William Paul Bellew gets his conviction downgraded to a slap on the wrist

Colour Sydney
Racing Identity

Some people just don’t get it, and your one of them, as they say there are two kinds of stupid people, one that knows their stupid and one that doesn’t know it!

Aurelius said :

Yes Spideydog, the police are but one link in the chain. And yes, similar criticisms against the DPP for wasting resources on such an absurd case are equally valid.
But the DPP do not go out there finding people who have Simpsons cartoons, do they? The Police are wasting time and resources of not only themselves but everyone else in the chain with such ridiculous behaviour.
And for the record, I have been equally critical of the DPP on this forum in other matters. And as my comment that you quoted was in response to a comment BY A POLICE OFFICER, it’s not difficult to comprehend that I was critical of the Police’s role in the matter.
The Police are not above criticism, especially when wasting public resources.

Who said Police “went out of their way to find people” Most of the time matters are reported to Police by members of the public or other agencies. If a matter is reported to Police, they are obliged to investigate the matter, whether you think it is time wasting or frivolous.

Exactly how much knowledge do you have in this matter, or is your knowledge constrained to media reports ?

“The Police are not above criticism” – Yep your right, but neither are you, especially when they are doing what they are obliged to do.

Given that he had 10000+ images and only 120 something were classified as child porn it would suggest most of the images he had were fine. 120 something were over the line. Go to jail.

Aurelius said :

And for the record, I have been equally critical of the DPP on this forum in other matters. And as my comment that you quoted was in response to a comment BY A POLICE OFFICER, it’s not difficult to comprehend that I was critical of the Police’s role in the matter.
The Police are not above criticism, especially when wasting public resources.

Who was the police officer you were responding to?

Aurelius said :

Tooks said :

I would’ve thought the opposite was true. Such a harsh sentence for possessing child porn of this kind (drawings of cartoon characters) shows possession of any kind of child porn will be dealt with harshly.

Except, of course, it isn’t child porn, is it?
Whatever the legislation says, fictional imaginary characters committing sexual acts isn’t child porn.
Are the police happy Tooks they’ve saved a child in this case?
Even one that exists only in a cartoon show?
Child porn laws are designed to protect children.
There were never any allegations Bellew had any images of real child porn, was there? Just imaginary cartoon characters.
In my time, I’ve seen some rather dodgy pictures of various members of the Flintstones and the Rubbles Tooks. You gunna come arrest me?
Waste. of. police. time.

Feel better after your little tanty? Under legislation it is classed as child porn. It doesn’t matter what you and I think (FWIW, I don’t think it should be classed as child porn).

1) Are the police happy? I don’t know, go and ask them. I’m sure the ones who deal with child abuse on a daily basis could offer a unique perspective.

2) Never said I agreed with the laws as they stand. You and I would be in agreement there.

3) “Child porn laws are designed to protect children” – I agree 100%.

4) As for your last comment about Flintstones etc – Grow up.

Pommy bastard said :

Mr Lalor said he found it hard to believe Bellew, a father of three, did not consider the ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” images child pornography.

Now call me odd, but for the images to be described by the judge as; ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” makes me think that they were more than just a jokey cartoon…

Agreed, however, I can recall back in my school days, very explicit, though crude in both senses of the word, drawings of teachers being sharing intimate moments with students and being invloved in *ahem* interspecies erotica. Most people would have viewed these as ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” to say the least.

Yes Spideydog, the police are but one link in the chain. And yes, similar criticisms against the DPP for wasting resources on such an absurd case are equally valid.
But the DPP do not go out there finding people who have Simpsons cartoons, do they? The Police are wasting time and resources of not only themselves but everyone else in the chain with such ridiculous behaviour.
And for the record, I have been equally critical of the DPP on this forum in other matters. And as my comment that you quoted was in response to a comment BY A POLICE OFFICER, it’s not difficult to comprehend that I was critical of the Police’s role in the matter.
The Police are not above criticism, especially when wasting public resources.

Skidbladnir said :

Three simple (single conjugated verb on a plural countable noun, possessive their instead of locator there, temporal locator then instead of comparative than) mistakes in the one sentence? I expected better from you, p1…

Me has know idea what youse am talking about.

Mr Lalor said he found it hard to believe Bellew, a father of three, did not consider the ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” images child pornography.

Now call me odd, but for the images to be described by the judge as; ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” makes me think that they were more than just a jokey cartoon…

cleo said :

Mr Lalor said he found it hard to believe Bellew, a father of three, did not consider the ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” images child pornography.

WTF are you people thick or what? They were images of children, which the pedophile had put I imagine heads of the Simpsons on their bodies and possibly other parts.

Can you show me some evidence that it was images of children? Or do you just ‘imagine’ this is the case?

Aurelius said :

The police in this matter are doing an appalling job.
By pursuing someone for something that might be technically illegal, but absurdly harmless, they show the public that the issue of child pornography isn’t a terribly serious one at all. Or, it shows us that when they charge someone with child poornography offences, it’s possible all they’d done was draw some pictures.
How many times have we discussed in this forum the idea that police using their powers inappropriately dilutes respect for the police? This is not helping their cause.

Good to see another Police hater with an axe to grind. Have you considered that it is not the decision of Police to prosecute ….. It is the job of Police to collect the facts/evidence of an offence, when reported to them (no matter how “absurdly harmless” you think the offence is) and then it is the DPP that decides to prosecute and then the COURT to determine guilt and if applicable, give a sentence to the offender.

You have conveniently singled out the Police in this matter, and not considered that it was the DPP that prosecuted or “pursued” as you called it and the court had a finding of guilt for your “absurdly harmless” offence.

If you think that the police have used their power inappropriately, then you must be calling the DPP and the court the same thing, otherwise it would have never made it to court in the first place, or the court would have thrown the matter out. I am not aware of the court criticising the DPP or Police for apparently using their power inappropriately in this case, are you?

The only thing I got from your post, was an apparent opportunity to have an anti-police rant.

There was obviously an offence there, otherwise he would not have been found guilty of it. How about you argue the absurdness of the law or this particular interpretation of that law, instead of going after the Police who are duty bound to investigate offences, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not. The Police are but one link in the chain of the prosecution.

Mr Lalor said he found it hard to believe Bellew, a father of three, did not consider the ”vivid, degrading and disgraceful” images child pornography.

WTF are you people thick or what? They were images of children, which the pedophile had put I imagine heads of the Simpsons on their bodies and possibly other parts.

p1 said :

I find it hard to believe that there is many people out their who thought this guy needed to be locked up for longer then people get for stabbing someone in the ACT.

Currently even repeat offenders get off on technicalities (To paraphrase: “My child porn video was blurry, so was not evidence of a crime” -John Desmond Thompson, “Its not interfering with witnesses when he’s a co-conspirator, I want easier bail conditions”- Rebecca Massey) without penalty.
I think our system here is going for the truly absurdist legal experience, in that if you were to grind our entire legal system into the finest powder and then run it through the finest sieve, we wouldn’t find a single atom of justice or a molecule of justifiable mercy.

p1 said :

I find it hard to believe that there is many people out their who thought this guy needed to be locked up for longer then people get for stabbing someone in the ACT.

Three simple (single conjugated verb on a plural countable noun, possessive their instead of locator there, temporal locator then instead of comparative than) mistakes in the one sentence? I expected better from you, p1…

Anybody who watches The Simpsons should be locked up.

This is just stupid!

I guess I could be charged for possessing a DVD with the South Park episode ‘good times with weapons’ you can see Cartmans penis towards the end, also why not charge the makers for ‘producing child pornography’

And what about the photos of my full frontal nudity, taken when I was a small child playing in the sprinkler in the back yard, my little acorn is fully visible!

We need to wake up to ourselves.

Tooks said :

I would’ve thought the opposite was true. Such a harsh sentence for possessing child porn of this kind (drawings of cartoon characters) shows possession of any kind of child porn will be dealt with harshly.

Except, of course, it isn’t child porn, is it?
Whatever the legislation says, fictional imaginary characters committing sexual acts isn’t child porn.
Are the police happy Tooks they’ve saved a child in this case?
Even one that exists only in a cartoon show?
Child porn laws are designed to protect children.
There were never any allegations Bellew had any images of real child porn, was there? Just imaginary cartoon characters.
In my time, I’ve seen some rather dodgy pictures of various members of the Flintstones and the Rubbles Tooks. You gunna come arrest me?
Waste. of. police. time.

Icepoet said :

It says he had as many as 10,000 of these types of pictures on his computer but was only charged over 127. He wasn’t just some guy having a laugh.

Correction, “…collected cartoons of children being sexually abused… Downloading cartoons was William Paul Bellew’s hobby and he had as many as 10,000 on his computer, 127 of which were the subject of charges.”
Calling it 127 depictions of child pornography leaves it as something to be argued about, but by referencing the non-porn all you’re really saying saying is that approximately 98.73% of his colection was not criminal (the set of 1.27% which is on the wrong side of the law is the set through which that ‘collected cartoons of child abuse’ phrase comes in), and seems to undermine the validity of your raging.

None of us were in the court room, and I can’t find a copy of his sentencing online, so all we have to go on are the newspaper unless somone wants to come forward with extra first-hand information to tell us.
However, just hand out the pitchforks and flaming torches before anybody realises!

Icepoet said :

Read the full story – http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/child-abuse-cartoon-collector-sentenced/1740781.aspx

It says he had as many as 10,000 of these types of pictures on his computer but was only charged over 127. He wasn’t just some guy having a laugh.

It does not say 10,000 of the cartoons downloaded were ‘these types of pictures’.

not so sure about all this now:

Last week, the court heard he used to tinker with the cartoons and turn them into likenesses of characters from The Simpsons.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/child-abuse-cartoon-collector-sentenced/1740781.aspx

So, were they originally cartoons or were they originally images of real people?

Read the full story – http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/child-abuse-cartoon-collector-sentenced/1740781.aspx

It says he had as many as 10,000 of these types of pictures on his computer but was only charged over 127. He wasn’t just some guy having a laugh.

Tooks said :

Some have assumed that he simply drew cartoon pictures, when it appears he may have (I don’t know the facts of the case) manipulated real images to make them look like Simpson characters.

Not disturbing at all.

So we can lock up people who draw funny and somewhat offensive cartoons, but we can’t apply the same penalty to thieves, thugs and drug dealers.

Terrific.

ConanOfCooma said :

This is an interesting issue.

Simpsons pr0n is quite popular on the internet; many talented illustrators depict the Simpson family in sexual acts with each other, some with varying degree of explicitness, others are just plain despicable.

What the description above says is that the perpetrator has manipulated existing images of child abuse so that they REPRESENT the Simpsons characters.

This is not harmless cartoon hentai crap, it’s pictures of child abuse that this chap has manipulated to reduce the level of “humanity” he views in the victims.

In the eyes of the law, even fictional (and cartoon) depictions of child abuse are illegal in a sexual context. Quite rightly so.

Death penalty for all crimes against children, even indirect ones.

Good point. Some have assumed that he simply drew cartoon pictures, when it appears he may have (I don’t know the facts of the case) manipulated real images to make them look like Simpson characters.

ConanOfCooma said :

This is an interesting issue.
What the description above says is that the perpetrator has manipulated existing images of child abuse so that they REPRESENT the Simpsons characters.

If that is correct, then there is a victim so some form of sentence would be appropriate.

Aurelius said :

By pursuing someone for something that might be technically illegal, but absurdly harmless, they show the public that the issue of child pornography isn’t a terribly serious one at all.

I would’ve thought the opposite was true. Such a harsh sentence for possessing child porn of this kind (drawings of cartoon characters) shows possession of any kind of child porn will be dealt with harshly.

The argument that cartoon drawings are not as harmful as photos or footage of real children is a valid one, but under current legislation, he is guilty of the offence. Perhaps this particular piece of legislation (ie. the definitions) needs tweaking.

This is an interesting issue.

Simpsons pr0n is quite popular on the internet; many talented illustrators depict the Simpson family in sexual acts with each other, some with varying degree of explicitness, others are just plain despicable.

What the description above says is that the perpetrator has manipulated existing images of child abuse so that they REPRESENT the Simpsons characters.

This is not harmless cartoon hentai crap, it’s pictures of child abuse that this chap has manipulated to reduce the level of “humanity” he views in the victims.

In the eyes of the law, even fictional (and cartoon) depictions of child abuse are illegal in a sexual context. Quite rightly so.

Death penalty for all crimes against children, even indirect ones.

S4anta said :

Perhaps his picture of Bart wasn’t the porblem, but his picture of Snake was the issue…

Or more likely it was of Chief Wiggum.

p1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

What amazes me is that the police/dpp didn’t use discretion/common sense.

Maybe they did, and he is a creepy pervert who deserved to be locked up.

Yeah maybe, but surely if he is there is something more to lock him up on?

A victimless ‘crime’.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Was he really given 12 months weekend detention for drawing pictures of Simpsons characters having sex? Really? If so that is completely over the top. Where is the victim?

Crimes ACT 1900 Sect 65:
Possessing child pornography
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person intentionally possesses pornography; and
(b) the pornography is child pornography. [as defined in Section 64 (5)]
Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 5 years or both.

Section 64 (5):
In this section
“child pornography” means anything that represents(*)—
(a) the sexual parts of a child; or
(b) a child engaged in an activity of a sexual nature; or
(c) someone else engaged in an activity of a sexual nature in the presence of a child;
substantially for the sexual arousal or sexual gratification of someone other than the child.
(*) : represent means depict or otherwise represent on or in a film, photograph, drawing, audiotape, videotape, computer game, the internet or anything else.

No victim is required.
You can fall foul of our child pornography laws without ever seeing flesh.
Then again, you can be a convicted child sex offender and film children without clothes on so long as the resulting footage is so blurry as to fail a representation test.
So, what constitutes a representation of substance for sexual arousal?
It would also depend on the judge.
In the linked case of John Desmond Thompson, Chief Justice Terence Higgins found that the excessive blur prevented the footage from actually representing any sexual parts, so even if they aroused the previously convicted child sex offender John Desmond Thompson, his arousal was deemed irrelevant and so the judgement relied on picture clarity.

William Paul Bellew on the other hand, in having his case tried before Magistrate Grant Lalor, should have known the images were of sexual parts or activities, and in creating something of a sexual nature with a representation of a (fictional) child in it, fell foul of Section 64 (5), because even though he claimed they did not arouse him personally, they were sufficiently clear to form a representation that it would arouse a hypothetical paedophile.

Lesson for paedophiles:
Hire an argumentative lawyer, and either get lucky on Justice selection so that you get Higgins, or make sure you use digital compression so lossy that you can rely on Justice Higgins’ decision as precedent.

Compare the case of Bellew to that of Thompson (who both were tried using the Section 64 (5) definition) and you get a picture of a terribly inconsistent ACT legal system.

The police in this matter are doing an appalling job.
By pursuing someone for something that might be technically illegal, but absurdly harmless, they show the public that the issue of child pornography isn’t a terribly serious one at all. Or, it shows us that when they charge someone with child poornography offences, it’s possible all they’d done was draw some pictures.
How many times have we discussed in this forum the idea that police using their powers inappropriately dilutes respect for the police? This is not helping their cause.

Perhaps his picture of Bart wasn’t the porblem, but his picture of Snake was the issue…

colourful sydney racing identity said :

What amazes me is that the police/dpp didn’t use discretion/common sense.

So who is going to be the person that says ‘well, it does come within the child pornorgraphy law as drafted, but we all know that child pornography isnt a very sensitive subject so I will make a decision as a public servant not to enforce the law’

(although, I agree with you). Still, the law is the law and neither courts nor the DPP have the right not to follow the law just cos its stupid at times.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

What amazes me is that the police/dpp didn’t use discretion/common sense.

Maybe they did, and he is a creepy pervert who deserved to be locked up.

p1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Was he really given 12 months weekend detention for drawing pictures of Simpsons characters having sex? Really? If so that is completely over the top. Where is the victim?

While I understand where these laws come from (you try writing a law which distinguishes between a sketch of bart, and a life-like photo shop image that appears to depict a human child in the same way), this appears to be one of those cases where the court should have been able to exercise some judgement. You know, like their job title implies. But I guess that is why we have appeals.

I find it hard to believe that there is many people out their who thought this guy needed to be locked up for longer then people get for stabbing someone in the ACT.

What amazes me is that the police/dpp didn’t use discretion/common sense.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Was he really given 12 months weekend detention for drawing pictures of Simpsons characters having sex? Really? If so that is completely over the top. Where is the victim?

While I understand where these laws come from (you try writing a law which distinguishes between a sketch of bart, and a life-like photo shop image that appears to depict a human child in the same way), this appears to be one of those cases where the court should have been able to exercise some judgement. You know, like their job title implies. But I guess that is why we have appeals.

I find it hard to believe that there is many people out their who thought this guy needed to be locked up for longer then people get for stabbing someone in the ACT.

Was he really given 12 months weekend detention for drawing pictures of Simpsons characters having sex? Really? If so that is completely over the top. Where is the victim?

Thinking back to the things people used to draw at school this doesn’t seem worthy of even a court appearance – surely there is something more to it than that????

Years ago, at work someone (the office joke-sender, you know the type of guy) sent me via email a cartoon depicting Bart Simpson and the Teri/Sheri twins doing…. well, you can imagine.

I thought it was a bit childish, a bit funny, but basically harmless. The funny bit was basically seeing Bart doing something you’d never see him doing on TV – you know, completely out of context. I deleted the email. So, who goes to jail, me (for viewing it), the guy who sent it (for passing it on), or the guy that originally drew the cartoon (whoever he was)?

I’m not sure if i understand this properly… the guy draws pictures and he goes to weekend detention for that? for cartoons? are you kidding me?? there are no victims here…

obviously he isn’t the full six pack but can u tell me who he has hurt here?….

If I’m understanding correctly the guy’s guilty of drawing stupid pictures – basically the kind of thing you’d expect to see on the back of a toilet door? Seems completely over the top to be charged, named and shamed.

Back when I was at uni in the 90s people would find modified cartoons on the internet and email it around for a laugh. At best it was a joke and at worst was mildly offensive but it was hardly what I’d call illegal.