Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Rapey Joe Stalin posted:

Given that it means Nancy Grace etc don't exist here..

No, just journalists who hack into dead girls' phones and well all the poo poo this thread is about. Which seems quite a bit worse than having that moron who talks on a 5th rate news channel (HLN) to me at least?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Is it anything more than how wealthy people tend to become freemasons and cover their lodge brothers' asses when they can?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

thehustler posted:

That's a great idea.

It's really only state/public broadcasters that actually innovate and evolve, isn't it?

That's not really innovation, it's what newspapers did with people in small towns in the 19th century and early 20th, and it's what radio and tv networks in the dawn of broadcasting would do where necessary equipment was available. Part time stringers for the papers and wire services; guys with an audio recorder of some sort or simply willing to drive up to the radio station; people with home movie cameras and later camcorders for TV.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

glitchkrieg posted:

Is anyone worried that the two main institutions name-dropped in the announcements of this inquiry are the two things the Tories would love to kill off - the NHS and the BBC? No mention of the Met and pushing the focus away from the political parties themselves.

It just feels that all that will happen will some dead or no-longer-in-politics people will be sacrificial lambs, while the inquiry can help with the continued destruction of public bodies instead.

Despite the fact that it would be clearly useful for the tories to target those two, there's no way any long term coverup of child abuse wouldn't be involving doctors, and we've already seen plenty of evidence of entertainment figures being caught.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
"Look we just need to find a corporation with a profit motive to make from convicting child abusers at any cost" - the ghost of Thatcher

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Now that's a legit reason to object to her in that position.

At this point we might as well start growing someone in a vat to adjudicate this loving thing.

Just import some Americans or Canadians.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

stickyfngrdboy posted:

The logic in minor crimes is sound, but crimes against minors should maybe be exempt from such a system.

You really, really, couldn't do that.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

EvilGenius posted:

Oh I don't believe for one second he wouldn't have done it had the sentencing been different in the 70s. But it is a possibility, and that brings doubt into the equation. Maybe if you could prove he would have done it under modern sentencing it would be workable, but that's just not possible.

Honestly I don't think it would have stopped most of them. Harsher penalties elsewhere haven't kept pedophiles from abusing kids, and those people didn't even have the luxury of millions of bucks and a cozy relationship with the police/government to help cover up their crimes.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

RandomPauI posted:

Well, the US has 3,144 counties, each one presumably with their own sheriff's office. I believe each state has its own police department, so that adds another 50. And if each municipality with more than 50,000 citizens had a separate police department that'd bump the total up by 679. That makes for a rough total of 3873 state and local law-enforcement agencies. This is obviously not counting federal agencies, statewide offices of federal agencies, etc.

Edit: I just realized I forgot the state highway patrols too. If there's one per state that'd bring us to 3923.

There's a lot of very small towns that never the less of their own minor police departement, and on the other end there are unified police departments that span multiple counties and large cities/towns.

According to the Department of Justice:
"Local police departments make up more than two-thirds of the 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. A local police department is a general purpose law enforcement agency, other than a sheriff’s office, that is operated by a unit of local government such as a town, city, township, or county. Tribal police are classified as local police in Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data collections."

"In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S."

However you don't have to work through each one, generally lower level police agencies have to do whatever their superior level agencies say. A lot of those departments only have one full time cop to their name, they're not gonna have room to fight against a state or county investigation.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

PerpetualSelf posted:

I have a hard time believing all this. Can anyone prove to me this is not just a exercise in distraction perpetrated by the elites on the lower classes to keep them occupied and ignorant of the real issues in the world?

You're having a hard time believing this why? If it was about tricking the lower classes wouldn't you see it coordinated in multiple countries?

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Byolante posted:

Real easy example of people in positions of power covering up sexual abuse to protect the existing power structure: Penn State

Didn't involve federal level backing though.

Joe Paterno would have been given a life peerage for service in pedophilia in Britain.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

stickyfngrdboy posted:

I disagree with your original post, on the basis that I'm not sure that men who like having sex with children have an illness.

True, some of them are willfully cruel and evil rather than having any sort of reason for their behavior.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Orange Devil posted:

Could you point this mythical land out on a map?

I believe it's currently 12 acres outside Poole.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Peel posted:

This has been bugging me for months.

Why isn't it 'Paedoph Isles'?

Because that's already been trademarked by the tories for the 2020 election.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Spangly A posted:

Yo if someone can demonstrate a similar case where the US has told the UK to gently caress off on a national security libel issue, then I'll post everything I can dig up that wont jeapordise any of the victims. Some things will out them by their very nature, like bank records, and I won't post those without being certain they're determined.

I and several others ran servers in the US that handled the leaked list of BNP members when that happened, and our ISPs all told anyone complaining to gently caress off because it wasn't illegal here. :shrug:

It was pretty neat, our British friend had worked out a great Google Maps mashup so you could chunk in a postcode and it'd tell you which of the racist fucks was closest to you.

So yeah basically some british dude hit me up and i'll host it. If you'd rather email then PM, fishmech@gmail.com

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe
Right and US libel cases are extremely difficult to lose as the defendant.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

Grundulum posted:

Can someone remind me how this thread went from phone hacking to an actual not-joking infestation of pedophiles?

Well people bothered to do some actual investigation for once.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

awesmoe posted:

Alternatively from what goddamntwisto is saying, their only connection to the pedophilia shitfest is that they're angry when their name gets brought up in connection with the pedophilia shitfest, so isn't this a pretty good opportunity to use discretion and not bring someone's name into it?

gently caress no, name and shame.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

OwlFancier posted:

Name and shame for... what? Being accused of looking a bit like Lord McAlpine one time?

Given the current track record they're just as likely to turn out to be pedos now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

glitchkrieg posted:

One of my housemates works in child services and so has to had to deal with a lot of stuff related to child abuse. Whenever Edmonds is brought up, she's dismissive of any ideas that he's a fiddler because although his career might have included stuff like kid's shows, he pretty much got away from them as soon as possible. Paedophiles generally look for something that gives them more access to children, not less.

Eh, couldn't that just mean that he was a pedo, but knew that acting on it was wrong so he wanted away from temptation? Plenty of pedophiles are able to exercise self control (and simultaneously a lot of the people who molest children aren't pedophiles, they're just doing it out of power or whatever).

  • Locked thread