I gave up reading after page 2 - I got the gist of the story, but the DSI layout detracts from the point in discussion... is awful to read and makes my brain hurt after a couple of minutes -
I think people ought to be more careful about what they do and say online. As far as i can tell from the thread, the boy got done for taking a topless photo of his 15 year old bird (7 days shy of being 16 or something) who reported him for it, and hes been stuck on the creeps register for his troubles. He also puts on under 18s events which is pretty shady. However, some of the stuff being put down in black and white on that thread is pretty ludicrous considering he could have a legal comeback against anyone who defames him (which is basically saying something about someone which isn't true to the detriment of their character). Now his reputation is in tatters already what has he got to lose with taking anyone who utters anything untrue to court?
DSI is for gimps.
Blessed ethel!
DSI always seemed like to much hard work & full of people, how can I say it (typing in a forum) a bit to into the whole internet forum thing.
The irony. Now, obviously sex with kids is bad. We all agree on this.
However, I bet the same people up in moral outrage about someone just shy of 16 having a pic taken of them, are beating one off to 'just 16, lisa from skemersdale' on the page 3.
Physically and emotionally no difference in the few days. Yet he is a pervert & they are 'being blokes'.
To underline, my point is not that pics of kids are good, but putting kids on Pge 3, then pontificating is as damaging, yet also hideously hypocritical.
Wheres Chris Morris when I need him?
I didn't get too far through the DSI thread (only a page or two) but is there any mention as to when this "sex offence" occurred?As far as i can tell from the thread, the boy got done for taking a topless photo of his 15 year old bird (7 days shy of being 16 or something) who reported him for it
nah to be fair he sounds like a massive creep, but still, being on the sex offenders register and being a paedophile are two completely seperate things. my point is, unless those people who are logging in and putting down in black and white that he is a paedo actually have proof that he is a paedo, then they are on some pretty shaky ground legally.
nether the less................if he was living in my street I would want to know.......ian huntley was not a peadophile, he had a record for being a bit rough with women.....but he seemed to make the transition easily enough!!