 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:13:47 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie" <...@bozzie.unospace.net
In message <...@nowhere.com
Please email me.
--
< Paul >
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:25:24 +0000, Dissenter <...@privacy.net
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:09:16 +0000, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.comwrote:
Hey! Can I join in!
(I wonder whether he's watching here.)
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:10:06 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.ukwrote:
I have online access to the SOA 2003, and would be pleased if you
would point out the precise sections that prohibit (a) children
sitting or lying in a rather provocative way, (b) children
masturbating, (c) prepubescent children of approximately the same age
engaging in behaviour which may be regarded by adults present as
sexual, and most importantly, (d) anywhere it says that photographing
such acts makes acts illegal that would be legal if unphotographed (if
that is what you are claiming).
--
Dissenter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:46:00 +0000, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Dissenter <...@privacy.net
Yes, I noticed your rebuttal had been modded out too.
To be fair, so were several of Roland's.
Roland is watching us everywhere.
--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:09:48 -0800 (PST), smr <...@googlemail.com
On 4 Nov, 14:09, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
It feels like an unsatisfying place to leave the discussion for me and
although it looks to be just about one guy vs the newsgroup even that
seems significant to me. I understand that it's a huge thread and the
mods have a lot to deal with given the volume of posts but drawing a
line just here doesn't quite settle it for me. It's up to the mods in
their newsgroup, though, and uk.legal works too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:31:41 +0000, smr <...@googlemail.com
On a personal note, my drum has been the "why the IWF?" angle, so to
bring this in: (this post, 81654, was originally posted to ulm but
doesn't include new material)
It's not obvious to me why you would need expert testimony in cases
where it's clear. I would have thought expert training and experience
are only necessary in difficult cases where it's not clear.
I think if you gave that description to the person in the street - an
expert who gives an opinion based on what previous juries have decided
they might think you're talking about a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:22:00 -0000, "The Todal" <...@beeb.net
"smr" <...@bt.com...
Roland's suggestion that an expert can assist the jury by explaining what is
or is not indecent, is plain wrong. It is bollocks, it is drivel. There is
plenty of case law which shows beyond doubt that it is up to the jury, using
their common sense, to decide whether or not an image is indecent. If a
judge was daft enough to let an expert give evidence, the trial would be
flawed and any appeal would be bound to succeed.
And that's irrespective of whether the expert tells the jury what he
believes is indecent, or what his learned colleagues think is indecent, or
what previous juries have found to be indecent. All inadmissible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:59:11 -0000, "The Todal" <...@beeb.net
"Big Les Wade" <...@obviously.invalid...
Agreed.
Wasn't my decision, and whilst I agree with what you posted it may perhaps
have been more acceptable to the moderator who rejected it if there had been
a bit more discussion of the law.
Not really censorship - a genuine desire to avoid acrimonious discussions
which go round and round. Obviously Roland has made some completely wrong
and misleading statements, beginning (as far as I'm concerned) with his
preposterous notion that no ordinary person can assess what is decent or
indecent unless they have had formal training, and that the wankers at the
IWF have had that training. I'd have been inclined to reject all his
replies, but that really would have been censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:46:27 -0000, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
I think that's the nub of it. Plenty of people have already said Roland's
analysis is wrong, in plain and direct terms (including Todal, of course).
If Big Les had posted a substantive reply, eg refuting Roland's claim with
specific counter-points or excerpts from the statute, then it would've been
a new and interesting point.
I think it's also clear from the rejected post log that Big Les joined the
debate with a hostile and abusive style, eg 81394 & 81397, which probably
made the moderators more cautious in what they were prepared to accept. The
moderated group is a place for the discussion of ideas and problems, not for
personalised attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:10:54 +0000, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
I don't think my post needed any support from the statute. It simply
drew attention to the fact that Roland's statement was a false
inference, since the statute didn't contain anything that supported it.
No quotation from the statute could make that any clearer, for reasons
that should be obvious.
Yes, I suppose I could have explained my thinking in more detail.
However, you had already made it clear at that point that posts were
going to get deleted because the moderators were getting bored with the
thread. What is the point of my spending a significant amount of time
composing a detailed and carefully structured rebuttal, when the
moderator can just press a button and plonk it because he doesn't like
me, or because he isn't particularly interested in the subject?
And in the event that is exactly what happened.
That's just an excuse. ULM moderators seem to have enormous discretion
to plonk whatever they want for purely personal reasons. Several of
Roland's posts were deleted apparently because the moderator thought
they weren't interesting enough, whereas I consider they genuinely tried
to answer questions raised by his debating opponents (like me). I would
have found them very useful if I'd been allowed to see them at the time,
but unfortunately I didn't see them until it occurred to me to look them
up on the censored list.
Is that what the moderated group was invented for, so that moderators
could decide for themselves what was interesting and what wasn't, and
delete the posts they didn't like? I don't think so.
--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:15:11 GMT, cobble <...@example.co
[snip]
Yes.
You were warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:00:37 -0000, "The Todal" <...@beeb.net
"Big Les Wade" <...@obviously.invalid...
No, they can only reject posts that are repetitive / trying to get the last
word. And maybe they have been a bit overzealous on occasion. When the
thread gets this long, I don't suppose all the moderators can read every
post and they might make a guess at whether the argument is getting too
circular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:25:01 +0000, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
The Todal <...@beeb.net
I see Roland is still managing to get a few posts through on the
original ULM thread. Sooner or later it will occur to him to wonder why
no-one is replying. Perhaps he thinks his arguments are so persuasive
that we are all falling at his feet in wonder.
--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:54:13 -0000, "The Todal" <...@beeb.net
"Big Les Wade" <...@obviously.invalid...
Please do continue to post to that thread if you feel you can take the
argument forward rather than in a circular direction. I think at the moment
the modbot is broken - I posted a reply to Roland and it still hasn't
reached the group. I'll resend it, but I daresay lots of posts are getting
held up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:28:56 +0000, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
The Todal <...@beeb.net
I'm sorry, no. Nothing less than the mass resignation of all ULM
moderators will satisfy me now.
Typical. I always said it was a rubbish group.
--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:19:10 -0000, "The Todal" <...@beeb.net
"Big Les Wade" <...@obviously.invalid...
This is typical. Absolutely typical, of the kind of ARSE I have to put up
with from you people. You ponce in here expecting to be wated on hand and
foot, while I'm trying to run a hotel here. Have you any idea of how much
there is to do? Do you ever think of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:51:02 -0000, "AndyW" <...@noJunqMailbaesystems.com
"The Todal" <...@mid.individual.net...
Do shut up Basil dear.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:00:13 -0000, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
Of course not, youre all too busy sticking your noses into every corner,
poking around for things to complain about, arent you? Well let me tell you
something this is exactly how Nazi Germany started. A lot of layabouts
with nothing better to do than to cause trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:10:25 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@obviously.invalidNov 2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Don't be ridiculous. It's perfectly obvious (I have several postings
that have been rejected too) that the moderators were trying to shut
down the thread as comprehensively as possible. The postings which did
and didn't get through (I note you had one that "escaped" on Wednesday
morning at 12.10pm) were just to do with timing I think.
fwiw, I'm in complete agreement with yourself regarding the frustration
at being denied a right of reply. But on the other hand, some of the
shorter postings were getting a bit repetitive - the longer ones of mine
introduced new material [1], I believe.
[1] For example an explanation of how credit card fraud is investigated
via the "privatised" system where you report to banks and not the
police.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:57:18 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netNov 2009, The Todal <...@beeb.net
Ordinary people can assess pictures according to their own culture,
upbringing and standards, but this subject is too serious to avoid the
need for as much uniformity as possible.
What's quite clear is that many ordinary people don't in fact have a
very uniform idea of what constitutes "illegal" indecency because they
report many pictures which would be laughed out of court [1].
The issue to do with training is simply capturing a collective memory of
those kinds of images which have in fact been laughed out of court
(versus those which have been seen to make a typical jury's hair stand
on end), and thereby failing to waste a lot of people's time by
submitting "hopeless cases" to the courts.
Actually, it's worse than that - as several people have correctly
pointed out, having your name associated with such a case can be quite
distressing, especially when you are innocent (but being pursued by an
over-zealous prosecutor).
It's supposed to be the CPS's job to filter out the "hopeless cases"
before they get to court, and in doing so they use a range of
guidelines, benchmarks and experts.
[1] IWF statistic: 34k individual reports, de-duplicate to 8k sites
investigated, with only 1.5k "positives" comprising:
* 74% of the sites are commercial operations, selling images
* 58% of the sites contain graphic images of penetration or torture
* 69% of the children appear to be 10 years old or younger; 24% 6 or
under, and 4% 2 or under
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:08:19 +0000, Dissenter <...@privacy.net
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:57:18 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.ukwrote:
It remains the case that many images correctly classified as
'indecent' do not depict child abuse, specifically those in 'level 1'
and 'level 2'.
It is also the case that quite a few people have been successfully
prosecuted (often by being persuaded to plead guilty) for
taking/possessing/downloading/making pictures in level 1.
--
Dissenter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:06:44 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@4ax.comSat, 7 Nov 2009, Dissenter <...@privacy.net
If abuse only consists of adults poking around childrens' naked bodies,
then that would be a valid observation.
But what if the level 1 & 2 pictures were taken under duress, or as a
"peeping tom", and posted without the child's permission (putting aside
for a moment the issue that technically they aren't competent to give
permission even if they ostensibly do)? What name would you give that?
Does it get more abusive if the children realise that such involuntary
pictures of themselves involved in these acts are available for sale
online and might be viewed in the future by someone they know? (Or is
the "someone they know" aspect irrelevant here, and the pictures are
equally abusive if viewed by an unknown dirty old man?)
The offence is to do with indecent pictures, which includes level 1.
I'm not attempting here to defend which levels "ought to be illegal" (I
had enough of that to last a lifetime during the SOA consultation seven
years ago), but given that these levels are published and used in the
courts, it's entirely justifiable to attempt to put each picture into
one of the levels (or decide it doesn't qualify for any of them) if
there's an investigation taking place.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:20:29 +0000, Dissenter <...@privacy.net
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:06:44 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.ukwrote:
Actually that would be level 3 or possibly 4.
You can't determine any of this stuff by just looking at the picture,
so you can't say that there is abuse involved any more than you can
tell from a picture of an adult leading a child calmly by the hand
whether the child has been abducted of not.
A picture can't be said to *depict* something unless it is obvious.
And (a) a child isn't required to consent to having his picture taken,
and (b) a child isn't forbidden from consenting if asked.
If a picture only becomes abusive if and when the child is apprised of
its distribution, then the abuse is perpetrated by whoever reveals the
fact.
And this is hardly relevant of level 1 & 2 pictures in any case, which
are relatively innocuous.
That's all very well, but here is a sample of cases of people arrested
and/or prosecuted "in our name":
Man in custody awaiting sentencing for taking photos of children on
the beach:
http://tinyurl.com/njq75r
"Children played innocently on a beach, unaware a paedophile was
taking pictures of them."
Another man arrested for taking photos of children on the beach:
http://tinyurl.com/m9sbpc
"Police are studying more than 100 images seized from a suspected
paedophile arrested at the Worthing Birdman contest."
Man arrested, but eventually the prosecutors give up, on the charge
that he downloaded a single level one image:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8185541.stm
"A former Radio 2 DJ has been acquitted of possessing child
pornography after prosecutors decided to offer no evidence in his
trial."
Photographer prosecuted after taking naked photos of children with
their parents' permission:
http://tinyurl.com/57ebwl
http://tinyurl.com/y8dcz2u
Man prosecuted for photographing girls in bikinis on the beach:
http://tinyurl.com/5v3l3j
"Immediately in front of him, three young girls were sunbathing in
bikinis and he was arrested with the camera."
Do these cases make you proud to live in this country?
--
Dissenter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:06:03 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@4ax.comSat, 7 Nov 2009, Dissenter <...@privacy.net
I know. It's intended to flush out whether you think only type 3 and
above are abusive...
Oh, I think you can normally tell if a picture has been taken by a
peeping tom. Duress may be visible too.
Is that abuse of a "hands on" kind, or do you admit to the possibility
there could be, for want of a better description, acts of "mental
abuse".
And for many of these images it is indeed obvious.
But the SOA is based on the premise that if under-age that "consent"
means nothing, legally. Just as they can't legally consent to marriage.
There's an element here of 'temporary victimless crime' - a bit like a
theft before the owner notices something is missing.
We can easily agree on that. Although I'd say that the person who took
the photo in order for it to be distributed is an accessory, at the very
least.
It's a matter of personal opinion, based on your culture and values,
whether such pictures are innocuous. The legal system in this country is
based on a set of values which says they are not innocuous. I've given
up worrying where I would draw a line myself - I've heard too many
advocates who would individually push it in *both* directions given a
free hand; what matters is enforcing the lines that exist.
And it's one of those things where your views change after you've had
children. Just like most people don't have strong a view about the NHS
until a close relative has a terminal illness - after which their views
will almost always become more focussed (for the better or worse, but
usually different from before).
It's not a case of pride, or living in this country. It's public
awareness and law enforcement training. Lots of people get acquitted in
the courts, for every conceivable offence, because the prosecuting
officers got it wrong.
Ironically, I've been having a long debate with others who claim the
"ordinary people" are the only ones who can tell if a picture is
indecent, and that there can be no universal standards. I'm more of the
opinion that there *are* some universal standards (expressions of them,
anyway), and having mechanisms to reflect those in everyday life (and
everyday policing) is likely to reduce the number of false positives/
negatives, rather than increase them.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:17:07 +0000, The Todal <...@beeb.net
No, that's not really true. Prosecutions of level 1 and 2 pictures are
pursued because it is assumed that the average jury would find such
pictures to be indecent. That's a slightly different thing. There is no
law which declares that they are indecent. Fashions might conceivably
change from decade to decade. I think it is unsatisfactory that a juror
is expected to look at an image which he has never seen before, and
decide whether it is indecent, which may in part depend on whether he
recalls seeing such images in books or on television, in art galleries,
anywhere else where someone in authority has allowed the image to be
published.
I've given
The meaning of what you have just said is not clear. Perhaps you mean
something along the lines of "reinforcing society's notions of what is
indecent by repeatedly getting convictions". The value of such
convictions is doubtful because the public don't get to see the images
(I'm not suggesting that they should see them) so they don't know what
it is that they shouldn't be looking at. So the only thing that is being
achieved is criminalising a lot of perfectly decent normal people for
looking at pictures that overstep the mark (remembering that we are
talking here about level 1 and 2 pictures).
I think my views did change after I had children. Probably not in the
same way your views changed. I'll guess that you became fiercely
protective of your kids and would have felt homicidal towards any adult
who took photos of your kids with a zoom lens. Whereas I saw what sort
of photos they took of each other with their new cameras and realised
how bloody trivial it is to take a picture of a naked body and how
ridiculous it was that I was supposed to tell them off for doing so. And
I also felt that if a child of mine downloaded an indecent picture
whilst going through his adolescence and trying to make sense of his
sexuality, the result could be that his future career would be totally
destroyed by a prosecution and an entry on the sex offenders register.
So my conclusion was that the law definitely catches some obnoxious
people who peddle photographs of children who are being abused, and such
people certainly deserve to go to gaol. But the law also catches
numerous people who are harmless and don't deserve to be pilloried and
have their careers destroyed, and the police can haul in hundreds of
these a week, if they want to look busy and justify their existence.
You may mean me. If so, you've misunderstood my point again.
The law says that the only arbiters of what is an indecent picture, are
the members of the jury. Obviously any person can make up his own mind
about whether a picture is decent or indecent, and can then try to foist
his own beliefs on others.
But see my point above. How do you tell the public at large what an
indecent picture is and what they should avoid, given that these
pictures are taboo and can only be seen by a tiny number of people in a
courtroom?
I feel sure that the average member of the public, reading the news
reports about those who are convicted, must draw the conclusion that
each conviction must involve ghastly pictures showing babies being raped
or suchlike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:03:51 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netNov 2009, The Todal <...@beeb.net
And do they? Does the fact they do, establish any kind of "caselaw", or
like "Scooby Doo" does someone press a reset button at the start of
every episode?
They probably will, so the assumptions about liklihood of a successful
prosecution should track that.
I'm getting a mixed message here. Are you saying that although in your
opinion only a juror can legally tell, that's actually an unsatisfactory
system, and you'd rather it was done by an expert who has calibrated his
views based on a wealth of experience?
No, I mean that I've heard too much from one lot of people who would
like to legalise level 1 & 2, and another lot of people who think that
level 1 is too strict a test and want "softer" material prohibited. I
can see both points of view, and realise that there's no simple answer.
It's very tempting to suppose it would be useful to do a "deal" and say
that if people stop trying to trivialise this work by constantly moaning
about borderline decisions on type 1 & 2 material, and gave
whole-hearted support for prosecuting type 3+, that legalising type 1 &
2 would be a useful compromise.
But what if all that did was cause them to start moaning about
"borderline type 3" material instead?
And then you have many members of society who think that type 1 material
is beyond the pale, how do you explain such a deal to them?
It's very similar to the "legalise cannabis" argument.
And you don't think that juries will be given any advice about this by
the court?
That sounds like an argument to "legalise level 1 & 2". (Possibly on the
grounds that there's too high a risk of false positives, but also
possibly because people might stumble over such pictures innocently too
often).
I don't know. Frankly I'm fed up with spinning wheels discussing type 1
& 2, when the real harm is with types 3+.
Not at all. What comes into extra focus as a parent is an understanding
of what they might be going through if their children are photographed
in type 3+ circumstances.
This is all about type 1 & 2 I suppose.
So not unlike experimenting with drugs?
The fact remains that the law still thinks that type 1 & 2 should be
prohibited, and is not in fact "harmless". If you want to change that,
I'm afraid talking to me won't get you anywhere, as I don't work in that
area any more.
No, they can decide if that's the sort of picture juries often class as
indecent.
And when it's type 3+ pictures, do you think that's a bad thing to be
doing?
They can read the CPS guidelines. Most of them probably understand words
like masturbation (type 2) and would recognise it when they saw it.
A lot of them are, though. I'd be quite content if all press reports
also included notification of the levels involved (and many already do).
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:38:46 -0800 (PST), thedarkman <...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
Just as a matter of interest, is there a statute of limitations on
possession or distribution of child pornography? I haven't got the
details at hand at the moment but a while ago there was a bloke who
admitted to the police that he'd distributed some indecent pics - they
were investigating another matter - they sat on it for a while then
decided to take no action. What happens if they change their mind?
Re Glitter, the only "crime" he was convicted of in Britain was
looking at pictures. Contrast him now with Jonathan King who has just
written a song with the hook "There's nothing wrong with buggering
boys"
On 7 Nov, 12:08, Dissenter <...@privacy.net>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:05:55 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message
<...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com17:38:46 on Sat, 7 Nov 2009, thedarkman <...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UKremarked:
Are there statutes of limitations on anything in this country (other
than some financial offences - where the likely unavailability of
records causes a pragmatic limit to be set)?
As a legal issue (applies to many offences) can someone who pleads
guilty, do so in the absence of any other evidence that they were
involved?
Possessing them, probably. That's been a crime since 1978, so hardly a
new concept.
Roland.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:57:46 +0000, The Todal <...@beeb.net
There is no statute of limitations for criminal offences.
I haven't got the
They could prosecute. Presumably they have their reasons for not
prosecuting every single crime that comes their way - including perhaps
the possibility that police have damaged or lost some of the vital evidence.
Of having the pictures on his computer, which amounts to the offence of
"making" them even if he merely downloaded them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:58:27 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netNov 2009, The Todal <...@beeb.net
That's true, but even without the somewhat contrived "making" offence,
he would still be guilty of possession.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:33:17 +0000, Cynic <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:58:27 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.ukwrote:
And possession of a photograph - *any* photograph is reason to
contemplate using the death penalty? (Which is what the fictitious
documentary was postulating).
I cannot agree that merely possessing a photograph could possibly
warrant a severe punishment.
--
Cynic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:32:00 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@4ax.comTue, 10 Nov 2009, Cynic <...@yahoo.co.uk
Of course not. Why would expect me to think that?
One photograph perhaps, but many of the people who are caught have
thousands of them :(
(It's a but like the drugs thing, what "duty free allowance" does
society think people should be able to carry around without fear of
prosecution?)
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:28:14 +0000, Cynic <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:32:00 +0000, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.ukwrote:
And? Did the possession of them cause any harm whatsoever to anyone?
--
Cynic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|