uk.people.disability

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:03:43 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@ >
wrote:

>judith wrote in news:bd20e31i2thlti3il18cfgt10nurp63s2c@
> :
>
>>> /reports/

>Whilst I am *not* going to get involved in the wider debate you ought to
>know before you go eulogising that, Jim Bates (Mr "Computer
>Investigations" himself) has been proven to be (a) dishonest in that he has
>repeatedly lied to courts, police and clients up and down the country about
>his qualifications, (b) unqualified and (c) incapable of handling evidence
>in a forensicly robust manner.
>
>As for the rest, well my stance on child pornography and those who use it
>is reasonably well known,

But what is your view on the *narrower* debate as to whether it is
reasonable to pursue a person over a single 120 x 75 pixel image taken
on a beach with no erection or erotic posing and try to bolster the
case by looking at that person's browsing history and search record.
(I leave on the side the matter of the way these investigations were
carried out in the case in question.)

Is it not stretching the concept of 'criminal intent' a lot to far to
take into account other (legal) sites he has looked at, and terms he
has searched for (whether or not found)?