Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 52 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137703
    dan u
    Participant
      andy ridgeway wrote:
      i get off on proxy outrage as much as the next man, i just like to feel it’s well founded, rather than just Murdoch pressing my buttons, getme.

      yes i do.

      just had this same argument with someone else on another forum saying ‘it’s just sensationalist tabloid reporting’

      well yes they do, obviously.

      but sometimes someone is actually just a bit of a wrongun.

      /dons anti nonce balaclava and goes a burnin..

      in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117043
      dan u
      Participant
        andy ridgeway wrote:
        i get off on proxy outrage as much as the next man, i just like to feel it’s well founded, rather than just Murdoch pressing my buttons, getme.

        yes i do.

        just had this same argument with someone else on another forum saying ‘it’s just sensationalist tabloid reporting’

        well yes they do, obviously.

        but sometimes someone is actually just a bit of a wrongun.

        /dons anti nonce balaclava and goes a burnin..

        in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137702
        dan u
        Participant
          andy ridgeway wrote:
          do you have a link to confirm what you say about langham being a level five virtuapaed?

          we are at paedcon five, this is not a drill?

          “During the three-week trial the court heard that detectives had raided Langham’s home in Golford, Kent, in November 2005 after a tip-off that his credit card had been used to access child pornography websites. They had removed three computers and police experts found a series of graphic images including some rated level 5 by child protection officers.Last night Ken Gross, the crown prosecution’s solicitor in the case, said the most serious clips included “sadism and penetrative sex between children and adults”. “These were not ‘child pornography’ images, they were very serious child abuse images and anyone who downloads this sort of thing is responsible for the suffering of real children.“”

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2140721,00.html

          bit in bold is the important bit imo.

          in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117042
          dan u
          Participant
            andy ridgeway wrote:
            do you have a link to confirm what you say about langham being a level five virtuapaed?

            we are at paedcon five, this is not a drill?

            “During the three-week trial the court heard that detectives had raided Langham’s home in Golford, Kent, in November 2005 after a tip-off that his credit card had been used to access child pornography websites. They had removed three computers and police experts found a series of graphic images including some rated level 5 by child protection officers.Last night Ken Gross, the crown prosecution’s solicitor in the case, said the most serious clips included “sadism and penetrative sex between children and adults”. “These were not ‘child pornography’ images, they were very serious child abuse images and anyone who downloads this sort of thing is responsible for the suffering of real children.“”

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2140721,00.html

            bit in bold is the important bit imo.

            in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137701
            dan u
            Participant

              they were saying on the Radio this morning he had videos of a young girl being raped by two men.

              in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117041
              dan u
              Participant

                they were saying on the Radio this morning he had videos of a young girl being raped by two men.

                in reply to: What now? #1137741
                dan u
                Participant

                  This!

                  msgoatsetribute.jpg

                  in reply to: What now? #1117081
                  dan u
                  Participant

                    This!

                    msgoatsetribute.jpg

                    in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137700
                    dan u
                    Participant
                      andy ridgeway wrote:
                      like “lolita porn” featuring 20 year old fully grown women, who happen to have small tits.

                      i’m not saying that he isn’t a full on nonceo, just that we haven’t seen any actual evidence of it…

                      😀

                      do you think they should post the vids on youtube to let us all decide!

                      maybe run an online poll?

                      ‘would it be noncing to wank off over this bird’

                      in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117040
                      dan u
                      Participant
                        andy ridgeway wrote:
                        like “lolita porn” featuring 20 year old fully grown women, who happen to have small tits.

                        i’m not saying that he isn’t a full on nonceo, just that we haven’t seen any actual evidence of it…

                        😀

                        do you think they should post the vids on youtube to let us all decide!

                        maybe run an online poll?

                        ‘would it be noncing to wank off over this bird’

                        in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137699
                        dan u
                        Participant
                          andy ridgeway wrote:
                          “13-year-old preteen underage”

                          what the fuck does that mean?

                          fuck knows. it’s contradictory!

                          unless it was some kind of search tag/label?

                          in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117039
                          dan u
                          Participant
                            andy ridgeway wrote:
                            “13-year-old preteen underage”

                            what the fuck does that mean?

                            fuck knows. it’s contradictory!

                            unless it was some kind of search tag/label?

                            in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137698
                            dan u
                            Participant
                              andy ridgeway wrote:
                              but i do maintain that in these kind of cases, when the country is gripped by noncesteria and we’re clearly expected to form a moral judgement on the man, that all parties concerned deserve a more nuanced assesment.

                              it’s weird to me that there are shades of murder (manslaughter etc), but not of sex.

                              that is why there is a gap between judgment and sentencing is it not?

                              to allow the ‘hysteria’ and emotions to subside in the court room if nothing else, for proffessionals to give reports, psych assessments etc to allow the judge to sentence according to guidelines and previous cases

                              i suspect the sentence given to a man caught looking at 15 year old girls and a man looking at 5 year old girls would be materially different in terms of sentence – if not in the eyes of The Sun (turn to page 3 for 16 year old Sophie in her school uniform!)

                              in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117038
                              dan u
                              Participant
                                andy ridgeway wrote:
                                but i do maintain that in these kind of cases, when the country is gripped by noncesteria and we’re clearly expected to form a moral judgement on the man, that all parties concerned deserve a more nuanced assesment.

                                it’s weird to me that there are shades of murder (manslaughter etc), but not of sex.

                                that is why there is a gap between judgment and sentencing is it not?

                                to allow the ‘hysteria’ and emotions to subside in the court room if nothing else, for proffessionals to give reports, psych assessments etc to allow the judge to sentence according to guidelines and previous cases

                                i suspect the sentence given to a man caught looking at 15 year old girls and a man looking at 5 year old girls would be materially different in terms of sentence – if not in the eyes of The Sun (turn to page 3 for 16 year old Sophie in her school uniform!)

                                in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117037
                                dan u
                                Participant

                                  should his unconfirmed child buggery when he was 8 be taken in to account?

                                  in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137697
                                  dan u
                                  Participant

                                    should his unconfirmed child buggery when he was 8 be taken in to account?

                                    in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117036
                                    dan u
                                    Participant

                                      from bbc

                                      “When it was put to him that 99.9% of the images he viewed contained pre-teen girls, Mr Langham said: “Little girls are not my prominent interest sexually. Little girls are not my interest at all.”

                                      He admitted he had subscribed to an American website that featured women being raped but said violence against women did not arouse him.

                                      “I’m fascinated by what people do and I’m fascinated by people tying each other up and doing weird sexual things to each other; I think it’s interesting.” “

                                      in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137696
                                      dan u
                                      Participant

                                        from bbc

                                        “When it was put to him that 99.9% of the images he viewed contained pre-teen girls, Mr Langham said: “Little girls are not my prominent interest sexually. Little girls are not my interest at all.”

                                        He admitted he had subscribed to an American website that featured women being raped but said violence against women did not arouse him.

                                        “I’m fascinated by what people do and I’m fascinated by people tying each other up and doing weird sexual things to each other; I think it’s interesting.” “

                                        in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1117035
                                        dan u
                                        Participant

                                          he had pictures and video’s of noncing.

                                          some of it was pretty young i read before, but it doesnt say that on here –

                                          http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2140485,00.html

                                          in reply to: Chris Langham Guilty of Downloading Child Porn #1137695
                                          dan u
                                          Participant

                                            he had pictures and video’s of noncing.

                                            some of it was pretty young i read before, but it doesnt say that on here –

                                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2140485,00.html

                                            in reply to: AYO SPAZZCLARRT’S. CHECK ITV 1 TONIGHT #1073254
                                            dan u
                                            Participant

                                              how long till they show shit like this?

                                              crystal_meth.jpg

                                              in reply to: SJ Update **please Read very important ** #1073198
                                              dan u
                                              Participant

                                                so whose still hiding under their bed?

                                                in reply to: SJ Update **please Read very important ** #1073197
                                                dan u
                                                Participant

                                                  <3 Froots et al

                                                  funny as fuck

                                                  in reply to: FAO Easy Andy/Dan u #1073241
                                                  dan u
                                                  Participant

                                                    no problemo pirate.. i’ll let andy know his arse is safe.

                                                    keep you in the loop on any future missions if you want mate 🙂

                                                    in reply to: sj is back #1071279
                                                    dan u
                                                    Participant

                                                      she dont lie

                                                    Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 52 total)