I\’ve received an email about Operation Ore, the appeal and my previous coments on it.
As the email is from a reader here worth perhaps extracting from it and considering my views based upon the outcome of that appeal.
In essence, my original pooh pooing of the operation rests on two points:
1) Identity theft.
2) That subscribing to Landslide did not mean subscribing to child porn: that required a second, subsidiary, subscription, and that this distinction was not made in police representations in the various cases.
This appeal was made on the grounds of IC/credit card theft. The judges found that not credible.
From the email:
\”Looking at the appeal judges summing up, in relation to Mr Jim Bates, they say regarding his evidence at the hearing (Section 46):
\”in our view his denial to us of having signed a confidentiality agreement in the case of Grout was a deliberate lie, maintained until his signed agreement was produced to him\”.
They also give their opinion in relation to the appellant\’s explanation for evidence found on his computer and the Landslide servers (Section 55):
\”this answer was misleading, and deliberately so.\”
Put another way – he lied.
In your posting you link to a DT article that states:
\”it did not matter that their computers had been examined and found to be free of child pornography\”
It certainly DID matter, it also mattered when examined computers were found to be free of child pornography but still contained records of visits to the Landslide child pornography websites in the web history – something the article artfully skates over. The Landslide server logs also told their own story – see Section 43 of the ruling.\”
From the judgement:
\”Landslide provided two membership services, the Adult Verification Service and KeyZ. Operation Ore was concerned with the KeyZ service. When someone purchased a subscription using KeyZ, he purchased a subscription to a single website. There were a small number of KeyZ registered web sites.
Someone interested in child pornography would first see a “taster” page, with small images of what could be expected to be available by a subscriber to the child pornography site. He could then progress to the subscription page of the Landslide site. A sample subscription page for Child Rape was in evidence at the trial. It is headed “Child Rape”, and requires the viewer to enter his name, postal address, email address, and his credit card number and expiry date. In addition, he must choose a password to enable him to access the members’ area of the site during the period of his subscription. At the bottom of the subscription page is the information for the subscriber:
“When you sign up for a KEYZ account, your credit card will be charged by Landslide Inc. The address you enter must match the billing address of your credit card.”
That would also seem to indicate that the differences between Landslide and KeyZ were also considered.
I have to admit to still being unsure. There most certainly have, in the past, been prosecutions where the police (and others in officialdom) were being lying scumbags: off the top of my head, the topping of Lord Haw Haw (not being a UK citizen he couldn\’t be charged with treason) through to the Birmingham 6 and other such cases.
I am therefore considering changing my mind on this particular case. However, I\’m going to wait a bit and see what others whose opinions and detailed knowledge I respect and admire say before finally plumping one way or the other.
Changed facts should leave to changed minds: don\’t judge me too harshly if it takes a little time.