You are viewing IC as Guest

Page: 1 2 3 4

Extreme Porn suspect has internet access suspended (39)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

5 Feb 10, 5:35 PM
Fourfiveone
UK, 6 yrs

Perdita wrote:
But check the facts. This is a bail condition.

That means it is something to which the defendant has agreed. It has not been imposed, but is part of a set of terms which the accused signs up to keep himself off remand in prison whilst awaiting trial. There hasn't been a trial yet.

Personally I wouldn't say this hasn't been imposed when the alternative was to spend time in prison. I suppose it could be a standard bail condition that he didn't bother contesting, but as it stands he has pretty much been forced into it.

The thing that I find most worrying is that a ban like that takes away his ability to use the internet to research his defence or get a recommendation for a specialist solicitor.

5 Feb 10, 8:48 PM
ocimum_sanctum
UK(EH), 2 yrs

emark wrote:

ocimum_sanctum wrote:
Well, if I were to count the number of articles published on theregister that cut across an area where I've got decent knowledge: at least a quarter of them have had a significant error. There were even a few about my last employer, in those there were more inaccuracies than facts.

Were any of those by John Ozimek?

Some of The Register I have found myself disliking (particularly their childish axe to grind against Wikipedia), but I think before we dismiss articles out of hand, we should look at it the particular details. IME John Ozimek has always given good coverage of this law.

Even sites like the BBC, I've seen errors on. Whilst one shouldn't trust everything you read, it's also hopeless if you can't believe anything you read. With any source, you should always read with a critical eye.

To be honest, I don't think it was his articles but can't be sure since it's been a few years since I bothered much about theregister. And yes, they definitely have a lot of good pointers to what's going on but as the saying goes, the devil is in the detail.

Definitely, the BBC also has errors/omissions: especially when it comes to new technological developments, they tend to forget to give credit to decades worth of research and only focus on final results. Then there are the issues they do not cover at all.

5 Feb 10, 9:09 PM
rustybar
UK(SY), 7 yrs

tromaville wrote:
How can they ban internet access given pre-pay 3G dongles/cafe/phoneboxes!

First of all, the above is a very good point because it seems they are trying to police the unpoliceable. I would also add to the list that you can buy a pay as you go mobile phone with internet access.

However, as a bail condition, I do follow the logic. To me, denying an alleged offender internet access is not a punishment. I think it comes back to what bail conditions are meant to achieve - preventing someone from committing the same offence and ensuring the system can keep track of the alleged offender.

So if you can impose a bail condition on a chap whose battered his wife that he doesn't go within 25 miles of her, why can you not impose a bail condition on a pervert (!) - who allegedly downloads photos of a questionable nature - that he is not allowed internet access?

Near enough impossible to enforce and I am sure the bloke was stood in the dock thinking happily about his dongle as he agreed to his bail conditions but I personally don't have a problem with the spirit of what was imposed and why.

"i don't want to live to waste another day underneath the shadow of mistakes that i've made"

5 Feb 10, 9:57 PM
Jane_Fae
UK(W), 3 yrs

ocimum_sanctum wrote:

emark wrote:

ocimum_sanctum wrote:
Well, if I were to count the number of articles published on theregister that cut across an area where I've got decent knowledge: at least a quarter of them have had a significant error. There were even a few about my last employer, in those there were more inaccuracies than facts.

Were any of those by John Ozimek?

Some of The Register I have found myself disliking (particularly their childish axe to grind against Wikipedia), but I think before we dismiss articles out of hand, we should look at it the particular details. IME John Ozimek has always given good coverage of this law.

Even sites like the BBC, I've seen errors on. Whilst one shouldn't trust everything you read, it's also hopeless if you can't believe anything you read. With any source, you should always read with a critical eye.

To be honest, I don't think it was his articles but can't be sure since it's been a few years since I bothered much about theregister. And yes, they definitely have a lot of good pointers to what's going on but as the saying goes, the devil is in the detail.

Definitely, the BBC also has errors/omissions: especially when it comes to new technological developments, they tend to forget to give credit to decades worth of research and only focus on final results. Then there are the issues they do not cover at all.

If its more than a couple of years, it weren't me!

But then, i lurk here - and a fair few other sites as well...and if you have an issue factually with something wot i wrote, i don't bite...just memo me on or off-board and you might get a correction if its a genuine fact.

personally, i dislike getting stuff wrong...but sometimes i am forced to pick words very very carefully. if ever i prefix a sentence with "it appears", be very sure that means i can't totally nail down some aspect of a story.

in this instance...the date appeared first in a report in the south wales press. i checked it with both the newspaper and the court itself (they always help) and they stated that the case was as described.

at time of publishing, the police had not got back, but... the answer since then was: the images date from those dates, but they were found during 2009. so the police are not on dodgy ground there.

in general, law reporting is very difficult to pin down exactitudes. for a given case, you can get slightly different shades of explanation from police, cps, defence lawyers, defendant and anyone else in the frame. complicated by the fact that at times one or more of the above may chose to go "no comment".

On the Tiger porn story that is exactly what the police did when i tried to ask questions that dug a little deeper. So defendant told one story: cps told another; and in respect of a key detail, they said: "ask the police"...and hey presto! the police said they had nothing to add.

anyhow....i am moving into another area shortly writing-wise, combined with some fairly different personal news. No prizes...but a smug grin of self-satisfaction to anyone who can pre-guess the latter.

j

5 Feb 10, 10:00 PM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

rustybar wrote:
However, as a bail condition, I do follow the logic. To me, denying an alleged offender internet access is not a punishment.

I think in 2010 it is a big punishment. In 1995 maybe not, but it is now.

Unless they have a specific server or specific witnesses in mind that they are worried he will interfere with, then I think this amounts to punishment before conviction.

This whole story smacks of a Daily Mail style "internet is for perverts" attitude, which sees the internet as some kind of hobby rather than an essential tool.

To take some trivial examples, how is the guy supposed to get a realistic renewal price for his car or home insurance now? How's he supposed to buy a single? How's he supposed to avoid Comet's �100 "Stupid Tax" for buying a TV in store? It's become that essential to modern life.

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk

5 Feb 10, 10:31 PM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

John_Ozimek wrote:
i am moving into another area shortly writing-wise, combined with some fairly different personal news. No prizes...but a smug grin of self-satisfaction to anyone who can pre-guess the latter.

Twitter-readers always hear things first...

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk

5 Feb 10, 11:18 PM
rustybar
UK(SY), 7 yrs

Tanos wrote:

rustybar wrote:
However, as a bail condition, I do follow the logic. To me, denying an alleged offender internet access is not a punishment.

I think in 2010 it is a big punishment. In 1995 maybe not, but it is now.

Tanos

So denying someone access to their significant other or kids or town or pub in 1995 wasn't a punishment?

I am not disagreeing with you but I just think that the internet can be added to that list in 2010. It is not separate from it. And if you are right, then laws need changing....

"i don't want to live to waste another day underneath the shadow of mistakes that i've made"

5 Feb 10, 11:30 PM
strictlynormal
UK, 6 yrs

Tanos wrote:
... This whole story smacks of a Daily Mail style "internet is for perverts" attitude, which sees the internet as some kind of hobby rather than an essential tool. ...

Tanos

You are so right ..

The Daily Mail readers view of the internet: (moderately work friendly 2 min animated cartoon) http://eclectech.co.uk/dailymailpicnic.php

==================================
Growing old is unavoidable but growing up is optional
Croydon Munch Spanner Trust London Alternative Market

6 Feb 10, 2:43 AM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

Perdita wrote:
Draconian, scary.

But check the facts. This is a bail condition.

That means it is something to which the defendant has agreed. It has not been imposed, but is part of a set of terms which the accused signs up to keep himself off remand in prison whilst awaiting trial. There hasn't been a trial yet.

I think it's a very backdoor way of introducing an indefensible concept. As yet it hasn't been defended, or been subject to court scrutiny. Courts impose penalties after a finding of guilt. The magistrates will pretty much rubberstamp what the old bill ask for if the defendant agrees. Which he would if he wanted to stay the right side of the prison door! I'm not happy with the idea that this might then be extended to be a condition of, say, a suspended sentence, post trial should guilt be established.

Nasty stuff happening.

Indeed - the idea that it's a "choice" is rather dubious when we consider that the alternative is prison. And it just seems ridiculous - the mere possibility of prison for someone awaiting trial, for possessing pictures? What's he going to do - look at some more pictures...?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

6 Feb 10, 10:18 AM
Ethics_Gradient
UK(N), 5 yrs

rustybar wrote:

However, as a bail condition, I do follow the logic. To me, denying an alleged offender internet access is not a punishment. I think it comes back to what bail conditions are meant to achieve - preventing someone from committing the same offence and ensuring the system can keep track of the alleged offender.

I was always under the impression that bail was to a) ensure later attendance and b) protect any alleged victims or other at-risk people from further harm. As there are no victims, I don't see how b) applies.

Its rather like saying someone bailed for fraud, is not allowed to use money.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!