Nor-Cal Villan Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: It's what he would have wanted His truth is marching on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 49 minutes ago, Nor-Cal Villan said: IIRC the dude in the photo is known on the Internet as Barry Wood. For a while there the meme was inescapable @chrisp65 dis you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 20 minutes ago, Seat68 said: @chrisp65 dis you? As you pointed out when I DM’d you, mine is just like a penis, but smaller. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted August 4 VT Supporter Share Posted August 4 3 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Don't agree, but unlike others, I respect opinions. I'd say though, it's pretty bad comparison putting yourself in a position of a bereaved parent than imagining to recieve vile kiddy pics. As for your example of the Olsen twins, it wouldn't happen and even if it did, you'd have to chatting to some real sicko to recieve kiddy pics because of it, so you'd be guilty before you recieved the pics. I guess all I'm saying is there's no defence. You don't recieve those kind of pictures by accident. 3 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said: If YOU read what you wrote… edit - so what would I be guilty of BEFORE I received any pictures? I made a stupid, disgusting joke unwittingly to a scumbag. So I’m guilty of….? Did you have an answer for me? You didn’t reply when I pointed out you wrote “before” in your reply. What am I guilty of BEFORE I received the images in this hypothetical? The situation is I made a disgusting joke, the scumbag paedo mistakenly thinks “huh, kindred spirit, I’ll WhatsApp him something from my collection…”. What crime am I guilty of BEFORE I receive the image? Or if you’re not happy with that scenario, it could be that two men send each other porn. I don’t know, they like discussing what they think of the women in the images. Not exactly implausible is it? If you have ever looked at legal pornography you only have to look at the comments to see some really get invested in discussing it with each other. The whole “DM bro” culture. It exists, trust me, it exists. Anyway, one man is of the opinion that all material will be of individuals aged 18 and over. The other man is more prepared to “push the envelope” of what they’re sending each other and sends stuff that is not legal. You may fairly think the first man is sad little sod. Fine, he’s a creep. But he’s not into swapping underage images. However he has found himself in the position where he has inadvertently received illegal material he didn’t want and is now guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 On 04/08/2024 at 09:55, sidcow said: Bloke on my WhatsApp group keeps sending dick pics. Often disguised. Especially of a bald black guy with a MASSIVE dick. I had no idea that made me gay till a couple of hours ago. I'm off to plan my comming out party. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 9 Share Posted August 9 So it's in the media now, the BBC want the 200k back they have paid Hew Edwards. I've no support for Hew, but I'd tell the bbc to do one. They knew he was guilty, even before they started paying him while he was suspended. I'm guessing this story will just disappear soon enough anyway, the BBC won't chase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted August 9 VT Supporter Share Posted August 9 46 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: So it's in the media now, the BBC want the 200k back they have paid Hew Edwards. I've no support for Hew, but I'd tell the bbc to do one. They knew he was guilty, even before they started paying him while he was suspended. I'm guessing this story will just disappear soon enough anyway, the BBC won't chase it. He spent it already booking a one-way ticket to Wonderland 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 10 Share Posted August 10 The powers that be in Iraq trying to push through lowering child marriage to 9 years old. Jesus wept . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nor-Cal Villan Posted Sunday at 20:27 Share Posted Sunday at 20:27 85 to 120 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted Monday at 06:03 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 06:03 9 hours ago, Nor-Cal Villan said: 85 to 120 years 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted Monday at 12:14 Share Posted Monday at 12:14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eligius Posted Monday at 13:37 Share Posted Monday at 13:37 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: Two tiered noncing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted Monday at 13:40 Share Posted Monday at 13:40 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: 6 months, what a joke. He's one degree away from having produced the images himself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted Monday at 13:42 Share Posted Monday at 13:42 A suspended six month sentence is a disgrace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted Monday at 13:52 Share Posted Monday at 13:52 There's no defence for this disgusting man. It only goes to show how even the most trustworthy looking people can have a really dark side to their personality. Even the way he carried himself to Court gave one the sense of a disturbing arrogance to this man's character. It doesn't surprise me that he escaped a prison sentence, however, he can't escape the shame and disgust that will follow him for the rest of his days and rightly bloody so! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted Monday at 13:57 Share Posted Monday at 13:57 I'm appalled that people would find something of this nature a source of humour. I tip my hat to police officers who investigate these crimes, imagine having to look at that shit and then going home and trying to put it aside from the front of your mind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted Monday at 14:20 VT Supporter Share Posted Monday at 14:20 He was always going to get a fairly limited sentence. There's a load of mitigation on various avenues, and the extent (i.e. number) of images is very low comparatively. That's not getting the book chucked at you. He's also on the sex offenders register for 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted Monday at 14:39 Share Posted Monday at 14:39 The man that actually sent him the images should also be used as a barometer for the possible sentencing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted Monday at 14:47 Share Posted Monday at 14:47 3 minutes ago, Seat68 said: The man that actually sent him the images should also be used as a barometer for the possible sentencing. Indeed. 12 month suspended sentence for someone who distributed the most severe category of child abuse images seems woefully inadequate, it'd have been absurd to lock Edwards up but not the man who sent him the pictures in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted Monday at 14:59 Share Posted Monday at 14:59 39 minutes ago, Chindie said: He was always going to get a fairly limited sentence. There's a load of mitigation on various avenues, and the extent (i.e. number) of images is very low comparatively. That's not getting the book chucked at you. He's also on the sex offenders register for 7 years. I guess 41 images isn't that many... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts