The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3007871.stm
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
Page:
How do we know he's not a sex offender? Yeah he says he isn't but i could go around saying i work for the pope! You see people like to make things seem better than they are and if he was doing research then why did he pay for the images and then save them? Because that is a crime in it's self, actually downloading child porn. Obviously he's a very crafty man at what he has done or doing.
CDouch wrote:
> What he's saying is he shouldn't of been put on the list as he's not a
> sex offender.
if he even looks at such material i believe the law says he is
"if you host a Web site or forward an e-mail containing images of children -- who are or seem to be under the age of 16 -- being abused, you could face imprisonment of up to 10 years" (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ (space)europe/05/07/uk.pornlaw/index.html)
whats wrong is the law itself check this news quote:
" 'Thus' The owner of ISP Demon Internet is using the Indecency with Children Act that criminalises the possession or distribution of child pornography, to justify its claim that it is illegal for an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to download indecent images from its servers for the purpose of checking for illegal content" (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2085357,00.html)
insane ain't it they can't check their content as it is illegal to download it
> What he's saying is he shouldn't of been put on the list as he's not a
> sex offender.
if he even looks at such material i believe the law says he is
"if you host a Web site or forward an e-mail containing images of children -- who are or seem to be under the age of 16 -- being abused, you could face imprisonment of up to 10 years" (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ (space)europe/05/07/uk.pornlaw/index.html)
whats wrong is the law itself check this news quote:
" 'Thus' The owner of ISP Demon Internet is using the Indecency with Children Act that criminalises the possession or distribution of child pornography, to justify its claim that it is illegal for an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to download indecent images from its servers for the purpose of checking for illegal content" (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2085357,00.html)
insane ain't it they can't check their content as it is illegal to download it
What he's saying is he shouldn't of been put on the list as he's not a sex offender.
well indeed he went looking for it(stupid), paid for it (hugely stupid when it could be found for free just the same as everything else if you're prepared to hunt it down), and he kept it (should've deleted it, i'm sure a book wouldn't ever get published with such images in it anyhow)
in esscence its his own fault he's got himself on the list and had his name tarnished in this way. there's no way i'll feel sorry for him and his own stupidity
in esscence its his own fault he's got himself on the list and had his name tarnished in this way. there's no way i'll feel sorry for him and his own stupidity
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I'm sure I'm not the only person who's encountered dodgy, dodgy stuff
> while browsing the internet - because it flashes up on my screen, does
> that make me a paedophile?
But did you go in search of it in the first place though?
No.
If I wanted to make a bomb in my back garden just for 'research purposes' would it be fine? I'm not going to harm anyone, I just want to find out about how to make a full sized working bomb. Is that OK?
Whether or not he was doing 'research,' (well he's not gonna say that he was getting off from it is he?) he was still doing something illegal and he should know that if you break the law, you should be punished.
Plus, there's plenty of information about kiddy porn on the net. He could have so easily just gone to the NSPCC site (or others) and found stuff from there. Why did he feel the need to look at it first hand?
It was him being stupid. It's like looking down the barrel of a gun to make sure it works.
Use other information that's already available, don't go and break the law just so you can see what you've already been told.
> I'm sure I'm not the only person who's encountered dodgy, dodgy stuff
> while browsing the internet - because it flashes up on my screen, does
> that make me a paedophile?
But did you go in search of it in the first place though?
No.
If I wanted to make a bomb in my back garden just for 'research purposes' would it be fine? I'm not going to harm anyone, I just want to find out about how to make a full sized working bomb. Is that OK?
Whether or not he was doing 'research,' (well he's not gonna say that he was getting off from it is he?) he was still doing something illegal and he should know that if you break the law, you should be punished.
Plus, there's plenty of information about kiddy porn on the net. He could have so easily just gone to the NSPCC site (or others) and found stuff from there. Why did he feel the need to look at it first hand?
It was him being stupid. It's like looking down the barrel of a gun to make sure it works.
Use other information that's already available, don't go and break the law just so you can see what you've already been told.
Yep, he's a silly man. But why put him on the sex offenders list? That's what I don't understand. He was cautioned because it is an offence to give these companies money, not because he's a sex offender.
Hes unfortunate in that the police appear to have decided to make an example out of him. That doesn't change the fact that he did something illegal and was caught. Silly man.
Pete Townshend is obviously not a paedophile, it doesn't take four months of inquiry to find that out. Yet he is now labelled a sex offender. That's not justice.
There are worse cases out there for the police to tackle, yet they seem to hold up Townshend's case as an example that they're doing their jobs.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's encountered dodgy, dodgy stuff while browsing the internet - because it flashes up on my screen, does that make me a paedophile? The only thing Townshend is guilty of is giving the website his credit card details.
And having a shabby-looking beard.
There are worse cases out there for the police to tackle, yet they seem to hold up Townshend's case as an example that they're doing their jobs.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's encountered dodgy, dodgy stuff while browsing the internet - because it flashes up on my screen, does that make me a paedophile? The only thing Townshend is guilty of is giving the website his credit card details.
And having a shabby-looking beard.
It is illegal to look at child pornogrphy web sites isn't it? and he did intend to look at them, even if it was research. If you say its okay for one person, then you have to say its okay for everyone, you can't really make exeptions in law. It wouldn't work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3007871.stm
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
What a crock. Not only did he fully co-operate and own up to viewing a child porn website for research for a book (research which can be fully backed up with pages and pages of info), but he's had his name dragged through the mud for four months. He's on the sex offenders list for five years, for looking at a website, NOT being a paedophile, but looking at a website. Sure, it was stupid to give money to the company in the first place, but this is a man who has taken part in anti-child harm concerts and benefits and has spoken out on the subject numerous times.
This makes me very angry. He's a sex offender for looking at a website.
Page: