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

so Larry Murphy is back in Ireland. *MOD WARNING FIRST POST*

1…7891012

Comments

  • #332
    Freddie Dodge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Freddie Dodge


    Holsten wrote: »
    What the hell are you on about? Seriously? Yet another poster who knows nothing about this area at all.

    Alluding to the fact that people who don't agree with the media hounding and endless punishment of types like Murphy are some how sick? Cop on to yourself and do the research then try to have an intelligent input.

    It's nothing at all about trying to be a dick or cool or whatever, how childish to even think that. Laughable post.

    Really.

    My first cousin was raped and murdered by someone like Larry Murphy. Community vigilance (not vigilantism) resulted in the guy being caught.I I think it might be yourself who knows nothing about this area.

    How much more research would you like me to do.

    Edit and snip: No point to getting banned for responding to troll.


  • #333
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    GenieOz wrote: »
    So how many rapists of Larry Murphy's caliber do you believe are walking around the place?
    Holsten wrote: »
    No idea, but look at the sheer amount of unsolved missing people cases. Look at the likes of Fritzel or Castro, I would put money that these have happened or are probably happening right now in Ireland.

    Probably a few serial killers walking around free as a bird too.
    So to answer GenieOz's question: not many, and that even includes people whom you think might be Larry Murphys.


  • #334
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Holsten wrote: »
    No of course not. You shouldn't fear neither.

    BUT.... according to the statistics you're more likely to be raped by someone you know than by a stranger.

    And you're more likely to be raped by someone who has never been convicted against a convicted rapist.

    I know it sounds crazy but if you read up on it you'll see it for yourself. I just go by the cold hard facts in this situations and thats what they tell you.

    Ya see, the thing about this is............. We KNOW Larry Murphy is a danger. It's like a 100% given. So, if I have my next door neighbour or Larry Murphy to decide on, I'll take my chances with my next door neighbour.

    While people are more likely to be raped or abused by people known to them, this is due to contact. If a paedophile comes in contact with 10 children, he will likely abuse a significant proportion. Similarly with a violent rapist and women. In reality, you spend 99% of your time in close contact with people close to you. So, the odds of one of those being a raving lunatic are slightly higher.

    When you KNOW someone is a risk, you do your best to avoid them.


  • #335
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    sopretty wrote: »
    Ya see, the thing about this is............. We KNOW Larry Murphy is a danger. It's like a 100% given. So, if I have my next door neighbour or Larry Murphy to decide on, I'll take my chances with my next door neighbour.

    While people are more likely to be raped or abused by people known to them, this is due to contact. If a paedophile comes in contact with 10 children, he will likely abuse a significant proportion. Similarly with a violent rapist and women. In reality, you spend 99% of your time in close contact with people close to you. So, the odds of one of those being a raving lunatic are slightly higher.

    When you KNOW someone is a risk, you do your best to avoid them.

    What evidence do you have that paedophiles are likely to abuse a "significant proportion" of children they come in contact with?

    Just to add women can also be paedophiles.


  • #336
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Drehen wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that paedophiles are likely to abuse a "significant proportion" of children they come in contact with?

    Just to add women can also be paedophiles.



    emm their paedophiles.....who would let them near children


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    With all the trolling (and it IS trolling - don't mind the "It's just disagreement" defence; being provocative and inflammatory is trolling) this is just entering nonsense territory and going all over the place.

    Murphy shouldn't be hounded by the press/people with no connection to the victim - that's not what a civilised society should allow, and would be more his kinda standards. It would also turn him into a martyr (that said: it wouldn't bother me if a member of the woman's family got revenge on him, because that level of anger is a normal human reaction that any of us would be capable of if a loved one endured what that woman endured). Leave the monitoring of him to the guards. Mob justice often has ugly results anyway and is often thugs just looking for an excuse to be thugs.

    The "Larry Murphy spotted" things are the stuff of dopey phone-in shows and rag publications; rabble-rousing is all it is.

    It's true that many rapists are known to their victims (including being family members) but plenty aren't.


    However...

    People can discuss him on the internet if they wish and there's no requirement for them to be told to "leave him alone" - they are leaving him alone, they are only talking about him.
    So what if he served his sentence (which was too lenient in some people's opinions; it being ingrained in legislation doesn't change that)? It's not proof whatsoever that he's not dangerous.
    People saying they'd be uncomfortable with him living nearby are saying something perfectly reasonable, which others are only pretending not to understand. Yeh ok he's being watched by the guards, but that doesn't change people feeling uneasy about the prospect, which they're entitled to feel.
    What jayzusing difference does it make if there are other Larry Murphys walking around? That doesn't change a thing about what he did. People like him aren't actually that commonplace anyway so it's a stupid, disingenuous "point".

    The people pretending he's all changed now and he's a poor widdu victim and that those who express concerns about him what he could be capable of still, and backslapping each others' callous, cold posts... just for attention (even if it means contradicting their usual stances)... it's sad really.


  • #338
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Drehen wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that paedophiles are likely to abuse a "significant proportion" of children they come in contact with?

    Just to add women can also be paedophiles.

    What about this guy a personal friend of prince Chairle.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofengland.org%2Fmedia-centre%2Fnews%2F2014%2F03%2Fbishop-peter-ball-to-be-prosecuted.aspx&ei=24xAU8LsEbGV7AbMjIGgDQ&usg=AFQjCNGdi2Vi9VeGDkkhnluokkyZTiQPTg&bvm=bv.64125504,d.ZGU


  • #339
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Drehen wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that paedophiles are likely to abuse a "significant proportion" of children they come in contact with?

    Just to add women can also be paedophiles.

    I think tomwaterford has answered this one for me.


  • #340
    GenieOz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭GenieOz


    Drehen wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that paedophiles are likely to abuse a "significant proportion" of children they come in contact with?

    Just to add women can also be paedophiles.

    LOL.


  • #341
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    GenieOz wrote: »
    LOL.
    It really is the only response. :)
    Wonder is that April 2014 registered poster possssssssibly on the verge of pushing an "agender"? :)


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    It has been researched. I won't hazard a guess at the figure without research to back it up (and I'm too lazy and I know already lol), but it has been researched that paedophiles have a significant number of victims EACH. Go google for yourself.


  • #343
    Mary Harneys Porn Stash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Mary Harneys Porn Stash


    Maybe he is not kwel? Unlike the hipsters kewl kids posting here.


  • #344
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    emm their paedophiles.....who would let them near children

    Non sequitar there.

    Being a paedophile means you have a sexual orientation towards children. It's not a crime.


  • #345
    Mary Harneys Porn Stash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Mary Harneys Porn Stash


    I think the Mississippi thread is of great relevance to this thread.

    Go Kwel Hipsters!


  • #346
    GenieOz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 892 ✭✭✭GenieOz


    Drehen wrote: »
    Non sequitar there.

    Being a paedophile means you have a sexual orientation towards children. It's not a crime.

    True enough, I find the best people to look after children are those who are sexually attracted to them.


  • #347
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Drehen wrote: »
    Non sequitar there.

    Being a paedophile means you have a sexual orientation towards children. It's not a crime.

    Senator Norris. How do you do? :rolleyes:


  • #348
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    sopretty wrote: »
    It has been researched. I won't hazard a guess at the figure without research to back it up (and I'm too lazy and I know already lol), but it has been researched that paedophiles have a significant number of victims EACH. Go google for yourself.

    what percentage of law abiding paedophiles do you believe come out of the closet about their sexual orientation?


  • #349
    Mary Harneys Porn Stash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Mary Harneys Porn Stash


    Since when is having an opposing view trolling?


  • #350
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Drehen wrote: »
    Non sequitar there.

    Being a paedophile means you have a sexual orientation towards children. It's not a crime.

    Being a paedophile means you get sexual gratification from children. You wouldn't know whether you were one unless you had committed a criminal act either by engaging in paedophilia or accessing child porn (both criminal and illegal activities).


  • #351
    Mary Harneys Porn Stash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭Mary Harneys Porn Stash


    It is not the Larrys of this world people need to be worried about, it is the peadofiles hiding in plain sight.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Drehen wrote: »
    what percentage of law abiding paedophiles do you believe come out of the closet about their sexual orientation?

    The research unfortunately comes from their victims.


  • #353
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Drehen wrote: »
    Non sequitar there.

    Being a paedophile means you have a sexual orientation towards children. It's not a crime.


    it should be....are you in all honesty pushing for paedophile rights????

    it is a crime to act on it (thank ****...sick cnuts)

    as with any sexual orientation you cant be reformed....therefore if a paedophile acts on it once...they are likely to act again,so if your to follow to its logical conclusion they should locked up for good!!!

    (in all reality this being Ireland they wont)

    *they should be IMO....ive a load of right young cousins...the taught of a paedophile anywhere near them is sick..


  • #354
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    it doesn't actually and I suspect law abiding paedophiles would take offence at such an assumption.


  • #355
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Mary Harneys Porn Stash wrote: »
    Since when is having an opposing view trolling?
    Do you know how to quote? Because that comment requires context. But anyway, it's not, so... since never.

    Being extremely obtuse and inflammatory is though.


  • #356
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Drehen wrote: »
    it doesn't actually and I suspect law abiding paedophiles would take offence at such an assumption.
    Quote the post in question plz, thx.

    Oh I think I know which one it is now: paedophiles mentioned in the context of victims? Yessssss, it goes without saying they're paedophiles who have been convicted.


  • #357
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    sopretty wrote: »
    Being a paedophile means you get sexual gratification from children. You wouldn't know whether you were one unless you had committed a criminal act either by engaging in paedophilia or accessing child porn (both criminal and illegal activities).

    AS warders stated in evidence during his trial, when being transported to the court, he became sexually aroused going past kids schools.That is my memory of the trial which I closely followed. Do not expect a link look it up yourself.


  • #358
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    sopretty wrote: »
    The research unfortunately comes from their victims.

    Why are you assuming all paedophiles have victims?

    For all you know 99 % have never harmed a fly? There will be a time in the future when such bigotry towards all sexual orientation will be seen as a barbaric relic of the past.


  • #359
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Drehen wrote: »
    Why are you assuming all paedophiles have victims?

    For all you know 99 % have never harmed a fly? There will be a time in the future when such bigotry towards all sexual orientation will be seen as a barbaric relic of the past.

    I'll tell you what would be barbaric! My reaction to any b****** who dared to lay a finger on my child. THEN YOU'D BE SEEING BARBARIC.


  • #360
    Drehen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Drehen


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Quote the post in question plz, thx.

    Oh I think I know which one it is now: paedophiles mentioned in the context of victims? Yessssss, it goes without saying they're paedophiles who have been convicted.

    It doesn't go without saying, that's a baseless generalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Drehen wrote: »
    Why are you assuming all paedophiles have victims?

    For all you know 99 % have never harmed a fly? There will be a time in the future when such bigotry towards all sexual orientation will be seen as a barbaric relic of the past.

    How do you become a pedophile, first you have to have to interfere sexually with a child. Is that alright with you.


Advertisement