Police Chiefs Refuse to Give Back Man’s Collection of Legal Porn
Just another example of the delights of living in the eUSSR.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ssnews.htm#Bringing_Justice_Into_Disrepute_5701
A police forensic investigation of a man’s computers found fragments of 11 indecent images of children. However it was accepted that these images were unwittingly downloaded and presumably had been deleted anyway.
The police found the fragments in sectors that could not have been accessed without forensic tools.
Police seized 6 computers and returned 2, but they refused to return the other 4 saying that they still contained the inaccessible image fragments.
They took the unfortunate man to court for the forfeiture and destruction of the hard drives they had kept which had a massive 888GB of adult movies and 2.5GB of adult photos.
A district judge found in the police’s favour last July, saying they could not return hard drives containing child porn because they would be distributing illegal material.
But hey, at least gay marriage will soon be legal. Great news for the 0.0001% of the male population (those rare homosexuals with a female instinct for selfish possesive monogamy) who will want to exercise this right. We are indeed lucky to be living in such sexually tolerant and progressive times!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21347719
Incidentally, to those readers who still insist on the ‘puritan thesis’, in which paedohysteria and the war on male sexuality are to be accounted for solely or largely by mysterious bouts of social puritanism that have their own justification, appear out of nowhere, and are aided and abetted only by a few femi-nazis – how do you explain the above? Shouldn’t homosexuals be having it just a tad bit harder than they are in a world in which searching for legal porn in your own home leads to your doors being broken down at 5 in the morning and your computers taken away forever?
Meanwhile, the UK’s leading female police officer has refused to even apologise for her force taking the identities of dead children :
http://www.london24.com/news/crime/no_apology_from_met_police_officer_on_ids_1_1865496
This is the same police force that digs up dead celebrities and puts them on trial for satanic abuse worship, while taking backhanders from tabloids that hack into the phones of murdered kids in order to feed the public’s sick paedocritical lust for child sex abuse stories.
See also (spotted this link at AngryHarry) : http://shitlondon.co.uk/reallifemags/
Jan Teijn got busted by the police searching his porn collection.
Columnist
6 Feb 13 at 11:43 am
Ahh yes, I remember him. We should have included him in our paedocrite of the year poll.
theantifeminist
6 Feb 13 at 9:35 pm
Make sure you read this one too, it’s excellent!
http://shitlondon.co.uk/reallifemags/
I’ve thought the same things as this commentator about those TRASHY women’s magazines for many years now. At last, someone who sees them under the same truthful light that I always have!
If ‘child-porn’ is illegal for the reasons the gynocracy insists, then surely at least 75% of these dreadful, hysteria and even FEAR and misery inducing issues of ghoulish TRASH, would surely be just as offensive to any ‘reasonable adult’ reader.
In fact, these types of trashy publications would most likely be even more offensive to many or even most people, so therefore, they should also be made ILLEGAL on the basis of how much offence they would cause a ‘reasonable adult’ to feel after reading them.
Nobody (apart from their sleazy publishers) could possibly benefit from buying and/or reading them anyway…
Alan Vaughn
7 Feb 13 at 12:47 am
But according to the US paedocrites who dictate such legistation to the EUssr, most of the illegal child pornography coming into the US is from Europe.
“…they could not return harddrives containing child porn because they would be delivering illegal material.”
Hmmm…
So the confiscated EU material makes its way to the US…hmmm…I wonder how…hmmm
Eric
7 Feb 13 at 1:03 am
On the subject of paedocrites, while the troll attack was going on here, our old pal Fat-troll went into a jealous spasm because Fidelbogen’s blog is now being translated into Portuguese for disemination into Portugal and Brazil, where some fairly hopeful anti-feminist backlashes are now underway.
Recalling Futrelle’s recent humiliation on Al-Jazeera, Fidelbogen’s iniative must have stung a lot. This quote (I’m not making this up LOL) is Fraudtrelle’s description of Fidelbogen:
“Underneath all the verbiage, his ideas are trite and simplistic. Yet he’s convinced he’s a genius. One of those writers who thinks he’s great.”
LOL—talk about projection!
Eric
7 Feb 13 at 1:24 am
Posted it at reddit under the title ‘Female porn – the horrific reality of women’s gossip magazines’. Let’s see how many downvotes it gets :
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1822vf/female_porn_the_horrific_reality_of_womens_gossip/
theantifeminist
7 Feb 13 at 9:32 am
Seems to have gone into the reddit spam folder. Either the ‘porn’ in the title, the fact that my last link to Eivind’s article was massively downvoted, or the mods have banned me.
theantifeminist
7 Feb 13 at 12:25 pm
The link (to http://shitlondon.co.uk/reallifemags/) is still there and it works, but it says just below ‘no comments (yet)’:
‘there doesn’t seem to be anything here’ (in red text).
Was there something there and that’s what has gone to the spam folder?
If so, maybe they have banned you.
Alan Vaughn
7 Feb 13 at 1:46 pm
They haven’t banned me because I posted the Stuart Hall article successfully : http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/18285c/83_year_old_broadcaster_vows_to_clear_name_over/
theantifeminist
7 Feb 13 at 2:31 pm
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-appalling-ease-which-child-pornography-6295346.html?cat=17
They try to stamp down on computer-generated images.
Columnist
7 Feb 13 at 3:08 pm
Added my 2 cents worth to it in reply to commentator ‘Ted8367′
Should attract lots of DOWN votes I expect.
Alan Vaughn
8 Feb 13 at 2:36 am
The reaction wasn’t too bad – only 1 comment apart from yours (favourable), but a few upvotes and near zero downvote. A year ago and a post like that would have been downvoted with the reddit trolls insisting a ‘mere accusation’ had nothing to do with men’s rights. Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but the demographic at r/mensrights seems to be changing, and there does seem to be a definate trend in which sex hysteria posts are being better recieved. Of course, the ‘teacher abusing boy’ posts still get 100x the upvotes. At least reddit is starting to become aware that the rape of male sexuality is a men’s rights issue. Certain people at AVfM will not be pleased.
theantifeminist
8 Feb 13 at 8:35 am
This man is my hero.
How can one possibly have almost a terabyte of porn and not have one single instance of child porn or alleged child porn.
Human-Stupidity.com
8 Feb 13 at 11:08 pm
Speaking of the co-opters at AVfM, I saw Esmay’s yesterday featuring a video of Ms. Typhon on ‘Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’.
Overall, the article wasn’t too bad, but what really struck me was the way that Esmay and Typhon presented as though it were some new doctrine they’d just now discovered and were revealing to the whole MRM. As you can see from this link, ‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’ has been around a lot longer than most of us in the MRM:
http://www.no-maam.blogspot.com/2009/02/bonecrker-3-shaming-language.html
Which was archived from an article written in 2004.
Eric
9 Feb 13 at 2:32 am
Indeed – I fully agree with you. Given that the USA has far more ‘liberal’ laws defining what child porn is than the rest of the world, for example nearly all of the ‘barely legal’ genre that is 100% legal in the USA, is pretty much illegal in Europe under ‘virtual child porn’ laws. And given secondly that the USA dominates internet porn and the online adult industry.
I would assume that if you randomly took the harddrives of 100 different men’s PCs in the UK, you could find ‘traces’ of something illegal in anything from 30% to 90% of those drives if you subjected them to enough forensics (given also that 99% of the male population looks at porn online).
Of course nobody knows what percentage of men have traces or otherwise of illegal material on their drives, and the only way one could determine that is by taking a random sample of harddrives. Therefore child porn laws and their prosecution, as well as ‘extreme porn’ laws etc, due to their insanely wide and ambiguous definitions, are clear as daylight examples of selective justice – something which is supposed to be against international law and standards of justice.
And this is why I studiously avoid looking at porn online – and instead prefer to go out and try to bang a nubile 16 – 21 year old (ID always checked). Much less risky. If I fail, I can always fap off thinking about the teenies I passed walking down the street in see-through leggings and g-strings etc.
To be honest, there’s no excuse to want to risk even inadvertantly looking at jailabit ‘child’ porn in the UK, not when you can see the real thing every time you walk down the high street.
theantifeminist
9 Feb 13 at 9:53 am