On Sep 10, 6:56 pm, Cynic  wrote:

> The prosecution had made the allegation- with no evidence to back it
> up - that the newsgroups in question contained child pornography.  You
> believe that we should be forced to take their unsubstantiated word
> for it?  The statement was proven to be wrong - which begs the
> question as to where they obtained the false information that allowed
> them to make such an allegation.  Or did they simply make it up,
> thinking, as you appear to think, that nobody would dare / should be
> permitted to challenge them on it?
>
> >I also recall that he told us that he had downloaded over 50 pictures
> >of naked children from the newsgroup alt.sex.paedophilia.boys but that
> >he did not consider them to be of a sexual nature.
>
> Congratulations, a post in which you have got all the facts (at least
> the ones I remember) 100% correct.  And which simply repeats what I
> have just stated, and what I have said all along.
>
> --
> Cynic

We didn't see any evidence that the prosecution was wrong about what
was in the newsgroups your computer had visited - what we heard was
that Jim Bates had downloaded over 50 pictures of naked children from
a newsgroup called alt.sex.paedophilia.boys that your computer had
also gone to - and he did not see a problem with that - he did not
show us the pictures and we could not understand why he or you would
have any legitimate desire to download naked pictures of other peoples
children from the Internet.

On Sep 11, 1:59 am, "The Todal"  wrote:
> Quite remarkable - my guess is that he works for the police or more likely,
> for the Crown Prosecution Service where he has accessed the file.
>
> I wonder if it is legal to access an old file and make the contents public.
> I think that would be a matter of legitimate public concern.

See Todal, this is what I call a snide remark, in support of your
position that Mould is not a convicted sex pest....why dont you like
to admit that, are you afraid your dark secrets will come out too.

Alex Heney  posted
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:58:24 +0100, PeteM  wrote:
>It seems to be generally agreed - by yourself, myself and
>>the CoA - that if the Mould picture was "indecent", then pictures in
>>medical textbooks are also "indecent" (bearing in mind that the
>>indecency of a picture is legally a property *only* of the picture and
>>not of its origin or purpose or the use to which it is put). But it is
>>completely absurd to say that a picture of a naked child in a medical
>>textbook is indecent.
>
>Why?
>
>I am not suggesting that *any* photo of a naked child in a medical
>textbook would be indecent.
>
>But I see no reason why a specific image in a medical textbook should
>not be one which is indecent.
>
>> From this fact it inevitably follows (by the modus
>>tollens principle) that the Mould picture could not possibly have been
>>indecent. However the CoA judges drew the opposite conclusion. Therefore
>>the CoA judges were absurd. 
>
>I disagree, because I cannot see any reason why an image should
>automatically NOT be indecent just because it happens to be one used
>in a medical textbook.
>
>You seem to think it absurd that it could be, but I don't understand
>why.

Of course the whole discussion is undermined by the fact that the word
"indecent" doesn't really mean anything, so the whole basis of the law
is flawed. 

However, even if we can never properly say that a certain photo *is*
indecent, we can sometimes be pretty sure that one *isn't*. 

In this particular case - where the specific image is admitted to be a
simple picture of a naked child - it's simply a matter of common sense.
No normal person would open a medical textbook and say about such a
photo "That's indecent". He would recognise that it is just a
straightforward picture of a human body. And if pictures of the naked
body really are "indecent" in the eyes of the law, then an awful lot of
people are in trouble. 


-- 
PeteM

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Could someone give me an idea of what two Stannah stair lifts might
cost?  One would be a straight lift and the other curved.  The curved
lift would have to go around two curves.

Thanks.