There is something sadly wrong here.

[blackburn_stevie]

Here's a link but don't look at it yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-26979187

The story is that a paedo was convicted and sent to prison. Score one to the police.

The paedo has asked for the return of his laptop and phone that were used to secure his conviction.

The laptop contains photos of the paedo's victim, a very young girl.

But here's the thing. It would be illegal for the police to delete the photos of his victim before returning the laptop.

Surely there's something not right there.

[cee-dee]

No, it's not right but because they're not er....... vulgar they can't lawfully be deleted.

The fault lies with who convicted the bloke, a confiscation or destruction order ought to have been made?

[lhasa.two]

Outrageous!

Maybe his solicitor could act as the go-between by asking Mr Paedo if he/she can delete the family pics before handing it back to him... there has to be a way around this.

It's an example yet again of not knowing the EU laws that affect us until we stumble upon them.

Suggest Mr Cameron puts it on his "to do" list.

[bankhaunter]

There have been many instances over the years of things being missed when statutes have been written resulting in unforeseen consequences, this is just one example.

Hopefully one omission that will quickly be rectified, the human rights issue is only one of the police not having to right to delete pictures solely because they don't like them, it has to be specifically illegal to possess them before that can happen.

[queenelsa83]

All paedophiles in this world just need to die quite frankly in my all-out honest opinion 😠

They're totally sick in the head, what they choose to get off on for a "hobbie" 😠

[blackburn_stevie]

 cee-dee wrote ..... No, it's not right but because they're not er....... vulgar they can't lawfully be deleted.

What is "vulgar" though?

I mean, I have 3 grandaughters ranging in age from 2 - 21 years and if I see them naked in the bath (not the 21 year old since she was about 12) I don't get any thoughts of a sexual nature. It was always just a case of scrubbing them down and then getting them dry. BUT, if a bloke has to do the same thing for his child relatives and he DOES get some perverted pleasure from doing such things, who is to say that he won't be sexually excited by a photo of the same girl fully dressed?

Personally I think the police should accidentally drop the laptop on the road just as a load of cars are approaching.

[saasher2012]

Vulgar is posing in an explicit suggestive way. If it was an ordinary pic that we all take of children then it is deemed innocent. If it were not so we would all be in jail. Where does perversion start! Well I think we all know that or at least we should do?

[cee-dee]

It's a few years back now and I can't remember the case that provoked the following but it was either a cop or lawyer who said that any man who'd bathed his (or any) children was sitting on a time bomb if there was any "dispute" in later life. By that he meant that they were wide open to accusations of improper behavour with no means of defending themselves except simple denial.

What is "vulgar" is open to debate. In the minds of some, any nudity is "vulgar".

[bankhaunter]

There was a time back in the 50s  when if a police officer thought something was obscene that was sufficient for it to be so.

A man was charged with taking obscene pictures in a public park, the pictures were of his wife who was fully dressed in normal street clothes.

The reason why the officer deemed them obscene was because she was wearing high heeled shoes.

[cee-dee]

An update:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-27126910

Will they do it properly though by overwriting them in such a way that they can't be recovered?