Stitching up a clown: not even funny

Scummiest article ever?

Not only are the Scum effectively inviting murderous lynch-mob vengeance on a harmless wanker, driving him out of his home, said harmless wanker probably isn\’t even a paedo.

You see, he was collared as part of the worst miscarriage of justice of the century so far – Operation Ore, where the Yank police raided a chap called Thomas Reedy, who processed credit cards on behalf of porn sites and sent him to jail forever for not checking whether the sites he was processing were adult or kiddypr0n [*]. Harsh but fair, you might say, and you\’d probably be right – except that the Yank police then passed the whole list of all the cards Reedy had processed whether or not the site subscribed to was child porn onto British rozzers, who proceeded to arrest all UK nationals on the list and do them for child porn offences. Even when the card was demonstrably stolen…

In cases where there was actual evidence beyond the bullshit list, people were charged with actual offences. In cases where there was no evidence beyond the credit card list, the police offered people a caution as a sick bargain: \”yes, we know there\’s no evidence against you, but if we charge you with and prosecute you for a child porn offence then you\’ll lose your job, friends and family and some thick pikey Sun readers will burn down your house. Why not have a caution instead?\”.

While in retrospect, you can see why a caution might be a bad idea (\”ooooooooooooh\”, says moron with IQ of 5 on Internet, \”he must be guilty or he wouldn\’t have accepted a caution, would he? String \’im up\”), it\’s also easy to see why the offer might be tempting at the time. Only a few brave guys actually fought the case; they were the stolen card guys not the adult porn guys, and they had to face years of ostracism before their day in court, and still are doubtless mistrusted by \’no smoke without fire, and won\’t somebody think of the children?\’ fuckwits.

So it\’s entirely likely that Billy Wand isn\’t a paedophile (which is odd, because under different circumstances I\’d assume he was purely because of his name and profession), but someone who has had his life ruined for buying legal adult porn by a combination of not-giving-a-fuck rozzers, not-giving-a-fuck tabloid hacks, and the general lunatic hysteria over something which really isn\’t that bad in the first place (well, it isn\’t. They\’re pixels on a fucking screen; they\’re a selection of zeros and ones. If you think that warrants jail and social ostracism, you warrant being beaten to death with a bicycle chain [**]).

Semi-relatedly, I wish that Michelle Elliot of Kidscape would fuck right off. \”I think it\’s wrong and sends the wrong message that he\’s not gone to prison\”, she says, of a man who even in the unlikely event that the police weren\’t lying in this case still hasn\’not actually harmed anyone in any way nor sought to (compared to, say, seeking to have a man\’s life destroyed whilst he\’s subjected to horrible abuse in jail…)

[shorter this article: \”I\’d sooner let someone who\’d been arrested under Operation Ore near my kids than someone who wore make-up and called himself Billy Wand\”…]

[*] obviously Reedy\’s trial was reported as \”evil child pr0n kingpin\”, rather than \”unfussy money launderer\”; this reflects the fact that the police are lying scum and the media believe whatever the police tell them.

[**] as with rocket launchers and explosives, the fact that owning them isn\’t inherently evil doesn\’t stop society from banning them on the grounds that they\’re likely to contribute to substantial harm. This is a decent case for criminalisation, not \”OMG TEH EVILS, this man gets turned on by pictures that are gross\”.

One thought on “Stitching up a clown: not even funny

  1. Once I managed to wade my way through your angry ranting and work out the point you were actually trying to make, I found myself in agreement with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *