To wonder how people can be so utterly deluded and stupid re child sex offenders?

[LoverOfCake]

Piece on Jeremy Vine earlier about a guide dog owner who has been convicted of downloading child images. Many people called in to say the dog should be removed, etc etc etc. And then this woman called in to say that people need to not be so quick to jump to conclusions, how things are so often not what they seem, and how she has a friend who has just been convicted of the same thing and he is completely innocent, has no idea how the images got on to his computer but he obviously didn't download and don't people realise that you can just inadvertently end up with images being downloaded in this way? Oh but he's had to plead guilty because he can't afford to defend himself.

Honestly I wanted to slap her.

How do people get drawn in like this? How?

[donquixotedelamancha]

"people who think you can't download something by accident are ignorant about how technology works."

I'm not sure you have a strong basis for claiming those who disagree with you are ignorant:

"If you dig around the Windows directory you will find evidence of sites you visited weeks or months ago"

The 'windows directory' is just an old name for the folders on your computer. Images are indeed automatically downloaded to your browser's (hidden) cache folder, but it only has a certain size. You would only have images of abuse if you've been looking at them fairly recently. Most people 'accidentally' on one of these sites would not click on further links and get multiple images.

"A pop-up ad, a hacked web page that bounces you somewhere else, a virus, some sicko emailing a child abuse image to a random stranger"

I've never heard of malware, adverts or phishing attacks that install images of abuse- what would the motivation be? I can only imagine this being a specialist hack to target and discredit an individual- pretty rare stuff.

"anyone could be a victim of these things"
As PPs have said- child abusers go to great lengths to hide. I've never read of an abuse site that doesn't require some kind of specialist software like TOR to access. I have read of a case where someone had a small number of images and has not been prosecuted- just bailed and monitored. Presumably they gave the 'accidental' defence and were considered lower risk.

TL;DR: It's theoretically possible to receive images of child abuse by mistake, but vanishingly unlikely. I think it's safe to assume anyone convicted is a paedophile.

[CherryChasingDotMuncher]

Agree with HerOtherHalf - that was a case that made the news because its unique, it’s in no way representative of your average indecent images case. People need to stop perpetuating crappy harmful myths.

And no one is on the SOR for life for pissing in public. Or touching someone’s knee.

[LaurieFairyCake]

It’s unfortunately easy to find abusive images of children. Dd had some appear on her Facebook ten years ago. I had to report and then talk to SS (she was fostered).

People who search for them then download and keep them in an accessible folder and the footprint of viewings is recorded. That is quite different than ones that are just in the registry.

It’s very easy to tell the difference with the above.

[HerOtherHalf]

There's always someone who drags up some bizarre, isolated example and tries to suggest it throws every conviction into doubt. What's your next trick? To present one of the rare instances of a woman being convicted of false rape allegations as an argument that all rapists are innocent? Have a heart-felt fuck off.

[ReanimatedSGB]

Well there was the 'tiger porn' case, which got as far as court with the usual tabloid hysteria.
The film clip in question featured no actual animals, but a bloke in a tiger costume who turned to the camera at the end and said something like 'Beats advertising breakfast cereal.'
Apparently nobody had bothered to watch it before the case was brought.

[TheFirstMrsDV]

I used to be on Mums Advice facebook page. This issue came up quite regularly.
Someone would post a question about a partner being on the SOR and she would get a flurry of responses telling her that they knew a bloke on the SOR for peeing in public.
They were adamant it was true. No it couldn't be anything else. He took a pee on the street and was now on SOR for life.
That myth is rife which means there are many people deluded enough to believe it.

[reallyanotherone]

I was on twitter once and came across an image of csa.

I reported it straight away, but it was there clearly for everyone to see.

But should there be an investigation, it would be a single image, which I reported to twitter immediately.

Have to say i did dither for a millisecond in an “if i report it, will i be flagged for viewing csa?” In hindsight i should have reported it to the police too.

[questionbasket]

Birds of a feather flock together.

[Doobigetta]

That's a good idea, HerOtherHalf.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that anyone is in possession of images like this innocently because someone else maliciously sent them. I'm sure that happens, but you'd call the police, wouldn't you? You'd want to dissociate yourself immediately, and you'd want the sick fuck who sent them caught, stopped and punished.

[CherryChasingDotMuncher]

Wherever there’s a sex offender, There’s an army of naive/stupid family and friends ready to defend their corner and call their victim a liar. Very few people lie about being raped or sexually assaulted, but that doesn’t matter, this guy their friend is innocent because they just know him.

I started a similar thread last year about why people are so desperate to defend sex offenders and the replies were utterly depressing.

[Splinterz]

I prefer the public lynching after the conviction. Gum slapping gossips are dangerous notwithstanding they are never in possession of any facts

[HerOtherHalf]

So sorry that happened to you WhiskyQueen.

You got me thinking though. A quick Google shows a multitude of sites offering "teen porn" videos so it's sadly a popular and well catered for genre. Now technically some teens are old enough to be legal but how can one be sure? How can a viewer be sure an actor is 18/19 and not 15/16/17 (aside from the fact the thought of grown adults wanting to watch even 18-year-olds in porn makes me cringe). Maybe it's time the law brought in something akin to the "think 25" policy that so many alcohol retailers comply with and apply it to porn sites.

[MrsHathaway]

whiskey

[brasty]

Yes if it had been downloaded by accident through innocent sites, the evidence would show that. If however he had googled, child rape images, the evidence would show that. You can also see bounce rates i.e. if you accidentally click on a link and a site opens and you leave it asap, that shows. As opposed to someone looking through a site for an hour.

[Whiskeyqueen]

Just feel the need to say the videos of me being abused from the ages of 12-14 were uploaded to redtube, pornhub etc and had thousands of views.
The title of the videos said 'teen' so someone could of innocently clicked on it.
Obviously there is a massive difference between someone downloading hundreds of the worst category stuff to a few random videos but just thought I'd throw that out there..
Completely agree that the woman who rang in is a fool and hopefully doesn't have children who this 'friend' can be in contact with

[HerOtherHalf]

I'm sure there are a number of ways child porn can end up on someone's computer without their knowledge. However, I'm also sure the police, the CPS and the IT forensic experts they use aren't complete idiots who just go "oh look, kiddy porn images, case closed". He's been found guilty in a court of law. His defence had the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. He's guilty and people should accept the verdict unless they're at least prepared to read large chunks of the transcripts.

[ChelleDawg2020]

Every image on every web page you visit downloads onto your computer. If you dig around the Windows directory you will find evidence of sites you visited weeks or months ago.

I don't know the details of this case and I'm not defending anyone who seeks and downloads child porn (obviously!). But people who think you can't download something by accident are ignorant about how technology works. A pop-up ad, a hacked web page that bounces you somewhere else, a virus, some sicko emailing a child abuse image to a random stranger - anyone could be a victim of these things, the recipient/victim has no control over them. The victim is immediately in possession of the image, has downloaded the image and indeed has "created" the image by the fact their computer has generated a copy.

But yes they should definitely take the dog away, and his computer too.

[LoverOfCake]

brasty it's believed that the dog has been used in the past to befriend children, as well as the belief that he may be subject to vigilante attacks which may put the dog at risk. Added to which he is currently serving a suspended sentence for downloading child images....

I suppose that in the future he may be eligible to re-apply for another dog, but if his current dog is at risk in any way then it should be removed.

[EnthusiasmIsDisturbed]

I am not sure I do bratsy

He may not mistreat the dog obviously if he does it should be taken away

And if he isn’t able to look after himself and isn’t in prison that will just mean he will have carers and that will cost far more money

[rizlett]

*I'm not sure if there would be any filter for inappropriate material.

[MrsHathaway]

Competent defence ensures the conviction stands up to scrutiny.

One has to wonder why he bothered downloading images if he couldn't tell whether the subjects were 3 or 23 I mean, most people prefer at least a little detail.

By the way, I'm heartened by the use of the correct phrasing on this thread ("images of child abuse") vastly outweighing the incorrect and minimising "child porn". Thank you, everyone.

[rizlett]

It's extremely rare to have total blindness - most guide dog owners have a partial sight impairment for example tunnel vision.

I'm also aware there are software packages available that describe computer images. [though I'm not sure if there would be any kind of inappropriate material.]

[brasty]

As long as the dog is safe, I don't agree that the dog should be removed.

[mustbemad17]

Blind people spend years on the waiting list for a guide dog. He could do without. Scumbag.

I thought that there was still legal aid for criminal cases in this country? Which means that he would have been given a solicitor at tax payers' cost to defend himself. So that is a pretty piss poor excuse

[PurpleDaisies]

It’s really very unlikely that someone would happen upon abusive images of children.

This.