Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Barred From Being Alone With Daughter After Informing Police of Porn On PC

Posted by samzenpus on from the too-much-information dept.

First time accepted submitter robably writes "A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months. Nigel Robinson from Hull said he called police after trying to download music but instead finding pornographic images on his laptop last November. As a result social services said he 'should not have unsupervised access with his own or other children.'"

17 of 777 comments (clear)

  1. I thought this was known by now by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you find something like that, you do NOT report it.

    It doesn't matter if you obtained it, you will likely take the fall.

    1. Re:I thought this was known by now by Loualbano2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be careful.

      From: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C110.txt

      -HEAD-
              Sec. 2258. Failure to report child abuse

      -STATUTE-
      A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

      So if you're working on a machine, see CP and don't report it, you are on the hook.

    2. Re:I thought this was known by now by softwareGuy1024 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed, you should be careful reporting anything illegal. Remember this guy. Unfortunately many law enforcement agents would rather go after a whistle blower, who may be easier to prosecute, then build up a case against the real criminals.

    3. Re:I thought this was known by now by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. From TFA: "Mr Robinson said: 'It makes you feel as though you shouldn't have reported it in the first place'."

      Never EVER trust the police. Any police. When I was in the USAF stationed at Dover in 1972, I had barracks duty one day and the duty sergent came to me as I was sweeping, held up a hand rolled something and said "what's this?" I replied, well, it's either a cigarette or a joint."

      "How do you tell?" I took it, broke it open, and said "It's green. It's a joint."

      So the stupid old man asks "what should I do about it?"

      I told him to throw it in the dumpster and forget about it. He said "I dunno, maybe I should report it?"

      I told him "if you do, all you'll accomplish is sitting around filling paperwork about it for two days."

      When I saw him the next day he said "you were right, I should have just thrown it away. Damned assholes treated me like a criminal and I had to fill out paperwork all damned afternoon. Now I'm behind in my real work."

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:I thought this was known by now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not the police, in this case - it's social services. The police have no remit to decide whether children are at risk and whether anything needs to be done to mitigate/eliminate that risk. It's perfectly reasonable that they should refer this to the social services. It's the conclusion that the social services reached on the basis of the facts given to them that is inexcusable (assuming the reported story is representative of what really happened).

    5. Re:I thought this was known by now by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      Social Services isn't bound by 'innocent until proven guilty'. Their mandate is, 'Protect the child at all costs'

      Unless the parents are ethnics.

      Female circumcision: Who are we to judge other cultures' traditions?

      Death during exorcism: can we prove, with our racist western so-called science that there is no such thing as witchcraft?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Re:I've said it before... by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd say never contact them no matter what. Better to die.

  3. Re:I've said it before... by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, you beat me to it.

    For those who haven't seen it:

    Don't Talk to the Police
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  4. Re:What else did he expect? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds to me like social services just found the guy's name involved in a child porn investigation and assume he's dangerous. This doesn't seem to be an issue of bad police intentionally making somebody's life miserable, but rather a miscommunication that now has to be investigated, verified, checked, reviewed, and accepted by half a dozen different departments before any resolution will come about.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. Pointing the blame at the wrong group by hawkbat05 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems like everyone is blaming the police for this but if you RTFA, no charges or arrests have been made at all. It's social services who made the recommendation and I have NEVER heard of their decision being contested successfully. These people have the ability to apply restrictions like this to anyone with little to no evidence of an actual crime or charges being laid. For parents these organizations are far more intimidating than the police because they can make their own rules and the courts will uphold them.

  6. Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Straight from the horse's mouth: Don't Talk to Police.

    The first half is a defense attorney, the second half is a cop. Both speakers make it very clear -- do not talk to police without a lawyer present. Some will try to screw you to boost their numbers, others will screw you by accident, but either way you get screwed. Cops have a very specific job to do, and that job does not involve looking out for your personal best interests. Talk to a lawyer instead - they are legally required to do what's best for you.

  7. Posession is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Posession of child porn is illegal. It doesn't matter how you got it, having it is illegal.

    So, if you want to get someone in legal hot water, just plant some on their property. Or anonymously text it to their phone when they are somewhere nice and public that it might be seen when they look at it. Just make sure YOU don't get caught with the stuff you are planting on your victim (since distribution is also illegal).

    1. Re:Posession is illegal by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then, when they ask why nobody is reporting on crimes, we can reply "because then you fuckers ruin our lives!!"

      Not reporting a crime can be illegal too. I have a friend who got 6 months for merely firing a client who was engaged in illegal activities rather than turning her in.

  8. Re:I've said it before... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Informative

    Police officers are required to enforce all the laws, not just the ones they agree with.

    Therefore, any police officer can be no better than the worst law.

  9. Re:I've said it before... by Dahan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think what set them off was the Erlenmeyer flasks. They seem to scream mad scientist to non chemistry people.

    Erlenmeyer flasks (and much of the other glassware you mention) are illegal to possess in Texas without a permit--and in order to get a permit, you must allow the police to search your house (or place of business) unannounced: The Precursor Chemical Statute

  10. Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by samjam · · Score: 5, Informative

    They do exist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

    The only caveat is that if you rely on some innocent defence in court that you might reasonably have given during questioning but did not, the judge or jury /might/ assume that you made up the defence.

    --
    blog.sam.liddicott.com
  11. Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti by Ocker3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the other hand, here in Australia, it's quite different. When I was on a Sys Admins list, every person who piped up with "wtf, I've just found kiddie porn on this computer I'm supposed to fix" was told by people with past experience to go to the cops and just hand it over wholesale (without doing Anything else to it). They all came back to the list with "well, that was easy, the cops just sighed and took my statement."