This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This section is a very poor, and incorrect, summary of UK law :
"Police conducting Operation Ore in the UK targeted all names for investigation due to the difference in laws in between the US and the UK, which allowed for arrest on a charge of incitement to distribute child pornography based solely on the presence of a name in the database, regardless if the card was used - fraudulently or not - for child pornography or other legal adult sites. Law in the UK allows conviction on the basis of incitement to distribute indecent images - as such, the mere presence on the database, regardless of the legality of the sites paid for, was sufficient to warrant prosecution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.122.228 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So Thomas could have gotten 5 years in prison, but because he faught charges, he got 1,335?! I'm no law expert, but that sounds way beyond belief. I've never even heard of murders, or even serial killers getting more then a few hundred years or so. This has to be vandalism, right? 97.114.135.219 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply