The knives are out...

[M7ck]

I recieved this in a text today so cannot be sure if it is true.

Jon Venables new name is --we interrupt this broadcast for an important health warning. Don't believe everything you read. Venables has been 'outed' in at least three different places now, apparently living under three different new identities at the same time. In fact, he is currently managing the quantum trick of being both in remand while simultaneously being interviewed by a tabloid in his council house, assuring the readers that he isn't The One. --Nexxo

Some Prison Warden doesn't think it should be kept quiet either.

Bit-Tech.Net has no intention to contribute to the witch hunt hysteria. Whatever you think people have a right to know about Venables' identity or whereabouts, find another forum to post it. --Nexxo

[cjmUK]

Originally Posted by M7ck

I recieved this in a text today so cannot be sure if it is true.

Some Prison Warden doesn't think it should be kept quiet either.

I've no idea whether that is true or not, but if it is, I hope that prison warden gets his just reward.

And nice one for reposting it here. I'm sure you feel very proud.


EDIT - The mob claim yet another innocent victim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Facebook.html
http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrim...c-5ec63dca9413
http://www.morningstarr.co.uk/forum/...ving-fear.html

[Krazeh]

Originally Posted by The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail has agreed not to identify the location of the Calverts' new home to protect their safety.

Well isn't that good of them?? Shame they didn't think of the danger they'd be putting people in before running stories about Venables being returned to prison.

[M7ck]

Originally Posted by cjmUK

I've no idea whether that is true or not, but if it is, I hope that prison warden gets his just reward.

And nice one for reposting it here. I'm sure you feel very proud.


EDIT - The mob claim yet another innocent victim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Facebook.html
http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrim...c-5ec63dca9413
http://www.morningstarr.co.uk/forum/...ving-fear.html

If it is true then I am glad I reposted it. People have a right to know.

[Nexxo]

Know what? Speculation by some thicker-than-**** chavs with a sordid imagination and an excess of self-righteousness? What if the information you so happily post on this forum is wrong? Would you like to be contributor to an innocent man's demise?

Get real. This is just another baying mob with torches and pitchforks looking for a victim to lynch (life in the village gets so boring, after all). Still, Muslim students who happen to be carrying backpacks while using public transport must be relieved that the attention is off them for a change.

Venables is in custody; the law is dealing with him. Move along citizen, nothing to see here. Post your favorite daily suspect's name and whereabouts on this forum again, and I will righteously ban your ass, comprende?

[cjmUK]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Know what? Speculation by some thicker-than-**** chavs with a sordid imagination and an excess of self-righteousness? What if the information you so happily post on this forum is wrong? Would you like to be contributor to an innocent man's demise?

Get real. This is just another baying mob with torches and pitchforks looking for a victim to lynch (life in the village gets so boring, after all). Still, Muslim students who happen to be carrying backpacks while using public transport must be relieved that the attention is off them for a change.

Venables is in custody; the law is dealing with him. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

What he said.

[Flibblebot]

I'm glad there's still one bastion of common sense left in the world - I've been going shouty-crackers every time this has appeared on the news.

Worst of all is Jamie Bulger's mother, who keeps harping on about how she has a "right to know". Neither she, nor any other member of the public, have such a right - it has absolutely nothing to with her what Venables may or may not have done, as long as it has nothing to do with her son.

Just a reminder: the government makes laws, the courts enforce them - not the Daily Mail.

[M7ck]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Venables is in custody; the law is dealing with him. Move along citizen, nothing to see here. Post your favorite daily suspect's name and whereabouts on this forum again, and I will righteously ban your ass, comprende?

Did I break any forum rules? I dont think I did, I can understand if BT wants to distance itself from untruths but I never posted it as fact, so therefore I think the threat of a ban is totally uncalled for. Surely people can make there own mind up. The information I posted is on several well known websites. I think you should get off your high horse nexxo and stop using your moderator powers to ensure noone says anything that you disagree with. I see you doing it time and time again. If this earns me a ban so be it.

[Krazeh]

Originally Posted by M7ck

Did I break any forum rules? I dont think I did, I can understand if BT wants to distance itself from untruths but I never posted it as fact, so therefore I think the threat of a ban is totally uncalled for. Surely people can make there own mind up. The information I posted is on several well known websites. I think you should get off your high horse nexxo and stop using your moderator powers to ensure noone says anything that you disagree with. I see you doing it time and time again. If this earns me a ban so be it.

I don't think it's got anything to do with using powers to ensure noone says anything that Nexxo disagrees with, i've seen plenty of threads where people have disagreed with him, or other mods, with no threat of censure.

To be honest if you can't see why posting information claiming someone is Jon Venables, whether or not you state it is a definite fact, is a problem and something you shouldn't be doing then perhaps the "Serious" forum isn't the right place for you to be contributing. Noone has any right to know what Venables new identity is, or why he's been returned to prison. Posting things like you did does nothing more than continue to whip up the frenzied hysteria surrounding this overblown non-issue, and put innocent people in danger.

[Nexxo]

^^^ What he said.

Regarding the rules, I refer you to the following:

Libel

bit-tech complies fully with the laws of The United Kingdom and posts containing libellous comments will be removed.

To assert that someone is a murderer, based on nothing more substantial than rumour (I mean, FFS!) is libel. So yes, you did break the forum rules.

If you cannot see the potential danger and, frankly, evil of contributing to the propagation of such a malicious and damaging rumour, then as Krazeh says, you shouldn't be contributing to SD. You say that "If it is true then I am glad I reposted it.". Did you ever consider what if it is not true? Then you made your own little personal contribution to turning an innocent man's life into a living hell. You may feel OK about that, but the moderators on this forum do not and do not want to be complicit with such a judgemental, destructive and stupid act. Everything on the internet is connected; every comment you make here will hang around and can be dug out by a Google search for years to come. Consider that before you make those very serious, unfounded allegations about other people.

[M7ck]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Did you ever consider what if it is not true? Then you made your own little personal contribution to turning an innocent man's life into a living hell. You may feel OK about that, but the moderators on this forum do not and do not want to be complicit with such a judgemental and stupid act.

No I did not think. I figured that as I said I didnt know if was true covers me for libel (the high court has already ruled though that forum postings should be considered slander rather than libel). I wasn't trying to stir up a witch hunt against innocent people. I now know it not to be true however in future I will be more careful about my postings and I apologise if I upset anyone.

[cjmUK]

I don't think many in the demot thread will stop to figure this one out, but you guys should appreciate it:

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost....ostcount=13764

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by M7ck

No I did not think. I figured that as I said I didnt know if was true covers me for libel (the high court has already ruled though that forum postings should be considered slander rather than libel). I wasn't trying to stir up a witch hunt against innocent people. I now know it not to be true however in future I will be more careful about my postings and I apologise if I upset anyone.

In common law slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Forum posts can be considered libellous and in both the UK, US and Australia there have been cases brought to court based on that argument.

Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation (which is what happens to newspapers when they don't check their sources).

If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to claim defamation. But although the allegations about Mr. C. have been around for a while, he has always vehemently protested his innocence and even proved the allegations to be untrue. So repeating the allegation again is libellous and exposes you to a potential law suit.

Although Mr. Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out" and hence akin to slander, I would also like you to consider this:

Originally Posted by The Guardian, Wednesday March 22, 2006

A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today....

...Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.

"The obvious and immediate potential ramification is that there will be more cases like this," said Richard Shillito, a partner at the law firm Farrer & Co. "One sees on these sites particularly unrestrained comments that people make in the heat of the moment without thinking of the legal consequences."

"A lot of people post anonymously but it is possible to find out people's identity. I think people should read this judgment as a warning to be more careful about their comments."

I don't necessarily think that Bit-Tech is going to get sued just for some member posting a libellous comment but we have a rule about it and it is a sensible one. Not just from a legal perspective, but also a moral one. Let's not join the baying masses: we are geeks. We are smarter than that.

Anyway, I accept your apologies. Let's move on.

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

Originally Posted by Flibblebot

I'm glad there's still one bastion of common sense left in the world - I've been going shouty-crackers every time this has appeared on the news.

Worst of all is Jamie Bulger's mother, who keeps harping on about how she has a "right to know". Neither she, nor any other member of the public, have such a right - it has absolutely nothing to with her what Venables may or may not have done, as long as it has nothing to do with her son.

Just a reminder: the government makes laws, the courts enforce them - not the Daily Mail.

Well said. I'm getting infuriated by the press coverage and the mothers insistence that she is a special case above the law. She needs help to move on.

[boiled_elephant]

My intuitive reactions to these two are just irreconcilable with my understanding of human rights. Either they deserve to live, or humans don't have an inalienable right to life - I can't decide which conclusion would be worse.

[cjmUK]

Originally Posted by boiled_elephant

My intuitive reactions to these two are just irreconcilable with my understanding of human rights. Either they deserve to live, or humans don't have an inalienable right to life - I can't decide which conclusion would be worse.

If humans don't have an 'inalienable right to life', what's all the fuss about? All they did was kill someone...

[boiled_elephant]

Originally Posted by cjmUK

If humans don't have an 'inalienable right to life', what's all the fuss about? All they did was kill someone...

Yes, that is exactly the point I made - the two are incompatible. Well-observed I guess.

So which must go?

[Jiumenkou]

I would have them jailed and executed the day they turned 18. They should not be released back into society after committing such an heinous crime. You cannot rehabilitate someone who is evil. Bring back the death penalty.

[cjmUK]

Originally Posted by Jiumenkou

I would have them jailed and executed the day they turned 18. They should not be released back into society after committing such an heinous crime. You cannot rehabilitate someone who is evil. Bring back the death penalty.

[I can't help but think you are trolling, but I'll bite...]

The good news is that your views are in keeping with your government. The bad news is that jailing someone for 8 years until they are old enough to be executed would be considered inhumane, even if we were to re-instate the death penalty (not going to happen).

But forget the old death penalty debate, I'm intrigued as to how we classify people as evil (or not). Are only murderers evil? If not, do we execute all other evil people as well? What about people who are not evil, but commit murder - people with psychiatric problems perhaps or people under the influence of drink and drugs? Who decides who is evil and who simply made one-off mistakes?

[Nexxo]

He's not trolling (believe it or not); that is actually his opinion...

Originally Posted by Jiumenkou

I would have them jailed and executed the day they turned 18. They should not be released back into society after committing such an heinous crime. You cannot rehabilitate someone who is evil. Bring back the death penalty.

I'll just quote my response to a similar argument in the paedo thread:

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I totally agree about thinning the herd of evil doers, but let's take a rational approach to it, shall we? Who does the most damage?

I mean, a paedophile will get to abuse a dozen children, perhaps up to 50 if they are in a position of opportunity and they don't get caught. A terrorist can take down a few hundred. Higher up in the hierarchy they orchestrate campaigns that can kill thousands.

But a political leader can do some real damage. Saddam Hussein killed a hundred thousand. Idi Amin and the Hutu government in Rwanda were responsible for half a million. But they are small fry compared to the big guys: Western government leaders who funded the Iran-Iraq war from both sides (1 million dead), did conflict investment in South America for decades (a few million dead) and invaded Iraq (200.000 dead and counting, 2 million refugees). Yessiree, if we are going to kill some real evil doers, let's start with people like George Dubya Bush and Tony Blair.

And then I'm not even talking about various religious leaders and their entourage, who for instance shuttle child molesting priests from parish to parish so they can do more damage or denounce AIDS campaigns in Africa that advocate the use of condoms, or who provide the fundamentalist ideology that gets terrorists foaming at the mouth.

When you decide to kill evil doers, you have to start thinking big, not personal. But I don't see you, or the Daily Mail reader for that matter call for their heads.

Er, and which abusers do you kill? The abusers who made the abusers, or the abusers they made by abusing them?

On a total scale, terrorists do more damage than paedos. You're just getting all sentimental because some vulnerable little kids are involved. But little children get hurt by terrorist bombs and bullets too, and little children got hurt in our righteous campaign to depose an evil dictator in Baghdad; their bodies just as maimed, their minds just as traumatised, their lives just as ruined. But on a larger scale.

Let's not talk about Mao and his cultural revolution (death toll: 3 million) because it is too late to kill him now anyway. But the current Chinese regime has killed more innocents than Venables and Thomson could ever manage even with a chain gun slung under each arm and a shitload of Metamphetamine in their system to keep 'em going (and I'm not just taking a dig at China. If you read back you'll notice I mentioned Tony Blair too). If you are going to kill "evildoers", think efficiency. Think bang for, well, bang. Think big.