Add Your Idea

Laws about Indecent Images

32 Comments 8th September 2010

 Protection of Children Act 1978 onwards, Sexual Offences Act 2003 and other related laws.

 I know this is an emotive subject and many will feel unwilling to go near it, and I'm sorry it's necessary to make a rather long statement here, but it's important.

 Some of the ways these laws are applied are extremely offensive.

For example there was a much publicised case of a well known actor researching for a part as a psychologist who looked at some child pornography from the internet and was put in prison, his career ruined, even though there was no evidence or likelihood that he was or would ever become a paedophile. There are many other similar cases, and the laws about this sort of thing have proliferated to the point where, combined with Media coverage, we have lost all trust in each other.

The situation has developed as I'm sure everyone is aware, to a point where even parents aren't allowed to photograph their own children in public, and there are lots of entries on this site to that effect. Normal people are in despair about this state of fear and distrust.

 These laws were designed to find and prosecute paedophiles, but the way they've been written and are now enforced is hugely destructive. While there are a few who do commit awful crimes of child sex abuse, thousands of normal people are prosecuted and imprisoned for possession of “Indecent Images” who are not and would never be paedophiles.

Obviously we must be able to deal with the few and protect our children, and the laws do go some way towards this, but even reading this site it's clear that they're quite inadequate. However, this isn't really about the question of actual child sex crimes, it's about how we've all been scared and how many innocent people are subjected to injustice.

The principle that having images on your computer of a sexual nature is certain proof that you are a potential pervert and a danger to society who must be locked up and punished is profoundly false, yet the law demands that this happen.

The age below which images are classified as child pornography is 18, even though the age of consent is 16, and considering that long before 18 many young people will look mature and thus in effect be jail bait, and that there is no requirement in the law that the age should be proved in court but will rest entirely on the opinion of the jury, it is sadly the case that many people end up imprisoned, their lives destroyed with no good reason, simply because of a natural interest in easily available images of sex.

It is horrendous that the Government should have the power to concoct and the police to enforce laws which are based on woefully inadequate science and which are written in such an imprecise form as these are. The law in this case is not only an ass but an extremely dangerous one.

 You can be prosecuted for “making indecent images”, where “making” has been taken to mean even inadvertently downloading images of a sexual nature that a jury can be persuaded could be of children. Remember, a “child” is anyone under 18 (it used to be 16 but was changed in 2003 to 18, apparently “just in case”). Much porn is from other countries (because of the internet) yet the race of the people in the image is irrelevant and paediatricians, professional experts on children, are not permitted as defence witnesses: if even any part of the person appears possibly under-age, then the owner of the computer on which they were found is guilty.

The 1979 law was introduced by a Labour government under pressure from the Media and Mary Whitehouse after a high profile case, and while it was designed to protect children it has had the horrible side effect of causing many families to be broken up, innocent people to be prosecuted and often imprisoned, then forced to sign the sex offenders register and forbidden to see even their own children.

Before the rise of the internet, maybe following the trail of photos would lead to paedophiles, but since then digital technology, the easy availability of pornography and the social awareness of sexual issues has changed that.

There was a case of a professional photographer prosecuted for sex offences for taking photos of children for and in the presence of their parents and digitally turning them into fairies. He wasn't convicted in the end but had to sign the sex offenders register for 5 years. Other artists have been treated similarly for addressing these issues in their art, which is daft: the arts are how we make it safe to consider awkward subjects, so in effect the policing of these laws is preventing change. All this and what I will describe next have had the horrible effect of reducing our level of trust in each other, believing that every other male in the company of children is a lurking paedophile.

 Even if the laws are changed it will take years before a sane level of trust is restored.

 The Police monitor various websites that they find offering child pornography, trace a computer visiting the site, confiscate it and charge the owner if any images are found that could be seen as indecent. In fact the term “indecent” isn't defined in the law beyond that which any “ordinary right thinking member of the public” would consider so, and because of current emotive pressure about such things, any jury is likely to be easily swayed.

Not only following up those who contact such sites, the Police use any warrant to enter premises as opportunity take away any computer equipment or digital media, phones, cameras etc. in the house, no matter who owns it or their connection with a suspected crime. They search these even for old deleted files and will charge the owner of the computer, regardless of who else might have had the use of it, and the defendant has to prove that it wasn't them at the computer at the time of the download. A victim of this will be bailed for up to two years awaiting trial (so much for keeping paedophiles off the streets), without ever being shown the supposed indecent images. Who amongst us can prove that he wasn't around his computer at a specific time 2 years previously?

 Close associates will fail CRB checks directly because of this.

 The question of the age of the person in the image, uncertainties about who actually made the computer copies, these don't seem to faze the Police in taking up these cases by the hundred, as if they have been set targets to “catch paedophiles”. The victim is likely to get up to 2 years in prison if found guilty, although the Police offer to get the sentence down to only a few months if they alter their not-guilty plea to guilty in advance.

In one case we know of the young man was asked if he “had a problem” in which case he would get treatment, but if not he would get prison. He pleaded guilty in order to get a shorter sentence, but he had simply acquired what he saw as general porn from a peer to peer file-sharing site, where files can be completely mislabelled by other users of the site, and even if you get a suspect file and delete it immediately un-viewed, the Police will still find traces of it and prosecute. His computer was taken by the police when his lodger was charged for possession of a small amount of cannabis, and no doubt this power to search everywhere is one reason why they are reluctant to decriminalise cannabis.

(Incidentally, he spent most of his time teaching other inmates to read.)

 There is no evidence that looking at porn turns people into criminals.

And there is no evidence that prison is effective in treating those who are actually guilty of child sex crimes anyway.

Why does this matter?

In other words, while actual paedophiles unfortunately do exist and there must be provision to find and deal with them, these laws and powers are causing a huge amount of suffering for many who are not paedophiles, their families, friends and colleagues.

We have been forced to become extremely wary in interacting with children, supposedly to protect them, but in fact this has a negative effect of allowing them to grow up terrified of adults.

Before the internet, before the development of digital imaging technologies, porn was hard to come by, and it was likely that tracing it down would lead to perverts. But that has changed, and now many entirely innocent people are being imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. The social psychology is deeply flawed. The laws are out of date, so inadequately written that any Government that doesn't change them quickly deserves no trust, and it is because our new government has resolved to restore trust that I've written this up in so much detail.

Even members of the legal profession have said this area of policing is seen by them as a witch hunt, one motivated by the tabloid media and the apparent state of terror of us the people that the previous government was evidently in.

No social support for recovery from this harm is offered to victims of this injustice, harm which is compounded if they do go to prison (apparently at £40,000 per year each, to say nothing of the cost of the prosecution, legal aid etc.)

This state of distrust is extraordinary. It's arisen gradually over the years, and without wanting in any way to imply that it's been generated on purpose, the only similar situations I can think of were the kinds of terror and hatred of particular groups that have been generated by intentional propaganda, for example leading up to wars. That's a kind of mass hysteria, where perfectly nice people are induced to feel so threatened that their judgement is distorted beyond all reason, and they become alarmingly suspicious, cruel and unfeeling towards “the enemy”, their fellow Man.

Clearly people can be driven mad in this way, and I think it's possible to look at the present phenomenon as an illness, a kind of social insanity. These laws as they stand, their policing and publicity, have actually driven us insane.

If an individual became paranoid in this way they would be given treatment, you wouldn't get the police to arrest everyone they were scared of!

We are suffering from a form of collective paranoia, and we should be advanced enough by now not to try to treat illness by law enforcement.

(Just in case some people get the wrong idea, I'm obviously not blaming the laws for turning people into actual paedophiles, that's a separate form of insanity with separate causes, but even for that it's not clear that the present laws are based on adequate science.)

If the Government looks at it in this way, perhaps they'll be intelligent, caring and responsible enough to start by applying some sound psychology to the problem.

Clearly there are some people who know how to use propaganda, the arts of subtle influence: it's dangerous knowledge, but with their understanding of how to manipulate human nature and engineer society they should be able to help the Government devise ways to counter this awful, perverted and obscene condition of social mentality.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


32 Responses to Laws about Indecent Images

  1. Brian B says:

    Thanks for the article.
    Some level headed-ness in dealing with “indecent images” and the like, shows that the harm caused to prosecuted individuals for simple and unrelated possession far exceeds any bounds of decency itself. Let me confirm first that, one single indecent image is one too many. However, for many convicted individuals, their own children or relatives may well end up deeply affected see highly traumatised. This is besides other huge losses to the individual. Does the state care about the damages caused by Police, prosecution, expenditures, etc. when there is little gain other than creating new paranoia not too dissimilar to that of a Police State?
    A sobering note here, a recent figure (2013) published through the right of information act in the UK has shown that from some 12000 convictions for possession of indecent images as a first offence and with no child contact involved, and recorded over ten years, only 1.9% of these went on to reoffend!!!! It is not difficult to analyse such data more thoroughly and come up with some conclusions. The numbers are though clear. The underlying factor may well be that measure is also trapping very honest and hardworking individuals who may well have been…innocent!
    With 9.5 million UK people having one record or another with the police, isn’t it about time this state stops “castrating” its own population? If President Bush took the helm, you can imagine, “either you are with us or you are with the abusers!” This is the sad state of affairs that seem to prevail these days. The consequences are hardly an issue till late!
    The sad other fact is that it is fine to watch children massacred in wars, cut to bits, or horribly disfigured, yet these are images spewed out by many daily TV networks. Mind you, I hear that you can also watch a human decapitation in YouTube for example, and this is OK!
    Further, the issue of images is not going to disappear by simply penalising the population. With new technologies becoming more and more pervasive and invasive, obtaining billions of images of any kind may become spurious. Will there be a “Big-brother” making sure that image five hundred million is decent? Who will know? It may well be unlikely to be the person that has “downloaded” the batch itself! Yet if it is in his/her possession, the guilt is thrust forward, and it is the defendant to have to prove matters otherwise. Guilty till proven innocent. A cowering population will simply take up the filtering software and there comes censorship by fear.
    Children abuse is a scourge that must be curtailed but in destroying entire families, individuals, careers, lives etc. new scourges are created. Where is the balance and responsibilities from the people deemed to be protective of this society?

  2. steve says:

    exactly the place I’M in. as a naturist i subscribed onto a naturist site with legal disclaimers saying legal where naturism is. uk police say naked images of kids are illegal where indecent means naked,

    told i had 500 images, four of them i’m cautioned for, no idea what they are of as they are listed as file names in the folder the police created, the fact they are on my computer incriminates me even though i have not saved them.

    lost my career in child care cant move on as caution bars me from pretty much any form of employment

    all my friends on my side, only police think im a danger to kids

    impure minds see their own reflection

    • Phil says:

      ‘impure minds see their own reflection’
      Well said. They’re probably traumatized by the genuine offences they do come across, and as such are as suspicious and paranoid as hell and as such really not fit to play God with people’s lives. I myself am under investigation for ‘images’ (anonymous to me), ongoing for 4 months and in this time am prevented from being alone with my children, am enduring marital separation and get to see them 6 hours per week, despite my offences (which I quickly admitted to) having no relation whatsoever to my interaction and love of my own children (or any other child known to me for that matter).
      I’ve committed a disgraceful minor offence as I see it, but it IS a witch hunt. The consequences are positively brutal and way out of kilter with it.

      • Phil says:

        Since the court process, which I just about survived I now only have 1 hour access to my own children despite no fantasy towards them, no track record whatsoever of being anything but a loving father, but i’m penalised with what the so-called experts think might do. I got a community ordet, but it’s far from ‘lenient’, the effects on my famile life are truly tyrannical. My sons are collateral damage in this in not getting to see me, but this doesn’t matter to the safeguarding risk-obsessed hypocrites.

    • Marc Watson says:

      Full sympathy with you Steve,

      I’m in exactly the same position!

      I’m a naturist too, the police know that, however they’ve done me THREE times – every time using mislabelled “evidence.”
      My father has been in interviews as my appropriate adult and nothing has ever been remotely sexual in any way!

      On the third time I was sent to prison, despite the police admitting that the images were accessed from LEGAL sources, and to make matters worse, someone scattered it all over my social media, which lead to my family being defamed.
      Additionally documents from the case have somehow been sent to someone in America and posted online.
      I now need to watch myself, especially in my home town, as I know that there are many people who I counted as friends that I now out to get me!
      I’ve lost my sporting umpire job, my pest control job (six months or more in prison is a five year firearms ban), and am struggling to be involved with any role in music, a huge passion of mine, I did mobile disco and radio before.
      Additionally I’ve need to take a massive step back in the charity organization that a friend and I are trying to set up.

      The Police, Probation and CPS are an utter disgrace! Even if you can prove, they always seem to try and stop you by whichever means possible!
      How many more of us have been convicted for non-pornographic images?

      Seems like the authorities can do whatever they want and to hell if innocent people end up with life destroying convictions – it’s just another tick on a targets chart for them.
      Thanks for that!

      They need to take a massive look in the ******** mirror!

  3. Andrew Wright says:

    When the law changed in 2003 as did the law concerning driving and mobile phone’s, how was the law put about for people to know about it?
    The mobile phone law, everyone knows about that, but we have teenagers who are sexting who have no idea. You can’t buy a person under 18 a drink nor cigarettes, we know that; a sign on the premises tells you in black and white it is against the law.
    However you can buy a new camera/camera phone, and no such warnings are given.
    Yes it’s all on the web, but so is the Highway Code, but the DVLA have issued a book for year’s.

  4. Cop Lover says:

    I was accused of sending an indecent image via email to another person by the pigs. They told my employer I was under investigation. As a result I was suspended and my reputation ruined.

    The bizzies at a latr date withdrew that allegation when the image was proved not to have been an indecent image.

    The filth then claimed to my employer that they had found numerous indecent images on my home computer.

    The low lifes withdrew this false allegation too after their own fornesic expert stated there were no indecent images found on my computer.

    The filth pigs then told my employer that they had found 5 indecent images on a CD in my house.

    I was charged with this offence. As a result of being charged my employer sacked me.

    Cut a long story short, the CPS discontinued their case against me when my forensic expert evidenced that therre were no indecent images on the CD.

    I was found not guilty and the CPS didn’t even show up at the court.

    Still, no need for them to show up at the court. In fact no need to even secure a prosecution. Even if the CPS had lost their case in court, the job was still done, i.e., total ruination of my life, loss of job, reputation smeared.

    Now, when I hear of a cop being killed on duty I laugh out load and punch the air! I remember when that cop who was shot in thw face by Raul Moat committed suicide. I cheered! When I heard on the news recently that a pig had been run over and killed by a teenager I had a massive grin on my face all day 🙂

    The police are the scum of the earth and I wish them all cancer and a painful and long drawn out death.

    On a brighter note, if you care to do a Google search you will see that the Pig Force has an extremely high number of former ‘serving officers’ who have been convicted of rape and possession / making indecent images of a child.

    The police force is full of paedos and rapist. That’s the irony!

    To all pigs or former pigs reading this…I hope your kids die of cancer as well.

  5. ste says:

    when i was first arrested and interviewed long before they found anything on my computer i was asked by one officer, on tape, if i had exposed myself to kids or shown them child porn?

    where the hell did that idea come from?

    I was arrested for possibly having indecent images and they through that in right at the start, try to make me worse that I am before there is even any evidence against me

    at a later interview i saw the images they found, one was of a bare baby on a groundsheet drinking from a bottle, I had never seen this image before and was told it was indecent as the baby’s legs were spread
    this was from a female DC working for ‘family protection’.

    and i’m considered the pervert?

    • Phil says:

      ‘This was from a female DC working for ‘family protection’.
      and i’m considered the pervert?’
      The Gestapo are loose in this country, no two ways about it.

    • Phil says:

      ‘This was from a female DC working for ‘family protection’.
      My own tale of ‘family protection’ involves a severely disabled 10yo son whom I have loved and cared for all his life and who cannot understand why am absent so much at the moment, and a delightful vibrant 9-year-old son who is actually growing closer to me through this nightmare, seeing him only twice a week and speaking on the phone. I’ve never harmed a hair on their heads or had a single improper thought towards them, yet I’m all but ripped apart from them by the police and SS because I downloaded a few indecent images form the net.
      Yes, THEY are the bigger child abusers, directly and presently. They’re doing their best to emulate the Gestapo in targetting disabled children ffs.

  6. Rebecca K says:

    Social Services are a nightmare! They claim to have the children’s best interest at heart but they don’t care unless you tick the right boxes….. Our story is this …..My partner was arrested and removed from our home for nearly a year after allegedly d/l this awful stuff. The social worker sat and told me what he had been doing and told his children he was an abuser!!!! WHAT A JOKE?… Won’t go into details but if it wasn’t so serious I would think it funny! They told me to claim benefits as a single person for “when my partner goes to prison”. Because I believed, and still believe him to be innocent, I was treated like a mad woman and wasn’t allowed to supervise him in meetings with his own children as I was in “denial” and not “objective”. They had no evidence, the police didn’t disclose to them the reason for a warrant and subsequent arrest. Bail conditions so vague that even a solicitor didn’t understand them all imposed by a social worker! We are in debt up to the eyeballs, close to losing our home because of them and their refusal to listen to common sense.
    My partner pleads NOT GUILTY so there is no support for us from anyone (including helplines and charity helplines ….I contacted many) except close friends and family who believe as I do. What happened to innocent till proven guilty? I know that the police have a job to do and that we should protect our children but to remove a hardworking, caring man from his children is more punishment than any innocent family should have to endure. There is no help for a family like us. I cannot work due to the stress and anxiety of it all. I can’t even afford to pay for the anti-depressants my doctor prescribes….. it goes on and on and who suffers most???? Our kids!!!!……….. and don’t get me started on the female PC who thinks he should be hung, drawn, quartered, castrated then locked up and the key thrown away….

    • phil says:

      ‘who suffers most???? Our kids!!!!……’
      Tell me about it. I’ve been on pre-charge bail for 7 months, forbidden unsupervized access to my kids during this time. They love me, need me, and no impropriety towards them whatsoever. I just made the mistake of looking at stuff on the internet I f.ing shouldn’t have, but the consequences are way too severe. The trauma on my family is immeasurable, and the harm on my children incalculable. Who are the biggest child abusers: the investigation team and the Social Services, no question. They’re f.ing idiots, basically, with a witch-hunt mentality steeped in the 17th century. They’re basically hell bent on an emotional confession, breaking the offender’s mind, and then hitting them with life-changing consequences regardless.

  7. Will S says:

    Well thanks folks – reading this is a relief and a release. I thought I was alone.
    The feeling of isolation, secrecy, hidden shame is a powerful mental negative.
    The stress while the cops fish around for evidence can\’t be good for anyone\’s system. If you ever read Kafka, it\’s as near as it gets ……
    I\’m luckier than most – damned by my own negligence & curiousity and with less to lose than many ( you can\’t lose what you ain\’t got ) and my story just fits with a lot of those above, so I won\’t bore everyone. The great thing is that I know I\’m not alone,
    I now know that there are lots of other \”certified perverts\” who fell into the bureaucratic machine and are being slowly mangled in its cogs & gears.
    How do we get society to hear our screams ?

    • Rebecca K says:

      Will S you are not alone. I’m sure there are many many more of us who have been caught up in situations like this. It’s hard to move on, you can’t plan anything. You have to take each day as it comes. Society is deaf to the innocent and their families. We are all tarred with the same brush….”It’s on YOUR computer therefore YOU ARE scum of the earth”……….

      • Phil says:

        It’s an utter witch hunt, and even where indecent images have been downloaded, this manner of law enforcement does far more harm than the good it does. Anybody looking at child porn is, arguably, ‘indirectly abusing children or playing a small part in encouraging that industry. However, the police and courts and SS (social services) more often than that are extremely DIRECTLY hurting children- those of the families of the accused. I just don’t know how they can sleep at night with the brutal and invasive decisions they make all the time. In my case they’ve separated a caring father from a sweet, disabled 10yo boy who I have never had the remotest thought of harming. Such thoughts are in the heads of the social workers, not mine.

    • phil says:

      \’How do we get society to hear our screams ?\’ It\’s tough, when many in society simply buy into the dogma and hysteria they are fed by the media and abuse charities. People cannot seem to see reason, differentiate types of offence or see the human being behind the offence, even supposedly intelligent folk. The only consolation is society is slowly getting sick of it and increasingly cynical over indecent image cases, but it\’s a slow process. The thing is, the police and courts are pursuing so many that it instead of looking like a terrible widespread scourge, it looks increasingly like a farce. The more people are shocked and bemused by \’so and so\’ (maybe someone they know personally) being outed as a pervert/paedophile, the more they\’ll come to see that, well, maybe they\’re not. They\’re just humans who made a slip up, or had a bad habit perhaps, but are far from freaks or demons.

  8. Rebecca K says:

    Phil I totally understand and agree with you. I put in a complaint to the county council who run our social services. I got a letter from someone who wasn’t manager at the time so could only apologise on the social workers behalf. I felt that wasn’t good enough so wrote an email setting out the issues I had with them. I got a letter this week from yet someone else basically saying that I’d had an apology and if that wasn’t good enough take it up with ombudsman. They completely missed the point that the social worker had caused more harm to our family than the actual police investigation. They still have not given me paperwork I asked for. They didn’t answer my question as to why it took them 9 months to do a risk assessment that should have been done two weeks from when my husband was removed form the house. They couldn’t answer my question about how my husband wasn’t allowed to see his kids even though there never was a suggestion of contact offences against them but he was still allowed access to the internet!!!!! 9 MONTHS he was away from us and all I got was oh sorry but she had the children’s best interest at heart…..Total rubbish! how can the threat of us leaving our home and have no money for food be in the children’s best interest? How can two bright intelligent girls get over not seeing their father who they totally adore? The girls were taken out of lessons to sit and have “talks” with social workers and discuss how they felt. The social worker didn’t care what they wanted. She didn’t even listen to them when they said all they wanted was their dad home. They got so fed up that they decided themselves not to attend anymore meetings because the social worker upset them so much. The social workers were set on splitting up the family. Oh and the reaction when the court changed the bail conditions so he could come home….omg I thought the social worker was gonna spit feathers….. her reaction was “what’s his sentence then?” I had to explain the judicial process to her and that it was a preliminary hearing because he pleaded not guilty! I should point out that this was a newly qualified social worker who had been given our case due to the previous one moving position. She came into the process fully clued up on how guilty my husband was and how unreasonable I was being because I didn’t want to separate from my husband to claim benefits!!!! We were and are still being punished for something that was not our fault. Witch hunt is right and there is nothing we can do. There is no help for people in our situation.

    • Will S says:

      Deepest sympathies Rebecca. I’ve found that the system educates all its minions to believe that all accused persons are perverts. Any explanation or admission by the accused is seen as fabrication unless it’s suitably graphic and conforms to the official preconception. I’ve also seen a situation close up where a qualified social worker in mental health was refused permission by a neighbouring authority to look after her grandson after the mother was sectioned for postpartum psychosis. Reason – “we would need to perform another risk analysis”

    • phil says:

      ‘9 MONTHS he was away from us and all I got was oh sorry but she had the children’s best interest at heart…..Total rubbish!’
      They had back-covering at heart, that’s the bottom line. It’s just a callous blanket response to protect themselves from their own incompetence and understaffing. Because 1 in a 100 killers or abusers slips through the net, the other 99 must suffer draconian consequences which severely damage the family they hypocritically claim to be trying to protect. The SS, in short, are utter arseholes and my hatred for them is pathological now. They’ve actually MADE me ill where previously I wasn’t. Just who the hell do they think they are that they deem themselves worthy or capable to make God-like decisions for the futures of families, often more stable and loving than their own.

  9. s says:

    i knew a family where their son committed suicide, nothing to do with abuse but the social worker decided the best thing for the other siblings was to split them up.
    Because mum was crying too much

    enough said!

    as i am now finally finding out what i was cautioned for. images i took 27 years ago as an immature teen of my friend’s kid in the bath. at no point since 1989 has there been any official notice that possession of such images was deemed illegal so therefore i did not think to remove them from my possession, neither has tens of thousands of other people.

    treating those who do this like or worse than contact abusers makes as much sense treating one like a drink driver because they possess a car

  10. phil says:

    I would really like to kill the personal social worker, or whoever the hell it is (they never have the decency or courage to write or show themselves) that slammed down the condition I cannot change my 11yo disabled son’s nappy (a thing I’ve done gently, caringly and innocently all his life).
    In case I’m being monitored, by the way (I’m past caring really), that is NOT a threat. I’ve far too much to lose, even now after so much has been taken from me, to do such a thing. But I DO ‘WISH’ that social worker.whomever dead. Seriously. What the hell do you expect if you rip into such a precious and fundamental aspect of a person’s humanity, just to draconianly cover you’re own sorry back.

  11. s says:

    that is exactly the problem, they forget they are dealing with real people. we are just names on a page.

    and the just expect you to just get in with your life like nothing has happrnrf.

    so i possess ‘indecent images’ unknowingly for 27 years during which time I have never been accused of anything and am now considered such a risk to kids i’m banned from working with them for life. (that was my job)

    meanwhile two female pervs who messed with a kid for a decade got a two year suspended sentence, no sex offender register, no DBS barring, keep their children, etc, pretty much let off the hook.

    because they’re deaf and the prison may not have the facilities to look after them

  12. someone says:

    I was set up of this crime over 10 years ago and have been fighting hard to prove i am innocent, i would never harm a child, i would sooner die they hurt a child, i could easily harm a police officer as a lot are liars and have no remorse in setting someone up.
    I have married and have a son and then the social service got involved and they have lied so much i dont even know who they are speaking about in the assessment. I am no angel but i wouldnt hurt a child. no matter how much i try to get someone to listen to this injustice and help, no one bothers, maybe becoming a freedom fighter and overthrowing this stupid country is the only way.

  13. s says:

    if you go to court for possession of indecent images it is not to prove your innocence

    it’s to prove the images are indecent

    why do they want the images to be indecent, why do the have to prove they are

    they are like alcoholics (no offence to alcoholics here) who ply everybody else with drink so nobody can judge them for drinking.

    so make everybody else believe the images are indecent and nobody will judge them for saying they are.

    • STalking says:

      the jury makes a snap decision on whether they are indecent… when 13 year old’s can have the body of an 18 year old and vice versa… it’s a bit sick to use a jury to determine age when someone’s future is on the line

      and the idea that the defendent has to prove their innocence is insane when it’s supposed to be innocent till proven guilty by the prosecution…

      how is this even legal?

  14. annoymous says:

    I was convicted in October 2016 on 3 counts of making indecent images. It started off as curiosity and then became a habit over a very long period of time. I used to search for indecent material and download them. Never once did I ever or would ever go out and abuse anybody. My offenses were totally computer based and I was never charged with having actually gone out to prey on anybody. It has destroyed my life and I am living in hostels at the moment. It has destroyed my family\’s life as I was living with them at the time we were torn apart. The press found out and we were forced to flee our area. Please if there are any paedophiles reading this, stop while you still can. I wouldn\’t wish what is happening to me on my worst enemy. I miss my family, I miss my life!

  15. Sensetalker says:

    I’m intersted in technical defences for images.

    There’s technical defences for images in locations of the computer that are obvious system/program directories in hidden folders….such as thumbnail databases can’t be in your possession because they’re obviously auto generated and can’t be accessed without special tool… even if they can be accessed, the fact they’re auto generated means you haven’t stored them there, and were planted by software, meaning lack of knowledge is evident… I know the law seems to think we are in possession of deleted files in unallocated space, as long as we have recovery software installed. That recovery software was installed by you manually for the purpose of undeleting files, so a possession charge here is understandable, as you must be aware how to recover deleted files. I disagree with this though, cos knowing how to undelete doesn’t mean you’re going to carve free space for files that will likely be overwritten in a week.

    What about windows system restore points? Are files in system restore points in your possession or not? I think that you would have to have knowledge of previous versions functionality which is a right click menu…. it’s easy to find, but not everybody uses every feature of an operating system, so are we in possession of images in a restore point or not? Are we aware of system restore point previous files versions? How can they say we are and how can we prove we aren’t? It’s easy for them to say “you must’ve known about it because you have sophisticated knowledge of the computer, hence file scrubber software, and masses of programs”. With this logic though, an advanced user must know every little thing an OS does then, which is complete nonsense! I don’t know many basic features of windows and I’ve been using it for many years, yet I’m advanced in some areas of the OS, and a complete noobie in others.

    These indecent images laws are absolutely insane because they’re set up in a way that even if you have 1 image, you may as well have 1000 cos the punishment is just as severe.

    And the media gets away with murder. The way they write the articles using the word ‘making’, makes the average image downloader look like a pedo with a camcorder, physical contact with kids and homemade produced child porn. And the way they keep condemning non-custodial sentences and throwing around the word pedo like everyone that ever downloads them are definitely pedos, is really shocking and shameful. Solictors wil say ‘freedom of the press’, don’t bother trying to get anonymity order, and the courts say ‘justice must be seen’ … and the cost is lifetime harassment and a name that is completely worthless now, or bricks through windows, vandalised property or bodily harm, or worse… and the public think this isn’t enough punishment, that those that view images on a computer need castration and lockup? It’s insanity.

    • Mother says:

      My son was charged and then eventually pleaded guilty of having indecent images on his computer through a trojan from an American adult porn site he joined… That was 15 years ago came off the register 13 years ago. married had a baby and now that baby is in care as they are worried my son is an abuser … Sick people of the ss they will not believe him he has no interest in this kind of thing… It was a mistake he tried to erase the images as it made him feel sick but no the police pressurised him to plead guilty. he got community service, had to go on a course and 3 years on Sex offenders list.. And now they are afer him again why can’t just let it go… He paid for his ,mistake….

      • STalking says:

        The only mistake he made was pleading guilty to a non-deliberate act if it was through a Trojan.

        The Police fish like crazy for a confession. Their ultimate tactic is intimidation and overwhelming suspect with fear.

        I myself am under investigation, ongoing for many months and will soon be in a position where I have to decide what to plead. I didn’t like what I saw, but this isn’t enough and I must be punished as a paedophile, according to law. Either way, all the research I’ve done tells me that if I plead guilty, I may avoid prison, but the punishment is still disproportionate, with up to a decade of an harassment order (SHPO), the press immortalizing it, and the life-long labelling.

        They take deliberate searching for the images as evidence of a sexual interest in children. People can deliberately search anything as a one-off curiosity, it doesn’t say anything about what their true interests are.

        The Police are punishing curious normal people mostly whilst capturing a few real paedophiles aka real threats, along the way. It’s like throwing a big net into the sea and pulling it out and finding all kinds of fish and life in it (turtles, the lot), and saying these are all poisonous fish and must be discarded.

  16. s says:

    the way I see it is THEY are making the image indecent because THEY say it is indecent, see it as indecent, insist it is indecent and take you to court to PROVE it is indecent. They cannot understand why you dont see it as indecent

    then have the nerve to call the owner of the image the pervert.

    Now they are calling indecent images of children child sex abuse images so a pic of a kid in the bath is child sex abuse, is it?

    and any image of a child can be indecent in their eyes if they think it was taken with sexual intent.

    • PW. Smontis says:

      It is a form of persecution.

      Nobody dares speak out against it because there’s such established vocal support for this way of thinking.

      Society wanting to protect children against anything and everything including a falling damp dish cloth, is very similar to how a men feel the irrational desire to protect women. Even when the woman is doing all the mouthing off and clearly harassing the man, another man would get between them and immediately go after the man being shouted at, threatening to bash his skull in for attacking a woman.

      It’s the SAME thing with anything involving children. The other point of view is completely pushed aside and the child must be protected from the demon monster at the computer with his internet connection from causing them more pain and distress.

      I’ve even seen judges call this indirect rape of children.

      There’s this illness in society where immediately all emotion is triggered, and all common sense and logic is thrown out and all intelligent thought is replaced with: ‘MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN’, the falling dishcloth is a heavy rock.

      Brains turn to steaming turds when it’s anything to do with abuse of children.

      When you try and tell people, these people viewing images on a computer aren’t harming these children and no children are being saved by prosecuting these people… they immediately will respond with “but these are real children being abused”.

      There’s real people on the internet in videos being killed by ISIS, too, but what have I got to do with that by seeing it and why would I be in court answering for it? You don’t see anyone in court for this do you? No, becaues it’s not sexual and nothing to do with children, so its okay to look.

      Because it’s children, the “MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN” emotional response is triggered and these peoples brains turn to steaming turds and all rational thought is gone, and you will end up in a circular discussion.

      You get all kinds of insults thrown at you speaking out against this madness. You get called a sicko for having an opinion, and you will be often told “I’m sure the Police would be interested to see whats on your computer!”.

      There’s no rational thought process going on for them to respond with something like that. People in support of convicting people that view files on a computer, parrot the lines fed to them by our law enforcement through the media.

      You will often see judge’s quote that line to the often very poorly people that get convicted. “If it wasn’t for people like you…. there wouldn’t be a market for it” …. yes, so you best give that apple you pinched back to the man at the fruit and veg stall, or he will buy more for you to steal.

      The Police no longer even show you the images that you are accused of having, they just tell you teh number of images they’ve found and you are expected to explain them blind. It’s like some kind of endless mindgame and the goal is to make you paranoid and break you. The people they end up arresting are usually very unwell and are easily broken by the time they go to court. Lots of them give up and start sobbing at the Police, begging for forgiveness at interview stages.

      The Police know nothing about computers. They absolutely are clueless about the internet. They should leave people alone.

      It’s so wrong what’s being done to these people.

Leave a Reply to Marc Watson Cancel reply

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea