Posts by John Ozimek

Legal comment

Sorry...I have now given the link to the case in question. But maybe there is still some confusion as to how someone can be found guilty of an offence if they're "not a paedophile".

That is, quite simply, because the law is "strict liability" and makes you guilty irrespective of intent. That is one of the legal professions bugbears about a lot of New Labour legislation: the argument for drawing laws up this way is that it makes conviction easier and the argument against is that it, er, makes conviction easier.

If the good Dr P took photos that a jury considered to be of an indecent nature, he is guilty of an offence...irrespective of whether he has been 100% chaste for the past 30 years and never in his life looked in a lewd way upon anyone under the age of 30.

Ditto for (statutory) rape. Not being aware that the victim was under 16...even if they lied to you... is not a defence...though it may count as mitigation when it comes to sentencing.

Basically, it all comes down to the social values we apply to these sorts of crime. If police had to show intent beyond reasonable doubt in paedophile cases, there would be far fewer convictions, and some individuals who definitely are paedophile - possibly even dangerously so - would be let off.

By going for strict liability, it is likely that some individuals who have no paedophilic intent will end up being convicted of a related crime, and branded as such. I have no idea how big the grey area is: and anyone who can draft a law that better takes account of these opposing issues would be a genius.

The Oxfam Cod

Robert pushed open the door to his local Oxfam. He scanned the bookshelves, noting instantly that the crime fiction was sorted into alpha order: but the DIY was in reverse alpha. Could this seemingly innocuous re-arrangement of texts hold the key.

His eye lit upon a small hook behind the counter. From it a small bunch of keys dangled alluringly, temptingly. Darn! Perhaps the hook held the key.

Should he just grab the keys and run?

But why? Where would he run to?

What day was it? If it was Tuesday it was already too late, and the net was closing in.

Nets? Furtively, he fondled the display of stockings next to the section containing ladies’ undergarments. “Pants!”, he breathed heavily.

Behind the counter stood a man with a limp. “Dick!”, he cried out, surprising even himself with a high C and extensive damage to the glassware section. “I think the Pope is planning to have me assassinated”.

Dick sighed, heavily. He was a large man, but a light sleeper. Most nights, he lost two stone before dawn.

“Robert. Oh, Robert: you’ve not been taking your medication again, have you?”

Sexualisation?

Hiya, nuke. I think you spotted the key quote - and promptly turned it on its head. My focus was precisely the effects of "blind sexualisation" ... "in any context". The key here is the "any context" bit.

If you think I am either inexperienced when it comes to breasts, or have no aesthetic appreciation of them, then you err. The issue is, as many commenters have already remarked, they are like many other things in life: dual function - and treating them in every context and all circumstances as just having a single function, a unique significance, is wrong...factually and morally.

There is possibly some degree of ideas short-hand here. When not scribbling for El Reg, I am working on a couple of larger projects, focused on sexuality and social attitudes to the same. Once you start to dig - one perspective at least - is just how obsessed with sex and sexuality most mainstream society is.

Nothing especially new there: its in our culture, our media, our advertising.

What did surprise me was how much of an inversion goes on: with those groups most closely associated with active sexualities probably taking a far more mundane and everyday attitude towards sex than society as a whole.

So not just breasts: but sex in general. There's a very broad streak in society that is utterly obsessed with the significance of anything sexual: the greatest irony is that these things figure far more extensively in the calculations of this supposed anti-sex segment than in the (allegedly) more transgressive sexually active.

Identification

Robert Grant (and supporter):

Point taken. Possibly the logic could have been made more explicit. The BBFC view seems to boil down to the idea that absence of narrative and character development makes a film more likely to be watched for sadistic amusement only and/or more likely to influence towards harm.

The HO research I looked at - and odds and ends besides that have emerged over the last few years, suggest that identification with a film character has a deeper influence in all sorts of ways than just showing nasty images.

F'rinstance... I have watched some quite nasty stuff over the years in order to get a handle on what is at or close to the edge. Yes: this is sample of one stuff...but my own response where a film lacks engaging features (like narrative, etc.) is to turn off very quickly and to stop watching.

In other words, it is possible that the lack of engagement makes the film less dangerous than one with narrative etc.

Harsh

Point taken, Shadow Systems.

That is actually where I started from. After all, it ought to be a fairly simple thing to do to estimate user numbers at any given point in time.

But after talking to Nielsen for a while, I think the guy had a point - but it was badly made, and he wasn't really answering the questions as asked.

Any and every medium requires some form of meaningful audit. This is as true of online as it is of magazines and TV.

The problem I allude to on TV is that early systems for measuring TV viewing habits grounded on the fact that just measuring hours that the TV was locked on to a particular channel failed to take account of when people went out and left the TV on.

Ditto SL. The SL stats are telling us how many users are on at a given moment in time. I have to confess, as a devotee of French music, that I sometimes just log on using my journalist av - Desiderio Blitz, if anyone wishes to say hi - and continue to write in Word, whilst listening to the music playing background at "la rose rouge".

If I am "online" for ten hours...and actually interacting with other sl users for 30 minutes, how should I be counted?

What I think Nielsen are trying to do - and they're not yet there - is to come up with some sort of meaningful figure for presence in virtual worlds.

Marketing press that I write for are currently quite obsessed with this issue. What is a meaningful measure of online usage in a web 2.0 world? Whose model of usage is closest to reality? Whose model makes most sense when trying to evaluate the impact of a medium?

Protesting too much

Sean,

I am very sorry if I have spoilt your Monday morning. But it certainly was not my intention to be quite as lopsided as you seem to think I have been.

The bit in the article which quotes the Met might provide a clue to that. I wrote: "Chief Superintendent Bill Tillbrook, claimed that publication of such pictures created a security risk and instanced cases where police who had been identified were subsequently subject to abuse."

That is pretty clear.. I also explained that at present the official police line seems to be that senior officers would prefer the press NOT to publish pics of police in highly sensitive/security roles - such as armed response units: but they are pretty laid back about everywhere else. Therefore what is going on right now is a bit of a push from below, with (a few) ordinary beat coppers desirous of anonymity, and (also a few) misinterpreting anti-terror legislation to create the belief that they are entitled to such anonymity.

In parallel with that, a fair few magazines and newspaper editors seem to be prepared to go along with these demands - sometimes when they are quite unreasonable.

As for risks to police officer and family: if you really wish to do harm to an individual, then the simplest way to do so is to follow them home from the station. Sorted.

I think you are being a tad paranoid.

Thanks...and no thanks

Thanks, Sweep, for providing the definitive answer in respect of Disclosure Scotland. I have been aware for some time of the discrepancy between the Scottish "crb" and our own - including the fact that Scots pay rather less than what we do in the rest of the UK for one.

I am not altogether sure I do accept the point about using CRBS as the relevant umbrella group. That is, I accept that it exists as an alternative - but I have had enough experience of asking the same question of different bits of the same government and coming up with different answers to rely totally on what one bit of it claims.

For instance, the price differential between England and Scotland might open up a little bit of cross-border traffic in checking. I have had different answers as to whether that is permissible, with some officials saying a Scottish check can be applied for in respect of an English job, and others saying not.

I suspect Mary Wakefield concentrated on the English end of things, and didn't pick up on the Scottish aspect. But I may be wrong.

Mark 57: forgive me if I write to disagree with you. This issue is one that affects all of us. The government has introduced a scheme that will, in future, impinge on the working lives of between 40% and 50% of the working population.

It includes extra-judicial punishment - in the sense that even after you have paid the price for any crime committed, you may still find your job prospects seriously impaired by your history and even by allegations made against you. It also includes some very hefty penalties for both employers and employees who get it wrong: who fail to be checked when they should.

However, a parallel exercise, by the Manifesto Club has highlighted that in respect of critical details, no-one within government is really clear at all as to what the fine detail of the rules will be. So let's recap. A large proportion of the public don't see what the point of this exercise is: some may just ignore it; others may misunderstand the rules.

As a result of which, they will face the possibility of large fines and/or imprisonment.

Meanwhile, some MP's and some Ministers appear to be utterly cavalier about the rules and whether they plan to comply or not. If nothing else, putting such people on the spot and forcing them to grapple with rules they have put in place might just lead them to rethink how far these rules should afffect the rest of us.

Reasonable Suspicion

Point taken (about the lack of need for reasonable suspicion in s.44) and my fault for allowing my finger to hover briefly between the 3 and 4. Point is (I read the guidelines through and then searched on the word "reasonable"). It isn't there.

Taken at face value, the guidelines talk at length about the powers that police have to stop, search, etc. - but do not really spell out the limits placed on those powers. Which is the key point.

Heated exchange

Hmmmm. Whilst hesitating to name names...my own personal comedic preference tends more toward the camp. At least when in this neck of the woods.

So Sugden and Inman over Sid James any day.

And of course, the much missed Kenneth Williams and his immortal line: "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

Successful Prosecutions

I have been writing, for a while, that the last successful prosecution for (purely) written material under the OPA was the Little Red Schoolbook in the early '70's.

It is, of course, always hard to prove a negative.... but have had several conversations with experts and lawyers in this field and to date, all have drawn a blank.

So...there are a fair few prosecutions of pictorial material each year - many of which are successful.

Anyone care to give me any more prosecutions of written material. (I exclude Lord Horror, which was not prosecuted - and the material was released on appeal).

Of mice and AC's

Congrats to the AC who pointed out that my rather truncated write-up of the new ep law omits certain things that must be found in order for an offence to be committed.

And yes: even bestiality must be deemed to be grossly offensive, etc. in order to qualify for this law. Although that does raise the question as to whether pictures of this particular practice can be neatly delineated into two categories: the gross stuff and the not-so-gross.

(And why oh why, as I contemplate that possibly, do I hear somewhere inside my head the dulcet tones of the late lamented Kenny Everett going "its all done in the best possible taste").

Ah...but as to the other AC who thinks that if the law happens to clobber some scumbags, well done to it and no damage done....

er, no.

If all we required of our law was to make life difficult for various people we consider to be beyond the pale, we could dispense with a great deal of due process - including, presumably, much of the judicial system - and just give a good and regular kicking to anyone we feel is not "normal".

Think you'll find that's called mob rule...and on the whole, its not very attractive.

Devil's Advocate

Whilst many commenters have latched on to the censorship aspects of this interview...the original comment about having filters on as standard emerged from a conference at which there seemed to be very few arguments against that proposition.

Therefore...would be very interested to see if anyone has a simple rebuttal of it. I'd guess it may be a bit of a redundant chunk for some systems...and possibly assumes some commonality between OS's... but if the pc owner can turn it off... not altogether sure that it is an issue.

A link too far?

In the interests of understanding the cornucopia that is carnalpedia, I gave it a few additional queries. Purely in the interests of research, of course.

Immensely useful were entries such as that for vaginal sex, which explained helpfully that "Vaginal sex involves sex with the vagina". A model of direct and brief elicidation was provided by that for "Sex Positions".

Carnalpedia explains: "Sex positions are positions sex partners may adopt during or for the purpose of sex".

Sadly, despite intensive searching, I was unable to locate the clitoris article - and was quite unable to reach any page on orgasm.

Perhaps there is a hidden message in there somewhere.

Additional Info

Looks like the guy is a reasonably serious photographer...as this appears to be his site (with thanks to a Reg reader who mailed me the link):

http://photocircle.gr/component/option,com_uhp2/task,viewpage/Itemid,68/user_id,65/lang,el/

Wonder if the problem was that the pics are self-evidently "arty"...causing a "normal" parent to decide the guy didn't know how to take photos...

Rabbit?

Clearly the two most important questions to arise already are the airspeed of a swallow - for which the engine appears to provide a European but not African answer - and whether Americans eat rabbit.

On the second, the "fact" fed me about American dietary habits emanated from their pr department, as opposed to Wolfram|Alpha itself. So perhaps americans DO eat rabbits. Anyone with the definitive answer to that would be welcome.

Although I have a sinking feeling that this article may just have spawned an urban myth.

Expert Status

A response to both AC, Peter Sommer...and Mr Squelprom...as I remain very interested in this issue of "expert" status. First off, it is very clear in the UK system that experts are NOT merely court experts, but may be appointed for the defence as well.

However, I guess it is fair to say that both prosecution and defence experts act "for the courts" in the same way that all legal representatives are regarded as having duties as offices of the court.

The point at issue in the Judicial Review was who decides on an individual's expert status and whether or not it can be abrogated either by courts or the police. My reading of the judgment was that the Judges said very clearly that not even courts can remove that status - and police certainly cannot: that issues of the expert's reputation may go toward credibility of evidence; but nonetheless, cannot revoke expert status.

The second point is in respect of "privileged" status of documents: again, my understanding is that this status resides in the documents rather than in their keeper. Of course the Police should not abandon a search just because someone claims privileged status for documents.

However, there is reference to such status in the PACE code of conduct and as I remember, the leaflet that police are meant to hand out when conducting a search also makes reference to such material. What would be reasonable would be for officers, on being informed of the presence of such material, to refer the matter up the command chain and take legal advice.

Posting here, because ther is a lot of froth flying around right now...very open to anyone legal dropping me an e-mail to discuss further (and maybe get some additional expert legal views on this matter).

@Scientology

Thanks ac for asking why scientology is brought in to this piece. The short answer can be found here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160263/CPS-gives-Scientologists-legal-protection-mainstream-religions.html

That is a relatively authoritative report that suggests that the CPS have decreed that scientology SHALL be treated as a religion.

Also interested - perhaps because it just got a para ast the end - why no-one much has picked up on the Equality Bill. Loads of scope there for special pleading and special group rights relative to everyone else.

Rout?

Maybe neither 1983 nor 1979 count as rout in quite the way 1997 did.

In 1979, Labour lost 51 seats overall: in 1983, they lost 50 overall. The difference was that in the first year, their dip in the vote was relatively small: in the second it was much more massive.

This compares to the wipeout of over half the conservative parliamentary party in 1997 (lost 178 seats).

Another quirk of our system. What is scary is how well, assuming average performance, the Lib Dems have to do relative to Labour to supplant them as second party.

On some predictors, you need something like Lib Dems on 28% vs. Labour on 18% before Lib Dems finally break through the second party barrier. Need a far lower swing to put Lib Dems ahead of the Tories.

Undermining the OPA

I gather from comments here and e-mails sent to myself that the question of whether this decision might undermine the OPA is causing some puzzlement. Of course it doesn't do so instantly - and it is quite clear, as has been posted, that the Government did not intend it to do so.

However, the reason for thinking that it might are twofold - and Niki's comment here is merely echoing what I have picked up from lawyers over the last few months.

First, the whole area of Obscenity, indecency, etc is becoming so convoluted that it is becoming ever harder to pick one's way through it. There is a ruling to the effect that ordinary people "ought to know" what is indecent: but the time may be coming when a serious challenge to that will be made.

Compare and contrast the legal position in New Zealand where one set of laws sets out the state's position on pretty much all proscribed speech and imagery.

Second, this is about a tactical argument. Of course the situation previously was that one could possess what it was illegal to publish. However, the point it that possession was previously unlegislated.

Now it is legislated: the government has just passed laws on the subject. Therefore, in a court, when the prosecution is attempting to convince a jury that a particular item has a tendency to deprave and corrupt, a counter-argument that could be introduced is: the government has just legislated; the government says it is permissible for an individual to possess this item; surely no-one believes that the government would say it was OK for an individual to possess an item that would tend to deprave and corrupt them.

So on the surface, the situation has not changed at all. Beneath the surface, it may have.

Moreover, this argument is likely to have more political traction than the previous situation, where possession was not legislated over, but publication was.

@ Tom and revealed preference

Tom...the point is what was jsut said in the Commons...which presumably reveals what the people in power are thinking. This is as clear a statement that imagination is fair game for state intervention as anything - and maybe the scariest exchange I have heard in a long time/ever.

It also brought to mind a reference I noted yesterday in a very good special issue of Index on Censorship. OK - so I have an article in there! :) But its pretty good anyway.

One of the writers was talking about "revealed preference" which is economist-speak for "look at what they do, not what they say".

Their point: an obsession with passing laws that are mostly focussed on the notional protection of sweet white middle class lookalike kiddies. And very little actual practical done for preventing against real child abuse.

David, David, David

I do hate doing this exchange by e-mail, since I suspect that face-to-face we would not disagree all that much. You pick up a couple of fair points in the piece, and I hope I can clarify.

Yes: police have no powers to look at/demand to view material unless investigating a crime. That said, this piece is based on sight of some draft guidelines (which could very well be buried come summer) that appear to change the ground rules in that respect.

I did say that the measures have not yet been approved and yes: we both know that could mean they will go nowhere. On the other hand, one issue is the continuing trend by government to pass enabling legislation, with the scary powers put through in statutory instruments later.

There's also the tired old: "cctv's the solution: now what's the problem". And I do think there is a question to be answered in terms of where the cameras might to be pointed. The Home Office have been unclear on this.

As you rightly point out: most shops who care about pilfering already have cams in place. Some don't because it just isn't cost-effective. The ACS take the view that in most cases, stores are perfectly able to work out what makes most financial sense for themselves.

So this is another case of government legislating to little real effect.

Like you, I worry about some of the more draconian powers taken by government: if you want me to write about non-techy issues, you need to take that up with the editor of El Reg (to whom all praise and glory....).

Maybe we would disagree about the merits of such powers being taken and not much used. I think that's a bad thing, giving too much arbitrary authority to the police. Creating too much of a climate of fear.

If you ever wish to debate off board, do please memo me directly.

To be fair...

The question asked by Mediamarch was why would there be any objection to having pron filters on as a default, but with the ability for adults to turn them off?

On the surface, that is a reasonably reasonable position - and one that would probably find traction both with Daily Mail readers and government Ministers.