It's still a link to a site showing horrific child abuse and I don't think it should have been posted.
Well.......this thread has only got another 44,109 views and 1,967 posts to go before it matches the thread about the 'poor' woman 'harassed' by wolf whistles.
Will prove interesting to see what people place greater importance to wont it? We can call it a study of Human and Social Psychology.
But yet he knew it would hence the strict stark warning that it would be offensive and 'horrifying' to anyone that clicked on the link so actually he DID know it would offend people else why the need for such a warning? I'm my opinion it's no different than posting a link to a site that shows child molestation.
Or a matter of curtsey, warning others of its graphic contents.
On the legality side if you did such a thing it would probably be illegal, so your argument is the stuff of nonsense.
While child abuse of any type is horrific, the difference is that video hits home much closer to peoples sense of what is real, its honest in its horror.
Rather like the ISIS beheading videos I'm sure we're capable of discussing it without people having to see the gory images. I don't feel it's necessary to make people feel horrified and sickened by posting links to such sick graphic images which will undoubtedly shock, sicken, horrify and upset most if not all the people who see it.
Rather like the ISIS beheading videos I'm sure we're capable of discussing it without people having to see the gory images. I don't feel it's necessary to make people feel horrified and sickened by posting links to such sick graphics images.
The difference is one is voyeurism the other isn't.
Let me ask you, would you prevent the viewing of the awful things that happened to the Jews under Hitler's regime, do you think words alone would do it?
If anything it serves to remind us all that the female is not always mother natures 'nurturer' and perfectly capable of the most heinous acts. I'm just waiting for the first excuser to post possible mental health issues or some such psychobabble clap trap. >:(
Believe me, I am a huge advocate for mental health issues and have health psychology degrees and I have no sympathy for the woman whatsoever. She knew what she was doing.
Ironic- the little one got beaten when she threw up but probably vomited in the first place because she was anxious and had just had food shoved into her mouth which she was clearly too distraught to swallow/ digest properly.
Quote: (By Bulletguy in response to Wizard claiming rules are being broken)
2.17 - Offensive Material
You must not post messages that are vulgar, crude, sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive. We will not tolerate offensive, immature or unconstructive postings.
'[BB Housemate X] is an ugly ****', and '[Random Politician Y] is a prick' are not acceptable.
Above anything else I'd love to see a Christmas song like this go to number 1 and raise money for a good cause than see another X Factor Christmas number 1 which lines the pockets of a filthy rich record producer who's nothing but a total knobhead.
Believe me, I am a huge advocate for mental health issues and have health psychology degrees and I have no sympathy for the woman whatsoever. She knew what she was doing.
Ironic- the little one got beaten when she threw up but probably vomited in the first place because she was anxious and had just had food shoved into her mouth which she was clearly too distraught to swallow/ digest properly.
Yes in hindsight i should have scrubbed the 'mental health' bit in that post but you understand where i was coming from? Folk who jump to the defence purely because it involves a woman so must have been 'suffering stress' or some such rubbish.
As i said, "if anything it serves to remind us all that the female is not always mother natures 'nurturer' and perfectly capable of the most heinous acts."
Yes in hindsight i should have scrubbed the 'mental health' bit in that post but you understand where i was coming from? Folk who jump to the defence purely because it involves a woman so must have been 'suffering stress' or some such rubbish.
As i said, "if anything it serves to remind us all that the female is not always mother natures 'nurturer' and perfectly capable of the most heinous acts."
No, no. I don't think you needed to scrub it. I got what you were saying. My point was that despite having a lot of sympathy for people who behave badly due to mental illness, I personally think that there is no excuse for what she did to that little girl. None.
No, no. I don't think you needed to scrub it. I got what you were saying. My point was that despite having a lot of sympathy for people who behave badly due to mental illness, I personally think that there is no excuse for what she did to that little girl. None.
Oh right......thanks for that. At the time i wrote from the heart rather than the head, then later i did wonder about the term being taken out of context but was too late to edit anyway.
I have wondered since if the parents had suspected the nanny of abusing before and decided to install CCTV. I doubt this was a 'one off' incident.
The Nanny clearly hates kids, yet takes a job that is all about them. She'll treasure those moments sadly, but equally tormented by them, as they will be her last as an abled-body person.
Poor child, You can tell how long the abuse had been going on for as she barely let out a cry when first slapped on the sofa, and also played dead on the floor during the worst of it.
So if I happened to post a link to a site that showed child porn but it didn't play automatically and people had to physically click on the video for it to play would that be OK? I think not. It's a link to a web page that shows very violent and sickening child abuse. People do not need to see this. Apparently just clicking on the link alone brings up a series of stills/photos of the abuse without having to endure the actual video. I'm not trying to get the OP in trouble but I don't think we need a link to this sick material.
Images/videos of child porn are illegal, the video in the link won't be because otherwise, The Daily Mail wouldn't have included the images or the video in their article.
Which is a link to a video showing a child being violently abused. Not something I believe should be shared. It's as bad a someone posting a link to one of those sick beheading videos. Other people's descriptions was enough to turn my stomach as a father of a child myself it horrified me. Do we really need links so people can watch this abuse in all it's sickness?
It's one thing to outline the story and bring it to people's attention but people don't need links so they can sit and watch the ordeal in it's full grotesque sickness. Would people think it acceptable to post a link to a page that showed a child being sexually abused? Get it off here please?
It's a link to the Daily Mail, a national tabloid which is hosting the video and running the story. What's wrong with you?
I get the drift and so won't watch the video. I can understand why the father lost his temper but it would have been better if he'd let the court system do its job. There was proof of her actions.
Comments
Will prove interesting to see what people place greater importance to wont it? We can call it a study of Human and Social Psychology.
Rather like the ISIS beheading videos I'm sure we're capable of discussing it without people having to see the gory images. I don't feel it's necessary to make people feel horrified and sickened by posting links to such sick graphic images which will undoubtedly shock, sicken, horrify and upset most if not all the people who see it.
Let me ask you, would you prevent the viewing of the awful things that happened to the Jews under Hitler's regime, do you think words alone would do it?
There's nothing wrong with that. You wouldn't be human if you weren't shocked and upset by this video.
So it's ok to post links to websites showing graphic, horrifically shocking and offensive material so long as you pop in a quick warning/disclaimer?
Believe me, I am a huge advocate for mental health issues and have health psychology degrees and I have no sympathy for the woman whatsoever. She knew what she was doing.
Ironic- the little one got beaten when she threw up but probably vomited in the first place because she was anxious and had just had food shoved into her mouth which she was clearly too distraught to swallow/ digest properly.
It is not offensive and very-very few would find the video so, rawness in this instance is not offensive.
Bobala IMO was quite right to write his warning.
EDIT and would you prevent the showing of prison camp horror, would you simply rely on words to educate.?
2.17 - Offensive Material
You must not post messages that are vulgar, crude, sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive. We will not tolerate offensive, immature or unconstructive postings.
'[BB Housemate X] is an ugly ****', and '[Random Politician Y] is a prick' are not acceptable.
Would that include posts like this?
As i said, "if anything it serves to remind us all that the female is not always mother natures 'nurturer' and perfectly capable of the most heinous acts."
No, no. I don't think you needed to scrub it. I got what you were saying. My point was that despite having a lot of sympathy for people who behave badly due to mental illness, I personally think that there is no excuse for what she did to that little girl. None.
I don't think any DS T&Cs have been broken.
I have wondered since if the parents had suspected the nanny of abusing before and decided to install CCTV. I doubt this was a 'one off' incident.
No he didn't. He posted a link to an article in a national newspaper, it included a video. The video also warns it has graphic content.
I read the article but chose not to open the video.
How is that against the T&Cs.
Anyway, how could a child minder treat a child so badly. Disgusting bitch.
The Nanny clearly hates kids, yet takes a job that is all about them. She'll treasure those moments sadly, but equally tormented by them, as they will be her last as an abled-body person.
Calm down. This isn't a beheading. Within reason we can create a thread on whatever subject we wish.
I hate this sick bitch and was swearing at the monitor!
If it was my child I would have done the same thing as the father.
Need to calm down now.
Images/videos of child porn are illegal, the video in the link won't be because otherwise, The Daily Mail wouldn't have included the images or the video in their article.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I've seen you getting this wound up in a thread over animal abuse.
It's a link to the Daily Mail, a national tabloid which is hosting the video and running the story. What's wrong with you?