Kieth's Angry Scottish guy charged with Child P0rn! Arrr!

[Birdy]

I'm very afraid of the scenario that if your computer isn't properly secured and it gets hacked, hackers setup a server on it and begin sharing illegal stuff, YOU would have a very hard time proving your innocence.

Either way with Mr.Keith, innocent or not, he's probalby never goign to get a job like that again.

i'm even more afraid that somebody out there is monitoring every activity you do on your computer. sounds all too martial law for me to stomach.

[Lazlo]

picking up a case of Keiths's, presumably.

Anything to make the hurting stop.

[arcane]

Police allege that more than 1,000 electronic files, including pictures and movies, of "prepubescent children engaged in sexual activity" were found on a computer. Some of the images - showing children having vaginal, anal and oral sex with adults - involve girls and boys as young as one year old.

canada.com

Are we still playing with "limited material on the field"? Is this information "vague and sweeping"?

Yes, this is still limited information, but it is relevant additional information. As for the specificity of it, I wouldn't want to make a legal case based solely on the description in the news article. It also doesn't make my point any less valid as it was based on what was presented, not on what reasons I might I have speculated on for his guilt.

As Bouche pointed out, it is possible that the files were planted through P2P. A description of the content doesn't make that point less relevant.

It makes sense to me that if someone wanted to make such material available, he would want to store it on a patsy's machine. I'm not saying that that is what has happened, but I think it's possible. The probability of it would depend on evidence I don't have.

If I'm being dissed for speculating on explanations for innocence and not speculating on reasons for guilt, then diss away. I'm not concluding one way or the other until I see enough compelling evidence. It looks likely that he's guilty, but there isn't enough proof presented here that would withstand a challenge. In other words, there is a reasonable scenario to the contrary. Is it a likely one? That, I don't know.

The two issues of child pornography and accusations of child abuse are too easily turned into causes for witch hunts. I tread cautiously around these issues, being a "fair trial" kind of person. I've seen too many lives ruined by false allegations and seemingly convincing evidence that turned out to be misrepresented or downright false.

If he's guilty, prosecute him to the full extent of the law.

Brad: I agree with your point, but the two types of investigation are related since child pornography is a heinous form of child abuse. Sexual abuse is a popular false allegation. You can bet that the CAS will be involved with his own children, and there is probably a child protection order before the court right now. The CAS will also call in the police at the drop of a hat. In the majority of child protection cases, the police can't justify a criminal investigation. In other words, they can't reasonably prove that any laws are being broken. That should tell you something about accusations of child abuse.

As I noted, I find it relevant that this *is* a police investigation and not strictly a CAS one. They can point at evidence and a law and say, "We think a law is being broken," and the Crown can step in. In my view, that makes it more likely to expose a guilty party.

As well, the police are certainly subject to the same overeagerness as the CAS but with the limitations imposed by a certain amount of public scrutiny and the need to follow stricter rules of conduct (CASs have next to none that are set in law or are available to the public).

[arcane]

By the way, the age of consent in Canada is 14. That's one of the reasons Canada is attractive to child pornographers. (When I was 14, I easily could have passed for 11.)