People who are wrongly accused of crimes are also victims. Having sympathy
for them in no way lessens the sympathy we feel for the principal victims of
the crime, or suggests in any way that we tolerate paedophilia or sexual
abuse. We want the right people to be tried and convicted. When that happens
the victims of the crime have at least a chance of achieving justice. If the
wrong people are tried and convicted, nobody achieves justice and the person
who really committed the crimes is free to commit more crimes. More
paedophilia, more sexual abuse. I'm quite sure you don't want that.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 11 January 2006 21:01
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
> 
> This thread is making me incredibly angry.
> 
> As a feminist is hard to resist ranting about people having 
> their heads in the sand.
> 
> Or make some comments about mcps. Or something similar.
> 
> Again, people seem to want to identify with the wrongly 
> accused instead of with the thousands and thousands of actual 
> victims. People seem to want to dig out the few times 
> sometimes is accused wrongly, instead of digging out stories 
> of actual victims.
> 
> I find this thread turned on its head and wonder why.
> 
> I have zero tolerance for pediophilia and zero tolerance for 
> any kind of sexual abuse. It happens, it's real. It's not all 
> innocent people wrongly accused. 
> And most of it is perpetrated by people the attacked 
> child/adult knows. Read the statistics in the url I posted.
> 
> My former best friend (of 14 years) was an incest survivor 
> that had been abused by her father since the age of five. My 
> mother's former hair dresser daughter disappeared. A stranger 
> abduction, raped and murdered.
> 
> I am so flipping angry I am now immediately unsubscribing for 
> a while. To avoid ranting, because I am here for photography 
> and I don't need the grieve of ranting and arguing.
> 
> Heads in the sand. All I can figure.
> 
> Later, Marnie 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to