Jailed for using your imagination!
Prozac Nation indeed.
Pass me the lithium salts, Doc. I need to be normal like the rest of the drones.
Kent Police have charged an individual with nine offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) in a case that could potentially see online chat in the UK subjected to a much stricter regulation regime. A Kent Police spokeswoman confirmed to The Register it had brought the charges against the individual, and that these …
The clue's in the name, D.S. Numbskull.
They're gonna have to ban a hell of a lot of books from sale if this precedent gets set. And what about possession? Is Nately's whore's kid sister gonna get me in hot water? Or is Catch 22 gonna be rewritten to make her want to be a CSO when she grows up?
Massive, massive fail.
Where did Kent Police get their evidence? I can see two scenarios (and would welcome more).
A) The police received a complaint from the someone who was party to the online conversation. In which case they clearly didn't use any form of 'blocking' or 'barring' feature to remove the offender. The implication is that they were a willing party, but all the same this at least may merit investigation; under harrasment laws perhaps? I doubt it'd be easy to prove under existing law.
Or, more disturbingly,...
B) The police were able to intercept the communications of the accused and have done so, either by trawling (which is supposed to be impossible, no?) or because they were already "tapping" and surveiling this individual?
Either way, this is going to be one to be watched very carefully. Just how encrypted and anonymous do we have to be in order to be free to express ourselves?
This morning on BBC news, a politican was telling us that the people want a lot more police on the street. She went as far as sayig that people were telling her that they pretty much wanted to open the door and there would be a policeman on the street. This is not the first politician that has been saying that recently .
What is the general opinion on this subject, do people in Britain really want more police or is this complete and utter lies so they can implement their police state?
(Saying this, I realise that in this forum, those that respond are likely to have the opposite opinion).
You missed the more likely case
C) After getting them for "The individual is also charged with two offences of making indecent images of children and four of possessing indecent images of children." They went through their machine and found more evidence.
Which I suppose leads onto another thought, are they brining the OPA charge becouse they want to increase scope (as I thought a moment ago) or are they brining the OPA charge so they can reinforce the "indecent images" charges, because the "indecent images" may not actually be all that indecent, but with support from material brought into scope by the OPA charge they can build a "firmer" case.
Oh well, we wont know until the smoke has cleared I suppose.
Well yes. Coppers ON THE STREET.
Not coppers in the police station, dreaming up new and strange thought crimes, but coppers walking round making their presence known. Reducing street crime and reassuring the public. The people who are paying their wages.
We need to go back to policing by consent. Currently the few plods who we do see (when they get out of the plod-mobiles) act like arrogant Government enforcers. And woe to you if you dare to disagree with their orders, irrespective of whether you're right or wrong.
If you are unfortunate enough to live amongst some of the less honest members of society, you might be only too pleased to see policemen on the street but that will never happen. It is considerably easier and safer for a the police to sit on their arses back at the station, spying on the online activities of the public at large or sit in a patrol car on a busy road with a speed trap.
Somewhere over the last decade or so, the police have morphed into a significant part of an apparatus of state surveillance and control, apparently with ambitions to become much like the much-hated East German Stasi.
Kent police are using this case to increase the remit of the OPA they know that if they went after a chat extract on its own they'd get blown out of the water, however if they combine it with someone who has other more serious charges there is a good chance that a jury will take the police line. Once done it gives kent police another string to their already obscenly over powered bow in controlling what people think, say and, make believe.
Kent police wont be happy until they can force everybody into their narrow view of normality, an opinion supported largely by media and a vocal minority of the public, however a view that is very unhealthy and has already done significant harm to our society.
With the current enertia to cases like this, I would like to wait and see if the reason that Kent police will not (can not?) comment on the charges is that the images of "children" are, in fact, images of the person being charged; they being underage themselves and that s/he "self-published" online chat (Chat Roulette?!).
Not that this would be indecent exposure, harrasement, or any of the other, commonplace, NORMAL crimes this might be, oh no - gotta use the latest, greatest, shiniest (BIGGEST) stick! Hmm... Kent police using the biggest, shiniest stick they have every time they can - Could that fall under extreme porn?...
Come on boys in Kent - you can do better than this surely?
Obviously what we need here is some sort of massive database of the criminals (i.e. the public). When one wants to engage in a chat with someone else you fill in a form and the on duty KPD (Kent Police Drone) authorises the chat and then monitors it.
If you fall foul of the regulations (not published of course too easy that way) then your banged up and stuck on the nonce list. And given a thorough kicking for good measure.
This is what they want so why bother with all this tiresome in-between stuff? Just bring it in now along with the new laws for walking on the cracks in the pavement and thinking about the weekend while at work.
"Obviously what we need here is some sort of massive database of the criminals (i.e. the public). When one wants to engage in a chat with someone else you fill in a form and the on duty KPD (Kent Police Drone) authorises the chat and then monitors it."
Good work that man.
But a little too transparent for their liking.
Who had an entire Police station and CPS office buying illegally imported cigarettes and booze from one of the custody sergeants over several years?
How come Kent Police and the CPS failed to prosecute any of those officers and CPS staff and only went after the custody sergeant despite the fact he kept full records and most of the plods and lawyers paid by cheque!
I guess Kent Police only like to grab certain headlines!
Good job the guy charged isnt a tall photographer as well!
If the Police arrest someone then they'll try to include as many 'crimes' as possible in the charge sheet for at least three reasons:-
a) By throwing everything possible at the 'perp', the CPS may be encouraged to take the case to court. The more charges, the higher profile of the case.
b) Some of the allegations include child porn. The Police pursue those cases with a religious zeal. Anything that might tangentially be associated, if it's not an image can be described as contravening another existing act, in this case the Obscene Pubs Act.
c) Police forces in England (at least) are put into league tables based on how good their crime clear up rate is. Most forces have enthusiastically embraced 'administrative detections', where incidents/acts that would in the past have been dealt with informally are now deconstructed, tabulated into sequences of 'crimes' (committed both by 'perpetrator' & 'victim'), arrests made, cautions issued. Nothing has been done to REDUCE real crime; the only winners are the Police, whose crime detection & clear-up rates are artificially elevated, and 'difficult to solve' crime is ignored in preference of administrative detections, which carry as much weight in the crime stats.
...I got out of this bloody country and moved to America years ago. Now America has its faults too, I'd be the first to agree - but at least it has the 1st Amendment. The UK could seriously use one of those.
In fact, looking at what the authorities obviously think they can get away with in this case - an *obscenity charge* for words used in a *private conversation* (!!!!) - I'd say you need a 2nd Amendment too!
Oh wait, Brits don't have anything to make a 1st amendment to, do they?
Speaking of which, while the Kent police are busy suppressing speech, the US Supreme Court recently ruled on pictures of dog fighting.
Their ruling? That while dog fighting itself is illegal, pictures of dog fighting and correspondence about dog fighting (so long as said correspondence is does not arrange or further an actual dog fight) is free speech and therefore protected by the first amendment.
"***** ** **** ** * *** ** ***** *** *** **-*** *** ** **** * ****. ** **** *** ******** * *** ***** So there!"
This is (highly( disturbing and is a clear case of something which might lead to something else and we all know that could lead to, don't we?
I don't think I can put it clearer than that.
To a work collleague this morning the only way to escape the guberments totalitarian advances is going to sign up to go to the NASA built moonbase/Mars base. Because now they've started you got more chance of living on a diffrent planet than getting 'em to stop.
And for those that think this seems a bit over the top you do realise they are now legislating against yours/my imagination (however funny/sadistic/weird that is).
The final straw as again i was saying to him will be when they banned kids form climbing trees (although i am aware conkers are now banned).
You want to get a precedence set in court that this online chat is illegal - and you have the power to regulate it, - you don't start with an online message criticizing the police and try and get that banned.
You pick someone that the press/public/jury is going to have no sympathy for (child porn) add this charge onto the end of an automatic conviction and bingo you have a new crime.
"a publication is obscene if its overall effect is to 'tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely ... to read, see or hear' it"
So that would include the rules for MP's expenses then. Many MPs have certainly been corrupted by rules for expenses. Although I'm not sure they've all become depraved.
"So that would include the rules for MP's expenses then. Many MPs have certainly been corrupted by rules for expenses."
Given their *effect* on the behavior of these (presumably) normal people they would indeed seem to have been corrupted by them, turning them in to self -serving leeches who would include *every* penny spent .
So yes I think the expense instructions could have a case under the OPA.
I suppose it makes a change from harassing and unlawfully arresting over-tall hobbyist street photographers in Chatham, UK. I am, of course, referring to a brand new law, made up on the spot by the arresting officers. I think the charge was "the use of an Olympus OM1 analogue camera in a public place instead of an up-to-date whizz-bang digital model ". (That's 'koz we can't immediately see what pictures he's actually taken and illegally order him to delete said pictures. Never mind, we'll just illegally confiscate his film instead).
Despite the failure of the attempt by Baroness O'Caithan to introduce an "Extreme Writings" provision into English Law, it seems that Kent Police are trying to bring one in by default by suggesting that an online chat counts as "publishing"!
Of course they will probably decide to claim that this is a "loophole" in existing legislation and we'll then see some politician who's heading for defeat jump onto the bandwagon to help generate some positive headlines because "well, it's For The Children, isn't it?" and anyone who disagrees is obviously not "Thinking of the Children!"
What's next? Banning Viktor Nabakov's "Lolita"??
"There remains a legislative gap in terms of written fantasy material specifically about child rape and murder, which is now commonplace."
Does he have some scientific studies/research to back this up? I am guessing he simply typing these terms into google and if he gets any results then it must be common place.
I just did my own "research" and was shocked to discover that it is commonplace for police officers to sodomize suspects with tasers, broom handles, and other implements!
I also discovered that it is common place for people to lie, invent facts and make statements they they themselves don't believe for personal/political gain.
I have a theory that the reason the police force want to concentrate on these kind of crimes is that they want the easy way out. Speed cameras are all automated, otherwise they can just sit down in their patrol cars with their speed guns. Some computer crime where they can sit down looking through people's stuff. They just want to sit down and not go walking the streets.
If they do walk the streets, they don't want to deal with chasing burglars or those that are physically dangerous, but instead they want to attack those with expensive equipment (cameras) that they feel could be threatening. They know that once they claim some crime has been done with the camera, the person is less likely to argue back due to danger of having their equipment damaged.
So, in summary, the reason the police do not go out on Friday and Saturday nights to keep order in the streets is due to them being scared of being hit despite all the body armour and so on.
The accused loses all my sympathy when I read about indecent images of children.
I think that is a very legitimate crime to investigate and prosecute - the more the police can use to (legitimately) convict the accused the better.
Please stop conflating separate issues like this - freedom of speech is a good issue to right about, but only when it involves consenting adults.
Once again, I read through the comments associated with a "police" story and find that like lots of other places on the Internet, is filled with comments by people who think they are some kind of expert in the legal system and know all of the facts associated with the story.
1) CPS are nothing to do with the police. They are a separate body, and have no interest in crime detection rates, clear up rates etc.
2) CPS lawyers decide upon on the evidence submitted as to what charges are appropriate and within the public interest. By "appropriate", that means with no worse than a 50/50 chance of conviction.
I would expect that in building the case, the police brought evidence of the chat in question to CPS, because it would suggest the individual has a propensity towards the sexual abuse of children and may also contain evidence of guilt related to any of the other charges. CPS have obviously looked at this in relation to what the OPA and relevant case law says and feel there is a good chance of conviction.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019