Comedian Tom Binns spared jail despite having 35,000 child sexual abuse images

[Jigsy]

Actual CSAM/CSEM.

@LogicOverEmotions

Coming across an Anime character in a suggestive pose (which constitutes porn in many places) is very easy. Google images levels of easy.

Oh, they absolutely hate that. Believe me.

[Giacobbe]

@Jigsy

Yeah, the whole polygraph test (like, all of it) really surprised me.

Wouldn’t surprise me if the UK still believes in Phrenology.

Phrenology isn’t why the polygraph is still used. Most experts agree it’s largely useless as a lie-detecting tool. The reason why the polygraph is used is pure psyops. Innocent people are hesitant to submit to a test due to the fear of being incorrectly labeled a liar. Narcissists will happily agree to the test under the false assumption that they’re more in-control of their emotions than they truly are.

An innocent person who happens to be incredibly paranoid and jumpy will probably fail a polygraph. A totally unfeeling yet intelligent psychopath will probably pass. But a guilty narcissist?

I’m TOTALLY gonna lie to this polygraph and get away with it!

Test results say you’re a liar.

NOOOOOO!!! HOW COULD THIS BE???

*proceeds to crumble and spill everything

What the polygraph actually says don’t mean shit. But if the authorities scare the shit outta the narcissist by merely claiming that the test failed? The narcissist’s entire persona is shattered.

Bottom line, NEVER EVER EVER agree to a polygraph. If you’re innocent, it could incriminate you. If you’re guilty, you’re falling into their trap. You’d have to either be a colossal idiot and/or a majorly arrogant ass to actually take one.

[Loz_T]

@Larry

5,000 CSEM is a LOT of images to have downloaded “accidently”. Of course, given that British law also includes CGI and hand drawn images, they may not have involved any actual children. I am not an expert in British jurisprudence, but do they consider naturist photos including children, as “indecent” as well? These are about as erotic as the old National Geographic photos of native people in very warm climates. But they could have been mixed in with real porno.

There is no legal definition of “indecent”. It largely depends on the prudishness of the magistrate or jury. While simple nudity, such as naturist pictures (anyone remember H&E?) or National Geographic type material would not normally be declared such, a lot depends on context.

If someone had a large collection of such material, the prosecution’s case wuld be that it was used for sexual purposes and therefore “became” indecent. This, however, is not what the law says - the word refers only to individual pictures.

There have been cases of people being prosecuted after taking photographs out in the street in which children were visible.