Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Craig Thomson
- Thread starter Falkor
- Start date
- Status
Nowhere in this thread have I claimed that this is just because he's ill - in fact I've said time again that his actions sicken me. He certainly needs some bloody help though, I won't deny that - do you really think that if he were to receive psychological help that would stop him doing this (and hence help protect kids) that would be a bad thing?!
My point was actually quite simple, even if you do feel the need to exaggerate it - that the man who made the decision as to what an appropriate punishment knows far more about the case than you or I ever will.
To answer your questions though... what do I have to say about press reports about one police officer suggesting that further allegations have been 'alluded' to? Not a lot, really. If he's convicted then I'll obviously have a lot to say, but at this stage there isn't much to say.
24 hour protection? From people like you, who believe vigilante justice is appropriate? Like the people who thought this was appropriate: Vigilante attack on pediatrician ?
Again, you're jumping to conclusions.
Since when have i said i want a vigilante attack on him? Don't make up stories. Im not exaggerating anything. This is really serious, just because some poxy judge decides all he should do is sign the sex offenders registar, dont mean that the case is closed. I want justice. Not Vigilante style killing. Leave that for when he's banged up
Would'nt even bother trying to get your point accross mate, think we are in a minority on here. As shocking as that is
I interpreted your point about "24 hour protection" to be about vigilante attacks. Apologies if I was wrong. Apart from your last point, about him getting "that when he's banged up" (it doesn't cease to be vigilante if he's in jail at the time...)
Again, to make it clear for the (roughly) 15th time, I know this is serious. I agree that this is serious. I have said that this is serious. However, you and "some poxy judge" have a different opinion on what the punishment should be. The "poxy judge" knows far more about this case than you do, and therefore, not being in a position of having seen all the evidence myself, the only rational thing to do is to assume his decision is a reasonable one.
Sorry, who is making up stories now?
Fact: One police officer in one press report has mentioned he has seen something that "alludes" to a further offence about which no complaint has been made.
Your conclusion: He definitely committed that further offence.
Not tricky, is it?
Im not making up stories, Im expressing a view. Why would you waste your time defending a judges actions over such a case. Craig Thompson is a pervert. Im sure there will be more stories to come out. Once a pervert, always a pervert. No matter how many shrinks you see they can never cure evil people. He is evil
Falkor
Banned
- Jun 3, 2011
- 5,673
- Thread starter
- #192
DTES why i understand you taking the judges side, the law system in this country is rather on the weak side.
1, I believe if some one asks a 12 year old for sex then they are peado and pose a risk.
2, I believe if he has done it more than once then its clearly more than just a mistake.
also what does it matter if this new case is before or after i mean it still means he has done it for a 3rd time if its true, and its also more than just some police officer saying it, it was the official spokesman for that police force.
I know i said i was going to leave i got a bit hot headed, and totally disagreed with one users point of view, that said i think he was just being a troll looking back today.
1, I believe if some one asks a 12 year old for sex then they are peado and pose a risk.
2, I believe if he has done it more than once then its clearly more than just a mistake.
also what does it matter if this new case is before or after i mean it still means he has done it for a 3rd time if its true, and its also more than just some police officer saying it, it was the official spokesman for that police force.
I know i said i was going to leave i got a bit hot headed, and totally disagreed with one users point of view, that said i think he was just being a troll looking back today.
If wanting people murdered in relation to an offence in which the judge who heard the facts decided a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, then I suspect you are in a minority.
Perverts don't deserve the right to live in a society where there are children. If you think they do then please explain why?
Your view, that this is a "Gary Glitter fan club"? You acknowledge in the same post that our point is about the judge, and it is perfectly clear to see that nobody in this thread is a "fan" of either Thomson or his actions. Everyone has been perfectly clear in stating that they find his actions sickening. In short, "Gary Glitter fan club" in entirely made up on your part.
I'm not "defending". I'm saying that in our situation (having far less information than him), we are not in a position to judge his decision (no pun intended).
This is a fact
This isn't.
I'm sure you have some solid evidence to back up the fact that psychology can never help anyone. I didn't know you were a Scientologist
Last edited:
Was this:
...not in response to the point about the further allegations? Apologies if not.
Therefore in your eyes a person who is 16 years and 1 day old, who has sexual intercourse with someone who is 15 years and 364 days old, should be murdered too?
Fair enough. I missed/misread that and thought you were saying that a potential allegation itself meant he must be a "serial" offender. Sorry.
- Status