This Is What You`re Missing On TV, Part 431 [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in Misc

Good News: You"re on TV! Bad News: For this...
There are 19 comments:
Male 15,832
Angilion, are you really that dense that you cannot recognize hyperbole, i.e., rhetorical exaggeration?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
While we`re not yet at the gruesome levels of torture that botfly et alia yearn for, the witch hunt has already had many victims. As a random example, I just saw a story on an IT news website I read.

A man sent a text to his girlfriend that was sexually suggestive. Well, that`s what he meant to do. He accidentally sent it to everyone in the contacts list on his phone.

Embarrassing mistake, right? "Hey Dad, about that text I sent you..." But no real harm done.

Wrong. He was jailed for 18 months for sexually abusing children. It was reduced to 9 months on appeal, but he`s still going to be a registered sex offender (and therefore a "legitimate" target for botfly et alia), he`s still sacked and he`s still going to fail every background check for every job he might apply for. He was a swimming coach, but it`s now illegal for him to ever work with anyone under 16.

Under witch hunt conditions, no-one is safe and no conviction
0
Reply
Male 616
oh give it a break
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Here`s a brief overview of the main flaws in the op I mentioned:

Operation Ore - extremely flawed.

Hundreds of lives ruined, dozens of people dead and nobody has any idea if any of them were guilty of anything.

[quote">They are the victims of a combination of technical naivety and fear, fed by a media circus demanding fast results and the exposure of big names. As the Internet continues to become more transparent, the risk is that the stage may be set for a 21st century witch-hunt.[/quote">


Any time you see people lusting after torturing people to death (botfly provides a perfect example just below), you can be sure that a witch hunt is on the cards. Psychos who fantasise about torturing people to death and getting away with it are never much bothered about whether their victims are guilty of anything.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]They probably ARE all guilty, but what if one or more of them was framed by a cop because he caught him fooling around with his wife or some other such nonsense. It`s rare, but it does happen, and I don`t think you should completely destroy someone`s life till they`re found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.[/quote]

There are many more possibilities than police corruption. A few off the top of my head:

1) Either there weren`t any children in the pictures or the pictures weren`t pornographic (or both). You`d be surprised at what has been called "child porn".

2) The pics were put on their computer without their knowledge due to compromised security.

3) The suspect used their card to buy legal porn from people who, unknown to them, also sold child porn.

4) Someone else used the suspect`s card details to buy child porn (or as for 3).

The biggest child porn op in the UK included a fair bit of 3 and 4. ~40 suicides
0
Reply
Male 616
@ OldOllie, I might add, while hanging them by their testicles with fish hooks.
0
Reply
Male 96
Salem Massachusetts, 1692 all over again. Child molesters are the lowest form of life, however, this is America and even OJ Simpson was kinda considered innocent until proven...innocent(?)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I agree with Ollie. How can any adult NOT have a problem with using media like this to destroy the reputations of those *accused* of doing wrong?
0
Reply
Male 347
lol that`s pretty cruel openly mocking them in public. it`s a bit barbaric if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
I have no sympathy for pedos, but should they really be publishing pictures of SUSPECTS? Aren`t they presumed innocent until proven guilty? They probably ARE all guilty, but what if one or more of them was framed by a cop because he caught him fooling around with his wife or some other such nonsense. It`s rare, but it does happen, and I don`t think you should completely destroy someone`s life till they`re found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then you can skin them alive with red-hot pliers for all I care.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Bit harsh on the guy on the top left, I mean, he could have been looking at anything.[/quote]
I think Paddy just won the internet. Bravo sir. Bravo.

0
Reply
Male 4,793
" The one at the top left had "child molester" written all over his face "

And crazy written all ove rhis eyes.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
The one at the top left had "child molester" written all over his face
0
Reply
Male 700
Its illegal to publish pedophiles names / pictures here.. should name them all
0
Reply
Male 402
holy sh*t! i live in san jose.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
is that Dave Coulier
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Bit harsh on the guy on the top left, I mean, he could have been looking at anything.
0
Reply
Male 96
Peter, I`ll take Paul Lynn for the block...
0
Reply
Male 20,299
Link: This Is What You`re Missing On TV, Part 431 [Pic] [Rate Link] - Good News: You`re on TV! Bad News: For this...
0
Reply