Nick, that link gives me a blank Google search phrase.

MLC -if you want to understand the difficulties of prosecuting someone with indecent images on their computer when the images do not state an age of the person portrayed GO AND READ THE LINK I GAVE.

I do not believe that the Countess ever paid you such a compliment. I only remember her pointed disgust and contempt at your vacuous posturing.   

Ebbie. The Defence DID make certainly most of the points MLC makes. A quick Google will show you. Evidently the jury weighed the defence case thus made, and found it wanting.

MLC -

(1) why contact a person who did something unlawful to you? Have you ever heard of blackmail? Doh!
(2) It can be very hard to place important dates from your childhood. I was trying only yesterday to remember when my father and I first went out to try to do 100 on the M1 (failed by 1 mph according to our speedo) - and my first guess was out by 4 years. The Portsmouth issue is however quite odd - but it was very specifically brought to the court's attention by the defence that diligent searches had been made to no avail.
(3) You need to think about what is called "similar fact evidence" and how a multiplicity of weak strands when added together make a rope that is synergetically (look it up) stronger.

I can hardly believe I am paying you the compliment of putting rational points to you. You will waffle on as always. Jack has it right.