Craig 6700 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Typical paedo. In denial that what he has done is wrong tbh. 127883[/snapback] I told you last night Skol, I'm not into that sort of shit - go and ask someone else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other 127899[/snapback] Now THAT was sarcasm!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] fuckin hell, give it a rest man. You've never had an opinion on something that was wrong like Gol? 127872[/snapback] Course I have, but it pisses J69 off when I mention Sutton, so I'll keep going. Purely because of my burning jealousy of him though. By the way, do a search on how many times I've mentioned Sutton. It's much less than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other 127899[/snapback] He's my mate, you're a twat (and wrong). Does it surprise you that I'm with him on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WubbleUC 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Also work in IT, and have unwillingly uncovered some sick stuff in the past, but thankfully, never that sort of stuff like. Sorry you did, Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] fuckin hell, give it a rest man. You've never had an opinion on something that was wrong like Gol? 127872[/snapback] Course I have, but it pisses J69 off when I mention Sutton, so I'll keep going. Purely because of my burning jealousy of him though. By the way, do a search on how many times I've mentioned Sutton. It's much less than you think. 127955[/snapback] i can live with it tbh not like i have sleepless nights over your obsession with me and chris sutton. if youre not jealous of me and im such a twat why do you respond to most of my posts with such cool and intellectual comments. surely ignoring me would be a much better way to show how insignificant i am to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other 127899[/snapback] He's my mate, you're a twat (and wrong). Does it surprise you that I'm with him on this one? 127957[/snapback] im off to get my mate to stick up for me then. and im wrong about what exactly? winding craig up ? i got 2 bites with that one so it obviously worked well get wacky involved, he hates me too. you can all try to internet bully me then as well. its like being in school in here sometimes. you cant say anything without one of you 3 making a bitchy comment tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] fuckin hell, give it a rest man. You've never had an opinion on something that was wrong like Gol? 127872[/snapback] Course I have, but it pisses J69 off when I mention Sutton, so I'll keep going. Purely because of my burning jealousy of him though. By the way, do a search on how many times I've mentioned Sutton. It's much less than you think. 127955[/snapback] I think luckypierre's right, you could do with some new material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other 127899[/snapback] He's my mate, you're a twat (and wrong). Does it surprise you that I'm with him on this one? 127957[/snapback] im off to get my mate to stick up for me then. and im wrong about what exactly? winding craig up ? i got 2 bites with that one so it obviously worked well get wacky involved, he hates me too. you can all try to internet bully me then as well. its like being in school in here sometimes. you cant say anything without one of you 3 making a bitchy comment tbh 127999[/snapback] You posted something, found out it was wrong, pretended you were being sarcastic, then claimed you did it to wind Craig up? Utter bollocks IMO, hence "wrong". You attempted to get involved with some legal knowledge, when it's clear you have little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 J69, were you being sarcastic about Chris Sutton too? 127857[/snapback] its really heart warming the way you 2 always stick up for each other 127899[/snapback] He's my mate, you're a twat (and wrong). Does it surprise you that I'm with him on this one? 127957[/snapback] im off to get my mate to stick up for me then. and im wrong about what exactly? winding craig up ? i got 2 bites with that one so it obviously worked well get wacky involved, he hates me too. you can all try to internet bully me then as well. its like being in school in here sometimes. you cant say anything without one of you 3 making a bitchy comment tbh 127999[/snapback] You posted something, found out it was wrong, pretended you were being sarcastic, then claimed you did it to wind Craig up? Utter bollocks IMO, hence "wrong". You attempted to get involved with some legal knowledge, when it's clear you have little. 128016[/snapback] You have some serious issues with me manc mag has already agreed with what i said and im gathering he has a law degree. i stick by my point that after discovering a paedophile at work the best course of action is not to post it along with pictures of the evidence on the internet for all your mates to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You have some serious issues with me manc mag has already agreed with what i said and im gathering he has a law degree. i stick by my point that after discovering a paedophile at work the best course of action is not to post it along with pictures of the evidence on the internet for all your mates to see 128029[/snapback] whey aye, course he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46180 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You have some serious issues with me manc mag has already agreed with what i said and im gathering he has a law degree. i stick by my point that after discovering a paedophile at work the best course of action is not to post it along with pictures of the evidence on the internet for all your mates to see 128029[/snapback] whey aye, course he has. 128031[/snapback] From a special university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 manc mag has already agreed with what i said 128029[/snapback] hmmmm the fact that if this gets to court and its found out that evidence is on the internet and has provoked a 4 page discussion over his guilt or innocence then it will be chucked out. you say its not important evidence but its the file list in question FFS! we did a little bit about trial by media in my law a-level and whilst this in no way makes me an expert im sure your company bosses wouldnt be chuffed that you fucked up their court case against the local paedo 127762[/snapback] I dont know who you're referring to, but in the meantime, I'll field this one: j69 is right in principle;if an argument could be made that a court could not guarantee a fair trial for the individual involved then it would be grounds to have the case abandoned. However providing a court could find a jury or bench of magistrates who hadnt been exposed to the 'media glare' of a toontastic internet debate, then I dont imagine theres going to be a problem. It's hard to believe but we dont quite have the influence of say, the front page of the Sun, or say, N-O (joke re the last bit!) 127770[/snapback] I don't think he does tbqh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 manc mag has already agreed with what i said 128029[/snapback] hmmmm the fact that if this gets to court and its found out that evidence is on the internet and has provoked a 4 page discussion over his guilt or innocence then it will be chucked out. you say its not important evidence but its the file list in question FFS! we did a little bit about trial by media in my law a-level and whilst this in no way makes me an expert im sure your company bosses wouldnt be chuffed that you fucked up their court case against the local paedo 127762[/snapback] I dont know who you're referring to, but in the meantime, I'll field this one: j69 is right in principle;if an argument could be made that a court could not guarantee a fair trial for the individual involved then it would be grounds to have the case abandoned. However providing a court could find a jury or bench of magistrates who hadnt been exposed to the 'media glare' of a toontastic internet debate, then I dont imagine theres going to be a problem. It's hard to believe but we dont quite have the influence of say, the front page of the Sun, or say, N-O (joke re the last bit!) 127770[/snapback] I don't think he does tbqh! 128150[/snapback] you mean to say you have spent the last fifteen minutes posting that I thought it was going to be a Leazes -esque type manuscript... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 i stick by my point that after discovering a paedophile at work the best course of action is not to post it along with pictures of the evidence on the internet for all your mates to see 128029[/snapback] Did I post 'evidence' or a list of filenames off a server? (which some have said look harmless). It's the content of the files which is evidence you fucking retard which is precisely why I refused to disclose what was in them when DotBum asked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 you mean to say you have spent the last fifteen minutes posting that I thought it was going to be a Leazes -esque type manuscript... 128153[/snapback] Had to go off half way through to deal with a screaming baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 you mean to say you have spent the last fifteen minutes posting that I thought it was going to be a Leazes -esque type manuscript... 128153[/snapback] Had to go off half way through to deal with a screaming baby! 128162[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark 0 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 you mean to say you have spent the last fifteen minutes posting that I thought it was going to be a Leazes -esque type manuscript... 128153[/snapback] Had to go off half way through to deal with a screaming baby! 128162[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 manc mag has already agreed with what i said 128029[/snapback] I dont know who you're referring to, but in the meantime, I'll field this one: j69 is right in principle;if an argument could be made that a court could not guarantee a fair trial for the individual involved then it would be grounds to have the case abandoned. However providing a court could find a jury or bench of magistrates who hadnt been exposed to the 'media glare' of a toontastic internet debate, then I dont imagine theres going to be a problem. It's hard to believe but we dont quite have the influence of say, the front page of the Sun, or say, N-O (joke re the last bit!) 127770[/snapback] I don't think he does tbqh! 128150[/snapback] look again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10977 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 if you truly believe that a posted picture of a list of filenames on a small message board in another part of the country will be grounds for dismissing this case then J69, you are in my mind the most colossal Tool of all. get a grip this isn't the national press, the pervert in question isn't a Tory Back Bencher... the case will not fall under the scrutiny that such a case would suffer. now just calm down, step away from the placard and the tie-dye shirts ok ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7191 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 (edited) read the whole thread. i was winding up craig, so in fact it is you who is the most colossal tool of all. are you going to offer to fight me in leeds again now Edited April 27, 2006 by J69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3523 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 read the whole thread. i was winding up craig, so in fact it is you who is the most colossal tool of all. are you going to offer to fight me in leeds again now 128200[/snapback] For fucks sake will the 2 of you shut it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10977 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 don't think I've ever actually "offered to fight you in Leeds" or anywhere else to be honest. I vaguely remember offering to show you a proper welcome to Leeds, but I had actually meant to get you drunk, dump you in an alley somewhere in Woodhouse and wait for the scallies to pick your bones clean tbh. proper Leeds welcome. one thing puzzles me, it seems you hide behind "I was on a wind up" everytime you get something wrong, or someone calls you on something or other.... just piqued my interest is all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15742 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Far be it from me to stick up for J69, but he already said on the first page that he thought the stuff didn't look dodgy in the first place, so why would he then change his tack completely unless he was on a wind-up mission? Maybe I'm just a bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now