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.'"

8 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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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