[I]Disgust

[GaryN]

So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
time and are jumping on the bandwagon.

Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?

I don't know if he was or not but I dislike seeing the vultures circling.

The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a tape
player hooked in.

Tony Blair got us into an unreconcilable, illegal, war. Noticed anyone
slagging that bastard off lately (apart from me)?

Not that anyone else would want to fuck his wife except for the money.

Admittedly Clinton was as fond of cigars as Jimmy was but that doesn't
prove anything.

I just object to gold diggers jumping on any rumour.

gary

--
Snake was just plain ugly,
Where he came from no-one knew.
Reckon Rambo would have shit himself if Snakey told him to.

Kevin 'Bloody' Wilson.
"The Front Bar Featherbrain Championship"

[Grymma]

On 03/10/2012 18:47, GaryN wrote:
> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>
> I don't know if he was or not but I dislike seeing the vultures circling.
>
> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a tape
> player hooked in.
>
> Tony Blair got us into an unreconcilable, illegal, war. Noticed anyone
> slagging that bastard off lately (apart from me)?
>
> Not that anyone else would want to fuck his wife except for the money.
>
> Admittedly Clinton was as fond of cigars as Jimmy was but that doesn't
> prove anything.
>
> I just object to gold diggers jumping on any rumour.
>

I doubt it will be proved either way, but if women are saying they were
raped or molested, then I have to believe that they are telling the
truth, regardless of how long ago it happened. (Took a while for Gary
Glitter to get caught...)

Found this article quoting from his autobiography...

<http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/32804536645/jimmy-saviles-affections-laid-bare-by-jimmy-savile>



--
Grymma AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; DAcFD, BF (UU)
There is no conversation more boring than the one where
everybody agrees. Michel de Montaigne

[nann...@samael.demon.co.uk]

On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 18:47:10 UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
>
> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
>
> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.

Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was just plain nasty. If this was a story about men making allegations of a serious crime, I doubt you'd have thought that vicious digs about their appearance and sex appeal contributed to the argument.

> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?

From what I've picked up from the press, the consensus seems to be that quite a lot of people noticed questionable things going on.


Best wishes,

Sarah

[GaryN]

nann...@samael.demon.co.uk wrote in
news:d1b29e1c-f21f-44fb...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 18:47:10 UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself
>> he
> is
>>
>> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up
>> in th
> at
>>
>> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was
> just plain nasty. If this was a story about men making allegations of
> a serious crime, I doubt you'd have thought that vicious digs about
> their appearance and sex appeal contributed to the argument.

No argument until now. I asked a question/stated an opinion. He's dead
and can't defend himself, the women claiming to have been misused are IMO
fat and ugly, I can have my opinion and it has nothing to do with what they
claim happened. One of them looked like a one night stand that I regretted
when sober. Both times.

That's not me being nasty, you haven't seen nasty yet. At least I'm honest
about what I say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EL67mjv1nM

>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>
> From what I've picked up from the press, the consensus seems to be
> that quite a lot of people noticed questionable things going on.

Yeah,right. The press are always fast to pick up rumours. Like governments
discovering evidence of WMD and starting wars.

I reiterate - now that he's dead he can be slagged off with no fear of
retribution. Where was all the righteous shit when the supposed abuse was
happening?

Whatever else he did he did a lot of good. That is *reliably* documented.

Personally I never liked him, I just think trashing someones character
under dodgy heresay evidence (Ohh, someone else said he abused them) is
beyond the pale.

Doesn't matter if I like them or not.

[Nigel Stapley]

Grymma wrote:
> On 03/10/2012 18:47, GaryN wrote:
>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself
>> he is
>> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in
>> that
>> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>
>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>>
>> I don't know if he was or not but I dislike seeing the vultures circling.
>>
>> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
>> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a
>> tape
>> player hooked in.
>>
>> Tony Blair got us into an unreconcilable, illegal, war. Noticed anyone
>> slagging that bastard off lately (apart from me)?
>>
>> Not that anyone else would want to fuck his wife except for the money.
>>
>> Admittedly Clinton was as fond of cigars as Jimmy was but that doesn't
>> prove anything.
>>
>> I just object to gold diggers jumping on any rumour.
>>
>
> I doubt it will be proved either way, but if women are saying they were
> raped or molested, then I have to believe that they are telling the
> truth, regardless of how long ago it happened.

I know this is going to start up a temp�t de merde, but *why* do you
*have* to believe that they are telling the truth?

As opposed to, "I will take their allegations seriously and investigate
and *then* decide whether or not they're telling the truth"?

The sad fact has to be faced that it is quite easy to 'cry rape',
especially when the person it is alleged against is no longer in any
position to counter the allegation.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:YNednbEDYYGiv_DN...@brightview.co.uk:

Which is pretty much what I intended to say.

I will apologise for the tone of my post as it was rather stronger than
intended. I'm a bit stressed myself at the moment over misinformation
about me being propogated to the point where it becomes "The Truth".

At least I'm in a position to do something about it.

[Grymma]

When it comes to allegations of rape or molestation, male or female, my
default position is 'believe'. Rape victims have a hard enough time
without aspersions being cast, how they look/what they wore being
brought up, etc etc - all the 'excuses' that are made for how somehow
this person might have deserved what happened to them, or 'asked for it'
in some way. Rape is rape is rape.

There are, I believe, a minority who lie about this, as in all things,
of course. Why someone would do so about something so abhorrent, is
beyond me, but still, my default position is 'believe'.

I'm in no position to 'investigate' as thoroughly as I hope the police
will - though I will read and digest all sides of this allegation as
published. If I am swayed from my default position, then so be it. It is
unfortunate that he is deceased, but accusations and investigations
occurred on more than one occasion prior to his death.

--
Grymma AFPOh Goddess Of Hangovers; DAcFD, BF (UU)

If you keep doing things like you've always done them,
what you'll get is what you've already got.

[GaryN]

Grymma <ne...@grymma.co.invalid> wrote in
news:jYcbs.184366$512....@fx28.am4:

Is it?

> There are, I believe, a minority who lie about this, as in all things,
> of course. Why someone would do so about something so abhorrent, is
> beyond me, but still, my default position is 'believe'.

I once went out with someone (briefly, VERY briefly) who claimed she had
been raped by a friend of mine. His version was that they had
consensual sex but it wasn't very good (we remain on good terms).

Given that she was a rampant, schizophrenic, nymphomaniac who would
screw anything animal, vegetable or mineral I tend to believe his
version. I dumped her after she told me she had unprotected anal sex
with a gay male friend - didn't try to call *that* rape. Not that it
matters because she's finally been tucked away in an expensive loony bin
- PhD in Psychology not withstanding. Why do I always end up with the
lunatic females? Lots of fun but high maintenance.

There are people out there who will jump on the bandwagon and say
anything to get their "I was raped by Jimmy" 15 minutes of fame.

Sad but true.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<d1b29e1c-f21f-44fb...@googlegroups.com>,
nann...@samael.demon.co.uk commented acutely:

>GaryN wrote:
>>So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
>>suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
>>time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
>Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was just
>plain nasty.

- yes, it was - and in a simultaneously gratuitous and totally
irrelevant way, too.

>If this was a story about men making allegations of a serious crime,
>I doubt you'd have thought that vicious digs about their appearance
>and sex appeal contributed to the argument.

- i'm not sure that any part of the verb, to think, has a lot
to do with many of his posts to afp, which frequently evince
all the careful consideration of a knee-jerk - or that of a
daily wail, scum or (ex-) screws of the world "journalist".

>
>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>
>From what I've picked up from the press, the consensus seems to be that
>quite a lot of people noticed questionable things going on.

- there would appear to have been a number of complaints of
a similar nature against jimmy saville over the years, and at
least one investigation of him, that was suddenly dropped for
no publicly-known reason.

- neither of which proves him to have behaved as alleged; but
certainly suggests that he may have. and we don't have a very
good track record of treating people reporting rape and assault
in a serious, let alone considerate way in the uk - to the ex-
tent that many girls and women are still loath to go to the
police after having suffered severe shock and trauma from such
attacks. (some police forces have done work to improve matters
but there's a hell of a long way to go - as police mishandlings
of women reporting rape coming to light in just the past year
demonstrate only too clearly.)

- the way we as a society treat people arrested for &/or charged
with having committed rape isn't right either - i understand the
argument that publication of their name encourages other people
they may have attacked to come forwards, but our wonderful gutter
press isn't exactly eager to publicise "not guiulty" verdicts as
assiduously as the arrests & allegations - let alone, in such
screaming front-page headlines. i don't know "the answer" - but
does the stain on their character _ever_ fade completely?

- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"testicles are more alien to women, than tentacles"
- ellen datlow, interviewed by craig charles at intersection, 1995

[GaryN]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote in
news:20121004.120...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk:

> - hi; in article,
> <d1b29e1c-f21f-44fb...@googlegroups.com>,
> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk commented acutely:
>>GaryN wrote:
>>>So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself
>>>he is suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who
>>>grew up in that time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>
>>Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was
>>just plain nasty.
>
> - yes, it was - and in a simultaneously gratuitous and totally
> irrelevant way, too.

For which I have apologised.

>>If this was a story about men making allegations of a serious crime,
>>I doubt you'd have thought that vicious digs about their appearance
>>and sex appeal contributed to the argument.
>
> - i'm not sure that any part of the verb, to think, has a lot
> to do with many of his posts to afp, which frequently evince
> all the careful consideration of a knee-jerk - or that of a
> daily wail, scum or (ex-) screws of the world "journalist".

Yours are better?

Just out of interest - who are you to judge?

ppint - judge, jury and executioner. Self appointed smug git on afp.

You sure your surname isn't Cameron or Romney?

>>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>>
>>From what I've picked up from the press, the consensus seems to be
>>that quite a lot of people noticed questionable things going on.

So why wait until now?

<snip>

[Lesley Weston]

How old was she? If she was over sixteen, it was icky but it wasn't
paedophilia and it wasn't rape, since she clearly gave her
fully-informed consent. Given the groupie culture of the time (and
still), what he did is not worth singling out, just routine for a star
of the pop world. Putting this incident in the same category as what
that monster who has just been brought back to Canada from Thailand does
is unjustified.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/03/bcs-swirly-face-child-sex-offender-released-from-custody

or http://tinyurl.com/8dnwkzj

Lesley.

--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-03-12 10:47 AM, GaryN wrote:
> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>
> I don't know if he was or not but I dislike seeing the vultures circling.
>
> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a tape
> player hooked in.

Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
abused as a child. If she was.

>
> Tony Blair got us into an unreconcilable, illegal, war. Noticed anyone
> slagging that bastard off lately (apart from me)?
>
> Not that anyone else would want to fuck his wife except for the money.
>
> Admittedly Clinton was as fond of cigars as Jimmy was but that doesn't
> prove anything.

Clinton likes grown-up women. It's likely that Jimmy Saville did too,
but we shall never know.

[Lesley Weston]

Yes. I doubt if anyone here endorses the concept of "legitimate rape".
Whether or not Jimmy Saville committed rape is another question
entirely, and I don't suppose it will ever be answered.

[daniel goldsmith]

On 2012-10-04, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> - hi; in article,
> <d1b29e1c-f21f-44fb...@googlegroups.com>,
> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk commented acutely:
>>GaryN wrote:
>>>So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
>>>suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
>>>time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>
>>Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was just
>>plain nasty.
>
> - yes, it was - and in a simultaneously gratuitous and totally
> irrelevant way, too.

As is all too often the case. cf "wogs" "pakis" &c, all of which are
a common feature of the said writings.

>>If this was a story about men making allegations of a serious crime,
>>I doubt you'd have thought that vicious digs about their appearance
>>and sex appeal contributed to the argument.
>
> - i'm not sure that any part of the verb, to think, has a lot
> to do with many of his posts to afp, which frequently evince
> all the careful consideration of a knee-jerk - or that of a
> daily wail, scum or (ex-) screws of the world "journalist".

Much as I loathe and detest the Mail and Scum, I think this may be
going a bit too far. Both paper's writers tend to avoid Paki, Wog
and the rest if it, or at least they pretend to.

>>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>>
>>From what I've picked up from the press, the consensus seems to be that
>>quite a lot of people noticed questionable things going on.
>
> - there would appear to have been a number of complaints of
> a similar nature against jimmy saville over the years, and at
> least one investigation of him, that was suddenly dropped for
> no publicly-known reason.

I grew up in a far off land, so can't comment, *however*:

My wife, who grew up on this Sleepy Isle (after the age of 7) has
told me for *years* that it was widely alleged that Saville was a
"kiddie fiddler" when she was a kid - that as a result her parents
wouldn't permit the watching of "Jim'll Fix It". This isn't a thing
which has emerged in the past 72-odd hours, but a longstanding
disgust at the man, based on widely held belief dating back thirty
years.

> - neither of which proves him to have behaved as alleged; but
> certainly suggests that he may have. and we don't have a very
> good track record of treating people reporting rape and assault
> in a serious, let alone considerate way in the uk - to the ex-
> tent that many girls and women are still loath to go to the
> police after having suffered severe shock and trauma from such
> attacks. (some police forces have done work to improve matters
> but there's a hell of a long way to go - as police mishandlings
> of women reporting rape coming to light in just the past year
> demonstrate only too clearly.)

I think that the situation can be taken as analogous to the Irish
Catholic Church. Everyone, simply *everyone* knew that there were
paedophiles operating with impunity. No one in any position to do
anything ever did anything to stop it.


--
Protected by their camouflage, the New International Militant Hedgehogs
__o __o __o __o (NIMH) Approach their Target
'/ '/ '/ '/ _____________________________________________________
*Daniel Goldsmith. Reply-to/Homepage in Headers*

[daniel goldsmith]

On 2012-10-03, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.

&

> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a tape
> player hooked in.

This is quite the most vile and despicable posting I've read on this
or any other newsgroup in quite some time.

That you think (later) you can apologise for it by saying you were
quite heated is preposterous.

An old favourite quote of mine from the Talmud springs to mind:

In these three things is a man revealed:
In his wine goblet, in his purse
And in his wrath.

Thanks for this insight.

[Orjan]

On 04/10/2012 17:34, daniel goldsmith wrote:
> On 2012-10-03, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
>> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
>> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> &
>
>> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with your
>> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K without a tape
>> player hooked in.
>
> This is quite the most vile and despicable posting I've read on this
> or any other newsgroup in quite some time.

I agree. If Gary hadn't long been in my killfile for previous outbursts
of a similar nature, and his IMNSHO group-killing habit of turning every
single thread into a discussion around him, his manliness, his troubles
with various law institutions, and his ever-needy ego, this certainly
would have seen him end up there.

The man is hardly fit for polite society, and while afp as a group
should be complimented for its patience and forgiveness, I do wish the
troll-feeding could be more limited.

Orjan

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-04, daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> wrote:

> An old favourite quote of mine from the Talmud springs to mind:
>
> In these three things is a man revealed:
> In his wine goblet, in his purse
> And in his wrath.
>

Second addition to my new signature file, thanks.

--
“All acts are caused by the natures of the entities acting, but some
acts are appropriately unconstrained by external coercion.”
John Wilkins
%

[GaryN]

daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> wrote in
news:slrnk6re5r...@ascraeus.bongley.net:

> On 2012-10-04, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; in article,
>> <d1b29e1c-f21f-44fb...@googlegroups.com>,
>> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk commented acutely:
>>>GaryN wrote:
>>>>So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend
>>>>himself he is suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly
>>>>women who grew up in that time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>>
>>>Not that anyone will ever know the truth for sure, but this post was
>>>just plain nasty.
>>
>> - yes, it was - and in a simultaneously gratuitous and totally
>> irrelevant way, too.
>
> As is all too often the case. cf "wogs" "pakis" &c, all of which are
> a common feature of the said writings.

I use such terms because they are, like it or not, a common feature of
everyday life. A place where I happen to live. Which has Wogs and
Pakis, Chinks and Polish amongst it's people. Dunno what they call me
and I don't care - racism works both ways.

This community gets along fine. The wogs next door always say hello,
the Korean slants round the corner always enquire about my bad leg when
I see them, I always ask how they are and if they need anything. One of
the Paki kids came round the other day with a flat tyre on his bike. I
fixed it for him and showed him how he could do it himself.

Descriptive pronouns do not a racist make.

You may, in fact, be far more a racist than I. The people I describe as
whatever don't give a shit. Think on.

Explain, precisely, to the wogs, pakis and chinks who live around me why
they should be insulted by those labels. They don't give a shit.

If you wish to continue living on your nice pink cotton wool cloud
please feel free to do so.

<snip>

Apologies to everyone else. I've picked up my first edition copy of
"The Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M Banks today but I'm too stressed to read
it.

It's pissing me off.

[GaryN]

daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> wrote in

news:slrnk6rekm...@ascraeus.bongley.net:

> On 2012-10-03, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself
>> he is suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who
>> grew up in that time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> &
>
>> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch with
>> your bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K
>> without a tape player hooked in.
>
> This is quite the most vile and despicable posting I've read on this
> or any other newsgroup in quite some time.

Yeah, I had to work on it. The Sun does a front page every day. But you
probably read the Guardian. Difference between my apology and anything
in 'The Sun' is that I actually meant it.

> That you think (later) you can apologise for it by saying you were
> quite heated is preposterous.

Explain why. I got it wrong, I apologised. If governments can get away
with it (and starting wars in the process) why should I not?

> An old favourite quote of mine from the Talmud springs to mind:
>
> In these three things is a man revealed:
> In his wine goblet, in his purse
> And in his wrath.
>
> Thanks for this insight.

You want to get religious

John 11:35 (King James Bible)

I know it but you'll probably have to look it up

There is a reason why I know it.

which I'm not going to tell you

[GaryN]

Orjan <orjan....@cunobaros.com> wrote in
news:mQjbs.236861$2%5.21...@fx05.am4:

<snip>

> The man is hardly fit for polite society

Gosh. I must stop doing charity work. Shame on me!

Anyone wishing me to stop charity fundraising should immediately register
their dissapproval.

, and while afp as a group
> should be complimented for its patience and forgiveness, I do wish the
> troll-feeding could be more limited.

Yup, we could throw you out for a start. When was the last time you
contributed anything useful? Or anything at all?

> Orjan
>

Just out of interest how many long running threads have been instituted by
you Orjan, and how many by me?

[Orjan]

On 04/10/2012 19:44, GaryN wrote:
> Orjan <orjan....@cunobaros.com> wrote in
> news:mQjbs.236861$2%5.21...@fx05.am4:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The man is hardly fit for polite society
>
> Gosh. I must stop doing charity work. Shame on me!
>
> Anyone wishing me to stop charity fundraising should immediately register
> their dissapproval.

Funnily, that's what I've heard Jimmy Saville said, too. Not that I'd
draw any other parallells.

>> , and while afp as a group
>> should be complimented for its patience and forgiveness, I do wish the
>> troll-feeding could be more limited.
>
> Yup, we could throw you out for a start. When was the last time you
> contributed anything useful? Or anything at all?

Last time I was posting frequently would have been spring 2010. Whether
it was useful I can't comment on.

> Just out of interest how many long running threads have been instituted by
> you Orjan, and how many by me?

I once instituted a reasonably popular thread that ran for a few years.
It even got its own section on the L-Space web:
http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/timelines/the-tale.html
Why?

I don't know how many you have started and kept alive, and frankly, I
don't care. I have no interest in the saga of your life, as I've said,
and I don't tend to read your posts any more. Since I made a complaint
about you, I've disabled my filter in case you wanted to comment.

Orjan

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
> abused as a child. If she was.

I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
(allowing for false memory and such.)

--
You're definitely on their list. The question to ask next is what list it is.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-04, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>

> Apologies to everyone else. I've picked up my first edition copy of
> "The Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M Banks today but I'm too stressed to read
> it.
>
>

> gary
>

At least you *got* a copy already. I got a call from
my bookshop that most recent Fforde finally arrived
and that I can expect the Banks before Christmas.

However, The Beautiful Mystery is also waiting
and I found a copy of Trauma Farm for $6 on a display in
my greengrocers.

I use reading Banks as therapy for stress.

[nann...@samael.demon.co.uk]

On Thursday, 4 October 2012 19:29:10 UTC+1, GaryN wrote:

>daniel goldsmith wrote:


> > That you think (later) you can apologise for it by saying you were
>
> > quite heated is preposterous.
>
>
>
> Explain why. I got it wrong, I apologised.

The problem is that your apology really doesn't seem to address the level of unpleasantness and inappropriateness in your original comments.

These are women who, for all any of us know, may indeed be truthfully reporting their experiences of going through the trauma of being sexually abused in their teens. I fully recognise that we cannot know whether this is so, but we also can't know that it isn't, and should thus take this possibility into account. Your response to this was to judge their sexual attractiveness to you and to comment in vicious terms on the fact that you found it wanting. Several hours later you stood by those comments, denying that they had been nasty on the entirely illogical grounds that you could have been even nastier (which I don't doubt, but it doesn't change the unpleasantness of what you said on this occasion) and adding others in similar vein to them.

After all that, an apology for the 'tone of your post' being 'rather stronger than intended' followed up by a weak excuse that immediately veers off into a complaint about your own life (1) frankly just doesn't cut it. It's just too feeble.

I recognise that this is all quite subjective and that it's extremely likely you'll disagree with me and get indignant because, after all, you uttered a statement with the word 'apologise' in, and that should be enough for anyone no matter what the original infraction or how weak the apology... if so, then so be it. I think this may just be one of those areas where, if you have to have it explained to you, you're probably not going to get the explanation.


(1) I've also been in the position of having misinformation propagated about me, and know just how unpleasant it is, so I'm sympathetic on that point. Thing is, though, I didn't respond by lashing out and getting nasty about other people who had nothing to do with my situation and whose own situations I was not in a position to judge.

If governments can get away
>
> with it (and starting wars in the process) why should I not?

Define 'get away with'. Are you trying to claim that a politician who made a horribly bad-taste statement and tried to get away with an inadequate apology wouldn't draw forth any sort of vilification from anyone else for so doing, and therefore you shouldn't either? That was, at any rate, how it came across. If that was indeed what you meant, I suspect you'll find that others aren't utterly convinced by that argument.


Sarah V.

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:h8Cdne239v_xu_PN...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-10-04, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>> Apologies to everyone else. I've picked up my first edition copy of
>> "The Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M Banks today but I'm too stressed to
>> read it.
>>
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> At least you *got* a copy already. I got a call from
> my bookshop that most recent Fforde finally arrived
> and that I can expect the Banks before Christmas.

You utter, utter bastard! Now I have to spend money on the new Fforde
book as well!

> However, The Beautiful Mystery is also waiting
> and I found a copy of Trauma Farm for $6 on a display in
> my greengrocers.
>
> I use reading Banks as therapy for stress.
>

It's good. Got through the depressive panic attacks and started
reading.

Minor Spoiler:

The good ship "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of
Veracity" ( de-milled ROU - Thug class) brought to my mind journalists
and the inital start of this thread. Or Dubya and Blair.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>> abused as a child. If she was.
>
> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>

Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.

[GaryN]

nann...@samael.demon.co.uk wrote in
news:6df8f6c5-81f7-49bf...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> If governments can get away
>>
>> with it (and starting wars in the process) why should I not?
>
> Define 'get away with'.

Ask my neighbours.

Their son was brought home in a box from a pointless war. I went to the
funeral to see him off. They're Wogs, he was a wog - who cares? He was a
cracking good lad, enjoyed coming out for a beer or two, served his adopted
country and I paid my respects.

Because that's what real people do.

He fought for his country in a stupid war that some stupid bastard started
for no particular reason. Not for his skin colour.

I still make an effort to put some flowers on his grave on the aniverssary.
Because he deserves to be remembered.

>Are you trying to claim that a politician who
> made a horribly bad-taste statement and tried to get away with an
> inadequate apology wouldn't draw forth any sort of vilification from
> anyone else for so doing, and therefore you shouldn't either? That
> was, at any rate, how it came across.

I didn't say that, although it's happened, google to get the best ones.

I apologised because I thought I'd done wrong.

If that was indeed what you
> meant, I suspect you'll find that others aren't utterly convinced by
> that argument.

Dunno, ask them.

Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:k4mo5f
$2ds6$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>>> abused as a child. If she was.
>>
>> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
>> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>>
> Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.
>
> Lesley.
>

I'll enter this argument to the point of "How come your self esteem is so
low that you have to wait 40 years to jump on the bandwagon when everyone
else has?"
Not overly convincing that one.

[GaryN]

Orjan <orjan....@cunobaros.com> wrote in
news:x8lbs.200199$jS5....@fx27.am4:

<snip>

> I don't know how many you have started and kept alive, and frankly, I
> don't care. I have no interest in the saga of your life, as I've said,
> and I don't tend to read your posts any more. Since I made a complaint
> about you, I've disabled my filter in case you wanted to comment.
>
> Orjan
>

I seldom bother with yours or ppints posts. This may, or may not, be a
good thing. You two opine as if handing down the Holy Writ, I just say
what i think.

You two appear to think your opinion is law here. I'm not nice but I leave
it to others to decide.

gary

[nann...@samael.demon.co.uk]

> I'll enter this argument to the point of "How come your self esteem is so
>
> low that you have to wait 40 years to jump on the bandwagon when everyone
>
> else has?"

An assumption no more warranted, and only debatably less serious, than the assumption that a man is guilty of sexual abuse or paedophilia merely because he has been accused of such.


Sarah

[GaryN]

nann...@samael.demon.co.uk wrote in
news:c8895e49-eaaf-46a0...@googlegroups.com:

Can someone please hunt this person down and kill her before my mother gets
annoyed.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>
> gary
>
>

Thanks Gary ... I hope this means that she's returned.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>>> abused as a child. If she was.
>>
>> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
>> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>>
> Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.
>
> Lesley.
>

If I make myself unattractive, I won't attract another predator.

[nann...@samael.demon.co.uk]

On Friday, 5 October 2012 14:46:28 UTC+1, GaryN wrote:


> Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?

I was posting a question about something else on another newsgroup, and since I was on Google Groups anyway I came to check out what was happening on afp these days. (Used to be a regular here some years back, but haven't posted in a while.)


Sarah V.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> You utter, utter bastard! Now I have to spend money on the new Fforde
> book as well!
>

> gary
>

Turnabout is fair play. You told me about the new Culture book.

[Orjan]

On 05/10/2012 17:33, GaryN wrote:
> Orjan <orjan....@cunobaros.com> wrote in
> news:x8lbs.200199$jS5....@fx27.am4:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't know how many you have started and kept alive, and frankly, I
>> don't care. I have no interest in the saga of your life, as I've said,
>> and I don't tend to read your posts any more. Since I made a complaint
>> about you, I've disabled my filter in case you wanted to comment.
>

> I seldom bother with yours or ppints posts. This may, or may not, be a
> good thing. You two opine as if handing down the Holy Writ, I just say
> what i think.

So it's a transitive verb? "I say what I think, you opine as if handing
down the Holy Writ, they spout nonsense."

I'm just expressing an opinion. This particular opinion happens to
concern you, rather than someone who won't see it, so I extend you the
courtesy of engaging in conversation over it with you. That's as opposed
to slagging off a stranger, which is, perhaps, the sort of opining you
are more familiar with? And, incidentally, what you complained about in
the initial post.

I note that you so far haven't made any reference to anything I've
actually said, rather than the fact that I'm saying things at all, with
added questioning of my right to be here, and say things here.

> You two appear to think your opinion is law here. I'm not nice but I leave
> it to others to decide.

Thank you. I've personally decided you're not nice. I haven't demanded
that anyone agrees with me, or that you disappear, or change your name
to Fnaffnagle Gurnebunk, or anything in that vein, so I can't see where
you get the idea that I see my opinion as law.

I have formed an opinon, and I'm expressing it. In this, I'm abiding by
your example. I've also shown willing to discuss this opinion in a
civilised manner. In that, I'm abiding by the example given by other people.

Orjan

[Orjan]

On 05/10/2012 17:56, GaryN wrote:
> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk wrote in
> news:c8895e49-eaaf-46a0...@googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>> I'll enter this argument to the point of "How come your self esteem
>>> is so
>>>
>>> low that you have to wait 40 years to jump on the bandwagon when
>>> everyone
>>>
>>> else has?"
>>
>>
>> An assumption no more warranted, and only debatably less serious, than
>> the assumption that a man is guilty of sexual abuse or paedophilia
>> merely because he has been accused of such.
>

> Can someone please hunt this person down and kill her before my mother gets
> annoyed.

Who? Sarah?

You speak truth. You aren't nice.

That's just my opinion, of course, but I fnd it neither funny nor
socially acceptable that you wish people disagreeing with you in a
discussion group dead.

Go set up alt.fan.garyn instead.

Orjan

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:rZydnRpap7OU9fLN...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> You utter, utter bastard! Now I have to spend money on the new Fforde
>> book as well!
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> Turnabout is fair play. You told me about the new Culture book.
>

<grin>True, off to buy the new Fforde in a bit although I won't get the
half price discount on it for a pre-order (I *like* Waterstones!)

"The Hydrogen Sonata" is definitely worth a look, although I tend to hold
that opinion of most of Banks' books (Except "A Song Of Stone" which was
IMO crap).

It's convenient that, with a bit of prodding from my MP, the DSS have
reversed their previous decision and now admit that I am ill and they owe
me quite a lot of money. So I can pay the rent and buy books.

A happy, smiling, gary

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:JeSdnYPdZ5EIz_LN...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>>
>> gary
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Gary ... I hope this means that she's returned.
>

Hope so. Perhaps I missed her in the various years I wasn't here.

[GaryN]

nann...@samael.demon.co.uk wrote in
news:26e9fef2-3e45-4004...@googlegroups.com:

Fairly interesting and protracted discussion about things political some
way back up ^ there. Otherwise the usual inconsequential witterings, my
own included.

[GaryN]

Orjan <orjan....@cunobaros.com> wrote in
news:M4Tbs.91256$hg4....@fx04.am4:

Yeah, I'm terrible and 'orrible and shouldn't be allowed out in polite
company. But any sensible society recognises the utility of nasty
bastards like me as long as they play fair. Doesn't mean we like it,
any more than my grandfather liked liberating Aushwitz.

And that's another lie.

Except me Grandfather.

That's true.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-05-12 6:52 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:k4mo5f
> $2ds6$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>>>> abused as a child. If she was.
>>>
>>> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
>>> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>>>
>> Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> I'll enter this argument to the point of "How come your self esteem is so
> low that you have to wait 40 years to jump on the bandwagon when everyone
> else has?"
> Not overly convincing that one.

I only know what you've told us about the case, plus the anecdote from
Jimmy Saville's autobiography. But perhaps she's having therapy at last,
which gave her the courage to speak out. Or perhaps her therapist has
helped her to discover false memories. Or perhaps she's not having
therapy at all, but just couldn't keep quiet any longer. Or perhaps she
saw a bandwagon and jumped on it. We shall never know, probably.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-05-12 2:37 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>>>> abused as a child. If she was.
>>>
>>> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
>>> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>>>
>> Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> If I make myself unattractive, I won't attract another predator.
>

Probably not that clear-cut, more along the lines of "I'm worthless
garbage, so my appearance should reflect that fact".

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-06-12 4:30 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:rZydnRpap7OU9fLN...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> You utter, utter bastard! Now I have to spend money on the new Fforde
>>> book as well!
>>>
>>> gary
>>>
>>
>> Turnabout is fair play. You told me about the new Culture book.
>>
>
> <grin>True, off to buy the new Fforde in a bit although I won't get the
> half price discount on it for a pre-order (I *like* Waterstones!)
>
> "The Hydrogen Sonata" is definitely worth a look, although I tend to hold
> that opinion of most of Banks' books (Except "A Song Of Stone" which was
> IMO crap).
>
> It's convenient that, with a bit of prodding from my MP, the DSS have
> reversed their previous decision and now admit that I am ill and they owe
> me quite a lot of money. So I can pay the rent and buy books.
>
> A happy, smiling, gary
>

Good! It's about time they did something right; long may they continue
to do so! So now perhaps you can lay off the painkillers and booze a bit
and your posts won't be quite so mystifying?

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-05-12 2:35 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-05, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>>
>> gary
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Gary ... I hope this means that she's returned.
>

Wot he said.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:k4pkgc$vse$1...@mud.stack.nl:

I think the word you needed Lesley was 'offensive'. I've been fighting
bureaucratic shit and depression for a long time and taking it out on
people where I shouldn't. My unreserved apologies to everyone whoo (the
owls as well) has caught undeserved crap.

Anyone who can't accept an apology. It's there and if you won't accept
it then so be it.

[GaryN]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote in
news:XnsA0E4B7B879E44...@216.196.109.145:

I'm enjoying my 'last on the shelf' first edition hardback of "The Woman
Who Died A Lot". Eat my shorts...:-)

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<26e9fef2-3e45-4004...@googlegroups.com>
nann...@samael.demon.co.uk answered coolly:

>GaryN wrote:
>>Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>
>I was posting a question about something else on another newsgroup, and
>since I was on Google Groups anyway I came to check out what was happening
>on afp these days. (Used to be a regular here some years back, but haven't
>posted in a while.)

- /me *waves* at nanny ogg;

- good to see you; happy to have one of the saner^W - ah, one
of the greyer^W wiser^W - er, will "more entertaining" be felt
acceptably apt? - afpers of yore poke her nose in the door -
any chance you'll be settling in long enough for a pint and a
fiendly chat or three ?

- love, a ppint. making a plea for more constructive lunacy
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"but i believe the figure of one and one sixteenth
will be sufficiently accurate for poetry"
- charles babbage, writing to correct the second half of tennyson's line,
"every moment dies a man; every moment one is born"

[GaryN]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote in
news:20121006.173...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk:

> - hi; in article,
> <26e9fef2-3e45-4004...@googlegroups.com>
> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk answered coolly:
>>GaryN wrote:
>>>Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>>
>>I was posting a question about something else on another newsgroup,
>>and since I was on Google Groups anyway I came to check out what was
>>happening on afp these days. (Used to be a regular here some years
>>back, but haven't posted in a while.)
>
> - /me *waves* at nanny ogg;
>
> - good to see you; happy to have one of the saner^W - ah, one
> of the greyer^W wiser^W - er, will "more entertaining" be felt
> acceptably apt? - afpers of yore poke her nose in the door -
> any chance you'll be settling in long enough for a pint and a
> fiendly chat or three ?
>
> - love, a ppint. making a plea for more constructive lunacy
> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]

ppint - I'm offensive butmostly I don't claim to be right. You seem to
do so.

[Andrew Nevill]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:34:22 +0100 (BST), v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
("ppint. at pplay") wrote:

> - hi; in article,
> <26e9fef2-3e45-4004...@googlegroups.com>
> nann...@samael.demon.co.uk answered coolly:
>>GaryN wrote:
>>>Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?
>>
>>I was posting a question about something else on another newsgroup, and
>>since I was on Google Groups anyway I came to check out what was happening
>>on afp these days. (Used to be a regular here some years back, but haven't
>>posted in a while.)
>
> - /me *waves* at nanny ogg;
>

/me waves too

Hi Sarah

> - good to see you; happy to have one of the saner^W - ah, one
> of the greyer^W wiser^W - er, will "more entertaining" be felt
> acceptably apt? - afpers of yore poke her nose in the door -
> any chance you'll be settling in long enough for a pint and a
> fiendly chat or three ?
>

Seconded.
Can I offer you a chair? Some Choco-Coffee [1]
Hope you'll stick around.

welcomed

Andrew

[1]A varation on CCCBs from my local Farmers Market. Ground (rather
than whole) Sumatran coffee beans covered in Belgian Chocolate)

Andrew Nevill B.F. D.W. FdV. Reply address: nevill...@ntlworld.com
AFPWorshipper to Spooky, AFPfiance to Sarah (Nanny Ogg) pia & Esmeraldus.
AFPUncle to James Vaughan. You cannot value friends as pennies,
nor can you replace them as easily (Spooky in email, Aug 2001.)

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-10-06, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> I'm enjoying my 'last on the shelf' first edition hardback of "The Woman
> Who Died A Lot". Eat my shorts...:-)
>
> gary
>

I'm only fifty pages into it but so far it's well up to
the mark.

--
The late Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, in what he called the law
of the infinite cornucopia, stated that there was never a shortage of
arguments to support any doctrine one wanted to believe in for whatever
reasons.

[Larry Moore]

... and that all relations between the genders in the future can only be as
{exploitative|abusive|adversive.} Either I will become asexual, or
a hooker, as I no longer can believe in love.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-06-12 3:27 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-06, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-05-12 2:37 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 10-04-12 12:16 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-10-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps she would not have been any of these things if she hadn't been
>>>>>> abused as a child. If she was.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd take her appearance as a sign that she might be telling the truth
>>>>> (allowing for false memory and such.)
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly! The whole self-esteem thing.
>>>>
>>>> Lesley.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I make myself unattractive, I won't attract another predator.
>>>
>> Probably not that clear-cut, more along the lines of "I'm worthless
>> garbage, so my appearance should reflect that fact".
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> ... and that all relations between the genders in the future can only be as
> {exploitative|abusive|adversive.} Either I will become asexual, or
> a hooker, as I no longer can believe in love.
>

It does seem to be a major pathway into prostitution.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-06-12 7:07 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k4k6aq$12ko$1...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-04-12 3:33 AM, GaryN wrote:
>>> Grymma <ne...@grymma.co.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:jYcbs.184366$512....@fx28.am4:
>>>
>>>> On 04/10/2012 06:44, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>>>> Grymma wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/10/2012 18:47, GaryN wrote:
>>>>>>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend
>>>>>>> himself he is
>>>>>>> suddenly a paedophile. Based on the word of ugly women who grew up
>>>>>>> in that
>>>>>>> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it? Nobody noticed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if he was or not but I dislike seeing the vultures
>>>>>>> circling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fat peroxide blonde claiming he abused her I wouldn't touch
>>>>>>> with your
>>>>>>> bargepole. She made 2 short planks look like a Spectrum 48K
>>>>>>> without a tape
>>>>>>> player hooked in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Blair got us into an unreconcilable, illegal, war. Noticed
>>>>>>> anyone slagging that bastard off lately (apart from me)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that anyone else would want to fuck his wife except for the
>>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Admittedly Clinton was as fond of cigars as Jimmy was but that
>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just object to gold diggers jumping on any rumour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt it will be proved either way, but if women are saying they
>>>>>> were raped or molested, then I have to believe that they are telling
>>>>>> the truth, regardless of how long ago it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know this is going to start up a tempêt de merde, but *why* do you
>>>>> *have* to believe that they are telling the truth?
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to, "I will take their allegations seriously and
>>>>> investigate and *then* decide whether or not they're telling the
>>>>> truth"?
>>>>>
>>>>> The sad fact has to be faced that it is quite easy to 'cry rape',
>>>>> especially when the person it is alleged against is no longer in any
>>>>> position to counter the allegation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to allegations of rape or molestation, male or female,
>>>> my default position is 'believe'. Rape victims have a hard enough
>>>> time without aspersions being cast, how they look/what they wore being
>>>> brought up, etc etc - all the 'excuses' that are made for how somehow
>>>> this person might have deserved what happened to them, or 'asked for
>>>> it' in some way. Rape is rape is rape.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>
>> Yes. I doubt if anyone here endorses the concept of "legitimate rape".
>
> Well, I'm sure my opinion is clouded by the simple fact that the only
> time I've been (indirectly, mind you) involved in an allegation of rape
> was when I was at a college party and there was a couple that was going
> at it *very* hot and heavy on the couch in the back room. I did not
> actually witness them having sex, but everything but. I also was there
> when the woman initiated the events by grabbing this guys hand and
> putting up her shirt and pulling him into the back room.

Was she very drunk? Had he been feeding her with booze? Even if he
hadn't, it was rape if he had sex with someone too drunk to make a
choice. Unless he was just as drunk himself, in which case you could say
they raped each other or, with equal accuracy, that it was consensual.

[Lesley Weston]

I probably needed "mystifyingly offensive".

> I've been fighting
> bureaucratic shit and depression for a long time and taking it out on
> people where I shouldn't. My unreserved apologies to everyone whoo (the
> owls as well) has caught undeserved crap.
>
> Anyone who can't accept an apology. It's there and if you won't accept
> it then so be it.

I wasn't as badly upset by it as some, possibly because I realised what
was happening to you. But I for one accept your apology.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-06-12 3:18 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-10-06, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm enjoying my 'last on the shelf' first edition hardback of "The Woman
>> Who Died A Lot". Eat my shorts...:-)
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> I'm only fifty pages into it but so far it's well up to
> the mark.
>

I'm fifth on the waiting list for twenty copies. But the Library still
have it classified as "on order", so it could be a while.

[GaryN]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnk71p9k...@mbp55.local:

> In message <XnsA0E391BE5CAED...@216.196.109.145>

> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:h8Cdne239v_xu_PN...@wightman.ca:
>
>>> On 2012-10-04, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Apologies to everyone else. I've picked up my first edition copy
>>>> of "The Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M Banks today but I'm too stressed
>>>> to read it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gary
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least you *got* a copy already. I got a call from
>>> my bookshop that most recent Fforde finally arrived
>>> and that I can expect the Banks before Christmas.

>
>> You utter, utter bastard! Now I have to spend money on the new
>> Fforde book as well!
>

> The Woman Who Died a Lot? I'm reading that now. About half done.
>

I finished it today. Get's *really* interesting/confusing from about
halfway - and that's all the spoiler you get.

What with that and 'Dodger' and 'The Hydrogen Sonata' I've exceeded my
new book expenses for the last 2 months. But it was worth it and who
needs to eat anyway! Thank (insert deity of choice) for the 50%
discount I get on pre-order from Waterstones.

gary (Who is lying and has a large venison steak marinating in red wine
for dinner tonight, courtesy of a Scottish friend who likes deer
stalking)

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-07-12 7:42 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k4s10r$2beq$1...@mud.stack.nl>

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10-06-12 7:07 PM, Lewis wrote:

<snip>

>>> Well, I'm sure my opinion is clouded by the simple fact that the only
>>> time I've been (indirectly, mind you) involved in an allegation of rape
>>> was when I was at a college party and there was a couple that was going
>>> at it *very* hot and heavy on the couch in the back room. I did not
>>> actually witness them having sex, but everything but. I also was there
>>> when the woman initiated the events by grabbing this guys hand and
>>> putting up her shirt and pulling him into the back room.
>
>> Was she very drunk? Had he been feeding her with booze?
>

> They were both drunk, but he hadn't interacted with her at all before she grabbed him.

>
>
>> Even if he
>> hadn't, it was rape if he had sex with someone too drunk to make a
>> choice.
>

> Then he was the one who was raped as he was at least as drunk and she
> was the initiator.

In that case, yes he was. If he considered he was.
>
> But I am alos not at all tolerant of people who use alcohol to excuse
> their behavior.

No, it just makes the offence worse, the opposite of an excuse. But if
someone who is not drunk, or not as drunk, has sex with someone who is
so drunk that they are unfit to make a decision, that's rape. Same as if
the second someone is too young to decide, or not mentally equipped to
make that or any other decision.

>
>> Unless he was just as drunk himself, in which case you could say
>> they raped each other or, with equal accuracy, that it was consensual.
>

That stands.

[CCA]

On 3 Oct, 18:47, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself he is
> suddenly a paedophile.  Based on the word of ugly women who grew up in that
> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it?  Nobody noticed?

I would suggest that many of the women abused didn't mention it at the
time as they thought no-one would believe their word over that of
someone as famous as Jimmy Saville.

Okay, some of them may be bandwagon jumping, and that's a shame,
because it means those telling the truth may not be believed either.
But these women have the right to have their claims investigated. And
*not* to be called 'ugly, fat, thick, gold-diggers etc', by people who
have no idea what they're talking about. *You* don't know whether
these women are telling the truth or not, so what on Earth gives you
the right to post about them here in this manner?

Yes, I know that Usenet isn't as widely read as it used to be, and afp
isn't either. But that doesn't give you, or anyone else, an excuse to
make posts like this - posts that, to be honest, are getting more and
more frequent from you.

You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
no place on afp.

CCA

[CCA]

On Oct 5, 2:46 pm, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

[Return of Sarah 'Nanny Ogg']

> Just out of interest where did you suddenly appear from?

Sarah's a long-term afper, although like many of us she hasn't posted
for a while.

CCA

[GaryN]

CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:

> On 3 Oct, 18:47, GaryN <webmas...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> So now that Jimmy Saville is safely dead and unable to defend himself
>> he
> is
>> suddenly a paedophile.  Based on the word of ugly women who grew up
>> in
> that
>> time and are jumping on the bandwagon.
>>
>> Over 50 years nobody thought to mention it?  Nobody noticed?
>
> I would suggest that many of the women abused didn't mention it at the
> time as they thought no-one would believe their word over that of
> someone as famous as Jimmy Saville.

That, I fully accept, is true

> Okay, some of them may be bandwagon jumping, and that's a shame,
> because it means those telling the truth may not be believed either.
> But these women have the right to have their claims investigated. And
> *not* to be called 'ugly, fat, thick, gold-diggers etc', by people who
> have no idea what they're talking about.

I described the women I saw *claiming* to have been abused, I accept
that "Gold-Diggers" might not be the case but otherwise I said what I
saw. Adn how exactly do you want anyone to investigate allegations
about a dead bloke reaching back 40 years? It's hearsay evidence all
the way.

Part of the charity work I do does involve kids who have been abused and
it takes a lot of coaxing to talk to them. A lot more to find out what
happened. I have no part in that but I talk to the people who do.

There is plenty of abuse going on *RIGHT BLOODY NOW* but it's more
important to report on alleged stuff from 40 years ago?

Which is why the disgust.

*You* don't know whether
> these women are telling the truth or not, so what on Earth gives you
> the right to post about them here in this manner?

Freedom of Speech. Seeing their 5 minutes of fame. Having an opinion.

> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
> no place on afp.

Does uninformed, unproven, speculation deserve tabloid headlines? If
not have you written to them to say "You can't prove Saville was a child
molester until the investigation is over"?

> CCA

gary

[GaryN]

CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
> no place on afp.
>
> CCA

P.S.

You think my opinions are disgusting and offensive? Buy a copy of Private
Eye 1325 (The one with the "BBC Savile Scandal" cover - due out Friday) and
check the cartoon on P6.

*That* is disgusting, sick, and offensive - even by my standards. I think
Hislop must be on the same "loop-de-loop if you take too many by mistake"
painkillers as me to OK that as editor. If I had a subscription I'd be
thinking of cancelling it.

Lots of good Savile jokes both for and against in the rest of the magazine
though..:-)

[larry]

On 07/10/12 09:53 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 10-06-12 3:18 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-10-06, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm enjoying my 'last on the shelf' first edition hardback of "The Woman
>>> Who Died A Lot". Eat my shorts...:-)
>>>
>>> gary
>>>
>>
>> I'm only fifty pages into it but so far it's well up to
>> the mark.
>>
> I'm fifth on the waiting list for twenty copies. But the Library still
> have it classified as "on order", so it could be a while.
>
> Lesley.
>

Worth the wait - it was reminiscent of Night of Delusions, one of my
favourite stories.

[GaryN]

CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
> no place on afp.
>
> CCA
>

PPS.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
jokes-really/

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-19-12 6:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>> no place on afp.
>>
>> CCA
>>
>
> PPS.
>
> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
> jokes-really/
>

Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help him
to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very seriously
is certainly a Good Thing. Though it's difficult to say how that would
work: Community service would be a problem, since you would be sending
someone that insensitive to mix with vulnerable people. Perhaps
depriving him of his phone and any other interwebs device for a certain
period, while he receives counselling?

[Nigel Stapley]

Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 10-19-12 6:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>>> no place on afp.
>>>
>>> CCA
>>>
>>
>> PPS.
>>
>> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
>> jokes-really/
>>
> Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help him
> to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very seriously
> is certainly a Good Thing.

Bollocks. No-one, but *no-one* should be subject to the sanction of
criminal law for posting bad-taste jokes online. Especially as he was
merely reposting what had already appeared on a website devoted to
bad-taste jokes and which would have been well enough known to the
authorities already (without any action taken against it).

Bear in mind that it *wasn't* Matthew Woods who posted those jokes to a
Faecesbook page devoted to the search for that kid; it was someone who
had access to his Faecesbook page. That 'someone' has gone mysteriously
unpunished. As has the mob (organised, by all accounts, by a notorious
local serial criminal and drug-pusher) which turned up outside Woods'
house doing the modern equivalent of thrusting pitchforks up and down
whilst making "Grrrrr!" noises, leading to Lancashire plod arresting
Woods 'for his own safety'. Yeah, right.

> Though it's difficult to say how that would
> work: Community service would be a problem, since you would be sending
> someone that insensitive to mix with vulnerable people.

So you think being 'insensitive' is reason enough to land someone with a
criminal conviction which will render him unemployable (and probably
unhousable) for years ahead? Does the word 'disproportionate' mean
anything to you?

EnglandandWales' feral judiciary (1) seem not only to be whatever the
opposite of 'au fait' is in relation to the real world and its
technology, it seems to revel in that state and is more than happy to
use it to come out with the most egregious footling self-righteousness.

But then, that would put them as one with a society which seems to have
become a collection of professional, pearl-clutching ninnies comprising
old women of both sexes.

We have seen in the last two years ridiculous sentencing for posting
things online; sentences which in many case are of a severity beyond
what most people get for actual violence. Gogol 'Liam Stacey' and 'Perry
Sutcliffe-Keenan' for just two such.

I expanded on this here: http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants.htm#11_10_12

and at greater length as a comment here:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/10/12/the-police-want-a-word-about-the-names-you-call-me/#comment-418758

It is also noticeable that comments on news items on newspaper websites
about the Woods case have been overwhelmingly of the opinion that this
was a mad sentence made by a mad judge under a mad law; and that
includes comments at The Grundiad, The Torygraph and even the Daily Heil.

It is perhaps time that we gave up our self-serving and smug pretence
that we live in anything much resembling a free society.

(1) Their Scottish counterparts do appear to have been more measured in
their approach in such cases.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[John S. Wilkins]

Hear hear.

Nobody should be imprisoned, or even sanctioned, for being offensive.
That is a matter for social censure, not legal.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[The Stainless Steel Cat]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>> no place on afp.
>>
>> CCA
>
>
> P.S.
>
> You think my opinions are disgusting and offensive? Buy a copy of Private
> Eye 1325 (The one with the "BBC Savile Scandal" cover - due out Friday) and
> check the cartoon on P6.
>
> *That* is disgusting, sick, and offensive - even by my standards. I think
> Hislop must be on the same "loop-de-loop if you take too many by mistake"
> painkillers as me to OK that as editor. If I had a subscription I'd be
> thinking of cancelling it.

Nothing wrong with that cartoon, it's satire and well aimed satire too.

Cat.

[Nigel Stapley]

GaryN wrote:
> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>> no place on afp.
>>
>> CCA
>
>
> P.S.
>
> You think my opinions are disgusting and offensive? Buy a copy of Private
> Eye 1325 (The one with the "BBC Savile Scandal" cover - due out Friday) and
> check the cartoon on P6.
>
> *That* is disgusting, sick, and offensive - even by my standards. I think
> Hislop must be on the same "loop-de-loop if you take too many by mistake"
> painkillers as me to OK that as editor. If I had a subscription I'd be
> thinking of cancelling it.
>
> Lots of good Savile jokes both for and against in the rest of the magazine
> though..:-)
>

I only see the online version - which cartoon are you talking about Gary?

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:HtCdnfO2UJZnUxzN...@brightview.co.uk:

> GaryN wrote:
>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in

>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63-8238-617abc984480

@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find
>>> a lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this
>>> have no place on afp.
>>>
>>> CCA
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> You think my opinions are disgusting and offensive? Buy a copy of
>> Private Eye 1325 (The one with the "BBC Savile Scandal" cover - due
>> out Friday) and check the cartoon on P6.
>>
>> *That* is disgusting, sick, and offensive - even by my standards. I
>> think Hislop must be on the same "loop-de-loop if you take too many
>> by mistake" painkillers as me to OK that as editor. If I had a
>> subscription I'd be thinking of cancelling it.
>>
>> Lots of good Savile jokes both for and against in the rest of the
>> magazine though..:-)
>>
>
> I only see the online version - which cartoon are you talking about
> Gary?
>
>

"Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.

I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much criticism -
because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).

Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to a
brutal faction isn't one of them.

Obviously IMO only.

[GaryN]

The Stainless Steel Cat <catof...@mac.com> wrote in
news:1678785908372374153.45...@news.demon.co.uk:

> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in

>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63-8238-617abc984480

@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find
>>> a lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this
>>> have no place on afp.
>>>
>>> CCA
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> You think my opinions are disgusting and offensive? Buy a copy of
>> Private Eye 1325 (The one with the "BBC Savile Scandal" cover - due
>> out Friday) and check the cartoon on P6.
>>
>> *That* is disgusting, sick, and offensive - even by my standards. I
>> think Hislop must be on the same "loop-de-loop if you take too many
>> by mistake" painkillers as me to OK that as editor. If I had a
>> subscription I'd be thinking of cancelling it.
>
> Nothing wrong with that cartoon, it's satire and well aimed satire
> too.
>
> Cat.

Each to their own Cat, I found it offensive. Relevant, yes, but perhaps
badly timed. As stated elsewhere IMO only.

[GaryN]

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
news:1ks8yf2.1p2hhd11vzspqnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:

<huge snippetry>

> Nobody should be imprisoned, or even sanctioned, for being offensive.

Given that the entire planetary population would have to be imprisoned,
including the jailers, if we lock people up for being offensive to someone
or other it's just not practical..:-)

Apologies to all for being so reasonable today but I've left the serious
painkillers at the SO's place and paracetemol doesn't cut the mustard.
I've had a quite agreeable soup made from the remains of yesterdays roast
partridge so am feeling well disposed towards the world (couple of glasses
of Jura malt helped).

There is, of course, a danger that I may not bother collecting the pills,
in which case you may get to find out how bad tempered I can be if I get no
sleep due to the wrecked shoulder.

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow (or not).

gary

[John S. Wilkins]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
> news:1ks8yf2.1p2hhd11vzspqnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
>
> <huge snippetry>
>
> > Nobody should be imprisoned, or even sanctioned, for being offensive.
>
> Given that the entire planetary population would have to be imprisoned,
> including the jailers, if we lock people up for being offensive to someone
> or other it's just not practical..:-)

It would mean basically the rule of the majority (mob rule). Since
everyone gets offended by other disparate views, you end up empowering
only those who control the instruments of government. This is what
democracy was devised to overcome, not reinforce. [Aristotle was right
about that kind of "democracy".]

>
> Apologies to all for being so reasonable today but I've left the serious
> painkillers at the SO's place and paracetemol doesn't cut the mustard.
> I've had a quite agreeable soup made from the remains of yesterdays roast
> partridge so am feeling well disposed towards the world (couple of glasses
> of Jura malt helped).
>
> There is, of course, a danger that I may not bother collecting the pills,
> in which case you may get to find out how bad tempered I can be if I get no
> sleep due to the wrecked shoulder.
>
> Normal service will be resumed tomorrow (or not).
>

I have an emergency bottle of Glenfiddich for when the Endone is
unavailable. Don't judge me. We live a long way from Scotland.

[John S. Wilkins]

Sounds like it was supporting her and denigrating the Taliban.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <1ks8yf2.1p2hhd11vzspqnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au "John S. Wilkins" declared:

> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:

>>>>http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-jokes-really/

>>>Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help him
>>>to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very seriously
>>>is certainly a Good Thing.
>>Bollocks. No-one, but *no-one* should be subject to the sanction of
>>criminal law for posting bad-taste jokes online. Especially as he was
>>merely reposting what had already appeared on a website devoted to
>>bad-taste jokes and which would have been well enough known to the
>>authorities already (without any action taken against it).

>[]

>>
>>>Though it's difficult to say how that would work: Community service
>>>would be a problem, since you would be sending someone that insensitive
>>>to mix with vulnerable people.
>>So you think being 'insensitive' is reason enough to land someone with
>>a criminal conviction which will render him unemployable (and probably
>>unhousable) for years ahead? Does the word 'disproportionate' mean
>>anything to you?
>>

>[]

>>We have seen in the last two years ridiculous sentencing for posting
>>things online; sentences which in many case are of a severity beyond
>>what most people get for actual violence. Gogol 'Liam Stacey' and
>>'Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan' for just two such.
>>I expanded on this here:
>>http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants.htm#11_10_12
>>and at greater length as a comment here:
>>http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/10/12/the-police-want-a-word-about-the-names-you-call-me/#comment-418758
>>
>>It is also noticeable that comments on news items on newspaper websites
>>about the Woods case have been overwhelmingly of the opinion that this
>>was a mad sentence made by a mad judge under a mad law; and that includes
>>comments at The Grundiad, The Torygraph and even the Daily Heil.
>>It is perhaps time that we gave up our self-serving and smug pretence that
>>we live in anything much resembling a free society.

- it sufficiently resembles a free society, that - most of
the time - few people find the things that on balance, with
considered thought, they wish to do are criminal offences.

- it is sufficiently divided, socially, still, as well as
by grossly excessively unequal division of wealth, for all
too many to feel - correctly - that they have no significant
chance of a future better than their present; and this is
conducive of ever-increasing social unrest, left uncorrected.

- the recent riots in tottenham and other places were not of
people absolutely disadvantaged in material comforts or, for
any significant part, in absolute poverty - just look at the
things they were stealing (on camera, on security videos, ad-
mitted quite openly to in filmed interviews with tv news and
current affairs programmes)!

they were of people deprived of opportunity and hope.

>
>Hear hear.
>Nobody should be imprisoned, or even sanctioned, for being offensive.

- not for that alone, no; but context can change mere offence
into conduct predictably likely to, or even intended to incite
violence, or a riot - which must be subject to civil control,
no? - or else society breaks up into warring factions, para-
military strife, and ultimately, potentially military control
or warlordism. (there are, of course, other potential causes
for all of these - i'm not claiming incitement to violence, or
to cause a riot is necessarily caused by offensive behaviour.)

>That is a matter for social censure, not legal.

- with the above reservations, yes. we do not have, and nor
should we possess, any right to _not_be_offended_: indeed, we
should jealously defend our right to be offended, to find what
we feel to be offensive to be so, and to say that we do, and
to seek to do something about it; starting by talking about it
with others - and in turn listening to what they have to say,
and thinking about it.

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Some men are okay now. [..] We still have to keep them in line,
of course, but we no longer have to shoot them on sight."
- _Sex Tips for Girls_ cynthia heimel 1983

[Chris Zakes]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:50 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 10-19-12 6:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>>> no place on afp.
>>>
>>> CCA
>>>
>>
>> PPS.
>>
>> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
>> jokes-really/
>>
>Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help him
>to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very seriously
>is certainly a Good Thing.

Absolutely! Thought Crimes must not be tolerated.

>Though it's difficult to say how that would
>work: Community service would be a problem, since you would be sending
>someone that insensitive to mix with vulnerable people. Perhaps
>depriving him of his phone and any other interwebs device for a certain
>period, while he receives counselling?

Send him to a re-education camp, like they do in China. that'll fix
him.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

They began to plan people's lives and libraries; they began to instruct and push
about the very people who had come to Mars to get away from being instructed and
ruled and pushed about.
And it was inevitable that some of those people pushed back...

-Ray Bradbury, "The Martian Chronicles"

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <1ks9fa6.1c7gx501wwdhnuN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au "John S. Wilkins" observed:

> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
>> involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.
>> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much criticism -
>> because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).
>> Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
>> shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to a
>> brutal faction isn't one of them.
>> Obviously IMO only.
>

>Sounds like it was supporting her and denigrating the Taliban.

- quite.

- love, a ppint. who has a friend who's been steadfastly of the
opinion that princess diana should have been arraigned
on charges of treason - potentially high treason - and,
upon the inevitable conviction, suffered the penalty as
has been historically appropriate to the same offence...

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"...and then, because she's blonde, i thought, "we'll kill her.""
- lindsay davis, "book club"
on radio4, 16:20 bst 8/6/06 (6/8/06 for merkins)

[GaryN]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") wrote in
news:20121020.010...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk:

> - hi; in article, <1ks9fa6.1c7gx501wwdhnuN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au "John S. Wilkins" observed:
>> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>> "Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
>>> involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.
>>> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much
>>> criticism - because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).
>>> Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
>>> shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to
>>> a brutal faction isn't one of them.
>>> Obviously IMO only.
>>
>>Sounds like it was supporting her and denigrating the Taliban.
>
> - quite.
>
> - love, a ppint. who has a friend who's been steadfastly of the
> opinion that princess diana should have been arraigned
> on charges of treason - potentially high treason - and,
> upon the inevitable conviction, suffered the penalty as
> has been historically appropriate to the same offence...
>
> [drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]

And thus, to each their own when it comes to opinions and disgust.
Whilst recognising the intent I found it offensive. Lots of people
found the Diana cover offensive whilst I found it wonderfully amusing.

I was working the day of her funeral - dirge music all morning so myself
and Lee finished up, went for a pint and then clay pigeon shooting in
the afternoon so's to get away from it. Undoubtedly someone will be
offended that we didn't do the wailing and gnashing of teeth while "A
Nation Grieves". I wasn't grieving because I didn't give a shit.

[Nigel Stapley]

GaryN wrote:

<snip re. Diana)

>
> I was working the day of her funeral - dirge music all morning so myself
> and Lee finished up, went for a pint and then clay pigeon shooting in
> the afternoon so's to get away from it. Undoubtedly someone will be
> offended that we didn't do the wailing and gnashing of teeth while "A
> Nation Grieves". I wasn't grieving because I didn't give a shit.
>

Whic brings us, in a way, back to Private Eye and one of their most
famous covers:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=124

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:38:32 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> "Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
> involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.
>
> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much criticism -
> because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).
>
> Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
> shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to a
> brutal faction isn't one of them.

I think you mean "is one of them". As for "approved", I hear they say
they're sorry that they botched murdering her and they'll do it
properly at the earliest opportunity. That's not, as far as I know,
a joke; see <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19960207>

Now, poor taste would be having Jimmy Savile pop in to visit her.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:d112b918-2a1a-4f65...@googlegroups.com:

Or, apparently, DLT.

I find Chris Evans on 'The One Show' on fridays somewhat disturbing. Am
I the only person who's noticed how he crowds Alex Jones (the female
presenter) and continually edges closer to her up the sofa while she
tries to edge away?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ng5m0/The_One_Show_19_10_2012/

Or is it just me? Her co-presenter for the rest of the week gives her
plenty of space but look at the body language with Evans.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-19-12 8:59 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 10-19-12 6:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
>>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>>>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>>>> no place on afp.
>>>>
>>>> CCA
>>>>
>>>
>>> PPS.
>>>
>>> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
>>> jokes-really/
>>>
>> Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help
>> him to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very
>> seriously is certainly a Good Thing.
>
> Bollocks. No-one, but *no-one* should be subject to the sanction of
> criminal law for posting bad-taste jokes online.

All I know about this case is the article that Gary linked to. They
didn't quote any of the "jokes", but they did make it clear that they go
beyond the sick-joke genre and way beyond bad taste, into the area of
viciously-cruel attacks on people already vulnerable and experiencing
just about the worst thing that can ever happen to a parent.
Deliberately causing suffering on this scale is a crime, and rightly so.

> Especially as he was
> merely reposting what had already appeared on a website devoted to
> bad-taste jokes and which would have been well enough known to the
> authorities already (without any action taken against it).
>
> Bear in mind that it *wasn't* Matthew Woods who posted those jokes to a
> Faecesbook page devoted to the search for that kid; it was someone who
> had access to his Faecesbook page.

The link returns a 404 now, but AIRI there's no mention of an
impersonator or of another website.

> That 'someone' has gone mysteriously
> unpunished. As has the mob (organised, by all accounts, by a notorious
> local serial criminal and drug-pusher) which turned up outside Woods'
> house doing the modern equivalent of thrusting pitchforks up and down
> whilst making "Grrrrr!" noises, leading to Lancashire plod arresting
> Woods 'for his own safety'. Yeah, right.
>
>> Though it's difficult to say how that would work: Community service
>> would be a problem, since you would be sending someone that
>> insensitive to mix with vulnerable people.
>
> So you think being 'insensitive' is reason enough to land someone with a
> criminal conviction which will render him unemployable (and probably
> unhousable) for years ahead?

Insensitivity on this scale, yes. It's not disproportionate at all to
try to cure someone as badly out of kilter as that. If he's not a
sociopath and thus can be treated effectively, both he and society will
benefit from this early intervention. If he is a sociopath it won't do
any good, but at least people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

> Does the word 'disproportionate' mean
> anything to you?
>
> EnglandandWales'

Not like you to compound the two countries...

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-19-12 6:09 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:50 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 10-19-12 6:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
>>> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:2125fd12-1111-4d63...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You start this post with the word 'disgust' - well, frankly, I find a
>>>> lot of this post disgusting, and offensive. And posts like this have
>>>> no place on afp.
>>>>
>>>> CCA
>>>>
>>>
>>> PPS.
>>>
>>> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-
>>> jokes-really/
>>>
>> Seems reasonable. Not prison itself, I can't see how that will help him
>> to realise exactly what it is that he did, but taking it very seriously
>> is certainly a Good Thing.
>
> Absolutely! Thought Crimes must not be tolerated.

I got into a discussion on Facebook with someone I like and don't want
to offend. It turned rather nasty for a while because a third person,
whom I don't know, misunderstood what I'd posted (it's sorted now), so
it might be risky to introduce the case of Amanda Todd here and now. But
it is relevant, so I shall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd

What those people did to her on line caused a vulnerable child to kill
herself. That looks a lot like a crime to me, and stopping others from
doing something similar to other vulnerable people seems like a
worthwhile aim.

Someone I used to work with was driving home one day over the bridge
most favoured around here by suicides (it's very high). Traffic was
stopped before the bridge by police because someone was threatening to
jump. He said that during the wait while police and social workers tried
to talk the boy down, a lot of the other people were shouting things
like "Jump already! I want to get home", and they even started a chant
of "Jump! Jump! Jump!...". He jumped. It's that kind of cruelty that
leads to attacks, with or without the use of a computer, on people
already in distress, and unless it's taken seriously it will continue to
get worse.

[Lesley Weston]

Oddly enough, as described it seems to me to be in bad taste, yes, but
to the point and quite possibly effective in the battle against groups
like the Taliban.

>
> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much criticism -
> because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).

I didn't see that. Can you describe it?

[Lesley Weston]

It's always a shame when someone dies young, but it's no worse if that
person was famous. We just didn't watch TV for a few days, until all the
Canadian and American channels had stopped showing footage on dead
princesses.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:k5uf3k$1i7s$1...@mud.stack.nl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Private_Eye_Diana_Controversy_Issue_
199
7.jpg

The joke people didn't get was that the week before her death the papers
were labelling her as a "Playboy Princess" and then suddenly she was a
saint.

Private Eye wasn't denigrating her at all - it was ripping the shit out
of the sanctimonious and oxymoronic press coverage.

[Brian Howlett]

On 20 Oct, GaryN wrote:

> I wasn't grieving because I didn't give a shit.

You and me both, buddy...
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
-----------------------------------------------------
What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
I don't know and I don't care...

[Nigel Stapley]

Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 10-19-12 8:59 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:

>> Bollocks. No-one, but *no-one* should be subject to the sanction of
>> criminal law for posting bad-taste jokes online.
>
> All I know about this case is the article that Gary linked to. They
> didn't quote any of the "jokes", but they did make it clear that they go
> beyond the sick-joke genre and way beyond bad taste, into the area of
> viciously-cruel attacks on people already vulnerable and experiencing
> just about the worst thing that can ever happen to a parent.
> Deliberately causing suffering on this scale is a crime, and rightly so.

In a word, no.

As I said, all Woods did was to post - to his own Facebook page with
limited access - jokes which were already out there and in the public
domain. It was one of the people who had access to his Facebook page who
took the step of reposting the jokes (which, remember, weren't of his
devising in the first place) to another Facebook page concerning the
search for that child. *That* was nothing of Woods' doing, and he
shouldn't have taken the rap for 'deliberately causing suffering' or any
other such phrase of fluffy cant.

And as Gary has said, you should have heard the 'deliberate suffering'
being caused when Princess Clothes-Horse got creamed in '97.

>
>> Especially as he was
>> merely reposting what had already appeared on a website devoted to
>> bad-taste jokes and which would have been well enough known to the
>> authorities already (without any action taken against it).
>>
>> Bear in mind that it *wasn't* Matthew Woods who posted those jokes to a
>> Faecesbook page devoted to the search for that kid; it was someone who
>> had access to his Faecesbook page.
>
> The link returns a 404 now, but AIRI there's no mention of an
> impersonator or of another website.

The link still works for me (perhaps the wrapping caused your problem):

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-jokes-really/

Other articles cover the fact I referred to above about Woods not being
the one who reposted the material where it would 'deliberately cause
suffering'.

>
>> That 'someone' has gone mysteriously
>> unpunished. As has the mob (organised, by all accounts, by a notorious
>> local serial criminal and drug-pusher) which turned up outside Woods'
>> house doing the modern equivalent of thrusting pitchforks up and down
>> whilst making "Grrrrr!" noises, leading to Lancashire plod arresting
>> Woods 'for his own safety'. Yeah, right.
>>
>>> Though it's difficult to say how that would work: Community service
>>> would be a problem, since you would be sending someone that
>>> insensitive to mix with vulnerable people.
>>
>> So you think being 'insensitive' is reason enough to land someone with a
>> criminal conviction which will render him unemployable (and probably
>> unhousable) for years ahead?
>
> Insensitivity on this scale, yes.

You really believe that someone should end up with a criminal record for
being 'insensitive'? I mean, *really*, Lesley? You can no more make
people 'sensitive' by statute than you can make them 'moral' that way.
Persuasion will always work better than coercion, although (and perhaps
*because*) it takes longer. In both circumstances, who decides what is
'insensitive' or 'immoral'? It's usually an alliance of the ruling
classes and the mob which can be easily whipped up into indignation over
something which, to all intents and purposes, is fsck all to do with
*them*. And then how to you tell *them* that they're wrong?

Giving someone a criminal record and putting them in jug for what amount
primarily to egregious lapses of taste is not the sign of a healthy society.

> It's not disproportionate at all to
> try to cure someone as badly out of kilter as that. If he's not a
> sociopath and thus can be treated effectively, both he and society will
> benefit from this early intervention.

'Early intervention'? Splashing his image all over the media (which will
make him a sitting target for the self-appointed vigiliantes who will no
doubt be ready for him wherever he goes to live after he is released)?
Giving him not only a criminal conviction but a prison term, which will
almost certainly extend his unemployability for years ahead (perhaps
permanently - the UK isn't as enlightened on this as you seem to think;
it's getting more like the Deep South on this issue in some ways)?

How is society going to benefit from that, other than it getting that
nice warm glow in the lower intestines which comes to certain people
from seeing someone who is perceived to be 'not quite our class, m'dear'
being kicked from pillar to post for the rest of his life?

> If he is a sociopath it won't do
> any good, but at least people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

'Benefit of the doubt'? 'Benefit of the [.......] *doubt*'?!! What,
pray, would have been done to him *without* 'benefit of the doubt'? The
Tower? The gallows? Or would just the mark of Cain be enough, d'you think?

Really Lesley, you do come out with some guff on this issue sometimes.

>> EnglandandWales'
>
> Not like you to compound the two countries...

Strictly factual: Wales does not currently have its own jurisdiction and
its laws and judiciary are - with minor variations - those of England.

[Nigel Stapley]

Lesley Weston wrote:

>
> I got into a discussion on Facebook with someone I like and don't want
> to offend. It turned rather nasty for a while because a third person,
> whom I don't know, misunderstood what I'd posted (it's sorted now), so
> it might be risky to introduce the case of Amanda Todd here and now. But
> it is relevant, so I shall:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd
>
> What those people did to her on line caused a vulnerable child to kill
> herself. That looks a lot like a crime to me, and stopping others from
> doing something similar to other vulnerable people seems like a
> worthwhile aim.

You're not comparing like with like. There are laws against deliberate
campaigns of harrassment and intimidation targeted at individuals
('vulnerable' or otherwise) which apply a proper limitation to freedom
of speech. The Woods case and others to which some of us have referred
here is of a completely different nature to that.

>
> Someone I used to work with was driving home one day over the bridge
> most favoured around here by suicides (it's very high). Traffic was
> stopped before the bridge by police because someone was threatening to
> jump. He said that during the wait while police and social workers tried
> to talk the boy down, a lot of the other people were shouting things
> like "Jump already! I want to get home", and they even started a chant
> of "Jump! Jump! Jump!...". He jumped. It's that kind of cruelty that
> leads to attacks, with or without the use of a computer, on people
> already in distress, and unless it's taken seriously it will continue to
> get worse.
>

No, it's 'that kind of cruelty' which has been part of human nature from
early days. Nothing other than gradual persuasion that such conduct is
wrong (or just simply charmless) has ever worked or is ever likely to
work. And that persuasion is best applied by social pressure, not by the
use of criminal law and an increasingly feral judiciary to put people
in the slammer until they stop having 'impure thoughts'. It may take
longer, but it works precisely because it *does* - people might feel
less shangaied into changing their views, with all the resentment which
arises from feeling that that is happening.

The way things are currently being done in E&W does nothing other than
give the impression that the police and the prosecutors - in pursuit of
their own 'key performance indicators' - just go after the cases where
popular support for the defendant will be non-existent and where they
can apply the greatest pressure on him to plead guilty (with the threat
of a sentence one-third longer if they don't constantly being invoked;
and where the judiciary can use the supposed 'outrage' of 'decent,
hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, cliché-ridden folk' to footle
interminably on about 'decency' and generally conduct themselves as the
warriors on behalf of the owning classes which they most dearly desire
to be.

Society doesn't gain from that, either...

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<XnsA0F26A6E2506A...@216.196.109.145>,
webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk "GaryN" claimed:

> ppint. at pplay") wrote in

>> jo...@wilkins.id.au "John S. Wilkins" observed:
>>> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
>>>> involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.

[snip re diana]

>>>> Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
>>>> shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to
>>>> a brutal faction isn't one of them.
>>>> Obviously IMO only.
>>>
>>>Sounds like it was supporting her and denigrating the Taliban.
>>
>> - quite.
>

>And thus, to each their own when it comes to opinions and disgust.
>Whilst recognising the intent

- no, from your own words, quoted above, you clearly did not;

> I found it offensive.

- because you took it as being satirical of *her*, when in
fact it was an attack upon the taliban and the violence they
commit against civilians in general, and upon one perfectly
innocent girl interested in her friends, her education and
her life - and no conceivable military threat to them. sfaics.

- or do you feel that the vast distance between the taliban's
claimed committment to islam, and the reality of what they do,
is an unfit subject for satire?

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]

--
"never trust a man with shaved buttocks"
- jim darby, 2/9/96 (9/2/96 for merkins)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:48:02 AM UTC+1, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
> > shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to a
> > brutal faction isn't one of them.
>

> Sounds like it was supporting her and denigrating the Taliban.

On reflection, when it's reprinted exactly as-is in The Taliban Telegraph,
/their/ readers probably would suppose that the joke is on her.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:30:58 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>news:d112b918-2a1a-4f65...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, October 19, 2012 11:38:32 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
>>> "Taliban-approved headgear for girls" You can guess the picture
>>> involving a hospital bed and bandages. I thought it in bad taste.
>>>
>>> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much
>>> criticism - because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).
>>>
>>> Satire is a hugely effective tool but there are places where it
>>> shouldn't go and a grievously wounded girl who tried to stand up to a
>>> brutal faction isn't one of them.
>>
>> I think you mean "is one of them". As for "approved", I hear they say
>> they're sorry that they botched murdering her and they'll do it
>> properly at the earliest opportunity. That's not, as far as I know,
>> a joke; see <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19960207>
>>
>> Now, poor taste would be having Jimmy Savile pop in to visit her.
>>
>
>Or, apparently, DLT.
>
>I find Chris Evans on 'The One Show' on fridays somewhat disturbing. Am
>I the only person who's noticed how he crowds Alex Jones

<doubletake>

>(the female presenter)

Oh.Over here, Alex Jones is a nutcase conspiracy theorist who somehow
managed to wangle a show on one of the local talk stations.
http://www.infowars.com/

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-20-12 9:13 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 10-19-12 8:59 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>>> Bollocks. No-one, but *no-one* should be subject to the sanction of
>>> criminal law for posting bad-taste jokes online.
>>
>> All I know about this case is the article that Gary linked to. They
>> didn't quote any of the "jokes", but they did make it clear that they
>> go beyond the sick-joke genre and way beyond bad taste, into the area
>> of viciously-cruel attacks on people already vulnerable and
>> experiencing just about the worst thing that can ever happen to a
>> parent. Deliberately causing suffering on this scale is a crime, and
>> rightly so.
>
> In a word, no.
>
> As I said, all Woods did was to post - to his own Facebook page with
> limited access - jokes which were already out there and in the public
> domain. It was one of the people who had access to his Facebook page who
> took the step of reposting the jokes (which, remember, weren't of his
> devising in the first place) to another Facebook page concerning the
> search for that child.

From that article it's not clear where he posted, aprt from starting
with his FB page; there's no reference to anyone lifting his posts and
reposting them on the parents' page. But somebody did that, and it looks
like that was him. Of course, you have probably seen more about it than
I have, being relatively local, so perhaps in some other article it says
that it wasn't Matthew Woods but <name>, and so <name> should be the one
being prosecuted.

Then there's the matter of "He didn't make up the jokes, he only
repeated them as jokes, so he's blameless". That really doesn't wash.
The nasty "joke" about Person 1 created by Person 2 hurts just as much
when Persons 3 through n tell it as when Person 2 does.

> *That* was nothing of Woods' doing, and he
> shouldn't have taken the rap for 'deliberately causing suffering' or any
> other such phrase of fluffy cant.

You consider the idea that people should not deliberately cause
suffering to other people to be fluffy cant?

>
> And as Gary has said, you should have heard the 'deliberate suffering'
> being caused when Princess Clothes-Horse got creamed in '97.
>

She was a public figure. people who go after fame and fortune are
implicitly agreeing that they will now make fair targets, which is not
very nice but they do have compensations. The missing child was not a
public figure.

>>
>>> Especially as he was
>>> merely reposting what had already appeared on a website devoted to
>>> bad-taste jokes and which would have been well enough known to the
>>> authorities already (without any action taken against it).
>>>
>>> Bear in mind that it *wasn't* Matthew Woods who posted those jokes to a
>>> Faecesbook page devoted to the search for that kid; it was someone who
>>> had access to his Faecesbook page.
>>
>> The link returns a 404 now, but AIRI there's no mention of an
>> impersonator or of another website.
>
> The link still works for me (perhaps the wrapping caused your problem):
>
> http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/09/twelve-weeks-in-prison-for-sick-jokes-really/

Now it does work. I don't think it was the wrapping, I had fixed that to
read it the first time, but whatever it was has gone. So I've re-read it
and there's still nothing about anyone else re-posting.

>
>
> Other articles cover the fact I referred to above about Woods not being
> the one who reposted the material where it would 'deliberately cause
> suffering'.
>
>>
>>> That 'someone' has gone mysteriously
>>> unpunished.

Possibly because they don't exist? It's easy enough to find them if they do.

> As has the mob (organised, by all accounts, by a notorious
>>> local serial criminal and drug-pusher) which turned up outside Woods'
>>> house doing the modern equivalent of thrusting pitchforks up and down
>>> whilst making "Grrrrr!" noises, leading to Lancashire plod arresting
>>> Woods 'for his own safety'. Yeah, right.

How did his address get out? Someone is definitely at fault there.

>>>
>>>> Though it's difficult to say how that would work: Community service
>>>> would be a problem, since you would be sending someone that
>>>> insensitive to mix with vulnerable people.
>>>
>>> So you think being 'insensitive' is reason enough to land someone with a
>>> criminal conviction which will render him unemployable (and probably
>>> unhousable) for years ahead?
>>
>> Insensitivity on this scale, yes.
>
> You really believe that someone should end up with a criminal record for
> being 'insensitive'? I mean, *really*, Lesley? You can no more make
> people 'sensitive' by statute than you can make them 'moral' that way.

I think you may be using "insensitive" with a different meaning from the
normal one. I don't mean someone mentioning someone else's minor
disability and thus embarrassing them. I mean being so removed from
human feelings that he could make jokes (or repeat them, it's the same
thing only less clever) about a child being kidnapped and probably
murdered, possibly after being raped and/or tortured, and post them
where that child's parents couldn't help but see them.

> Persuasion will always work better than coercion,

Yes, of course.

> although (and perhaps
> *because*) it takes longer. In both circumstances, who decides what is
> 'insensitive' or 'immoral'? It's usually an alliance of the ruling
> classes and the mob which can be easily whipped up into indignation over
> something which, to all intents and purposes, is fsck all to do with
> *them*. And then how to you tell *them* that they're wrong?

A child in serious distress is to do with everybody. That's how society
works. As to definitions, perhaps one of the pornography ones would be
useful: Something to the effect that if it falls outside that
community's standards for what is acceptable, then it's offensive. In
the case of the missing child, the community in question was the whole
country and beyond.

>
> Giving someone a criminal record and putting them in jug for what amount
> primarily to egregious lapses of taste is not the sign of a healthy
> society.

No, it's egregious cruelty. It can't be excused as "a bit of fun".

>
>> It's not disproportionate at all to try to cure someone as badly out
>> of kilter as that. If he's not a sociopath and thus can be treated
>> effectively, both he and society will benefit from this early
>> intervention.
>
> 'Early intervention'? Splashing his image all over the media (which will
> make him a sitting target for the self-appointed vigiliantes who will no
> doubt be ready for him wherever he goes to live after he is released)?

That doesn't seem like a good idea, no. It has nothing to do with
prosecuting him for the crime he is alleged to have committed, and, if
he is convicted, treating him for the condition that allowed him to do so.

> Giving him not only a criminal conviction but a prison term, which will
> almost certainly extend his unemployability for years ahead (perhaps
> permanently - the UK isn't as enlightened on this as you seem to think;
> it's getting more like the Deep South on this issue in some ways)?
>
> How is society going to benefit from that, other than it getting that
> nice warm glow in the lower intestines which comes to certain people
> from seeing someone who is perceived to be 'not quite our class, m'dear'
> being kicked from pillar to post for the rest of his life?

I don't think sending him to prison would help him or anybody else, as I
said somewhere up there. He definitely needs counselling, which can be
provided without a prison, and it would make sense to remove the means
of him doing something like that to anyone else until he has progressed
in his therapy to the point where he can be trusted because he
understands what he did and why he shouldn't do it.

>
>> If he is a sociopath it won't do any good, but at least people are
>> giving him the benefit of the doubt.
>
> 'Benefit of the doubt'? 'Benefit of the [.......] *doubt*'?!! What,
> pray, would have been done to him *without* 'benefit of the doubt'? The
> Tower? The gallows? Or would just the mark of Cain be enough, d'you think?

Not writing him off as a sociopath without at least trying to approach
his disorder as one that can be treated.

>
> Really Lesley, you do come out with some guff on this issue sometimes.
>
>>> EnglandandWales'
>>
>> Not like you to compound the two countries...
>
> Strictly factual: Wales does not currently have its own jurisdiction and
> its laws and judiciary are - with minor variations - those of England.
>

That's something else that needs fixing.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-20-12 9:32 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>>
>> I got into a discussion on Facebook with someone I like and don't want
>> to offend. It turned rather nasty for a while because a third person,
>> whom I don't know, misunderstood what I'd posted (it's sorted now), so
>> it might be risky to introduce the case of Amanda Todd here and now.
>> But it is relevant, so I shall:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd
>>
>> What those people did to her on line caused a vulnerable child to kill
>> herself. That looks a lot like a crime to me, and stopping others from
>> doing something similar to other vulnerable people seems like a
>> worthwhile aim.
>
> You're not comparing like with like. There are laws against deliberate
> campaigns of harrassment and intimidation targeted at individuals
> ('vulnerable' or otherwise) which apply a proper limitation to freedom
> of speech. The Woods case and others to which some of us have referred
> here is of a completely different nature to that.

It looks very similar to me. A member of the herd shows weakness, as in
losing a child or being needy for attention, so that makes them fair
game for people who haven't quite grasped the art of living in a herd.
It doesn't, in either case.

>>
>> Someone I used to work with was driving home one day over the
>> bridge most favoured around here by suicides (it's very high). Traffic
>> was stopped before the bridge by police because someone was
>> threatening to jump. He said that during the wait while police and
>> social workers tried to talk the boy down, a lot of the other people
>> were shouting things like "Jump already! I want to get home", and they
>> even started a chant of "Jump! Jump! Jump!...". He jumped. It's that
>> kind of cruelty that leads to attacks, with or without the use of a
>> computer, on people already in distress, and unless it's taken
>> seriously it will continue to get worse.
>>
>
> No, it's 'that kind of cruelty' which has been part of human nature from
> early days.

So we don't have to try to fix it?

> Nothing other than gradual persuasion that such conduct is
> wrong (or just simply charmless) has ever worked or is ever likely to
> work. And that persuasion is best applied by social pressure, not by the
> use of criminal law

Criminal law is a part of social pressure.

[Lesley Weston]

On 10-20-12 8:37 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k5uf3k$1i7s$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 10-19-12 3:38 PM, GaryN wrote:

<snip>

>>> I laughed my arse off about the Diana cover that got so much
>>> criticism - because I got the joke (and I never loved Diana).
>>
>> I didn't see that. Can you describe it?
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Private_Eye_Diana_Controversy_Issue_
> 199
> 7.jpg

That link leads to a Wiki page saying that no such file exists. Never
mind, I Googled it.

>
> The joke people didn't get was that the week before her death the papers
> were labelling her as a "Playboy Princess" and then suddenly she was a
> saint.
>
> Private Eye wasn't denigrating her at all - it was ripping the shit out
> of the sanctimonious and oxymoronic press coverage.

I agree.

[Nigel Stapley]

Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 10-20-12 9:13 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 10-19-12 8:59 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:

>
> From that article it's not clear where he posted, aprt from starting
> with his FB page; there's no reference to anyone lifting his posts and
> reposting them on the parents' page. But somebody did that, and it looks
> like that was him.

Woods posted only on his FB page, as other reports have confirmed.

> Of course, you have probably seen more about it than
> I have, being relatively local, so perhaps in some other article it says
> that it wasn't Matthew Woods but <name>, and so <name> should be the one
> being prosecuted.
>
> Then there's the matter of "He didn't make up the jokes, he only
> repeated them as jokes, so he's blameless". That really doesn't wash.
> The nasty "joke" about Person 1 created by Person 2 hurts just as much
> when Persons 3 through n tell it as when Person 2 does.

It still doesn't make it a matter for judicial intervention - even
*early* judicial intervention.

>
>> *That* was nothing of Woods' doing, and he
>> shouldn't have taken the rap for 'deliberately causing suffering' or any
>> other such phrase of fluffy cant.
>
> You consider the idea that people should not deliberately cause
> suffering to other people to be fluffy cant?

No - the fetishising of 'not causing offence' is canting, especially
when so subjective a term is marbled up for use in legislation which can
ruin people's lives.

>>
>> And as Gary has said, you should have heard the 'deliberate suffering'
>> being caused when Princess Clothes-Horse got creamed in '97.
>>
> She was a public figure. people who go after fame and fortune are
> implicitly agreeing that they will now make fair targets, which is not
> very nice but they do have compensations. The missing child was not a
> public figure.

True enough, but it is The Big Story, pumped out at us from every
possible media orifice. There are some people (I'm one of them) who
react against the manipulation of the public's emotions in that way. In
Diana's case, it was the notion that the national 'we' all felt the same
way. In the Liam Stacey case, this went as far as the trial judge
footling on about how "the whole world was literally praying for
Muamba's survival", before shoving a first-time offender in prison for a
month and placing his academic and career prospects in near-terminal
peril (see
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Rants/Rants_archive_12.htm#22_05_12). In the
April Jones case, perhaps 'we' all *do* feel the same way, but to be
told that we *must* anyway sets my teeth on edge.

A natural reaction to that, it seems to me, is to wish to dissent from
'what everybody thinks' - even if you actually *agree* with 'what
everybody thinks' - simply to maintain some sense of independence. There
are ways and *ways* of doing this, some of which fall foul of the
general notion of what is distasteful. In a free society, we must be
prepared to live with that.

>>
>>
>> Other articles cover the fact I referred to above about Woods not being
>> the one who reposted the material where it would 'deliberately cause
>> suffering'.
>>
>>>
>>>> That 'someone' has gone mysteriously
>>>> unpunished.
>
> Possibly because they don't exist? It's easy enough to find them if they
> do.

Do you really think that Lancashire plod, having racked up a success in
having *somebody* locked up for it, are going to spend their time
looking for anyone else? The case is closed as far as they're concerned.

>
>> As has the mob (organised, by all accounts, by a notorious
>>>> local serial criminal and drug-pusher) which turned up outside Woods'
>>>> house doing the modern equivalent of thrusting pitchforks up and down
>>>> whilst making "Grrrrr!" noises, leading to Lancashire plod arresting
>>>> Woods 'for his own safety'. Yeah, right.
>
> How did his address get out? Someone is definitely at fault there.

Someone who knew him, IIRC.

>>
>> You really believe that someone should end up with a criminal record for
>> being 'insensitive'? I mean, *really*, Lesley? You can no more make
>> people 'sensitive' by statute than you can make them 'moral' that way.
>
> I think you may be using "insensitive" with a different meaning from the
> normal one. I don't mean someone mentioning someone else's minor
> disability and thus embarrassing them. I mean being so removed from
> human feelings that he could make jokes (or repeat them, it's the same
> thing only less clever) about a child being kidnapped and probably
> murdered, possibly after being raped and/or tortured, and post them
> where that child's parents couldn't help but see them.

Most people make jokes in bad taste (at least amongst one of their
intimate circles), especially about things which make them in some way
anxious. Even if one accepts that FB and the like are not private
arenas, I still maintain that unless there is a clear intent to incite
actual criminal acts or harrass an individual (and harrassment involves
more than one occasion), then it's no bloody business of the plod or
some self-regarding arse on the Bench.

>
>> Persuasion will always work better than coercion,
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>> although (and perhaps
>> *because*) it takes longer. In both circumstances, who decides what is
>> 'insensitive' or 'immoral'? It's usually an alliance of the ruling
>> classes and the mob which can be easily whipped up into indignation over
>> something which, to all intents and purposes, is fsck all to do with
>> *them*. And then how to you tell *them* that they're wrong?
>
> A child in serious distress is to do with everybody.

No-one should be allowed to get away with being 'outraged' on behalf of
other people whom they don't know, unless they have asked their
permission first (Campaign for Equal Heights, anyone?). The fact is that
none of those expressing 'outrage' in the Woods case knew the child or
her family. And I strongly suspect that 99% of them were 'outraged' in
order simply to show that they were on The Right Side(TM). That such
appliquéd emotions should be allowed to shove someone into prison is emetic.

That's how society
> works. As to definitions, perhaps one of the pornography ones would be
> useful: Something to the effect that if it falls outside that
> community's standards for what is acceptable, then it's offensive.

And what if that community's 'standards' are wrong? OK, perhaps not in
this case, but if the 'standards' of a community dictate, for example,
that infant boys have to have a bit of their dicks cut off, or that it's
perfectly acceptable to go around cutting men's beards off for
disagreeing with you (I suppose that's the nearest the Amish will ever
get to social unrest - drive-by shavings), then how do you tell them
that they're wrong, and what is likely to happen to you if you try it?

A community's 'standards' are only as ethical as that community; or,
rather, that part of the community which shouts the loudest.

> In
> the case of the missing child, the community in question was the whole
> country and beyond.
>>
>> Giving someone a criminal record and putting them in jug for what amount
>> primarily to egregious lapses of taste is not the sign of a healthy
>> society.
>
> No, it's egregious cruelty. It can't be excused as "a bit of fun".

I wasn't doing that. What I am saying is that this is a matter for
gradual social pressure, not for the house-brick of the law to be slung
from close quarters at a sitting target, such as an under-socialised
teenager who doesn't have the wherewithal to mount a proper defence.

>>> If he is a sociopath it won't do any good, but at least people are
>>> giving him the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> 'Benefit of the doubt'? 'Benefit of the [.......] *doubt*'?!! What,
>> pray, would have been done to him *without* 'benefit of the doubt'? The
>> Tower? The gallows? Or would just the mark of Cain be enough, d'you
>> think?
>
> Not writing him off as a sociopath without at least trying to approach
> his disorder as one that can be treated.

I know we've had this discussion before, that you seem to think that
egregious behaviour can be treated or even cured by the tender
attentions of the 'caring professions'. I would concur that sentencing
based on rehabilitation is more successful for the individual and for
society than the 'off-with-his-head'-ism which dominates here and in
UncleSamia (and in Canada too, for all I know), but the idea that people
who get criminal convictions - even (or especially) in cases like this -
suffer from an identifiable mental illness is not only patronising to
the individual in question (and, incidentally, lets him off the week to
all purposes), but disobliging to those who *do* suffer from such
conditions.

The fact is that some people - especially those in their mid/late teens
(who have been the category of people most picked on for
prosecutorial/judicial idiocy of this kind) - behave like dicks
sometimes. We have to accept that and apply gradual social pressure to
dissuade them from continuing in that vein. Throwing them in prison or
otherwise rendering them outcast from 'decent society' or 'community
standards' has never worked, doesn't work now, and never will work.