Family and Friends Forum

Read my post under "false hope" in the discussion and support section.Also search for solicitors who specialise in this,They have some interesting information which the police and "others" will not tell you,including mitigating circumstances.

My understanding is that they press charges when they have enough evidence. So perhaps you are right that they could not prove viewing. But downloading is deemed a form of 'making' iioc and I think has a longer maximum penalty. Best to ask the solicitor since they will be provided info on the evidence found.

Unfortunately images dont need to be viewed to be classed as possession. If you have it there, even unopened, it's still there. Wording does not help eith as it can also be named as making or allowing images to be taken. It could be a file sent to someone but those in possession can be charged with making it. X

I have seen some posts say that people have downloaded porn and got random unknown attached files (like a virus). If this is the case then the law needs to reflect that there incidents of unintentional possession. Unless the police have a way to figure this out already. Either way it is shocking to think there are people out there placing these files on others devices!



I agree the wording of charges is strange. My partner downloaded files and the twit made a folder which could have been accessed elsewhere (like a sharing site) tho thankfully no one opened it. But his charge is making and distribution. But what bothers me is the term making. It implies he made raw material. They should chnage the wording to downloading (laws can be so out of touch).

"Their" definition is different to the dictionarydefinition.They have all the cards.

It is a catch all,heads they win,tails you lose.

Post deleted by user

Making is also used when images are forwarded on. If an image was on your file share network such as KIK it is said to be making or distributing. X

I asked someone in PPU what the difference was between making and possessing and they gave me a really good explanation of why making is different.



When you download or copy a file, a new file has come into existence. Whereas with a paper photograph you own it (posess), give it to someone else (you distribute and they now posess) and still only one photograph exists.



When you save an image from a webpage or something like that - the original file exists in one location and you now have a new file wherever you have saved it which means now there are two copies of that image which could then from there could potentially be copied again and again and again contributing to the further proliferation of that material and further victimisation of the child.



So I can see why there is a difference BUT the terminology desperately needs to be changed. When my ex-husband's case was in the media most recently and he had charges for making (the 4 previous times in court and the media was just for posession) I started getting messages from the world and his wife asking if my children are ok and angling at "did he abuse your kids" - so that upset me a lot because the kids have to grow up being side-eyed by our community enough for "your Dad's a pedo" without the things people are imagining happening.



It is the only time I have ever defended my ex. I basically replied "what he has done is deplorable and he has betrayed and ruined the lives of his family. I am relieved to say that our children weren't involved and police have confirmed he took no photos or videos of children himself but is charged with downloading (making a computer file) and posession so other children have suffered due to him which is awful"