4 weeks in
Notifications OFF
hi
new to this forum but been reading all your posts. My knock was just under 4 weeks ago - husband released without charge and not bailed but “under investigation”. SS are involved and are saying it will go to Child Protection Conference, although the assigned social worker has still not met 3 of my kids, only 1 of them. The duty sw came initially and said that none of them said anything about any contact offending.
i am feeling very confused. Husband insists that he has not looked at illegal pornography. He has said he has looked at legal sites which clearly say the models are 18 or over but has not looked at others. The police say there got the tip off from Adobe from a pic in photoshop from a year ago. My husband says that yes he made a collage of legal porn on photoshop but all the pics are from legal websites. He says he has not searched for illegal images. The sheet I was given after police came said 1 image of child/ or pseudo image - anyone got experience of that?
we both phoned Lucy Faithfull and on advice he is seeing a forensic psychologist because he says that even tho it wasn’t illegal it was wrong - social worker says that shows he has a problem. Looks like a no win situation.
has anyone else had experience of being searched and then the stuff they find is legal?
new to this forum but been reading all your posts. My knock was just under 4 weeks ago - husband released without charge and not bailed but “under investigation”. SS are involved and are saying it will go to Child Protection Conference, although the assigned social worker has still not met 3 of my kids, only 1 of them. The duty sw came initially and said that none of them said anything about any contact offending.
i am feeling very confused. Husband insists that he has not looked at illegal pornography. He has said he has looked at legal sites which clearly say the models are 18 or over but has not looked at others. The police say there got the tip off from Adobe from a pic in photoshop from a year ago. My husband says that yes he made a collage of legal porn on photoshop but all the pics are from legal websites. He says he has not searched for illegal images. The sheet I was given after police came said 1 image of child/ or pseudo image - anyone got experience of that?
we both phoned Lucy Faithfull and on advice he is seeing a forensic psychologist because he says that even tho it wasn’t illegal it was wrong - social worker says that shows he has a problem. Looks like a no win situation.
has anyone else had experience of being searched and then the stuff they find is legal?
Hello Big Sigh,
sorry to hear of your predicament. I’m not going to give detailed advice but I found myself in a similar situation. In all honesty, as much and as well as you know your husband you’re not in his head. I tried hard to remain ‘neutral’ until the computer was forensically examined and I knew what my husband had done. The authorities do not work on an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ model. They work on a worse case scenario. Use the helpline for advice, you’ll not go far wrong with that. Just take baby steps and try to deal with what’s in front of you on that day. You may be asked to take measures to protect children in your family based on the worst case scenario. I’d do what’s asked if you.
If your husband is charged I’d strongly recommend your husbands legal team request an independent examination of the computer with a separate forensic expert. Once the forensic report has come back from the police always, always get the copy disc assessed by your own experts instructed by your husbands legal team. I’m not saying this to defend any person but just so you get a balanced picture of what’s gone on. The results of forensic examinations will have huge repercussions for you and your family, it’s important the forensic results are accurately assessed and agreed between the Police and your Husbands forensic examiner. You’ll need to make an informed choice about your decisions going forward. All the best, either way you’ll need to know the truth which will come out in the end.
sorry to hear of your predicament. I’m not going to give detailed advice but I found myself in a similar situation. In all honesty, as much and as well as you know your husband you’re not in his head. I tried hard to remain ‘neutral’ until the computer was forensically examined and I knew what my husband had done. The authorities do not work on an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ model. They work on a worse case scenario. Use the helpline for advice, you’ll not go far wrong with that. Just take baby steps and try to deal with what’s in front of you on that day. You may be asked to take measures to protect children in your family based on the worst case scenario. I’d do what’s asked if you.
If your husband is charged I’d strongly recommend your husbands legal team request an independent examination of the computer with a separate forensic expert. Once the forensic report has come back from the police always, always get the copy disc assessed by your own experts instructed by your husbands legal team. I’m not saying this to defend any person but just so you get a balanced picture of what’s gone on. The results of forensic examinations will have huge repercussions for you and your family, it’s important the forensic results are accurately assessed and agreed between the Police and your Husbands forensic examiner. You’ll need to make an informed choice about your decisions going forward. All the best, either way you’ll need to know the truth which will come out in the end.
Oh and there’s descriptions on the LF website on categories etc A pseudo photo (image) is basically a photoshopped image of say a child’s head and a woman’s body for example. But the sheet from the police may change several times before this is concluded.
Thanks so much for that. Have you had experience of using independent forensic experts then?
in terms of SS, yes I understand their view of worst case scenario, though I am struggling with the lack of evidence of a causal link between looking at indecent images and then being a risk. If a man looks at heterosexual pornography does that mean he is a risk to women? I won’t argue that point to SS though as I know it will make me look defensive and that I can’t protect my kids.
in terms of SS, yes I understand their view of worst case scenario, though I am struggling with the lack of evidence of a causal link between looking at indecent images and then being a risk. If a man looks at heterosexual pornography does that mean he is a risk to women? I won’t argue that point to SS though as I know it will make me look defensive and that I can’t protect my kids.
Yes my husbands legal team instructed an independent forensic examiner, their assessment was very, very different to the Police. I can’t recommend anyone on this forum, it wouldn’t be the right place and may identify me. My husband had a good solicitor who was balanced and a strong, very experienced Barrister. It may not come to charge but I would strongly recommend this second look.
As for the links between risk from looking at illegal images to harming a child I think it’s best to chat to someone on the helpline, it’s a complex topic which is better discussed one to one.
Unfortunately looking at adult images only does not protect you from getting child images on your computer and it can link to knowingly looking at more and more dodgy stuff. All via google, all via legal ‘adult’ websites claiming to be certified as using over 18s only. No one should rely on this any longer as protection from this type of allegation. I think the general public, if they could listen calmly instead of frothing from the mouth, would be shocked by this.
If he’s been looking at adult pornography there’s no telling what type of crap is on his computer. They have to find an action which evidences a knowing act or search. Get good legal advice.
As for the links between risk from looking at illegal images to harming a child I think it’s best to chat to someone on the helpline, it’s a complex topic which is better discussed one to one.
Unfortunately looking at adult images only does not protect you from getting child images on your computer and it can link to knowingly looking at more and more dodgy stuff. All via google, all via legal ‘adult’ websites claiming to be certified as using over 18s only. No one should rely on this any longer as protection from this type of allegation. I think the general public, if they could listen calmly instead of frothing from the mouth, would be shocked by this.
If he’s been looking at adult pornography there’s no telling what type of crap is on his computer. They have to find an action which evidences a knowing act or search. Get good legal advice.
Jaded, your response was so helpful. It does sound like we are in very similar positions and so I am expecting it to be a long, drawn out process.
I went to see a solicitor about the child protection stuff, which was helpful and she will act as my advocate or supporter at any child protection conference. I understand their concerns but just want any protective actions to be proportionate to the risk. On another forum somebody made a comparison with having a dog. You trust your dog with children otherwise you wouldn’t have him in the house. However you accept he is a dog and therefore make sure the children know not to mess with him when he’s eating, pull his tail, tease him, etc. I’m not comparing my husband to a dog (!) but I can accept that there may be a risk so will put in proportionate safeguards.
my husband has a solicitor who has experience in this field, though stupidly didn’t have a solicitor with him when questioned by police because he didn’t think he had done anything illegal.
thanks for the information and support x
I went to see a solicitor about the child protection stuff, which was helpful and she will act as my advocate or supporter at any child protection conference. I understand their concerns but just want any protective actions to be proportionate to the risk. On another forum somebody made a comparison with having a dog. You trust your dog with children otherwise you wouldn’t have him in the house. However you accept he is a dog and therefore make sure the children know not to mess with him when he’s eating, pull his tail, tease him, etc. I’m not comparing my husband to a dog (!) but I can accept that there may be a risk so will put in proportionate safeguards.
my husband has a solicitor who has experience in this field, though stupidly didn’t have a solicitor with him when questioned by police because he didn’t think he had done anything illegal.
thanks for the information and support x
Yup mine too, actually interviewed twice without solicitor present because he thought it was all a big mistake and they could sort it out and everything could get back to normal! As he left the house the last thing I said was to make sure he had a solicitor for any interview (I have some experience in this field) Every soap we’ve ever watched where the character didn’t have a solicitor present we’ve shouted at the telly. Did he think like that when it happened to him....no! Very naive.
I notice you’ve used the term ‘child porn’ in another thread. Avoid that terminology if you can. It always conjures up horrific images when the images in question may not involve sex of any kind. It’s ‘indecent images’ which can include images of clothed/partially clothed children too. This is the trouble for the general public, all the horrific category a images get lumped in with category c (equally as wrong, don’t get me wrong) but they are very different in content, otherwise they wouldn’t be categorised differently. The police may also include some they consider ‘inappropriate’, that term has no legal basis whatsoever.
As part of the defence the legal team had prepared files of similar images found on my husbands computer taken from everyday social media. These images had been reported but the social media giants disagreed with the images even breaching their standards let alone being illegal, similarly with the Internet Watch Foundation. Listen very carefully to what the Police say, the words that are used and make sure the legal team do their job properly. If your husband has knowingly done something they’ll find the evidence for that. You’ll need a plan b if this is the outcome, it may not be what you’d hoped for.
I also noticed you say most men deny it at the outset. I think you’d be surprised at how many men immediately confess, at point of arrest or shortly after. Just take stuff a step at a time.
I think you’re being very sensible in preparing a family solicitor, as you say so this can be a proportionate response.
Try to keep strong. My thoughts are with you.
I notice you’ve used the term ‘child porn’ in another thread. Avoid that terminology if you can. It always conjures up horrific images when the images in question may not involve sex of any kind. It’s ‘indecent images’ which can include images of clothed/partially clothed children too. This is the trouble for the general public, all the horrific category a images get lumped in with category c (equally as wrong, don’t get me wrong) but they are very different in content, otherwise they wouldn’t be categorised differently. The police may also include some they consider ‘inappropriate’, that term has no legal basis whatsoever.
As part of the defence the legal team had prepared files of similar images found on my husbands computer taken from everyday social media. These images had been reported but the social media giants disagreed with the images even breaching their standards let alone being illegal, similarly with the Internet Watch Foundation. Listen very carefully to what the Police say, the words that are used and make sure the legal team do their job properly. If your husband has knowingly done something they’ll find the evidence for that. You’ll need a plan b if this is the outcome, it may not be what you’d hoped for.
I also noticed you say most men deny it at the outset. I think you’d be surprised at how many men immediately confess, at point of arrest or shortly after. Just take stuff a step at a time.
I think you’re being very sensible in preparing a family solicitor, as you say so this can be a proportionate response.
Try to keep strong. My thoughts are with you.
Oh Jaded, your advice is so sensible and helpful. At a time when everything is so confusing your words appear so level headed and are helping me navigate this next bit. You’re right about the terminology I use. I am trying to read up on it all - some of it has made stop and think and process. For example, I had no idea it was illegal to have images of clothed under 18s (why would I have even thought about it before I suppose?) but then I think how strange that is because then wouldn’t it be illegal to have the Next catalogue at home? I’m not saying any of it is right or healthy, but I just didn’t know it was illegal. The internet has made things very strange.
It’s not something anyone knows before they’re caught up in the nightmare. I worked in social work and I didn’t know, I’ve had my eyes opened wide into all of this. I’m not going to say much more because I can get very critical of the authorities who sometimes hold their own pitchforks. Especially when they want to get rid of you. Any and everything is seen through the eyes of illegal images, every behaviour, every action can be made to sound sleezy, especially online pornographic use. I’ve been forced to look at adult (legal) sites and whilst most is banal and frankly boring some titles could be read as inappropriate, my advice to anyone is to stay away from online porn!
As far as pictures of children from the next catalogue that’s unlikely. It depends on the context of images, the search terms around those images, are they catalogued in weird ways, are they sourced from legal websites that Police have concerns about....the list goes on. They’ll look at how images were deleted etc.
As far as pictures of children from the next catalogue that’s unlikely. It depends on the context of images, the search terms around those images, are they catalogued in weird ways, are they sourced from legal websites that Police have concerns about....the list goes on. They’ll look at how images were deleted etc.
Hi poster. The term paedophile is bandied about by all sorts of barely knowledgable practitioners and ignorant members of the public. It’s a very serious label to attach to someone with horrific consequences. That’s why I argue that the term is a protected one by law and should only be used to describe someone after a clear diagnostic assessment.
Theres lots of other words and phrases used in this topic area which grinds my gears! Of course as soon as you start challenging those words you’re labelled as being in denial, a pedo lover or excusing the behaviour. Perhaps one day we can have a grown up, rational conversation without everyone going into hysterics, including professionals.
Theres lots of other words and phrases used in this topic area which grinds my gears! Of course as soon as you start challenging those words you’re labelled as being in denial, a pedo lover or excusing the behaviour. Perhaps one day we can have a grown up, rational conversation without everyone going into hysterics, including professionals.