Police rights

leitmotif

Very true. I obviosuly don't know the specifics. I think it was the tone of the police statement that struck me as... well, as I said, a little cavalier. Especially if they inform relatives/employers prior to the checks being run on any computer equipment they've seized, interviews being held, etc. What if a father is arrested, his employer told and then several weeks down the line it emerges that it was his fifteen-year-old son who'd been downloading the illegal material? Bit late if the damage has already been done to the father.

I didn't mean for the question to stick to this one type of crime, by the way. If anyone has any other hypothetical examples or anecdotes from other scenarios then that may widen the discussion (not to say that more contributions aren't welcome on the original scenario, of course).

unholyangel

leitmotif wrote: »

Very true. I obviosuly don't know the specifics. I think it was the tone of the police statement that struck me as... well, as I said, a little cavalier. Especially if they inform relatives/employers prior to the checks being run on any computer equipment they've seized, interviews being held, etc. What if a father is arrested, his employer told and then several weeks down the line it emerges that it was his fifteen-year-old son who'd been downloading the illegal material? Bit late if the damage has already been done to the father.

I didn't mean for the question to stick to this one type of crime, by the way. If anyone has any other hypothetical examples or anecdotes from other scenarios then that may widen the discussion (not to say that more contributions aren't welcome on the original scenario, of course).

Usually they already know what has been downloaded Although a lot of child !!!!!! originates in countries where it may be legal, the specialist task forces/companies involved in activites such as this are fully aware of sites and track them as well as the users. There are actually international "task forces" dedicated to this. Once significant evidence is compiled, it is then usually passed on to more local forces.

While i can understand how a innocent party could have their life ruined because of a slip of the tongue, the police do usually take all steps necessary to ensure they have irrefutable proof in cases relating to online material. Where prosecutions fail is usually where there is no "hard" evidence and purely relying on witness testimony and/or circumstantial evidence. If the relevant forces hadnt taken all steps necessary, i imagine the person would have grounds to sue.

However, as above with relation to difference in scottish/english courts....in an english court, being found not guilty can either mean you're innocent, or that there wasnt enough evidence to find you guilty. I believe its been discussed on here that in small claims, it lies with the balance of probabilities while in a criminal court, it usually has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To be honest though, and i'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone who has been innocent when accused of !!!!!philia.....but I think the harm caused to them by this "safeguard" is worth it if it causes more good than harm by keeping genuine offenders away from children. At the end of the day, they can move away and probably be unknown by their new neighbours.......but when a kid is abused, that'll stay with that child for the rest of their life. They know what they're doing is wrong. Otherwise they wouldnt hide it.

I remember watching a show a few years back about them in USA. A few had volunteered for castration as it is supposed to take away their sexual urges. They admitted they knew it was wrong and a few said they didnt want to hurt kids anymore. I was of a split mind about this. On one hand kind of thought ok, they dont want to be monsters. But on the other hand thought.......if they genuinely didnt want to hurt kids, why oh WHY didnt they seek help and/or castration when they first realised they were attracted to kids and/or when they first got the urge to abuse a child?

I guess i just cant understand why someone would do that to an adult, never mind a child. I can understand the psychological aspects behind it but the "human" part of me still wants to scream at them "WHY?"

leitmotif

unholyangel wrote: »

Usually they already know what has been downloaded [...] While i can understand how a innocent party could have their life ruined because of a slip of the tongue, the police do usually take all steps necessary to ensure they have irrefutable proof in cases relating to online material.

I'm sure. But that still doesn't get round the 'what if the fifteen-year-old son was the one downloading it?' question, i.e. if there are multiple people in a household. (Sorry, I love playing devil's advocate!)

unholyangel wrote: »

However, as above with relation to difference in scottish/english courts....in an english court, being found not guilty can either mean you're innocent, or that there wasnt enough evidence to find you guilty. I believe its been discussed on here that in small claims, it lies with the balance of probabilities while in a criminal court, it usually has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, in a civil court it's balance of probabilities. Cf. Nicholas van Hoogstraten, cleared in a criminal court but convicted of manslaughter in a civil court. The Scottish system seems good; the tripartite division strikes me as much better.

unholyangel wrote: »

To be honest though, and i'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone who has been innocent when accused of !!!!!philia.....but I think the harm caused to them by this "safeguard" is worth it if it causes more good than harm by keeping genuine offenders away from children. At the end of the day, they can move away and probably be unknown by their new neighbours.......but when a kid is abused, that'll stay with that child for the rest of their life.

I think you're conflating the terms child molestor and !!!!!phile here. I deal with a lot of !!!!!philes (and necrophiles, and sufferers of other paraphilias) in my counselling work, so it's a subject I'm familiar with. There are plenty of child molestors who would not meet the criteria for !!!!!philia as defined by the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (some abuse out of aggression, or because they themselves were abused as children), and plenty of !!!!!philes who do not abuse children. That said, I would concede that !!!!!philes who download child !!!!!! are more likely to lack scruples. But the majority of the !!!!!philes I deal with are appalled at the idea of hurting children, and distressed that their sexuality is 'unfulfillable' (if that's a word). A minority have darker fantasies, and where I feel they may pose a danger to themselves or others I report them. But at base I'm saying we shouldn't conflate the two terms, no more than we should conflate 'heterosexual male' with 'rapist' - one term refers to attraction and the other to action.

unholyangel wrote: »

I remember watching a show a few years back about them in USA. A few had volunteered for castration as it is supposed to take away their sexual urges. They admitted they knew it was wrong and a few said they didnt want to hurt kids anymore. I was of a split mind about this. On one hand kind of thought ok, they dont want to be monsters. But on the other hand thought.......if they genuinely didnt want to hurt kids, why oh WHY didnt they seek help and/or castration when they first realised they were attracted to kids and/or when they first got the urge to abuse a child?

It's chemical castration rather than physical castration. It can be very effective, though can have side effects. In my experience there are various reasons why !!!!!philes don't seek help at an early stage in life. Not least fear. Besides, in theory the relationship between a doctor or counsellor and their patient should be one of confidentiality, unless the patient poses some kind of definite risk. In practice, I have heard of many therapists who would report people to the police the moment the P word is mentioned. Therapy horror stories abound, unfortunately, and this only serves to deter them from seeking help, which I would hope my fellow therapists would realise can be incredibly counter-productive (they personally will earn a few brownie points from the police in the short term, but they should think beyond this petty trifle and consider the bigger picture).

Still, I'm getting side-tracked. Anyone who wants to discuss any of the above or my counselling work can do so by dropping me a PM. The legal rights of the police were my focus. In case anyone's wondering, I'm not curious because one of the people I'm counselling is in some kind of quandary. My curiosity was purely piqued by those two articles.

aldredd

You know, I've often heard cases of, for example, rape, where the accused had not only been found not guilty, but the person making the accusations successfully prosecuted for making it all up. However the person accused of it had already had their name splashed across papers etc, and their reputation ruined.

In this day and age where *everything* ends up online, and lets face it, once it's online it's not going anywhere - our laws should be adapted from 'Innocent until proven guilty' to 'Anonymous until proven guilty'. Of course where the crime that person has been accused of conflicts with their profession etc, someone needs to happen, but otherwise, it should stay quite until you're guilty.

leitmotif

Ten months on, I thought I'd return to this topic, if only because I was looking into the legal basis for informing citizens.

The 'Notifiable Occupations Scheme: Revised Guidance for Police Forces' issued by the Home Office says:

7. Sharing of information within these areas falls within the policing purposes set out at section 2.2.2 of the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information, (especially purpose c - preventing the commission of offences).

[...]

8. Forces are requested to notify the appropriate Government department, professional regulatory/disciplinary body and/or the employer of conviction and other information when it comes to notice that an individual is working in one of the professions or occupations listed in Category 1 or Category 2 of Annex A.
Category 1


Applies to professions or occupations bearing special trust and responsibility where substantial public interest considerations arise specifically in relation to:

• protection of the vulnerable, including children
• national security
• probity in the administration of justice

Where an occupation falls into one of these three categories, there is a presumption to notify in relation to all recordable convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings; unless there are exceptional reasons which make it inappropriate to do so.

Fine, child protection is an important motive under the Notifiable Occupations Scheme, and in addition section 2.2.2 of the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information is cited as some standard for when and when not to inform, but remember that the Notifiable Occupations Scheme refers to employers who should be informed, not neighbours, media, and the general public.

So we move on to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information. It has the following to say on sharing information outside of the police service (which citizenry and media are):

4.8.2 In addition, chief officers may arrange for other persons or bodies within the UK or overseas to receive police information where the chief officer is satisfied that it is reasonable and lawful to do so for the purposes set out at 2.2 above. In deciding what is reasonable, chief officers must have regard to any guidance issued under this Code.

OK, so this section 2.2 is the crux of it all, according to both the Home Office's Notifiable Occupations Scheme and the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information itself. What does section 2.2 say?

2.2.2 For the purposes of this Code, police purposes are:-
a protecting life and property,
b preserving order,
c preventing the commission of offences,
d bringing offenders to justice, and
e any duty or responsibility of the police arising from common or statute law.

From this list it would appear that the police's efforts to 'disrupt the lives' (quote from the article I cited in one of my posts above) of 'suspects' (i.e. not those convicted) is based solely on (c) prevention of offences. But this is a pretty flimsy reason for what amounts to police harassment. If someone is caught going equipped to steal the police don't source all those with stealable possessions in the area and share police information with them in an effort to prevent a potential theft.

One of the guys I have dealt with through counselling was arrested for possession of 2000 images of clothed girls in non-indecent poses. He was given a (suspended) sentence on the grounds that, though not erotic, context (his possession of a large quantity of images) rendered them erotic (i.e. to him). His family, friends, neighbours and media were informed and his life was effectively ruined. Of course, I'm not defending what he did. That said, and purely as an aside, I do find it excessively draconian that clothed, non-indecent images can be deemed erotic according to viewer interest, which effectively situates the crime in his response, i.e. his sexuality, and therefore strikes me as persecution. Particularly as 'sexual orientation' is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 (though within that Act it seems to apply to gender orientation alone).

Any opinions?

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

Oh Dear!

Not that I expect the Old Bill to come into my yard and smah down the door, so I cannot see what the problem is. Knowing that the last time I spoke to a said Orficer of the lur, that I moved out of the way so the lorry had enough room, hence I was in the cross hatch are on the Sedgeberrow by pass, he acknowlegded my position and wished me well on my way!