uk.people.disability

On Sep 10, 6:56 pm, Cynic wrote:

> The prosecution had made the allegation- with no evidence to back it
> up - that the newsgroups in question contained child pornography. You
> believe that we should be forced to take their unsubstantiated word
> for it? The statement was proven to be wrong - which begs the
> question as to where they obtained the false information that allowed
> them to make such an allegation. Or did they simply make it up,
> thinking, as you appear to think, that nobody would dare / should be
> permitted to challenge them on it?
>
> >I also recall that he told us that he had downloaded over 50 pictures
> >of naked children from the newsgroup but that
> >he did not consider them to be of a sexual nature.
>
> Congratulations, a post in which you have got all the facts (at least
> the ones I remember) 100% correct. And which simply repeats what I
> have just stated, and what I have said all along.
>
> --
> Cynic

We didn't see any evidence that the prosecution was wrong about what
was in the newsgroups your computer had visited - what we heard was
that Jim Bates had downloaded over 50 pictures of naked children from
a newsgroup called that your computer had
also gone to - and he did not see a problem with that - he did not
show us the pictures and we could not understand why he or you would
have any legitimate desire to download naked pictures of other peoples
children from the Internet.