Sentencing Policy (may need a trigger warning)

[john ashby]

It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.

On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

john

[Chris]

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.
john

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both were
caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t that the
greater of the crimes?

Mrs McT

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both were
caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t that the
greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?

Chris

[Chris]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both were
caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t that the
greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?
Chris

Looks like it but wot do I no? I don’t follow crime series etc

Mrs McT

[john ashby]

Post by Chris

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both were
caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t that the
greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?
Chris

Looks like it but wot do I no? I don’t follow crime series etc
Mrs McT

I think in our e-quaintance's case there may have been a feeling that he
placed the camera in the bathroom while in a positon of trust which
would lead to a stiffer sentence.

john

[john ashby]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence while
Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO that
Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both were
caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t that the
greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?
Chris

There doesn't seem to be in the wording of the law. OTOH the man who
sent Edwards the images got twice the sentence, also suspended so there
may be some justice there, not that you'd know it from the screaming of
today''s press.

john (extra apostrophe to make up for the one missing from my first post)

PS I've just been trying to correct a semicolon into an intended
apostrophe and after the second attempt I realised it was a speck of
something on the screen.

[Iain Archer]

Post by john ashby

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence
while Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO
that Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both
were caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t
that the greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as opposed
to storing, the images?
Chris

There doesn't seem to be in the wording of the law. OTOH the man who
sent Edwards the images got twice the sentence, also suspended so there
may be some justice there, not that you'd know it from the screaming of
today''s press.

I've not tried to get upon-to-date yet, but ISTR that in the far earlier
days there was apparently a gap in the law concerning the downloading
(and maybe and/or storing) digital images, and I think the remedy was to
deem the computational part of displaying the image on a monitor as being the
_making_ of an image. I think the term might still be in use in that context,
or it least has seemed so to me. But I'm not on the verge of trying to clear
up my confusion and hope this isn't adding to anyone else's.

Post by john ashby
john (extra apostrophe to make up for the one missing from my first post)

Look after the apostrophes and the ____ will look after themseves? (3 points)

iain

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Iain Archer
Look after the apostrophes and the ____ will look after themseves? (3 points)

I've been atte4nding a hospital clinic this morning and noticed (not for
the first time) that a large information board has two headings written
above the notices. One such heading reads "Doctors" and the other reads
"Clinic's."

I itched to reach up with my ball-point pen - as I did (actually reached
and amended, not just itched) the other day in our local library where
the WI had posted information about Dental Health including that
"children would of ..."

[Joe Kerr]

Post by Iain Archer

Post by john ashby

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence
while Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO
that Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both
were caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t
that the greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as opposed
to storing, the images?
Chris

There doesn't seem to be in the wording of the law. OTOH the man who
sent Edwards the images got twice the sentence, also suspended so there
may be some justice there, not that you'd know it from the screaming of
today''s press.

I've not tried to get upon-to-date yet, but ISTR that in the far earlier
days there was apparently a gap in the law concerning the downloading
(and maybe and/or storing) digital images, and I think the remedy was to
deem the computational part of displaying the image on a monitor as being the
_making_ of an image. I think the term might still be in use in that context,
or it least has seemed so to me. But I'm not on the verge of trying to clear
up my confusion and hope this isn't adding to anyone else's.

I believe you are correct (which doesn't prove anything). You are
converting a collection of binary digits into a picture - a bit like
doing a dot to dot.

Post by Iain Archer

Post by john ashby
john (extra apostrophe to make up for the one missing from my first post)

Look after the apostrophes and the ____ will look after themseves? (3 points)
iain

Sentencing explained at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn033p4d82xo .

I can't say I'm happy about it being illegal to be sent an image (as
opposed to requesting it). It's something you have no control over, akin
to a car passenger being done for speeding.

[nick]

Post by Joe Kerr

Post by Iain Archer

Post by john ashby

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence
while Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO
that Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem to
recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position as a
councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the sentence
harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that both
were caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why isn’t
that the greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as opposed
to storing, the images?
Chris

There doesn't seem to be in the wording of the law. OTOH the man who
sent Edwards the images got twice the sentence, also suspended so there
may be some justice there, not that you'd know it from the screaming of
today''s press.

I've not tried to get upon-to-date yet, but ISTR that in the far earlier
days there was apparently a gap in the law concerning the downloading
(and maybe and/or storing) digital images, and I think the remedy was to
deem the computational part of displaying the image on a monitor as being the
_making_ of an image. I think the term might still be in use in that context,
or it least has seemed so to me. But I'm not on the verge of trying to clear
up my confusion and hope this isn't adding to anyone else's.

I believe you are correct (which doesn't prove anything). You are
converting a collection of binary digits into a picture - a bit like
doing a dot to dot.

Post by Iain Archer

Post by john ashby
john (extra apostrophe to make up for the one missing from my first post)

Look after the apostrophes and the ____ will look after themseves? (3 points)
iain

Sentencing explained at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn033p4d82xo .
I can't say I'm happy about it being illegal to be sent an image (as
opposed to requesting it). It's something you have no control over, akin
to a car passenger being done for speeding.

I agree with you about being unhappy with the law surrounding received
images. It seems messy and unfair. I also wonder if that process could
be used or has been used deliberately to get an unliked somebody into
trouble.

I also remember Police Officer Robyn Williams who was sent an
unsolicited image (which she deliberately did not open because she
suspected what it was) from an outraged relative who IIRC had sent it
as an example of the sort of dreadful stuff she (the officer) ought to
be doing something to stop. That really didn't seem like the law being
fair.

Nick

[Jenny M Benson]

not that you'd know it from the screaming of today''s press.

That phrase brings to my mind something appalling I heard the other day.
I forget the precise details but the gist is that when Prince William
married the papers reported that Kate had included Lily of the Valley in
her bouquet and they extolled the virtues of this, Lily of the Valley
carrying various very benign intimations. Then Prince Harry married and
Meghan also carried Lily of the Valley, which the papers slammed as
wreckless almost to the point of criminality because the flowers are
poisonous and Meghan obviously had evil intent. And there were a few
other examples along the same lines.

I didn't need an excuse to ignore virtually everything the newspapers
say (I hardly ever read them) but that would have done it if I had.

[Pamela]

Post by john ashby

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Chris

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence
while Emma and Will receive custodials.
On a BBC-related matter an expert on sentencing policy said on TWAO
that Huw Edwards status as a trusted broadcaster played no part in
determining the severity or otherwise of his sentence. Yet I seem
to recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused position
as a councillor was held to be an aggravating factor and make the
sentence harsher.

There has been discussion along those lines here - but more that
both were caught with the photos of children, age immaterial, so why
isn't that the greater of the crimes?

Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?
Chris

There doesn't seem to be in the wording of the law. OTOH the man who
sent Edwards the images got twice the sentence, also suspended so
there may be some justice there, not that you'd know it from the
screaming of today''s press.
john (extra apostrophe to make up for the one missing from my first post)
PS I've just been trying to correct a semicolon into an intended
apostrophe and after the second attempt I realised it was a speck of
something on the screen.

Should've gone to Specsavers, as they say?

[Kosmo]

Post by Chris J Dixon
Is it that there is a distinction between actually creating, as
opposed to storing, the images?

Very much so. The creator of such images is causing a greater potential
harm to society than someone who simply views them.

[Iain Archer]

Post by john ashby
It will be very interesting if George's youth and his activities in
saving those trapped in the water result in a suspended sentence
while Emma and Will receive custodials.

Whatever the motivations for introducing the fears, I've doubted
from the start that E&W will face charges.

The actual offence is at s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
S.4(1) reads: "Where a person has committed a relevant offence,
any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the
offence or of some other relevant offence, does without lawful
authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede
his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/part/I

Did even the going along with the silly 'Could it be Harry?'
idea get to the stage of their making a representation to
the police that might meet the definition? Or were there
perhaps off-mic chats with Sgt Harrison? Need a look at the
mega-summary

Note too that the offence can only be charged with the
permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It's
quite a serious measure.
<https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging
standard#_Toc536105692> has summary advice for
prosecutors that includes:

"Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a
charge of assisting an offender include:

"- hiding a principal offender;
- otherwise assisting a principal offender to avoid arrest;
- assisting a principal offender to abscond from bail;
- lying to the police to protect principal offenders from
- investigation and prosecution;
- hiding the weapon used in an assault/robbery;
- washing clothes worn by a principal offender to
- obstruct any potential forensic examination."

And an undewy-eyed solicitors has some interesting stuff at
<https://www.olliers.com/criminal-law/assisting-an-offender/>
See the "Who can be arrested ...".

iain

[Kosmo]

Yet I seem to recall that in a recent case close to umra the accused
position as a councillor

Councillors hold a position representing members of the public.

A newsreader merely repeats what is says on the autocue.