My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
.
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:00:37 PM |
|
|
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in
the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought
to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act
2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there
are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air
such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully
it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific
the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
hi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:08:09 PM |
|
|
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue yourself to
the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what actions
any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status as "group
wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I did not
notify the right people.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:09:28 PM |
|
|
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in
the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease
immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought
to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you
have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism
laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act
2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there
are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic,
abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to
voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully
it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is
horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but
none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue
yourself to
the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what
actions
any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status as
"group
wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I did not
notify the right people.
--
Rhi
i'm kicking dirt at him while i hide behind you
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:26:19 PM |
|
|
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0-ydnSp11PUvuN_anZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in
the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease
immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought
to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you
have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism
laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act
2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there
are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic,
abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to
voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully
it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is
horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but
none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue
yourself to
the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what
actions
any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status as
"group
wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I did not
notify the right people.
--
Rhi
i'm kicking dirt at him while i hide behind you
Okay this made me laugh.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:35:47 PM |
|
|
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht9jc$nlf$1@news.datemas.de...
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0-ydnSp11PUvuN_anZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@giganews.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated
in
the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed
phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease
immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate
the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was
brought
to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to
the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions
he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you
have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK
laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just
their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism
laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders
Act
2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with
everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity,
there
are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic,
abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to
voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And
hopefully
it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is
horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but
none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who
may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any
action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue
yourself to
the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about
what
actions
any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status as
"group
wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I did
not
notify the right people.
--
Rhi
i'm kicking dirt at him while i hide behind you
Okay this made me laugh.
--
Rhi
well i don't like fluffy farts that ,
come along telling everyone ,
what they did and didn't do ,
and now that he's aware of what happened ,
he does nothing but chic ***** about what wasn't done
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:42:10 PM |
|
|
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air
such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific
the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue yourself to
the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what
actions any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status as
"group wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I did
not notify the right people.
--
Rhi
I was lost? What the hell is he talking about? Reporting Cyber or Dawggie?
Or someone else here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 11:17:10 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <jarsenal66nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJKdnQF7Dt38sN_anZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air
such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific
the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue yourself
to the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what
actions any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status
as "group wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I
did not notify the right people.
--
Rhi
I was lost? What the hell is he talking about? Reporting Cyber or
Dawggie? Or someone else here?
Reporting Cyber-Hyper a month or so back.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 05:46:31 PM |
|
|
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fhtqkm$ola$1@news.datemas.de...
"Jane" <jarsenal66nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJKdnQF7Dt38sN_anZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air
such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific
the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue yourself
to the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about what
actions any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my status
as "group wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not mean I
did not notify the right people.
--
Rhi
I was lost? What the hell is he talking about? Reporting Cyber or
Dawggie? Or someone else here?
Reporting Cyber-Hyper a month or so back.
--
Rhi
Oh, well what ever like it did any good anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 05:48:46 PM |
|
|
"Jane" <jarsenal66nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KL2dnejX54ZL7N7anZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fhtqkm$ola$1@news.datemas.de...
"Jane" <jarsenal66nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJKdnQF7Dt38sN_anZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:fht8hb$k5g$1@news.datemas.de...
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated
in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed
phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease
immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate
the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was
brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to
the
account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions
he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you
have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK
laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just
their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism
laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders
Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with
everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity,
there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic,
abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to
voice/air
such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And
hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is
horrific
the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but
none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who
may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any
action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're a saint. Next time you get in your car you should glue
yourself
to the dashboard. And don't presume to know a ***** thing about
what
actions any of us took. Just because I chose not to announce my
status
as "group wondrous one champion of all that is moral" it does not
mean I
did not notify the right people.
--
Rhi
I was lost? What the hell is he talking about? Reporting Cyber or
Dawggie? Or someone else here?
Reporting Cyber-Hyper a month or so back.
--
Rhi
Oh, well what ever like it did any good anyway.
yea
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 07:32:47 PM |
|
|
So who is in trouble from the big bad internet police?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 07:52:01 PM |
|
|
<marcules85@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5164a7-df84-4454-becb-f91fbf571d9d@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
So who is in trouble from the big bad internet police?
no one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 07:49:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So who is in trouble from the big bad internet police?
Probably bad folk who actually murdered someone,
and placed their body in the basement. Foxtel
CI channel show it all.
HTH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
19 Nov 2007 06:16:07 PM |
|
|
"MI6" <shaken@not.stirred> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145...
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
That isn't true, I am guessing you haven't been reading here very long.
Whatever the case, I appreciate your effort. I dislike Netkopping in almost
all cases but this was causing some major molar grinding on my part.
Jean
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
20 Nov 2007 07:17:09 PM |
|
|
MI6 wrote:
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
That's just plain sick. If anyone took my imagination away
from me, I'd top myself. So it's illegal to *imagine* driving
at twice the speed limit, killing somone?, sex offenses?
Real life, and imagination sometimes become confused, however
if there is no real life evidence that a crime has happened,
as per described acts, and no one made a claim - there is no
way they could back it up.
So, movies like texas chainsaw one, and other horror movies
are in this category? If I made a movie about this newsgroup
and included offensive content?
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Oh, you delt the terrrooowist card.
In my mind there have been so many crimes in movies, on the web,
in books, anywhere.
Making an assumption they have happened is plain wrong.
Folk like Stephen King would have about 1,000 life time
jail sentences.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
I'm not ashamed, however have made comments that some of what is
in someone's imagination should not be aired publically out of
context, however that tends to happen. A lot of people here are
guilty of it. I have no belief he has been involved in physically
illegal activities.
All I've seen so far that are illegal are slander against Slunky
and others (and I don't know if that was - it might have been true
information for all I know, however that is none of my business
to ask about).
So, if you don't want to read folk's posts, don't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: Update |
21 Nov 2007 08:15:22 AM |
|
|
On 11/19/07 6:45 PM, in article
Xns99EDF1A435556l9086767pood@216.196.109.145, "MI6" <shaken@not.stirred>
wrote:
My understanding is that the individuals account was deactivated in the
early hours of the morning 19th Nov. There then followed phonecalls
from the account holder to ISP, and a "second chance" offered on
the clear understanding the abusive activity would cease immediately.
As you all are aware, the individual continued unabated with his
unacceptable posts when the account was re-activated, but it was
all monitored.
The indications are that these are usual practices and exonerate the
provider from liability as they had acted when the issue was brought to
their attention, and that the situation was then made clear to the account
holder.
The account will be terminated, no migration code, no refund, no
reinstatement. The terms where made clear to the individual, he
agreed to honour them, but in full knowledge of the repercussions he
then reneged on the agreed undertaking.
I've read some views in posts within this group, and some of you have
little knowledge of the law here in the UK.
There are activists/groups who are in contention that some UK laws
amount to thought control, they claim that some laws have created
"Thought crime" in which one can be held accountable for just their
views alone. The following is an example under UK anti-terrorism laws
of 2000, whereby a female was found guilty and imprisoned for her
poems, writings, posted views etc.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2831648.ece>
Also, there are now similar provisions under the Sex Offenders Act 2003
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm>
And with the unhindered and rabid advent of the web, with everything
from "grooming" through to the advocacy of criminal activity, there are
laws in place to deal with those who foist there paedophillic, abusive
claims, including rape, incest etc. It is a criminal act to voice/air such
views, and I intend that the individual faces charges. And hopefully it
may just be his salvation. I am collating the data, and it is horrific the
content I am finding posted from the individual concerned.
The saddest part of it all, is that you all were fully aware, but none
of you, including those of you who are parents, those of you who may
yourselves have been victims of abuse, none of you took any action.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
my hero.
<spit>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
