Lost for words...

#1
Found out last night that a colleague (or now an ex-colleague) in my reserves unit has been arrested for grooming a 13 yr old girl on the internet. The alleged dit is this: Met this girl over the internet, knowing she was 13, arranged to meet her in London whilst he was doing a two week stint in Northwood, goes to meet her and surprise surprise the 13 yr old girl turns out to be a copper and a group of her uniformed friends. They nick him, take him back to Northwood and search his cabin. He's since been charged and due up in Crown Court apparently.

He's now resigned / been chucked out of the RNR. (Probably to save the embarrassment of a Court Martial)

What's so annoying is to think I used to talk and work with this person, even had an occasional drink with them. Just goes to show you can never tell with some people. :pukel:
 
#4
You couldn't have know Shakey..................just be glad that he got caught before he had the chance to do any real damage.

Personally I think the cnut needs his bollox chopped off with a blunt butter knife - as do all rapists and paedophiles.
 

fly_past

Lantern Swinger
#5
Hey maybe the guy was just being nice to her. he was not commiting an offence of having sex with this young, impressionalble, naieve girl........
Sod it... He was wrong. Lop off his nuts and feed them back to him! Lock him up and throw away the key - You didnt commit the opffences Shakey- He did. He pays the price - good !
 
#10
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
 
#11
rosinacarley said:
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
Ah but theres no smoke without fire is there!!
 
#12
nutty_bag said:
rosinacarley said:
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
Ah but theres no smoke without fire is there!!
exactly nutty!
burn his nadgers off!!!!
 
#13
rosinacarley said:
nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
I heard that he's already admitted the offences. As for sub-judice I'll put some details up when it's in the public domain.
 
#14
nutty_bag said:
rosinacarley said:
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
Ah but theres no smoke without fire is there!!
Contributor Mode

Nutty bag

So if you or a member of your family or friends ever had to face a court whatever the charge or evidence you are happy that it is judged on the basis of:

"The is no smoke with out a fire"

I thought you had more considered opinions than that NB

Rosy, in this case is correct, The man has yet to enter a plea and or face the evidence until that time he is innocent what ever you or anybody else thinks.

Shakey I heard you where a toss pot but it may not be true.

Nutty

Nutty
 

toejam

Lantern Swinger
#16
Honest to god idea i had with a guy an ex RAF (scouse) legend.. about castration, he was thinking about making castration compulsory for rapist's peodos etc i suggested callling the business " snip snip hooray" any takers?
 

Levers_Aligned

War Hero
Moderator
#17
toejam said:
Honest to god idea i had with a guy an ex RAF (scouse) legend.. about castration, he was thinking about making castration compulsory for rapist's peodos etc i suggested callling the business " snip snip hooray" any takers?
Anyone get the idea that this little think-tank's IQ would struggle out of single-figures?

Fucking dickheads. I bet you think the 'rag-heads' and 'pakis' of the world are barbaric and uncivilised, yet you'd happily engage in their barbarism for your own enjoyment. If you want that kind of thing, fuck off over to Saudi. Left to you, Stefan Cisko would have been castrated long ago, wouldn't he? But yet it turns out he's a bit menatally handicapped, and couldn't structure his own defence, and was left to rot in jail for 16 years while the killer of Lesley Molseed reamined free. Don't be such a fucking bellend, eh?

Levers
 
#18
Nutty said:
nutty_bag said:
rosinacarley said:
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
Ah but theres no smoke without fire is there!!
Contributor Mode

Nutty bag

So if you or a member of your family or friends ever had to face a court whatever the charge or evidence you are happy that it is judged on the basis of:

"The is no smoke with out a fire"

I thought you had more considered opinions than that NB

Rosy, in this case is correct, The man has yet to enter a plea and or face the evidence until that time he is innocent what ever you or anybody else thinks.

Shakey I heard you where a toss pot but it may not be true.

Nutty

Nutty
Check the thread mate, he has ALREADY admitted to it!! As for my views, if the government had a strong deterent such as castration of COMMITTED NONCES then it might make people think twice about doing it in the first place.
 
#20
nutty_bag said:
Nutty said:
nutty_bag said:
rosinacarley said:
Without playing devil's advocate, especially as I know the person who is alleged to have committed this offence, nothing like innocent until proven guilty, eh?

This matter is sub-judice, and all discussion should stop here.
Ah but theres no smoke without fire is there!!
Contributor Mode

Nutty bag

So if you or a member of your family or friends ever had to face a court whatever the charge or evidence you are happy that it is judged on the basis of:

"The is no smoke with out a fire"

I thought you had more considered opinions than that NB

Rosy, in this case is correct, The man has yet to enter a plea and or face the evidence until that time he is innocent what ever you or anybody else thinks.

Shakey I heard you where a toss pot but it may not be true.

Nutty

Nutty
Check the thread mate, he has ALREADY admitted to it!! As for my views, if the government had a strong deterent such as castration of COMMITTED NONCES then it might make people think twice about doing it in the first place.
Nutty Bag

Having re-read the threads I see no place where it is stated in Court Papers, Police Reports or Press release from the Police that he has admitted it. Shakey(a reliable source?) says he has.

I could say you have admitted to sniffing little girls shoes it does not mean you have. Its called hearsay.

He has possibly has made admissions to the Investigating Officers but that as yet is not in the public domain unless you have a link to where it is.

Which takes us back to my last post unless a link is forth-coming. So do you accept the "No smoke with out a fire being applied to you and yours"

Nutty
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
The_Caretaker Diamond Lil's 0
Jenny_Dabber The Quarterdeck 22
andym Site Issues 2

Similar threads

Latest Threads