evil couples are the effects, rather than the cause, of a much bigger process. If twentieth century fascism, in its racialised and party political form, is dead (and I think it largely is), twenty-first century fascism is alive and well. It no longer goes by the name of fascism, which is rightly about as appealing as a fungus-encrusted turd to most people, and it is no longer racialised. Instead, it goes by the name of Public Protection, which was never driven by popular, spontaneous demand, and it favours sexual bogeymen over racial bogeymen. But it creates biopolitical monsters (paedos instead of Jews), concentration camps – the virtual concentration camp of the Sex Offender’s Register – and social death (permanent banishment from the human community) every bit as effectively as the Nazis’ Final Solution did. And we should never be so complacent as to dismiss the prospect that some ideologically bankrupt politicians will start calling for literal death penalties, if that’s where they think the votes lie.

It seems to me that US organisations such as the National Centre for Reason and Justice and the Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) group have no counterparts as yet in the UK. There simply has to be a collective response to this malignant madness, which will simply get worse and worse if left unchallenged; freedom has never, ever been bestowed on the powerless by the privileged, it’s always been wrested from the latter’s vice-like, authoritarian grip by those whom it seeks to discipline and dispossess.

A majority of people are endangered by these crazy laws and, rationally, it ought to be possible to build a collective, political opposition to Police/Protective State terrorism.

Ideas welcome."

http://raymondpeytors.com/privatearea/membersforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=439&sid=be3188b80df12e5415271258be4d7732

*****

Feel free to Tweet ...

(Embedded Tweet - click date)

*****

Issue 9 Childhood Winter 2002/03

Picturing Innocence: An Interview with Anne Higonnet

"At no time in history have pedophobes had it worse than now. Images of children are everywhere; on calendars and Christmas family cards, in advertisements for banks and toilet paper, on keychains and in office cubicles. Grinning at us in that saccharine way that profitmakers love, these images speak of an age of innocence not yet tainted by politics, economics, moral failure, disappointments, class frustrations, ill health, and, worst of all, knowledge of one's mortality.

The sheer numbers of such images are staggering. Of the 25 billion photographs taken in the US every year, about half of them feature the very young. According to the Wolfman Report of 1992, 38 percent of amateur photographs deemed important enough to be framed were of children.1

The ubiquity of images of children may not tell us anything about the variety of images we produce and circulate but it is symptomatic of contemporary Western obsessions with childhood. In her book Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood, Anne Higonnet, professor of art history at Barnard College, traces the history of the images that helped shape this contemporary relationship to children as it first emerged in the 18th century. Sina Najafi spoke to her by phone."

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/9/picturing_innocence.php

Thursday, 29 August 2013

On The Up

May 2013

Our Reference: FOI 82152

"Freedom of Information Request

You ask for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

1. Figures relating to convictions for offence classification 86.2 (taking, permitting to be taken or making, distributing or publishing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children); data from 2007 to 2010 by year

2. Figures relating to convictions for offence classification 86.10 (possession of indecent photograph of a child); data from 2007 to 2010 by year.

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for, and that I am able to provide this to you.

The number of offenders found guilty at all courts for the requested child pornography offences, in England and Wales, in each year from 2007 to 2010, can be viewed in the attached table." (click to enlarge)

 *****


*****

CrimeLine.info®

http://www.crimeline.info

@CrimeLineLaw

https://twitter.com/CrimeLineLaw

https://t.co/HY5ESGsq1O (response - doc)

https://t.co/e6hm1e2n0S (table - xls)

Saturday, 21 July 2012

The Cognitive Distortions Of The Typical UK 'Judge' - And Others

9:00am Saturday 21st July 2012

Cononley children’s worker is spared jail over porn pictures

"A man who worked with children has been given a suspended jail sentence for possessing and distributing child porn images.

Investigators found nearly 200 indecent images on computers, including some at the most serious levels four and five.

Sentencing PB to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, Judge Colin Burn said the images were obscene, pornographic or paedophilic [sic]. He said: “They are illegal. They are offensive. And regardless of how many are distributed, regardless as to how graphic they actually are, the reality is that when these images depict real children, they are real children who are really being abused and are really having their lives ruined.

“That is happening to them for the gratification of people like you. And that is why the possession and distribution of them is so serious."

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/airelocal/9830307.Cononley_children___s_worker_is_spared_jail_over_porn_pictures/?ref=rss

****

Comment:

We read this faulty logic, disinformation and hyperbole, time-and-time-again, from the UK courts' obiter dicta. This is a prize piece and deserves correction ...

"Sentencing PB to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, Judge Colin Burn said" ...

"the images were obscene"

No, this was an indecent image offence trial.

If you believe them to be obscene (i.e. deprave and corrupt), provide your evidence.

"pornographic"

Possibly. So?

"or paedophilic"

An image cannot be 'paedophilic'.

"“They are illegal."

Easily-solved.

"They are offensive"

Perhaps to you and others. So what?

"And regardless of how many are distributed, regardless as to how graphic they actually are, the reality is that when these images depict real children,"

Good, images depicting - not real anythings, at all. That is The Reality.

"they are real children"

Oh dear, the gross logical fail, begins ...

"who are really being abused"

... which continues ...

"and are really having their lives ruined."

You have no idea, what happened in the lives of the people depicted in the images, for good or bad, but, it really does not matter, because it follows from your continuing logical fallacy ...

“That is happening to them for the gratification of people like you."

... continuing ...

Really? Where is you evidence? In any case, what is wrong with harmless and healthy gratification?

"And that is why the possession and distribution of them is so serious."

All based on logical fallacy, disinformation and lack of evidence.

Those are only a few reasons, why the laws are faulty, unethical, harmful and dangerous.

“As long as there is a market"

Market?

"for those images, those wretched children"

The what?

"will continue [sic] to be horribly abused around the world.”

As usual, finish with a flourish of weasel words and emotive, unevidenced, hyperbole.

Degrees of separation, Mr Burn, degrees of separation ...  oh, and knowledge and acknowledgment of the actual evidence assists us, on the road to truth.

The OSC.

Saturday, 16 June 2012

Dangerous And Incorrect Titles, Create Actual Danger

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.

*****