Page: 1 2 3 4

Extreme Porn suspect has internet access suspended (39)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

So to clarify, is this person pleading not guilty (as in, if so I believe it would be only the second such case as far as anyone knows)?

It would be interesting to know any details on the human-participant images - it's a shame that they only ever seem keen to release details on the animal images... ("Oh yes, we found this one image that featured a dog, a horse, a bengal tiger, an elephant and his pet rabbit. There were some other images involving humans doing disgusting things *mumble mumble* that are equally illegal.")

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

6 Feb 10, 11:47 AM
wonderer
UK, 5 yrs

Tanos wrote:

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

First? Or just earlier than IC?

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

6 Feb 10, 12:08 PM
ClassAct2005
UK(N), 7 yrs

He has agreed the bail condition, I think so I assume that will not then be challenged. There were some prisoners issuing threats on Facebook recently from prison who should not have had access to it. One Mr Big had been told by his new prison Governor of course he could have internet access as without it his human rights would be breached. The messages he sent where things like I will get you when I get out etc. But in this case he's innoncent until proven guilty etc I suspect it depends on someone's job. Not everyone uses the internet. Plenty of people don't even have a computer whereas for some of us it's important for all kinds of reasons and would not be an easily acceptable bail condition.

7 Feb 10, 4:41 PM
pod333
UK(DD), 5 yrs

emark wrote:
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.

The BBC's coverage of technology is generally crap, often reading like a post from a major supplier's press release.

And post 'dodgy dossier' they seem to have lost their balls to cover issues that go against the government's view point to any major degree.

At least that is how it appears to me.

People commonly use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.

8 Feb 10, 8:36 AM
nohmask
US, 6 yrs

I think they ought to show everyone just what sort of pictures that apparent p*****t was looking at so we can see for ourselves precisely how terrible they are...

8 Feb 10, 1:45 PM
redcat
9 yrs

nohmask wrote:
I think they ought to show everyone just what sort of pictures that apparent p*****t was looking at so we can see for ourselves precisely how terrible they are...

we're still trying to find the Tony the Tiger video from the Mold case so we can ascertain how realistic it was now we know its legal to look at and that the police and cps thought it was extreme (without the giveaway sound track)

It must be out there somewhere as it was sent as a joke... and those sort of things tend to do the rounds.

CAAN statement of principle.

9 Feb 10, 4:24 PM
BadWulf
UK(TA), 6 yrs

Indeed, It is becoming impossible to function in society without net access.

Also with the proposed 3 strikes and you are out legislation this action would be the specified punishment if found guilty.

Which beggars the question, how can it be a punishment in one case and merely an precaution pending in another, especially for a victim-less "crime" where nobody is protected by this action.

The only equivalent for it perhaps is in the same way as people are kept inside on remand waiting for their trial, but at least if found guilty that period is knocked off their sentence.

_ Wulfy

Tanos wrote:

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

My, what sharp teeth I have.

Edited 10 Feb 10, 1:32 AM by BadWulf

10 Feb 10, 2:30 PM
McThunderpants
2 yrs

flipping eck they're taking his internets away???!!

Just for having extreme porn pics? jesus christ what sort of extreme porn did he have?

10 Feb 10, 3:38 PM
crimbo_clitpump
UK(WV), 4 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.

h i agree i think there's a possible EHCR proportionality argument here i cant wait to get hold of one of these cases