Laurence Fox. The twat.

[Guineveretoo]

Because it was a complete overreaction. The men's names and the crimes they have been charged with are all already in the public sphere. They're not a secret, or some kind of breach of privacy or anything as far as I can tell.

Clearly Laurence Fox has his own racist agenda by posting them in that list, but in the context of this thread where we post up and discuss cunty things the twat Fox has done, it's completely reasonable to post a link to the tweet. Bizarre that anyone would think otherwise.

And yes, the subsequent overreaction and pile on by multiple posters was pathetic.

You accused me, specifically, of being "pathetic", because I felt uncomfortable about the posting of that list. I don't know whether those names are publicly available - I had never seen them before, and they appeared to be allegations rather than convictions, so it seemed wrong to put them up on this forum. I asked the poster to remove it. I later told the poster to fuck off because of his reaction to me and put him on ignore. That was it. I don't believe that is "pathetic" nor a "complete overreaction" and I don't know why you think otherwise and, frankly, I have got more important things to worry about, so am not engaging with you on this anymore.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I assumed that the names were of people convicted; was this not the case?

That is not what it said....

 

[LeytonCatLady]

I assumed that the names were of people convicted; was this not the case?

Nah, the list only says "charged". It doesn't say when that happened, so it's possible some of them may have been to trial and been found guilty, but it's interesting that Looza and others like him don't bother to wait until a trial is completed before presuming guilt. Whereas if that was them in the dock, I'm sure they'd change their tune...

 

[NoXion]

Nah, the list only says "charged".

So it's not even a cherry-picked list of convicted folks? Isn't that against the law or something? If it ain't it should be.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

So it's not even a cherry-picked list of convicted folks? Isn't that against the law or something? If it ain't it should be.

I agree. I know the CPS think naming charged suspects encourages other victims to come forward, but in general, I wish we could normalise anonymity before conviction. If found guilty, fair enough, but otherwise it makes "innocent until proven guilty" look more than a bit insincere tbh, not to mention prejudicing the jury. And don't get me started on the victim shaming "You ruined his life" guilt trip - fucking bollocks. If the suspect is found not guilty and hasn't been named, then no additional harm.

 

[two sheds]

Worth a complaint? Along the lines of the Sun only ever saying someone's colour who'd been convicted of a crime if they were black. Until some dedicated soul kept complaining and they were told to stop.

 

[strung out]

So it's not even a cherry-picked list of convicted folks? Isn't that against the law or something? If it ain't it should be.

It's the names of 29 men who have been charged with rape and conspiracy to rape against a girl while she was aged between 13 and 20: Calderdale child sexual exploitation: 29 men charged

Fox is a racist cunt, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to post evidence of that when the names he posted have been widely reported elsewhere for some pretty vile crimes.

 

[NoXion]

It's the names of 29 men who have been charged with rape and conspiracy to rape against a girl while she was aged between 13 and 20: 29 men charged with abusing one girl in child sex investigation

Fox is a racist cunt, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to post evidence of that when the names he posted have been widely reported elsewhere for some pretty vile crimes.

I've no doubt that the information was already publicly available, but it's clear why he (Fox the Twat) in particular is posting it. The piece of filth is stirring shit.

 

[strung out]

I've no doubt that the information was already publicly available, but it's clear why he (Fox the Twat) in particular is posting it. The piece of filth is stirring shit.

Yes, for sure.

 

[Pickman's model]

So it's not even a cherry-picked list of convicted folks? Isn't that against the law or something? If it ain't it should be.

if fox is ever charged with anything we should project some apt image onto the side of the palace of westminster

 

[andysays]

It's the names of 29 men who have been charged with rape and conspiracy to rape against a girl while she was aged between 13 and 20: 29 men charged with abusing one girl in child sex investigation

Fox is a racist cunt, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to post evidence of that when the names he posted have been widely reported elsewhere for some pretty vile crimes.

I'm just catching up on this thread, and didn't see the original post before it was edited, but IMO it would be just as effective to post a summary of his tweet, as you have done, rather than the tweet itself.

If someone was going to post the thing itself, it would be appropriate to do so with an explanation of why you were doing so, rather than just the tweet with no comment. I have no idea what comment, if any, appeared in the original post, but I get the impression from people's reactions that at least some of them didn't think it was appropriate, and in that case the poster, whoever it is, needs to address those concerns properly, rather than just crying "pile on" after one or two objections.

 

[Sweet FA]

It was because of the poster, not the post. Another poster wouldn't have had the same reaction.

The post reporting was pathetic.

 

[andysays]

It was because of the poster, not the post. Another poster wouldn't have had the same reaction.

Yeah, I was trying to look at the thing in general terms without focusing on the poster too much, but I think there's something in what you say.

But I also wonder whether another poster would have cried pile on after a couple of critical responses, which seems (unsurprisingly) to have made the whole thing worse.

 

[Santino]

But I also wonder whether another poster would have cried pile on after a couple of critical responses, which seems (unsurprisingly) to have made the whole thing worse.

This is a potentially problematic attitude to someone who's being singled out for criticism.

 

[andysays]

This is a potentially problematic attitude to someone who's being singled out for criticism.

You appear to be assuming that those critical of the original post were doing it solely because of who posted it, rather than the content of the post.

I think there are actually legitimate reasons to be critical of it regardless of who the poster was, so your assertion that they're being "singled out for criticism" isn't as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Guineveretoo]

It was because of the poster, not the post. Another poster wouldn't have had the same reaction.

The post reporting was pathetic.

I can't comment on other people, but I did NOT report the post because of the poster. I am not someone who follows things like that on here, and I don't have any particular issues with, or views of, the poster. I would have reacted in the same way, whoever had posted it.

Another person saying I am "pathetic". How pathetic of you all to say that.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Time this thread was given the electric collar and placed in a unmarked paupers grave

 

[Sweet FA]

I can't comment on other people, but I did NOT report the post because of the poster. I am not someone who follows things like on here, and I don't have any particular issues with, or views of, the poster. I would have reacted in the same way, whoever had posted it.

Another person saying I am "pathetic". How pathetic of you all to say that.

Label the behaviour, not the poster I don't think you're pathetic - reporting posts when you could have a word with poster seems weird. And a bit pathetic.

 

[existentialist]

I've no doubt that the information was already publicly available, but it's clear why he (Fox the Twat) in particular is posting it. The piece of filth is stirring shit.

He could have made his point just as well by redacting the names.

ETA: by which, I mean Fox.

 

[tim]

He looks a bit like Johnny Rotten in that shot, except not as talented or funny.

But about as racist.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

He could have made his point just as well by redacting the names.

ETA: by which, I mean Fox.

But how else was he supposed to subtly highlight their Asianness? (Sarcasm)

 

[Guineveretoo]

Label the behaviour, not the poster I don't think you're pathetic - reporting posts when you could have a word with poster seems weird. And a bit pathetic.

I did "have a word" with the poster, and suggested he should take the post down! If you are "labelling the behaviour, not the poster" you may want to read the posts before labelling my behaviour as "pathetic" and then telling me that I should have done exactly what i did.

 

[tim]

Time this thread was given the electric collar and placed in a unmarked paupers grave

Or battered to death with a baseball bat by Jolyon Maugham QC.

 

[Orang Utan]

The last few pages of this thread are bathetic

 

[strung out]

I did "have a word" with the poster, and suggested he should take the post down! If you are "labelling the behaviour, not the poster" you may want to read the posts before labelling my behaviour as "pathetic" and then telling me that I should have done exactly what i did.

It was edited within 20 minutes of your comment, not that he should have had to.

Reporting the post was completely pathetic.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Think you are all using the word pathetic wrongly, I am not feeling pathos for you, just scorn.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh this is going well

 

[AverageJoe]

I'm going to step in and have my own opinion on this, and I expect a load of responses, not all that will be good.

Jay Park is a spikey, oppositional poster on any thread they post on no matter what the thread is about. They are also the only poster that I am aware of that has been not only perma banned but also banned twice for setting up fake accounts.

Obviously this place means a lot to them. But the fact that they were allowed back after all the provocative posts they put up here has had a resonance with some people. I understand that. Even I go when I see a Jay Park post "oh ffs, what are they banging in about now" and then waiting for the subsequent victim blaming posts.

It's not good for the forum or the community.

The mods have taken difficult decisions before about binning off posters like this in the past and should probably look at whether their posts are overall a positive or negative influence on the boards.

For my mind their posts are at best divisive and at worst abusive.

 

[JimW]

The sorrow and the pity.

 

[andysays]