Monday, October 1, 2012 7:30:49 PM
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
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.
Monday, October 1, 2012 4:40:46 PM
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.
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