Man in court on child pornography charges

lods

Man in court on child pornography charges
Updated: 20:28, Saturday, 11 December 2010

A man in his 60s appeared in court today on charges of possession of pornographic images of children.


Bridewell - Man appears in court
A man in his 60s is in court today on charges of possession of pornographic images of children.
The man was arrested in the Dublin city area in relation to the possession of child pornography on 10 December.

This up top of the Rte news, why? Was thinking it must be someone famous or in the public eye. A bit strange for it to make the headlines.

weeder

lods wrote: »

This up top of the Rte news, why?

who gives a ****e?

Senna

Their just putting up any news they can to get Gerry's coke news further down

kjl

I heard this on the radio too, maybe it's a priest

lods

kjl wrote: »

I heard this on the radio too, maybe it's a priest

Or a banker

Senna

lods wrote: »

Was thinking it must be someone famous

kjl wrote: »

maybe it's a priest

lods wrote: »

Or a banker

Or a famous priest that works for AIB?????? the plot moistens.

Shield

Like a patrol car back seat after arresting a drunk...

Senna wrote: »

the plot moistens.

Crasp

Child pornography should make the news imo, no place for it in society.

WindSock

Because pedrofiles are currently the worst of the woerst in contemporary Irish society. That's why it is top newz, yall.

Duggy747

Everytime a paedo is caught and rightfully charged they should make the headlines, let the rest of us know what the sick fùck looks like and let him be publicly shamed.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I think paedophiles are alright, tbh. They get an unfairly bad rap.

WindSock

Samson Embarrassed Wattage wrote: »

I think paedophiles are alright, tbh. They get an unfairly bad rap.

prost reported 4 delibratelydildllyiddly going against the grain.

Jesus Wept

save the paedos.

WindSock

The-Rigger wrote: »

save the paedos.

I [heartshape] you and ur childishness.

mikemac

Duggy747 wrote: »

Everytime a paedo is caught and rightfully charged they should make the headlines, let the rest of us know what the sick fùck looks like and let him be publicly shamed.

How is he caught?
He is in court on charges, he may be completely innocent.

Wait for the verdict before you publicly shame him

Crasp

What is the legal definition of child porn anyway?

Age of consent in the country?

flat age of 18 like in the US?

mikemac

Don't know Crasp

If you start a thread in Legal forum they'll soon tell you
Very helpful over there

Shield

That's one of the most unfortunately things about pedophile charges. The person could be proved to be completely innocent without a shadow of doubt, but the general public will still see that person as a "pedo" because they were charged with the offence.

In my experience, the average person seems to think that being charged with an offence means that the person actually committed the offence in question!

Jesus Wept

WindSock wrote: »

I [heartshape] you and ur childishness.

I think you're neat.

Crasp wrote: »

What is the legal definition of child porn anyway?

Age of consent in the country?

flat age of 18 like in the US?

U.S doesn't have a standard age of consent, it's set at state level and varies between 16 to 18.
The most common being 16.

Shield

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 is dealing specifically with the matter of child pornography. It gives in the Section 2 ss(1) a definition of child pornography:

Child pornography means:

a) any visual representation that shows or in a case of a document, relates to person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity, that shows or in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child, any audio representration of a person who is or is being represented as a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activities,

b) any visual or audio representration that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

c) any visual representation or desciption of, or information related to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of Section 3, irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other mechanical means but does not include:

1. any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

2. any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1993, is in force, or

3. any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the video recording acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force.

Crasp wrote: »

What is the legal definition of child porn anyway?

ballsymchugh

psni wrote: »

That's one of the most unfortunately things about pedophile charges. The person could be proved to be completely innocent without a shadow of doubt, but the general public will still see that person as a "pedo" because they were charged with the offence.

In my experience, the average person seems to think that being charged with an offence means that the person actually committed the offence in question!

even worse is people attacking a paediatrician just because it sounds the same..:mad:

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

mikemac

psni wrote: »

That's one of the most unfortunately things about pedophile charges. The person could be proved to be completely innocent without a shadow of doubt, but the general public will still see that person as a "pedo" because they were charged with the offence.

In my experience, the average person seems to think that being charged with an offence means that the person actually committed the offence in question!

Happened our national school teacher years ago on charges less serious then this.
He was an outspoken man, rubbed people up the wrong way, so be it. In most every parish you have somebody on the parents council who is involved in everything, a real busybody. And himself and the principal soon had a feud going

So this parents daughter in 5th year said the principal would stand in the girl's changing rooms while they got changed for PE, very inappropriate.

Dept of Education got involved, if he lost he'd lose his pension and be sacked.
And in the end it turned out the girl was lying and saying what she thought her parents wanted to hear to help the feud. This wasn't even a serious charge compared to this thread

I believe nothing until a jury has decided and the judge gives a verdict.

I think the OP's post and thread title are fine

I think this is in bad taste

Duggy747 wrote: »

Everytime a paedo is caught and rightfully charged they should make the headlines, let the rest of us know what the sick fùck looks like and let him be publicly shamed.

Wait for the verdict, why are we discussing an on going case?

Shield

I think he probably meant "found guilty" or "convicted" instead of "rightfully charged"?

Anyway, this awful serious for AH? Isn't there supposed to be lolcats posted by now or something?

Crasp

feelingstressed wrote: »

Don't know Crasp

If you start a thread in Legal forum they'll soon tell you
Very helpful over there

I'm scared of lawyers

psni wrote: »

That's one of the most unfortunately things about pedophile charges. The person could be proved to be completely innocent without a shadow of doubt, but the general public will still see that person as a "pedo" because they were charged with the offence.

In my experience, the average person seems to think that being charged with an offence means that the person actually committed the offence in question!

Totally agree! I often read a headline and think "man charged with hit and run" or "gerneric offence X" and think to myself oh what a terrible man! Then I realise it just means they were arrested... could easily be a fake accusation or a case of mistaken identity or anything... An interesting topic.

The-Rigger wrote: »

I think you're neat.



U.S doesn't have a standard age of consent, it's set at state level and varies between 16 to 18.
The most common being 16.

wasn't asking about the age of consent, I was asking about the definition of child porn there which I believe is a federal law stating they must be over 18.

psni wrote: »

The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998 is dealing specifically with the matter of child pornography. It gives in the Section 2 ss(1) a definition of child pornography:

Child pornography means:

a) any visual representation that shows or in a case of a document, relates to person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity, that shows or in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child, any audio representration of a person who is or is being represented as a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activities,

b) any visual or audio representration that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

c) any visual representation or desciption of, or information related to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of Section 3, irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other mechanical means but does not include:

1. any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

2. any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1993, is in force, or

3. any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the video recording acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force.

Thanks for that! It still fails to define an age though? What is the legal definition of a child, I assume the under 18 rule applies...


Also worrying is the inclusion of "anyone depicted as a child" being illegal... so all those schoolgirl-type scenarios are deemed illegal?

Shield

Normal age of consent laws apply.

EDIT: The age of consent in the Vatican State doesn't do the catholic church any favours!

old_aussie

Maybe he's from a middle eastern country where they think 9 year old is the legal age and doesn't think he's done anything wrong.

Crasp

psni wrote: »

Normal age of consent laws apply.

EDIT: The age of consent in the Vatican State doesn't do the catholic church any favours!

Ok so one can safely assume that it's the age of consent of the country in which the images/documents are that determines a case of child pornography?

So let's suppose I am 18 going to Hungary on my leaving cert lads holiday and hook up with a 15 year old (perfectly legal according to that link). Images are consentually recorded. Upon my return to Ireland I could be done for possession child pornography?

Shield

Correct!

Crasp wrote: »

Ok so one can safely assume that it's the age of consent of the country in which the images/documents are that determines a case of child pornography?

So let's suppose I am 18 going to Hungary on my leaving cert lads holiday and hook up with a 15 year old (perfectly legal according to that link). Images are consentually recorded. Upon my return to Ireland I could be done for possession child pornography?

lods

Wait for the verdict, why are we discussing an on going case?

i felt it was very strange to be in the headlines. If the guy has just been charged why is that headline news , unless he is well known . Maybe i'm reading too much into it. If he's been charged surely he can be named? why all the secrecy

Caoimhín

Samson Embarrassed Wattage wrote: »

I think paedophiles are alright, tbh. They get an unfairly bad rap.

Agreed, sexy kids are the problem. :rolleyes: