Hm...Take the Police to court for leaking false information
As that is essentially what it is.
Man imprisoned for not giving police password.
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
Hm...Take the Police to court for leaking false information
As that is essentially what it is.
But fi you arn't told who he is it makes no difference.
But as I said if you cannot assure anonymity you should not use this as a threat against people.
It's barbaric, and deeply sickening.
In this case the Police would have zero interest in copyright infringement and he would have been told as such. As for a teen taking indecent images of his 16/17 year old girlfriend idea, yes technically this is an offence and could land you in court. However, there are mitigating circumstances and would not be dealt with the same way as a an older person possessing indecent images of young children.
A law will always restrict a persons actions, that is it's purpose. You need to examine the benefits to society against the restrictions imposed. In this case I believe the benefit of restricting the actions of persons with a predisposition for children in a sexual context outweighs the impact on my own personal privacy.
A law will always restrict a persons actions, that is it's purpose. You need to examine the benefits to society against the restrictions imposed. In this case I believe the benefit of restricting the actions of persons with a predisposition for children in a sexual context outweighs the impact on my own personal privacy.
Hm...Take the Police to court for leaking false information
As that is essentially what it is.
But it is not false is it?
He is indeed a "suspected" paedophile" and he was sentenced to 16 weeks.
thus the headline " suspected paedophile sentenced to only 16 weeks" emerges.
Considering a paediatrician's house was ****ed over because of his job title how do you think that headline will affect our young convict?
We have to be told who he is, as it is a matter of public record who passes through the court system.
Whether or not he is granted anonymity on release, or whatever, is another matter.
Not by the authorities though, stop being so naive.
But without transparency, accusations of corruption occur, which is why we are where we are.. the Police didn't force this level of transparency, so why complain so bitterly about how inept the legal system is, when actually it's a reflection of what we have made them?
The authorities have a duty of care to the people if they are unable to fulfil this duty they should not use the threat of such punishment as coercion.
Hm...Take the Police to court for leaking false information
As that is essentially what it is.
But its not false information. They were (at least we are led to believe) arresting him on suspicion of possessing child porn, they just simply cannot proof it. If they have absolutely no evidence to even claim that suspicion THEN the police are liable for any damages, though it could also be the media for showing in such a light.
Do you honestly believe that Thrash? If they took his computer and found 2000gb of copyrighted material on it they would simply overlook it? If they did infact find some child porn then probably yeah, if not they would get him for whatever they could.
The public don't deserve to know anything until the facts are in though vonhelmet. Especially given the usual reaction to even claims of anything involving under age people and the words 'sex' and 'porn'. If the public could be trusted not to act on impulse and to stay with the statement 'innocent till proven guilty' then releasing information would be fine. But its not, people make up there own knee jerk reactions on little to no evidence and would persecute him for it.
And look at the situation, it's only in the press once he's convicted of something, which is as good as it gets.
Unfortunately, public record of the case dictates that the fact the non disclosure of his password was whilst being investigated for child porn, which is the issue. In actual fact though, the police are treating him as innocent until proven guilty, hence not being convicted of child porn, it's 'us'/'the public' that seemingly aren't..
Well, as I said, we have to be informed that he is in prison for refusing to give up a password (as it would be outrageous for people to be imprisoned without the public knowing why) and from there they either tell us that he was suspected of being in a child porn ring, or they tell us nothing and people assume that or assume that he's a terrorist.
There is no good outcome, really.
Well yes thats what i mean. Just didn't say it as well in that post. As i said before there is absolutely nothing in place that takes into account the public reactions to crimes.
Even though its a fact he's under investigation for child porn there is no discretion from either the police nor the media with regards to how the public would react. If he was under investigation for murder and the only evidence the police knew of was on his computer, recorded by webcam, then people would soon forget it or just simply not bother him, whereas child porn, they would never forget and would persecute him.
Though it obviously shouldn't be stated why either way. He can be under investigation of another crime but naming that crime, especially 1 such as that, is tantamount to pulling the trigger yourself.
Fair point vonhelmet. Though that would only happen as knee jerk reactions when such a situation first came into being. "They aren't saying, must be a terrorist" or some such rubbish. If people were later prosecuted with mundane crimes like tax evasion after the same heading as 'imprisoned for refusing to give a password while under investigation for another case' then no one would make assumptions until the facts were in.
Course theres always corruption to deal with...
Last edited:
actually if the press are not alowed to report what he was uspected of the story either
a) holds no interest and does not get reported.
b) is turned on the government in a "omg you get sent to jail for not giving passwords over with no crime suspected".
style thing.
But thats a tad pointless now seeing as its already aired now that he's a suspected paedophile!
Yeah, it's also how societies tend to evolve, there is always injustice and seedy things occurring, they have to be noticed by society and get to the point that they become totally unacceptable, either financially, or ethically etc, at which point things evolve and change, inevitably changes never work 100% and there is always some negative impact, even if the positive is quite large, and people being people, always concentrate on the negative, no matter how small, and can't put it in context of the big picture/real world.
Everyone wants a utopia, but it can never exist, all logical solutions end in massive restrictions of freedom, and we will never accept it... we'll carry on compromising/balancing levels of acceptability and freedom, it's fruitless to fight it with silly utopian ideals..
So where has the accusation come from? Why publish that information if they don't have the physical evidence over than 'suspected'...it baffles the mind.
No we don't, it happens to hundreds of people every day all over the world, I don't see other peoples names in the headlines constantly, or a page in the newspaper dedicated to 'convicted villains going to prison today'
It's very easy to remain transparent and still keep anonymity. The papers can still report the facts of the case but should be banned from including personal details like name, address and (possibly) occupation e.g "A 25 year old Liverpool man has gone on trial today for alleged child porn offences. He is charged with x, y and z"
Now, are you telling me that the public REALLY need more info than that?
If he is found guilty then his details and pic can be published, if found not guilty then they cannot.
Am I wrong here?
Now, are you telling me that the public REALLY need more info than that?
If he is found guilty then his details and pic can be published, if found not guilty then they cannot.
Am I wrong here?
It's very easy to remain transparent and still keep anonymity. The papers can still report the facts of the case but should be banned from including personal details like name, address and (possibly) occupation e.g "A 25 year old Liverpool man has gone on trial today for alleged child porn offences. He is charged with x, y and z"
Now, are you telling me that the public REALLY need more info than that?
If he is found guilty then his details and pic can be published, if found not guilty then they cannot.
Am I wrong here?
But...that would makes sense
OK, but the information is readily available to anyone who cares to look at the public court records.
We have to know he was sent to prison for refusing to give up a password. That is a given. How many crimes can you think of that he would hide evidence of on a computer? The general public will leap to child porn first, terrorism second and possibly fraud in third place.
