Youâre ignoring the fact that someone is pleading for leniancy for a child rapist bro, i can ignore the misguided rambling of hook as a far lesser evil
Plus it was mentioned above but you chose to ignore it (a key debating tactic of yours) that the guards gave a warning for women in a certain area not to walk alone home, be vigilant etc. Do you think those guards should be fired for victim blaming?
Christ
Find it, you have plenty of time sure all you have on is emptying bedpans and crusading leniency for Child groomers and paedophiles
Fixed
Egging weirdos like @Sydney on in his campaign for leniency for paedophiles is not something a school teacher should be doing.
If your disagree then carry-on, itâs your career.
Youâre a strange strange man, read what Iâve written before you compile your dossier to have me fired from the job you imagine I have.
@Sidney is indeed a weird fucker but youâre as nasty as heâs weird, I wouldnât want anything whatsoever to do with either of ye
The Gards arenât victim blaming there though. They are merely warning ladies to be vigilant.
Thereâs a massive difference between that and what Hook did. Although I agree with your broad point that Hook is essentially a daft auld cunt. What Cusack did is far worse.
If a person believes the perpetrator of a crime accepts the seriousness of their offence, is genuinely remorseful for what they have done, will not reoffend and, if applicable, is prepared to receive treatment designed to ensure they do not reoffend, they have every right to give a character reference on their behalf, and giving that reference is not an âevilâ, even if it is misguided, and I use the word misguided deliberately.
A person with a track record of dubious comments about rape saying on the national airwaves that the victim of a rape should shoulder some blame and sarcastically asking why she was surprised that she was raped is not âmisguidedâ. Itâs factually wrong, in this case itâs consistent with previous comments the person has made, itâs deeply misogynistic, gives succour to misogynists and perpetuates a culture of victim blaming against women in society.
You liked this post, you are egging on him. You are a very very strange man and a right sneaky and dangerous little bastard behind all the puff pastry and fish pies.
Most likely you deleted it. Reference to it has been made before though.
And you letting something like that happen is entirely believable, in fact itâs probably to be expected.
Jesus youâre an angry horrible bastard but this made me laugh⌠Behind all the puff pastry and fish cakes!
Not alone do you spend days sitting in the Dark crusading for the state to go easy on paedophiles you are also fantasising about other peopleâs kids watching adults engaged in sexual activities.
You need help.
Youâre the one whoâs just associated the word âfantasisingâ with the words âother peopleâs kidsâ.
But again, thatâs not a surprise, itâs to be expected from you.
Fish pies
Thereâs no hierarchy of crimes but what Humphries did was heinous, it was sustained and it was calculated against a very vulnerable and naive young person. Whatever about certain crimes I donât think you can defend the person behind that.
Donal Og seems to more or less have gotten a free pass on this.
You donât know if cusack knows ot believes any of this, you are imagining he does. The heinous nature of the offence means any person giving a reference for such an offender should be questioned as to his motives and own values really. But cusack believed he would never be caught in this case, just like humphries. And like him is now backtracking in hindsight.
From what we know of Cusackâs character over the years he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he believed all that.
What do we know of his character?
Humpries should be locked up for life
Indeed and you were fantiscising about a child watching adults having sex, because you didnât read it on this forum thatâs for sure. Its all in your sick little head, along with that weird passion you have to win some leniency for paedophiles.
You need help.