« Nice to See it Said | Main | Well, Yes... »
April 21, 2007
Free the 5,000
It would be like the Guildford Four case on
steroids, right? All over the papers, public inquiries, years of
litigation, every blowhard from Vanessa Redgrave to Tim Worstall
joining the Free the 5,000 support group.
If what Alex is saying is true (and I see no reason to doubt it) then yes, do sign me up for the support group, blowhard or not.
The essential point? Operation Ore, the crackdown on those purchasing child pornography...has been operating from a list of stolen credit cards, not a list of credit cards used to access child porn. Something of a difference, eh?
April 21, 2007 in Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8341ebe6953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Free the 5,000:
Comments
Tim,
Yes, it certainly looks like it.
However what both you and Alex might be missing is that there are certain safeguards preventing incorrect conviction.
It would seem that the most prudent way of obtaining a conviction would be to confirm wihy the card issuers whether or not the details were genuine, for example that the cards had not been reported lost or stolen at the particular time, and then cross-referencing it against whatever images might be stored on the alleged buyers' hard drives. One would imagine that unless either of these steps could be met a conviction might be difficult to obtain.
Posted by: Martin | Apr 21, 2007 2:02:39 PM
I can't understand how you can be convicted unless you have stuff on your hard-drive.
Was the incitement case a one-off? The example given was thrown out by the judge.
Also I find it hard to believe Pete Townsend would have accepted a caution if nothing was on his computer. But then again it is hard to believe they would have let him off with a caution if they add caught him with prosecutable stuff.
Posted by: rv | Apr 21, 2007 2:50:32 PM
Martin,
This database refers back to 1999. I for one dont have my credit card statements going back that far.
I also doubt whether anyone still has the original PC from 1999 either, with technology moving as it does.
but I do wonder how many people have been placed on the Sex offenders register, as you can get an entry just on an accusation or suspicion.
Posted by: IanP | Apr 21, 2007 2:55:49 PM
My take on the same story from the Sex Offenders register viewpoint from Thursday.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/4/19/2892379.html
Posted by: IanP | Apr 21, 2007 3:08:28 PM
Tim,
no doubt we will start getting investigated for terrorist funding following this story this morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6578595.stm
Posted by: IanP | Apr 21, 2007 3:31:37 PM
I wrote about this too - http://www.di2.nu/200704/20a.htm
Posted by: Francis | Apr 21, 2007 3:38:18 PM
Here's an example of one of one guy who fell victim to this:
http://tinyurl.com/2zchxr
Posted by: ChuckL | Apr 21, 2007 5:58:24 PM
Was the incitement case a one-off? No. Incitement was, AIUI, one of the usual charges in such cases, at least certainly until R v Bowden clarified that downloading an image is equivalent to making one.
Posted by: Not Saussure | Apr 21, 2007 6:39:43 PM
