Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RTE "paedophile" exposed (Read Admin note post #1)

Options
1…383940414244»

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    86 pages of comments about someone who chatted to a "virtual" teenager.

    I don't think there has been anywhere near the same discussion on an murderer or rapist on the history of boards.

    I'm not condoning his actions, but maybe a bit of perspective?

    Whilst he had a few extramarital flings with younger women, he has no history of the age group he is accused of - maybe he was pushing boundaries, maybe he saw it as a goal or whatever, but people want more punishment for him than they want for a mass murderer!

    I just don't understand the tabloid mentality of that.


    How do you know he has no history?

    "pushing boundaries, maybe he saw it as a goal or whatever" wtf! He wanted to rape a child.


  • Options
    #1293
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    What’s the difference between broadcasting a nonce pervert and a rogue builder?? Why is it ok to humiliate one but not the other??
    OK, let's play your game....
    Rogue builder, filmed at least 6 months before shown on TV. Said TV show runs it by their solicitors, makes sure they are not liable for prosecution. Said rogue builder is reported to the trading standards and is struck off or/and ordered to pay fines (before shown on TV) . TV show tells the viewers what had happened since filming. How clear it that for you?


  • Options
    #1294
    keith_sixteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 518 ✭✭✭keith_sixteen


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Now everyone knows what the pervert looks like.

    I know what you're saying but not everyone tho. I'd say this story has passed a lot of people by.

    Another problem is that, they know what he looks "like"...he isn't particularly remarkable looking going by the video. It just means that all someone has to do is spot someone who looks "like" him and dish out some street justice.


  • Options
    #1295
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    keith_sixteen wrote: »
    Nice. Nothing constructive to say so back to the insults.
    You've over a hundred posts in this thread so maybe have a look at your own life situation before getting too worried about others.

    Your solicitude is most endearing however take a look at some of your friends post counts like eotr first.

    You're really are trying you best to get a rise hehe ...


  • Options
    #1296
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    It is to get the nonces face out there. As seen with this case, the pervert got bail. He’s back amongst the general public. Now everyone knows what the pervert looks like.


    no it's for facebook likes. they actually don't have the authority to put anyone's face out there, given that until the trial concludes one is innocent until proven guilty by a court, not social media. and given the fact that people are not named for legal reasons for good reason.
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    He hasn’t had his trial yet. That’ll come, but at least Joe Public is aware of this beast now. Thanks to the concerned citizens that exposed him.

    and thanks to those supposed "concerned citizens" who seem to be quite the undesirables themselves, he may get off if he can prove that he has no chance of a fair trial. also, someone who can be mistakenly identified as the same person, who could find themselves on the receiving end of violent thugs. but yeah, you don't give a damn about that, it seems.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    gozunda wrote: »
    The court case hasn't started....
    How many times do you need telling? You have the memory of a goldfish going by your posts


  • Options
    #1298
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    deco nate wrote: »
    OK, let's play your game....
    Rogue builder, filmed at least 6 months before shown on TV. Said TV show runs it by their solicitors, makes sure they are not liable for prosecution. Said rogue builder is reported to the trading standards and is struck off or/and ordered to pay fines (before shown on TV) . TV show tells the viewers what had happened since filming. How clear it that for you?

    Not very. You haven’t explained why it is ok to humiliate one and not the other.


  • Options
    #1299
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    end of the road wrote: »
    no it's for facebook likes.


    Proof please. Source please. Evidence please.


  • Options
    #1300
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    gozunda wrote: »
    In the above reply to Anastasia where does it say that the shows were about 'pedos' (sic). The reference was to the prevelence of livestreaming. But you already know that...
    OK, tell me /link to how many livestreaming TV shows that have been showing criminals in the act?
    Eh?

    I'll wait...


  • Options
    #1301
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    gozunda wrote: »
    Ah you're back. I have been discussing this case. Why what have you been discussing?

    Just to clarify and for your information...



    That includes children aged 13 btw.

    Source:
    "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition".

    It could include kids up to the age of 16. Puberty can also his at 10 or 11 or 12 in many girls at which point they are no longer PRE-PUBESCENT. If that is the case if some has an attract for them at that stage is not categorised as a paedophile. A bit perverted, yes, but not a paedophile.

    I'll acquiesce to you 13 year-old cut off as source in your reference but I'll go one further and quote from your source:

    "
    Pedophilic disorder can be diagnosed in people who are willing to disclose this paraphilia as well as in people who deny any sexual attraction to children, despite objective evidence of pedophilia. For the condition to be diagnosed, an individual must either act on their sexual urges or experience significant distress as a result of their urges or fantasies. Without these two criteria, a person may have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder. "


    The only reason I bring this up is because you keep talking about paedophiles but insist that you are only interested in discussing the Creavan case. Pedantic? Maybe but if you insist on saying that you're only talking about this case when everyone expresses concern at the outcomes of other cases and would-be cases whereby the contentious topic of livestreaming is again a tool of the trade then you can only expect to get a bit of your own medicine.

    If the guy hasn't been diagnosed as a paedophile


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Not very. You haven’t explained why it is ok to humiliate one and not the other.

    Are you for ****ing real?!
    Read back my post, if you don't get it. Then I'll read it out SLOWLY for you


  • Options
    #1303
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    deco nate wrote: »
    Are you for ****ing real?!
    Read back my post, if you don't get it. Then I'll read it out SLOWLY for you

    Ive read it. You still haven’t said.


  • Options
    #1304
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Ive read it. You still haven’t said.

    I know what you are at, an reported


  • Options
    #1305
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    mada82 wrote: »
    Any interesting discussion ruined by 2 or 3 posters trying to get the better of each other.

    gozunda thanked this :pac:

    At least I had the decency to recognise that I was probably being lumped in with the 2 or 3 but you, gozunda?

    Such obsequiousness.


  • Options
    #1306
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    deco nate wrote: »
    I know what you are at, an reported

    What am I at? Why is it ok to humiliate one criminal, but not another?


  • Options
    #1307
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    no it's for facebook likes. they actually don't have the authority to put anyone's face out there, given that until the trial concludes one is innocent until proven guilty by a court, not social media. and given the fact that people are not named for legal reasons for good reason.

    Eotr - you a bit like a parrot - repeating the same old again and again ad infinitum...

    You have now been asked multiple times to provide link or reference to your assertion above. Going to provide one or you are you going to keep repeating yourself?


  • Options
    #1308
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    gozunda wrote: »
    It remains that have no sympathy for psychopaths or paedophiles no matter what their deviation. I would suggest you reserve your sympathy for their victims who these preps deliberatly abuse.

    I wish to see them subject to the full rigour of the law.

    If you are Christian thats your business however you must be something else if your "judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy you feel for the perpetrator"...


    You've displayed time and time again that certain stances are mutually exclusive. You've taken the position that if you oppose the tactics of the vigilante gangs then you are automatically a paedophile-apologist or that you somehow think it is normal and ok.

    You have alluded to the notion that if someone has sympathy for someone afflicted with a mental disorder through no fault of their own, such as paedophilia then they are bereft of feeling sympathy for the victims of someone with said disorder and that is where you have displayed the limits of you ability to grasp the complexities of the real world.

    To quote F. Scott Fitzgerald:

    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

    Something you seem all too incapable of doing. Take from that what you will.


  • Options
    #1309
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Chrongen wrote: »
    It could include kids up to the age of 16. Puberty can also his at 10 or 11 or 12 in many girls at which point they are no longer PRE-PUBESCENT. If that is the case if some has an attract for them at that stage is not categorised as a paedophile. A bit perverted, yes, but not a paedophile.

    I'll acquiesce to you 13 year-old cut off as source in your reference but I'll go one further and quote from your source:


    You originally claimed it was 12 years of age now you say it could be 16 and most funnily of all now you'll acquiesce at 13 because I showed where it stated it was officialy 13 years of age??? Hahahahaha
    Your freaking funny.


    Oh and Btw that's not from my source....


    Making it up as going along so? :pac:


  • Options
    #1310
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    mada82 wrote:
    Any interesting discussion ruined by 2 or 3 posters trying to get the better of each other.
    Chrongen wrote: »
    gozunda thanked this At least I had the decency to recognise that I was probably being lumped in with the 2 or 3 but you, gozunda? Such obsequiousness.

    Didn't your little friend deco nate thank it as well? No comment on that? Really?

    The smell of bs is strong in that one...
    But hey they weren't wrong. As for the little gang of wreckers on the loose at the moment well what can I say...

    ;)


  • Options
    #1311
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Ive read it. You still haven’t said.

    I wouldn't bother replying tbh. The above 'Poster' is on a wind up mission posting bs in the guise of questions. Some of his little mates are up to similar. Thread wreckers doing what they do.

    It would be funny if it was any other topic but they appear to be getting a kick out of this whole pathetic story. You can't account for folk I suppose....

    They say imitation is the best form of flattery- what can I say ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    deco nate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭deco nate


    I'd like this to get back to a real discussion at some stage.
    But it's hard to do that at the moment.
    To be honest.
    Imo thier is 2 posters that are derailing this thread.
    Sad people, imo


  • Options
    #1313
    mada82
    Registered Users Posts: 577 ✭✭✭mada82


    Interesting to hear he was friends on fb with more than one of their decoys. That’s some coincidence if they don’t add him.

    Do we know anything other than he was arrested, bailed and the stuff said on video?


  • Options
    #1314
    buckwheat
    Registered Users Posts: 344 ✭✭buckwheat


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    86 pages of comments about someone who chatted to a "virtual" teenager.

    I don't think there has been anywhere near the same discussion on an murderer or rapist on the history of boards.

    I'm not condoning his actions, but maybe a bit of perspective?

    Whilst he had a few extramarital flings with younger women, he has no history of the age group he is accused of - maybe he was pushing boundaries, maybe he saw it as a goal or whatever, but people want more punishment for him than they want for a mass murderer!

    I just don't understand the tabloid mentality of that.

    Without a doubt the most ****ed up thing I've read on this whole thread. Pushing ****ing boundaries ffs. That's a fairly creative way of describing ****ing a 13 year old.


  • Options
    #1315
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Mod note:And on that note, we're done here, seeing as the discussion has moved to discussing the discussion.

    We'll review this tomorrow and decide if it needs to be reopened.

    Thanking all for their contribution,

    Buford T. Justice


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement