digital kangaroo girl

I was randomly poked on MSN by someone who I didn't know, and I don't know how or when they were added to my contacts, but they seemed friendly enough, so I engaged in conversation with them. They shared with me an anecdote where were drunk and bent over to fill a bucket of water or something, when a dog mounted her. She said she felt really guilty about this. I told her that she shouldn't feel guilty. If she didn't enjoy it then she shouldn't feel responsible, and if she did enjoy it then she should allow it as it was the dogs choice. She told me she was from austrailia, and I offered an anecdote of my own where I hugged a kangaroo. Psychosexuality and bestiality is a subject that interests me greatly, and I engage in conversation about it whenever I can


the conversation then quickly started to take a darker tone. Eventually, became apparent that, according to her, she was a girl of 11-14 years of age, and was being brainwashed, drugged and sexually abused by her father. She sent what she claimed to be pictures of herself. While her story made little sense, I didn't want to take any chances, knowing that if this was real, I could well be her only chance for reprieve

I therefore kept her talking, and downloaded each of the pictures she gave me, there were between ten and fifteen. I burned the images, chatlog and a description of what was going on onto a dvd and gave it in to the local police station, informing them that if they needed my laptop for analyses they were more then welcome

ten minutes after my arrival home, two police officers visited me, asked me some further questions and asked if they could take my laptop for analysis, and I gladly handed it over

after about a week the laptop was sent to CiD, when I received a phone call from one of their inspectors. We chatted, and he told me he may have my computer for up to six weeks. Three months later, I still had no laptop, and the PC that I was using as a backup experienced some problems. I phoned the CiD and asked them where my laptop was. The inspector visited me, told me that the girl was over 18, but said that there was a large amount of animal porn on the laptop, and therefore it would not be returned to me, but would be destroyed

he was referring to a folder that I had on the hard drive labelled 'animal porn'. I had expressed concern about this folder when the officers too my laptop. The folder contained many images of animal genitalia, mostly horses, but nothing illegal. The collection itself however was certainly questionable under what is known as the extreme pornography act 2008, and I didn't know if this would effect me. Upon reading the law that day, I realized that it wouldn't

the images were on my computer as a result of an online conversation I had with a person whome I commissioned an unrelated story from. This person was interested in the topic of bestiality and zoosexuality, and was attracted to horses. I found them interesting, but eccentric, and they sent me these files, which I stored but never really looked at in any great detain, for months they were just buried on my hard drive

I tried to protest, pointing out that the images were in fact not illegal (but questionable), and that they could wipe or take the hard drive and return the rest of my computer, but he refused. He told me that I had committed an arrestable offence and that if I refused to sign a disclaimer saying that I give up rights to my computer, he would arrest me. I signed the disclaimer

with support, I tried to arrange a meeting with the police, to try to clarify things and possible see if I had means to be compensated ect, but I only received a letter, which I shall analyses promptly. Names have been changed to protect the innocent



this is a beautifully cuntish way to open the letter. The facts are; he is accusing me of breaking the law, he has taken my computer, I disagree, I would like to appeal. What he has done here is that he has simply blamed the whole issue on my “confusion”. Also, he spelt my name wrong here



I didn't really say that there may be images involving sex with animals, I said there certainly will be images of animals that may be sexual in nature but which I know are legal, but that they might cause problems, with respect to the extreme pornography act 2008. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/part/5/crossheading/pornography-etc after re-examining the law, I realized that there should be nothing to worry about. Also, there were two officers, not one



he spoke with me twice over the phone. The time he called to say that the laptop had been passed to him and we had a chat, the second to arrange to come around to tell me he was keeping the laptop. Any other time I attempted to call, he would not be available and would leave a message on my answer phone sometime later. I think this occurred once

also, seeing as she is over the age of 18, I present t you the only decent image she sent, as far as I know, all of the other images were of the same person

i191.photobucket.com/albums/z16/dykie-coyote/mygeriatricgirlfriend.jpg

largely, seeing as we've established her age already, this seems like a really demeaning usage of the word “female”



this is my favourite paragraph of them all. There were no images of this nature on the laptop at all. If there was, it would be an (undue) offence under the aforementioned extreme pornography act, not the obscene publications act 1959, unless I published them, or was definitely going to, which was clearly not the case. Without this clause, the maximum penalty would in fact be two years imprisonment, and I would probably see no days and a small fine

section 63.6 of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 (the extreme pornography act) states

(6)An “extreme image” is an image which—
           (a)falls within subsection (7), and
           (b)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

And section 63.7(d) (the mentioned subsection (7)) states

(7)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the
 following—
...
           (d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

[/size][/color]

section 63.10 states

(10)Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
           (a)in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
           (b)in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions
           for Northern Ireland

[/size][/color]

so, 63.6(b) is clearly subjective, a fact which fall into redundancy when faced with 63.7(d) as in my case NOT ONE of the images on the computer depicted this. And I doubt that the director of public prosecutions was involved, as par 63.10(a)

section 65.1&2(a) states

(1)Where a person is charged with an offence under section 63, it is a defence for the person to prove any
 of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2)The matters are—
           (a)that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;

[/size][/color]

which I believe I did. It goes on to state

           (b)that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to
            suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image;

[/size][/color]

and not only did I not know that these images fell under extreme porn, I know that they don't

the only vaguely relevant thing I can find under the obscene publications act, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/contents , is section 1.3(b)(f1) which states

           or, where the matter is data stored electronically, transmits that data

[/size][/color]

which again falls into redundancy, since I clearly had no intention of publishing or sharing it. So why the mention of this act?

Well, in 2010, the police, particularly in kent, were clearly trying to establish a law whereby if you engaged in obscene conversation via AIM, MSN or something like that, you were in fact committing an offence under the act, on the logic that you were publishing the obscene material to whoever you were talking too

they managed to prosecute a gavin smith, who had engaged in such a conversation, and who had also allegedly produced as well as stored child porn. The case was thrown out, but appealed. This time the judge advised gavin that if he pleaded guilty, he was likely to receive a suspended prison sentence or community service. Given the situation he was in, he pleaded guilty, an so the law was reformed

www.melonfarmers.co.uk/thread00713_obscene_private_chat.htm

youdoubled.com/watch_video.php?v=K2YDOB1DKUOB

it is fair to say that my conversation might fall fowl of such a law, but;

• the law is ridiculously unreasonable
  
• the law is subjective, and he is abusing it
  
  and here's the thing
  
  
• he states in the letter the act of storing the images was subject to this law, not the MSN conversation itself, which is utter nonsense as I was not intending to publish these legal images in any way
  

also note that when he visited me, he said I was in violation of the extreme pornography act



wrong date. Policies do not over-ride laws. You can't come to my house and say “we are destroying your properly as par our policy” any more then I can knock on the door of my attractive neighbour and say “i must insist that you sleep with me, as par my policy” (although I could try). This is cearly a case of taking someone's property without reason, AKA theft, and no damned policy can over ride that

and the fact that he says that I committed an arrestable offence but he isn't going to arrest me anyway proves that the laws that he has stated are either irrelevant or subjective, t the point where he himself doesn't feel a need to arrest me, just take my computer. If he had arrested me, he ran a great risk of ridicule or worse

and I signed the disclaimer during what I would frankly call bullying. He knew I was anxious, so he threatened to make things worse for me by arresting me if I didn't sign the disclaimer. When I handed my computer in, there was a problem with the battery (as well as many other things), and so I gave them the power supply and lead. These were not returned either, which I find odd since the computer was to be “destroyed”. When the initial officers left, I beat myself for not offering my rather expensive carry case (which I still use to this day), if I had no doubt I would not have received it or it, or its contents if any, back either

and what's the message here? 'don't report child abuse or you'll probably be stung yourself'

and so my ironic reaction to this whole saga – fuck the pigs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

message one
Hello this is a message for --- CID, i'm just phoning to update you that, um, the investigation has been passed to myself regarding the images you told --- reception about. And, um, hopefully, I want to speak to you, in some details, to explain what the proceeder is in terms of getting the computer examined, and hopefully I will catch up with you in the next few days or so, um, but just to update you, that I am now looking at the investigation and, um, hopefully we will speak soon. Thanks allot bye for now

message two
hello, its --- CID, i'm just phoning to give you a quick update regarding what happened with, um, the images, um, you reported. Um, the computers still with our high tech crime unit, um, waiting examination, unfortunately they have a bit of a backlog at the moment, but hopefully it won't be too much longer, but as soon as they examine it, i'll let you know so you can have your computer back. Many thanks, and any question feel free to phone me at any time and have a chat. thanks allot, bye for now

message three
hello --- CID, im just phoning to say, er that our high tech unit have finished examining the computer, and we need to have a chat to you about, er a few things. If you could give me a ring back, please, on --- um, that would be much appreciated. Many thanks, bye for now

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~