The problem this guy is going to face is that, despite his conviction, the prevailing mood in the UK is such that he will still find himself stigmatised for a very long time.
As he found out from the vigilante attacks before his trial, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply for some people any more - the witch hunts led by certain newspapers mean that any slight suggestion of paedophilia turns the accused into an immediate fugitive.
Therefore, though it's very kind of the Crown Prosecution Service to accept this explanation at trial, why did they wait before it was up before a judge with all the attendant publicity before letting him off the hook?
In the minds of some people as well, there's going to be an attitude of "that's right, blame it on the computer - he would say that, wouldn't he?". Technology-based defences simply don't hold water for a lot of non-technical people - which with the increasing number of technological offences being put to juries is quite a worry.
So, this guy will still be stigmatised as a paedophile, all for the price of some virus checking software...
"Uh?", you say, "why is this dude thanking me for flaming him?"
Ah well. I was in a leetle bet last night - whether it was actually possible to flamebait Slashdot without invoking Godwin's Law. So, while my friend anxiously worked out whether he did actually have enough money to buy me a full bottle of Scotch, I flamebaited away - the rules of the bet saying that it had to be on the most recent story.
It was touch-and-go early on - I got modded down as flamebait, but the follow-ups were all eminently reasonable. And then, BAMF! A flame!
So, thanks man, you won me a bottle of whisky. It *is* possible to flamebait Slashdot - but only just.
Yeah, I was bored.
Hello Belgium, I've actually got nothing against you at all!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Bad form to follow myself up, but...
"The problem this guy is going to face is that, despite his conviction...
For "conviction", read acquittal. *doink*
The problem this guy is going to face is that, despite his conviction, the prevailing mood in the UK is such that he will still find himself stigmatised for a very long time.
As he found out from the vigilante attacks before his trial, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply for some people any more - the witch hunts led by certain newspapers mean that any slight suggestion of paedophilia turns the accused into an immediate fugitive.
Therefore, though it's very kind of the Crown Prosecution Service to accept this explanation at trial, why did they wait before it was up before a judge with all the attendant publicity before letting him off the hook?
In the minds of some people as well, there's going to be an attitude of "that's right, blame it on the computer - he would say that, wouldn't he?". Technology-based defences simply don't hold water for a lot of non-technical people - which with the increasing number of technological offences being put to juries is quite a worry.
So, this guy will still be stigmatised as a paedophile, all for the price of some virus checking software...
Hey, thanks man!
:)
"Uh?", you say, "why is this dude thanking me for flaming him?"
Ah well. I was in a leetle bet last night - whether it was actually possible to flamebait Slashdot without invoking Godwin's Law. So, while my friend anxiously worked out whether he did actually have enough money to buy me a full bottle of Scotch, I flamebaited away - the rules of the bet saying that it had to be on the most recent story.
It was touch-and-go early on - I got modded down as flamebait, but the follow-ups were all eminently reasonable. And then, BAMF! A flame!
So, thanks man, you won me a bottle of whisky. It *is* possible to flamebait Slashdot - but only just.
Yeah, I was bored.
Hello Belgium, I've actually got nothing against you at all!
I suppose you could hack them to find out if there really are any famous Belgians. OTOH, Belgium, for goodness sake - who would *want* to hack them?!