To think Tina Malone deserves no sympathy

[poldarkssecretlover]

She's in trouble legally for allegedly sharing photos of one of James Bulgar's killers. She is getting lots of support online but I think people are letting their hatred of the crime cloud their judgement. Surely exploiting a tragedy to get attention is not something that should be applauded! This wasn't done with any intention of "helping" James's family, was it?

They aren’t going after the platform because it’s not the platform that fucked up.

Of all the things to get wound up and have “no sympathy” for, someone sharing a picture of these two wouldn’t make the cut for me. Strange.

It’s possible to get ‘wound up’ about several things at the same time, as well as to feel no sympathy for Malone and the Bulger perps.

What would prevent you from asking about these two under Sarah's law?

We don't know what the response would be. There's no indication that you would be given false information. They could disclose a history of offending without revealing the identity. It would be interesting to see.

I don't for a minute believe that all those who aim vitriol at these two use Sarah's law in their day to day lives.

Who is Tina Malone?

Well tbh if the platform's procedures and processes have nothing to prevent the dissemination of illegal material I would say they have fucked up. Arising from that, if there is no way of doing so, should the law as it currently stands be applied to individuals in the same way, if the only reason they are able to share this information is due to being a member of the platform and utilising the platform's reach and technology? Tina Malone didn't create the share button.

tinytemper66 "Who is Tina Malone?"

lmgtfy.com/?q=Who+is+Tina+Malone%3F

Are these the same photos of the man who went back to prison which were shared when he reoffended a few months back? If so why are they singling her out? They were shared thousands of times on social media, they even turned up on my timeline. If they are going to charge her then they should also charge the many thousands of others who shared.

The whole point of sharing those images were to get them seen by people in the prison system who might bump into him and beat him up.

Personally I think that once he reoffended his right to anonymity should have been lost and he should have been treated like any other offender.

I've no idea what the other man is doing with his life now. I wouldn't agree with sharing pictures of him if he is just quietly living his life and been rehabilitated.

And of course there is the chance the photos shared are of someone innocent, as has happened before.

Also social media do have the means to block a photo from being shared. A friend of mine working for a mental health charity got a video of someone commiting suicide completely removed from Facebook (Facebook shockingly would not intervene until the charity stepped in) so they do have the technology to remove these pictures from the platform completely.

Once he reoffended, it was ok for his identity to be revealed even though we pretty much know he would be beaten to death?

It's ok to hand out mob justice if you do it twice?

Tins Malone.. well know paragon of virtue. Not a single stone would dent her glass house.
Sanctimonious arsehole.
Why do some people think they are on.possessionn of the moral high ground and elect themselves as plucky freedom fighters?
Like those thypes that hunt paedo0hiles online.
Sure, there are dangerous people out there and we all want to feel secure but one handed vigilantes do not make our society better place and she most certainly does not represent me.

I'm not sure about the paedophile hunters. As long as they let the police take over and are well versed in the evidence laws etc I think some of them do a good job where police resources just cannot stretch that far.

I don't think it was ok at all but I don't get why she is being prosecuted when she was far from alone in sharing. Either subpoena 100s of thousands of people, or go for the platform that allowed it, or do nothing. Holding one person responsible for the image becoming public knowledge isn't at all a true reflection of the process through that image became public knowledge.

Through *which

I agree that it's strange to single her out.

The point is it may not be a picture of Him it could be a picture of someone completely innocent and I'm not sure vigilantes are the answer?

I don't think it was ok at all but I don't get why she is being prosecuted when she was far from alone in sharing.

What makes you think others aren’t being prosecuted? It’s only made the news with her because of her ‘fame’ and the fact that she bleated about it all over social media.

Good point Cough. For all we know many others are being prosecuted too.

Yeah I don't get it. Maybe because she's high profile, maybe because they wanted to make an example of her. I dunno. Are those good reasons to prosecute? I'm not convinced tbh.

Presumably if others were being prosecuted we'd know about it. Many people I know shared that image. (Not me; and I did tell them they were being dicks so have no personal axe to grind.) None of them are being hauled to the high court.

Findingmyfeet - Put yourself for just one moment in the shoes of a parent who has a baby (yes baby, he was two) tortured and murdered, imagine that you are vilified by hundreds of people for letting go for a split second and knowing that you have to live with the memories for the rest of your life. Do you think the time served by those things was real justice? Of course they are despised. Children are seen as innocent and beautiful, they shouldn't be capable of such awful actions. At least one of them went on to commit further crimes and isn't slightly sorry so clearly their punishment didn't work. Are you really so dense?

YANBU. Sometimes the wrong photos have been shared and I don’t approve of vigilante justice anyway.

They were granted Lifelong anonymity under the Human Rights Act.

How lucky for them. What wonderful thing did they do to deserve this?
The only people I have any sympathy for are James and his parents.

had no idea who she is, so had to google . so she is hardly high profile.
the law is the law. she shouldn't have done it.

but the idea that they "served their time" is ludicrous.

I'm not dense but nor am I a psychologist or criminal justice expert. I realise that it is not the job of victims to dictate the terms of someone's sentence. Nor does any of this have any relevance to their identity being revealed.

We know that they would be hunted down and beaten to death. For me this is enough to keep their identity a secret.

As for the sentence, the only way to address that would be to campaign and actually learn about rehabilitation so I could offer an argument.

Revealing their identity in contravention of the law while knowing that this will lead to a lynching is pretty stupid, dangerous and dense.

so clearly their punishment didn't work

As far as we know it has worked for one of them.

Yabu.
Those 2 are pure evil. & I would want to know if me & my kids were living next to a person that tortured & killed a baby.
The police/ system have gone crazy protecting kid killers. I don't understand it. Isn't one of them a repeat offender? Why don't we have a right to keep our kids safe