More on Palmerston North name supression case

February 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Keeping Stock blogs:

This is of course the man convicted of possession of some 300,000 images, some of which were of child pornography. We believe that his sentence of four months’ home detention is woefully inadequate, and the order is, as we blogged yesterday, just plain wrong.

We have been made aware of the identity of the Prominent Palmerstonian- from several independant andunrelated sources. We were also made aware of something yesterday which, working in the ECE sector, we found rather chilling. After much internal debate between me, myself and I, we decided that this needed to be put in the public domain, but in a manner which would not breach the Court-ordered suppression.

So we ask this question; did Judge Grant Fraser know that the Prominent Palmerstonian’s business premises share the same street address as a pre-school? We believe that this is a very important question in the context of Judge Fraser’s decision to allow name suppression. This is indeed a case of public interest.

Ponder this; do the parents who send their children to the pre-school involved have a right to know that its neighbour had an unhealthy interest in children? For us, that’s a no-brainer; we can’t think of a clearer case where publication of the defendant’s name IS in the public interest.

I can only agree with ’s concerns. I would add to that, that the person’s occupation also adds to concerns over public safety that the granting of name suppression has caused.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “More on Palmerston North name supression case”

  1. dime (8,742 comments) says:

    300,000 pics???

    this guy is messed up. he got home detention… does he still have the internet??

    why are judges always implicated in child porn rings?

    [DPF: The 300,000 is the number of porn images, not the number of child porn. He was only charged with 25 offences. And a Judge is not implicated in a child porn ring here]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    He has an interesting name. It is so interesting that you can google it and it is suddenly very clear why he got home detention. It sucks – but I won’t be drawn on saying more. The whale and google are your friends here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Is the decision available anywhere? It does seem strange given that he was convicted. I am not a supporter of Whale’s campaign and, if anything, support tightening the pre-conviction suppression laws and enforcement but despite my reservations about a ravenous gossip driven media I tend to be of the view that post conviction is fair game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    GPT1

    Fair game unless having your name published would negatively impact your life style and/or reduce your capacity to be famous and/or reduce your ability to continue to hold your position of trust.

    Celebrity justice, cheque book justice or MP justice – Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (21,793 comments) says:

    As I2 says the more you hear about this case the more worrying and illogical it gets. Name suppression is supposed to protect the identity of young victims, yet in this case suppression was supposedly given because there were “no NZ victims”.

    But this case seems so far out of kilter that it is probably best called a bad decision that needs reviewing rather than bad suppression laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,049 comments) says:

    Is the decision available anywhere?

    According to the Manawatu Standard:

    “The man was granted permanent name suppression in the Palmerston North District Court last week to protect his family, his mental health, his wife’s job and his ability to rehabilitate.

    The man had attempted to take his own life and publicity could escalate suicidal tendencies, the court heard on Friday. ”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3306626/Porn-mans-identity-revealed

    I think publicity would be a great punishment for people who consume child pornography – it’s a powerful deterrant. Having said that, the argument that he should be exposed because he’s a danger to children at the local school is nonsense. Assaulting a child would be a massive escalation in offending from downloading computer images.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    So the not so learned judge thinks it ok to keep the identity of a kiddie porn pervert a big mason secret. Stuff the parents and safety of all children. This is hardly in the children’s best interests and Crown law must act and bloody fast, as the precedent set by this deranged judge is dangerous and it could well endanger the lives of innocent children? This hideous situation could create more child abuse victims in country saturated with the insidious problem. For our wayward justice minister to say he can’t wade into the argument is bullshit as parliament select these judges based on what politician ideology they hold. This case highlights the absurdity of a judiciary and government who have once again let the public down badly. Waiting on another white elephant Law Commission report is not good enough minister Simon Flower, do something constructive and show New Zealanders how much you want to fix our dysfunctional justice system. Surely it’s time to stop placing a band aid on a huge festering wound. What a disgraceful incident up there with the Kahui nightmare. What kind of country doesn’t place its children on a pedestal? Hey judge what if your daughter or son was one of those vulnerable children this sicko was drooling over. Is he in the same lodge and golf club as you dishonour? The bastard should have got 4 years in mainstream prison!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (9,786 comments) says:

    I would hope the the Crown Prosecutor in Palmerston North is made aware of this. I believe that if this information was not available to him at sentencing, he has grounds to appeal the suppression order which he, to his credit opposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    Pete George

    Anybody involved in child exploitation should be put into stocks in the town square with a big sign saying what they have done. A basket of rocks nearby should be kept topped up at all times. These people do not deserve any protection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    Maybe I should make a sign, laminate it, drive down Albert St and glue it to the preschool door?
    Something like “Beware of dirty old men in this immediate vicinity”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    DPF,

    What Keeping Stock and now you have published could help the public identify the person, so you’ve now done the same as Whale Oil.

    [DPF: Not at all. I considered very carefully if they could, and concluded they could not.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    After reading your comment Danyl, I must ask you, if we live on the same planet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    “The man had attempted to take his own life”

    Shame he failed hopefully he will try again with more success.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    Johnboy

    I agree, lets hope that since we “don’t know” who he is that there is no suicide watch being conducted. Rock spider – name and shame him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Danyl is correct.

    First, there is no evidence that he has done anything other than download and look at pictures, so is unlikely to act against children. Or are you claiming that all people who consume pornography go on to become rapists?

    Second, his proximity to a school is a red herring. IF he had the proclivity to actually molest a child, do you seriously think he’d be deterred because it was 10 kms to the nearest pre-school?

    But sure, let’s tell the parents he is in *&^%&* Street, and see how many houses get windows broken, how many old ladies terrified because of vigilante thugs and how many paediatricians get beaten senseless because you’ve whipped the ill educated in to a frenzy. All of these things have happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    In view of his alleged profession I am surprised he managed to fail suicide.
    Perhaps it was a “cry for help” as the do-gooders say.
    He won’t get much sympathy from me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut

    So pocession of kiddy porn is no big deal to you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    burt, where did I say that? Learn to read and comprehend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut

    You appear to be arguing he has a right to privacy – yes or no ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    burt, read danyl’s post, as mine was in rersponse to his last 2 sentences, inspired by the response of d4j.

    Then, perhaps address the points I made, rather than trying to claim I have argued something I haven’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut

    I did read danyl’s post. Can you answer my question – do you think he should or he should not have name suppression? If so why ?

    If he had 3 billion porno images on hundreds of computers and there was not kiddy porn involved I’d be completely disinterested in this case. But there are children involved so the ground changes. (imho)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    READING OF INTEREST.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

    In particular

    “Relation to child molestation and abuse
    Main article: Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse

    Experts differ over any causal link, with some experts saying that use of child porn reduces the risk of offending,[34] and others arguing that it increases the risk.[35] A 2008 American review of the use of Internet communication to lure children outlines the possible links to actual behaviour regarding the effects of Internet child pornography.[36]

    According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[37]”

    It suggests that the person of interest is more likely to go on to commit molestation than not hence IV’s concern seems to be well founded despite Danyls opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mpledger (428 comments) says:

    If there are 300,000 images, how does the judge know that no NZ victims?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    burt, your lack of logic is too hard to bear.

    First, you ask if possession of kiddy porn is no big deal to me.

    Then you go an to say I am arguing for the man’s right to privacy.

    Now you want my opinion on his name suppression, yes or no, none of which has anything to do with the points I made. Either address those, or forget about it as i have no interest in playing your games.

    And, to further your education, you are, as far as I can tell, completely disinterested in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    “If there are 300,000 images, how does the judge know that no NZ victims?”

    The [deleted by DPF and 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut

    Typical, a lefty who claims to know what other people are thinking. I at least used a question to query your views even if you don’t understand why I asked. You just know what I’m thinking.

    You are still not answering my question though – just telling me what I think. I’ll assume you think it is OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Inventory2 (9,786 comments) says:

    petermcc said “What Keeping Stock and now you have published could help the public identify the person, so you’ve now done the same as Whale Oil.”

    Peter – I’ve chosen my words very carefully; very carefully indeed. I’m by nature a very conservative individual. Howver, I stand by what I published today. One would need to know the name or occupation of the convicted man (at least we don’t have to couch everything with “alleged”), or the name of the pre-school. I have provided none of the above, and my conscience is 100% clear. I’ve merely posed a question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    I would suggest that IV2 is quite correct to be concerned at the proximity of this mans place of business to a child care centre and Danyl is quite wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

    In particular:

    “According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[37]“

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Keep digging burt. Feeding your dross back to you is not telling you what you think. But this exchange leads me to the conclusion that you do not think.

    I actually have no opinion on his name suppression as I do not have access to the facts the judge had, and I refuse to be whipped into a frenzy by bottom feeders such as Slater.

    So, what’s your take on:
    First, there is no evidence that he has done anything other than download and look at pictures, so is unlikely to act against children. Or are you claiming that all people who consume pornography go on to become rapists?

    Second, his proximity to a school is a red herring. IF he had the proclivity to actually molest a child, do you seriously think he’d be deterred because it was 10 kms to the nearest pre-school?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. pushmepullu2 (32 comments) says:

    Unbelievable LeftRight. You are defending this disgusting man who is directly responsible for the abuse of innocent children.

    I guess I should thank you for having the courage to say openly what most of your Leftist comrades-in-arms try to hide – that the modern Left is in favour of the abuse and exploitation of innocent children. Be it in the name of the glorious socialist revolution or the sexual perversions of an effeminate university-educated homosexual, children are simply grist for the mill, raw materials to be ground down and spat out. Karl Marx would have approved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inventory2 (9,786 comments) says:

    LRO – among the charges the Prominent Palmerstonian admitted was one of DISTRIBUTING pornographic images.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. andrei (2,428 comments) says:

    Bottom line – would an ordinary Joe Bloggs get name suppression in these circumstances?

    I don’t think so

    http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2010/02/name-suppression-and-professional.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    pushmepullu2, like burt, you seem to lack basic comprehension skills. Where have I defended this man? Dierect quotes, please, not your made up assumptions. I have done no such thing.

    IV2, I was unaware of that, however it still doesn’t change my two points above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (21,793 comments) says:

    pushmepullu2, do you think the Prominent Palmerstonian and the judge are likely to be lefties? Or are you using another unrelated excuse to try and score petty political points?

    And in case you think of jumping in and accusing me of anything, I have occasionally been labeled a lefty here, and I am totally against the viewing or downloading or distributing of any child porn whether the kids involved are from NZ or not, and while I don’t know all the facts of this case it appears to be a bad decision by the judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. andrei (2,428 comments) says:

    There was also this from the Judges reasoning that should make everybody spit

    “I’ve also accepted without hesitation the public interest and the public being aware of the character of you, and I’ve also taken into account the seriousness of your offending,” Judge Fraser said.

    “In this case there is no offending against any individuals within the New Zealand community.

    “Therefore publicity in my view is not required to flush out any potential offenders or to enable members of the community to keep themselves safe from you.”

    So non New Zealand children are less vulnerable than Kiwi kids? Less hurt or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    petermcc, then you’d also have to blame the media as well – by stating the defendant is a mna, they have removed half the population from suspicion. I’m no closer to knowing who the person is after DPF’s post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    andrei, unlike say, the USA, NZ tends to apply its laws only within its own territory, so on that basis the comment is probably appropriate. I won’t spit, thank you. It is simply part of the judge’s reasoning. If you have the whole judgement, I’d be very interested to read it, rather than try to form an opinion from excerpts.

    And let’s face it, judges often make judgements we struggle to comprehend, such as the recent RC judge who gave a suspended sentence to a religious man as “he knew he had done wrong”, as if religious people are the only ones with a conscience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    First, there is no evidence that he has done anything other than download and look at pictures, so is unlikely to act against children. Or are you claiming that all people who consume pornography go on to become rapists?

    Idiotic analogy. The correct statement would be:

    “Or are you claiming that all people who consume pornography go on to have sex”

    Only those who seek out and view pornography showing rape of a man/woman would be an indicator that the viewer might go on to commit actual rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Or are you one of those “all sex is rape” feminists leftrightout?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    One question is: can a professional body take disciplinary action against, or dismiss a member – for example, if the man happened to be in the medical profession – when name suppression is involved?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut @ 1.40: You refer to “paediatricians” as if to imply that the convicted person is a paediatric practitioner. Is that your intention? Are you breeching the very suppression order that you seem so keen to defend?

    LeftRightOut @ 2.17: There’s an inherent contradiction in your following statements:
    i) “… I do not have access to the facts the judge had …” and
    ii) “… there is no evidence that he has done anything other than download and look at pictures …”
    If you don’t have access to the facts, how do you know that there is no such evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    “I’m no closer to knowing who the person is after DPF’s post.”

    I am. I know exactly who he is now. Not entirely down to DPF’s post alone, but it helped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    So what has changed since yesterday?

    This whole thing is still private individuals presuming to greater knowledge of the details and greater wisdom of judgement vis-a-vis name suppression than the trial judge. Much like yesterday’s discussion. Still all knee-jerk.

    Your standard National voter will always vote for the promise of a tax cut and for “Getting Tough On Crime” (TM).

    This is the same classic centre-right “brown people, beneficiaries and homosexuals are a criminal menace and I’ve got a right to be protected from them” sound byte that has been used to tantalise the faithful for about as long as there’s been a National Party. And that’s all it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    Sorry about the 1.50/2.06 double up it seemed not to go through the first time so I rewrote it.
    Obviously the Ministry of Censorship had to check it out first. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Was he just in Possession of child pornography or was he involved in the distribution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    calendar girl, the paediatricin reference was to a UK paediatrician who was accused of being a paedophile.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1353904/Paediatrician-attack-People-dont-want-no-paedophiles-here.html

    The only contradiction is in your mind. There is no evidence he has done other than download and look at pictures as there are no other charges or convictions against him. I have also acknowledged that IV2 points out he also distributed pictures, but I was unaware of that at the time I posted.

    You are also attempting to take me out of cntext when I wrote “I actually have no opinion on his name suppression as I do not have access to the facts the judge had.”

    Do you see the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Bevan, my analogy is correct as, with a very few exceptions, having sex is not illegal, however rape is.

    furthemore, IF I believed “all sex is rape” I doubt I would have written “…all people who consume…”

    Does just about everyone posting on this blog have trouble with basic comprehension?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    One count of distribution BL.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3300158/Name-suppression-for-prominent-man

    “The man was charged with 25 counts of possessing objectionable material and one count of distributing pornographic images on the internet after an FBI investigation led to his arrest last year.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    This is utter Bullshit.
    Speak to people who handle victims they’ll tell you those who distribute know full well that some who they distribute to, touch!
    Also the act of collecting leads to distributing and leads to touching as they all involve the fantasy and giving permission to your self and others.
    as Johnboys link shows.

    That the man lives and works as a professional has got nothing to do with it.
    He was convicted and ALL convicted people should be identified.
    That is what is fair to all of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    You’re dancing on a pin-head, LeftRightOut.

    You don’t rescue your contradiction by downplaying actual words and phrases, indeed taking them out of your overall context and portraying them as somehow unrelated to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (21,793 comments) says:

    He was convicted and ALL convicted people should be identified.

    Or at least in all cases where there is no risk of the victims being identified, and the judge made that point, that no one in NZ could be identified.

    Either this was simply a bad permanent suppression order, or our suppression rules are too easy to be used at the convenience of any judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    God dam idiot needs to go hang himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    leftrightout…

    You have made assertions that because he “only” downloaded the images, there is no link to his perpetuating any indecent acts on children. Perhaps, though there’s no evidence he didn’t either…

    More to the point, because he downloaded those images, he created a demand for those images, and someone did take those photo’s of children, which could easily be termed abuse.

    Therefore his activity directly causes the abuse of some child, some where. To me it doesn’t matter if you take the photo’s yourself, or encourage someone else to take them, you are just as culpable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    God dam idiot needs to go hang himself.

    It would be the honourable thing to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    Someone should email the FBI and tell the Feds that some deranged judge gave the creep name supression and 4 months home d next door to a child care centre.
    What would Edgar say FFS!! Keystone justice system is beyond hope. Poor kiwi kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. andrei (2,428 comments) says:

    andrei, unlike say, the USA, NZ tends to apply its laws only within its own territory, so on that basis the comment is probably appropriate. I won’t spit, thank you.

    My friend you can be prosecuted in New Zealand for having underage sex elsewhere – it is part of a scheme to deal with underage sex tourism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    Hope you didn’t watch the Nicholas Berg video Rouppe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Bevan, my analogy is correct as, with a very few exceptions, having sex is not illegal, however rape is.

    Let see

    Downloading Child Porn = Illegal
    Molesting children = Illegal

    Rape = Illegal
    Having consensual Sex = Legal
    Watching consenting porn = Legal

    Nope, your analogy is shit. Your analogy was that something that is not illegal could lead to an illegal act. The individual in Palmerston Nth was engaging in something illegal from the beginning!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    rouppe, like everyone else above, you are arguing a point that I did not make.

    andrei, that is why I chose the word “tends”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. MT_Tinman (2,790 comments) says:

    What’s porn?

    A serious question.

    For me, until the PC fuckwits got all upset and started calling any photo of a child porn, it was image of gratuitous sex and/or violence sold for perverse pleasure.

    The report I first read about this case had a comment that the illegal images were of young females in sexually suggestive poses.

    Could it be that these images are not particularly pornographic, do not involve sex acts at all but are still illegal?

    Could it be that the nature of these images suggests that the culprit is in no way a danger to society but has simply, while downloading his 300,000 porn images (which must have taken up all his time for bloody years when you think about it) downloaded these almost by mistake?

    Could that be why the judge handed out a wrist slap and suppression?

    I admit know not the answers nor particularly do I care to, anyone taking the time to download that much crap needs to get a proper job, but ask simply because that is the only reason I can think of for the sentence imposed and suppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    leftrightout

    rouppe, like everyone else above, you are arguing a point that I did not make.

    Perhaps I have misinterpreted this statement then…

    First, there is no evidence that he has done anything other than download and look at pictures

    I believe that he has done something other than downloading and viewing the pictures; by downloading and viewing he has encouraged the production of those pictures, and therefore the abuse of those children. Encouraging abuse of children is no less culpable than actually abusing children.

    I have just as much disgust for all those that cheered and laughed as little Nia Glassie was spun around on a clothesline as for those that did the spinning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “Child pornography” is a values-laden term that plays on society’s growing acceptance of “porn”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I don’t accept Porn – I think it is degrading towards women and relationships.
    Why the feminists aren’t all over this like abortion I don’t know – conflicted I suppose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    MikeNZ their is nothing wrong with Porn, maybe thats why feminists arent all over it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    LeftRightOut

    Perhaps if you had given a simple answer to my initial question there wouldn’t be a bunch of people wonder why;

    a) You dodged the question and went for the shoot the messenger approach AND
    b) You you went on to contradict yourself as pointed out by calendar girl @ 3:00pm.

    So lets try again;

    Is possession of kiddy porn no big deal to you ? (I’m not asking what Danyl thinks and I’m not saying he did anything other than what [Mr X] was charged for – I’m trying to determine what makes people tick who think it is OK to have name suppression for people who have thousands of kiddy porn images on their computers)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    That was badly worded…. Sorry.

    (I’m not asking what Danyl thinks and I’m not saying [Mr X] did anything other than what he was charged for…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    What’s porn?

    A serious question.

    The question is more what is objectionable images as defined by the Films, Videos and Publications Classifications Act. The short definition is:
    Meaning of objectionable
    s3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

    (s3 goes on to give further examples – eg: use of defecation/urine, exploitation of children etc)

    Images are then classified by the Classifications Office who decide on what is and isn’t injurious to the public good. They can either deem it objectionable (ie illegal) or age restricted.

    You might be surprised by what is classed as objectionable AND illegal. Most of what is illegal wouldn’t worry most of us but it is a surprisingly prudish system. There is a massive difference between the nasty exploitative type pictures that most of us would imagine when thinking of objectionable material (ie kiddy porn) and some of the stuff that is defined as objectionable. As a High Court judge recently remarked during submissions in a case I was involved in the images were or a kind that he could walk into any magazine store and save for some plastic covering see much worse. But our friends in the Commission said they encouraged ‘wrong thinking’ (I paraphrase to be fair) so objectionable. (There was no artistic merit that I could see but each to their own).

    As an aside the trap for Joe public is that as long as they are aware of the nature of images (that they are sexual/violent etc) then there is no defence that they did not know they were objectionable. In the more serious cases that should be a given (who on Earth can think a toddler being raped is legal?) but that is at the extremes. Until I dealt with this kind of stuff (in a professional sense I note!) I would never have believed what would be defined as objectionable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “You might be surprised by what is classed as objectionable AND illegal. Most of what is illegal wouldn’t worry most of us but it is a surprisingly prudish system”

    The real problem is with progressives like yourselves. Desensitizing, equivocating and condoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Angus. Don’t make assumptions. I am actually a grumpy old conservative but I just happen to believe the state should have good cause to intefere with people’s lives. Try reading Locke (not Keith) sometime. Might give you an idea on political theory. If I am the “real” problem what is the the “unreal” problem? And I am one of the least condoning people I know. For example I in no way condone you advertising your rampant stupidity on a blog with a baseless and pointless sound bite that makes Phil Goff whinging about John Key and his rich mates seem logical by comparison.

    So did you have a contribution to make or did you just want to sound off for the sake of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    GPT1

    Angus is a good example of objectionable but he in no way helps us define it. Your message was succinct, beware objectionable under the law is not necessarily objectionable to a reasonable person. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Thanks Burt. You make a valid point about the difficulty of defining objectionable. Some stuff simply *is* but there is a lot out defined as objectionable that I would suspect reasonable people would differ over – or at the very least would disagree as to whether the person possessing it should be subject to serious criminal sanction.

    I should make it clear that the reason objectionable and illegal wouldn’t worry most of us is that most people are unlikely to have it/find it “titallating” but (notwithstanding the fact it is not to the majority taste) the system is surprisingly prudish. Anyone who had forwarded the ‘joke’ Simpson’s cartoons with Bart and Lisa doing inappropriate things has technically ‘supplied’ objectionable material for example. In my view a classic example of something that doesn’t increase the sum total of human endeavour but is hardly the same class as sexual exploitation of children.

    I should also make it clear (for those who want to put words in my mouth) that I am making general observations in relation to a question raised above and not in any way commenting on the PN case specifically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Angus and Burt, I am not sure I would call GPT1 a ‘progressive’ by any stretch. Fair, reasonable, erudite and inclined to be somewhat bellicose at times, but not ‘progressive’. In fact, I find that term to be so abusive (as I am sure that it was intended to be) that I rate it as positively defamatory of GPT1 and the tenor of his commenting on this fine blog. What he is, in fact, is a classic liberal, in the good, old fashioned, sense of the word, rather than the more recent, left wing appropriation of it. I admire that approach and concur with it.

    Anyway, I have a suspicion that, given his occupation, GPT1 knows very well what the legal definitions of ‘objectionable’ are. I have an idea, also, and can agree that there are many times when I have felt that the legal definition does not accord with society and its modern views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Angus (536 comments) says:

    “I am actually a grumpy old conservative but I just happen to believe the state should have good cause to intefere (sic) with people’s lives”

    Nice try. Your declaration is horseshit. You’re a progressive. This issue has nothing to do with the “state”. It is about societal mores – not the state – that keeps civil society together. (but a true conservative would know that)

    Try reading Gramsci (not Keith) sometime. Might give you an idea on political theory.

    “Most of what is illegal wouldn’t worry most of us but it is a surprisingly prudish system.”

    Subjective bullshit. With a bit more encouragement, you’d consider any raised eyebrows to the escapades of Armin Miewes “prudish”

    Burt. – you bragged about your number of “conquests” vs Cactus on this site a few weeks back. Real class and humility. How many children have you fathered ? Man, you libertines are boringly predictable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Thanks FES. The left have somewhat hijacked the term liberal. Bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. F E Smith (3,273 comments) says:

    Angus, that sort of abuse is uncalled for.

    He is most definitely not a progressive. Now you just take that back and say sorry!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Bok2 (100 comments) says:

    I have no problem with porn at all… except where it involves children.

    I am always stunned at the absolute stupidity of the causal arguments for and against child porn. It is so irrelevant that it beggars belief.
    It is the simple self delusional pseudo intellectualizing that idiots who think they are smart and want to impress get’s into. The question is surely not what the porn leads to (perhaps maybe who knows…) But what has happened to create it.

    An innocent, vulnerable child or childre was damaged, hurt and abused in the production of the porn. Who gives a shit if this bastard MIGHT interfere with children? The fact is he allready has. Without the demand there will be no child porn, and that means he is directly responsible. His name needs to be out there.

    left and Danyl, I do not care about what he might do, he might not. I care what he did do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Angus. You accuse me of subjectivity yet make subjective accusations as to my character. I would suggest that I might be in a better position to judge than you. Your observations are as tenuous as if I declared that you are nothing but a far right religious zealot based on your reference to societal mores.

    Which is also quite a stupid comment as it has EVERYTHING to do with the state. It is the state that imposes the criminal sanctions that go with the STATE defining publications, images etc as objectionable. If the state is intending to reflect societal values then good on it but it is still the state imposing those values (which seem to be more 1950s than current – for better or for worse) on the citizens.

    Now, to recap for the slow learners. A question was asked as to what was porn. I gave an answer with reference to legislation and personal experience. I noted that objectionable is not all about kiddy porn (keeping up?) and that some people might be suprised as to what amounted to objectionable. I then gave an example as something that is defined as objectionable but many, including me, are uncomfortable with the state defining criminal sanction on it.

    How on this Green Earth that makes me a progressive I do not know. And other than insults you haven’t actually defined what your problem is? Do you think the objectionable material laws are too loose? Should we be burning Lady Chatterly’s Lover in the streets?

    Or do you just vent for the sake of it? Perhaps you might feel more comfortable over in the sandpit with the Standard group?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Actually, Angus, you really are a prat. As I have noted above you haven’t actually defined what you are so upset about and have just gone off on a rant at me. Now you tell me that I only need a bit of encouragement to not get upset over a German cannibal. I really hope you aren’t smoking as it would be a real risk with all those strawmen about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (21,793 comments) says:

    GPT1, I’m not sure what “progressive” is supposed to mean generally, but on Kiwiblog it seems to have come to mean “I disagree with you, I don’t care that I don’t understand what you actually mean, I’ll apply the insult as I don’t have anything reasonable to debate”.

    If “progressive” means having progressed beyond being ideologically blind, deaf and dumb then I’m all for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. KiwiGreg (3,128 comments) says:

    “Meaning of objectionable
    s3 (1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

    (s3 goes on to give further examples – eg: use of defecation/urine, exploitation of children etc)”

    Crikey. I bought my copy of “Team America:World Police” from Amazon so it is the uncut version, with the full sex scene of simulated puppet coprophilia (sp?) and whatever the pissing equivalent is. I gather this is probably illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Bok2
    The fact is he all ready has. Without the demand there will be no child porn, and that means he is directly responsible. His name needs to be out there

    The demand is a psuedo arguement in a way.
    Whether you would buy their pictures or not they would still make them as a paedo.
    It is a trophy so they make them anyway.
    That they can sell them is a bonsela – (bonus)!
    They give them away to their intimates just like they share their “conquests”.

    But you are correct in that it is more about what he has done first which should be the emphasis.
    The fact that he can and might (will) go on to touch is an add on merely to close off any stupid wishy-washy feelings for his circumstances, social or otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    Kiwigreg – one would hope not and the fact it is contained in a film might save it for a restricted age warning but I must admit I raised an eyebrow (on the legal issue) when I saw it as well. I raised both eyebrows in terms of the scene! I am aware of a US porn series that is available on Amazon that is classified as illegal here – I pointed this out to the classification authority but they still deemed it as injurious to the public good for promoting incest. I can’t remember the title now and I doubt the literary and artistic merits of the country are harmed by it being banned but I do struggle with it being illegal to possess something you can get off a ‘mainstream’ site such as Amazon.
    Pete George – most amusing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. KiwiGreg (3,128 comments) says:

    “I raised both eyebrows in terms of the scene! ”

    Yeah there is little those guys wont do to push the boundaries of offending. Personally I fast forward that and the extended vomitting scene because its really only funny (if at all) once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,401 comments) says:

    His name needs to be out there.

    Does anyone know if the penalty for breach of a suppression order has been increased from $1,000?

    I would be tempted to name this guy – not on this forum though.

    The public have a right to know if the Judge Grant Frazer knew the offender socially.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Inventory2 (9,786 comments) says:

    You’re way too late Chuck; WhaleOil named him a year ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,401 comments) says:

    Thanks IV2. I realise that but a lot of people would not know the name. I was thinking of naming him elsewhere to make a point. I was wondering if the penalty has been increased. I know there was talk of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.