-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread pt. 2
- Thread starter ncurd
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2017
- Messages
- 4,887
- Reaction score
- 4,318
No surprise here. He really is scum.
www.independent.co.uk
Farage condemned for response to Southport attacks as MP accused of ‘inciting riot’
The husband of murdered MP Jo Cox has accused the Reform leader of ‘peddling conspiracy theories’ over the tragedy that left three children dead
www.independent.co.uk
Not sure how anyone with pics of 7-9 year olds could possibly believe they were legal.
My understanding is he also only raised the age issue after the sender brought it up. He had already received the images and retained them.
From the CPS- Making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group."
Ignorance can't be a defence.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,654
- Reaction score
- 10,520
Ms Phillips, the MP for Birmginham Yardley, said: "Nigel Farage could yesterday have had the questions, he claims are unanswered, answered if he had bothered to turn up to parliament and ask them during the statement on the incidents in Southport. He didn't turn up, he grifted instead."No surprise here. He really is scum.
Farage condemned for response to Southport attacks as MP accused of ‘inciting riot’
The husband of murdered MP Jo Cox has accused the Reform leader of ‘peddling conspiracy theories’ over the tragedy that left three children dead
That right there says it all, no surprise to anyone who has paid any sort of attention to what Farage is actually like but no doubt will be completely lost on his rabid base.
The reporting has changed about age which was not said when I raised the topic.
I agree, no excuse or defense now.
However the law is ass
From the CPS- Making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group."
So you friend can send you an image, you can completely and legitimately ignorant that the content is illegal, thinking the person is of age and that's it doomed.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,654
- Reaction score
- 10,520
I kinda thought intent was a big part of criminal law, punishing someone for something they had no intent of doing, nor was brought about through anything they did intend to do that could have reasonably led to that outcome (eg neglect and manslaughter), just seems ridiculous. I don't know the specifics of this case so speaking hypothetically but merely opening an image without knowing the contents when you had no reason to suspect what the content was just seems ridiculous.
I don't how you could write the law as to stop everyone using the excuse i was sent them unsolicited or they looked old enough to me as a defence.
I think it would ultimately fall back on the jury deciding.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,371
- Reaction score
- 5,996
I imagine the CPS would ultimately decide whether to prosecute. I think most people would delete it immediately and so the CPS wouldn't prosecute you for that, especially if you received it from a stranger randomly. Having said that, if it was someone you know, then surely you have a duty to report it.
This is what didn't make sense about the article. The way it was written made it seem like he received the images without asking for them. However, there surely had to be more to it for them to prosecute.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2017
- Messages
- 4,887
- Reaction score
- 4,318
Surely they would examine things on a case by case basis. Context should matter e.g. preceding text messages/build up conversation/history of previous images received from the same sender would indicate whether or not the recipient might have known what the image(s) could contain. Opening an image that was sent out of the blue with no context or warning is quite different to opening one when the subject matter was discussed beforehand or where similar content had been received previously from the same sender.
Last edited:
Which is why the unsolicited part of it makes no sense. Sure unsolicited they clearly looked under age but I kept them and didn't report them is fair. But unsolicited and I had no reason to doubt it was an illegal image feel like the law should allow for that. But it doesn't reading that.
In which case if I was on jury and not given instruction to allow to for that you'd have to find them guilty. It doesn't allow for wiggle room.
In Edwards case there no way 7 year old looks of age. I was definitely thinking of young people who'd gone through some level of puberty.
Also why is he asking for a 3rd party to send him images? You can see everything you want on pornhub or red tube or even Twitter unless it's something dodgy.....
Unsolicited legal defence can be -
The defendant has a legal defence if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9).
So in short can be a defence but probably not in the Edwards case. As others have said. Boils down to the CPS charging decision, or the jury. Unreasonable time is pretty broad and one for the CPS or jury to decide.
The defendant has a legal defence if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time (R v Collier [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 9).
So in short can be a defence but probably not in the Edwards case. As others have said. Boils down to the CPS charging decision, or the jury. Unreasonable time is pretty broad and one for the CPS or jury to decide.
In other news. The tw@ts appear out again this time in London.
news.sky.com
UK riots latest: Thousands take part in anti-racism protests; petrol bomb thrown at mosque in 'racially motivated' incident
Police are on high alert this weekend amid concerns over more disorder breaking out as protests take place across the country. In Northern Ireland, police are investigating a "racially motivated" attack on a mosque.
Are we allowed to approve of police brutality?
(That's a joke, btw, just in case it needs to be made clear)
(That's a joke, btw, just in case it needs to be made clear)
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2017
- Messages
- 4,887
- Reaction score
- 4,318
The first U-turn I would like Starmer to make is to re-open the Bibi Stockholm, round up all these dickheads and put them on it.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,654
- Reaction score
- 10,520
I wish they would stop calling them "protestors", they clearly aren't protesting anything. They are rioters, vandals and thugs. They have been told repeatedly why the identity of the suspect cannot be released but instead build this huge anti-white conspiracy and start targeting Muslims.
Then tow it into deep water and let the navy test out new torpedoes on it...?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 16,966
- Reaction score
- 4,333
- Location
- Propping up the bar in the Clubhouse
'Is she black or Indian?': Trump attacks Harris's racial identity
The Republican suggested Vice-President Kamala Harris changed her identity from Indian and "became black".
www.bbc.co.uk
Here we go again!
Is he orange or twat?'Is she black or Indian?': Trump attacks Harris's racial identity
The Republican suggested Vice-President Kamala Harris changed her identity from Indian and "became black".
Here we go again!
Similar threads
