oioioi wrote:
OK, well that is different from what was implied initially.

It was said if I recall correctly that only claims with facts would be entertained.

This is the first definitive statement I have seen.

At least it is clear now

*adopts hoighty toighty judge voice*

The case is proven. No need to refer to the jury. Mr atwood is clearly a WUM.
I cannot be arsed to compile pre sentence reports.
I cannot be arsed to look at the evidence.

The sentence is to spend eternity in merc's toy box.

Take him down.

Only facts will be entertained, not claims.

dubmeup wrote:
What is a wum?

A wonderful unassuming man?

oioioi wrote:
Yes which is my point, who checks the facts and says they are acceptable to publish?

Facts tend to speak for themselves, that's why we like to stick to them.

@atwood, I said "this is a forum not a police station" in regards to Dawnbreak's accusations. She needs to go to the police and report it, if what she's saying is true (I'm not saying it's not), or/and consult a psychologist. About anyone can come here and say "I've been...." - be it true or not. And what will that achieve?
This is a forum FFS! Are you qualified to help her in any way? Did you even pm her if you so care? Doubt so. And oioioi made it clear this is not a courtroom as well, we're not qualified to judge anyone and give a verdict.
Whatever way you look at it it's all speculations. It's all futile.
And what is this fascination and obsession with this subject anyway? How are you helping in any way the cause, other than posting shyte on forums? Do you take into consideration the 3rd parties? No! You're just feeding your massive ego. Have some common sense FFS! Wanna make a difference? Stop talking, start acting. I really wanna know how you're helping the cause in the REAL world other than shit stirring on the interwebs.

@atwood

Sticking to the facts? OK.
Facts = person found guilty in a court, sent to prison. They don't read the forum in prison, and nor do they care.
BUT - they have relatives on the outside, that might read the forums. They are some kid's uncle, someone's brother, someone's son. They could read the forums. The victim could read what's said.
You tell me, again, what will it achieve? NADA! Other than more heartbreak to those who had enough of it thrown in their faces.

He who shouts loudest and all..... beware!

Gilly wrote: atwood wrote:
Here...
atwood wrote:
Don't you know what you're saying?

atwood wrote:
But I never responded to 'allegedly', since it was only the word 'potentially' that we were discussing, after your stating it was all important to this particular circumstance. So your later question about the press using 'allegedly' was entirely superfluous.

atwood wrote:
If you are referring to our lovely Dawn then yes, her comments were potentially libellous, it's would be for the legal system that governs such issues to determine the exact grounds for libel action.

We don't know if the people mentioned would ...

A) Read or find out about the comments.
B) Make a claim.

However it's quite clear for even those who don't have a detailed understanding of defamation and libel law that posting comments about people having sex with youngsters, where they or their families could see such comments 'out in the public' view could as far as we know draw libel action towards the forum.

It's not the case that the facilitators of this forum or other posts by other posters on this thread are acting as legal guardians or law advisors, nor police, nor manipulators or identifiers of exact details of libel law, posters are merely identifying that the said comments and other such comments that contain accusations that remain unproven in law could easily draw libel action depending on A) & B).

We don't know about A) & B) but why bring the forum into a situation of A) & B), even if we don't know the exact legal implications of an exact case of potential libel regarding Dawn's post, why continue with a flow of posts that could motivate the named persons to commence with a claim.
This will hopefully make posters think about the implications of their posts and possible libel actions towards the forum hosts, as 'publishers' in the future.

I must say if the forum facilitators requested that I did not post certain information because it could harm them, or draw legal action towards the forum, I would respect their wishes, if I did not agree, I'd find another forum to post my information on the said matter.

On a personal level, as has been pointed out already, these people have family, I feel as if it would be an awful thing to do to post posts on an online forum, that could potentially harm peoples families, it's thoughtless.

Finally it's worth pointing out that if a poster was looking at 'these people' to be prosecuted then posting posts prior to a court case could damage the court case against them.

So even if anyone here disagrees about what's libel or not, what's moral or not, there can be no debate surely on what's irresponsible, a forum is not a place for reporting the sexual behaviour of other people.

Unless of course someone would be happy to create such a forum, I'm quite sure that forum would often be a place of debate within the legal system.

atwood wrote: Wrong.
Someone stated that another person carried out a criminal act which they have not been tried and found guilty of.
That is where the defamation occurs and a civil action for recourse may be enacted.

At no time is the accusers right to inform appropriate agencies or officers impaired.
In fact it is encouraged that they do so.
This ad hoc discussion group is not competent (legally), to establish guilt or innocence nor do the majority wish to denigrate the seriousness of the act or accusation of child abuse down to a titillating topic for the entertainment of ghouls, pedants or wind-up merchants.

What many fail to realize is that this pedohunt eventually will lead to the state taking your children away (and we know what happens in those institutions). Soon enough, the way things are going at the moment, a father holding his 3 year old daughter's hand walking in the park would be seen as some sort of pervert, and not long before a law is enforced. It's already got out of hand with sexual accusations, basically any woman can go to the police and report a rape and the guy gets handcuffed, guilty before proven innocent. In many cases, if you don't have a good lawyer you're fucked, all it needs to get convicted is a "victim's" testimony with no evidence, followed by "compensations" to the victim (yes, MONEY!!!). The system that is put in place to protect people, can be used against them, and many... many take advantage of the ambiguity.
Meanwhile... the real criminals are running the world and they don't want families and values, they want obedient slave workers and soldiers.

That sounds like some wild claims to me, Marina.

Why do you think that hunting down pedo's will lead to the state taking your children?

Holding your 3 year old daughter's hand has nothing to do with perversion, so why would a law prevent it?

And if all you need to get a rape conviction is testimony without evidence, then how come all rape cases don't result in convictions?

Gilly wrote:


you'll have to up earlier for me gilly

scaltura wrote:
I don't think so.

I read up as much as I can on my mobile while in the time it takes me to have a smoke. I don't reply because I don't have time till I look more closely in the evening.

I've pressed 'Thank you' on the wrong one of Marina's posts. So fucking what?

You don't half show yourself up, flitting between threads acting like a simpleton and dragging your childish hurts from one to the next.

PRS Gilly

Problem: Pedos everywhere
Reaction: People outrage
Solution: Since we don't know who's a pedo and who's not, we, the state are gonna raise your children as you're unfit parents.

(Nothing new here, social services can take your child away if some neighbor reported seeing you spank your child once or whatever, nothing in the lines of real abuse).

Not to mention that "scientists" are now looking for a "pedo gene". And the sexual offences? OK, situation: woman after a one night stand (consensual) goes to police next morning (with evidence on her, or rather IN her), reports "rape" just so she can get the compensation and shaft the guy (Julian Assange anyone?). Meanwhile real rape cases most of the time get unreported, because the victim is too terrified and ashamed, and by the time she goes to report it, IF she does, there's hardly anything on the rapist.

Wild claims? Maybe. But nothing surprises me anymore.
Society collectively demonizes men and boys, and this has to stop. And this is coming from a woman.

The UK SS is one of the most feared of the UK's govt departments.
It even has such a rep that people in the EU talk about it and how they are literally 'scared' of coming to the UK. (I have met many a family who feel this way btw)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128465...bled-past-years.html

Those are scary numbers.

I don't think you read scal's post quite the same way I did, Gilly

marina wrote:
I'm glad you've added some stuff there, Marina. Feather will bear me out - I agree about the fact that a lot of actual rapes will probably go unreported for a whole host of reasons, so that's made the post more balanced, imo (and based on experience)

Plus your scenario of people being arrested for rape without evidence - but surely not convicted without evidence?

Someone going to the police with the DNA evidence though is an entirely different proposition from how it looked on the Roach thread, where Scaltura copy & posted your initial post as though it was his own, in which women are making claims decades after the alleged offences took place.

@ Dubs - really? how did you read it?