A man minding his own business having a cigarette is branded a paedophile.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-family...out-seaside-13073944

The world has gone mad, and, if the poster actually thought he was a danger, why not call the police?
It seems like the interest is in attacking people rather than protecting children, which is very worrying.

It's often just a repeat of the "rapist under the bed" by elderly spinsters story, Honey.

Give everyone a camera and damn anyone that uses it!!!

JK2006 wrote:
It's often just a repeat of the "rapist under the bed" by elderly spinsters story, Honey.

Except facebook lasts a lot longer than an "elderly spinster" gossiping over a garden wall, and the victims of gossip like this can never have their names cleared.
It is trivial compared to ordeals like yours Mr King, but still important to those affected, and shows the witch hunt mentality of the day.

I believe there should be a law of Criminal Defamation on the books that would nip in the bud most of this madness.

As far as I know- the state of South Australia is one of the few places that still has such a law and it has been used - rarely- to jail offenders as in a case like this.

Thailand has a similar type of law where the falsely accused can take a criminal libel action against someone if their libel affects their ability to make a living and it has been used many times (sometimes by crooks though).

It's also why the "investigative" reporter Andrew Drummond who contributed to the News of The World and News Corp tabloids who also claims he exposed Gary Glitter (and boasted of illegally entering Vietnam- mocking their immigration officials) was eventually forced to leave Thailand where he had lived for 2 decades.

Speaking of Thailand and Buddhism. Call me old-fashioned, call me Doris but I am a great believer in KARMA as I believe JK might be...it always catches up to you in the end.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
A man minding his own business having a cigarette is branded a paedophile.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-family...out-seaside-13073944

The world has gone mad, and, if the poster actually thought he was a danger, why not call the police?
It seems like the interest is in attacking people rather than protecting children, which is very worrying.
That's what it looks like. Judging from the photo accompanying the article, perhaps they made the mistake of going to the seaside while black. It's good to read that he's taking legal action.

Here's a similar story in the news recently:

York trainspotter wrongly branded sex offender on Facebook

hedda wrote:
I believe there should be a law of Criminal Defamation on the books that would nip in the bud most of this madness.

As far as I know- the state of South Australia is one of the few places that still has such a law and it has been used - rarely- to jail offenders as in a case like this.

Thailand has a similar type of law where the falsely accused can take a criminal libel action against someone if their libel affects their ability to make a living and it has been used many times (sometimes by crooks though).

It's also why the "investigative" reporter Andrew Drummond who contributed to the News of The World and News Corp tabloids who also claims he exposed Gary Glitter (and boasted of illegally entering Vietnam- mocking their immigration officials) was eventually forced to leave Thailand where he had lived for 2 decades.

Speaking of Thailand and Buddhism. Call me old-fashioned, call me Doris but I am a great believer in KARMA as I believe JK might be...it always catches up to you in the end.
I bet crooks would make full use of it and that might turn out to be how it was mainly used. I'm aware of a company that poses as a financial consultancy, employing salesmen posing as financial advisers to trick clients into commission-heavy investments. (I almost fell for it, before becoming suspicious and retrieving my money before it was too late. Others have not been so lucky.) They're also suspected of even more nefarious practices (e.g. funnelling money into investment funds owned by the CEO, which then "collapse" leaving clients unable to retrieve their money). Online discussion of its methods was virtually impossible for a long time, as it threatened website operators and got them to delete anything negative, but the weight of complaints, from both clients and former employees, eventually became too great and mainstream media outlets started looking into them and publishing articles. So I'm not sure whether a law of this kind would be a good idea overall, though clearly of benefit to the falsely accused.