Ex-Labour MP admits child sex offence

[s1962a]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-533204...

Having indecent images of children - that is disgusting. Hope he gets a long sentence for this.

[Dont Panic]

One of our "betters".

[Brads67]

He didn't "have" any images, he accessed a 51 second video some time in a 5 year span. Claimed it was the drinks fault.

I'm assuming he put a device in for repair, Garry Glitter stylee.

[s1962a]

Brads67 said:

He didn't "have" any images, he accessed a 51 second video some time in a 5 year span. Claimed it was the drinks fault.

I'm assuming he put a device in for repair, Garry Glitter stylee.

Thats what he got caught for, yes. If he is a peadophile then i doubt it's the only time he's done this.

[NNH]

This is the man who:
- Was one of the leaders in outrageous MP expenses claims
- Kept getting into brawls in Parliament...
- ...and in shops and airports
- Kept getting suspended sentences for his assaults instead of being sent down
- After "resigning" from the Labour Party, didn't step down as MP but continued to keep his snout in the trough till the next election

What a loss to society he will be on his second or third day in prison.

[Dromedary66]

Category A video and mention of a 12 month old... I hope he gets killed inside.

If it is a suspended sentence then that will be a travesty.

[anonymous-user]

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

[s1962a]

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

"Joyce, 59, had a film on a device that "depicts a number of children" with one said to be 12 months old, Ipswich Crown Court heard."

Disgusting, isn't it?

[Turn7]

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

I believe that downloading constitutes making a digital image, but I may be wrong.

[anonymous-user]

s1962a said:

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

"Joyce, 59, had a film on a device that "depicts a number of children" with one said to be 12 months old, Ipswich Crown Court heard."

Disgusting, isn't it?

christ 12 months, i misread that as 12 years which is bad enough but 12 months??? wtf is wrong with people

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Turn7 said:

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

I believe that downloading constitutes making a digital image, but I may be wrong.

Does viewing a video or image, even if via a pop-up, count as downloading?

The guy’s clearly an ahole, but I do find the whole “making an indecent image” line a bit misleading.

[pip t]

It is confusing wording. ‘Making’ gives the impression of someone actually using a camera to create an image.

Downloading counts as ‘making’ because technically when you download a file you’ve ‘made’ a new digital copy of that file on your machine.

Regarding the pop up question I’m not sure, it’s not an area I know a lot about, but I *think* there is a defence if you can demonstrate an file was placed on your computer out of your control? But yes, an image in a pop up will end up cached somewhere on your machine I would have thought.

[FunkyNige]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

Turn7 said:

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

I believe that downloading constitutes making a digital image, but I may be wrong.

Does viewing a video or image, even if via a pop-up, count as downloading?

The guy’s clearly an ahole, but I do find the whole “making an indecent image” line a bit misleading.

I think it was a bit of a workaround in order to get the maximum sentences up to a level the public would expect, here are the guidelines



From this pdf
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/...

So if we're talking Category A the max sentence has gone from 2 years for possession to 9 years for production, which I think is much more in line with what we would expect for someone who goes out to view this kind of material.

[98elise]

Turn7 said:

JimSuperSix said:

can someone clarify? the article says "making an indecent image" but what he did seems to be downloading and viewing a video?

I believe that downloading constitutes making a digital image, but I may be wrong.

Thats my understanding. It's a particularly badly worded offence. To the layman "making" sounds like you were physically making the film.

[amusingduck]

The court heard the 51-second category A film - the most serious there is - was accessed by Joyce between August 2013 and November 2018.

It seems unusual for the timeframe to be so broad?

Unless they mean that it was repeatedly accessed during that timeframe, not accessed once somewhere within that range.