Get sent things, get done. FRUSTRATED AT THE SYSTEM!!!
Notifications OFFMaking can constitute "receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group [...] Even if deleted "the evidence may show that they had knowingly “made” the image."
WHAT ARE YOU MEANT TO DO? HOW ARE GOOD PEOPLE'S LIVES RUINED?
On "knowingly"... my lawyer said the judges don't care. If they can attribute the images to you (the seized device being yours), that's all they care about. arghghhhhhhhhhhhh. head is spiraling if we picked the wrong lawyer...
...and people wonder why so many public figures are "wrongens." from my own experience, i can attest that it DOES take just somebody to send something to you for conviction to take place (let's not forget that they don't chase the senders :)))) )
Unfortunately this is how it is, and I don't think any lawyer could tell you otherwise :(.
It is so wrong, and needs to be examined.
It is so wrong, and needs to be examined.
We can easily say "they never chase the sender" but how do they find the consumer without first looking at the senders emails or all the participants in a group chat from the senders phone that opened images? I think they may have already arrested the sender and investigated them for distrubution. Also alot depends on how the image got onto a device in the first place, is it accessable or deleted?? if it can be proven it wasn't searched for or opened/looked at then they may have no case. Also deleted images should mean deleted so they should acknowlege that it wasn't wanted instead of turning people who didnt want to see it into criminals. But police will happily spend months trying to recover anything deleted just to get a conviction. They are now the ones "making" it.
Right? I do still wonder why nobody is screaming and kicking at the system....something needs to happen. As for us, I know they didn't chase the sender because they said they don't know who sent it........they literally can't be bothered to check because if you can tell where the image came from, are able to view the image, there's nothing stopping you from seeing who sent it. Also, in our case there was no search terms or anything. The arrest happened weirdly 48h after receiving the images which begs the question of whether this was a malicious tip but more importantly, my husband was kicking himself for not finding it and deleting it ....just to be told it wouldn't have changed anything. It's ridiculous to think that perhaps senders are in a different country that doesn't care about convicting those who send this things to people yet the police force in this country will happily bring about convictions for receipt of an unsolicited photo, label the person a 'sex offender' that 'made' images........I'm sorry I sound so angry but I recently found out we can't travel as a family to most countries we wanted to travel to and to think how unjust all of this is.... argh!
It is so wrong anyone could receive such an image and then be convicted, your natural reaction would be to delete such a picture. Also the wording should be changed the word 'making' makes people imagine the convicted person has actually taken the photo. I also think when teens are in receipt of such images those who sent the the image should be the one convicted not the young person who deserved protection from such things.
They can explain it how they want but i do think the term was coined purely for the sake of fearmongering...the sensational headlines and so on....and yes, I heard from therapists that she worked with kids as young as 14 who have been convicted for this kind of an offence....can you believe that?! poor kids!!! ... I'm speechless to how absurd this all is....if you said any of this to anyone not affected by this they'd go "yeah, right....whatever....you're lying, he's guilty"
Its sad to think that good innocent people end up with a criminal record just for reporting images which is actually not very helpful to the child in the image as it puts others off reporting them, therefore putting a child at risk of continued further harm, say if that child is being abused and nobody wants to report the images for the fear of being prosecuted.
The word making refers to making a copy of an existing image, which is what happens when an image is downloaded or viewed on a device. A copy is made in the cache allowing it to be viewed and a second copy is made in the gallery or downloads folder, if the person chooses the save option.
It came about because the original legislation was drafted in 1978 when images only existed as hard copy photos. Possession of a photo did not accurately cover what was going on with the internet, so the word making was used instead.
Those involved in the legal system all understand the difference, but the public do not.
It came about because the original legislation was drafted in 1978 when images only existed as hard copy photos. Possession of a photo did not accurately cover what was going on with the internet, so the word making was used instead.
Those involved in the legal system all understand the difference, but the public do not.
If is completely unfair that this can happen, however, in some cases, with a good enough lawyer (and funds) it can be proved that the recipient had no clue it was there and prove their innocence. I appreciate these situations are very few and far between though and that it doesn't work out tbis way for everyone.
I have posted my story on here a couple of times before, if you want to search it and have a look. A similar thing happened to my person, where pictured were saved into his cache and he had no clue they were there. We waited two years for trial, with a good lawyer and funds (that we are going to be paying back for a long time!), proved his innocence and he was found not guilty.
I come back on here occasionally, as it helped me massively during those two years of waiting and unknowns. Plus, I want to share our story because I tbink it is disgusting that innocent people can gst caught up in and want to show on some occasions (ableit probably only a few) that it can be fought.
I have posted my story on here a couple of times before, if you want to search it and have a look. A similar thing happened to my person, where pictured were saved into his cache and he had no clue they were there. We waited two years for trial, with a good lawyer and funds (that we are going to be paying back for a long time!), proved his innocence and he was found not guilty.
I come back on here occasionally, as it helped me massively during those two years of waiting and unknowns. Plus, I want to share our story because I tbink it is disgusting that innocent people can gst caught up in and want to show on some occasions (ableit probably only a few) that it can be fought.
Now I'm through this shit show my opinion is that my person was looking for stuff in the internet and whilst he wasn't looking for this specifically ( so he says ) he was looking for something more than your average porn. I also now think the whole I didn't know I had been sent a iioc is a cop out - they think it is a get out of jail free card.
Are they gullible? Or is it us?
Maybe I'm just a bit bitter and sceptical through my experience. We try and teach our kids that the internet can be a dangerous place but they don't take their own advice
Are they gullible? Or is it us?
Maybe I'm just a bit bitter and sceptical through my experience. We try and teach our kids that the internet can be a dangerous place but they don't take their own advice
I agree with AnxiousGirl. We're not in the early days of the internet anymore. It's not difficult to find legal porn of any genre. My opinion is that these men know they are looking for something at least on fringes of legality or they would not be in these dodgy chat groups in the first place.
