www.noob.us/humor/proof-that-women-are-evil-and-manipulative/
Tongue firmly in cheek of course...
Edit my own typo !
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 15 Dec 10 at 23:59
|
|
I'm waiting for Pat's response. ;>)
|
|
And me - it will be a measured response no doubt. And I apologise in advance.
|
Two sentences started with a preposition.
You've really wound down in retirement. ;>)
|
|
Yes..it's a strange and very liberating experience - I get excited about rusting screws...:-)
|
So liberating that you have to apologise in advance?
Your clip proves one thing only...men are born with no backbone:)
Pat
|
You want to be careful searching the web for videos of babies.
|
|
Thank you for your advice iffy.
|
...Thank you for your advice iffy...
I was only half-joking.
Recently I've seen people convicted of internet porn offences who have used the most innocuous of search terms.
In the past, the terms themselves had to be almost pornographic, so at least it was obvious what you might get.
|
Some of the older ones are quite dangerous too ......
......spotted this on the same site
www.noob.us/entertainment/bad-ass-grandma-with-a-machine-gun/
Watch out for your toodles fellas.......
|
|
You're assuming iffy. No search involved.
|
...You're assuming iffy...
Yes, I assumed my post would have been taken to apply to anyone who happened to read it, not just an individual.
|
|
People don't get convicted of porn offences as a result of accidentally accessing a porn site via a search engine . That is what the offenders would have you believe. They get convicted for deliberately downloading pornographic material.
|
...People don't get convicted of porn offences as a result of accidentally accessing a porn site via a search engine . That is what the offenders would have you believe. They get convicted for deliberately downloading pornographic material...
CG,
I'm afraid they do now, which is why I made the point.
There was a case I sat through a few weeks ago in which a man was convicted by his search history.
He had not deliberately 'downloaded' or saved anything, only looked at, or I suppose opened, some pics.
The pics came up after he put some fairly innocuous words into Google.
We thought he was slightly unfortunate, as did the judge, who didn't lock him up.
The case didn't make the web so I can't post a link, but you can trust me on this one.
As someone once said in another context: "I know, because I was there."
|
mega snipquote!
>> As someone once said in another context: "I know, because I was there."
There must be a requirement to show some kind of intent. I would be surprised if they came up on some kind of google image search results. If, instead, a website link came up in the search results, which was clearly dodgy, or if he followed one and then found it was dodgy and didn't close it down immediately, I would imagine there would be a case.
After all, if he got to a dodgy website by mistake, but then continued to browse it, he would clearly be showing intent.
Otherwise, I reckon an appeal and a better barrister might be called for.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 16 Dec 10 at 12:48
|
...There must be a requirement to show some kind of intent...
The offence is 'possessing indecent photographs of children'.
The guy used search terms which were innocuous, but equally one might have predicted the type of material they would lead to.
As far as I can gather, he looked at a few pics, presumably by clicking on the links brought up the search.
He was advised by a barrister who is skilled in this type of case, who must have thought the offence was made out.
Of course, we don't know what the guy's instructions were to the barrister, but if there was any chance of hook-wriggling, I'm satisfied it would have been taken.
As I say, it's easier than many people realise to commit an internet porn offence.
|
"As far as I can gather, he looked at a few pics, presumably by clicking on the links brought up the search."
That's the point I was making. Merely having such a site inadvertently returned in a list by your search engine is not an offence and not something to worry about. Actually opening or downloading images on that site is. You would then be deemed in possession of the indecent images. In my opinion it is difficult to conceive how you could open or view such images by accident.
|
...Merely having such a site inadvertently returned in a list by your search engine is not an offence and not something to worry about...
The problem with that is the search itself can bring up images.
Best not to experiment.
I imagine the conviction rate for this type of offence is smaller than for speeding on the motorway.
But that's little consolation if you happen to be the one in a million who is nicked.
|
Women learn early on apprently...... - Dave_
