King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: Another victim of Paedo Hysteria
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
honey!oh sugar sugar.	In The Know wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" ! Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not. If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears. Come to think of it, you are right. It would be far worse for his friends and family if the suspicions were allowed to continue.
Pattaya	In The Know wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" ! Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not. If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears. Quite right!...No signs of rice and badgers then?
Anon	In The Know wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" ! Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not. If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears. I see your point there, but anyone could do that to anyone I could go outside and start screaming 'paedo!' outside my neighbours now and when the police come say they were taking pictures of my friends fully clothed children and then (unless they didn't just decide to arrest me for breach of the peace) would they have to have all their personal stuff gone through and some of it confiscated on the basis of something as. ridiculous as that? I actually think if I did do that up here the police would just arrest [b]me[b]. I can see the point when someone makes an accustion it has to be investigated, but you'd hope there'd be limits. "He was taking pictures of our clothed kids outside" just seems a ridculous reason to go through his stuff when he's provided a perfectly acceptable reason for why he did it (the photos he'd taken themselves may even demonstrate that and back up what he said)...
In The Know	honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" ! Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not. If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears.
honey!oh sugar sugar.	In The Know wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: I agree. I cant see anything suspicious in photographing fully clothed children in a public place, and isn't it bad enough being killed without the police rifling through your (and friends and family's) private stuff? Does that mean that you ALWAYS accept - without further question - everything that someone tells you? The police have a duty to investigate - to see whether what they are being told is the truth - or not ! I say again - I'm sure this man was innocent, but I don;t think the police should merely accept ANY explanation offered without further investigation. I cant see how taking photographs of clothed children in public suggests that he might have child pornography on the computer. They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? (maybe they did) Or doesn't that apply if the suspect is dead?