Family and Friends Forum

Charges update

Notifications OFF

Blackhound

Member since
October 2020

479 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 9:00amReport post

So it's in...

X1 B - Making (Possession)

X1 C Making (Possession)

X1 C Making (Possession) but a different date

Am I to understand this means there's three charges for 3 photos...

It literally says X1 C, X1 B and X1 C but this C is a different date.

Are we really going to court for 3 Images...

Blackhound

Member since
October 2020

479 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 9:22amReport post

Thanks Lee l...

So it's downloads yes but I've been reading the difference between Making as In actually taking a photo of an U18 and making as in download, to have in your possession... They're two vastly different ones as we know...

3 images is absolutely absurd not to deal with through a caution... Genuinely it's a waste of tax payers money....

BaffledB

Member since
July 2021

876 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 9:43amReport post

Hey Blackhound,

Well that is good news I guess because it's so minimal. Is the solicitor questioning the images too? It may be cut and dry that they are what they are and it is what it is but there are occasions on here where the amount of images has been reduced after further scrutiny for different reasons. Xx

Blackhound

Member since
October 2020

479 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 10:14amReport post

Haven't spoken to his solicitor just yet Baffled .. But actually that's a really good idea, to question the images so thank you so much...

Honestly my partner was drunk during the times when the incidents happened, in the middle of an undiagnosed depression, ADHD Autism and anxiety period... So I am not surprised he doesn't remember... Meaning I though it was going to be about 130 As he originally spoke about.

So the idea that it's 3 Infuriates me further to think that it's worth going to court over...

I'll ensure he asks the solicitor about questioning the images and again even further pushing for a Caution.

My partners 3 Images should not be another notch added to the CPS and police belt.

The court should not be wasting time and tax payers money to deal with something that should be a caution

Daffodil

Member since
March 2022

965 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 10:30amReport post

Post deleted


Edited Tue October 24, 2023 9:12am

Blackhound

Member since
October 2020

479 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 11:10amReport post

Thanks Lee

Im gonna request to be on the phone when he speaks to the solicitor... I really think this needs to be challenged... It's not in the public interest ...

It's totally ridiculous that the word making means two different things... You're right the media loves to sensationalise these instances just for a story...

It's causing a massive relapse for my husband and his drink regulation which means the strains on our relationship are intensified... It's causing a big rift and strain for me as I am inundated everywhere I turn with no break.

I

Bitterbean

Member since
December 2021

635 posts

Posted Fri April 29, 2022 6:31pmReport post

It would be interesting to know what constituted "making" in the days before the Internet and downloading was possible. Was it a term used for people making copies of existing photographs from a negative? Or copying a video? Or making a photocopy?

I expect it's origins come from the fact that if you possess a digital image it's very easy to "make" perfect/high quality copies of the image, which would be more difficult with a traditional photograph. And they can be much more easily shared or "distributed" , although of course that's yet another, separate offence.

I would hate to think it might be being used by the police as an extra offence so they can count "making" and "possessing" as two offences they arrested and charged someone for rather than oneand keep their statistics up