uk.people.disability

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:32:31 +0000, pete wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:27:06 +0000, Richard Miller
> wrote:
>
>>In message <473b56d9$0$13934$fa0fcedb@ >, Nick
>> writes
>>>Juan Kerr wrote:
>>>> On Nov 14, 5:01 pm, Nick wrote:
>>>>> AIUI Langham hadn't paid for any child porn. I'd be astonished if there
>>>>> were a link between a guy anonymously downloading a picture and a kid
>>>>> being abused
>>>> Was it a picture?
>>>> I seem to recall the prosecution made a big thing of advising the
>>>>jury
>>>> that filenames beginning with p_t were specifically pre-teen porn
>>>> videos. IOW, he knew full well that he was downloading kiddie porn
>>>> videos.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I believe what you say. I was using picture in a very wide sense.
>>>I'm not questioning the evidence that Langham was downloading some very
>>>nasty videos presumably for sexual titillation. I am questioning any
>>>link whereby him secretly downloading this stuff causes children to be
>>>abused.
>>
>>And I question the suggestion that he was downloading it for sexual
>>titillation.
>
>And I question whether it makes any difference. This nonsense is
>totally out of hand where people with weird pleasures or non pleasures
>in the secrecy of their own homes

Yes - but if you are not in your own home - eg say you were out in the
middle of the night with night vision glasses and sights and were
taking photographs of people engaging in sexual activity then that is
a weird pleasure which at best could lead to a breech of the peace.

I have a pair of Prinz 10x50's that do work better than the naked eye
in dusk conditions but I need much better than that so I can use them
in complete darkness when there is no moon.
pete
12 May 2005