Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected.

First topic message reminder :

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour - because his ex was too "strong and capable" to be considered a victim.

The second female judge this week who seems clueless in regard to crimes against women.

Paul Measor taught their one year old son to tell his mum to Fuck off, and encouraged the tot to call her a slut and a slag.
He subjected Lauren Smith to daily abuse, both physical and mental, which included spitting in her face.
District judge Helen Cousins decided because his victim was a " strong and capable" woman this didnt have enough effect on her to warrant finding him guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.
He was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 5 months in prison.

Do these judges not live in the real world?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7808081/abusive-boyfriend-girlfriend-too-strong/

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

So someone absued to you, because they did not act quick enough is in the wrong to you

This is what is wrong here

Why are you not even talking about what he did wrong?

Its what bores me with Gelico

She is intelligent but fails to see what is wrong when she defends idiots like you

The view is to castigate the victim only

When have you actually talked about what this wanker did?

I mean maybe youd and gelico are epxerts in mental health and nobodys suffers mental abuse and they shiuld simple get up and leave

The pair of you are inherantly ignorant on this and should ashamed

To place the blame on the victim here, shows neither of you have a clue

Oooh, you're being mean to me now Didge. I'm telling the police!

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:


your analogies are so extreme and ludicrous

this woman was in a relationship that did not involve politics nor changes in the law nor the army FFS!

she was not chained up in the house, this bloke had his own business.  she could have at any point grabbed the kid and gone and sought refuge with him.

i've said before, i know it's not easy and she had to get to a point where she had had enough and wasn't going to take any more, good for her.  

if there was a thread discussing the best chocolates you would somehow bring it down to the jews and the nazis

FFS!  It gets so boring

Why?

because it is

AllI ever see is you constantly defend women

i'm not defending her as such, i'm saying that she should have ended the situation long ago, i get that she found it too difficult and i'm glad she found the strength to finally leave, what's wrong with that

Its very telling gelico, even when the argument made by Rags, makes grooming gang victims and domestic violence victims to blame ands yet you tak Rags side

i agreed with some of her comments, this isn't about raggs it's about the article

You ignore all her arguments and go off nothing you know about this woman and make a judgements on what you have read in the paper

of course i'm judging what i read, that's what the OP is about

You should be ashamed

why?

You have no idea of her her mental health and made views on a media story?


because that's what we're all discussing

How about you stop acting like a child and actually act like an adult for one and admit when you might be wrong Gelico?

why are you so concerned about my opinion? you have yours, i have mine

I have no problem doing this

well, go on then

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Why?

AllI ever see is you constantly defend women

Its very telling gelico, even when the argument made by Rags, makes grooming gang victims and domestic violence victims to blame ands yet you tak Rags side

You ignore all her arguments and go off nothing you know about this woman and make a judgements on what you have read in the paper

You should be ashamed

You have no idea of her her mental health and made views on a media story?

How about you stop acting like a child and actually act like an adult for one and admit when you might be wrong Gelico?

I have no problem doing this

She's speaking for herself - nothing to do with me. You're now getting nasty with yet another person - another woman.

Here we go victimology again

Does Gelico, think I am being nasty to her?

Or being honest?

You sound like a leftist that criicism is now seen as abuse

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She's speaking for herself - nothing to do with me. You're now getting nasty with yet another person - another woman.

Here we go victimology again

Does Gelico, think I am being nasty to her?

Or being honest?

You sound like a leftist that criicism is now seen as abuse

I don't know what she thinks, I'm telling you what I see.

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:

Why?

because it is

AllI ever see is you constantly defend women

i'm not defending her as such, i'm saying that she should have ended the situation long ago, i get that she found it too difficult and i'm glad she found the strength to finally leave, what's wrong with that

Its very telling gelico, even when the argument made by Rags, makes grooming gang victims and domestic violence victims to blame ands yet you tak Rags side

i agreed with some of her comments, this isn't about raggs it's about the article

You ignore all her arguments and go off nothing you know about this woman and make a judgements on what you have read in the paper

of course i'm judging what i read, that's what the OP is about

You should be ashamed

why?

You have no idea of her her mental health and made views on a media story?


because that's what we're all discussing

How about you stop acting like a child and actually act like an adult for one and admit when you might be wrong Gelico?

why are you so concerned about my opinion?  you have yours, i have mine

I have no problem doing this

well, go on then

1) You are so full of it gelico

So lets put this to the test

If a victim of domestic violence and abuse stays with someone

Are they to blame or the abuser?

2) You are dodging every point

So do you think mean names caused the holocasut or not?

Defend her all you like, but you are a coward Gelico for never pulling her up on poor points she makes

That is a fact

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Here we go victimology again

Does Gelico, think I am being nasty to her?

Or being honest?

You sound like a leftist that criicism is now seen as abuse

I don't know what she thinks, I'm telling you what I see.

Have you been able to see without your blinkers off yet?

So here we go 

Rags blames the victim

Gelico backs her

I reasoned against this

Gelico is blind to my points

To me, gelico is inherantly biased to females

Not once did she question some very poor views made by rags

She actually questioned mine

WTF

That is whay I think there is a girlie group mentality here

How else could Gelico not challenge Rags views here, unless she thinkls the grooming victims were at fault?

Hence why I tire of this forum, so many people are dishonest

I trust me lord, Ben, Eddie etc but others are full of it

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not on the same page then because I don't consider that being mean is the same as violence.

Thats because you are incapable of understanding the difference between "being mean" and psychological violence

I'm "being mean" to my grand daughter when I tell her shes got a big bum (even though she hasnt and knows it)
I was psychologically violent to my daughters ex when I posted to his employers copies of the vile and soul destroying messages he sent my daughter, resulting in his dismissal, then sent the entire bundle to his next two employers after he was with them a few months, not to mention the barrage of solicitors letters, complaints to the police about his behaviour...which although below the bar for prosecution was sufficent for them to put in place some sort of safeguard and pay him a few visits.......etc etc etc.....

the difference is...what I did was justifiable AND legal.....what he was doing wasnt

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

why?

its MY business too, since firstly its called family....piss with any of mine and you piss with ME....simples
secondly its my business becasue I had to deal with the meltdowns his behaviour caused

No, I didnt "stalk" him..gathering evidence (in the form of his texts etc) is NOT stalking nor is passing this indisputable evidence on to persons who may have an interest in his probity.

AND...he brought this on himself.....it is a CONSEQUENCE of his behaviour....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

why?

its MY business too, since firstly its called family....piss with any of mine and you piss with ME....simples
secondly its my business becasue I had to deal with the meltdowns his behaviour caused

No, I didnt "stalk" him..gathering evidence (in the form of his texts etc) is NOT stalking nor is passing this indisputable evidence on to persons who may have an interest in his probity.

AND...he brought this on himself.....it is a CONSEQUENCE of his behaviour....

You interfered with his employment which you had no business doing. You did that to him - he's not responsible for what you did.

So, I reaslly do not need to point this out, but my points were not even over the top they were rational and why I respct Gelico to challenge me. She never once challenged Rags on her view points.

There was more views extreme in Rags views than mine

I respect rags views and will as seen respond, but I dispair when people are bias as Gelico was.

She never argued the point made and simple agreed with rags

That is boring and would rather she spoke her mind

I hope she proves me wrong, but she is being as guilty or what she claims this victims is of

Night everyone

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

why?

its MY business too, since firstly its called family....piss with any of mine and you piss with ME....simples
secondly its my business becasue I had to deal with the meltdowns his behaviour caused

No, I didnt "stalk" him..gathering evidence (in the form of his texts etc) is NOT stalking nor is passing this indisputable evidence on to persons who may have an interest in his probity.

AND...he brought this on himself.....it is a CONSEQUENCE of his behaviour....

Good luck mate

She will never ever learn

I did from you, but she could prove me wrong

Time will tell

All the best buddy

I'm loving the way Didge is trying to manipulate people in this thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that what you did was wrong actually. It was up to your daughter to sort it out, it wasn't up to you to try to destroy his life and his future. You stalked him basically. However, you weren't violent. Don't tell me I'm "incapable" when you're clearly off your head.

why?

its MY business too, since firstly its called family....piss with any of mine and you piss with ME....simples
secondly its my business becasue I had to deal with the meltdowns his behaviour caused

No, I didnt "stalk" him..gathering evidence (in the form of his texts etc) is NOT stalking nor is passing this indisputable evidence on to persons who may have an interest in his probity.

AND...he brought this on himself.....it is a CONSEQUENCE of his behaviour....

You interfered with his employment which you had no business doing. You did that to him - he's not responsible for what you did.

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm loving the way Didge is trying to manipulate people in this thread.

How?

Does my failure actually show you are wrong?

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You interfered with his employment which you had no business doing. You did that to him - he's not responsible for what you did.

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

100 agree

Some will never understand  that

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You interfered with his employment which you had no business doing. You did that to him - he's not responsible for what you did.

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

I don't know the details obviously, but I'll say the same as I've said about the woman in the article. Your daughter should have walked away. You should have supported her but you should not have destroyed this man's life out of malice. I'm surprised his employers didn't report you to the police for harassment actually.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm loving the way Didge is trying to manipulate people in this thread.

How?

Does my failure actually show you are wrong?

You're such a control freak Didge. You need someone to agree with you, and if they don't, you hound them. Don't you see that you're behaving in a way that you disapprove of in others?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


How?

Does my failure actually show you are wrong?

You're such a control freak Didge. You need someone to agree with you, and if they don't, you hound them. Don't you see that you're behaving in a way that you disapprove of in others?

How am I a control freak when some already agree with me?

Lord fould does

All you are doing is dodging the points and turning this onto me

You can do as you please, but i will be critical of this, so please spare me any bullshit on this Rags

You are like a child

I am passionate and stupid, but you are irresponsible

I do not care what people think of me

You do

Hence I know how insecure you are

How gelico never spoke out on some fucked up views you made shows her fcuked up bias here

Who cares

I am simple pointing this out

I will however point out you are backward and you are

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're such a control freak Didge. You need someone to agree with you, and if they don't, you hound them. Don't you see that you're behaving in a way that you disapprove of in others?

How am I a control freak when some already agree with me?

Lord fould does

All you are doing is dodging the points and turning this onto me

You can do as you please, but i will be critical of this, so please spare me any bullshit on this Rags

You are like a child

I am passionate and stupid, but you are irresponsible

I do not care what people think of me

You do

Hence I know how insecure you are

How gelico never spoke out on some fucked up views you made shows her fcuked up bias here

Who cares

I am simple pointing this out

I will however point out you are backward and you are

You keep demanding that Gelico condemns my posts - in other words, you're trying to control her.

I hear you're having a hard time at the moment. However, that's no excuse for your abusive behaviour.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


How am I a control freak when some already agree with me?

Lord fould does

All you are doing is dodging the points and turning this onto me

You can do as you please, but i will be critical of this, so please spare me any bullshit on this Rags

You are like a child

I am passionate and stupid, but you are irresponsible

I do not care what people think of me

You do

Hence I know how insecure you are

How gelico never spoke out on some fucked up views you made shows her fcuked up bias here

Who cares

I am simple pointing this out

I will however point out you are backward and you are

You keep demanding that Gelico condemns my posts - in other words, you're trying to control her.

I hear you're having a hard time at the moment. However, that's no excuse for your abusive behaviour.

Show me where I demanded that she did?

I never did

I simple questioned why she never did

You hear I am having a hard time at the moment?

Did you get that from gelico?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You keep demanding that Gelico condemns my posts - in other words, you're trying to control her.

I hear you're having a hard time at the moment. However, that's no excuse for your abusive behaviour.

Show me where I demanded that she did?

I never did

I simple questioned why she never did

You hear I am having a hard time at the moment?

Did you get that from gelico?

Somebody on here said it.

Stop having a tantrum and stop trying to force people to do what you say - it rarely works.

she DID walk away...but since there was a child involved there still had to be some contact and it was through that that he continued....so I struck back ....it worked...hes gone very quiet and behaves very nicely now he knows how it feels to be on the other side of things.....

why do you have any sort of sympathy for this piece of human rubbish , who thought bullying and coercion is a correct thing to do??? he isnt a "man" , No man with decency and principles would do that sort of thing to a woman without very good reason. he is a weak, spineless specimin who throws a hissy fit when he doesnt get his own way ALL the time or if folks dont jump when he says....

oh and as for his employers reporting me...why would they ....they and I belong to the same band of brothers as it were....they were grateful for the information....sometimes its not just WHAT you know..........

Lord Foul wrote:she DID walk away...but since there was a child involved there still had to be some contact and it was through that that he continued....so I struck back ....it worked...hes gone very quiet and behaves very nicely now he knows how it feels to be on the other side of things.....

why do you have any sort of sympathy for this piece of human rubbish , who thought bullying and coercion is a correct thing to do??? he isnt a "man" , No man with decency and principles would do that sort of thing to a woman without very good reason. he is a weak, spineless specimin who throws a hissy fit when he doesnt get his own way ALL the time or if folks dont jump when he says....

oh and as for his employers reporting me...why would they ....they and I belong to the same band of brothers as it were....they were grateful for the information....sometimes its not just WHAT you know..........

You pretty much admitted that you told his employers out of malice. There's no honour in that. Perhaps he had a lucky escape from them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Show me where I demanded that she did?

I never did

I simple questioned why she never did

You hear I am having a hard time at the moment?

Did you get that from gelico?

Somebody on here said it.

Stop having a tantrum and stop trying to force people to do what you say - it rarely works.

Sorry?

How can I force anyone?

You said nobody can ever be manipuated?

So how am I forcing anyone?

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You interfered with his employment which you had no business doing. You did that to him - he's not responsible for what you did.

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

this wasn't so much protecting your daughter as exacting revenge, three times over

not that i blame you in the least but don't try to dress it up as protection

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Somebody on here said it.

Stop having a tantrum and stop trying to force people to do what you say - it rarely works.

Sorry?

How can I force anyone?

You said nobody can ever be manipuated?

So how am I forcing anyone?

I said you were trying to force someone to do as you say. That's not the same as them actually doing as you say.

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

this wasn't so much protecting your daughter as exacting revenge, three times over

not that i blame you in the least but don't try to dress it up as protection

I agree with that, although I do blame him for going too far and involving other people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Sorry?

How can I force anyone?

You said nobody can ever be manipuated?

So how am I forcing anyone?

I said you were trying to force someone to do as you say. That's not the same as them actually doing as you say.

Well what relevance does that have on your thinking Rags?

How can I force anyone, as you think the victims are at fault?

How to show up an idiot in two simple lessons

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

I had every right to cause him suffering in proportion to the suffering he was inflicting on my daughter, see raggs, that the strange thing here he didnt quite cross the line into criminality with his behaviour, despite the distress it caused, and incidently neither did I, but payback is a bitch ......what I did was as a consequence of his behaviour, just the same as if I struck back at the man that just punched me......(or indeed had punched my daughter)

what YOU dont see is, I'd do time if that was the result of protecting a family member.......

this wasn't so much protecting your daughter as exacting revenge, three times over

not that i blame you in the least but don't try to dress it up as protection

How is it not protection?

How on earth do you not protect your daughter by actully forming defesive actions?

You have no idea of conflict do you?

Sop I suggest you shut your gobby mouth for one and understand

Sometimes, the best form of defense, is offense

To protect someone, you have to use offensive actions

So again you are critical of the man in lord foul and not again Rags

Wow

You are full of shit Gelico

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said you were trying to force someone to do as you say. That's not the same as them actually doing as you say.

Well what relevance does that have on your thinking Rags?

How can I force anyone, as you think the victims are at fault?

How to show up an idiot in two simple lessons

Exactly - you can't force anyone, so you might as well give it up and stop having a tantrum about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well what relevance does that have on your thinking Rags?

How can I force anyone, as you think the victims are at fault?

How to show up an idiot in two simple lessons

Exactly - you can't force anyone, so you might as well give it up and stop having a tantrum about it.

Give up what?

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:

this wasn't so much protecting your daughter as exacting revenge, three times over

not that i blame you in the least but don't try to dress it up as protection

How is it not protection?

How on earth do you not protect your daughter by actully forming defesive actions?

You have no idea of conflict do you?

Sop I suggest you shut your gobby mouth for one and understand

Sometimes, the best form of defense, is offense

To protect someone, you have to use offensive actions

So again you are critical of the man in lord foul and not again Rags

Wow

You are full of shit Gelico

Getting the man sacked from several jobs is not protecting his daughter. In fact, it would deprive him of wages so he couldn't pay child maintenance.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:she DID walk away...but since there was a child involved there still had to be some contact and it was through that that he continued....so I struck back ....it worked...hes gone very quiet and behaves very nicely now he knows how it feels to be on the other side of things.....

why do you have any sort of sympathy for this piece of human rubbish , who thought bullying and coercion is a correct thing to do??? he isnt a "man" , No man with decency and principles would do that sort of thing to a woman without very good reason. he is a weak, spineless specimin who throws a hissy fit when he doesnt get his own way ALL the time or if folks dont jump when he says....

oh and as for his employers reporting me...why would they ....they and I belong to the same band of brothers as it were....they were grateful for the information....sometimes its not just WHAT you know..........

You pretty much admitted that you told his employers out of malice. There's no honour in that. Perhaps he had a lucky escape from them.

maybe you also are incapable of distinguishing between malice and using a means to an end......my intent was to stop his behaviour, my means was to cause him problems and distress in proportion to the problems and distress HE was causing, using the same tactics as him.

see now he is behaving, he can go find another avenue of employment and I wont interfere...so his life is hardly ruined.....it just means he will have to pull himself up from the bottom of an admittedly deep pit, in the same way my daughter had to........
IF i was to want to be malicious...I would have destroyed him entirely.............
by (and heres the important bit) using psychological means.............

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You pretty much admitted that you told his employers out of malice. There's no honour in that. Perhaps he had a lucky escape from them.

maybe you also are incapable of distinguishing between malice and using a means to an end......my intent was to stop his behaviour, my means was to cause him problems and distress in proportion to the problems and distress HE was causing, using the same tactics as him.

see now he is behaving, he can go find another avenue of employment and I wont interfere...so his life is hardly ruined.....it just means he will have to pull himself up from the bottom of an admittedly deep pit, in the same way my daughter had to........
IF i was to want to be malicious...I would have destroyed him entirely.............
by (and heres the important bit) using psychological means.............

You're still trying to dress it up as "protection" and it just doesn't wash. You got him sacked out of malice, not for the purposes of protecting anyone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


How is it not protection?

How on earth do you not protect your daughter by actully forming defesive actions?

You have no idea of conflict do you?

Sop I suggest you shut your gobby mouth for one and understand

Sometimes, the best form of defense, is offense

To protect someone, you have to use offensive actions

So again you are critical of the man in lord foul and not again Rags

Wow

You are full of shit Gelico

Getting the man sacked from several jobs is not protecting his daughter. In fact, it would deprive him of wages so he couldn't pay child maintenance.

Of course its protecting his daughter

What do you think the "me two" movement is based on?

So you view is that a child rapist beinmg exposed, could be deprived from paying child maintenance?

Have you not heard of social care?

You would rather a peado, is allowed out of jail based on that issue?

Dont worry, I am surre Gelico, will draw a blank on this dumbfuckwittery

erm geli...it required 3 times....

because...........................................

he didnt stop after the first time
or the second.......

it took 3


a tad slow on the uptake methinks he is

cant take a hint

the message was...stop doing this or.............

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Getting the man sacked from several jobs is not protecting his daughter. In fact, it would deprive him of wages so he couldn't pay child maintenance.

Of course its protecting his daughter

What do you think the "me two" movement is based on?

So you view is that a child rapist beinmg exposed, could be deprived from paying child maintenance?

Have you not heard of social care?

You would rather a peado, is allowed out of jail based on that issue?

Dont worry, I am surre Gelico, will draw a blank on this dumbfuckwittery

Are you accusing this man of raping his child?

Lord Foul wrote:seems to me you condone violent criminals that take their violence out on women......

you must have led a very sheltered life....

I have seen this at work first hand, with the bastard that tried his coercive behaviour on my daughter, fortunately I caught him out and dealt with it, covertly from behind the scenes, and turned the tables on him...cost him 3 jobs in a row (and his jobs are "high flying" financial roles)
and left him almost unemployable, becuase those who need to know, now know what he is, and understand very clearly that employing him could be "damaging" to their company reputation....


now HE knows what its like to be "coerced"....and that actions have consequences......

so are you saying that after he lost his first job due to you, he still carried on with the abuse of your daughter? did she come to you and ask you to intervene? was she a minor? did it carry on until he lost his 3rd job? did he know it was you sabotaging his jobs?

i'm curious now and like i said before, it's not like i blame you as such but as stated my daughter was 18 and an adult already and as much as i hated the bastard she was with and saw the effect he was having on her, there was no way i could interfere. she wasnt ready to walk away and when she was i was there for her straight away but until then there was nothing i could do.

my son also got into a very toxic relationship and didnt even realise he was being totally controlled. took him ages to get shot of that psycho but he managed it eventually

but unless that person is ready there is nothing anyone else can really do

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Of course its protecting his daughter

What do you think the "me two" movement is based on?

So you view is that a child rapist beinmg exposed, could be deprived from paying child maintenance?

Have you not heard of social care?

You would rather a peado, is allowed out of jail based on that issue?

Dont worry, I am surre Gelico, will draw a blank on this dumbfuckwittery

Are you accusing this man of raping his child?

The law would have done so

Sadly you adn gelico wnat to ignore and excuse your ignorance here

Now, he shoul;d have the protection of the law, but gelico never challegend on your views

She challeneged me

Gelico is unsubconsciously a feminist without knowing and I appluad that.

She never takes any female to task, just men

Which is cool, but she fails to know that she evern does

It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you accusing this man of raping his child?

The law would have done so

Sadly you adn gelico wnat to ignore and excuse your ignorance here

Now, he shoul;d have the protection of the law, but gelico never challegend on your views

She challeneged me

Gelico is unsubconsciously a feminist without knowing and I appluad that.

She never takes any female to task, just men

Which is cool, but she fails to know that she evern does

You're actually accusing the man Foul is talking about of raping his own child? Do you have evidence of that?

sometimes, and I'm sure didge will agree, one has to really get down and dirty

if you were to ask me if I was proud of it, then I would have to say, honestly no, it WAS dirty, but neither am I ashamed of it either....it was merely....necessary.
and ....it worked. peace and harmony is reestablished in my world..........

as I have said before...I dont subscribe to the "must be better than" mentality....when push comes to shove I'll fight (literally or figuratively) just as dirty and low, if not dirtier than my opponent..BUT I only fight when provoked into it, and that provocation needs to be severe, since by nature I'm lazy and generally cant be arsed with too much conflict......

Lord Foul wrote:erm geli...it required 3 times....

because...........................................

he didnt stop after the first time
or the second.......

it took 3


a tad slow on the uptake methinks he is

cant take a hint

the message was...stop doing this or.............

ah, i see, slightly different kettle of fish, i read it that you got your revenge and then just kept going after him for the hell of it.

i get it and all and although i couldn't have taken action in my kids situations i get why you did.

but also, and don't deny it, it was also for you personal satisfaction or at least you got a great deal of satisfaction out of it. anyhoos it seemed to have solved your problem

but my point is that did your daughter come to you? see if she felt she loved him and wasnt ready to walk away from the relationship, no matter how toxic, then your actions could simply have alienated her. if she's still being controlled she would have been on his side

you see what i'm saying?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

Ah, but it wasnt just "heresay" I had the evidence of his texted messages......

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:seems to me you condone violent criminals that take their violence out on women......

you must have led a very sheltered life....

I have seen this at work first hand, with the bastard that tried his coercive behaviour on my daughter, fortunately I caught him out and dealt with it, covertly from behind the scenes, and turned the tables on him...cost him 3 jobs in a row (and his jobs are "high flying" financial roles)
and left him almost unemployable, becuase those who need to know, now know what he is, and understand very clearly that employing him could be "damaging" to their company reputation....


now HE knows what its like to be "coerced"....and that actions have consequences......

so are you saying that after he lost his first job due to you, he still carried on with the abuse of your daughter? did she come to you and ask you to intervene?  was she a minor?  did it carry on until he lost his 3rd job?  did he know it was you sabotaging his jobs?

i'm curious now and like i said before, it's not like i blame you as such but as stated my daughter was 18 and an adult already and as much as i hated the bastard she was with and saw the effect he was having on her, there was no way i could interfere.  she wasnt ready to walk away and when she was i was there for her straight away but until then there was nothing i could do.

my son also got into a very toxic relationship and didnt even realise he was being totally controlled.  took him ages to get shot of that psycho but he managed it eventually

but unless that person is ready there is nothing anyone else can really do

Only you would go to extremes on thison questions, knowing he actually faced this reaity


You questiuon him and not the guilty person here?

Again WTF

This is a man protecting his daughter which will be different to any given situjation you can imagine

Can you understand that Gelico?

You are placing Lord Foul on the defnsive, as if he has done wrong

As look at the questions you are asking?

I trust him far more than you

The fact you need to ask him shows you do not trust him

I am appalled at you

One thing I know about him, he does not lie

Lord Foul wrote:sometimes, and I'm sure didge will agree, one has to really get down and dirty

if you were to ask me if I was proud of it, then I would have to say, honestly no, it WAS dirty, but neither am I ashamed of it either....it was merely....necessary.
and ....it worked. peace and harmony is reestablished in my world..........

as I have said before...I dont subscribe to the "must be better than" mentality....when push comes to shove I'll fight (literally or figuratively) just as dirty and low, if not dirtier than my opponent..BUT I only fight when provoked into it, and that provocation needs to be severe, since by nature I'm lazy and generally cant be arsed with too much conflict......

I will ask again mate

When at any point has gelico taken to tasdk Rags, on any point she made?

She has only done this to me and you

Men

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

You have lost all respect

When are you going to take her to task on many poor points she made

You did with me and Lord foul but shy away as usual from women posters?

Why?

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:erm geli...it required 3 times....

because...........................................

he didnt stop after the first time
or the second.......

it took 3


a tad slow on the uptake methinks he is

cant take a hint

the message was...stop doing this or.............

ah, i see, slightly different kettle of fish, i read it that you got your revenge and then just kept going after him for the hell of it.

i get it and all and although i couldn't have taken action in my kids situations i get why you did.

but also, and don't deny it, it was also for you personal satisfaction or at least you got a great deal of satisfaction out of it.  anyhoos it seemed to have solved your problem

but my point is that did your daughter come to you?  see if she felt she loved him and wasnt ready to walk away from the relationship, no matter how toxic, then your actions could simply have alienated her.  if she's still being controlled she would have been on his side

you see what i'm saying?

she had already dumped him.....the abuse from him just got worse as time went on.......via texts etc....and she HAD to keep an open line because of the child involved.....it was very very complex and a very long standing issue....

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.