I have a real problem with the concept of "guilty while holding" like this situation. The guy was fortunate he was in the UK because in the US I don't thing the prosecutor would have bought the idea that "The Virus Did It."

I mean, c'mon. Where is the necessity for proving mens rea for most possession crimes? The way these possession-crime laws read, there is absolutely no need to prove "guilty mind."

Case in point: about 12 years ago a friend's car was searched, and a good-sized bag of heroin was found. Good job, lived within his means, no evidence of drugs before, including drug dealing. In fact, this is a guy who hated drugs of all shapes and sizes -- getting him to take aspirin was a major deal, and he had to be in a LOT of pain. The guy did have a temper, though, and he tended to piss people off. The only thing we friends could think of is that George pissed off the wrong person, a person with access to drugs and enough money to "waste" $2K-worth to teach someone a lesson. The trial was a joke: "The drugs were in your car. GUILTY."

Another case in point: three years ago a fellow decided he would study to become a locksmith. He spent $29 for a set of picks to learn the craft of lock-picking. In his home. Behind closed doors. He was arrested in his home AND CONVICTED for possession of "burgler tools."

I don't disagree that there is a need to crack down on kiddie porn. I disagree with the tools our legislators (in multiple countries) have honed to try to solve the problem. I think that ANY law that does not require proving a "guilty mind" is offensive. After all, isn't that the principal behind "not guilty by reason of diminished capacity"? The inability to have a "guilty mind"?