Rob Slane: Introducing Dunker, social media for the mob

Welcome to Dunker, the world’s latest social media site. If you’re not familiar with how it works, don’t worry, we’ll explain it, but it really is so simple that you’re sure to pick it up quickly as you go along.

The idea behind Dunker was born out of a desire to make justice far more transparent and democratic. As we’re sure you’re aware, in the past the law has been the preserve of the elites, whilst the people have often had no say. Sure, they’ve sometimes paid lip service, by the introduction of things like ‘juries’, but this was of course nothing more than a figleaf to cover up the undemocratic nature of the system.

No more. Dunker changes all that. Dunker puts the law into your hands. Dunker makes ‘we the people’ the final arbiter – not old-fashioned things like evidence, witnesses and cross-examination.

When joining Dunker, you’ll be given two options: the Free Version, which enables you to vote and make comments on any Dunker case, anywhere in the world; and the Premium Version, which not only gives you voting and commenting rights, but also allows you to make accusations.

Here’s how it works.

Premium Dunker users may make one original accusation per year. This can be against anyone in the world, and could be for any alleged crime. Often the claims will be of a sexual nature, and usually they will be against a public figure, but no crime or person is off-limits. The only stipulation is that accusations must date back no further than 50 years, since claims for incidents occurring more than half a century ago could be seen to be going a bit far.

Once a Premium user makes an accusation against someone, the accused’s name is immediately made public, splashed all over the site, and probably the media too. It is important to note that no evidence need be presented against the accused. It is equally vital that those making the allegations must not go to the police. We at Dunker discourage such things, since these are very old-fashioned methods of dealing with allegations of a criminal nature, and what we are trying to do is bring the justice system in line with 21st century values. Remember: all that is needed is the accusation, and then it’s over to the will of the people to decide on the fate of the accused.



Once the original accusation is made, other Premium users are allowed to back it up with a secondary accusation. All Dunker users – both Premium and Free – are given the opportunity to vent their spleen and rage about the wickedness of the alleged perpetrator. No comments are off-limits, and may range from the mildly irritated to calls for the accused to suffer some sort of gruesome death. Once again, it is important to reassure users that no evidence is needed for this.

The outrage shall be allowed to continue for a set period of time – usually no more than a week, to prevent users getting bored and moving on to something else – at the end of which time the perpetrator shall face Trial by Dunker. An image of the person facing the allegations will appear on the screen. He shall be strapped to a chair, dangling above a river. All users are then invited to press their Dunker buttons up or down to signal whether they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Whenever a guilty vote is registered, down he goes by a pixel. When a not-guilty vote is registered, up he comes by a pixel.

If by the end of the allotted Trial the accused’s head is below the waterline, the verdict of the people is clear: GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES. And if his head remains above the waterline, then SUSPICION SHALL REMAIN UPON HIM ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE (and probably afterwards as well), because as we all know there’s no smoke without fire. He’s probably guilty of something. Of course he is. Why would the allegations have been made in the first place if there wasn’t something in them?

So shall justice be established by social media. So shall the opinions of the people prevail over outdated ideas like evidence and impartiality. So shall the idea of reporting alleged crimes to the police, rather than social media, be flung into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

So c’mon. What are you waiting for? Join Dunker today and together let’s get Dunking for Justice!

Rob Slane

  • Colkitto03

    The Roy Moore election may well turn out to be a watershed in the USA. If the voters of Alabama elect him then is will be a huge slap in the face for both the political elite, journalists and SJWs.
    None of the accusations against him have been independently tested. No-one has gone to the Police.
    He is standing his ground right now. I think that it is vital for American democracy that he does.

    • Nick Muir

      There is also the possibility, I know it’s just off the scale unbelievable, and more or less impossible, that there not everything that those – to date – 9 unconnected women have said is false. That and all the silly stuff about a man in his 30s leaving messages in a high school year book, and being banned from a mall for letching on teenage girls. But of course I know your not the type who would defend a sleazy old paedo.

      • Colkitto03

        I believe in due process, i believe in innocent until proven guilty. I beleive that if someone believe that the law has been broken they should go to the police. I would expect you to receive these protections.

        I believe in following evidence and I don’t believe in ‘ historic case building’ or fishing for witnesses. There is an incredibly big political motive for the Moore accusations.
        I am going to give you one example of a famous person wrongly accused by multiple unconnected accusers. But I can provide lots more for you if you like

        http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-tarbuck-tells-torment-after-3279333

        if you don’t believe there are fantasists who jump on a bandwagon after media publicity then you are odds with about a dozen in depth publicised UK Police investigations.

        • Nick Muir

          Innocent until proven guilty is a principle of criminal law. This is about the suitability of someone for public office. I personally have very socially conservative views and don’t care for adulterers, perverts, gropers, philanderers, liars and cheats. There are plenty of good people in politics. Why put up with a hypocritical sleazeball? Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it.

          • norman’s nonsense

            You’re not a Clinton supporter than..

          • Nick Muir

            Nope not at all disgusting man – he was actually impeached for that. A Texan friend of mine was at a hotel in the UK a few years ago. She went to the spa and was in the steam room. Another girl in there looked familiar and my friend asked ‘do i know you, were we at school together?’ The girl looked miserable and said, ‘I’m Monica Lewinsky’.

          • Where? Name one. I believe the same thing, but these are unprovable, beyond the statute of limitations and based on hearsay. When he was thirty, he like young girls, arguably he thought they were all above the age of consent, which was quite low in Alabama. If he committed a crime, why wasn’t he prosecuted? This is a witch hunt, nothing more.

        • Owen_Morgan

          The point has been well-made (by someone not obviously a particular fan of Roy Moore) that there is something suspicious about allegations such as these, never divulged in tight-knit Southern communities, which suddenly come to light in the Washington Post and attract the attention of Gloria Allred. Roy Moore was under the spotlight throughout a noisy primary, but none of these allegations was raised. Now, when the Republicans have no way to replace their candidate before the election, a Democrat-leaning former newspaper and a notorious, gutter-dwelling, Democrat lawyer suddenly start producing accusations.

          Remember that Lisa Bloom quickly announced herself as Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer, before, almost as quickly, she decided that she wasn’t. Bloom is Allred’s daughter. I’m guessing that somebody warned her of the impending hatchet-job on Moore and told her that defending Weinstein wouldn’t be helpful.

          • Very much so. Judge Moore is one of those who says what he thinks, good or bad, and has the scars to prove it – he was removed from the Alabama Supreme court – twice. Once for refusing to remove the 10 Commandments, and then for not allowing SSM after the US Supreme Court allowed. I can’t say I’m actually a fan but he got nominated because the national GOP stupidly backed a corrupt man, instead of a pretty good one. This mess is orchestrated (near as I can tell) by the Dems, the GOPe, and the MSM.

            Would I vote for him? Now? You’re damned right I would, wrong as he is in many ways, he’s got the main point right, it’s time to take Washington apart. It looks like many in Alabama are thinking the same way.

      • Shazza

        “You’re”

        • Nick Muir

          Sorry.

    • HappyCheese

      People will always say there is no smoke without fire, and given the low standards of what constitutes “wrong” behaviour in today’s eyes (we are far more conservative about sex than we were in the 1970s), many cases they would be right.

      I thought exactly the same thing when Didgeridoo Man (aka Rolf Harris) was convicted of sex crimes back in 2014; I said to myself, “With that many accusations there’s bound to be someone who is telling the truth”.

      My confidence in the security of his convictions was later shaken by the fact he was convicted of at least one charge where he was able to prove he wasn’t at the place where he was convicted of assaulting a child, and the fact that he was later cleared of a bunch of other follow up charges.

      He’s served his time of course, and even the last two legal reverses don’t mean he is entirely innocent… but it does show that things can go wrong in mass sexual assault trials, something which often gets lost in today’s frenzied witch hunts.

      • Owen_Morgan

        There is a flaw in English law (which may or may not be present in American laws), which enables a multitude of roughly similar accusations to be treated as an accumulation of supporting evidence. This is obviously nonsensical. If I say I saw Joe Bloggs commit a crime on the 17th of February and somebody else says he saw Bloggs doing something similar on the 23rd of September, that isn’t supporting evidence, but it is treated as such by courts in England and Wales, in some types of case, at least, including sexual abuse of children.

        There have been miscarriages of justice, acknowledged by the Court of Appeals, based on this kind of faulty evidence. Innocent people have served prison sentences. Whether or not all of the accusations against the late Jimmy Savile were false, there is no doubt that a great many were, but they were posthumously catalogued, nevertheless, as supposedly cumulative proof of his guilt.

        The problem is that cases like this attract gold-diggers and attention-seekers. The press and the police will go on fishing expeditions to find accusers and, like expert anglers, they know where to fish and how to bait their hooks. See how the authorities made a real song and dance about “satanic abuse” in Rochdale in 1990. When there was genuine abuse, on an industrial scale, twenty years later, were they interested?

        • Colkitto03

          Really well put Owen!

        • Very well said, indeed. It exists here but not as strongly, I think. It is used, not as evidence but as a reason for police to ‘keep an eye on’ someone, and as a factor in sentencing. In that role it is not overly pernicious, in my judgement, although it can get out of hand.

      • Colkitto03

        Yes, I think you last paragraph hits the spot.

  • HappyCheese

    I think Saturday Night Live is missing a guest writer here…

  • SimonToo

    There might be no smoke without fire, but after Dunkin’ there could be steam with no more fire.

  • Phil R

    Committee for Public Safety

    It’s an old idea with new technology