Another Star questioned over child porn

[Dorrin]

Here we go again, poor bugger deemed guilty before even charged and named and shamed. If he's guilty all well and good, if not he's going to go through hell for a long time. Bloody media needs shooting as does our legal system that says that 2 of the little fuckers who killed that bloke in the "happy slapping" incident cannot be named as they are too young but anyone questioned by the police can have their names plastered everywhere, crazy.
He was cleared but the first thing you think of when Matthew Kelly is mentioned is child porn, he will never live it down. Only bright spot was when he went on the Frank Skinner show and had a go at the would be warbler about a jibe made by him and his talentless bearded co-host during the case.

[Jacques]

Some sort of anonimity should be given until proven guilty - trial by media is just not on. If he is guilty name and shame after the trial.

[Michelle]

Unfortunately you get corrupt police personnel and solicitors tipping off the press if a celeb is held for questioning....

What ever happened to confidentiality.... Guess it goes out the window if a nice fat backhander is imminent.

Michelle

[nachovx]

The biggest distributors of child porn in the world today are police forces themselves, mostly American. They set up sites or keep ones going where they've made an arrest, in an attempt to harvest credit card numbers of those they lure there by links from other sites - then they inform police in other countries. In most cases it's a sure conviction because of credit card info - and if there's evidence on the PC it's all the better. The police are largely responsible for creating the demand by fuelling it in order to get convictions - they are as guilty as those they arrest. It's about the only area of the law where you can be found guilty by virtue of the fact you've looked at the pictures of somebody else committing a crime ... and in some cases where the pictures only contain nudity with no overtly sexual content, they are legal in most of the world, but illegal in the UK - so it's very easy for UK police to collude behind the scenes to have a legal US site set up, but with the express intent of attracting UK subscriptions and then prosecuting the 'offenders' ... it gets the stats up and proves they're keeping the pervs at bay. But you really need to ask who the real perverts are when those enforcing the law have a vested interest in keeping the material hosted!

[eduardo]

The same is true of rape cases against (adult) women. The bloke gets named and shamed before trial or any guilt is proved and the female is given anonymity.

The bloke can be found not guilty and/or be innocent but there will always be people who say no smoke without fire and the police didn't charge him for nothing you know.

Sure if the blokes guilty then he deserves a good stretch but I think the phrase that I am looking for is innocent until proven guilty and that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Pretty_Joe]

Chris Langham, poor bastard. Imagine the call that triggered that.

"Hello, is that the police. There's a man I don't like and I'll bet he's busy looking at kiddie porn."
"Sorry love we're busy. Got a rush of traffic offences to deal with."
"He's famous."
"We'll send twelve vans round right away."

Yet again living proof that the police are just witch-hunters for the media and politicians

lol

[dynatech]

They don't publicise the ratio of arrests to convictions with these high-profile "kiddie porn" cases. Alongside Matthew Kelly (which wasn't child porn) there was Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack who was named and shamed in Operation Ore (the same one that netted them Pete Townshend) and was found completely innocent of all charges. It has to be the heaviest charge to levy at someone in the current climate, I'd go as far to say as looking at those horrible pictures (for at the end of the day that's all they are) is probably viewed as being less acceptable than unprovoked murder and being publicly accused of such a charge must test one's character, to say the least.
And just think, if he is guilty no-one will be allowed to watch The Thick Of It anymore or even find it funny - a bit like how we aren't allowed to listen to "Do You Wanna Touch Me (Oh Yeah)" and think "Fantastic tune" and ponder over the fact that Gary Glitter was that proud of being a filthy fat pervert in 1973 and it took 25 years and a trip to PC World for anyone to cotton on to this. "Remember Me This Way" indeed, lol

[The Last Word]

The truth about Del Naja is that a few years back he had paid about $3 to look at straightforward adult porn, wholy unaware that the company in question also dealt in child porn. Subsequently his credit card details turned up on their database and he was arrested etc, etc. Utterly stupid and caused him no end of grief.

[nachovx]

The findings of a study titled "The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of
Children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico":

# 325,000 children are reported as being sexually exploited in the United States annually. Of that figure, 121,911 ran away from home and 51,602 were thrown out of their homes by a parent or guardian.

# Child abuse is the least frequently reported form of abuse.

# Family members -- fathers, stepfathers, uncles, older siblings -- commit 47% of all reported sexual assaults against children in their own homes.

# 49% of all sexual assaults against children are committed by persons known either by the child or the child's family -- teachers, coaches, physicians, ministers, priests, neighbors, youth leaders.

# 4% of sexual assaults against children are by strangers (persons unknown to either the child or the child's family).

# 25% of exploiters of children are other children.

# 75% of children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation are from middle-class backgrounds.

# 40% of the girls who engaged in prostitution were sexually abused at home, as were 30% of the boys.