Also In The News - part 3

[Babylon]

13 hours ago, filthyfox said:

Bloke asks for dirty pictures.

 

Bloke gets the wrong type of dirty pictures,  asks to stop.

 

The wrong type of dirty keep coming.  Each one creating a record on his phone.

 

Bloke is a paedophile, sex offender and should be locked up like Gary Glitter.

 

This is to be an example and to deter blokes asking for dirty pictures; legal or otherwise

It said in the article the person stopped sending illegal pictures when he was asked. 

 

It's to deter people asking for legal dirty pictures? 

 

I think there is probably more to it, I mean... you have the internet. You don't need some random to send you legal images do you. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

How small is that copper, he's like scrappy doo. 

[EastAnglianFox]

 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

I’m confused

[fox_up_north]

The grime thing....once of the most surreal things, as a teacher, I saw was when I worked with seriously at risk NEET kids. This lad I had was living with dad because mum made friends with a dealer who used her son's bedroom as his office for transactions.

 

This lad was on the cusp of being ok because he wanted to be a videogame streamer and work with bikes. But then he was also into watching videos of rap battles that were streamed from inside jail cells.

 

There absolutely is an element of grime that glorifies stabbing and, while I think it's rubbish music, I see parallels to 80s/90s rap. However, this British stuff does have a more sinister edge.

 

I think both Jon and others are right - improve conditions for young urban youth and the messaging should change, but it can't hurt to clamp down on artists whose messaging is so violent.

 

People carry knives, in my experience, to either feel more protected, to demonstrate toughness or to intend to kill/ maim. It all, seemingly, links back to the drug trade. Legalisation of certain drugs, along with making them "not cool" and you start to take the gangs out of it.

 

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

I'm angry about kids being killed, and I'm also angry about a load of racists attemping to hijack their deaths for the own ends. Going around smashing up mosques, attacking police (who had nothing to do with the killing), abusing politicians (who had nothing to do with the killings). Spreading false rumours about who the attacker was, to push their migrant hatred. 

 

Some people are capable of being angry about multiple things at once. 

[Samilktray]

I’m going to have to be pedantic but I think those mentioning grime music are actually referring to drill music. Grime isn’t anywhere near as popular or aggresive as drill music 

[nnfox]

17 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

There's no issue with being angry with anything, it's a perfectly normal and healthy emotion to have.  The issue is when anger gives way to aggression.  They are two different things.  People need understand and deal with their anger without losing control.

[KFS]

14 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

I’m going to have to be pedantic but I think those mentioning grime music are actually referring to drill music. Grime isn’t anywhere near as popular or aggresive as drill music 

Fair correction. 

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, nnfox said:

There's no issue with being angry with anything, it's a perfectly normal and healthy emotion to have.  The issue is when anger gives way to aggression.  They are two different things.  People need understand and deal with their anger without losing control.

Ha ha a simple but very good point. I'm been furious many times in my life, but amazingly never attempted to brick a copper and burn his van. 

[ealingfox]

39 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

 

It's not 'people being angry' that's the problem and you're downright dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Ha ha a simple but very good point. I'm been furious many times in my life, but amazingly never attempted to brick a copper and burn his van. 

Is it privilege to be scared of the law because you have things to lose?  Job, family, reputation? 

[Babylon]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

It's not 'people being angry' that's the problem and you're downright dishonest to suggest otherwise.

I utterly dispair at the minute, social media and even politics is totally awash with people who wilfully to misrepresent everything. 

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Is it privilege to be scared of the law because you have things to lose?  Job, family, reputation? 

Just common sense and a level of respect. As well as the above. 

[Langston]

Re: the Edwards thing, and forgive any misunderstanding if I’ve misread the case but… if you feel the need to tell somebody not to “send you anything illegal” you’re probably already in choppy water?

 

You're either talking and receiving photos from someone who you know is a peadophile, or a child. 

[RobHawk]

5 minutes ago, Langston said:

Re: the Edwards thing, and forgive any misunderstanding if I’ve misread the case but… if you feel the need to tell somebody not to “send you anything illegal” you’re probably already in choppy water?

 

You're either talking and receiving photos from someone who you know is a peadophile, or a child. 

He had photos of a boy aged between 7-9, he's a ****ing wrong un

[SecretPro]

1 hour ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

Strange take.

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, Langston said:

Re: the Edwards thing, and forgive any misunderstanding if I’ve misread the case but… if you feel the need to tell somebody not to “send you anything illegal” you’re probably already in choppy water?

 

You're either talking and receiving photos from someone who you know is a peadophile, or a child. 

Clearly there is more to it than meets the eye, he's met with and engaged this person somewhere and asked for pictures of some sort.

 

But, if you take it on face value. If the person has sent him dodgy stuff, he's told him then to not send illegal stuff, the person then sends no more dodgy stuff. There is a clear indication he doesn't want that. He might want pictures of young men, but no matter how grim you find it. If he's happy to receive pictures of adults, there is nothing illegal about that. 

 

Now, yes. He really should have gone to the cops if someone is sending him stuff like that, and certainly shouldn't have kept it on his phone. So you're certainly in "choppy waters". But again, just from what we know, it doesn't look like he's actively seeking that material considering the messages he sent to the other person. 

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Strange take.

he's a strange guy 

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Clearly there is more to it than meets the eye, he's met with and engaged this person somewhere and asked for pictures of some sort.

 

But, if you take it on face value. If the person has sent him dodgy stuff, he's told him then to not send illegal stuff, the person then sends no more dodgy stuff. There is a clear indication he doesn't want that. He might want pictures of young men, but no matter how grim you find it. If he's happy to receive pictures of adults, there is nothing illegal about that. 

 

Now, yes. He really should have gone to the cops if someone is sending him stuff like that, and certainly shouldn't have kept it on his phone. So you're certainly in "choppy waters". But again, just from what we know, it doesn't look like he's actively seeking that material considering the messages he sent to the other person. 

I think he'll get off, excuse the pun, with probably a suspended sentence 

[Babylon]

20 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

He had photos of a boy aged between 7-9, he's a ****ing wrong un

He got sent photos of that, and then asked them NOT to send photos like that, clearly stating he didn't want anything illegal. Now, by the letter of law he's broken it by even looking at it, but can you not see the dodgy ground here of your accusation? If he's been sent that without evidence of seeking that (that we know of), and then said he doesn't want that?

 

You can argue he certainly should have dealt with it a different way, but I've been in groups where some idiot posts up a grim video I have absolutely no interest in (nothing like this)... If I then got in trouble because of them, I'd be pretty annoyed... especially if I've made it clear I don't want to see that!

 

 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think he'll get off, excuse the pun, with probably a suspended sentence 

I'm surprised there is even a charge in all honesty considering the messages saying he doesn't want that. You can't be responsible for what others send you. 

[DennisNedry]

The extremely uncomfortable truth is that, in the past decade or so, these types of attacks (where the general public are targeted) have overwhelmingly been carried out by black and/or brown people and perpetrated against white people. A lot of these attacks loom large in the public memory. I think most people could reel a lot of them off the top of their head. That's not racist, it's just fact. Some of these attacks (like the Nottingham stabbing) aren't even listed here as they're not terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#2010s 

 

Can you therefore really not understand the EDL knuggle draggers rioting? Obviously I don't condone it, and it's misplaced in this instance, but I do understand it. It's a wild, uneducated swing at a sitation they have no control over and do not understand.

 

The EDL are an easy target of ridicule, and a socially acceptable one to ridicule at that. For me they're just a small part of the whole ****ed up mess that is British society in 2024. I can only see it getting worse too. Christ, I've depressed myself re-reading that.

[MonkeyTennis?]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I'm surprised there is even a charge in all honesty considering the messages saying he doesn't want that. You can't be responsible for what others send you. 

Apparently Edward's involvement was only discovered following an investigation into the person who sent him the messages. That the case has been brought and he has plead guilty probably means that the content of the chat, and wider activities of this group(?) of people sharing images is probably more incriminating than the statement from his lawyer suggests.

[Babylon]

Just now, MonkeyTennis? said:

Apparently Edward's involvement was only discovered following an investigation into the person who sent him the messages. That the case has been brought and he has plead guilty probably means that the content of the chat, and wider activities of this group(?) of people sharing images is probably more incriminating than the statement from his lawyer suggests.

Would certainly make more sense. That's why I kept putting from what we know and saying there is probably more to it. It will all come out anyway!