Man Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC 777
First time accepted submitter robably writes "A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he 'should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.'"
Dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
People expect reason and common sense from the authorities are dumb. I remember a friend of mine reported his roomate for child porn and the police came and took ALL the computers in the place. His roomates and his. They tried their best to implicate him as well as his roomate in the illegal pictures but couldn't quite stretch it far enough so settled for keeping his computers. He never got them back and I guess they scared him so bad he was happy not to be in jail. He said he'd never call the police again if his life depended on it.
Re:What else did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hi, police, I am currently committing the crime of possession of child pornography, here's my name and address..."
Also imagine if the police did nothing. Then the headline would be "Man with child pornography on his computer allowed unsupervised visits with children". I do not know what he is criticizing.
I saw this last night... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the BBC website (the link posted in the summary), and it was quite a prominent story - however, I went back to find it this morning and it's nowhere to be found, you have to use a direct link to get to it. Interesting...
The story itself is a typical example of UK officialdom vastly over-reacting, and has been picked up by many mainstream newspapers today - I hope this bloke is absolved and compensated by social services for their idiotic behaviour.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
At first sight, this behaviour from the police is self detrimental, because people who report stuff are useful and alienating them makes criminals safer.
In truth this behaviour maximises the control of police over both people and their own work. Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened. Over their own work, because nobody can accuse them of failing to investigate or succeed in their investigation after a report, if nobody reports.
If you expect people in power finding ways to maximise control, no matter under what flag, religion, or ideology, you usually explain things better than the theory that incompetence reigns over c.
Careful with anecdotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly this is true.
We were broken into, lived in a seedy part of town, called the PD.
They showed up and saw some glassware (what most nerds would consider basic chemistry needs) and assumed I was a drug cooker.
I had to dig out all the science kits I bought for my kids and actually show them a basic science experiment (viscoelastic fluid using cornstarch and water), which my children happily explained to them, before they would back off on their obvious intent to arrest me.
On the bright side I think the cop that was actually paying attention actually learned that a similar fluid is responsible for his transmission's torque converter functioning properly, as well as the fan clutch for his car's radiator.
Go figure.
-nB
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Interesting)
So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
It's like reporting your car stolen to hide the fact that you were the getaway driver.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2, Interesting)
What screwed up country do you life in? Arround here the police officers are actually pretty nice and helpful.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the state can look out for the welfare of his child while they investigate the rather peculiar circumstances whereby "I downloaded music," morphs magically into "somehow that child porn got on my computer."
So we'll imagine any conspiracy possible that will explain why he's innocent, but nobody can imagine a single scenario where this could happen? Because I sure can. Man downloads child porn. Wife finds it, freaks out. Man, in damage control mode, goes "but honey, I swear I would never do this, I thought I was downloading music! I'll report the very serious crime I was an unwitting victim of right away!" Wife accompanies him down to the station, where they file report alleging that "somebody out there in those magic tubes gave my sweet innocent husband child pornography when he thought he was downloading the latest Michael Buble album!"
Here's the thing: I've never once downloaded an MP3 from amazon, or itunes, or emusic, or an independent artist's distribution site, and ended up with child pornography. So I naturally find the claim of "I thought I was downloading music, but turns out it was pictures and video of a 6 year old being raped," to be a little hard to swallow.
The police have to investigate the reported crime; given that this man was doing "something" online that resulted in his laptop getting some child porn on it, it's not unreasonable to think that he might have downloaded them intentionally, and then hoped to cover his ass by acting out his mock outrage in front of the police when he the files were discovered by, say, his wife.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:3, Interesting)
the article never tells how he got this stuff. As a devils advocate, the possibility exists that he was discussing the porn on his laptop with his wife because she discovered it. If this is a single zip file that he opened then he can be cleared, if this can be proven to be months or years worth of material that he has been holding on to, and obtaining over time, then he is going to have a hard time using the "oops" defense.
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Interesting)
So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
Sorry, I was too busy thinking about a proposed law that divides the American public into two groups: registered sex offenders and unregistered sex offenders [itworld.com].
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a little hyperbolic, but Fallingcrow's got a point. If you're a cop and you get called to the scene of an alleged crime, you might not get a chance to arrest the suspect(s) again. So if it's not blatantly obvious that one person is the assailant and the other is the victim, for example, the SOP is to pick everybody up and sort it out later. Get all the evidence you can before it's hidden, tampered with, or otherwise compromised. It's the judge's/jury's responsibility to sort out who did what.
So yeah, cops are great for stuff like asking for directions, or getting a homicidal lunatic to stop chasing you. Not so good for areas where you might be suspected of culpability.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:5, Interesting)
- Visit youtube
- Search "Don't talk to police"
Both a lawyer and a policeman explain why you should never volunteer information.
- Practice your Miranda rights (remain silent).
Re:I thought this was known by now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
This story reminds me of something that a friend is going through at the moment. He's a recently released felon that's trying to get his life back on track, and has routine visits from his parole officer. The PO was looking through his computer's disk drive and found a file named "LICENSE.txt". He was immediately accused of creating fake driver's licenses, and had to explain in great depth that the file he'd found was a software license (just opening the file and showing the contents didn't even placate this guy).
A few weeks later the PO came to inspect again, and found an e-book titled "Google Hacks". It's a book on optimizing search engine results/etc. The PO accused him of attempting to hack Google and left. He was placed in a halfway home 2 hours away from where he was staying for observation until they could come to a decision on what to do with his "offense". Most of the authorities involved agreed that this was an offense worthy of revoking his parole and sending him back to prison. There were gears in motion to do just that, until someone stepped in and outlined what the book actually was and how it in no way violated any conditions of his parole. They backed off on sending him back to prison, but they'd decided he should be shipped to Texas to live in a halfway house "just in case". He's OK with this, because he's legitimately scared of the vendetta that his PO has against him at this point and will be under the jurisdiction of a different one where he's being sent; though he no longer has the option to live with his family.
Technological ignorance and fear in those with authority is a very, very scary thing.
Re:what do you do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Similar story, when I was younger my Father, sister ( A bit of a tomboy ) and I were playing catch in the backyard with a baseball. My father tossed it to my sister who missed it and it hit her square in the eye and quickly became a great shiner with a fairly decent amount of swelling. To make sure there was no serious damage we all went to the hospital to see the doctor. When asked by the doctor how it happened, my sister (Still in tears) pointed right at my dad and said "He did it!". He was promptly removed from the room for a few hours while me and my sister were asked all sorts of questions by some "Nice people from the hospital". He never really said what he was doing during this time, but I'd imagine that he was being grilled pretty well.
Re:Posession is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
So what we're saying here is, if you happen to come across it, just delete it and keep your mouth shut.
Don't try to alert authorities to the source of the illegal material. In fact, don't talk to the authorities at all. Let them do their jobs in ignorance . . . because obviously that's what they deserve.
Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously not, in this case. In this case, he wasn't being investigated, and now, he won't have the defense of a real investigation. Just a smear on his name for the rest of his life.
Since we never know when this kind of bullshit will hit us, it's safer to not cooperate, and to avoid the authorities at all costs. Certainly I won't be reporting any crimes I happen to see . . . I'll just keep my mouth shut so I don't get dinged with guilt by association.
That is what the result of this ham-fistedness will be. Promise.
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this is another case of bureaucracy at it's finest?
Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score:5, Interesting)
I am indigent, I will only speak to a court appointed public defender, do NOT do what the first one tells you is in you own best interest! Remember the cops and the public defender work for the same entity, you have the right to fire one after the other with the mantra He does not represent my interests, keep doing this until they are forced either to drop the charges or retain a private attorney for you.
And remember, some states require that if you invoke the right to a speedy trial they have X number of days to comply or drop the charges (the docket is SO full of killers and rapists, that unless some prosecutor has a hard dick for you, they'll drop).
Third house... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think we have enough laws on the books at this point that we could use a dedicated house of legislature to remove laws - call them the 'House of Repeals'. They're only allowed to repeal law, reduce spending, etc...
I'd have it be 100 members, like the Senate, but be via proportional voting for electing candidates. Simple majority for passing a repeal bill, then both the house and the senate need vote on it - but only ONE needs to pass it for it to be effective, then to the president, like a normal bill.
If that doesn't work well enough, we can tweak it later.
In the system long enough - automatic TPR/adoption (Score:4, Interesting)
And if they keep the kids in foster care long enough, that is enough alone to have a termination of parental rights (*) granted (the judge is REQUIRED to grant it unless there are extreme justifications not to) and the children put up for adoption.
(*) This declares the parents to legally not be parents in any way whatsoever, no rights to visit or even contest the adoption, since they are no longer parents and thus not allowable "parties to an action" involving the children.