bickster Posted June 17, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 17, 2018 On 16/06/2018 at 00:58, Risso said: It looks quite badly drafted to me as I'd have thought the purposes bit is a bit weak. The causing the victims distress bit would probably never occur, as I'd imagine that in a lot of cases the victim is unaware of the crime. That leaves plod having to prove the accused has obtained sexual gratification from the images. If anything it's too specific. Not that I'm a lawyer or anything. That’s precisely why I like the way it’s drafted. There is no ambiguity. To be illegal you must prove either victim distress or sexual gratification. Victim distress is EASY to prove once you have identified the victim and the way these types of images are used to attempt to embarrass someone the victim will be obviously apparent. The sexual gratification angle is the HARDER of the two to prove but a hard drive choc full of these images with no apparent attempt to use them against someone, should be sufficient evidence for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 17 hours ago, bickster said: That’s precisely why I like the way it’s drafted. There is no ambiguity. To be illegal you must prove either victim distress or sexual gratification. Victim distress is EASY to prove once you have identified the victim and the way these types of images are used to attempt to embarrass someone the victim will be obviously apparent. The sexual gratification angle is the HARDER of the two to prove but a hard drive choc full of these images with no apparent attempt to use them against someone, should be sufficient evidence for that I disagree I'm afraid. First of all, I would imagine that victim identification is difficult in a lot of cases. If a pervert is standing at the bottom of a flight of stairs taking photos in a busy public place, how on earth would you identify the victims? And if he gives as the reason for taking them "to sell them on", then he hasn't necessarily had sexual gratification himself, so under the law as stated, there's no case. But in any case the fact we're debating this shows what a poisonous place Twitter is. The MP in question might be an all round bad guy, but he clearly wasn't objecting because he didn't want up skirting to be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 18, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Risso said: I disagree I'm afraid. First of all, I would imagine that victim identification is difficult in a lot of cases. If a pervert is standing at the bottom of a flight of stairs taking photos in a busy public place, how on earth would you identify the victims? And if he gives as the reason for taking them "to sell them on", then he hasn't necessarily had sexual gratification himself, so under the law as stated, there's no case. But in any case the fact we're debating this shows what a poisonous place Twitter is. The MP in question might be an all round bad guy, but he clearly wasn't objecting because he didn't want up skirting to be illegal. You know how these images are used Risso? Let me explain, the 2 main uses: They are used to embarrass, troll, blackmail people online people get off on the pictures In the first case, the victim is obvious, in the second case the perve usually has a vast collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 1 hour ago, bickster said: You know how these images are used Risso? Let me explain, the 2 main uses: They are used to embarrass, troll, blackmail people online people get off on the pictures In the first case, the victim is obvious, in the second case the perve usually has a vast collection Yes, of course. But to be found guilty, you'd have to prove the person with the vast collection was using them for sexual gratification himself. It seems to me that he now has a watertight defence by simply saying he sells them to a third party for cash. If the victim isn't identificable (which if you think about it, they're probably not unless they've got their name tattooed on their behind) and you can't prove that the person taking the pictures has erm, enjoyed himself, then you've no case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Risso said: And if he gives as the reason for taking them "to sell them on", then he hasn't necessarily had sexual gratification himself, so under the law as stated, there's no case. That it's another person who looks at them rather than the taker of the image is immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 18, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 18, 2018 31 minutes ago, Risso said: Yes, of course. But to be found guilty, you'd have to prove the person with the vast collection was using them for sexual gratification himself. It seems to me that he now has a watertight defence by simply saying he sells them to a third party for cash. If the victim isn't identificable (which if you think about it, they're probably not unless they've got their name tattooed on their behind) and you can't prove that the person taking the pictures has erm, enjoyed himself, then you've no case. That's good, it means proof of the lawbreaking is required. It's the open endedness of these laws that usually means similar laws are used for purposes for which they weren't originally intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 I'm confused about this question of having a 'collection' of such pictures - given that they're widely available on the internet, and have been for years, how would the existence of such a collection prove wrongdoing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 27 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: ... how would the existence of such a collection prove wrongdoing? Pete Townshend's lawyer would know. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 18, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted June 18, 2018 Oh no officer that's research for a book on the history of upskirting. Foreword by Christopher Chope an all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 20 minutes ago, Xann said: Pete Townshend's lawyer would know. he's researching a book godammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 Capita awarded £500m MoD contract despite 'highest risk rating' Quote Capita has been awarded a new contract from the Ministry of Defence to run UK military fire and rescue services despite a financial health assessment that attached the highest possible risk rating to the outsourcing company. The awarding of the contract was condemned by unions. It is the first major deal completed by the government since the collapse of the rival firm Carillion in January, which put the outsourcing of the public sector under the spotlight. Capita scored 10 out of 10 for risk in a document prepared for the MoD. One indicates the lowest probability of distress and 10 the highest. The risk assessment document was updated on 7 June, according to the Financial Times. On Tuesday Capita confirmed it had been selected for the contract, which is estimated to be worth about £500m over 10 years and involves the running of about 70 military fire stations worldwide. Shares in the company, which also announced it had sold its supply chain business Supplier Assessment Services, raising £160m, according to analysts, closed up nearly 8% at 164p, before the FT first reported the 10/10 risk assessment score. As part of the risk assessment Capita was also awarded a “health score” of just three out of 100. A score of 25 or less is deemed to be in a red “warning area” of heightened vulnerability. Capita beat Serco to the MoD deal, with the FT reporting that the rival bidder was judged an eight out of 10 risk. The MoD said Capita’s bid was considered to be the best technical solution and the best value for money for defence. A spokesperson said: “All our suppliers are subject to robust assessments ahead of any contract placement and closely monitored throughout. “This document provides background information, using a range of statistics and figures from external sources. The ratings in question are from [financial consultants] Company Watch, not the MoD.” Unite condemned the decision to award the contract to Capita. Jim Kennedy, the union’s national officer for MoD workers, said: “It is absolutely scandalous that even though the MoD’s own financial check found that awarding a contract to Capita was extremely risky, ministers thought it appropriate to award this contract. “The government has clearly learnt nothing from the Carillion fiasco. There needs to be an urgent investigation into how and why this contract was let to Capita.” Capita came under the spotlight just days after the extent of Carillion’s woes came to light, when the new chief executive, Jon Lewis, announced a plans to tap the market for £700m of investment and suspended a dividend that was worth more than £200m to shareholders last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 Quote UK vows to vote against Palestine at UN Human Rights Council The UK has joined the US in condemning an alleged anti-Israel bias at the UN, pledging to vote against issues on Palestine brought by the Human Rights Council. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson yesterday urged the council to reform its treatment of Israel, objecting to the permanent Agenda Item 7 which deals with Israeli abuses in the Palestinian territories. “We share the view that the dedicated Agenda Item 7 focused solely on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace, and unless things change we shall vote next year against all resolutions introduced under Item 7,” Johnson said. Whilst some European states and Australia have also criticised Item 7 in the past, the Trump administration has raised the prospect of the US withdrawing from the council unless it is scrapped. Last week, US diplomats told reporters on condition of anonymity that it appeared more a matter of when, not if, the pull out threatened last year by the US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, will happen. With some believing it could happen as early as this week. Middle East Monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 20, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 20, 2018 On a completely different tack, not seen this is the mainstream media... Quote In two separate cases in the last 48 hours, two predators, both former Tory Mayors, have been convicted of numerous child sex offences, one of which includes the rape of a young girl. Simon Thornton was the Tory Mayor of Godalming and a Councillor. On 18 June he pleaded guilty to over 20 child sex offences and was jailed for 9 years at Guildford Crown Court. When he was arrested in October 2017, in the truest fashion of an arrogant sociopath, Thornton told police, “You know I’m the Mayor of Godalming“. Thornton was involved in a three-year sexual relationship with a teenager aged under-16, and also owned images and videos of children, some of which were the most serious ‘Category A’ categorisation. David Boswell was the Tory Mayor of Pembroke and a Pembrokeshire County Councillor. On 18th June he was convicted at Swansea Crown Court after having been found guilty of raping a child, as well as three indecent assaults against her and another young girl. In all, after being found guilty of further charges of child abuse, Boswell has been convicted of five charges of child sex offences. https://evolvepolitics.com/two-separate-tory-politicians-have-been-convicted-of-child-sex-offences-in-the-last-48-hours/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 20, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted June 20, 2018 I await the cries of when are the Tories going to tackle their paedo problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted June 20, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 20, 2018 2 hours ago, bickster said: On a completely different tack, not seen this is the mainstream media... https://evolvepolitics.com/two-separate-tory-politicians-have-been-convicted-of-child-sex-offences-in-the-last-48-hours/ If Tommy Robinson weren't a political prisoner he'd have been all over that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 Hostile environment lines up to kill a 33-year-old mother: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 21, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2018 24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Hostile environment lines up to kill a 33-year-old mother: Bizarrely, despite the original twitter being posted 2 days ago, not a single soul has signed the petition 2 days later. Fishy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) That is weird, isn't it. EDIT: There's loads of people under the initial tweet saying they signed it, so I'm assuming it's a problem with change.org rather than anything else. Edited June 21, 2018 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 21, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2018 yeah. I was gonna sign, then saw not even the Dr. retweeting it had done so, nor any family members or friends of the victim...so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 22 hours ago, bickster said: On a completely different tack, not seen this is the mainstream media... 'They' must be looking into it. Looking forward to the full expose of the Tories' long running, and ongoing, association with paedophilia from the likes of the Mail and Kuenssberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts