Jump to content

What's a child's life worth?


GypsyScy
 Share

Recommended Posts

The fact is this is a case of contributing to child abuse.

Why should it be exempt from discussion?

 

The fact is your original post is so sensationalised and presents numerous dubious and very arguable conclusions as facts, that any red top would have gleefully given it front page space. Whether you intended it as such only you know, but the way it read it could do little other than inflame.

 

Perhaps you wholeheartedly believe every word you wrote, and that's okay, its your business, but when you post sweeping generalisations as "fact" that are immediately obvious to the reader as being unproven or unprovable you are insulting the very people you have made the generalisations about. Believe what you want to believe, but at least qualify your generalisations with appropriate additional wording, otherwise they simply come across as exaggerations designed to incite a reaction, usually an inappropriate one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech....hmmmm.....sometimes......depends who you are speaking about!

 

Remember this is a membership based forum with Terms and Conditions to which you agreed to abide when signing up. There is no freedom of speech in those circumstances. If you disagree, you have the option when signing up not to accept them and move on to another forum more suited to your requirements.

 

There have been several shocking, dissapointing, and illogical legal rulings associated with Shetland recently, and it is such a shame these cannot be discussed in a sensible fashion without the kind of outbursts which always happen.

 

More appropriate is to write to your MP on this subject. I have done in the past. I may do again shortly.

 

Ditto, on all points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Write your MP your MSP's whatever but it has to be said Napier has lost the plot, when it comes to protecting our kids, mick the greek walks free and scollay gets to work with kids.

Just what the heck is going on in that mans head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Shetland have been made any safer if he had been put in gaol? unlike many we see walking down the street everyday, he apparently hadn't harmed a single child himself. I get fed up with all this "safe place to bring up a child" sharn. Met too many, escaping the isle didn't help them escape their demons.

okay stopping now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. Napier ... Just what the heck is going on in that mans head?

He thinks seals are more important. JS also had favourable comments concerning past behaviour, yet in that case it was openly stated that no alternative to a custodial sentence could be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More appropriate is to write to your MP on this subject.

 

Agreed; and I would go on to also encourage all here to do so about their feelings on this case outcome.

 

Hopefully the guy is as regretful as he claims and is aware of how his community will for evermore think of him and does the only decent thing left for him to do.

 

For the sake of the mods patience on this subject, please do not post out any theorys as to what that thing is.

I'm sure the person in question can work it out for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough all points are taken.

 

It is a subject I feel very strongly about as is very obvious now. I have experienced first hand the fallout from child abuse and have the right to express my despearation at sentences handed out.

 

And agreed, it should be with the lawmen and the judges that this is taken up. I cannot understand why such lenient sentences (if any) are consistently handed out.

 

I dont feel I was in anyway tabloid, I know I was angry, its an emotive subject. And if my post appeared inflamed it was because I felt so, as I do every time I see cases like this no matter where in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

note it was not the hanging sheriff. He will not be able to work with kids his crb check will show his offence. As an employer then would have to decide and be sure that he will not be offered a post. would they dare risk it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite being a liberal 99% of the time, the parent in me says crack out the ropes and pick a lampost.

 

If we had a legal system that dealt more severely with this type of crime would I feel differently - probably not, so being overly critical of certain legal decisions is perhaps a matter of having a coloured personal perspective.

 

As to thread locking - JS got a worse beating on here than the seals did and some of it was very inflammatory - at least be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, for those who are wondering, this thread has also been locked because, despite initally constructive debate, the tone was sliding again. We do not have the moderation resources to guide this tricky topic. Everyone is at work. I am spending most of my (small) lunch-break dealing with this topic, as I did with most of my free time last night too.

 

Since people aren't prepared to respect Shetlink's wishes on this matter, the thread is locked until such a time that we do have the resources to effectively handle it. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

 

Drawing direct parallels between this and other topics and calling for conisistency is unhelpful. All things are not equal, and each decision is taken on its own merits. There is no template we can apply to all topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shetlink admin team would like to put across a little of the background to this thread being locked.

 

Firstly, we'd like to get across the point that we in no ways deny that the news story that caused this thread to appear is a subject of great relevance to the community, quite the contrary. In fact that is why the thread is locked and why we have done so with previous threads in the past and will do so again in the future in any similar circumstance. Because they provoke such a huge, singularly polarised, emotive response.

 

There is a fairly wide gulf between how we, the team, are obliged to view a subject as administrators and/or moderators and how we, as individuals, may view subject, much like yourselves.

 

Because we, as moderators, have witnessed threads like this before, we know how they are likely to go on the forum and we have to preempt anything that reflects badly on the forum or our users on one hand, whilst trying to keep you all happy with the service Shetlink provides on the other. The regular moderators all do so voluntarily, none of us have time to accept the responsibility of scrutinising and editing every individual post 24/7, we rely on the users to maintain some decorum despite their anonymity.

 

In that context it is worth reminding everyone that, although the majority of our users are anonymous, we have always, and continually try to, treat Shetlink as a virtual 'living room.' Stop by, spend a while, discuss weighty subjects, have a laugh, have an argument, share resources and communicate ideas, our original motto.

 

Neither we, nor you, would invite several hundred people around to spend an hour in your living room purely to describe how much you despise the acts of someone seeking, acquiring, saving, smuggling and getting caught with the worst form of child pornography. It goes without saying. This thread is cathartic, it may make us all feel better to vent our response to this verdict, on whatever level. However, there is no-one here defending the accused, the crime, the sheriff, the justice system or anything else and so it just incites forever greater accounts of how anonymous people would deal with the crime and the criminal and increasingly negative opinions of the Sheriff and the legal system.

 

We have had reasoned debates on this very subject here before, but take a look at what has been written here already - that someone should be strung up from a lamp-post, that no punishments are handed out to the perpetrators of child abuse and that it is assumed that the accused "will be allowed to work with children" among other things?

 

And worst of all, the accusation that we are protecting the accused. We are not and that accusation is unfair to everyone at Shetlink. We are merely disallowing a string of posts which would all require careful scrutiny and be of purely cathartic benefit at best, and at worst could land Shetlink in a heap of trouble if, for instance, someone decided to seriously defame the Sheriff.

 

Shetlink does not claim to always get it right. Comparisons of this subject to others is not a clear cut issue though. Threads we have allowed in the past that have involved similar outrage have had elements of valid impartial discussion within them, deep complex issues. In this instance, there would appear to be no such debate or discussion, just outrage, fueling further outrage.

 

So let's summarise the main points Users would like to make in this thread.

 

No-one here wishes to defend the accused or his actions or this type of crime.

 

Possession of child abusive images is not a victimless crime.

 

The Justice system sometimes gets it wrong.

 

The Sheriff should maybe have sentenced the accused to a different punishment.

 

If anyone wishes to add a specific valid point to this list, please PM admin and it will be added if appropriate. If anyone wishes to debate the generalities of the Criminal Justice system, please refer to the current relevant thread. If anyone wishes to defend the crime, the criminal or the verdict then similarly contact admin and the point will be given all due consideration and the thread opened if appropriate.

 

Please also feel free to contact the local media, write to your MPs and donate money to the relevant charities to address this news story.

 

Thank you

 

Admin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...