Define 'made indecent images'
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45519996
Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45519996
"...the girl had taken two intimate photographs of herself and sent them to De Souza, who later erased them from her phone"
"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
EDIT:
As far as the wording of the law is concerned, could it have been chosen to be as broad in application and as prejudicial as possible? That is, downloading = "making", but it sounds like "is a filthy sleazy pornographer taking dirty photographs of little kids".
"...the girl had taken two intimate photographs of herself and sent them to De Souza, who later erased them from her phone"
"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
EDIT:
As far as the wording of the law is concerned, could it have been chosen to be as broad in application and as prejudicial as possible? That is, downloading = "making", but it sounds like "is a filthy sleazy pornographer taking dirty photographs of little kids".
Edited by gareth_r on Friday 14th September 16:36
gareth_r said:
"...the girl had taken two intimate photographs of herself and sent them to De Souza, who later erased them from her phone"
"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
That appears to be a crazy anomoly!"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
so, it's legal to have an intimate relationship at 16 but pictures are 18 plus?
granted she has known her since 13..........so could be seen as a grooming situation.
assuming it isn't a grooming situation, that's a little harsh for the lady to have lost everything, and be a criminal on the sex register for a technicality?
although, maybe it is an automatic grooming situation because she had known the girl since 13, and was in a position of authority.
granted she has known her since 13..........so could be seen as a grooming situation.
assuming it isn't a grooming situation, that's a little harsh for the lady to have lost everything, and be a criminal on the sex register for a technicality?
although, maybe it is an automatic grooming situation because she had known the girl since 13, and was in a position of authority.
Condi said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45519996
Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
The Selfish Gene said:
although, maybe it is an automatic grooming situation because she had known the girl since 13, and was in a position of authority.
"The school's governors have written to parents assuring them the case did not relate to any current or former pupils, or at any school De Souza had taught at."petemurphy said:
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.
A) simply untrue B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
petemurphy said:
Condi said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45519996
Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.Is the BBC wording wrong here, or was the charge actually having, as opposed to making, indecent images?
I fail to see how someone who receives the images, and then deletes them, can be convicted of making them - as by definition, she didnt make them!
Badda said:
petemurphy said:
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.
A) simply untrue B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
gareth_r said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45519996
"...the girl had taken two intimate photographs of herself and sent them to De Souza, who later erased them from her phone"
"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
EDIT:
As far as the wording of the law is concerned, could it have been chosen to be as broad in application and as prejudicial as possible? That is, downloading = "making", but it sounds like "is a filthy sleazy pornographer taking dirty photographs of little kids".
Downloading an image is a deliberate act making a copy, I have no problem with that being illegal."...the girl had taken two intimate photographs of herself and sent them to De Souza, who later erased them from her phone"
"Judge Paul Thomas said it was an "anomaly of the law" that De Souza could have a lawful sexual relationship with the girl and not have intimate photographs of her..."
Perhaps it's what you get when the law is a knee-jerk reaction to a "moral panic".
EDIT:
As far as the wording of the law is concerned, could it have been chosen to be as broad in application and as prejudicial as possible? That is, downloading = "making", but it sounds like "is a filthy sleazy pornographer taking dirty photographs of little kids".
In this case it says it was sent, assuming something like MMS or WhatsApp, that is a push technology and the person 'making' the image is actually the sender, not the receiver.
The receipt of pushed messages is technologically very different since it requires no direct action by the person receiving the image. So unless she has subsequently copied it, this looks like bad interpretation of the law, advice, or lack of expertise on the technology to me.
--- edit ---
This says it was sent by snapchat, so yes a push technology was used and the image cannot be copied without considerable expertise. This is no different to somebody post photos through your letter box and calling the police. It could be argued that the copy was actually made by snapchat themselves.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live...
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 14th September 18:51
popeyewhite said:
Badda said:
petemurphy said:
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.
A) simply untrue B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
Badda said:
popeyewhite said:
Badda said:
petemurphy said:
if you google something and an image of sam fox from 20 years ago in the sun appears on the 100th photo that you cant see as its below the screen congrats you have made child porn and are now a paedo and the mob will be round shortly. thats the current law.
A) simply untrue B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
Badda said:
A) simply untrue
B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
and there we have it - ignorance and mob mentality which is why this law can never be discussed and why we will continue with a sB) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
te system where innocent people are treated the same as paedos that the police should be targeting and putting away.how is it untrue. in fact its true already just by the fact you wont discuss the law and immediately label everyone as paedo lovers. try reading the law.
petemurphy said:
Badda said:
A) simply untrue
B) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
and there we have it - ignorance and mob mentality which is why this law can never be discussed and why we will continue with a sB) it’s also a little uncomfortable when someone tries to defend or mitigate paedophiles like this.
te system where innocent people are treated the same as paedos that the police should be targeting and putting away.how is it untrue. in fact its true already just by the fact you wont discuss the law and immediately label everyone as paedo lovers. try reading the law.
4x4Tyke said:
Downloading an image is a deliberate act making a copy, I have no problem with that being illegal.
In this case it says it was sent, assuming something like MMS or WhatsApp, that is a push technology and the person 'making' the image is actually the sender, not the receiver.
The receipt of pushed messages is technologically very different since it requires no direct action by the person receiving the image. So unless she has subsequently copied it, this looks like bad interpretation of the law, advice, or lack of expertise on the technology to me.
--- edit ---
This says it was sent by snapchat, so yes a push technology was used and the image cannot be copied without considerable expertise. This is no different to somebody post photos through your letter box and calling the police. It could be argued that the copy was actually made by snapchat themselves.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live...
what do you term downloadingIn this case it says it was sent, assuming something like MMS or WhatsApp, that is a push technology and the person 'making' the image is actually the sender, not the receiver.
The receipt of pushed messages is technologically very different since it requires no direct action by the person receiving the image. So unless she has subsequently copied it, this looks like bad interpretation of the law, advice, or lack of expertise on the technology to me.
--- edit ---
This says it was sent by snapchat, so yes a push technology was used and the image cannot be copied without considerable expertise. This is no different to somebody post photos through your letter box and calling the police. It could be argued that the copy was actually made by snapchat themselves.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live...
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 14th September 18:51
4x4Tyke said:
This says it was sent by snapchat, so yes a push technology was used, and cannot be copied without considerable expertise. This is no different to somebody post photos through your letter box and calling the police.
Its possible she saved a copy which is very easy to do in Snapchat, and that is what they were referring too. Anyway, seems a bit harsh to destroy someone's career over what is essentially a legal technicality. In person she's allowed to have a sexual relationship, but having 2 images of her gf on her phone gets her sacked and on the sex offenders register.
The Wales Online news article even refers to the girl sending the images as the 'victim'. The OED defines victim as
'A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.'
She doesnt look much like a victim to me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff