Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Canberra man arrested for downloading child porn.

By Mick 7 January 2010 69

A tip off from the FBI has lead to Canberra police arresting a Canberra man, Michael Cooper, whilst he was in the process of downloading images.

He has over 5Tb of explicit images and was caught after actually posting an image.

Clearly he has no morales, brains or much of a future.

The full article is on the ABC News site including a photo of the offender, Michael Cooper.

He’s been granted bail but is not allowed to access the internet…

Is that really good enough?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/07/2787475.htm

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
69 Responses to
Canberra man arrested for downloading child porn.
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Tooks 3:27 pm 21 Jan 10

I don’t often agree with DMD, but I think that comment is pretty much spot on.

WalkTheTalk 3:23 pm 21 Jan 10

Well said ‘DMD’. Good summation of the issue at hand and I agree with your point – anonymity should fit this case – (as an adjunct) especially if there are strong bail conditions imposed such as not accessing internet etc. and bail compliance checks are being undertaken. The same (ie. anonymity) should apply if the alleged offender was remanded.

‘Tooks’ at #63 – thanks mate. I was confident that my post at #61 would be seen by others as reasonable.

‘MB’ at #62 – I don’t see the need for quotation marks around the word ‘attack’. Mick was called a “numpty” and “vigilante”. Feel free to substitute “criticised”, “labelled”, “insulted” or anything else in that vein though, if you don’t agree with my terminology. In any event, defeat the person’s position – not the person.

IMHO I don’t think Mick’s post at #10 suggested that the disk drive was full of child abuse images – I think he was suggesting that it might continue to be used for that purpose (perhaps an accurate suggestion, perhaps not).

His comment appears to me to be based on a speculative and (understandably to some readers) inflammatory opinion. Opinions generally tend to have some amount of speculation though don’t they, and inflammatory comments are nothing new here!

IMHO he didn’t fabricate any part of the story, just called it how he saw it.

PBO 12:38 pm 21 Jan 10

DMD #65 hit the nail on the head. ++1

Thumper 12:16 pm 21 Jan 10

+1 DMD

Deadmandrinking 11:22 am 21 Jan 10

I think this argument is pretty much a casing point for the need to conceal the name of a person who has been accused of such an offense from the media until that person has been convicted.

I will say that the evidence appears to be stacked up against the accused in this case, although, not being a magistrate and only being aware of that evidence from a newspaper report, I could never truly pass judgment on the accused’s guilt until he has been found guilty in a court of law.

The reason I believe that his name and his image shouldn’t have been revealed is because this kind of crime is one where, even if somebody is found innocent, it’s very difficult to shake the suspicion. I know the accused’s name, and I have seen his image. If I passed him on the street, the first thing that would be on my mind is his association with this crime. Even if he was found innocent, I would still be thinking much the same. So would a great deal of other people in the community.

If he is found guilty, he should go to jail. He would have been found to have done something so horrendous, I believe someone should forfeit their freedom for it. I also hope he would receive psychiatric help, as I think that it’s got to be a sickness of some kind. Before that happens however, it should be remembered that one of the greatest freedoms in our society is to be accused, rather than guilty before one is convicted or acquitted.

Tooks 8:20 am 21 Jan 10

Mike Bessenger said :

Did they “attack” him for his opinion or for fabricating parts of the story?

I think the only fabrication was that he said there were 5TB of images, rather than 5TB of total storage seized, which was probably just a mistake on his part.

Tooks 11:21 pm 20 Jan 10

WalkTheTalk said :

Tooks, your post at #60 falls short of the mark in that certain individuals didn’t just disagree with Mick’s opinion, they attacked him personally. A good argument sticks to the point at hand. Stooping to insults is the sign of either a poor argument, poor intellect, or both.

It’s a bad day when people get ‘brow-beaten’ into not expressing their opinions (whatever they may be) in the first place – insults are a great way to kill debate or spin it off the topic and into a slanging match. I suggest that such behaviour is the antithesis of sites like this.

Isn’t the idea of ‘Riotact’ to allow people to freely express their opinions and debate topics of the day?

I think that’s a fair call, actually.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site