theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


The Belenciaga controversy


The Belenciaga controversy

Author
Message
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722, Visits: 5.3K
Mr W - 9 Dec 22 6:35 PM
"Friends" indeed, but real people (/or online bots) announcing their forgiveness towards him, I find unpalatable.

In other news, I'm surprised there's no uproar about Anne Sacoolas' sentence - 8 months suspended when Harry Dunn was killed?! I got 9 months suspended and I didn't even injure anyone! Quite often you get 'people outraged at lenient sentence' but there's an eerily strange silence on this one. Crazy.

Interestingly, there have been a number of cases over recent years, of CIA agents being caught with iioc on their devices and they have avoided prosecution because of 'national security' concerns.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 455, Visits: 5.5K
"Friends" indeed, but real people (/or online bots) announcing their forgiveness towards him, I find unpalatable.

In other news, I'm surprised there's no uproar about Anne Sacoolas' sentence - 8 months suspended when Harry Dunn was killed?! I got 9 months suspended and I didn't even injure anyone! Quite often you get 'people outraged at lenient sentence' but there's an eerily strange silence on this one. Crazy.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
2 Years Ago by Mr W
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)Supreme Being (163K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K, Visits: 7K
Mr W - 7 Dec 22 12:12 AM

I’m always cynical when it comes to news which starts with ‘people on social media outraged’ especially when bots and unaccountable paid actors and accounts can be used to create the “furore” they then report on and claim is legitimate. It’s amazing how often the furore is spotted by the newspapers before real people even know about it. I’m not saying this is one of those but… anyway…  If there’s a story that gets clicks it’s one with scandal, ability to virtue signal, a ‘big’ brand, room for conspiracy theories (Apparently Americans do like a conspiracy theory or two…!) and so on. This is one of those that ticks all those.

I always ask myself are there any political links? Obvious or not obvious. Their creative director Demna Gvasalia has links with Kanye, which means he’s had to condemn them, which means more stuff is written etc Who knows. My opinion is that the court paper was a sick joke and it’s backfired, but that’s based on nothing at all. If no one is arrested for anything, it’ll probably just go away now.

It's like the newspaper attacks on Holly Willoughby, apparently it’s an argument behind the scenes about PR agencies, no-one gives a fig about skipping queues but according to the Daily Fail etc you’d think the whole world is up in arms. Or this awful stuff about 'people on social media' allegedly saying 'Matt Hancock is human and an OK guy' after I'm A Celeb. I think in some respects people who have cheated in the past find solace in him but nobody talks about the effect all this is having on his kids - his kids are going through a traumatic and very public divorce. What could possibly go wrong.............. 

People say, don’t believe everything you read, but the sad thing is, people do and sometimes they really lap it up.


On the subject of Matt Hancock, he seems to be a human, and he certainly looks after his friends, so they would think he's an OK guy....

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)Supreme Being (39K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 455, Visits: 5.5K

I’m always cynical when it comes to news which starts with ‘people on social media outraged’ especially when bots and unaccountable paid actors and accounts can be used to create the “furore” they then report on and claim is legitimate. It’s amazing how often the furore is spotted by the newspapers before real people even know about it. I’m not saying this is one of those but… anyway…  If there’s a story that gets clicks it’s one with scandal, ability to virtue signal, a ‘big’ brand, room for conspiracy theories (Apparently Americans do like a conspiracy theory or two…!) and so on. This is one of those that ticks all those.

I always ask myself are there any political links? Obvious or not obvious. Their creative director Demna Gvasalia has links with Kanye, which means he’s had to condemn them, which means more stuff is written etc Who knows. My opinion is that the court paper was a sick joke and it’s backfired, but that’s based on nothing at all. If no one is arrested for anything, it’ll probably just go away now.

It's like the newspaper attacks on Holly Willoughby, apparently it’s an argument behind the scenes about PR agencies, no-one gives a fig about skipping queues but according to the Daily Fail etc you’d think the whole world is up in arms. Or this awful stuff about 'people on social media' allegedly saying 'Matt Hancock is human and an OK guy' after I'm A Celeb. I think in some respects people who have cheated in the past find solace in him but nobody talks about the effect all this is having on his kids - his kids are going through a traumatic and very public divorce. What could possibly go wrong.............. 

People say, don’t believe everything you read, but the sad thing is, people do and sometimes they really lap it up.



=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
2 Years Ago by Mr W
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)Supreme Being (98K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K, Visits: 1.6K
punter99 - 1 Dec 22 1:57 PM
This is an odd tale of social media manufactured outrage.

The lurid claims in all the newspapers about child porn, are not matched by the reality. The images in question are not illegal. In fact they have been shown on TV and distributed online, by numerous online news outlets.

These images would not meet the legal test of being category C, unlike the film Cuties, which does fit the legal definition of CP.

The outrage seems to centre on one image, in which no child is present at all. It is a picture of a handbag, on top of a lot of papers. One of the papers is a court ruling from 2008, about the legality of virtual cp in the USA. That, in conjunction with two other images, which were part of the same ad campaign, is what allowed various commentators to infer that there was something illegal going on.

The other two images, were of children holding teddy bears. The teddy bears, NOT the children, were supposedly wearing bondage gear, although I would describe it more as being punk/goth fashion, which is not really fetishistic at all.

On the back of this, a lot of people on social media got very upset. It reminds me of the Chris Morris, Brass Eye special many years ago, which highlighted the media paranoia around these issues. That paranoia ultimately led to the introduction of the SOR, which was copied from what the Americans were doing. The court ruling from America doesn't even apply in this country where virtua images have already been criminalised.

Hi
I have NEVER used social media e.g. facebook, twitter etc so I can ignore the paranoia generated by these so called "essential tools of modern society". Other things keep my blood pressure high. LOL

The only reason for my reply and please note I have not seen the report, is that in my opinion you are correct and that our so called advanced society is been manipulated and will continue to do so by "those" pursuing their own aims.  
Have not those with ambitions not done so throughout history? 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)Supreme Being (55K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722, Visits: 5.3K
This is an odd tale of social media manufactured outrage.

The lurid claims in all the newspapers about child porn, are not matched by the reality. The images in question are not illegal. In fact they have been shown on TV and distributed online, by numerous online news outlets.

These images would not meet the legal test of being category C, unlike the film Cuties, which does fit the legal definition of CP.

The outrage seems to centre on one image, in which no child is present at all. It is a picture of a handbag, on top of a lot of papers. One of the papers is a court ruling from 2008, about the legality of virtual cp in the USA. That, in conjunction with two other images, which were part of the same ad campaign, is what allowed various commentators to infer that there was something illegal going on.

The other two images, were of children holding teddy bears. The teddy bears, NOT the children, were supposedly wearing bondage gear, although I would describe it more as being punk/goth fashion, which is not really fetishistic at all.

On the back of this, a lot of people on social media got very upset. It reminds me of the Chris Morris, Brass Eye special many years ago, which highlighted the media paranoia around these issues. That paranoia ultimately led to the introduction of the SOR, which was copied from what the Americans were doing. The court ruling from America doesn't even apply in this country where virtua images have already been criminalised.
GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search