Page: 1 2 3 4 5

here we go again... (46)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

6 Nov 10, 12:26 PM
Pheonix_Ian
3 yrs

mq1965 wrote:
It appears that the issue here is firstly whether live chat counts, legally, as publication. If it does then the implication of this case is that the CPS, or at least those involved in this case (I very much doubt this is a decision involving the CPS senior management as a whole, simply a decision by one or two people in one area) think that the nature of the content is such that a new 'public interest' criteria should be created, involving what is seen as particularly unpleasant material.

This is where there could be a problem for all concerned.

On one hand, this is one or two people pushing boundaries on a low level. If they couldn't get a conviction on the girls (scream) aloud then what is the chance they could get it on this unless he pleads guilty for this charge (unless it was published into public domain and if so who did). They do not have the power to change the law.

On the other hand the nature of the material could pressurise the judge to side on the CPS but that decision could still be overturned at higher levels.

8 Nov 10, 10:48 AM
SirOpenSource
UK(E), 6 yrs

I often wonder if such cases are erring on the side of caution and hang the consequences merely to set legal precedent or whether more sinister motives are underlying them.

SOS

The Titter group - for when you don't feel too serious.
I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. - Mahatma Gandhi
www.Londonmunch.co.uk
Londonmunch@hotmail.com - Enquiries

8 Nov 10, 10:48 AM
SirOpenSource
UK(E), 6 yrs

I often wonder if such cases are erring on the side of caution and hang the consequences merely to set legal precedent or whether more sinister motives are underlying them.

SOS

9 Nov 10, 1:53 PM
Beverley
UK(CT), 11 yrs

Hey thread didn't die!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

23 Nov 10, 8:16 PM
MsSlide
UK(RH), 12 yrs
£

Obviously we know only scanty details of this particular case, but I had an interesting conversation with a detective friend shortly before the CJIA came into force - he told me that, unofficially, the CPS only tend to use cyber evidence to guarantee a sturdier prosecution in cases where more serious charges are involved. Using private chat records in court is a dangerous precedent, of course, but I would imagine that this one is more to do with the indecent photos of kids that the suspect is alleged to have taken than with any crime he is accused of having committed online.

As an aside, I know we've left this bit of the thread a long way behind, but I have to say that this meticulous response to an accusation of pedantry (beginning with a definition of the word "pedantry") made me laugh out loud.

Articles, videos, forum and more at SlideRulesYou.com

24 Nov 10, 3:17 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs

MsSlide wrote:
Obviously we know only scanty details of this particular case, but I had an interesting conversation with a detective friend shortly before the CJIA came into force - he told me that, unofficially, the CPS only tend to use cyber evidence to guarantee a sturdier prosecution in cases where more serious charges are involved. Using private chat records in court is a dangerous precedent, of course, but I would imagine that this one is more to do with the indecent photos of kids that the suspect is alleged to have taken than with any crime he is accused of having committed online.

So maybe they're just throwing anything they can lay their hands on at an unsafe case, with consequences that might reach far beyond that? Sounds feasible.

This case does put me to mind of the recent so called Twitter Joke Trial, where a man made a joking comment about blowing up an airport via Twitter and was charged and convicted of a crime for it.

There seems to be a trend for police and the CPS trying to build cases against users of current technology using laws that pre-date that technology. On the one hand if the cases go badly for them that's a good precedent for freedom of speech, if they do succeed though then it opens new avenues for police to fuck with innocent people.

To be honest I'm expecting the Queen to unveil a statue on Whitehall soon to the 'Unknown Paedophile', because the government must fucking love these guys. They are like a legislative 'I WIN' button.

Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much.