Lost Prophets singer charged

[DonkeyApple]

Dominicc01 said:

These offences are punishable under the Protection of Children Act 1978. In 1978 there was no internet, so no offence of "downloading" had been created. It's not possession if you've deleted it, and it would be illogical and unenforceable to make "looking at a picture" illegal. So downloading was prosecuted as "making".

Making as in making a copy of the original, I guess?

[Kozy]

I still listen to their albums quite often for a bit of teenage regression.

Not popped up on shuffle for a while now, I wonder if I'll skip track when they do?

[hornet]

Digga said:

Not a fan (and TBH who is now?) but I understand they were one of those curious phenomenena of British acts that are far bigger in the states than at home. Like Tony Bliar.

Very much this generation's Def Leppard IMO.

[Getragdogleg]

DonkeyApple said:

Dominicc01 said:

These offences are punishable under the Protection of Children Act 1978. In 1978 there was no internet, so no offence of "downloading" had been created. It's not possession if you've deleted it, and it would be illogical and unenforceable to make "looking at a picture" illegal. So downloading was prosecuted as "making".

Making as in making a copy of the original, I guess?

Thank you, that sorts it all out in my head as to how it came about.

I dislike trial by media so the term "making" when used in a newspaper report implies that the person took the pictures or video. I feel that this can put the wrong idea in the laymans head and make someone who has never touched a child look as bad as someone who has. Trouble is it is a very difficult subject to approach and most will just say that looking is as bad as touching anyway and in a way I agree.

about 15 years ago when I was working for a big multinational garage chain a customer of ours was arrested for "child sex offences" and the local newspaper printed that he was arrested for making and possesing, he was however released with no charge because the images were of his perfectly legal wife dressed up in school girl outfits, he had posted them online and because she was petite someone reported him. The Police had leaked/released the information to the newspaper before this fact was established and it went round town that this guy "had kids round his house and took pics" this grew into some quite nasty rumours because we all know how small town gossips ramp up the details. He had done nothing wrong and was released quite quickly fully cleared, the computer had come back clean of any nasties, yet he had to move away because despite not being guilty of anything the paper and public had tarred him anyway and people continued to make his and his families lives a misery. I got the full story from a member of the Police I knew through the same garage (he was a customer too and knew we knew the arrested guy) a while after the whole thing had died down and the guy had moved away.

Knowing why "making" is what it is has cleared up why the paper printed it.

[petemurphy]

its shocking its called making and tbh possesion is bad enough when its not really posession. cant see any mp wanting to ever change it though.

[DonkeyApple]

Getragdogleg said:

Thank you, that sorts it all out in my head as to how it came about.

I dislike trial by media so the term "making" when used in a newspaper report implies that the person took the pictures or video. I feel that this can put the wrong idea in the laymans head and make someone who has never touched a child look as bad as someone who has. Trouble is it is a very difficult subject to approach and most will just say that looking is as bad as touching anyway and in a way I agree.

about 15 years ago when I was working for a big multinational garage chain a customer of ours was arrested for "child sex offences" and the local newspaper printed that he was arrested for making and possesing, he was however released with no charge because the images were of his perfectly legal wife dressed up in school girl outfits, he had posted them online and because she was petite someone reported him. The Police had leaked/released the information to the newspaper before this fact was established and it went round town that this guy "had kids round his house and took pics" this grew into some quite nasty rumours because we all know how small town gossips ramp up the details. He had done nothing wrong and was released quite quickly fully cleared, the computer had come back clean of any nasties, yet he had to move away because despite not being guilty of anything the paper and public had tarred him anyway and people continued to make his and his families lives a misery. I got the full story from a member of the Police I knew through the same garage (he was a customer too and knew we knew the arrested guy) a while after the whole thing had died down and the guy had moved away.

Knowing why "making" is what it is has cleared up why the paper printed it.

The police will screw up at some point on this current paedo hunt. Someone will get over enthusiastic and go for someone completely innocent.

What is interesting is that so soon after Leveson not only are the media using the Savill saga to score points (while conveniently ignoring that some parts of the same media will have known what was going on all along) but also that the Police are clearly still selling information to the media.

[R1 Indy]

There must be something in this.....?

Still refused bail, not back in court till march.

Either they are really worried for his safety? Or they think he will do a runner, which I doubt would be easy as wouldn't take long for someone to spot him?


I really hope he is not innocent after all of this! As his career will be destroyed just for starters!

[Fishtigua]

In court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20874141

[Excelsior]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It has - it did say that previously

[trickywoo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Its still in the bold section at the top of the one I've just read.

[trickywoo]

Excelsior said:

It has - it did say that previously

" including conspiracy to rape a baby."

Says that now.

[tubbystu]

Excelsior said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It has - it did say that previously

I heard that detail on the BBC radio news at 11 o'clock too.

Is it a legal definition of the offence perhaps, that has required clarification - or the rozzers again supplying too much or even privileged information ?

[rohrl]

Excelsior said:

It has - it did say that previously

Reporting restrictions will have been imposed at today's hearing.

[rohrl]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's why reporting restrictions will have been imposed, the hope being that in three months time a jury will not have news reports fresh in their mind and will be able to decide the case on the evidence presented. The jury will presumably be questioned beforehand as to whether they know anyone involved with the case as well as if they believe they are capable of coming to a fair decision.

I suppose the reason information was disclosed is so that other potential victims could make themselves known to the prosecution in advance of a trial. It's not an easy decision to make with valid interests on both sides.

[Moominho]

I know anyone can be a paedo, and that they come from all walks of life etc. But something about this case just seems a bit odd. On one side I think that if he is still not allowed bail they must feel either the crimes are that bad, and/or it is a cut and shut case.

But then the co-conspirators are unnamed. Also the fact that they released details about the case (i.e. the age of the child allegedly involved) is a bit odd. Maybe it happens all the time but I don't remember seeing that sort of detail before court usually.

Whatever the outcome, it is sickening, and his reputation and career is in tatters regardless.

[DonkeyApple]

Moominho said:

I know anyone can be a paedo, and that they come from all walks of life etc. But something about this case just seems a bit odd. On one side I think that if he is still not allowed bail they must feel either the crimes are that bad, and/or it is a cut and shut case.

But then the co-conspirators are unnamed. Also the fact that they released details about the case (i.e. the age of the child allegedly involved) is a bit odd. Maybe it happens all the time but I don't remember seeing that sort of detail before court usually.

Whatever the outcome, it is sickening, and his reputation and career is in tatters regardless.

Or, being a musician who has earned most of his money offshore, holds his assets offshore and has homes in non extraditable jurisdictions they feel it sufficiently likely that he would abscond to one of many safe havens?

[10 Pence Short]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

All that has been reported are the basic charges. This is not information that would be considered prejudicial- how could it?

[R1 Indy]

DonkeyApple said:

Or, being a musician who has earned most of his money offshore, holds his assets offshore and has homes in non extraditable jurisdictions they feel it sufficiently likely that he would abscond to one of many safe havens?

But surely they could just remove his passport etc, to stop him leaving the country.


But I have to say something doesn't seem right. Why when you are living the dream, would you risk it all over something like this. Something that is bound to come out at some point!

But I'm sure they've got concrete 100% evidence............?

Also why would they release the details of the highish profile person, then keep the details of the 2 women secret?

[Oakey]

Because as stated throughout this thread, the children involved are related to the two other suspects and it is to protect the childrens identity.

[10 Pence Short]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Every person who appears in court has the charge(s) read out before the court. Where there is a jury to be influenced they will hear all the relevant evidence before being asked to make a decision. One way or another, they are bound to hear the case against the accused.

If 'where's there's smoke' applied, everyone appearing in court would be found guilty!!