Sex dolls sold in the image of children as young as four years old..

First topic message reminder :

How depraved can people be? I didn't even know items like this were made and sold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4633322/Man-smuggled-paedophile-sex-doll-jailed.html




"A nuclear energy expert was behind bars in disgrace on Friday after he was caught smuggling a child-like 'paedophile' sex doll into the UK in the first case of its kind in Britain.
Father-of-one Andrew Dobson, 49, from Cheshire, used eBay to buy the £150 silicon doll - which resembled a girl as young as four - from a sex toy firm based in Hong Kong.
The sick item came with a negligee, face mask, blindfold, gloves and an even a 'cavity warmer' to give it a more 'life-like feel.'
But the package was intercepted by Border Force officials as it arrived at East Midlands Airport in Leicestershire.
Police later raided Dobson's £300,000 property in the village of Wistaston near Crewe, Cheshire and found 26 pornographic images and videos on his computer of children being abused.
One 12 minute clip showed a girl of six being raped by a man wearing a clown mask. He later admitted buying the child-like doll to use for sex.
At Chester Crown Court, Dobson, who works as a consultant on nuclear propulsion admitted importation of an obscene item and further charges of making and possessing indecent images and was jailed for two years and eight months.
Judge Simon Berkson told him: 'I had the doll shown to me and it is disgusting to think that this type of item exists and can be bought and imported all over the world."

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Because he uses forms of antisemitism

There is no evidence for his claims, just as much as there was none for the Israeli's, but sadly people are gullible

It's not a claim.  It's an analysis of a reasoning process, based on a bygone era that we all agree was loathsome.  It's a great analysis of just how the reasoning remains, even though the subject changes.

This is interesting.
So based on analysis by you people can claim any bullshit, like having dark skin makes you more criminal, as most racists believes.
Please break down your racist analysis on people who are human and only are Jews based on ancestry or religious associations and nothing biological?

This should be interesting

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I didn't...the Germans did.  

I'm making a meta-argument about how this kind of social reasoning advances.

Lets forget about your Jewish/paedophile comparison, that's just too ridiculous to debate, but you seem to be suggesting that wanting to eliminate paedophilia from society is wrong in some way.

How can something so apt be ridiculous?  It's a near perfect model of how social arguments go awry.  Sorry the words for the example were yours, but it could have been anybody's.

The point is, if you use an overly-emotional predicate, you can condemn anybody, and use it as an excuse for any kind of atrocity.  I believe you were earlier saying that there is no evidence that use of a doll would eliminate the problem.  No evidence either way, I added.  Magic said as much when she said that porn is progressive.  I asked for evidence or a link.  None forthcoming.

You see how the reasoning progresses?  No evidence for the predicate, but that doesn't stop the argument.  I'm merely pointing out, using an example we can all agree is atrocious, where the same reasoning took place to dreadful effect.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:



Lets forget about your Jewish/paedophile comparison, that's just too ridiculous to debate, but you seem to be suggesting that wanting to eliminate paedophilia from society is wrong in some way.

How can something so apt be ridiculous?  It's a near perfect model of how social arguments go awry.  Sorry the words for the example were yours, but it could have been anybody's.

The point is, if you use an overly-emotional predicate, you can condemn anybody, and use it as an excuse for any kind of atrocity.  I believe you were earlier saying that there is no evidence that use of a doll would eliminate the problem.  Magic said as much when she said it is progressive.  I asked for evidence or a link.  None forthcoming.

You see how the reasoning progresses?  No evidence for the predicate, but that doesn't stop the argument.  I'm merely pointing out, using an example we can all agree is atrocious, where the same reasoning took place to dreadful effect.

Not really?

How do you make the racist argument you are making?
By your reasoning black people are violent based on skin colour, which is absurd
There is only one human race Quill

Syl wrote:How depraved can people be?


I didn't even know items like this were made and sold.

Actually I have seen a few threads about these sex dolls, on here. Prior to that, I did not know such dolls existed either. >
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13357-japanese-child-sex-dolls-outraged-parents-react-to-sick-toys-aimed-at-stopping-paedophiles-committing-crimes?highlight=sex+dolls
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9157-company-releases-child-love-dolls-to-stop-pedophiles?highlight=sex+dolls

There may be more similar threads, not sure. I simply did a word search.

The man's expression says it all. Obviously he knows himself that he's a sick pervert.

Thorin wrote:How do you make the racist argument you are making?
By your reasoning black people are violent based on skin colour, which is absurd
There is only one human race Quill

Didge, calling me racist is offensive is intolerable and I have decided that I am going to be intolerant with you.  I am reporting you to Ben, and asking that you be given a weeks leave of absence.

Now, since you change the subject, I assume you have no answer.  Good, I am merely passing on a lesson about how social evil seeps into everyday thinking.  If you can't refute that, admit it and move on.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:How do you make the racist argument you are making?
By your reasoning black people are violent based on skin colour, which is absurd
There is only one human race Quill

Didge, calling me racist is offensive is intolerable and I have decided that I am going to be intolerant with you.  I am reporting you to Ben, and asking that you be given a weeks leave of absence.

Now, since you change the subject, I assume you have no answer.  Good, I am merely passing on a lesson about how social evil seeps into everyday thinking.  If you can't refute that, admit it and move on.

Please point out where I called you a racist?

I never did

I said you are making a racist argument and you are breaking the rules

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

So what you are saying, is when people challenge your views you seek to get them banned?

Correct?

I guess Quill has recognized he is doing something against the rules.



Night everyone

Thorin wrote:Please point out where I called you a racist?

I didn't say you called me "a racist".  I said you are calling me racist.

Thorin wrote:you make the racist argument...

Changing it from a noun to an adjective does not alter the import.  I'm sick and tired of having to deal with your offensiveness...now we'll go by the book.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:Please point out where I called you a racist?

I didn't say you called me "a racist".  I said you are calling me racist

Thorin wrote:you make the racist argument...

Changing it from a noun to an adjective does not alter the import.  I'm sick and tired of having to deal with your offensiveness...now we'll go by the book.

That has to be the most idiotic claim eveer

"I never claimed you called me a racist, but you are calling me a racist"



Put up your evidence that I did, or i will now report you for breaking the rules for trying to get someone banned

I am sick am tired of dealing with your lies Quill

You looked and to silence me

You fear me

I am happy with that, but never lie, you ill be called out

Thorin wrote:I said you are making a racist argument and you are breaking the rules

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

The rules are meant to be read in context.  You continually flaunt the rule by calling people by the worst of insulting names.  This is an example and I'm tired of it.

The rule against ban-baiting is intended to prevent people from making a orderly procedure into a weapon.  Didge, you have just gotten off a three-day suspension.  I am merely suggesting that it was ineffective, and that you should be given a week suspension.

I am not using the rules as a weapon, but merely pointing out that more effective measures would be the appropriate response to your defiance of orderly discussion. I am doing it 'with-cause' and trying to create more order around here.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I said you are making a racist argument and you are breaking the rules

The rules are meant to be read in context.  You continually flaunt the rule by calling people by the worst of insulting names.  This is an example and I'm tired of it.

The rule against ban-baiting is intended to prevent people from making a orderly procedure into a weapon.  Didge, you have just gotten off a three-day suspension.  I am merely suggesting that it was ineffective, and that you should be given a week suspension.

I am not using the rules as a weapon, but merely pointing out that more effective measures would be the appropriate response to your defiance of orderly discussion.

You just broke the rules again mate

Show me where I called people the worst insulting names as you claim in the last week which is against the rules?

If not you owe me an apology

I clearly see you fear me as you called for me to be banned

Buck buck

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The rules are meant to be read in context.  You continually flaunt the rule by calling people by the worst of insulting names.  This is an example and I'm tired of it.

The rule against ban-baiting is intended to prevent people from making a orderly procedure into a weapon.  Didge, you have just gotten off a three-day suspension.  I am merely suggesting that it was ineffective, and that you should be given a week suspension.

I am not using the rules as a weapon, but merely pointing out that more effective measures would be the appropriate response to your defiance of orderly discussion.

You just broke the rules again mate

Show me where I cal people the worst insulting names as you claim in the last week which is against the rules?

You walk right into these things, don't you?  You just prompted Raggs to put you on block.  And I noted on another thread, you were insulting Syl.  For example:

Thorin wrote:When ignorance fails, rags resorts to abuse.

In the present thread, you have called me racist when my clear message was to take a stand against racism.  You use a unique form of elementary anti-reason, when any noun suggests to you some inane use of a term.  People are obviously saying quite the opposite, when you turn their argument around and start in calling them obscene names.  It's just a cheap predicate for insulting people.

I'm not defending (or offending) people, I am just trying to make this place a bit more civil.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

You just broke the rules again mate

Show me where I cal people the worst insulting names as you claim in the last week which is against the rules?

You walk right into these things, don't you?  You just prompted Raggs to put you on block.  And I noted on another thread, you were insulting Syl.  In the present thread, you have called me racist when my clear message was to take a stand against racism.  You use a unique form of elementary anti-reason, when any noun suggests to you some inane use of a term.  People are obviously saying quite the opposite, when you turn their argument around and start in calling them obscene names.  It's just a cheap predicate for insulting people.

I'm not defending (or offending) people, I am just trying to make this place a bit more civil.

So you produce no evidence of abuse

And you admitted i never called you a racist, though how on earth you call that abuse is hilarious.;

Syl has called you out on your antisemitism

Now one last chance, either put up your claims or I will report you for lying

Syl is right, you are antisemitic

It's actually people ganging up and conspiring to get others banned which is against the rules.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's actually people ganging up and conspiring to get others banned which is against the rules.

Read the rules again Rags

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

One person can't be a gang.

Quill, has openly broken the rules and has admitted to doing so

Though, I just want to continue to mock his ignorance. I do not ant to see this fake judge banned. I would rather show him up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

One person can't be a gang.

Bless that you want to help him

Read the rules as they do not have to be gangs

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Singular or plural rags

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You walk right into these things, don't you?  You just prompted Raggs to put you on block.  And I noted on another thread, you were insulting Syl.  In the present thread, you have called me racist when my clear message was to take a stand against racism.  You use a unique form of elementary anti-reason, when any noun suggests to you some inane use of a term.  People are obviously saying quite the opposite, when you turn their argument around and start in calling them obscene names.  It's just a cheap predicate for insulting people.

I'm not defending (or offending) people, I am just trying to make this place a bit more civil.

So you produce no evidence of abuse

You want evidence?

Thorn wrote:You seem upset hun

Thorin wrote:You mocked syl and now shy away from telling her

Thorin wrote:Stop acting like a child hun

Thorin wrote: respect that lady, but you to act like children

Thorin wrote:You both have massive insecurity issues

Thorin wrote:I do not hold back and here Syl is an idiot.

(Two lines later: “I never call her names, ask her”)

Thorin wrote:The fact is her view here is utterly dumb,

Thorin wrote:I just want to continue to mock his ignorance

That's just today. Oh, and that last one is all you are about. You don't bring reasonable argument, you just like insulting people.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One person can't be a gang.

Bless that you want to help him

Read the rules as they do not have to be gangs

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Singular or plural rags

Quill seems genuinely lovely. He's such a sweetie.
Leave him alone!

Jules wrote:Quill seems genuinely lovely. He's such a sweetie.
Leave him alone!

So you are saying he is a snowflake?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One person can't be a gang.

Bless that you want to help him

Read the rules as they do not have to be gangs

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Singular or plural rags

Didge, it's plural: "members". Raggs is absolutely right. We know the rules, and we know what they were intended for. They were not to protect you so you could go about insulting people!

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you produce no evidence of abuse

You want evidence?

Thorn wrote:You seem upset hun

Thorin wrote:You mocked syl and now shy away from telling her

Thorin wrote:Stop acting like a child hun

Thorin wrote: respect that lady, but you to act like children

Thorin wrote:You both have massive insecurity issues

Thorin wrote:I do not hold back and here Syl is an idiot.

(Two lines later: “I never call her names, ask her”)

Thorin wrote:The fact is her view here is utterly dumb,

That's this morning.

PMSL

So nothing abusive Quill?


Try again?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Bless that you want to help him

Read the rules as they do not have to be gangs

any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Singular or plural rags

Didge, it's plural: "members".  Raggs is absolutely right.  We know the rules, and we know what they were intended for.  They were not to protect you so you could go about insulting people!

Now you are breaking he rules to conspire

I thought better of you Quill

Do this again and you leave me no choice but to mock you as insecure

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:Quill seems genuinely lovely. He's such a sweetie.
Leave him alone!

So you are saying he is a snowflake?

Ah yes, that reminds me - your recent thread about ''snowflakes'' was another bitter leftie thread too. It wasn't included in my screenshot.

Try to take a break from your agenda & come up for air occasionally, Thorin!

Heed the words "Don't take life to seriously, it ain't permanent"

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you are saying he is a snowflake?

Ah yes, that reminds me - your recent thread about ''snowflakes'' was another bitter leftie thread too. It wasn't included in my screenshot.

Try to take a break from your agenda & come up for air occasionally, Thorin!

Heed the words  "Don't take life to seriously, it ain't permanent"  

I never take it seriously Jules

I just laugh at your life advice

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge, it's plural: "members".  Raggs is absolutely right.  We know the rules, and we know what they were intended for.  They were not to protect you so you could go about insulting people!

Now you are breaking he rules to conspire

I thought better of you Quill

Do this again and you leave me no choice but to mock you as insecure

As if...

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Now you are breaking he rules to conspire

I thought better of you Quill

Do this again and you leave me no choice but to mock you as insecure

As if...  

Do you want me to break out the violins?

Grow up mate, you have gone soft

I'm very tired of Didge spamming this forum with his relentless nonsense.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

Ah yes, that reminds me - your recent thread about ''snowflakes'' was another bitter leftie thread too. It wasn't included in my screenshot.

Try to take a break from your agenda & come up for air occasionally, Thorin!

Heed the words  "Don't take life to seriously, it ain't permanent"  

I never take it seriously Jules

I just laugh at your life advice

       

Syl wrote:How depraved can people be? I didn't even know items like this were made and sold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4633322/Man-smuggled-paedophile-sex-doll-jailed.html


"A nuclear energy expert was behind bars in disgrace on Friday after he was caught smuggling a child-like 'paedophile' sex doll into the UK in the first case of its kind in Britain.
Father-of-one Andrew Dobson, 49, from Cheshire, used eBay to buy the £150 silicon doll - which resembled a girl as young as four - from a sex toy firm based in Hong Kong.
The sick item came with a negligee, face mask, blindfold, gloves and an even a 'cavity warmer' to give it a more 'life-like feel.'
But the package was intercepted by Border Force officials as it arrived at East Midlands Airport in Leicestershire.
Police later raided Dobson's £300,000 property in the village of Wistaston near Crewe, Cheshire and found 26 pornographic images and videos on his computer of children being abused.
One 12 minute clip showed a girl of six being raped by a man wearing a clown mask. He later admitted buying the child-like doll to use for sex.
At Chester Crown Court, Dobson, who works as a consultant on nuclear propulsion admitted importation of an obscene item and further charges of making and possessing indecent images and was jailed for two years and eight months.
Judge Simon Berkson told him: 'I had the doll shown to me and it is disgusting to think that this type of item exists and can be bought and imported all over the world."

Holy shit! Just when you think you've seen it all. I'm kind of speechless.

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I never take it seriously Jules

I just laugh at your life advice

       

Cheeers hun

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm very tired of Didge spamming this forum with his relentless nonsense.

That's what I'm saying, too. I'm usually detached in argument, but it is frustrating when the place is littered around with his dogshit.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm very tired of Didge spamming this forum with his relentless nonsense.

Ah blesss


Then report me, seems to me this is more about you being bitter

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:But experts have said there is no evidence to support claims that using dolls prevents child abuse and warn that products normalising children in sexualised ways could reinforce paedophilic behaviour.

This is the important part.  Syl, can you provide us with a link to the experts to which this refers?  If the discussion turns upon a causal connection to an actual crime, the thesis becomes more meaningful.

Note that this is stated in the negative, however: "no evidence to support claims".  To be meaningful, this would require a positive causal connection.

What? You have to wait until he progresses from doll to real child before anyone puts a stop to it? The problem with porn, particularly extreme stuff, is that eventually, like with violence and sadism, these pervs get immured and jaded over time and then need more and more stimulation by whatever means. I don't think most normal people find it acceptable that men fuck dolls that look like babies whether 'statistics' show it's harmless or not. It's wrong. It's unnatural. It's damaging.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is the important part.  Syl, can you provide us with a link to the experts to which this refers?  If the discussion turns upon a causal connection to an actual crime, the thesis becomes more meaningful.

Note that this is stated in the negative, however: "no evidence to support claims".  To be meaningful, this would require a positive causal connection.

What?   You have to wait until he progresses from doll to real child before anyone puts a stop to it?   The problem with porn, particularly extreme stuff, is that eventually, like with violence and sadism, these pervs get immured and jaded over time and then need more and more stimulation by whatever means.    I don't think most normal people find it acceptable that men fuck dolls that look like babies whether 'statistics' show it's harmless or not.   It's wrong.   It's unnatural.  It's damaging.

Some sense at last

+1

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:




No he had pictures of a little girl being raped. Makes him as bad as the rapist in my eyes

Well it isn't as bad, and they should be looking for the person who did rape a kid. It's probably someone in another country.

You know why there's a market for babies being raped in clown masks? Because people like this pervert buy the DVDS/downloads. So, yes, him watching this stuff makes him just as culpable.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


Well it isn't as bad, and they should be looking for the person who did rape a kid. It's probably someone in another country.

You know why there's a market for babies being raped in clown masks?  Because people like this pervert buy the DVDS/downloads.  So, yes, him watching this stuff makes him just as culpable.

Does that make people who take illegal drugs as culpable as the dealers then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You know why there's a market for babies being raped in clown masks?  Because people like this pervert buy the DVDS/downloads.  So, yes, him watching this stuff makes him just as culpable.

Does that make people who take illegal drugs as culpable as the dealers then?

As far as demand and supply is concerned, yes. Just like people who buy fur and ivory. The difference being here that children are being harmed and destroyed by men like this. Why anyone in their right mind would want to watch a little girl being raped by a man is beyond me. The world is a horrible place sometimes, and making excuses for this kind of perversion by trying to rationalise it doesn't help those poor exploited kids.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I said you are making a racist argument and you are breaking the rules

The rules are meant to be read in context.  You continually flaunt the rule by calling people by the worst of insulting names.  This is an example and I'm tired of it.

The rule against ban-baiting is intended to prevent people from making a orderly procedure into a weapon.  Didge, you have just gotten off a three-day suspension.  I am merely suggesting that it was ineffective, and that you should be given a week suspension.

I am not using the rules as a weapon, but merely pointing out that more effective measures would be the appropriate response to your defiance of orderly discussion.  I am doing it 'with-cause' and trying to create more order around here.

Seems to me you're making an ostentatious song and dance in the hope that Veya dances to your tune and dishes out another ban. Besides which, who made you judge, jury and executioner?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does that make people who take illegal drugs as culpable as the dealers then?

As far as demand and supply is concerned, yes.  Just like people who buy fur and ivory.     The difference being here that children are being harmed and destroyed by men like this.    Why anyone in their right mind would want to watch a little girl being raped by a man is beyond me.   The world is a horrible place sometimes, and making excuses for this kind of perversion by trying to rationalise it doesn't help those poor exploited kids.

Fair enough, but I still think that any prison sentence should be much longer for those who actually abuse the children. Anyone who buys real fur should be ostracised IMO. I also think that Illegal-drug users should be prosecuted more than they are.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

As far as demand and supply is concerned, yes.  Just like people who buy fur and ivory.     The difference being here that children are being harmed and destroyed by men like this.    Why anyone in their right mind would want to watch a little girl being raped by a man is beyond me.   The world is a horrible place sometimes, and making excuses for this kind of perversion by trying to rationalise it doesn't help those poor exploited kids.

Fair enough, but I still think that any prison sentence should be much longer for those who actually abuse the children. Anyone who buys real fur should be ostracised IMO. I also think that Illegal-drug users should be prosecuted more than they are.

I agree that those who do the abusing should receive sterner sentences. These days though it seems sex offenders get a few years and time off with good behaviour.

There also segregated together so they can get off on each others crimes.

I detest paedophiles wish they could be behind bars forever. They come out and do it again. Once a paedophile always one.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:How depraved can people be?


I didn't even know items like this were made and sold.

Actually I have seen a few threads about these sex dolls, on here. Prior to that, I did not know such dolls existed either. >
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13357-japanese-child-sex-dolls-outraged-parents-react-to-sick-toys-aimed-at-stopping-paedophiles-committing-crimes?highlight=sex+dolls
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9157-company-releases-child-love-dolls-to-stop-pedophiles?highlight=sex+dolls

There may be more similar threads, not sure. I simply did a word search.

The man's expression says it all. Obviously he knows himself that he's a sick pervert.

I have seen a thread fairly recently about blow up dolls being made to look like girls. I was imagining them to look like teenage girls, which is bad enough. To see they are now making dolls designed to look and feel like children as young as four, is beyond comprehension really.

magica wrote:There also segregated together so they can get off on each others crimes.

I detest paedophiles wish  they could be behind bars forever. They come out and do it again. Once a paedophile always one.

I don't think anyone has an answer to how to solve the problem of acting paedophiles Mags.
Even if caught, unless they have killed the child they will eventually be released.....and the cycle will continue like you say.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you produce no evidence of abuse

You want evidence?

Thorn wrote:You seem upset hun

Thorin wrote:You mocked syl and now shy away from telling her

Thorin wrote:Stop acting like a child hun

Thorin wrote: respect that lady, but you to act like children

Thorin wrote:You both have massive insecurity issues

Thorin wrote:I do not hold back and here Syl is an idiot.

(Two lines later: “I never call her names, ask her”)

Thorin wrote:The fact is her view here is utterly dumb,

Thorin wrote:I just want to continue to mock his ignorance

That's just today.  Oh, and that last one is all you are about.  You don't bring reasonable argument, you just like insulting people.

Actually it was Rags starting the Insults and being rude

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have to know about fire regulations and what to do in the fire because of work, so shut your mouth and get off your high horse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that fire officers do not know that fires can reignite? If they do, why didn't they check that? I wasn't trained by a fire officer, and I never said I was - I said I'd had fire safety training. Try reading properly. I told you to shut your mouth because, as usual, you're getting pompous, bumptious, and bossy -telling people off, lecturing them, telling them their opinion is "wrong", and generally being an idiot.

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't need to ask them. You have repeatedly ignored the point I made - that professional fire officers would check there was no further risk of fire. Now pay attention or shut up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

I hope you get stuck in the basement again soon - it was lovely when you stopped posting.

Raggamuffin wrote:
I'm not breaking any rules, I'm merely saying it was lovely when you weren't here spouting your bullshit, telling people off, and taking over all the debates with red herrings.

Raggamuffin wrote:
No, it's the intelligent conversation from others which was nice when you were in there. Now you're on ignore because I can't stand your ignorant stupidity any more for the moment.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh dear ... I see someone's having a tantrum.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t21207p50-grenfell-tower-investigators-to-consider-manslaughter-charges#


You were conspiring with Rags to get me punished, as seen on this thread

That is against the rules

I will not report you both this time, but next time i will Quill

I was rude to Didge because the stupid man introduced a straw man argument, got all bumptious and started lecturing me about what I had or hadn't done.

I'll be rude to him again if he tries the same thing again. Better still, I'll completely ignore his stupid, ignorant posts and hope he ends up "away" again.

Raggamuffin wrote:I was rude to Didge because the stupid man introduced a straw man argument, got all bumptious and started lecturing me about what I had or hadn't done.

I'll be rude to him again if he tries the same thing again. Better still, I'll completely ignore his stupid, ignorant posts and hope he ends up "away" again.

Breaking even more rules and all because she does not know basic fire training lol

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I was rude to Didge because the stupid man introduced a straw man argument, got all bumptious and started lecturing me about what I had or hadn't done.

I'll be rude to him again if he tries the same thing again. Better still, I'll completely ignore his stupid, ignorant posts and hope he ends up "away" again.

Breaking even more rules and all because she does not know basic fire training lol

Straw man again. I was talking about what the fire officers know. Now I'm sick of you baiting, spamming, trying to goad people, and generally being a moron. Hopefully, a mod will spot what you're doing and put a stop to it.

Now get off your arse and do something useful. You don't work, you do nothing except sit on here and spam the place with shite.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Breaking even more rules and all because she does not know basic fire training lol

Straw man again. I was talking about what the fire officers know. Now I'm sick of you baiting, spamming, trying to goad people, and generally being a moron. Hopefully, a mod will spot what you're doing and put a stop to it.

Now get off your arse and do something useful. You don't work, you do nothing except sit on here and spam the place with shite.

1) You do not know what a strawman argument is

2) You were exposed as lying about Fire training, as you did not know fires could reignite, hence why you are upset

3) If you think I have broken the rules (which I have not) then report me