Eric Joyce - former Labour shadow chancellor pleads guilty to making child porn

Eric Joyce: Ex-Labour MP faces prison over child abuse footage of baby

Eric Joyce was warned that he faces a jail term

A former MP and army officer is facing a jail sentence after he admitted making an indecent image of children as young as one.

Eric Joyce, 59, of Worlingworth, Suffolk, pleaded guilty yesterday to possessing a film on an electronic device that depicted several children.

He was the Labour MP for Falkirk between 2000 and 2012 and then sat as an independent until 2015. Joyce had spent 21 years in the army, rising to the rank of major. He was arrested in November 2018.

Judge Emma Peters at Ipswich crown court said the single 51-second film “depicts a number of children”. She added that “some are quite young, one is said to be 12 months old”, which was classed as a category-A offence.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-mp-eric-joyce-admits-possessing-child-abuse-images-70qzntk83




More labour peados are listed here...

Labour25.com

Making indecent images of babies?.....throw the book at him.

Syl wrote:Making indecent images of babies?.....throw the book at him.

First put a hand grenade in the book.

I fucking hate these kind of people.
Hope he dies a horrible death.

What is it with these people, how sick can you get? I think they should be put down and why can't it be done the same as with an animal - one painless injection and goodbye.
Bit vengeful tonight it seems.

There is , I believe anyway, no cure for the sickness that finds babies and children sexually stimulating.
The only way it can be stopped is by the person themselves controlling their urges....or if they cant being locked away for life, which doesn't happen.

Whether they are that way through nature or nurture, does anyone really know?

Vintage wrote:What is it with these people, how sick can you get? I think they should be put down and why can't it be done the same as with an animal - one painless injection and goodbye.
Bit vengeful tonight it seems.

I agree this is very wrong. But the crime is for images--reproductions of reality. What would you do if he had actually done the things depicted IRL. Maybe a knee on the neck, until he dies of asphyxiation?

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:What is it with these people, how sick can you get? I think they should be put down and why can't it be done the same as with an animal - one painless injection and goodbye.
Bit vengeful tonight it seems.

I agree this is very wrong.  But the crime is for images--reproductions of reality.  What would you do if he had actually done the things depicted IRL.  Maybe a knee on the neck, until he dies of asphyxiation?

For every image made a real life baby or child has been used...and for some it ruins their lives, is that not realistic enough?

There are enough threads knocking about about knee in neck tragedies, this one is about child pornography and perverted ex Labour shadow chancellor Eric Joyce.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree this is very wrong.  But the crime is for images--reproductions of reality.  What would you do if he had actually done the things depicted IRL.  Maybe a knee on the neck, until he dies of asphyxiation?

For every image made a real life baby or child has been used...and for some it ruins their lives, is that not realistic enough?

There are enough threads knocking about about knee in neck tragedies, this one is about child pornography and perverted  ex Labour shadow chancellor  Eric Joyce.

So it's not about proportionality in sentencing, or any other principle, but about this guy Eric Joyce? I don't know him.

I think the news report says he actually made at least one of the images and it was classed as a cat A offence, which is the worst kind...

Tommy Monk wrote:I think the news report says he actually made at least one of the images and it was classed as a cat A offence, which is the worst kind...

"Classed" of course by the police, who are on the other side and not exactly disinterested.

Sometimes, no make that quite often, I can barely believe you mean what you post or at least I hope you don't.

quill whilst i get your point of "proportionality", and the reasons for it, your thinking about the classification of this offense is wrong. The police DONT get to decide on the classification of such images, that is done by our lawmakers. You will note that the report says the JUDGE considered this a cat A image, and he will have done so under guidance laid out by the lawmakers.....
Also if he himself "made" that cat A image then he is guilty of actual abuse (as opposed to, one supposes "vicarious abuse")...and will be judged on that and proportionality therefore involves taking cognizance of such ACTUAL abuse.

Victor wrote:quill whilst i get your point of "proportionality", and the reasons for it, your thinking about the classification of this offense is wrong. The police DONT get to decide on the classification of such images, that is done by our lawmakers. You will note that the report says the JUDGE considered this a cat A image, and he will have done so under guidance laid out by the lawmakers.....

I get your point, vic, but this case suffers from not having a jury trial and determination.  Thus Judge Peters did not have benefit of a factual determination of the offense.

She is flying blind. She chose to take the government's word for her ruling on classification.  I don't know who this guy is, nor do I care.  But I am sensitive to inequities in Anglo/American law, and this is one: How can one make factual determinations without a factual hearing, with full rights of cross-examination?  In the American Constitution, we would call that due process of law under the 5th Amendment.

No you are wrong....the police do not make the classification, these classifications are laid out in law vis if an image shows "X" then it is a class whatever image...there is some flexibility one imagines in the interpretation, but not much, and it is the judges disgression which applies to such (and if the judge is not sure a higher court can decide). the case will have had a jury trial (unless it went to magistrates court, which is unlikely) but the jury do not get to decide on the classification issue, nor should they have to as this is an absolute offence (that is to say "you have done "x" and there is no excuse or defence only (possibly) mitigation (state of mind, coercion etc))

the evidence of the offence exists and that evidence is complete within itself, needing no verification, beyond establishing if you like ownership. I.e did he or did he not HAVE that image (and especially "knowingly") and then did he or did he not "make" that image Those are jury matters.... the properties of the image if you like (severity , abusiveness etc ) are matters for the lawmakers and judges who set these standards, indeed, in order to ensure proportionality.

This is the basic formula for law: Law + Facts = Justice.

You keep going back to "law", which is a legislative prerogative.  The law is only 1/2 of the equation.  "Justice" requires that it must be considered in the context of the facts.  This requires a factual hearing, which was missing in this case.

The "x" we are discussing is the precise classification.  The judge was left to take the government's word in lieu of a true factual record.  The evidence that "exists" might be only half of the evidence out there.  We'll never know unless we have a factual hearing.

Oh dear...

Original Quill wrote:This is the basic formula for law: Law + Facts = Justice.

You keep going back to "law", which is a legislative prerogative.  The law is only 1/2 of the equation.  "Justice" requires that it must be considered in the context of the facts.  This requires a factual hearing, which was missing in this case.

The "x" we are discussing is the precise classification.  The judge was left to take the government's word in lieu of a true factual record.  The evidence that "exists" might be only half of the evidence out there.  We'll never know unless we have a factual hearing.

there is no doubt about the precise classification, although I paraphrase I am willing to bet the Statue law on this says something along the lines of

"sexual or sexualised images of babies are a class A image"  

needs no interpretation or jury determination

Tommy Monk wrote:



Oh dear...

I agree

Victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:This is the basic formula for law: Law + Facts = Justice.

You keep going back to "law", which is a legislative prerogative. The law is only 1/2 of the equation. "Justice" requires that it must be considered in the context of the facts. This requires a factual hearing, which was missing in this case.

The "x" we are discussing is the precise classification. The judge was left to take the government's word in lieu of a true factual record. The evidence that "exists" might be only half of the evidence out there. We'll never know unless we have a factual hearing.

there is no doubt about the precise classification, although I paraphrase I am willing to bet the Statue law on this says something along the lines of

But if there are no facts, there is no violation. Just as truth in everyday discussion needs substantiation, so in justice factual substantiation is necessary.

Just because the police charge it, does not make it ipso facto a proven fact. Otherwise, why not charge and imprison everyone, and thereby take over the entire UK by unilateral action?

Absurd example? Maybe so, but only because I am right...you need factual substantiation.

the FACT...is that he made that image.....the nature (severity) of the image is defined in statute......

Victorismyhero wrote:the FACT...is that he made that image.....the nature (severity) of the image is defined in statute......

That would be a fact if it were true. How do you know it's true without a factual hearing?

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:the FACT...is that he made that image.....the nature (severity) of the image is defined in statute......

That would be a fact if it were true.  How do you know it's true without a factual hearing?

He admitted making an indecent image of children as young as one.

Original Quill wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:the FACT...is that he made that image.....the nature (severity) of the image is defined in statute......

That would be a fact if it were true.  How do you know it's true without a factual hearing?

but that is what the trial would be about .....
the FACT of whether or not he made/posessed/whatever that image

and THAT WOULD be subject to a jury determination (had he not admitted it)

the nature (severity) of the image is set in statute and hence does not require a jury determination....

In the same way as someone accused of underage sex with say a 14 y/o the ONLY fact that needs jury determination is whether or not the accused did indeed have that sex....there is no need for any jury determination on whether or not 14 is an appropriate age, since that is laid out in statute.

Vic wrote:and THAT WOULD be subject to a jury determination (had he not admitted it)

Did he admit it? Did he even understand what a classification is?

he apparantly admitted it...

he does not need to understand the classification, since the charge is "making an indecent image of a baby"

any more than the murderer needs to understand the difference between a murder carried out swiftly and cleanly and one committed with torture and rape (which would carry a heavier sentence, being aggravated) both are murder and hence attract a custodial sentence, in britain the jury does not pronounce on sentencing, so the sentence is at the judges discretion.

Victor wrote:he does not need to understand the classification, since the charge is "making an indecent image of a baby"

That is an astounding statement: one does not need to understand the charges in order to make a knowing and voluntary plea.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:he does not need to understand the classification, since the charge is "making an indecent image of a baby"

That is an astounding statement: one does not need to understand the charges in order to make a knowing and voluntary plea.  

The chances that he didn't understand the charges are fairly low. He's been arrested five times in the past eight years.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That is an astounding statement: one does not need to understand the charges in order to make a knowing and voluntary plea.  

The chances that he didn't understand the charges are fairly low. He's been arrested five times in the past eight years.

Chances? Assumptions are the mother of all f-ups.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:he does not need to understand the classification, since the charge is "making an indecent image of a baby"

That is an astounding statement: one does not need to understand the charges in order to make a knowing and voluntary plea.

THAT.....is not what i said

the charge is making indecent pictures of a baby (or some such ) (the act)

the severity of the result is only open to judges discretion within the guidelines of the law.

you are conflating the act with the depth of depravity of the act....two very separate and different things (and necessarily so to preserve proportionality)

also i dont know about the level of understanding needed......one of the first questions a person in the dock is asked is "do you understand the charges made against you"

Victor wrote:the charge is making indecent pictures of a baby (or some such ) (the act)

Where is the proof?

He pleaded guilty didn't he ? There's the proof !

I don't think Quill has read the article properly.


A former MP and army officer is facing a jail sentence after he admitted making an indecent image of children as young as one.

Eric Joyce, 59, of Worlingworth, Suffolk, pleaded guilty yesterday to possessing a film on an electronic device that depicted several children.

nicko wrote: He pleaded guilty didn't he ? There's the proof !

No, that is not proof; proof is in the form of evidence.  That is a contract in lieu of proof, that bypasses evidence.  That is the point.

We used to laugh at dunking and other forms of "signs" for proof, urging that religion or any ritual is not a proper substitute for evidence.  Yet we have now adopted a new religion--that of a commercial transaction--to suffice.  

Here we have an ancillary issue: classification. Contract is a perversion of the formula.

Quill has gone mad since Trump got elected...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill has gone mad since Trump got elected...

Quill has gotten mad because Trump got elected.

No... gone mad... become unhinged... lost the plot... ga-ga...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... gone mad... become unhinged... lost the plot... ga-ga...

So you say. You can imagine what I say about you.

But why bother?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote: He pleaded guilty didn't he ? There's the proof !

No, that is not proof; proof is in the form of evidence.  That is a contract in lieu of proof, that bypasses evidence.  That is the point.

We used to laugh at dunking and other forms of "signs" for proof, urging that religion or any ritual is not a proper substitute for evidence.  Yet we have now adopted a new religion--that of a commercial transaction--to suffice.  

Here we have an ancillary issue: classification. Contract is a perversion of the formula.

The proof is...

Firstly... He got caught red handed with the shit...

Secondly... He admitted it all...

Thirdly... He was convicted for it all by the judiciary...



Quill = waffle!!!


https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/84f032d2-5f4d-4d54-86e6-0885da0c6295




https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GzSXTMUe0Do

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, that is not proof; proof is in the form of evidence.  That is a contract in lieu of proof, that bypasses evidence.  That is the point.

We used to laugh at dunking and other forms of "signs" for proof, urging that religion or any ritual is not a proper substitute for evidence.  Yet we have now adopted a new religion--that of a commercial transaction--to suffice.  

Here we have an ancillary issue: classification.  Contract is a perversion of the formula.

The proof is...

Firstly... He got caught red handed with the shit...

Secondly... He admitted it all...

Thirdly... He was convicted for it all by the judiciary...

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/84f032d2-5f4d-4d54-86e6-0885da0c6295

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GzSXTMUe0Do

Firstly... Where is the factual inquiry to establish that?

Secondly... Has he? Or has he merely pleaded?

Thirdly... When it should have been by a jury.

I don't even know the guy. I'm just arguing from legal theory.

1. We don't need/have to have any inquiry into anything here...

2. He was caught 'banged to rights' and admitted it in court... We don't have the 'plea bargaining' system here like you do in the US...

3. We have a 'magistrates court' system here, alongside the 'jury trial' system... I'm surprised you don't know anything about this...


https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/magistrates-court/

Tommy Monk wrote:1. We don't need/have to have any inquiry into anything here...

You sound more like Joseph Stalin, than anyone in the west.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. He was caught 'banged to rights' and admitted it in court... We don't have the 'plea bargaining' system here like you do in the US...

From the mouth of a Brexit supporter, who just yesterday was shouting what about our rights?? You in Britain have fewer rights than we in the US. Our founders were thoughtful enough to write it down in a Constitution, so it wouldn't fly away with the wind.

Tommy Monk wrote:3. We have a 'magistrates court' system here, alongside the 'jury trial' system... I'm surprised you don't know anything about this...

Yes, that's too bad for you Brits. Here, we must have a factual basis for any judicial action. That prevents plucking any citizen up from the sidewalk and incarcerating him or her without due process of law. Y'all have, in form, the makings of a good dictatorship.

He could have pleaded 'not guilty' in court... And then it would have been escalated to a 'crown court' and would have been a trial by jury...


You're ranting again Quill...!

Tommy Monk wrote:He could have pleaded 'not guilty' in court... And then it would have been escalated to a 'crown court' and would have been a trial by jury...

You're ranting again Quill...!

It's called reasoning, Tommy. With your predilections, if you had your way you would create a totalitarian dictatorship. If you seek justice in the details, you'll do justice overall; if you let it slide just once, and pretty soon erosion sets in and you have the whole thing sliding.

I believe in small govt, lower taxes and small govt/state interference in everybody's life...

Tommy Monk wrote:I believe in small govt, lower taxes and small govt/state interference in everybody's life...

You believe in big state, beating up the little guy. Ever since I've known you, you've expressed principles of state dominance. Brexit was the only time I ever saw you act the part of a rebel, and that was on behalf of British nationalism. Hardly the little guy.

Wrong...

And my support for Brexit was support for democracy and sovereignty and independence and self govt...

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong...

And my support for Brexit was support for democracy and sovereignty and independence and self govt...

I witnessed it all, tom. You are wrong. You might dress it up with words like "democracy", "sovereignty" or "independence", but it was Britain exiting the EU. That's what Brexit means: a nation divorcing from other nations, in a pact. Notice the term "nation" appears twice in there? Nationalism.

Pathetic.


"Former Labour MP Eric Joyce has been sentenced at Ipswich Crown Court to eight months in prison suspended for two years and ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work for making an indecent image of a child.

Joyce, who served as the Labour MP for Falkirk between 2000 and 2012, had on a device a 51-second film depicting seven different children, aged between twelve months and seven years old.

The former MP had previously pleaded guilty to the offence, which took place between August 2013 and November 2018. He was required to sign the sex offender's register after his admission.

Mr Justice Edis, sentencing the former shadow minister on Friday, said: "You have pleaded guilty to an offence which involves the possession of a category A film of a little less than a minute's duration."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/courts/eric-joyce-former-labour-mp-sentenced-over-making-indecent-image-of-child/ar-BB17Gdjp?ocid=msedgdhp