Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Seeing the news this morning saying the Dorset police are not allow to delete child porn from a paedophiles computer Surely the police have the power to delete these images . Bloody hell it's an offence. Bloody world has gone daft and favours the criminal not the victims . Dorset Police officers have said it would be "unlawful" to delete intimate photos of a young abuse victim from a paedophile's laptop. The man was jailed in 2013 for nine years after admitting a string of sex offences, including assaulting a child under the age of 13. He has now formally requested a laptop and a mobile telephone are handed back. Liberty, which represents the victim's family, said photos of her in swimwear and leotards are still on his computer. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote It would be unlawful for police officers to alter the computer and phone's memories by removing the disputed photographs before returning them” Dorset Police Dorset Police said they can not delete them as they are not legally classified as indecent or prohibited. As a result, the sex offender, who is in his 50s but cannot be named to protect the identity of his victim, will have access to a large number of personal photos of the girl when he is released from jail. The victim's mother says: "I am appalled that the man who abused my child can ask the police to hand over our family photos for him to keep for the rest of his life. "My daughters struggle every day with the devastating consequences of his abuse and this will only make them feel more humiliated and degraded. Why should we continue to be traumatised further?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Disgusting, no doubt about it, but the article itself states that the images are not child porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Are they child porn or family photos? It's unclear as both are mentioned. If child porn, then yes, I'd agree that they should be deleted and the law is an ass. However, if they are 'family photos' then we are setting a very dangerous precedent by allowing the police choose what they can and can't delete from personal computers!! I'm not sure how the convicted paedo got hold of the family photos, but presumably someone either gave them to him or they were published in the public domain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Laptops and mobile phones are allowed in prison? Since when did being sent to prison stop becoming a punishment...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeintheslowlane Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Laptops and mobile phones are allowed in prison? Since when did being sent to prison stop becoming a punishment...? Sadly when they decided punishment wasn't the way forward...but rehabilitation was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Laptops and mobile phones are allowed in prison? Since when did being sent to prison stop becoming a punishment...? They're not but if the OB still hold his poessions that were used as evidence it is those that he'll be wanting back but he will not have access to them inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 how about the memories he's got? Can't we do anything bout his memories??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Thing is, Dorset Police will get stick for this, but by default, they uphold the law, and the law states that they can't delete the other pictures. The law needs changing - I don't think anyone would argue with a change in the law to state that anyone convicted of such a crime must have ALL pictures of their victims deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 how about the memories he's got? Can't we do anything bout his memories??? We could if we hadn't abolished capital punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure how the convicted paedo got hold of the family photos, but presumably someone either gave them to him or they were published in the public domain.... Or, perhaps, he's a family member ? Maybe the laptop could be 'accidentally' dropped from a fifth floor window and rendered useless. Edited 11 April, 2014 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Or, perhaps, he's a family member ? Maybe the laptop could be 'accidentally' dropped from a fifth floor window and rendered useless. Unfortunately it takes a lot more than that to destroy data on a hard drive. And yeah, the only reason I could think for his identity being kept a secret "to protect the victim" is that he's a member of the family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 They're not but if the OB still hold his poessions that were used as evidence it is those that he'll be wanting back but he will not have access to them inside. Ah, ok, fair dos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 has he specifically requested he gets the pics back, or just asked for the lap top, which is fair enough, seeing as it is his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 They say that a maiden could have walked alone from one end of the Mongolian Empire to the other with a gold nugget on her head and not be touched. What was their secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 (edited) Edit: soz this post lacked the preux chevalier spirit that we strive for! Edited 11 April, 2014 by Bearsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 They say that a maiden could have walked alone from one end of the Mongolian Empire to the other with a gold nugget on her head and not be touched. What was their secret? Why would she have a plate of cereal on her bonce? I bet if it was Shreddies she wouldn't get far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 They lose enough evidence when it suits, you'd think that the old bill might have mislaid his laptop, or stored it safely for him in a bath of water. Some police already mistakenly think that they can delete images or prevent legal photography in the street, let's not give them power to do stuff like that. If you think the police should delete these pix, imagine your mate being beaten up by a couple of policemen at a game and you film it on your phone. You have just voted for those policemen to legally delete the evidence and arrest you for anything they fancy. This laptop contains family pix, given to the perv by the family, or taken by him at family events. They are not porn, and they belong to him. The real issue should be stopping him from abusing kids in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Seeing the news this morning saying the Dorset police are not allow to delete child porn from a paedophiles computer Surely the police have the power to delete these images . Bloody hell it's an offence. Bloody world has gone daft and favours the criminal not the victims . While the whole thing is very unsavoury, you've once again misunderstood the news story. They would be allowed to delete child porn, in fact they would probably be able to confiscate the entire laptop and not return it. There is no child porn involved here though. The problem is that they are just regular family photos and thus not covered by any law. It isn't an offence. What would be ideal would be if convicted paedophiles were banned from owning any images of children. I don't know if anyone saw the last Louis Theroux program, but he spoke to sex offenders in the states and there was a woman on the register for having sex with a fourteen year old boy. She was not allowed anything related to children in her house, including pictures of her own children, whom she was not allowed to see. She had actually been given permission to have one single family picture. That would be a better situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Bloody hell Norway, what is your bloody problem I have not misunderstood the story , you clearly have a problem with me The story was on the news this morning the paedo was, a family member, was jailed in 2013 for nine years after admitting a string of sex offences, including assaulting a child under the age of 13. While the pictures are not of an obscene nature there are still pictures of the under age child he abused. And who knows what he will use them for? That is why the likes of liberty and the mother are livid and liberty will do their best to introduce an addendum to the law which stops this sort of ridiculous situation arising. Yes I saw part of the louis theroux programme and listen to the man who sexually abused his children to get back at his partner for having an affair. Yes hes full of remorse but will never see his children again So please norway please do not forensically examine every word I say, there are better things i life to worry about, and ps your not my english teacher either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Pap re They say that a maiden could have walked alone from one end of the Mongolian Empire to the other with a gold nugget on her head and not be touched. Maybe she was a cereal killer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 PS Norway this is what the mother has stated, do you disagree with her trauma and concerns over her childs abuse by Mr Fiddler ? The victim's mother said the family had been "traumatised" by the abuse. "I am appalled that the man who abused my child can ask the police to hand over our family photos for him to keep for the rest of his life. "My daughters struggle every day with the devastating consequences of his abuse and this will only make them feel more humiliated and degraded. "Why should we continue to be traumatised further?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Viking, calm down... as norway clearly quoted, you did state that they could not delete child *porn* from the laptop, which is not quite correct, so it's easy to see how he thinks you've misunderstood the story. I don't think he's particularly disagreeing with the overall sentiment and indeed he puts forward a proposal that is similar to what most of us have suggested... so I'm not sure he deserves quite the response you gave him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Viking, you misunderstood the other story you are referring to where you thought an article was telling you what you could and couldn't eat. Those were your words and they were wrong and showed a misunderstanding. I only posted twice on that thread and backed up everything I said with fact, then left when you took it personally. I called the title moronic, which was widely agreed with and even you realised you had been got it wrong. When you incorrectly believed you had been told what you could and couldn't eat, I pointed out that you were being paranoid, as the restrictions you thought were being made on you were entirely in your imagination. That is indeed paranoia, whether you like it or not, imagining controls being placed on you that aren't actually there. Here you have overtly claimed that the issue is that he has child porn on his computer and that the police have to return it to him even though that's an offence. This is indeed a misunderstanding of the story. He is not having child porn returned to him, he is having intimate but non-pornographic family photos returned. I'm not sure how you can deny that your post shows misunderstanding. In fact it seems from your replies that you've continued to misunderstand, as you seem to think your quotes are in any way relevant to what I posted. I have no idea why you've addressed that post to me or put it in bold, it doesn't clash with anything I posted. There is no part of my post that forensically examines what you say or corrects your English, I'm not sure what those misguided comments are addressing. I'm pointing out that your entire opening premise is wrong and has misunderstood the issue, I simply read the sentence, it's wrong. You said they were returning child porn to him, they aren't. You misunderstood. Whether convicted paedophiles should have any access to images of children at all is another matter entirely and one which I addressed rather than your misguided comments. Nothing you have posted afterwards indicates that any of what I have said was even slightly wrong. We all agree it's traumatic for the family that he owns family photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Unfortunately it takes a lot more than that to destroy data on a hard drive. I know, but suggesting that it might accidentally find it's way into an MRI scanner would be stretching credulity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 ps your not my english teacher either "p.s." "you're" "English" (sorry, a somewhat below the belt cheap shot but it's a Friday afternoon and one's brain cells aren't up to more intellectual humour I'm afraid.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 "p.s." "you're" "English" (sorry, a somewhat below the belt cheap shot but it's a Friday afternoon and one's brain cells aren't up to more intellectual humour I'm afraid.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Bloody hell Viking ever since they questioned you for smoking in the airport you seem to have a real problem with the police. They are only doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 "p.s." "you're" "English" (sorry, a somewhat below the belt cheap shot but it's a Friday afternoon and one's brain cells aren't up to more intellectual humour I'm afraid.) Non satis. The P should be capitalised as it's the start of a sentence, and there should be a full stop at the end of the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 I apoligise to you Norway. I just got the impression you were having a pop thats all, Us viking should stick together, as your only a stones throw away When I posted todays story it was early on and the suggestion was that the scum bag wanted certain pictures back , I was only referring to the news reports and as I was in transit from home to work I realised the initial furore had jumped fuel the masses to thinking the porn was still on the laptop. It was only later on that I saw an update and it was about him wanting the lapto back and that it was believed to contain a photo of one of the family they abused. In this case its not the police fault but a certain human rights act intepretation by whoever said it should be returned Jei be-klag-er så me-get As for the food, there are differing opinions about the 7 a day issue amongst dieticians and nutrionists, My take is as long as you have a balanced diet and exercise you should remain healthy As for You duck , It will take a long while for me to have total trust in the police, Some of their behaviour is questionable at times , PS seriously what is it like to smoke a cigarette and what sort of kick do you get out of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Awesom picture badger, Made me laugh. I need to be cheered up before I have a look at the main forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 The law needs changing - I don't think anyone would argue with a change in the law to state that anyone convicted of such a crime must have ALL pictures of their victims deleted. This exemption would be welcome...but how many cases would it affect in a year? Some but not many I suspect. Police have done the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Ah the liberal elite, they just cant help themselves helping paedophiles, rapists, murderers and terrorists. Maybe we need to find out 100% whether this is an evil illness or an evil depraved person (or both), either way he should not be getting any laptops with any such material ever again. Weakness has led us to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 11 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Duncan The police had their hands tied . I bet they wish they could have wiped everything clean . The scum will get his come uppence . See duck there are occassions I support the police o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 11 April, 2014 Share Posted 11 April, 2014 Steeling this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiggy Posted 12 April, 2014 Share Posted 12 April, 2014 Slightly out of context as not this country: But a 8/9 month year old boy, is currently on trial in Pakistan for a murder charge... Yep, 9 month child on a murder charge. There's a report somewhere but its 4 am and I'm meant to be packing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 12 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 12 April, 2014 Twiggy . How the hell can a 9 month old child be on trial for murder . Barely be able to walk and talk . That's a strange one . Did you find out what they have done ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 12 April, 2014 Author Share Posted 12 April, 2014 Just seen that in BBC news twiggy . Case has been withdrawn A Pakistani court has withdrawn the case against a nine-month-old baby who was accused of attempted murder alongside 12 members of his family. Muhammad Musa Khan appeared in court in Lahore for a second time on charges of planning a murder, threatening police and interfering in state affairs. But the judge said the case should never have come to court. Police chiefs earlier said they had ordered action against an investigating officer. 'Little celebrity' Baby Musa had initially been released on bail Despite his young age, Muhammad Musa Khan was one of more than 30 people charged with attempting to kill police officers during a confrontation over electricity and gas supplies in the city of Lahore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 12 April, 2014 Share Posted 12 April, 2014 Just seen that in BBC news twiggy . Case has been withdrawn A Pakistani court has withdrawn the case against a nine-month-old baby who was accused of attempted murder alongside 12 members of his family. Muhammad Musa Khan appeared in court in Lahore for a second time on charges of planning a murder, threatening police and interfering in state affairs. But the judge said the case should never have come to court. Police chiefs earlier said they had ordered action against an investigating officer. 'Little celebrity' Baby Musa had initially been released on bail Despite his young age, Muhammad Musa Khan was one of more than 30 people charged with attempting to kill police officers during a confrontation over electricity and gas supplies in the city of Lahore. Blimey that is like the thinking of Medieval times and Witch Hunts................. And in a country with Nuclear Weapons!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now