by aceman » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:18 am
by Choccies » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:20 am
by JK » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:26 am
by Strawb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:30 am
by aceman » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:16 pm
Strawb wrote:When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt and a court of law has proclaimed them guilty then yes they should be named but until then they have every right to be protected.
by Strawb » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:32 pm
aceman wrote:Strawb wrote:When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt and a court of law has proclaimed them guilty then yes they should be named but until then they have every right to be protected.
Obviously I concur with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept but................. the female perpatrator of this same hideous crime who was found guilty and locked away for a minimal term, has avoided the "name & shame" because the do-gooders of the world have said so!
Stick a photo of the "thing"(does not deserve to be called 'female') on every available lamp post in the hope that she can be mocked on release. Sometimes I think the old way of "stoning" might get better results than we currently see, although I realise we have moved on .. marginally
In 15 years time or less, who is to say these unfortunate kids won't become the next social outcasts as a result of this?
We are not solving problems with this issue, only creating more of them by being politically correct and "soft" on the criminals.
by Drop Bear » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:39 pm
aceman wrote:On reading further details of the Northern suburbs "child abuse/neglect case" and noting that the men involved in this case can't be named as it serves to protect the kids involved, I say "bullsh*t!
These ar$eholes deserve to have their photos smeared across every available Australian tabloid in the hope they are recognised for evermore for the pain and anguish they have put these kids through. And to think they have all pleaded "not guilty" to all charges adds insult to injury.
If the court system doesn't soon realise that certain archaic 19th century laws are only adding to the problem, then these morons will always have the last laugh.
Give them 12 months of exactly the same treatment and see how they cope, you might get a shock.
by Media Park » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:29 pm
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by cennals05 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:54 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:38 pm
Choccies wrote:here here
And to add to that, the 'youths' who commit serious crime like the murder of the elderly Callington lady last week should also be named and shamed and given tougher sentences.
by Media Park » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:37 pm
cennals05 wrote:I believe the names have been supressed in this case to protect the identies of the children, which is fair enough. They should always come first and if it means we don't know the names of the idiots that did this then so be it.
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by JAS » Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:54 am
Anti-paedophile campaign
The paper began a controversial campaign to name and shame alleged paedophiles in 2000 following the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne. The paper's decision led to angry mobs terrorising those they suspected of being child sex offenders,[8] which included several cases of mistaken identity, including one instance where a paediatrician had her house vandalised[9] and another where a man was confronted because he had a neck brace similar to one a paedophile was wearing when pictured.[10][11] The campaign was labelled "grossly irresponsible" journalism by the then Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler.[12] The paper also campaigns for the introduction of 'Sarah's Law' to allow public access to the Sex Offenders Register.
by aceman » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:58 am
by Barto » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:22 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Choccies wrote:here here
And to add to that, the 'youths' who commit serious crime like the murder of the elderly Callington lady last week should also be named and shamed and given tougher sentences.
Are you calling your dog?
by saintal » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:06 am
by Farbs » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:29 pm
cennals05 wrote:I believe the names have been supressed in this case to protect the identies of the children, which is fair enough. They should always come first and if it means we don't know the names of the idiots that did this then so be it.
by Dirko » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:02 pm
by Bum Crack » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:20 pm
by am Bays » Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:31 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |