Thanks for the lesson
"It's the loose interpretation that gives me the problem. Did you know that "to make" includes saving a file on your hard disk?"
Yes I did thanks, and that is making. You are not receiving the original copy, that remains where it is and a second copy is MADE on your hard disk drive. See how that works? If you create a new thing it's called 'making something'.
"Since most browsers store pictures in a cache, and since you are the user logged in at the time, it's also often interpreted that simply by viewing an abusive image (even accidentally), you are guilty of "making" the image on your hard drive as well."
Nope. This is possession, not making unless it can be proven that the person had sufficient technical knowledge that they would reasonably be expected to know that the computer was making copies as they viewed or it was proven that they had directly accessed the cache.
"Since you're knowledgeable about the law...(and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that) does the law on distribution of drugs ALSO state that distribution occurs if someone "exposes it...for acquisition by another person"?"
No idea, don't do many drugs cases. But here is the relevant passage for you. Doesn't use those exact words but it's the same gist:
A Prohibition of supply etc. of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs.
(1)A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used or adapted to be used (whether by itself or in combination with another article or other articles) in the administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself or another, believing that the article (or the article as adapted) is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful, is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is not an offence under subsection (1) above to supply or offer to supply a hypodermic syringe, or any part of one.
(3)A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used to prepare a controlled drug for administration by any person to himself or another believing that the article is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful is guilty of an offence.
(4)For the purposes of this section, any administration of a controlled drug is unlawful except—
(a)the administration by any person of a controlled drug to another in circumstances where the administration of the drug is not unlawful under section 4(1) of this Act, or
(b)the administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself in circumstances where having the controlled drug in his possession is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act.
(5)In this section, references to administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself include a reference to his administering it to himself with the assistance of another]
"So, if you're happy to have "kill all pedos" as your single response to this, here's the equation. For every pedophile you kill, at least one child has to be abused. Currently, that's the only way you find out that they are pedophiles, because they have ALREADY done something. Are you happy with that?"
Whoah there!!!!!! At which point did I say kill all paedos? (note the spelling)? All my responses have been lengthy, reasoned and supported with sections of legislation. I know you are desperate to prove your point, but please let's not descend into this sort of thing!