Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I see your point but the judge is merely stating fact.
Handyman jailed for planting child porn on boss's computer
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
I see your point but the judge is merely stating fact.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,566
- Location
- Bucks
I don't really like the fact that the prison system sometimes can't protect those it has in its custody. The implication in the judge's almost gleeful sounding statement is that this is acceptable and legitimate.
You would have thought a proper specilist could see that the pictures were not downloaded from the internet... lucky for this guy the person who put the pictures there was stupid enough to tell everyone about it.
1) I would personally question how he managed to get them onto the disk within s4econds of each other
2) if he was a pedo why did he only download pictures for 30 seconds on 1 day
3) where did he get the pictures, are they any fragments of the pictures left where IE moved them after the download (no)
4) how did he pay for them
5) did they check the meta data of the pictures and on the file system?
a pucture = no evidence unless you can see the guy humping someone...
1) I would personally question how he managed to get them onto the disk within s4econds of each other
2) if he was a pedo why did he only download pictures for 30 seconds on 1 day
3) where did he get the pictures, are they any fragments of the pictures left where IE moved them after the download (no)
4) how did he pay for them
5) did they check the meta data of the pictures and on the file system?
a pucture = no evidence unless you can see the guy humping someone...
I know...it's pathetic...I've done a better job at finding out if someone uses porn sites for god's sake
The offence is possession of child porn images, not downloading child porn images from the net. So the fact that a specialist could tell you they weren't downloaded doesn't really do much to help.
Yet you can monitor how and when they got it, how recetly, then if recent enough...Its kind of obvious what to do.
It could have been dealt with in a different matter, and been proven void even before going to court
The only reason, in this particular case, the general public got to know about the supposed crime was the framer of the victim contacting the local rag. How were the police going to stop that?
Well no, all you are proving is that he didn't download them from the internet. That still doesn't negate the original offence.
Oh im sorry, so because it was proven it was put on there by an external source, regardless of the man swearing blind it wasn't him, you just convict him and let everyone know that he's a paedophile before even searching the case for possible causes properly?
Yes, that makes sense...Good job you're not a judge or working in HTC
the law is that messed up if I put images on YOUR PC and you cannot prove I did it
1) YOU made them - you actually created the images in the eyes of the law
2) you ARE guilty
I know someone who got done not quite the same but he had pictures of shaved women on his PC and 6 looked young, he spent 12k getting the birth certs of 5 to prove their age, however they could not find the 6th so he got done... initially he got a letter from the web site owner where ALL the pics were from but still had to get the certs.. (he did not get badly done but I still think he had to go on some register and take computer courses about somethign or other)
also the pictures were NOT saved on his PC they were in internet cache,
An awful lot of assumptions you are making there. I was just pointing out that the images being downloaded or not make no difference to the offence. If someone gives you a dvd full of child porn and you stick it on your PC you have still commited the same offence as if you downloaded it from the net. If you needed to prove that the images were downloaded then it would be far, far too easy to circumnavigate that requirement using proxy browsing on a VM and then copying it to your hard drive.
I am not contesting this but the fact remains that, even though he was innocent, people will still have a slanted opinion of him. People are idiots.
Although I am glad to see that he got a hefty sentence, I do think it doesn't make since about how long he got. Or rather, other people should get more.
I have heard on the news today about a postman convicted of using fake accounts on facebook etc, grooming underage children, getting them to send videos of themselves doing sexual acts and even meeting quite a few of them and sexually abusing them. His victims run into 100's. Yet he gets a eight and half year sentence half of which is suspended.
How can that stack up with the Handyman getting 12 years? Either he should have got much less or the postman should have much more.
WHich one is the most serious crime? Framing somebody and ruining one persons life or ruining hundreds or thousands of children's lives?
Is our law that screwed up and inbalanced or is it the judges fault?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11403984
I have heard on the news today about a postman convicted of using fake accounts on facebook etc, grooming underage children, getting them to send videos of themselves doing sexual acts and even meeting quite a few of them and sexually abusing them. His victims run into 100's. Yet he gets a eight and half year sentence half of which is suspended.
How can that stack up with the Handyman getting 12 years? Either he should have got much less or the postman should have much more.
WHich one is the most serious crime? Framing somebody and ruining one persons life or ruining hundreds or thousands of children's lives?
Is our law that screwed up and inbalanced or is it the judges fault?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11403984
Law wise...I don't know
Judge wise, they're all different and give out different sentences sadly depending on evidence...so yes...its crap
The original guy was 'only' trying to get someone fired (For whatever reason) so yes, deserved a good hiding definately, and got the images somehow, so he got done for 'obtaining' said images...
Then the postman, quite clearly doing wrong, by the videos and posing and whatnot most definately would deserve that 12 year sentence..its pathetic I know
Last edited:
A few mths ago a woman got jailed for a fair few yrs for crying false rape so its slowly getting there.
18mths here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8466096.stm
And a yr here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-11266276
2 yrs here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/04/rape-claims-gail-sherwood
Still not as long as 12 yrs but at least they were punished.