Anger As Paedophile Demands Victim Photos - WTF

[macmilm]

A paedophile is allowed to have intimate photos of a young girl he abused because the police will not erase them from his confiscated laptop before they return it to him.



The man was jailed for nine years in 2013 after admitting a number of sex offences including assaulting a child under the age of 13.

He has formally asked for a laptop and a mobile telephone to be handed back, according to human rights campaigner Liberty, which is representing the victim and her family.

Photos of the victim dressed in swimwear and leotards are on the computer, but Dorset Police say they cannot delete them because they are not legally classified as indecent or prohibited.

Consequently, the man, who is in his 50s and cannot be named for legal reasons, will still have access to a large number of personal photos of one girl when he is freed.

The victim's mother said: "I am appalled that the man who abused my child can ask the police to hand over our family photos for him to keep for the rest of his life.

"My daughters struggle every day with the devastating consequences of his abuse and this will only make them feel more humiliated and degraded. Why should we continue to be traumatised further?"

Liberty is arguing the return of the laptop and phone would breach articles three and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect against inhuman treatment and invasion of privacy respectively.

In a letter to Dorset Police, the human rights group said the prospect of having the photos returned to the abuser would cause "a significant amount of distress".

The group warns it would be a "an enormous violation" of dignity and personal integrity if the pictures were handed back.

The abuse of the young girl had caused the victim to suffer "enormous psychological harm" and she eats very little, self-harms frequently and is at risk of suicide.

Rosie Brighouse, legal officer at Liberty, said: "Not until the Human Rights Act could victims assert their rights in the British Courts - and Liberty is more than ready to do that on behalf of this family."

In response, Dorset Police said its "present options" were limited as the legislation used to seize the phone and computer required officers to give the owner back his property.

"Furthermore it would be unlawful for police officers to alter the computer and phone's memories by removing the disputed photographs before returning them," the force added.

Source: http://news.sky.com/story/1240830/an...-victim-photos

What the fuck indeed !

[Goldberg]

My issue with this story.

The man, who is in his 50's can not be named for legal reasons.. So, he is a convicted Paedophile and he is protected? What I do not understand here is that more often than not people are guilty until proven innocent with their names dragged up and printed in the papers, families harassed and regardless of the outcome they are always 'guilty' because the papers wanted them to be. This is often the case in any crime and not one of a sensitive nature such as this, but is.

So, my gripe here is how come this man has not had to endure this?? What is so special about him?

[tombott]

Lots that we are not being told here.
How did he come by the photo's in the first place? My view is that he is a family member, hence the lack of a name.

[Bald Bouncer]

My issue with this story.

The man, who is in his 50's can not be named for legal reasons.. So, he is a convicted Paedophile and he is protected? What I do not understand here is that more often than not people are guilty until proven innocent with their names dragged up and printed in the papers, families harassed and regardless of the outcome they are always 'guilty' because the papers wanted them to be. This is often the case in any crime and not one of a sensitive nature such as this, but is.

So, my gripe here is how come this man has not had to endure this?? What is so special about him?

Simple he is obviously the father/partner of the mother and they don't name them if it could identify the victim, surprised that is the issue you picked as this story leaves you with more questions than answers like why if he was jailed in 2013 for 9 years he is asking for the laptop from prison, why when I could come up with several legal reasons for them not to return it are the police being wankers about it etc etc

[Goldberg]

Simple he is obviously the father/partner of the mother and they don't name them if it could identify the victim, surprised that is the issue you picked as this story leaves you with more questions than answers like why if he was jailed in 2013 for 9 years he is asking for the laptop from prison, why when I could come up with several legal reasons for them not to return it are the police being wankers about it etc etc

I was going to list a few with that as one of the.
Plenty of questions but I feel a lot of them are a waste of time as the story is obviously constructed from scraps of what is available and any stipulating would result in him suing the press.

But the point about the inconsistency remains. Some cases we know everything about the accused (even when they are innocent) and others it is all secretive.

[Bald Bouncer]

But the point about the inconsistency remains. Some cases we know everything about the accused (even when they are innocent) and others it is all secretive.

That bit is simple when they don't name the accused it is because it could identify the victim

[neilb]

Some of the story still doesn't make sense, he certainly can't have the phone handed back to him personally if he is still inside.

[Goldberg]

That bit is simple when they don't name the accused it is because it could identify the victim

Understood, but why does it have to become a story in the news which will then inevitably result in people wanting to go on a witch hunt to find this info out.

[evilsatan]

The title is a bit misleading, should read 'Anger as Police refuse to destroy victim photos from a paedophi1es laptop'.

[Bald Bouncer]

Understood, but why does it have to become a story in the news which will then inevitably result in people wanting to go on a witch hunt to find this info out.

Well that's the way the news works and if he is named the main stream media will look to see if action is taken against the person who named them or point towards the source of the name in the name of news ie: several people have named this man on twitter.

[Goldberg]

several people have named this man on twitter.

Is that not a criminal offence? These people are likely to be charged as a result. I know it happened in the Ian Watkins case where some twitter folk named the women involved and got punished as a result.

[Bald Bouncer]

Is that not a criminal offence? These people are likely to be charged as a result. I know it happened in the Ian Watkins case where some twitter folk named the women involved and got punished as a result.

Of course but why would the press be concerned as they are only interested in protecting themselves and saying the person has been named is not a crime and they would have a valid public interest argument if it was claimed to be.

[GTI]

I don't see why the laptop and phone can't just be 'accidentally' dropped down a steel staircase, stamped to smithereens and then a claim made on the station insurance for replacements?

accidents happen

[Bald Bouncer]

I don't see why the laptop and phone can't just be 'accidentally' dropped down a steel staircase, stamped to smithereens and then a claim made on the station insurance for replacements?

accidents happen

There also has to be a prosecution error not requesting a destruction order at the end of the case.

[Goldberg]

I don't see why the laptop and phone can't just be 'accidentally' dropped down a steel staircase, stamped to smithereens and then a claim made on the station insurance for replacements?

accidents happen

I did wonder this myself. Accidentally lose it somehow and pay him the replacement value once he went through the politics, hoops and red tape to do so.

[{{909}}]

Is there any evidence he gives two fucks over the pictures? He wants his laptop and phone back but that's hardly surprising. The issue here should be that he could get the photos back if he wanted and the law is fucking useless. not that he's still some slobbering animal who cant wait to look at the photos.

[akimba]

I think he would like them back after in the same condition as he handed them in after his sentence i.e. 9 years time?

I don't see why the laptop and phone can't just be 'accidentally' dropped down a steel staircase, stamped to smithereens and then a claim made on the station insurance for replacements?

accidents happen

I was thinking the Police could store it in the evidence room next to a nice big shiny magnet, in 9 years time will that laptop work anyhow? I doubt it. I he cared about the pics so much he will have another copy of them somewhere whether be on USB or on the cloud.

[Over Carl]

I don't see why the laptop and phone can't just be 'accidentally' dropped down a steel staircase, stamped to smithereens and then a claim made on the station insurance for replacements?

Or why not give it to a specialist team for forensic investigation (a team which cannot be contacted by the public). Then whenever the owner contacts his local station, they can tell him they can't get in contact with the people who have it.

If they can do this for a laugh all day long with other cases where no wrongdoing has been found, why not do it here?