'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
news.bbc.co.uk
'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#2This is really horrible, but i can't help but be reminded of the episode of "The IT Crowd" Where the lead character goes on a date with Peter File. Just goes to show how much value all societies place on titles, no matter how un-deserved.
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#3It's time for society to realize that "accused of a crime" does not mean "guilty". It should be illegal to fire someone because they are accused of a crime. (And if your parents disown you, it means you have damn bad parents who you are probably better off without.)
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#4It's a difficult scenario and definitely an extreme example. It's hard to see what could have gone differently (apart from the family and employers being douches)
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#5This is really horrible, but i can't help but be reminded of the episode of "The IT Crowd" Where the lead character goes on a date with Peter File. Just goes to show how much value all societies place on titles, no matter how un-deserved.
Wow, that is the first thing I thought of too.
That's the terrible thing about even being accused of a crime (regardless of your innocence), it can still destroy your life. Even if it's not a bad title (as in this case), just having to defend your own innocence can have high costs (both legal and emotional).
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#6It's a difficult scenario and definitely an extreme example. It's hard to see what could have gone differently (apart from the family and employers being douches)
I would say that more than one piece of evidence would have to be brought before arresting someone, and they should have had a very good look at the counter-evidence, which was apparently already available at the time of the arrest.
Very sloppy police work this, basically someones life got altered indelibly for something he really had nothing to do with.
Just think of it, credit card numbers + matching expiry dates and CVVs are for sale in bulk on underground black markets, every piece of evidence found in a case as serious as this should be held to the highest standards before taking steps that can't be undone.
Since his computer wasn't implicated at all before it was seized, if they had tried to tie the case to the guys IP they would have seen he had nothing to do with it immediately that shouldn't have happened at all.
This was simply a fishing expedition and a mans life was changed in a very bad way because of it.
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#7It's time for society to realize that "accused of a crime" does not mean "guilty". It should be illegal to fire someone because they are accused of a crime. (And if your parents disown you, it means you have damn bad parents who you are probably better off without.)
Damn straight on the employment thing. Suspension is reasonable in certain cases (say you work in a bank and are suspected of fraud) But sacking? Hell no.
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#8It's time for society to realize that "accused of a crime" does not mean "guilty". It should be illegal to fire someone because they are accused of a crime. (And if your parents disown you, it means you have damn bad parents who you are probably better off without.)
Damn straight on the employment thing. Suspension is reasonable in certain cases (say you work in a bank and are suspected of fraud) But sacking? Hell no.
You should be able to fire someone for any reason. It's immoral to fire people accused of crime, you should treat your employees with respect, but there should be no law involved.
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#9It's a difficult scenario and definitely an extreme example. It's hard to see what could have gone differently (apart from the family and employers being douches)
I would say that more than one piece of evidence would have to be brought before arresting someone, and they should have had a very good look at the counter-evidence, which was apparently already available at the time of the arrest. Very sloppy police work this, basically someones life got altered indelibly for something he really had nothing to do with. Just think of it, credit card numbers + matching expiry dates a…
What other information? An ip address? Not particularly relevant.
In th case of indecent images the police are pretty much required to investigate with evidence of this type. Not doing so is just too dangerous all round for them.
I'd say this was just one of the extreme cases your always going to come across. It sucks, lots.
Edit: by required I mean its shaky legal ground not to pursue it aggressively. Especially if he suspect is a parent. If hey ignore it and it turns out the guy is guilty they are fucked, badly. The differing ip address is important but only circumstantial because ips are two a penny.
Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that more than one piece of evidence would have to be brought before arresting someone, and they should have had a very good look at the counter-evidence, which was apparently already available at the time of the arrest. Very sloppy police work this, basically someones life got altered indelibly for something he really had nothing to do with. Just think of it, credit card numbers + matching expiry dates a…
What other information? An ip address? Not particularly relevant. In th case of indecent images the police are pretty much required to investigate with evidence of this type. Not doing so is just too dangerous all round for them. I'd say this was just one of the extreme cases your always going to come across. It sucks, lots. Edit: by required I mean its shaky legal ground not to pursue it aggressively. Especially if…
No, seriously, the fact that there was no other corroborating evidence means that there are NOT enough grounds for suspicion.
A credit card number is way too easily jacked / faked / cloned. I've had it happen to me in a restaurant, before I finished my trip home (another 700 km drive) there had been a few thousand $ of online charges on the card.
A credit card number is not an identity. If it isn't enough to cross a border with then it certainly shouldn't by itself be a reason for an investigation.
Especially because in cases like these the chances of the perp using fraudulent information are substantially higher than when looking at the transactions for say amazon.com.
Of course pedos are going to try to cover their tracks, using a stolen credit card number is a lesser crime considered to the one they are already committing so the barrier is a pretty low one.