adios 717 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 You're one step away from "e-mail in profile" tbh. 127569[/snapback] You've lost me. *eagerly awaits "that's not too difficult tbh" retort* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Some people are just born lost without smilies tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Based on the evidence presented - the list of pics - the guys guilty of fuck all, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toplass-101 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 A mate I worked with got an email from HR a few months back, advising her that a 6 month investigation had taken place, resulting in her dissmisal hearing in a few days. She was also given a copy of an email which had some really sick pictures on, and was told that one of the people she had emailed these pics to had complained about the email. We were all upset at this as she really wasnt the kind of lass that would do such a thing, she had never seen the pics before, yet the evidence was there. To cut a long story short, the lass who had sent the email was some girl in the states who worked for the same division of the business, and had the same name as my mate. So much for 6 months investigation, which had been carried out by ex-FBI people, no wonder they were ex! Anyways maybe its a similar thing here, and there is an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 If its stored on his personal space then I think its definetly his. Should be sacked anyway for being so stupid as to store them there and to not change the filenames, oh and the fact its kiddy porn as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheMan 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Change the filenames? All the filenames are fairly innocent aren't they? If the pics contain child porn fair enough, but it can be easy for innocent people to get their name tarinshed, as DotBum said. I'd delete this thread btw, could hamper any investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Craig what was the filename of the one you opened and why is the content so incriminating, without being too explicit please? It just doesn't add up. 127566[/snapback] I'd prefer not to go into it tbh. Just to say that I opened one which could be construed as a harmless file and the content was decidedly dodgy. 127573[/snapback] I dont understand this though (then again who could work out the mind of a paedo?) if the pics are sick then why has he changed the name to something innocuous but kiddie related when he could have just called it "football1" etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Craig what was the filename of the one you opened and why is the content so incriminating, without being too explicit please? It just doesn't add up. 127566[/snapback] I'd prefer not to go into it tbh. Just to say that I opened one which could be construed as a harmless file and the content was decidedly dodgy. 127573[/snapback] I dont understand this though (then again who could work out the mind of a paedo?) if the pics are sick then why has he changed the name to something innocuous but kiddie related when he could have just called it "football1" etc 127684[/snapback] Probably didn't want to get them mixed up with his football files tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Craig what was the filename of the one you opened and why is the content so incriminating, without being too explicit please? It just doesn't add up. 127566[/snapback] I'd prefer not to go into it tbh. Just to say that I opened one which could be construed as a harmless file and the content was decidedly dodgy. 127573[/snapback] I dont understand this though (then again who could work out the mind of a paedo?) if the pics are sick then why has he changed the name to something innocuous but kiddie related when he could have just called it "football1" etc 127684[/snapback] Probably didn't want to get them mixed up with his football files tbh. 127691[/snapback] fair point, what about if he named them football1, football2 etc but put them into a directory called "dodgy dodgy filthy kiddie stuff" that wqay he wouldnt get them mixed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Craig what was the filename of the one you opened and why is the content so incriminating, without being too explicit please? It just doesn't add up. 127566[/snapback] I'd prefer not to go into it tbh. Just to say that I opened one which could be construed as a harmless file and the content was decidedly dodgy. 127573[/snapback] I dont understand this though (then again who could work out the mind of a paedo?) if the pics are sick then why has he changed the name to something innocuous but kiddie related when he could have just called it "football1" etc 127684[/snapback] Probably didn't want to get them mixed up with his football files tbh. 127691[/snapback] Aye, nowt worse that a picture of Iain Dowie popping up when you've got your cock in your hand tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 me too! the case, if it gets to court, will be chucked out anyway cos theres evidence posted all over the internet now! 127546[/snapback] Have a fucking word with yourselves man, planet earth is back down here! 127561[/snapback] just cos your arse is twtiching like a rabbits now 127576[/snapback] WTF are you on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Craig what was the filename of the one you opened and why is the content so incriminating, without being too explicit please? It just doesn't add up. 127566[/snapback] I'd prefer not to go into it tbh. Just to say that I opened one which could be construed as a harmless file and the content was decidedly dodgy. 127573[/snapback] I dont understand this though (then again who could work out the mind of a paedo?) if the pics are sick then why has he changed the name to something innocuous but kiddie related when he could have just called it "football1" etc 127684[/snapback] Probably didn't want to get them mixed up with his football files tbh. 127691[/snapback] Aye, nowt worse that a picture of Iain Dowie popping up when you've got your cock in your hand tbh. 127694[/snapback] PMSL I know it's a dodgy subject, but Icke's comment didn't half make me larff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 me too! the case, if it gets to court, will be chucked out anyway cos theres evidence posted all over the internet now! 127546[/snapback] Have a fucking word with yourselves man, planet earth is back down here! 127561[/snapback] just cos your arse is twtiching like a rabbits now 127576[/snapback] WTF are you on about? 127708[/snapback] the fact that if this gets to court and its found out that evidence is on the internet and has provoked a 4 page discussion over his guilt or innocence then it will be chucked out. you say its not important evidence but its the file list in question FFS! we did a little bit about trial by media in my law a-level and whilst this in no way makes me an expert im sure your company bosses wouldnt be chuffed that you fucked up their court case against the local paedo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Maybe our resident gay mancunian lawyer can make a ruling on this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Maybe our resident gay mancunian lawyer can make a ruling on this matter? 127768[/snapback] I dont know who you're referring to, but in the meantime, I'll field this one: j69 is right in principle;if an argument could be made that a court could not guarantee a fair trial for the individual involved then it would be grounds to have the case abandoned. However providing a court could find a jury or bench of magistrates who hadnt been exposed to the 'media glare' of a toontastic internet debate, then I dont imagine theres going to be a problem. It's hard to believe but we dont quite have the influence of say, the front page of the Sun, or say, N-O (joke re the last bit!) Incidentally, unless Craig has named/given any indication as to the identity of the person involved then the question shouldnt really arise in the first place. I dont know as I havent actually read the thread through! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Having said all of the above, the principles of workplace confidentiality and legal subjudity are there for a reason-questions like this would not even need to be asked. Craig wants his arse paddled by his employers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31195 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 me too! the case, if it gets to court, will be chucked out anyway cos theres evidence posted all over the internet now! 127546[/snapback] Have a fucking word with yourselves man, planet earth is back down here! 127561[/snapback] just cos your arse is twtiching like a rabbits now 127576[/snapback] WTF are you on about? 127708[/snapback] the fact that if this gets to court and its found out that evidence is on the internet and has provoked a 4 page discussion over his guilt or innocence then it will be chucked out. you say its not important evidence but its the file list in question FFS! we did a little bit about trial by media in my law a-level and whilst this in no way makes me an expert im sure your company bosses wouldnt be chuffed that you fucked up their court case against the local paedo 127762[/snapback] The only reason I could see for this interfering with a trial is if the guy couldn't get a fair trial because of the thread i.e. it influenced the jury. Tbh this forum is hardly the mass media and the chances of a potential juror viewing this thread is remote to say the least. Its not like we're dealing with the Sunday rags causing a retrial like in the Woodgate/Bowyer case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 So basically Craig and this bloke should be sharing a cell, is what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieshandy 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 So basically Craig and this bloke should be sharing a cell, is what you're saying? 127773[/snapback] But Craig isn't a child so he should be safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 So basically Craig and this bloke should be sharing a cell, is what you're saying? 127773[/snapback] I think Craig deserves a fair trial first. However, your remarks about his guilt (implicit, by reference to him being locked up 'sharing a cell') made on a special interest internet message board, have no doubt scuppered any prospect of this before any court in the land! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Operator 10 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Having said all of the above, the principles of workplace confidentiality and legal subjudity are there for a reason-questions like this would not even need to be asked. Craig wants his arse paddled by his employers! 127771[/snapback] And then he needs to be given a severe dressing down imo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Shoulda been locked up for almost deleting the 'bizarre' thread tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 me too! the case, if it gets to court, will be chucked out anyway cos theres evidence posted all over the internet now! 127546[/snapback] Have a fucking word with yourselves man, planet earth is back down here! 127561[/snapback] just cos your arse is twtiching like a rabbits now 127576[/snapback] WTF are you on about? 127708[/snapback] the fact that if this gets to court and its found out that evidence is on the internet and has provoked a 4 page discussion over his guilt or innocence then it will be chucked out. you say its not important evidence but its the file list in question FFS! we did a little bit about trial by media in my law a-level and whilst this in no way makes me an expert im sure your company bosses wouldnt be chuffed that you fucked up their court case against the local paedo 127762[/snapback] The only reason I could see for this interfering with a trial is if the guy couldn't get a fair trial because of the thread i.e. it influenced the jury. Tbh this forum is hardly the mass media and the chances of a potential juror viewing this thread is remote to say the least. Its not like we're dealing with the Sunday rags causing a retrial like in the Woodgate/Bowyer case. 127772[/snapback] i know that, but there are plenty of lurkers on here from N-O. any solicitor worth his salt would be trying to get his client off by any means neccesary and if by a small chance word of this thread got round it would be like all his xmas's arriving at once. not saying he will like, and i know chances are itl never leave this board . . . . but . . . . i hope craigs conscience could cope if he contributed to a paedo getting off on a technicality like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Shoulda been locked up for almost deleting the 'bizarre' thread tbh. 127780[/snapback] Bring back the birch tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Not a bad idea though is it. If you get caught for doing something dodgy, post all the details on a forum and then claim you wouldn't get a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now