If you want to read about it click here and read away...

Child Pornography arrest (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/search.jsp)

You search for Pete Townshend

In "Wire" box put ALL

From Last 2 weeks

Click on stories

then click GO

I wonder if Johnny Cochran ever practiced law in England...

A-1

There is only one thing you can do with kiddie porn and that is say NO and never go after or accept any of the stuff. It's all a trap on the internet, in the mail, or anywhere else you find it.

Dave

YUP!

A-1

According to my latest news Peter Townshend has not actually been arrested yet, but according to most otherwise reasonable UK population is not only already convicted and cast off into hellfire or whatever. My only hope is that this high profile case will start to inject some common sense into our ridiculous Child Protection Laws, but I am not holding my breath. I just cannot understand the offence of downloading an image of some kid - or eunuch from BME for that matter- and keeping it to look at and for your own consumption, not giving it to anybody else yet alone showing it to others. Yet the mere possession of such material somehow turns me into a raging paedophile and as such a danger to children and the rest of Society put together! Yet I will never meet the kid, know their names, or even which Country they live in or whatever it was when the photograph was taken - and that could have easily been thirty or forty years ago! Frankly I could not stand being in the same room as a kid- smelly little buggers as somebody once famously remarked. It should go without saying that I would shoot myself before even thinking of sexually or any other abusing or harming anybody, young or old. So what is wrong with just looking at a copy of a picture-? These laws have got out of hand in the UK but nobody is prepared to take the system on for fear of being branded a Child Molester or whatever. Witness the Ban on Nativity Video recently and the famous case of Parents photographs sent to Police by the Photo Processors because they had naked children in them. Sheer Madness! I daresay by even suggesting some sort of defence of the subject I would be damned by a lot of people- if ever the Court of Human Rights has a role to play in Britain's obscenity laws, it is now- probably too late!

Quillman

"

Quillman (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2003 12:57 am My only hope is that this high profile case will start to inject some common sense into our ridiculous Child Protection Laws, but I am not holding my breath. I just cannot understand the offence of downloading an image of some kid - or eunuch from BME for that matter- and keeping it to look at and for your own consumption, not giving it to anybody else yet alone showing it to others.

"

The point of prosecuting people who look at child pornography is to destroy the market for it. This seems more then reasonable to me, even though I believe in liberty. This is because the liberty of the child was taken away and then to make money out of it is against humanity. Even if they not making money out the photographs and simply posting them, by looking at them you are fuelling the rapist's desire for others to take pleasure in their paraphilia. Do you want to aid a child abuser in realising their desires?

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for looking at a picture of a eunuch of BME. If you have, please post the relevent information.

Sincerely,

Leon

I don't think there is a chance for what you call

"common sense"

Here is the start of an article on CNN's web site that you should read - - and read all of it. . .

Child porn: Even surfing can mean jail

By Peter Wilkinson

CNN -http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/0 ... index.html

Tuesday, January 14, 2003 Posted: 9:30 AM EST (1430 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Even so much as clicking on a Web site featuring child pornography could result in a jail sentence of up to five years in the United Kingdom.

And 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.

Quote from

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:02 pm Child porn: Even surfing can mean jail

A-1 (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:30 pm (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/s

tory.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=011412125001000018&dt=20030114121200&w=CNN&coview=) (CNN)

"Even if you delete it, it's not easily detectable but it still remains on your hard drive and police can find it if they make a raid. If you get a spam and delete it, you're not going to chased. But if you have more than one image that's less defense."

That's because they are using Microsoft Internet Explorer.

To REALLY protect yourself, please see Microsoft's Really Hidden Files (http://sillydog.org/mshidden.html)...

Microsoft records every websites you've ever visited and all your e-mails, even if you cleared the history/temp files and e-mail box.

Best of all, use Netscape. And remember Microsoft is not our friend.

If I really hate a computer I do this to it...

I usually like to go into MS Dos and use dos level commands to screw up the hard drive.

Just go to the C>/ prompt and then two commands will screw up the hard drive almost as good as a reformat, but not quite.

They are del . [return]

del .. [return]

There has to be a space between the del and the . or the ..

You have to do into the command prompt. Do a cd\ [return] (no space on that one)

This will take you to C:\>

Then do del . [return] del .. [return]

The periods are the markers on the hard drive. If the hard drive loses its markers then after you crash windows by killing the power it will never come up again because it loses the reference addresses of all of its files... takes about 3 seconds if you are fast enough. You have to be at the "C" prompt in DOS for it to work, though.

If you do manage to get the thing up to DOS level using a boot disk in the A drive you can usually do a "recover" but all the files are named then by number and unless you know what you are looking for ,,, well, it is just one hell of a mess. It will just destroy windows.

All that in about 3 seconds.

I would suppose that you could do it from a remote location with the proper software.

A-1

(the computer terrorist)

However, I really don't want to see material that involves the abuse of children. I accept that problems of definition can and do come into play here, but some of the material about which I have read clearly involves hurting children.

Clearly, on the other hand, some police would be willing to prosecute people who change a child's diapers with sexual abuse, but abuse happens and it has profound negative consequences.

In my work, I encounter the victims of such abuse. Many deal with it and get on with life. On the other hand, I have also taken part in therapy that seemed designed simply to create memories of abuse that simply may never have happened.

All of us also know that prosecutors in the United States have sometimes created false cases of abuse out of bad psychology.

We all need to nurture our best sensibilities regarding this matter.

"Abuse" also happens sometimes without anyone intending to abuse a child. How a child frames an experience or how an adult later interprets a memory comes into play.

I don't really care if anyone traces my web browsing. Long ago, I gave up the notion that anything like privacy actually exists. If I were to stumble onto a site that had pornography involving children, I would simple back out. If that stumbling got me into trouble, I would, of course, fight any prosecution.

Yet, we do have reason to fear because of the prosecutions of childcare workers for behavior that could not have happened. Witch hunts happen.

BTW,

I hate child molesters...

There are some 16s who look like 18s, however, so in certain cases I temper it.

Still, you'd think that grown adults would know better, wouldn't you? I mean what is wrong with asking somebody their age before you have sex with them? Seems like the logical thing to do.

Very, very rarely you run into an 18 who looks 12, though...

12 year olds are too young as are any who are not 18.

But these assholes who molest 5 year olds, well, castration is not enough punishment.

A-1