Re: The Philpots.

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:02 am

Terry Fuckwit wrote:
magica wrote:There's something not right about you complaining about me trying to do something about it.

Shame on you

You don't do fuck all, you just talk about them all day every day.

If you say so then - whatever Rolling Eyes

by **Dean** Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:03 am

magica wrote:
Terry Fuckwit wrote:
magica wrote:There's something not right about you complaining about me trying to do something about it.

Shame on you

You don't do fuck all, you just talk about them all day every day.

If you say so then - whatever

Great comeback, weirdo...

by **Dimples** Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:16 am

Admin wrote:
magica wrote:
Terry Fuckwit wrote:

Yes, from my two posts on the subject, I think they are fucking wonderful. Even you aren't that dense, mags...

What is rather worrying is your incesant talk on the topic, you fucking wrong 'un...

What incessant talk? Ive hardly spoken on forums and why are you so against peados being exposed? I think you're the wrongun
Ignore him.
I know your passionate about the subject for good reasons not weird ones.

I can see that but I'm interested to know how Magica gets involved in child protection issues.

by **Dean** Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:22 am

Theres passionate, and then theres downright creepy and weird. Mags fits the latter...

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:24 am

Terry Fuckwit wrote:
magica wrote:
Terry Fuckwit wrote:

You don't do fuck all, you just talk about them all day every day.

If you say so then - whatever

Great comeback, weirdo...

by **Dean** Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:26 am

Another great comeback. Thick c.unt cant even use the quote button. Once a tard always a tard eh Mags...

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:03 am

If you say so dean, then it must be true

by **Jiminy Cricket** Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:52 am

magica wrote:

Many Judges are in peado rings though Dimples, and wont dish out hard sentences.

Do you have proof the judge in this case is a paedophile or that any judge has ever been lenient in sentencing because they were a paedophile?

magica wrote:I agree though, as its manslaughter, they cant give life, so they should have been done for murder, because what else is it, to set light to you home with 6 kids in there?

They were charged with manslaughter because there was no evidence of intent to kill the children. Setting a house on fire is arson, no matter how many occupants are in it. Do you understand that people really shouldn't be tried and convicted for crimes they haven't committed?

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:01 am

They have committed it though, they killed 6 children. What else is it, when they set fire with the children asleep. What sane parent would do that?

I never said the Judge was a peado btw, I said many Judges are.

by **Dimples** Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:05 am

magica wrote:They have committed it though, they killed 6 children. What else is it, when they set fire with the children asleep. What sane parent would do that?

I never said the Judge was a peado btw, I said many Judges are.

It was manslaughter caused by arson, Magica - not murder.

I know the horrific end result is the same but there has to be the intention to kill for it to be murder.

How do you know that many judges are paedophiles? You presumably have evidence for that?

by **Jiminy Cricket** Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:23 am

magica wrote:They have committed it though, they killed 6 children. What else is it, when they set fire with the children asleep. What sane parent would do that?

I never said the Judge was a peado btw, I said many Judges are.

So you never said the had committed murder but you want them to be sentenced as if they had, which is like wanting a shoplifter sentenced for an armed robbery. They also might be criminals but they're not insane, otherwise they'd be in a mental hospital right now rather than a prison. See this is why educated and trained people such as judges, lawyers and doctors handle these things Magica and not someone selected by lottery.

If you're not making wild claims about the judge in this case then what was your comment in relation to and do you have any evidence to back it up. How many judges have been found to be part of paedophile rings and in what way did it effect their sentencing of criminals?

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:20 pm

If you set light to a house with children in it, then that is premeditated surely. Yes he meant to rescue them, but surely he should never have caused a fire with the children there in the first place. So to me its murder, even though he wasn't charged with that, or the law doesn't see it as that. I don't know how legalities work, I'm only saying how I feel. My opinion, which many people think the same.

Wanting a shoplifter sentenced for armed robbery is just a silly statement to make and I think I wont bother with this convo anymore.

No I don't know who the Judges are, I don't have names and addresses, but I was told of some. No that doesn't make a case, but then this is a forum not a court, so I am saying what I have been told.

by **Dimples** Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:33 pm

magica wrote:If you set light to a house with children in it, then that is premeditated surely. Yes he meant to rescue them, but surely he should never have caused a fire with the children there in the first place. So to me its murder, even though he wasn't charged with that, or the law doesn't see it as that. I don't know how legalities work, I'm only saying how I feel. My opinion, which many people think the same.

Wanting a shoplifter sentenced for armed robbery is just a silly statement to make and I think I wont bother with this convo anymore.

No I don't know who the Judges are, I don't have names and addresses, but I was told of some. No that doesn't make a case, but then this is a forum not a court, so I am saying what I have been told.

The law doesn't work on the basis of public opinion though, Magica. It operates in accordance with known facts and evidence.

He set fire to that house deliberately, of that there is no doubt but that crime is arson. His plan was to rescue the children from the house - not to kill them.

As a result of that crime, however the children did tragically die. They were unlawfully but not intentionally killed - so that was manslaughter.

As far as judges being allegedly involved in paedophilic activities is concerned, it doesn't matter what say you have been told. That is nothing more than hearsay and not proof of anything. You cannot go around making blanket accusations about people like that, based on nothing other than gossip.

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:54 pm

I'm not in Court here though Dimples, this is a public forum and I'm only saying what I have been told.

I know hearsay would never prove anything, but then again as I said, I'm not in Court just a forum.

by **Dimples** Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:07 pm

magica wrote:I'm not in Court here though Dimples, this is a public forum and I'm only saying what I have been told.

I know hearsay would never prove anything, but then again as I said, I'm not in Court just a forum.

Well you're quite free to have your opinion but that's all it will be seen as - an opinion.

What I can't understand is why you would set so much store by a piece of gossip. What I also can't understand is why would you want to spread malicious stories about complete strangers when you have absolutely no evidence to back them up? Even more puzzling than that is the fact that you have already said that you don't even know the identities of these people, so how can you expect anyone else to give much credibility to what you are saying about them? scratch

by Guest Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:27 pm

As you well know, even if I had names, I could not print them, unless they were arrested and charged.

I don't spread rumours because I've named no-one.

Look I will leave this here as I'm going round in circles. I have my beliefs, and you have yours, end of.

by **Dean** Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:40 pm

magica wrote:

As you well know, even if I had names, I could not print them, unless they were arrested and charged.

I don't spread rumours because I've named no-one.

Look I will leave this here as I'm going round in circles. I have my beliefs, and you have yours, end of.

In other words, you can't prove a thing, so you'll slope off somewhere else to do what you do best - Obsess over paedos and kids being fiddled. Fucking wrong 'un...

by **Dimples** Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:00 am

magica wrote:

As you well know, even if I had names, I could not print them, unless they were arrested and charged.

I don't spread rumours because I've named no-one.

Look I will leave this here as I'm going round in circles. I have my beliefs, and you have yours, end of.

Well, surely you can see that they could only be arrested and charged if their identities are known? You don't even know who these people are, let alone if they have done anything wrong and I'm still at a loss as to how you could possibly know if they have engaged in paedophilic activity if you don't actually know who they are.

Yes, you are spreading rumours because in these posts, you stated that some judges are probably paedophiles and you have further suggested that they are corrupt.

Judges don't care about the kiddies, probably peados themselves.

Many Judges are in peado rings though Dimples, and wont dish out hard sentences.

However, you have offered absolutely not one shred of evidence to back these assertions up. You don't have to have named specific individuals to be spreading rumours - you've made sweeping assertions about the profession as a whole!

Your beliefs are not facts.

by **vills** Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:54 am

There do seem to be paedophile activities which are covered-up at a high level however.

by **Dimples** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:02 am

vills wrote:There do seem to be paedophile activities which are covered-up at a high level however.

If that's the case, it should be being investigated properly. Once there is some actual evidence uncovered, then it's appropriate to point the finger at the people who are implicated in it. It is not right or fair to place an entire profession under suspicion when there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

If you know that this is going on, are you reporting it?

by **vills** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:10 am

Dimples wrote:
vills wrote:There do seem to be paedophile activities which are covered-up at a high level however.

If that's the case, it should be being investigated properly. Once there is some actual evidence uncovered, then it's appropriate to point the finger at the people who are implicated in it. It is not right or fair to place an entire profession under suspicion when there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

If you know that this is going on, are you reporting it?

Any investigations are invariably called off or closed down.
So many now:

One here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-jillings-report-how-the-truth-about-north-wales-child-abuse-scandal-was-suppressed-8303903.html

by **Dimples** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:23 am

vills wrote:
Dimples wrote:
vills wrote:There do seem to be paedophile activities which are covered-up at a high level however.

If that's the case, it should be being investigated properly. Once there is some actual evidence uncovered, then it's appropriate to point the finger at the people who are implicated in it. It is not right or fair to place an entire profession under suspicion when there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

If you know that this is going on, are you reporting it?

Any investigations are invariably called off or closed down.
So many now:

One here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-jillings-report-how-the-truth-about-north-wales-child-abuse-scandal-was-suppressed-8303903.html

But an investigation is only that.

Only if they uncover concrete evidence can such investigations proceed onto arrests, trials and convictions. It's still not right to point the finger at anyone - let alone name individuals - unless there is firm evidence. That's one of the reasons why this Operation Yewtree is turning into a Grade A farce at the moment. The police shouldn't even be announcing the arrests they are making unless they are able to name their suspects publicly and have something specific to go on.

If evidence is being suppressed, it still has to be known by quite a lot of people and that's an awful lot of people they'd have to guarantee will remain silent. I'm not convinced that there are many - on all levels - who would agree to cover up/suppress evidence of child abuse or paedophilia.

by **vills** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:33 am

"The suppressed report, by a panel of experts led by former social services chief John Jillings, outlined the widespread abuse of children in care, some as young as 10, years before the tribunal chaired by High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported."

by **Dimples** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:38 am

vills wrote:"The suppressed report, by a panel of experts led by former social services chief John Jillings, outlined the widespread abuse of children in care, some as young as 10, years before the tribunal chaired by High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported."

That is only one example, Vils. Nobody is suggesting that there are never cover-ups of wrongdoing in many areas of activity but nor is it endemic - as the media would have us believe.

by **vills** Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:41 am

Then there was the Islington care homes scandal.

And Kincora.

And Jersey.

I don't think the media cover these scandals at all, or are easily distracted.

by Sponsored content