Epic Fail Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 So you wouldn't mind if I stole from you, to buy food for the starving? I said morals, not illegal activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 You also said you wanted to deprive them of a valuable source of income,because it would make you feel bad knowing were the income had come from, hence youy feeling are more important to you than the well being of the children. No he didn't..It was you that was doing all the "saying" Which just tells me that your feeling towards Jimmy Savile are more important to you, than the well being of the children. Nice try. They can be both mutually important for differing reasons at different times. Yet you'd deprive them of a valuable sauce of money because of your hatred of someone, your hatred is clearly more important to you than the children. What you cynically do is reinvent a statement made by a poster then use that reinvention as fact to deflect from your affinity with child abusers. Sorry but it just doesn't cut. If my kids were ever abused the last thing I would want is my kids to be in any way further implicated with a nonce. Hell, you'd have them living happily next door in the community as a way of "big hug" mentality. It's my view you're a Sociopath . ---------- Post added 04-12-2013 at 00:14 ---------- I said morals, not illegal activities. Rather than countering the criticisms why don't you explain why charity is more important than morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 No he didn't..It was you that was doing all the "saying" Keep trying and you might catch something. ---------- Post added 04-12-2013 at 07:04 ---------- No it isn't. Would it be OK for a paedophile to escape justice if they promised to fund an orphanage? No, but it would have been OK for a very wealthy paedophile to donate money to a children's charity or any other charity, and it wouldn't be immoral for the charity to accept it. Criminals should be punished and made to compensate their victims, and their is nothing immoral about it. Over £46m in criminals' cash and assets has been recovered in the last decade by police and other agencies in Wales. The bulk of the money recovered goes to the Home Office with the remainder split between the different agencies involved in recovering the money. The proceeds of crime can do some good. This is how it should work Drug smuggling ringleader Lindsay Harkins has been ordered to hand over more than £90,000 from the profits of his crimes. He was jailed for almost 10 years in 2011 after he was convicted of supplying cocaine and amphetamine. "This money will be added to the £60 million already gathered from Proceeds of Crime and will be re-invested by Scottish Ministers through the CashBack for Communities programme.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The children are going to be given new identities. Things like this always come out in the age of the internet. These poor children (and babies!) can start over with a new life and a new family and I hope and pray they were all young enough to be able to forget what's happened to them and not have to carry around that burden with them all their lives. This is not true. Why do people categorically state things like that when they have no idea whether it's true or not? I know for a fact it's not correct in at least one of the cases. These children have extended families who've done nothing wrong. Why should they be taken away from those people who are familiar and love them just because someone wants to put their names on the web? They will be identified by who their relatives are. Not that it really matters now. Poor little mites picture was still up on the web in some places till at least yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki-red Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Sentenced to 35 years in prison... http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/18/mega-lolz-how-paedophile-ian-watkins-described-his-sexual-abuse-of-children-4235297/?ITO=facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 The sentence has been passed - 35 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Hope he lives to be an old man and serves every last minute of his sentence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteowl Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Hope he lives to be an old man and serves every last minute of his sentence... Indeed, deserves every minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekke_287 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 He's on suicide watch apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotar Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 why watch him.... dirty *******.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.