Talk:Operation Avalanche (child pornography investigation)

Further developments
Thanks for the heads-up on Jim Bates. I've added a bit more and another reference. Pkeets (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This section is a very poor, and incorrect, summary of UK law : "Police conducting Operation Ore in the UK targeted all names for investigation due to the difference in laws in between the US and the UK, which allowed for arrest on a charge of incitement to distribute child pornography based solely on the presence of a name in the database, regardless if the card was used - fraudulently or not - for child pornography or other legal adult sites. Law in the UK allows conviction on the basis of incitement to distribute indecent images - as such, the mere presence on the database, regardless of the legality of the sites paid for, was sufficient to warrant prosecution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.122.228 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1,335 years?!
So Thomas could have gotten 5 years in prison, but because he faught charges, he got 1,335?! I'm no law expert, but that sounds way beyond belief. I've never even heard of murders, or even serial killers getting more then a few hundred years or so. This has to be vandalism, right? 97.114.135.219 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)