John52 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 I think this thread shows that questioning the lynch mob is difficult, and takes courage. Whereas anyone can join the lynch mob, and get some kind of status from it. Apparently Ian Huntley used that status to hide among the lynch mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-23 10:47 AM I think this thread shows that questioning the lynch mob is difficult, and takes courage. Whereas anyone can join the lynch mob, and get some kind of status from it. Apparently Ian Huntley used that status to hide among the lynch mob. No courage required......just a excuse merchant mentality *-) ......... Is it any wonder the lunatics are running the asylum? 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-23 4:24 PM John52 - 2017-09-23 10:47 AM I think this thread shows that questioning the lynch mob is difficult, and takes courage. Whereas anyone can join the lynch mob, and get some kind of status from it. Apparently Ian Huntley used that status to hide among the lynch mob. No courage required......just a excuse merchant mentality *-) ......... Is it any wonder the lunatics are running the asylum? 8-) ........ Well you can read the BBC news report and make up your own mind http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41203239 As far as I can see this 'Child Abuser' does not appear to have abused a child - just a doll? I can see how tracing internet traffic and opening parcels is easy work. But they are never going to catch real child abusers like Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG by doing that because he didn't even own a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-24 8:53 AM pelmetman - 2017-09-23 4:24 PM John52 - 2017-09-23 10:47 AM I think this thread shows that questioning the lynch mob is difficult, and takes courage. Whereas anyone can join the lynch mob, and get some kind of status from it. Apparently Ian Huntley used that status to hide among the lynch mob. No courage required......just a excuse merchant mentality *-) ......... Is it any wonder the lunatics are running the asylum? 8-) ........ Well you can read the BBC news report and make up your own mind http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41203239 As far as I can see this 'Child Abuser' does not appear to have abused a child - just a doll? I can see how tracing internet traffic and opening parcels is easy work. But they are never going to catch real child abusers like Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG by doing that because he didn't even own a computer. No doubt he was a school governor because he was concerned about their education? :-| .......... Blimey you excuse merchants are really gullible (lol) ......... BTW Jimmy Savile got away with it because he was fated by those nice gullible politically correct BBC types.......you know those folk who appear to think much like yourself ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-24 9:12 AM Jimmy Savile got away with it because he was fated by those nice gullible politically correct BBC types.......you know those folk who appear to think much like yourself ;-) ......... As a bare chested. jewellry wearing. cigar smoking sycophant who made animal noises in place of words, he was the polar opposite of me. But he was a close personal friend of Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family, so had a lot of clout within the BBC. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-24 10:43 AM pelmetman - 2017-09-24 9:12 AM Jimmy Savile got away with it because he was fated by those nice gullible politically correct BBC types.......you know those folk who appear to think much like yourself ;-) ......... As a bare chested. jewellry wearing. cigar smoking sycophant who made animal noises in place of words, he was the polar opposite of me. But he was a close personal friend of Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family, so had a lot of clout within the BBC. :-( So your saying Maggie and the Queen prevented Savile from being investigated?..........Or perhaps it was the fairy's at the bottom of your garden (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-24 2:44 PM So your saying Maggie and the Queen prevented Savile from being investigated?. Indirectly yes, because having such powerful friends made his victims feel they would be less likely to be believed. (although I think he was closer to Prince Charles than the Queen?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Privilege, be it in money terms, being the holder of a respected occupation or being a famous celebrity has a tendency to protect many offenders of all types from both discovery and sanction. We are still far from making all people equal under the law. Food for thought for those who constantly question the access to legal aid for people that they decide are unworthy of the same protections afforded to the rich and powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-09-24 6:38 PM Privilege, be it in money terms, being the holder of a respected occupation or being a famous celebrity has a tendency to protect many offenders of all types from both discovery and sanction. We are still far from making all people equal under the law. Food for thought for those who constantly question the access to legal aid for people that they decide are unworthy of the same protections afforded to the rich and powerful. But you have managed to make ethnic minorities and criminals more equal than the rest of us *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 24, 2017 Author Share Posted September 24, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-24 8:53 AM Well you can read the BBC news report and make up your own mind http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41203239 As far as I can see this 'Child Abuser' does not appear to have abused a child - just a doll? I can see how tracing internet traffic and opening parcels is easy work. But they are never going to catch real child abusers like Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG by doing that because he didn't even own a computer. In that linked article it says, "He was sentenced to eight months for owning the doll and eight months for possessing images of child sexual abuse." But then completely contradicts itself by saying; "At present in England and Wales it is only illegal to import an obscene or indecent item. It is not a crime to make these dolls, to distribute them or to possess them." I'm assuming the problem is not so much their appearance than what can be done with them. But how many people knew you could get sent to prison for owning a rubber doll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 24, 2017 Author Share Posted September 24, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-24 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2017-09-24 2:44 PM So your saying Maggie and the Queen prevented Savile from being investigated?. Indirectly yes, because having such powerful friends made his victims feel they would be less likely to be believed. (although I think he was closer to Prince Charles than the Queen?) Thatcher's known cover up of Sir Peter Hayman is very damning evidence.Just one of many paedophiles Thatcher turned a blind eye to despite warnings from many MP, even from her own party including MP Geoffrey Dickens who compiled the dossier on child sex abuse and paedophilia involving senior MP's and 'respected' members of the establishment.. Hayman was a senior diplomat and ex-MI5 officer but also an active member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. There is lots about that particular case but here is just one link; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/thatcher-stopped-officials-publicly-naming-sir-peter-hayman-as-suspected-paedophile-10020852.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-09-24 9:05 PM John52 - 2017-09-24 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2017-09-24 2:44 PM So your saying Maggie and the Queen prevented Savile from being investigated?. Indirectly yes, because having such powerful friends made his victims feel they would be less likely to be believed. (although I think he was closer to Prince Charles than the Queen?) Thatcher's known cover up of Sir Peter Hayman is very damning evidence.Just one of many paedophiles Thatcher turned a blind eye to despite warnings from many MP, even from her own party including MP Geoffrey Dickens who compiled the dossier on child sex abuse and paedophilia involving senior MP's and 'respected' members of the establishment.. Hayman was a senior diplomat and ex-MI5 officer but also an active member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. There is lots about that particular case but here is just one link; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/thatcher-stopped-officials-publicly-naming-sir-peter-hayman-as-suspected-paedophile-10020852.html Yep they may have covered up the odd peado :-| ........ It's funny how you seem to object to Muslim/Asian Peado "gangs" being vilified though? *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 25, 2017 Author Share Posted September 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-24 9:11 PM Bulletguy - 2017-09-24 9:05 PM John52 - 2017-09-24 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2017-09-24 2:44 PM So your saying Maggie and the Queen prevented Savile from being investigated?. Indirectly yes, because having such powerful friends made his victims feel they would be less likely to be believed. (although I think he was closer to Prince Charles than the Queen?) Thatcher's known cover up of Sir Peter Hayman is very damning evidence.Just one of many paedophiles Thatcher turned a blind eye to despite warnings from many MP, even from her own party including MP Geoffrey Dickens who compiled the dossier on child sex abuse and paedophilia involving senior MP's and 'respected' members of the establishment.. Hayman was a senior diplomat and ex-MI5 officer but also an active member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. There is lots about that particular case but here is just one link; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/thatcher-stopped-officials-publicly-naming-sir-peter-hayman-as-suspected-paedophile-10020852.html Yep they may have covered up the odd peado :-| ........ Who is "they"? I stated Thatcher, and there is no "may" about that at all, it's well documented. It's funny how you seem to object to Muslim/Asian Peado "gangs" being vilified though? *-) ......... No i simply object to people like yourself abusing what is already a heinous act of gross sexual offences committed by a minority of Muslims to vilify an entire community of people purely because of your rabid hatred for Muslims per se. It's about time you began accepting FACTS that the worst Paedophiles in history are white British but i've yet to see you admit or accept that. You find that very difficult don't you? Bennell is due to stand trial in January so we will see just how loud and vocal your outrage is about him. And it's about time you learned how to spell......it's PAEdophile......not PEAdophile. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-09-25 12:00 AM It's about time you began accepting FACTS that the worst Paedophiles in history are white British Perhaps they were once ;-) ......... Considering your Muslim/Asian chums victims are in the 1000's *-) ........I'd say white Brits have lost that accolade :-| ........ Another week and another gang in Newcastle convicted ......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-41365204 Maybe you think the victims should shut up in the name of diversity to? 8-) ......... http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/ Dunno why every things underlined :-S ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-09-24 6:38 PM Privilege, be it in money terms, being the holder of a respected occupation or being a famous celebrity has a tendency to protect many offenders of all types from both discovery and sanction. We are still far from making all people equal under the law. Food for thought for those who constantly question the access to legal aid for people that they decide are unworthy of the same protections afforded to the rich and powerful. Indeed. I think the problem is legal costs are too expensive. But the Government won't take on the Lawyer's Union (they prefer to call it 'society;)like id did the working class trade unions. They take the easy option of denying legal representation to people who are unlikely to vote for them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-09-24 8:49 PM But how many people knew you could get sent to prison for owning a rubber doll? Exactly. I thought the fact he had bought a rubber doll suggests he realizes molesting children is unacceptable, so intends to molest the rubber doll instead Wheras some say owning the doll might encourage them to go on and abuse real children, I don’t know which is right because I haven’t seen any proof either way. I can see that catching those who abuse real children is difficult (especially where it might embarrass the Establishment as you point out) Wheras catching people online downloading pictures or ordering rubber dolls is very easy because technology does all the work tracing them. And then just seize their computer and all the evidence is there. No need for anything difficult or awkward like finding evidence or getting child witnesses to appear and be cross-examined etc. They don’t need to call on the rubber doll to give evidence because just owning it is enough to secure a conviction. Quantity of convictions might matter more than quality in a target driven culture? So I suppose they police it like they police the motorist. Proving dangerous driving is difficult so most get away with it. Wheras proving parking on a yellow line or going over the speed limit is very easy - so people get prosecuted for speeding or parking instead (and on an industrial scale) Jailing people for importing a rubber doll seems like a very easy but poor substitute for jailing child abusers? They can rely on the lynch mob to shout down those who question it as supposedly defending the owner of the rubber doll, I imagine the child abusers who join lynch mobs for the status and cover it gives them, would be only too pleased to see the anger for their crimes directed at owners of rubber dolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-09-24 6:58 PM Violet1956 - 2017-09-24 6:38 PM Privilege, be it in money terms, being the holder of a respected occupation or being a famous celebrity has a tendency to protect many offenders of all types from both discovery and sanction. We are still far from making all people equal under the law. Food for thought for those who constantly question the access to legal aid for people that they decide are unworthy of the same protections afforded to the rich and powerful. But you have managed to make ethnic minorities and criminals more equal than the rest of us *-) ........ I never knew I had so much power Dave. If you need to apply for legal aid give me the nod and I'll do my best. ;-) Veronica (AKA Four legs good two legs bad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted September 25, 2017 Author Share Posted September 25, 2017 John52 - 2017-09-25 1:47 PM Bulletguy - 2017-09-24 8:49 PM But how many people knew you could get sent to prison for owning a rubber doll? Exactly. I thought the fact he had bought a rubber doll suggests he realizes molesting children is unacceptable, so intends to molest the rubber doll instead Wheras some say owning the doll might encourage them to go on and abuse real children, I don’t know which is right because I haven’t seen any proof either way. I can see that catching those who abuse real children is difficult (especially where it might embarrass the Establishment as you point out) Wheras catching people online downloading pictures or ordering rubber dolls is very easy because technology does all the work tracing them. And then just seize their computer and all the evidence is there. No need for anything difficult or awkward like finding evidence or getting child witnesses to appear and be cross-examined etc. They don’t need to call on the rubber doll to give evidence because just owning it is enough to secure a conviction. Quantity of convictions might matter more than quality in a target driven culture? So I suppose they police it like they police the motorist. Proving dangerous driving is difficult so most get away with it. Wheras proving parking on a yellow line or going over the speed limit is very easy - so people get prosecuted for speeding or parking instead (and on an industrial scale) Jailing people for importing a rubber doll seems like a very easy but poor substitute for jailing child abusers? They can rely on the lynch mob to shout down those who question it as supposedly defending the owner of the rubber doll, I imagine the child abusers who join lynch mobs for the status and cover it gives them, would be only too pleased to see the anger for their crimes directed at owners of rubber dolls. These sex dolls for adults are hardly a new thing. Most are aimed at men but there are also male versions for heterosexual women. There are even transsexual ones for men and/or women who want 'the best of both worlds' and effeminate looking male ones for gay men. It doesn't take much more than a couple of mouse clicks to find these things in abundance. That doll in the article seemed Asian like in appearance who by comparison to western, are naturally smaller built and often look much younger than their actual age so i've no idea how the court determined the 'age' of the doll unless it was specifically labelled. Appearance can be very deceptive. A few years ago there was a hue and cry from the outraged over the “You & Me Mommy Change My Diaper Doll” being sold by Toys R Us because it had........wait for it........a penis!! Cue mortified shock horror!! The Twitterati went into meltdown with screeches of 'paedo toy', 'sexualising' children to 'gender sterotyping' and reminding little girls of their future role in life. All kinds of weird and wacko psycho-babbling assumptions were drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-09-25 4:24 PM pelmetman - 2017-09-24 6:58 PM Violet1956 - 2017-09-24 6:38 PM Privilege, be it in money terms, being the holder of a respected occupation or being a famous celebrity has a tendency to protect many offenders of all types from both discovery and sanction. We are still far from making all people equal under the law. Food for thought for those who constantly question the access to legal aid for people that they decide are unworthy of the same protections afforded to the rich and powerful. But you have managed to make ethnic minorities and criminals more equal than the rest of us *-) ........ I never knew I had so much power Dave. If you need to apply for legal aid give me the nod and I'll do my best. ;-) Veronica (AKA Four legs good two legs bad) Sorry I should of said your trade ;-) ........ BTW thanks for the offer, I doubt I'll need to take up your offer, as the only time I needed to go to court I represented myself......and won :D ....... But hey.... never say never......as I'm now apparently a Nazi I may need loony lefty to represent me ;-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-09-25 4:44 PM John52 - 2017-09-25 1:47 PM Bulletguy - 2017-09-24 8:49 PM But how many people knew you could get sent to prison for owning a rubber doll? Exactly. I thought the fact he had bought a rubber doll suggests he realizes molesting children is unacceptable, so intends to molest the rubber doll instead Wheras some say owning the doll might encourage them to go on and abuse real children, I don’t know which is right because I haven’t seen any proof either way. I can see that catching those who abuse real children is difficult (especially where it might embarrass the Establishment as you point out) Wheras catching people online downloading pictures or ordering rubber dolls is very easy because technology does all the work tracing them. And then just seize their computer and all the evidence is there. No need for anything difficult or awkward like finding evidence or getting child witnesses to appear and be cross-examined etc. They don’t need to call on the rubber doll to give evidence because just owning it is enough to secure a conviction. Quantity of convictions might matter more than quality in a target driven culture? So I suppose they police it like they police the motorist. Proving dangerous driving is difficult so most get away with it. Wheras proving parking on a yellow line or going over the speed limit is very easy - so people get prosecuted for speeding or parking instead (and on an industrial scale) Jailing people for importing a rubber doll seems like a very easy but poor substitute for jailing child abusers? They can rely on the lynch mob to shout down those who question it as supposedly defending the owner of the rubber doll, I imagine the child abusers who join lynch mobs for the status and cover it gives them, would be only too pleased to see the anger for their crimes directed at owners of rubber dolls. These sex dolls for adults are hardly a new thing. Most are aimed at men but there are also male versions for heterosexual women. There are even transsexual ones for men and/or women who want 'the best of both worlds' and effeminate looking male ones for gay men. It doesn't take much more than a couple of mouse clicks to find these things in abundance. That doll in the article seemed Asian like in appearance who by comparison to western, are naturally smaller built and often look much younger than their actual age so i've no idea how the court determined the 'age' of the doll unless it was specifically labelled. Appearance can be very deceptive. A few years ago there was a hue and cry from the outraged over the “You & Me Mommy Change My Diaper Doll” being sold by Toys R Us because it had........wait for it........a penis!! Cue mortified shock horror!! The Twitterati went into meltdown with screeches of 'paedo toy', 'sexualising' children to 'gender sterotyping' and reminding little girls of their future role in life. All kinds of weird and wacko psycho-babbling assumptions were drawn. It appears you've done your homework bullet 8-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.