Patrick Rock to be charged for downloading indecent images of children

antijoke

antijoke

antijoke

Caporegime
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
40,002
Location
England
So who is Patrick Rock?

Advisor to No 10 helped to draw up government policy on online pornography filters

One of David Cameron's closest aides has been arrested on suspicion of offences relating to child pornography.

Patrick Rock, who was one of the government's advisors on policy for online pornography filters, was arrested last month after police examined computers in No 10 Downing Street.
Click to expand...

source


And an update to our story, he's been charged today but got off.

Adjourning until Thursday for sentencing, Judge Alistair McCreath said: "This is a man who is convicted of the downloading of, in relative terms, a small number of images who has an unblemished history."
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36427629

Oh dear.

Edit: could a mod edit the title to be charged as I've spotted he was originally arrested two years ago.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that "While none of the girls were naked, prosecutors argued they were in "sexualised" poses in clothing including swimwear and bras.".

If I'm honest, I'm not sure what that means. Can't imagine it would require too strong a sentence, though
 
asim18 said:
So is it illegal to photograph your kids at the beach then?
Click to expand...

I think it is if it includes other kids in the background in shot. If you find a beach without kids, tell me where and ill keep it secret. When i go to the beach i sometimes manage to hear the sound of the waves over the excited high pitched screaming.
 
tom_e said:
No it really isn't.
Click to expand...

My bad then, as i understood it, you aren't meant to do anything like that. Went to see my nieces Christmas play and they collect parents mobile phones at the door to prevent pictures taken!

They told me it was because you are no longer allowed to take pictures that involve other peoples kids without permission. Sounds almost too crazy to believe but we live in a pretty crazy world.

I would google it, but the search terms would probably sound suspicious in themselves :D
 
I experienced this a few times in the UK at children's soft play and in swimming pools. There were numerous signs up prohibiting photography of any kind, and photos of our children were only possible if taken by a member of staff so he or she could ensure that no other child was in the image.
 
That'll be the school covering their backsides to the extreme by the sounds of it and obviously on private premises what they say goes but AFAIK there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of anyone children or otherwise in a public place whether you know them or not.

There are obviously factors that would be taken into account which could end in the police hauling you off if you're just randomly sat taking pictures purely of half dressed children but in itself it is not illegal.
 
OldCoals said:
Just LOL.
Click to expand...

Why is it funny? Someone has been charged for having a pic of a child in swimwear on their computer.

I'm sure many people here have images of their children/siblings/nephews/etc wearing speedos at the beach so it's important to know exactly what the law is.
 
tom_e said:
That'll be the school covering their backsides to the extreme by the sounds of it and obviously on private premises what they say goes but AFAIK there is nothing illegal about taking pictures of anyone children or otherwise in a public place whether you know them or not.

There are obviously factors that would be taken into account which could end in the police hauling you off if you're just randomly sat taking pictures purely of half dressed children but in itself it is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Yeah AFAIK there is no legal issue in taking pictures in public which have children in it (otherwise CCTV from private entities would have all sorts of issues).

Would I feel suspicious if someone was taking a picture of my child, and he or she was the focus of the shot?......I have been conditioned to feel edgy about that.
 
asim18 said:
Why is it funny? Someone has been charged for having a pic of a child in swimwear on their computer.

I'm sure many people here have images of their children/siblings/nephews/etc wearing speedos at the beach so it's important to know exactly what the law is.
Click to expand...

In sexulaised poses is going to be the key point. Totally different to a kid splashing around on the beach.

Unless you take some really weird posed beach shots you'll be ok no ones going to kick your door down and brand you a pervert.

Also by this thinking anyone owning a Next catalogue or similar is also a child snatcher.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Why is it funny? Someone has been charged for having a pic of a child in swimwear on their computer.

I'm sure many people here have images of their children/siblings/nephews/etc wearing speedos at the beach so it's important to know exactly what the law is.
Click to expand...

It's gonna be common sense asim.

Family day st the beech kids playing in swim wear = ok

12 year old girl in underwear/bikini posing like she's in the playboy swimsuit edition not ok.




Just like how you and your gf go to the beech theres the pictures that end up on face book that every one goes awww what a sweet couple and then theres the pictures that go into the "long weekend apart" folder on your laptop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom