Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

[Destination]

Rolf Harris has been offered a plea bargain. He can either serve 20 years or until Australia regain the Ashes. He's taken the 20 years.

That's as funny as cancer.

 

[Participant]

That's as funny as cancer.

Yeah that's not great.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I am not quite sure how they define an indecent image of a child,

It used to be just downloading a picture and saving it to a designated place (not cache directory).
It isn't photshopping.

 

[Skunkworks]

I remember reading of a local case of a guy that had downloaded indecent images of boys and he got away with it because he claimed he was just surfing for regular gay porn and he never realised that he had downloaded underage stuff. They said they couldn't prove whether he had actually intentionally downloaded illegal stuff so thats why he got away with it.
So I doubt they could prove it was you purely by your cache, popups etc etc.

If there were hundreds of adult porn pics and a couple of iffy ones in the cache for example, I think that would point to a likely accident. If, however, there are lots of child pics all neatly arranged and stored in specific folders, that's a whole other story.

 

[Richie]

It isn't photshopping.

Thats termed a pseudo-image and carries the same charge/punishment.

 

[Neil79]

You only have to look at the images in the photography thread to be totaly screwed if the hard drive was ever scanned!

 

[Destination]

In Rolfs case they have termed it 'making' indecent images of a child. They didn't suggest downloading, or anything along those lines, or that's certainly not how it was reported, the term was 'making'.

 

[Masterdog]

In Rolfs case they have termed it 'making' indecent images of a child. They didn't suggest downloading, or anything along those lines, or that's certainly not how it was reported, the term was 'making'.

There are two types of offence: 'Making' and 'Possession'. Possession is the greater offence, and refers to you having files essentially in your possession. That means 'live' files, or files you can get at - stuff that's in your My Pictures folder, or Downloads etc. It also includes internet history in certain browsers (IE for instance).

'Making' is stuff you can't get to without specialist software. That can mean deleted stuff but also compound files like thumbnails etc. You have to have caused it to be on your computer, which is where the 'making' comes into it, but you don't need to have possession of it any more.

So 'making' can, and usually does, include downloading but it's either going to be old, deleted stuff or something which is hidden away from the user. Alternatively they could charge stuff which comes under possession as making anyway, just to give themselves an easier time.

 

[kindai]

All will come out in the wash.

 

[hurfdurf]

I'm not saying because someone seems nice they're incapable of rape but having met the bloke, his wife and having attended several events which he's been at and having some damn funny conversations with him he doesn't seem like the sort of man who would either harm a Child deliberately or otherwise and/or Cheat on his wife. That being said it is entirely possible I'm completely wrong but I find that very unlikely because he is such a nice bloke.

Has it ever occurred to you that coming across as a nice friendly guy is why sexual predators can get worked in with their victims in the first place, especially children.

This is a massive problem for people and a massive reason why paedophiles and rapists get away with so much.

 

[elmarko]

It reminds me of the typical Machiavellian or some aspects of the 'sociopath' traits - people who manipulate & abuse often posses glib charm (as it's a useful skill to those who wish to take advantage of others).

 

[hurfdurf]

Haha, I love the way the OcUK collective have decided being a nice guy makes him more likely to be guilty. In fact many posters like HurfDurf couldn't really care whether he's guilty or not, it would make his 'victims' happy if we throw him in jail, so lets do that. Innocent until proven guilty is such a drag, isn't it...

Stay classy, OcUK.

 

[FoxEye]

It reminds me of the typical Machiavellian or some aspects of the 'sociopath' traits - people who manipulate & abuse often posses glib charm (as it's a useful skill to those who wish to take advantage of others).

See this is what I don't get. So many of you are approaching this from the angle that he's guilty, and then looking for ways his personality matches the traits of an offender.

Let's be honest, how many of you have now decided he's probably done it? Based on the fact that he's been charged? And no smoke without fire, etc.

 

[ToxicTBag]

Its all a bit sad if you ask me, its almost like I am being robbed of my childhood heroes one by one sighhhhh

 

[robgmun]

You only have to look at the images in the photography thread to be totaly screwed if the hard drive was ever scanned!

oh really? I never bothered to venture into there, it's it full of Jail bait or something?

 

[Draeger]

Its all a bit sad if you ask me, its almost like I am being robbed of my childhood heroes one by one sighhhhh

Kinda feel that way too. So sad to see.

 

[hurfdurf]

See this is what I don't get. So many of you are approaching this from the angle that he's guilty, and then looking for ways his personality matches the traits of an offender.

Let's be honest, how many of you have now decided he's probably done it? Based on the fact that he's been charged? And no smoke without fire, etc.

Not me, but you seem to be claiming I have done?

 

[Energize]

It seems that the government erroneously termed the offence "making" rather than "downloading" in order to incite sensationalism and appease the media because it sounds much worse than it is in the headlines. Unfortunately it draws attention away from the serious, sexual assult charges.

 

[robgmun]

It seems that the government erroneously termed the offence "making" rather than "downloading" in order to incite sensationalism and appease the media because it sounds much worse than it is in the headlines. Unfortunately it draws attention away from the serious, sexual assult charges.

Currently:

downloading = Possession

Viewing in browser = making

THAT's got to change IMO

 

[Angilion]

In Rolfs case they have termed it 'making' indecent images of a child. They didn't suggest downloading, or anything along those lines, or that's certainly not how it was reported, the term was 'making'.

That implication is why the word 'making' is used.

If you so much as view an image online, a copy of it is made on your computer (i.e. browser cache) - you have made an image. Actually, you wouldn't even need to view it. A pop-under or additional tab that you never even viewed would do the same.

The phrasing implies that the person recorded sexual abuse of a child, directly recorded it in person. In reality, it doesn't mean that at all. It doesn't mean that they made the initial recording. It doesn't even mean that there were any children at all, nor that there was any abuse.

But phrasing it that way sure helps with witch-hunting.

There's also the possibility of malware and deception. There have been cases of malware downloading child porn (confirmed by analysis of infected computers, apparently). Recently, there have been a few cases of what appears to be attacks on porn sites. Some person or people have compromised the security on a site, any site will do, put some child porn on it and put links to the the child porn on normal porn websites, labelling it as normal porn. So anyone can come along, click to see normal porn explicitly labelled as normal porn and be fed child porn instead. Of course, a copy would be made on their computer before they'd even seen it.

So being accused of making indecent images of children, even being convicted of it, doesn't necessarily mean anything like what the words imply.