Cool. So you agree I’m correct.
That’s a hell of a backtrack from the following.
You’re stage 10 rattled, mate. 
Has that anything to do with the fact you confirmed on this forum that you had serially raped your wife?
Remember when you compared yourself with convicted serial rapist Magnus Meyer Hustveit and boasted that if he got a seven year suspended sentence, you could be up for life?
Remember?
You should be in jail.
You’re not correct. People have the right to protest the decision of a court. People do not have the right to defamation, as you and a sizable portion of those protesting this recent case are doing.
1 Like
You were up in arms about people protesting, mate.
You either accept the right to protest or you don’t.
It appears you don’t know whether you’re coming or going on this issue, and neither do any of your little “like” buddies.
The protests about the verdict and other issues related to the trial are the very essence of democracy.
Only a simpleton like you would come to that conclusion from what I have said. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between legitimate protest and defamation. I see you have made no attempt to defend yourself from the defamation charge.
You consistently set yourself up a some kind of moral authority on the subject of rape, even though you are the most self proclaimed rapey individual on the site. You don’t fool anyone mate.
There’s some seriously sick cunts posting here
10 Likes
That Australia business sounds a bit dark Sydney, it might well explain your irrational behaviour in relation to some the Jackson case. It looks like commonplace transference of self loathing and guilt. I’m not judging you but maybe you should have a think about it?
It doesn’t matter sin e. Move on.
I’m up on a charge of defamation?
That’s news to me.
What’s your source on this?
This is a pretty basic point. What you write in the quote is a broad brush dismissal of all protest against any court verdict as “frightening”.
One can draw obvious implications from what what you mean by the word “frightening”. These include that they are a danger to democracy and a danger to the rule of law.
They are neither.
As I said, to believe this stuff, you’d need to have believed that the protests against the convictions of the Guildford Four, Maguire Seven and Birmingham Six were “frightening”, with obvious follow on implications that they were a danger to democracy and the rule of law.
You’d need to believe that the protests against the acquittals of OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman were “frightening”.
You’d need to believe protests about the Widgery report or Lee Clegg were “frightening”.
I know you class yourself as an Irish Republican or Irish Nationalist. Yet here you are, putting forward an argument that squarely attempts to demonise protest against what people see as miscarriages of justice.
You or anybody else here don’t get to decide what protest is legitimate and what’s not, and thank heaven for that.
Protesting what are or may be unjust convictions is not frightening.
Protesting acquittals and labeling those acquitted as being guilty of the crime they were exonerated for is very frightening. Which you have done, repeatedly.
It’s no surprise you can’t see the difference in your scrambled brain. You are after all the one who called for a 5.5 year sentence for the two men accused of rape, while defending the 1.5 years handed down recently to the predatory pedophile in the ROI.
You’re also the one who has wished rape on women you disagree with politically, fantasized about the rape of a recently bereaved widow, and have admitted to predatory behavior.
If you don’t mind I’ll look elsewhere for moral guidance.
Twitter wasn’t around in the mid 70’s when the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were locked up. Never ask a gentleman his age, so I won’t speculate as to whether or not @anon7035031 was around and even if he was, was following those proceedings in the mid 70’s.
There really are a lot of weird “rape fantasies” there on your part, alright. And it’s rather worrying that the word you (as well as some other high profile rape apologists here) seem to most readily associate with rape is “fantasy”.
It’s clearly something you fantasise about a lot, I’d bet?
Also, it’s a delicious irony that while claiming to be for the rule of law, you simultaneously object to it.
Oh, and you appear to have forgotten what the definition of a paedophile is.
Here - I’ll quote your own definition.
I must say I again genuinely worry about your state of mind after reading that load of deranged rot. I think you’re a very vulnerable person who is on the edge of sanity, if not already gone over it.
I don’t entertain pathetic trolls, especially trolls who invent weird fantasies about rape like @anon7035031 and actual admitted rapists like @HBV.
Ok I won’t ask you to. Tell us about this girl though, what happened, in your own words…
I was just being fair. I wouldn’t judge anyone, let them have their say etc.
2 Likes
What rape victim? Were they telling funny stories?
He had been in her company once or twice. He had been building up the courage to begin a conversation for a month.
She emigrated to Australia. He was broken hearted.
He flew out there. Stalked her. Crept up in her in a bar. She didn’t recognise him. She then did. It was awkward. He goofed around a bit. He went back to his room. Updated tfk. Masturbated.
Planned a strategy to steal a pair of her menstrual discharge soiled panties. Bottled it.
Came home and became a snowflake