|Children at playground|
Sussex Police are dithering over whether to return innocent pictures of children taken in a playground, by a convicted paedophile.
Sussex Police are refusing to identify the pervert but ‘its’ solicitor said: “This topic relates solely to a policy question – the lawfulness and proportionality of police retention of non-indecent images held by a person convicted of indecent images offences.”
The convicted paedophile asked for the return of a memory card with snaps he took of youngsters in public. The memory card was seized by The Paedophile On-Line Investigation Team as potential evidence but no indecent images of children were found on it.
|Street Pastor Ian Chisnall|
Street pastor Ian Chisnall, who stood for Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “Destroy the camera. Giving one with pictures of children back to a convicted paedophile is as bad as giving an alcoholic a bottle of whisky. The state becomes compliant.”
This isn’t the first time Sussex Police has gotten into trouble over appeasing the wishes of a paedophile.
Its Chief Constable Martin Richards was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in 2012, after anonymous allegations were made that he used undue influence in a police operation, concerning a paedophile ring being run from inside Arun District Council offices.
The 38 Degree Petition alleges that Martin Richards acted on behalf of his friend, ex-Chief Executive of Arun Council.
The IPCC subsequently judged Martin Richards to have ‘no case to answer’.
Detective Constable Kenny Stark, of Brighton Police, tweeted: “Dilemma in POLIT office, male convicted of indecent images of children wants memory card (from his camera) back. Card contains (non-indecent) photos he took of children in public areas. Law books being consulted. Card was seized as potential evidence but no indecent images of children were found on it. They are legal images even though they’re not of his own children. It is a legal v moral dilemma.”