Just sickening. Filthy scum granted bail

[daydream**believer]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/man-charged-with-child-pornography-after-allegedly-pro...

So they give this filthy pig bail and i bet he gets let off because the victim hasnt been born yet

[crystal**flake]

Hmmm ........ how is this even allowed.

I wonder if censorship might be needed via the web.

I saw this on fb and nearly died.

It is disgusting!!!!!!

[daydream**believer]

---

lis351 wrote:
I also wonder exactly what his penalty will be, given no physical crime had been committed. Obviously there will be charges of keeping pornography, conspiring to commit acts I suppose. But I don't see a lengthy term for him, certainly not what he deserves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Can he be charged for a crime that he didnt actually commit yet?

And even if he is convicted, what will the penalty be?

An ex family member of mine was caught distributing images via child porn sites of him touching his own grand daughter.

The images were found on his computer. The hand in the photos was proven to be his.

He served 4 months

[azureline**]

Surely he can be convicted on what he has on his computer already.

My concern in these cases is, how do you prove that without the "encouragement" of the police officer he was talking to, he would have actually committed the crimes?

[softail-joanie]

Surely he can be convicted on what he has on his computer already.

Violating his 4th amendment right? figures

My concern in these cases is, how do you prove that without the "encouragement" of the police officer he was talking to, he would have actually committed the crimes?

You mean the police who lied after raping the women and children themselves?

[polksaladallie]

He will be convicted for the material he has, but probably depends on the gravity as to whether he serves any time.

Remember this one?  If you watch the video, it gives descriptions of the material he had accumulated.

Former ABC presenter Andy Muirhead has been jailed for 10 months for child pornography offences.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3601569.htm

As for what he might do in the future, no-one can be charged for that, or the jails would be overflowing with all sorts of people.

[azureline**]

---

@softail-joanie wrote:

Surely he can be convicted on what he has on his computer already.

Violating his 4th amendment right? figures

My concern in these cases is, how do you prove that without the "encouragement" of the police officer he was talking to, he would have actually committed the crimes?

You mean the police who lied after raping the women and children themselves?

---

Pardon?

We don't have a 4th amendment................. pornographic images of children on his computer..... what excuse or rights of his, can that violate?? the mind boggles.

I don't think there has been any involvement by a police officer who has raped women or children............. that's a bit of a stretch by anyone's imagination.

[polksaladallie]

---

@daydream**believer wrote:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/man-charged-with-child-pornography-after-allegedly-pro...

So they give this filthy pig bail and i bet he gets let off because the victim hasnt been born yet

---

The victim has been born.  In fact there are tens of thousands of his victims who have been born.

[softail-joanie]

We don't have a 4th amendment

Yes you do, every human does have the right to be secure in their person and things. It's a gift from God that can't be taken, only violated and given up by those who insist they don't have rights. (happy slaves)

pornographic images of children on his computer

So you have been told I'm guessing that you didn't see this for yourself first hand.

I don't think there has been any involvement by a police officer who has raped women or children

I'm telling you now, that if they didn't, then they support, protect and cover for those who do.

that's a bit of a stretch by anyone's imagination.

You know whats a stretch of the imagination?, taking the word of those with a reputation for doing sick, corrupt and sadistic things. A reputation I hav e proven time and time again here on this board.

[lyne-flyn]

---

@softail-joanie wrote:

We don't have a 4th amendment

Yes you do, every human does have the right to be secure in their person and things. It's a gift from God that can't be taken, only violated and given up by those who insist they don't have rights. (happy slaves)

pornographic images of children on his computer

So you have been told I'm guessing that you didn't see this for yourself first hand.

I don't think there has been any involvement by a police officer who has raped women or children

I'm telling you now, that if they didn't, then they support, protect and cover for those who do.

that's a bit of a stretch by anyone's imagination.

You know whats a stretch of the imagination?, taking the word of those with a reputation for doing sick, corrupt and sadistic things. A reputation I hav e proven time and time again here on this board.

---

Please tell me I am wrong but it actually reads like you are defending this filthy, scum....

Of course we haven't seen these images first hand...doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for you proving anything, time and time again...we have only had your side of the story...and it is an extremely biased one.

You take every opportunity to knock the police and it is really wearing rather thin...where in the name of all the is holy did you come to the conclusion that the police raped any women or children.

Did you actually READ the article?

[colic2bullsgirlore]

The bloke is probably guilty but that judgement will have to be left to the judicial system.

At the moment ( as much as I detest the thought of it) he is innocent until proven guilty.

I googled "acquitted of child pornography charges and came up with some disturbing results below and excerpts

The last link is to a 2005 resource paper I found on an Australian government website that tries to define what actually

is online child pornography...what a minefield...

Ozee example below

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-17/grandfather-acquitted-of-sex-charges/4318674

An (australian city) grandfather accused of raping and taking indecent photographs of his infant granddaughter has been acquitted of all charges.

The 70-year-old man had told the District Court he was not sexually interested in the infant and only took the photos to get a better look at a possible urinary tract infection.

He said he wanted to enlarge the photographs on the computer to get a better look.

Judge Rauf Soulio found the evidence raised suspicions the man was guilty of charges of rape and producing child pornography but he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

The man previously pleaded guilty to an unrelated charge of possessing child pornography, relating to a single photograph sourced from a professional photography website.

Sentencing submissions on that matter will be dealt with next month.

US example below

http://www.wafb.com/story/5789912/baker-man-found-not-guilty-on-child-porn-charges

("Jackson" is the judges name)

Jackson said that she wanted to say Mickelson was guilty, but said she couldn't based on what she heard during the trial.

"It's clear from all the (evidence) there was pornography on these computers,"

Jackson said during her ruling.

"I've been given no evidence that Mr. Mickelson is the person who downloaded these images.

I admit it looks like he did it, but that's not the standard I have to use in this case."

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi/tandi299.pdf

Does thinking make it so? Defining child pornography onlone possession offences

Investigations into the widespread possession of online child sexual abuse images reveal
enormous variety in the types of images collected by adults with a sexual interest in children.

While there is almost universal condemnation of the sexual exploitation of children through such
images, it is not possible to define precisely what constitutes an illegal child sexual abuse image.

This is because the concept is broad, changeable and, at the margins, elusive.

Nonetheless, the use of criminal law to regulate any activity requires that the proscribed conduct be clearly defined.

This paper reviews the ways in which child sexual abuse images can be categorised and, in
particular, examines the impact of the viewer’s perception on the definition of child pornography
offences in Australia.