Rolf Harris: dead at last

[littlebabyjesus]

The sentence would appear to imply the jury.

Yes, but that's quite an assumption. I would think that different people's ideas of indecent would vary rather widely. I simply don't think there is a 'recognised standard'. Bit of a lottery who you get on the jury, I think.

 

[butchersapron]

I would not like to be on that Jury.

 

[8ball]

Yes, but that's quite an assumption. I would think that different people's ideas of indecent would vary rather widely. I simply don't think there is a 'recognised standard'. Bit of a lottery who you get on the jury, I think.

People might disagree about decent vs. indecent in the widest definitions of the terms, but when it comes to horrible child abuse images I think there would be mostly consensus.

 

[purves grundy]

"d'yer know what it is yet?"

fucking hell, man

 

[Teaboy]

I would not like to be on that Jury.

Me neither, horrible stuff.

My brother in law sat on the jury for a child abuse case, he said it was horrible having to listen to quite graphic testimony but at least there were no images, that sort of thing would stay with you I reckon.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People might disagree about decent vs. indecent in the widest definitions of the terms, but when it comes to horrible child abuse images I think there would be mostly consensus.

There will be a wide fuzzy line beyond which everyone will agree, but if you're somewhere in that fuzzy bit, then the lottery of the individuals in the jury will come into it. I'm pretty sure that my idea of indecent and my mum's are not the same.

btw, the images don't have to be of child abuse to be considered indecent. The child may not be doing anything at all, but if the image is considered to be focussing in on genitals, for instance, then that can be considered indecent. Different angles or crops of images of the same child doing the same thing may or may not be considered indecent.

 

[8ball]

There will be a wide fuzzy line beyond which everyone will agree, but if you're somewhere in that fuzzy bit, then the lottery of the individuals in the jury will come into it. I'm pretty sure that my idea of indecent and my mum's are not the same.

I'd doubt you and your mum's idea of what constitutes child abuse images are very different - we're not talking about cases against the director of the latest Lady Gaga video.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd doubt you and your mum's idea of what constitutes child abuse images are very different - we're not talking about cases against the director of the latest Lady Gaga video.

No, see what i added above. To be indecent, the image does not have to be one of child abuse, just one of a child.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, for instance, I'm sure there are people who think that any image of a naked child is indecent. And there are people who don't think just nudity itself is indecent at all.

 

[8ball]

So, for instance, I'm sure there are people who think that any image of a naked child is indecent. And there are people who don't think just nudity itself is indecent at all.

This seems reminiscent of those old scare stories about people being prosecuted after taking a pic of their baby in the bath and getting it developed at Boots. Such things may have happened but they were not common and were ridiculed accordingly if/when they did.

Being massively over-prescriptive and super-precise about what constitutes 'indecent' would lead to horrible things being kicked out of court because no one else was sick enough to think about it - you can't eliminate common sense completely from the legal process (well, you can, but it tends not to go well).

 

[Teaboy]

But surely its context?

Pictures of naked children are not in themselves a concern perhaps but if the context was a person who didn't know the children or have any connection to them? That would need explaining, right?

 

[8ball]

But surely its context?

Pictures of naked children are not in themselves a concern perhaps but if the context was a person who didn't know the children or have any connection to them? That would need explaining, right?

Yes. All sorts of variables need to be taken into consideration, including unforeseen ones.

Imo, obv.

 

[salem]

IIRC 'making' indecent images can include simply viewing them on your computer as by doing so you are creating a copy of it even if it's just in the browsers cache. This doesn't mean he took pictures, photoshoped them or anything else.

 

[8ball]

IIRC 'making' indecent images can include simply viewing them on your computer as by doing so you are creating a copy of it even if it's just in the browsers cache. This doesn't mean he took pictures, photoshoped them or anything else.

That is certainly a weird definition of the term.

 

[Fez909]

Making does indeed mean viewing on the computer. I think the term was invented to stop people viewing then deleting the images, therefore no longer being in possession. At some point you "made" a copy of the image, and so you get done.

"Taking" is an entirely different offense and treated more seriously.

 

[8ball]

Making does indeed mean viewing on the computer. I think the term was invented to stop people viewing then deleting the images, therefore no longer being in possession. At some point you "made" a copy of the image, and so you get done.

"Taking" is an entirely different offense and treated more seriously.

Those guidelines that butch put up mention possession. If you can prove possession at any point (even if overwritten), there doesn't seem to be any need to mangle the meaning of the word 'making'. That just seems panini. And by 'panini' I mean 'stupid', because words now mean whatever you want them to.

 

[Lord Camomile]

That just seems panini. And by 'panini' I mean 'stupid', because words now mean whatever you want them to.

Literally.

 

[Fez909]

Those guidelines that butch put up mention possession. If you can prove possession at any point (even if overwritten), there doesn't seem to be any need to mangle the meaning of the word 'making'. That just seems panini. And by 'panini' I mean 'stupid', because words now mean whatever you want them to.

In the guidelines it says possession is dependent on the images being able to be accessed by any reasonable person. So, for instance, someone looks at some pics of kids and deletes them. He doesn't know much about computers so as far as he is concerned, they have gone. But a computer forensic team would be able to get access to them due to the way computers work (deleted files are recoverable). He would be charged with making in this instance, not possession.

I agree it's a clunky term and probably unnecessary, but it exists and it is used, so there you go.

 

[butchersapron]

And deleting them is used to indicate that you tried to cover up what you were doing i.e the i didn't know what was going on, it was an accident defence.

 

[8ball]

I agree it's a clunky term and probably unnecessary, but it exists and it is used, so there you go.

Fair enough. It still seems ciabatta to me.

 

[Fez909]

And deleting them is used to indicate that you tried to cover up what you were doing i.e the i didn't know what was going on, it was an accident defence.

Yes and no. It's possible to download something and it not be what you intended. When I used to use filesharing programs a lot, I'd often download a film and it was an entirely different film to the file's title. No idea why people used to do that?? But say you downloaded something and it was an illegal image/video of a kid. Most people would rightly shit themselves and immediately delete it.

I read an article where someone had downloaded something and gone to the police as he shit himself. Ended up being charged, I think? My memory is hazy as it was so long ago, but I remember it being a nightmare for him, including not being able to see his kids and all that.

I'll see if I can dig the link out, but obviously searching for that sort of thing is a bit difficult - gotta be careful with the search terms!

 

[8ball]

When I used to use filesharing programs a lot, I'd often download a film and it was an entirely different film. No idea why people used to do that??

I guess if it was Titanic they'd be doing a kindness.

 

[Fez909]

This isn't the case I was thinking of, but it's similar enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17274848

Of course he could be guilty, but it's an unusual way of trying to get away with it if so.

 

[Fez909]

Not guilty. Here's the follow up: http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-15505738-detail/story.html#axzz2dMXDCOry

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There was a thread on here a while ago. Don't know it it was genuine, but it concerned a houseguest downloading dodgy stuff onto someone's laptop. Some people were advising 'go straight to the cops', which I thought was mad advice, tbh.

 

[Pickman's model]

There was a thread on here a while ago. Don't know it it was genuine, but it concerned a houseguest downloading dodgy stuff onto someone's laptop. Some people were advising 'go straight to the cops', which I thought was mad advice, tbh.

you're only looking at it from one pov of course. you seem to be having difficulty seeing other people's point of view.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you're only looking at it from one pov of course. you seem to be having difficulty seeing other people's point of view.

In terms of that thread, no I don't think so. I thought the advice was naive at best.

 

[Pickman's model]

In terms of that thread, no I don't think so. I thought the advice was naive at best.

i'd say it was more likely to be malicious. which is by no means the same thing.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I would not like to be on that Jury.

Yeah, but when the foreman is asked for the verdict, at least s/he can say "can you guess what it is yet?"


<gets coat>

 

[DaveCinzano]

You'll find lots more fascinating facts about wild and dangerous animals in The Rolf Harris Australian Gold poster.

...just think of all those mouthwatering, juicy pears and peaches you can treat yourself to.