Jump to content

Recommended Posts

FelicityNormal Wrote:

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

> The person has not been identified, so no.

>


The mere fact that the person has not been identified by name does not protect either the forum or the person making the statements - if sufficient information is given to cause people to suspect the identity of the person, that can be enough to found libel. "Blind vice" items in newspapers/gossip mags have been the subject of proceedings and substantial settlements.


More importantly IMHO, this is community website, run not for profit by Admin and his team. Several local businesses and individuals have threatened legal action (and even taken action in one case I think?) against them because of ill-judged and highly personal comments made in threads like this one - leading to other members having to offer free legal advice and a whole heap of further admin and trouble. This is going to sound horribly preachy (and I really wish it didn't) but is this really what the forum is here for?

FelicityNormal Wrote:

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

> This individual has not had the chance to give me

> anything as I turned him down but I've since

> discovered that he's been with two local women I

> know and one of them now has health problems as a

> result. Wondering if he is purposely trying to

> harm people or he is just randy as hell and being

> reckless.


Or "loose" Women perhaps?!

FelicityNormal Wrote:

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

> It seems I was wrong. There is not a Local

> shop-owning Lothario....there are several of them,

> all shagging wildly in and around LL. >:D<


That's all right then - so you aren't accusing someone of deliberately spreading a STD.

One of these trouser-dropping individuals has given a local woman a serious STD. Allegedly this man is very aggressive in his approach and has shagged several other local women recently, despite being married. He has tried it on with me but I did not succumb yet - and with what I now know, I will never succumb. It is not clear whether he is deliberately spreading his STD or whether he is just reckless as to who he gives it to. It is said he claims he no longer shags his wife (which may be true).


In the course of my 'investigatins' I have also stumbled across several other randy local shopkeepers who are also married and also shagging for England. Some local women are not able to even enter certain ED establishments unless accompanied by a male friend, otherwise there rogering shopkeepers will ooze into lecherous overdrive.


Cassius Wrote:

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

> FelicityNormal Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It seems I was wrong. There is not a Local

> > shop-owning Lothario....there are several of

> them,

> > all shagging wildly in and around LL. >:D

> That's all right then - so you aren't accusing

> someone of deliberately spreading a STD.

Were any of these women raped? Did any of these women ask if the man was married? Did any of them insist on using a condom as obviously they did not know this man very well? If a woman shags a man about which she knows nothing or little, without using a condom, then she is taking a risk with her sexual health. 6 of one and half dozen of the other IMO.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying.  I appreciate your courage responding on here. 
    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...