Homewrecker

[hibbs]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nice one Muldoon

>

> Nothing lesbian or feminist about numbers post,

> but you ease into the prick category

Brilliant! x

[Robert Poste's Child]

Muldoon, what an idiotically offensive thing to say.

I agree with Huggers - this could be totally fabricated as part of a harrassment campaign by a controlling ex-partner; it wouldn't be that unusual sadly.

And even if it may be genuine, unless you have proof you could be exposing the forum to some kind of libel claim, so not a great idea to print details here.

[Loz]

Hang on - blindly accusing the HW's husband (on the basis of zero evidence) is OK, but printing something that has been distributed is not?

I don't think you are a lawyer. At least I hope not.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Goodness - the point is that you don't actually know the facts or the background just because you've read a flyer.

[the-e-dealer]

Is it any different from any Sunday Tabloids Crap?

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Goodness - the point is that you don't actually

> know the facts or the background just because you've read a flyer.

Yet you are still OK accusing the husband of releasing the flyer?

[Robert Poste's Child]

I'll try again... The point I'm making is that we don't know if the details in the flyer are true and other explanations may be possible, so let's not judge. Is that any clearer?

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll try again... The point I'm making is that we don't know if the details in the flyer are true

> and other explanations may be possible, so let's not judge. Is that any clearer?

No, not really, since you seemed to make a bit of an underhand judgement yourself. Aren't you doing the sort of finger pointing you are telling others not to do?

Anyway, I don't see an issue with posting the flyer if the personal details (names, addresses, photo) are redacted. Admin's opinion may differ, though.

[Robert Poste's Child]

No to the first point, or at least that's not my intention. More concerned about the person who's being accused. Not a big fan of trial by media, social or otherwise.

[unlurked]

Huggers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no, the husband of the woman who was doing the

> shagging!

There is no implication that the woman doing the shagging aka the Homewrecker has a husband.

I am very tempted to post the letter but it probably isn't a good idea . . .

A regular forum poster has pm'd me to advise they think the church mentioned is St Barnabus . . .

[JohnL]

Could be nobody did anything and it's a dirty tricks campaign.

It happens.

[numbers]

Dougal Mulldoon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> numbers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I love the insinuation that its the woman's

> fault

> > for 'breaking up the home'. Nothing to do with

> a

> > married man cheating on his wife then?

> >

> > *rolls eyes*

>

> Numbers, do you always have to take the

> lesbian/feminist view of everything????

http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0211-1/%7BBEDF97A9-BFB7-4B05-94DD-E45D1AB73DEA%7DImg100.jpg

have you had your tea, Dougal?