*Warning: Disturbing/NSFW* Conflicted, upsetting. Maybe it's someone else, but I don't think so.

wakey

Aspirant
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
14
Again, usually nowhere in the EU the police goes after people who download something. They go after people who do at least distribution of it. Someone tipped the police, the police must have had an important reason to have a search warrant from the court. You can't get just like that a search warrant just because someone said on the telephone "he has porn". This is serious stuff and they have to have a good reason to go after people, specially for child pornography.
You have mentioned this point a few times but it's not relevant. The police don’t go after downloaders of non-illegal content because the crime they are committing is copyright infringement which is a civil offence not a criminal one. It carries no jail time, just a monetary fine for damage that largely isn't enough to justify the time and expense of taking it to court. This case will have been a criminal case as the offence is a crime and it carries jail time. That makes it something that will be pursed becuase the goal isn’t to gain money.

Also many people who download also distribute without being fully aware. P2P file sharing services like Torrents rely on the users downloading content to also upload that same content

I wouldn’t be surprised if the content copyright holders were the ones who tipped the police off. They track people illegally downloading which is why you might get a warning from your ISP as they pass that info on and the ISP's are required to contact you and warn you. As a civil case isn’t really viable if you know the downloaders are in a country where that content is illegal it’s a good way of getting ride of pirates
 
Last edited:

Morgin

Aspirant
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
17
The whole “my lawyer said not to explain that it was just cartoons because it doesn’t matter and also it’s a gateway to real crime and I’m now woke to that” is a pretty weak explanation. Any lawyer with any basic experience in criminal law will understand the importance of presenting the distinction between the severity of images especially in the context of sentencing. It’s disheartening this thread has devolved into an argument over the nuances in some obscure law. Look at the big picture - this guy is claiming the supposed pertinent factor in why so many of you are not as upset about this (cartoons, not real) wasn’t even brought up in court due to some belief it wouldn’t matter. AND THAT HE WAS OK WITH THAT. Come on now.
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,373
The whole “my lawyer said not to explain that it was just cartoons because it doesn’t matter and also it’s a gateway to real crime and I’m now woke to that” is a pretty weak explanation. Any lawyer with any basic experience in criminal law will understand the importance of presenting the distinction between the severity of images especially in the context of sentencing. It’s disheartening this thread has devolved into an argument over the nuances in some obscure law. Look at the big picture - this guy is claiming the supposed pertinent factor in why so many of you are not as upset about this (cartoons, not real) wasn’t even brought up in court due to some belief it wouldn’t matter. AND THAT HE WAS OK WITH THAT. Come on now.
Again for the law in the UK there is no distinction between cartoon and real photo's this has been said a few time now.
 

BirdOPrey5

#Awesome
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
4,217
And yet the prosecutors referred to "pictures of extreme pornography"
.... And we all know prosecutors are well known for being fair and balanced?

If he is misrepresenting the facts of the case he may well be in violation of his probation. Anyone who believes he is lying should be trying to get a copy of his post here to the prosecutor.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,977
There's still a lot of misinterpretation, conjecture and cherry picking going on in this thread when the facts which have not been disputed by Hannisdal speak for themselves.

The court reporter states Hannisdal pleaded guilty to having illegal pictures of children ranging from category A (the most serious) to category C. These comprised of 170 still pictures, 50 moving and 163 images depicting depicting sexual activity involving people and animals.

In sentencing the Judge placed Hannisdal on the Sex Offenders' Register for three years and he may not have unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16. This and the other restrictions stated elsewhere in this thread form part of a Community Pay Back Order with supervision for three years as a direct alternative to custody.

In my view and in law it's irrelevant whether the images were 'Hentai' or not. I'd argue any adult who wishes to view still and moving images of children being violated by sadism or animals (category A) presents a potential danger to society and children in particular. In addition Hannisdal has been economical with the details of his sentence in this thread which makes me question his sincerity.
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,373
What he also did out of his own is activate the option from the ISP to block adult content sites, to protect him and his customers that run adult sites.
 

Featherwing

Neophyte
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
6
What he also did out of his own is activate the option from the ISP to block adult content sites, to protect him and his customers that run adult sites.
Mhm, a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has made a run for it. Or turning off the kitchen tap when half the house is underwater.
 

voodoochill

Aspirant
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
26
Mhm, a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has made a run for it. Or turning off the kitchen tap when half the house is underwater.
Or just something for the pedophile to protect himself, it does practically zero to protect the children or the animals
 

Ummagumma

Adherent
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
477
Guys, I will say this....
I have probably had more dealings with paedophilia and sexual abuse than most of you have. (Thankfully, maybe not..).
To that I will say that escaping custodial sentence is very, very, very rare given the nature of the crime(s).
So this makes me wonder;
What scale of the images were they? (Cat A aye, but in which context and cat a bestial or young?)
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time.
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time - but to be given non-custodial means they have a serious reason as to not serve time. Sorry, losing a loved one is not one of them - so what have they got which is so life devastating they cannot do time?
Some of the whole thing stinks to me.
You don't get caught, as a group, with child sexual abuse, esp with cat A. imagery, and all walk fekin free......
Unless the QC is high on meth...
Not unlike us, considering Brexit. :D
 

MMA-San

Aspirant
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
19
Guys, I will say this....
I have probably had more dealings with paedophilia and sexual abuse than most of you have. (Thankfully, maybe not..).
To that I will say that escaping custodial sentence is very, very, very rare given the nature of the crime(s).
So this makes me wonder;
What scale of the images were they? (Cat A aye, but in which context and cat a bestial or young?)
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time.
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time - but to be given non-custodial means they have a serious reason as to not serve time. Sorry, losing a loved one is not one of them - so what have they got which is so life devastating they cannot do time?
Some of the whole thing stinks to me.
You don't get caught, as a group, with child sexual abuse, esp with cat A. imagery, and all walk fekin free......
Unless the QC is high on meth...
Not unlike us, considering Brexit. :D
Huh?
 

Paul M

Limeade Addict
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,858
Someone was high in that post, not sure it was the QC though. :)
 

rastaX

Aspirant
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
16
Hoo-wee. Talk about a hot-button topic!
I've read the whole thread and I'm pretty sure the one thing everyone agrees on is child porn is abhorrent. I can't blame anyone for getting upset but what a well behaved discussion this has been.
The point I'd like to make is this;
If (and that's a humongous if) he was genuinely brought up on charges solely for anime, to me, this raises a lot of issues. The Japanese are, well, different. Very different. If he had thousands of anime files on his computer and they cherry picked those they deemed to be pornographic, that's a little more disturbing than if the offending files represented his entire collection. How could you assign a definitive age to a cartoon character? Certainly children can be accurately depicted, but what about a character dressed in a schoolgirl outfit? Beastiality is horrible to be sure. But what constitutes an animal? Tentacle porn is weird, but is it beastiality?
I know the intent of the law is to protect children and that's a really good thing. But I don't find anime to be as cut and dried as photographic depictions.
I certainly find a lot of anime to be weird to the point of disturbing, to be sure. But I also find a lot of popular culture to be so. The "Saw" movies come to mind.
I'm not wanting to weigh in on whether I accept this explanation it doesn't matter. The accusation of child pornography has most likely destroyed all involved as well as their business. Which is why the inclusion of non-photographic images is problematic for me. I doubt a true pedophile would have only anime. (I could be wrong)
Everyone's got a couple pennies in their pocket, this was my 2 cents worth....
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,977
How could you assign a definitive age to a cartoon character?
The answer to that is you don't need to. The people whose job it is to assess and legally categorise such images are not looking for pictures of people that may or may not be under age. They are looking for pictures that are obviously children, real or in this case cartoon apparently.
 

BirdOPrey5

#Awesome
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
4,217
The answer to that is you don't need to. The people whose job it is to assess and legally categorise such images are not looking for pictures of people that may or may not be under age. They are looking for pictures that are obviously children, real or in this case cartoon apparently.
Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,977
Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

I wasn't aware that you'd already posed the question but since you have I'd ask in return how is that relevant? The images under discussion in this thread have been categorised as the most offensive pornographic images depicting children available. For all we know those children may have been less than a year old.
 

BirdOPrey5

#Awesome
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
4,217
I wasn't aware that you'd already posed the question but since you have I'd ask in return how is that relevant? The images under discussion in this thread have been categorised as the most offensive pornographic images depicting children available. For all we know those children may have been less than a year old.
According to the law it could be depicting cartoon children. So again, how does one determine whether a cartoon is a child? As an example I post Smurfette. Is she a child? Is she an adult? Would it be illegal in Scotland to draw her having sex with someone?
 
Top