If this is true it will be the second case where terrorists have been shown to have an indecent interest in images of children.

[sandyRoe]

http://uk.news.yahoo....r-raid-125147501.html



.

[daffy654]

I can't find anything in that article that says the indecent images were of children.

[LazyGun]

How do you know it is the second case Sandy? And I am probably being dense - but what is your point or question or observation?

[mike11111]

It must be by default, as it is not an offence to possess indecent pictures of adults.

[daffy654]

It can be an offence to possess indecent pictures of adults if they are 'extreme' mike11111.

[sandyRoe]

'Terrorists' was the wrong word. I was thinking back to the police raid on a house in east London when they accidentally shot and wounded one of the suspects. They also found indecent images on one of the computers then but decided not to prosecute .

[sandyRoe]

I suppose my point was that it's strange that people who rail against the decadence of our society are using images that most of us would find sickening.

[Duncer]

Wasn't Gerry Adams father done with similar repugnant offences, leading to the new SinnFein slogan, "Tiocfadh our da"?

[LazyGun]

Ahh okay Sandie- thanks for the clarification. Were your thesis to be borne out, you might well be right :) I think a sample size of n=2 is a tad small at the moment to draw an firm conclusions...

[sp1814]

SandyRoe

This is the danger of misinformation.

I know the case you're talking about. The two brothers were not terrorists, and the CPS decided not to prosecute either brother for possessing indecent material because, well - you can read for yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk...i/england/6092624.stm

So, non-terrorists shot and accused of something for which they were not charged with.

Tenuous like to this story really.

[sp1814]

sandyRoe

Why do you think the images are of children?

Was that reported on another site, because I can't find any reference to it in the link you provided...

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....0-damages-police.html

/// Last night it emerged that although the legal advice to the Yard was that they could fight the action, senior officers have decided to settle to avoid sparking 'community' tensions. ///

No comment.

[sandyRoe]

SP1814, what other type of images would now be considered 'indecent'?

LazyGun, we all know that one swallow doesn't make a summer. I wasn't saying that a taste for indecent photographs is a pointer towards terrorism.

[DTCwordfan]

plenty, sandy, buqqery pics, extreme BDSM pics - most folk are unaware that Tony Blair enacted legislation that any photos showing blood and a sexual act are now illegal......

[sandyRoe]

Would somebody report this question and ask to have it deleted? It was based on half remembered 'facts' which I now see weren't true.
I'd report it myself but I can't as I've forgotten my password.

[emmie]

i couldn't find any reference to children in there.

[grffindoor2011]

Another case where someone has seen the word indecent and assumed it means children. The same when someone is arrested and they are believed to have 'images of children on their pc'. Plenty on here have images of children on their pc. Their sons, daughters, nephews, nieces. People make an assumption though and the media like to twist words around.

DTcrosswordfan is correct about types of images now illegal. You could go to prison if you have an image of a man having sex with a horse or fantasy rape.

It was only 12 years ago that hardcore pornography was made legal in the uk. In other words if you had a video of a man having sex with a woman and you could see private parts close up, you could in theory go to prison.

As for this story it says indecent images. That could be anything. It could be images of torture or murder. I would think that is more likely.