Local Lothario (Lounged)

[mockney piers]

Oh dear this chap seems to be giving us latin types a bad name.

Of course I'm a happily married man myself.

Oh....deary....me......

Of course I would never knowingly use the cord 'cock' in conversation

Doh!!!

[Brendan]

Fuck me.* 6 pages of complete and utter bollocks in just 3 hours and when I was losing faith in the forums ability. Well done. In order to be en vogue, down with the kids lingo and all that I would even consider PMSL if only it didn?t burn so much.

*thank you come again.

[LegalEagle-ish]

Also if you have proof that the statement is true then even if you name the person it can't be libelous - so getting statements from the victims of his assault (knowingly passing an STD to someone can be an assault if the person suffers harm) should be enough proof.

If you feel this guy should be exposed to keep other gullible women safe, then just get your evidence and go for it.

[dulwichdoll]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> FelicityNormal Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Is it such a good call to have sex with someone

> > you're unsure about - condom or no condom?

>

> Yes - but only in the ass.

Now I know for sure who this is

[Asset]

trouble is, we've only got felicity normal's word, oh and now postmodern is in on it too. and initially it was one guy and now it's several so i'm not sure we can take any of this, libelous or not tale, particularly seriously.

[LegalEagle-ish]

True

[????]

I think felicity is an angler

or hasn't got her man

[*Bob*]

So far I've counted at least two totally different axes to grind against two two totally different blokes.. and we've been here before. Possibly three.

Sounds like a massive stinking load of screeching-harpy-driven bullshit of the highest order to me.

[HonaloochieB]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Sounds like a massive stinking load of

> screeching-harpy-driven bullshit of the highest

> order to me.

That reminds me *Bob*, whatever became of Daisy Chainsaw?

[charliecharlie]

just got back from work late, building up to the weekend... and whoooaa Forum... this is a seriously unpleasant thread... and it (me finding the Forum, not this thread) all started out so well... some pretty damn serious accusations

bit shocked...

[LegalEagle-ish]

So if someone forgets to pick up their dogs shit or acts funny and whistles on the street then it's ok to post endlessly about that but if some creepy tw@t possibly harrasses women who go to the shop he works in, shags them by lying about his feelings and omitting to mention the wife and kids plus knowingly spreads SDT's around the place, then somehow it's the women who are in the wrong for posting about this pri(k?

[Moos]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> So far I've counted at least two totally different

> axes to grind against two two totally different

> blokes.. and we've been here before. Possibly

> three.

>

> Sounds like a massive stinking load of

> screeching-harpy-driven bullshit of the highest

> order to me.

Got to say I'm with *Bob* on this one. Seems to me it's an attention-seeking story started and perpetuated without bothering to provide any evidence or indeed explanation. And it has to be said - it was a good strategy. It worked.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I have no idea who this dude might be, but if this is true I think he should be exposed because whether you think the women are idiots for beleiving him or not, we don't blame shops or banks for being robbed because they stupidly have loads of cash on their premises and should know better cos there are villians around.

[Asset]

But neither have we any idea if it's true and even if felicity and postmodern name him, how do we know if it's true? I am on the side that thinks there is a decidedly dubious whiff about this.

Libel can be claimed even if the facts are true but spread in a malicious fashion.

[charliecharlie]

I agree... to "post endlessly" about the minute detail of life makes for boring Forum reading, but accusing someone (even if un-named) of intentionally passing on a life threatening STD is a pretty serious issue. I just am not sure that banding about accusations on the Forum is the best way to deal with this issue.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> So if someone forgets to pick up their dogs shit

> or acts funny and whistles on the street then it's

> ok to endlessly about that but if some creepy

> tw@t possibly harrasses women who go to the shop

> he works in, shags them by lying about his

> feelings and omitting to mention the wife and kids

> plus knowingly spreads SDT's around the place,

> then somehow it's the women who are in the wrong

> for posting about this pri(k?

[LegalEagle-ish]

Even if it was spread in a malicious way, if the facts are true there is no libel, sorry Asset - that's why the News of the World get away with printing the shit they do. If it's based on some truth they can be really obnoxious about how they report whatever it is.

[Asset]

OK but whether it's libelous or not, there is something not right about it IMO.

[LegalEagle-ish]

Maybe the original poster would have done a better job if she had laid the facts out - but just because she has obviously got some kind of emotional link to this guy, that doesn't mean that what she said should necessarily be dismissed. It makes me think of those women who put up posters of their cheating ex's naming and shaming them, maybe I wouldn't do it the same way, but I can understand why someone would fell hurt and feel the need to expose the person concerned - but acting out of revenge or hurt doesn't negate the seriousness of what happened, if he did actually do all that stuff.

[chuff]

it does seem a bit of a set up to me

[Moos]

I'm with Asset. It's smug "hey, I ain't telling but I know somthing" nonsense.

[HonaloochieB]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

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

> I have no idea who this dude might be, but if this

> is true I think he should be exposed because

> whether you think the women are idiots for

> beleiving him or not, we don't blame shops or

> banks for being robbed because they stupidly have

> loads of cash on their premises and should know

> better cos there are villians around.

So are you saying that the women who fell for this chap were robbed of something?

I'd venture not their innocence, virtue or reputation.

They gained an infection, which I sincerely trust could be treated by a course of antibiotics and a clip round the ear from a stern auntie/grandmother for being such silly cows. Followed by a hug and ice cream.

They'd also gain an express pass to to Vanessa F*ltz's radio complain-in, and would be allowed to address her as 'V'.

Particularly on 'V's regular 'Has love at first sight ever caused you to discharge more than your responsibilities'? slot.

[Mikecg]

Flick Normal is a doppleganger and imposter, 60 posts is limited for sombody so controversial. also she has had serious arguments with people on here already.

She maybe one of the hacks that frequent this space?.

I gave out a major amount of abuse and have not received one reply, if it was anybody else they would have at least tried to defend themselves, however I don't need to attract any weirdos, I know enough already.

Hell have no fury like a woman scorned.

[Shu.Kurimu.Sensei]

HAH 7 pages! Haven't you lot still not learnt not to feed trolls #'$%?

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr314/Shu_Kurimu_Sensei/troll.jpg

[LegalEagle-ish]

Ok, but even if it was a load of old rubbish - I can't believe people would blame a woman who was conned by someone like that for real. It would be getting a shag under false pretences, emotional deception and grimness of the highest order so if I had been the person who stupidly expected a guy like that to act like an adult and got treated like that, I would probably have got a picture of him in the altogether and posted a fully illustrated account of how disgusting the guy was!

It's the kind of double standard thing about women who like sex that is the undercurrent that I object to. If it had been someone lying to a man about his bloody car, you would all have been up in arms in defence of the conned guy, but cos it's about a woman who shagged a man she barely knew, then she si the one who gets condemmned.

Pisses me off.

[LegalEagle-ish]

Even if it was posted by a troll!