Mr Beefy wrote:Grahaml wrote:Seems the search term has been released. Reading the paper today it's a weird thing but the incriminating part is the use of the word "tiny". Have to say, you'd have a hard time convinving me that's how you search specifically for child porn as opposed to slim or short porn. If (and that's obviously a big if) that is the entire basis of this case then given he's lost his job and the publicity surrounding this is so enormous, I'm inclined to think his request to not have a conviction recorded had merit.
No doubt at all anyone who goes out looking for child porn deserves to suffer for the rest of their lives. But I just can't bring myself to say for sure that there was anything in this that shows an intent to break the law or even negligence that he should have known.
"tiny" is only in one of the search terms he used, some of the others seemed quite specific to me
That was the only one I saw. The article gave the impression that was the term they took issue with. Unless I missed a chunk. News limited journalists aren't exactly the most readable writers I've come across.