Â£100k to keep perv safe

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:01 pm

hello well here we are again ready for another late night curl up with grumps.

remember how i posted a piece about serial paedophile raymond horne?

well here is the latest uproar about hornes return to britain.

if you dont know what i am ranting about read my other column serial paedophile deported to the uk first.

that should put you in the picture.

so heres tonights rant.

THE child sex beast dumped on Britain by Australia was in hiding last night as fury erupted at the cost of keeping him safe in his new life.

Evil Raymond Horne, 61, has been given a free home in London, police protection and benefits – with taxpayers footing the Â£100,000 a year bill.

Yesterday he was holed up with cops as families living nearby remained unaware a serial paedophile was in their midst.

Horne has been given a new identity and may have shaved off his full white beard so he can walk around undetected.

The beast – snapped by The Sun arriving at Heathrow this week – is on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

because he was convicted abroad, police cannot control where he goes or ban him from schools or playgrounds.

He was found guilty of more than 20 offences during his 56 years in Oz and child protection experts there say it is only a matter of time before he strikes again.

Yesterday hundreds of angry readers swamped the suns online discussion board about the scandal.

Kazzab, of Leeds, wrote: “Yet again, Britain gets the scum of the earth. Yet again at whose cost? The taxpayer.”

Carer, from Surrey, added: “In a week where Britain snubs loyal Gurkhas who have fought and died for this country, there must be something horribly wrong.”

AAG

does this mean gary glitter will get a safe house as well when he is deported ?

does this get under your skin like it does mine?

i,d welcome your comments.

night night

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:09 pm

AA Grumpy sorry for not knowing the whole story on this creep but why is he in Britan to begin with if the crimes were comitted in Australia?? What am I missing here??

From what you have posted this guy is a given for offending again.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:37 pm

It wouldn't cost anything at all, of course, if idiots didn't spout on and endanger him.

Either we have a rule of law in this country or we don't.

Hysterical headlines in the Sun do little to encourage rational behaviour, hence the unnecessary expense.

"If it were up to me" talk is such a waste of breath. We have laws instead of lynch mobs.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:50 pm

Now I understand he never was a citizen of Australia. Back to Britian he goes then.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:04 pm

That is exactly as it should be. Sorry for the children he preyed upon what a tragedy.

[QUOTE]It's all different now. If you commit a crime and you're not a citizen you're outta here.[/QUOTE]

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:31 pm

fuzzy butt;820519 wrote: Ummm SORRY? What do you mean dumped? He's your citizen not ours!!!!!

If you commit a crime in Australia and you are subsequently found guilty, after your sentence you are deported and Britain has the same rules.

He's your scum who raped our children ..........................You can have him back!!!!

NUFF SAID
I agree Fuzz

We have enough of our own to deal with,don't need anyone else's garbage:(

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:34 am

[quote spot]It wouldn't cost anything at all, of course, if idiots didn't spout on and endanger him.

Have you thought this through spock ?

The citizens have a right to be upset and fearful. Its their charge in life to keep their children safe and free from harm. If a serial child rapist lives in the community and has no restraints its well within reason for parents to get that information out there.

The state allowed danger to enter their haven, thus the state cannot be relied on to assure a safe environment. The most desirable thing they could do would be to cause such an uproar that hes forced to move. They dont care where he moves just go.

Ideally he should be returned to where he came from. From a human standpoint he gave up his rights when he RAPED A CHILD.

If you can argue any different then you need to get in touch with your heart again.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:42 am

Nomad;820610 wrote: [quote spot]It wouldn't cost anything at all, of course, if idiots didn't spout on and endanger him.

Have you thought this through spock ?

The citizens have a right to be upset and fearful. Its their charge in life to keep their children safe and free from harm. If a serial child rapist lives in the community and has no restraints its well within reason for parents to get that information out there.

The state allowed danger to enter their haven, thus the state cannot be relied on to assure a safe environment. The most desirable thing they could do would be to cause such an uproar that hes forced to move. They dont care where he moves just go.

Ideally he should be returned to where he came from. From a human standpoint he gave up his rights when he RAPED A CHILD.

If you can argue any different then you need to get in touch with your heart again.

Well said Nomad. None of us want these 'scum of the earth' living near us. But if we have to then at least we should be made aware of who they are to protect our children.

Can we not find an island somewhere we could dump them on?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:53 am

Nomad and Pheasie, I agree with both your posts entirely.

What the media, and that fat-head who started the thread, can't do is to stir up violence against the man. The tabloid press has stirred this level of hatred to the point where idiots like Grumpy actually publish a desire to see violence committed. Hence the police protection, since we live in a civilized society where that sort of thing isn't tolerated.

If you'd been a strident Muslim when the Ayatollah called for the murder of Salman Rushdie you'd have been just as annoyed about that police protection, believe me.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:42 am

Well said Nomad my thoughts exactly. I know here in San Diego a few perverts have been released into our neighborhoods and the citizen have made such a protest that they put them back in prison sort of. They live in cheap trailers within the gated and fenced areas of the prison where they can be monitored 24/7 so they are safe from John Q Citizen and away from our KIDS. So far it works we will not allow them back into our community to harm another CHILD beacuse they will there is no cure for these people sad but true. Even being housed on the prison grounds one managed to find a way to hang around a school and not show up for his probation officer he is back in prision. :-5

[QUOTE]Have you thought this through spock ?

The citizens have a right to be upset and fearful. Its their charge in life to keep their children safe and free from harm. If a serial child rapist lives in the community and has no restraints its well within reason for parents to get that information out there.

The state allowed danger to enter their haven, thus the state cannot be relied on to assure a safe environment. The most desirable thing they could do would be to cause such an uproar that hes forced to move. They dont care where he moves just go.

Ideally he should be returned to where he came from. From a human standpoint he gave up his rights when he RAPED A CHILD.If you can argue any different then you need to get in touch with your heart again.[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:24 am

Nobody seems to notice when I say that the sentence for every crime should be life imprisonment. Why's it assumed that I'm content to see these people released without rehabilitation? And before you knee-jerk, no I don't know of any evidence that effective rehabilitation has been demonstrated, I'd be interested to see any offerings that suggest someone's achieved it.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:52 pm

We're calling people fatheads now?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:56 pm

Him at the top? Grumpy? He keeps rejoining, refusing to discuss the tripe he writes and then having his posts deleted. Of course he's a fathead.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:16 pm

What's tripe about it? It makes for good discussion. I'm surprised at you Spot. You never used to stand for that kind of stuff. What happened to using the ignore button when you don't like something? Isn't that what we're all told to do, time and time again?

---------------- Listening to: Gordon Lightfoot / Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald via FoxyTunes

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:40 pm

If you read my posts in the thread you'll see why I think it's tripe, and dangerous and costly tripe at that.

I don't remember ever in my life advising anyone to use an ignore button, you'll have to show me where I did that.

When did I ever not stand for calling a fathead a fathead?

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:49 pm

spot;820683 wrote: Nomad and Pheasie, I agree with both your posts entirely.

What the media, and that fat-head who started the thread, can't do is to stir up violence against the man. The tabloid press has stirred this level of hatred to the point where idiots like Grumpy actually publish a desire to see violence committed. Hence the police protection, since we live in a civilized society where that sort of thing isn't tolerated.

If you'd been a strident Muslim when the Ayatollah called for the murder of Salman Rushdie you'd have been just as annoyed about that police protection, believe me.

hang on one second spot before you shoot me

the 100k post was a copy and paste from the sun on line and the words are the suns not mine i posted this as i personally think Â£100k and a new id to protect a paedophile is diabolical.

i have not condoned violence in any way against horne in either post and left to give the column writing a short break and ended writing as victor meldrew as there was some confusion as to which victor actually wrote the columns i was accused of pulling down a tv character so i thought it best to lay victor and the columns to rest for a while.

as to condoning violence i have only stated that there should be no hiding place for paedophiles and they should be hunted down ( by justice ) and punished to the full extent of the law.

yes i believe in the BNP and do not like asylum seekers but everyone has their own opinion.

i no longer write extremist right wing as this rubs people up the wrong way and the F.G admin.

this time GRUMPS IS INNOCENT!!

more soon

AAG

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:28 pm

spot;821020 wrote: If you read my posts in the thread you'll see why I think it's tripe, and dangerous and costly tripe at that.

I don't remember ever in my life advising anyone to use an ignore button, you'll have to show me where I did that.

When did I ever not stand for calling a fathead a fathead?

That's out of order Spot. You're a moderator, you're supposed to perform better than the rest of us and toe the line. If I or anyone else had called some member a fathead or whatever, we'd be infracted at best. I'm really surprised by your actions here.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:37 pm

AA grumpy wrote: as to condoning violence i have only stated that there should be no hiding place for paedophiles and they should be hunted down ( by justice ) and punished to the full extent of the law.No, let's be accurate. Even ignoring your previous manifestations from which you ran away - and I note your continuing tendency as AA grumpy to abandon threads after your first explosion of bile - you continually try to generate an atmosphere in which criminal acts against those you despise are lauded. Just to take three samples from the last month:lets hope that the vile paedophile pervert who abucted shannon is jailed for life and spends the rest of his days rotting in wakefield maxium security prison with the added bonus of a good hiding or two from fellow cons and staff

[...] they still have to walk around watching their backs as retribution will hopefully catch them up one day .

[...] may this beast be locked up for many years to come and be spat at abused and generally kicked from one end of the prison to the other.Each of which is an example of what I was rightly criticizing.

"i no longer write extremist right wing as this rubs people up the wrong way" is a lie, you do write it but you refuse to stand up and defend it with anything other than pointless opinion.

As for whether or not you flit back in pretending to be someone with no history here, "hi im AA grumpy and ive just joined the FG" ought to be evidence enough.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:39 pm

RedGlitter;821048 wrote: That's out of order Spot. You're a moderator, you're supposed to perform better than the rest of us and toe the line. If I or anyone else had called some member a fathead or whatever, we'd be infracted at best. I'm really surprised by your actions here.

You really can't call me out, you know. I'm right, I'm justified in this case, I'm open to valid criticism at any time.

You ignored my questions which challenged your accuracy.

I don't remember ever in my life advising anyone to use an ignore button, you'll have to show me where I did that.

When did I ever not stand for calling a fathead a fathead?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:45 pm

spot;821054 wrote: No, let's be accurate. Even ignoring your previous manifestations from which you ran away - and I note your continuing tendency as AA grumpy to abandon threads after your first explosion of bile - you continually try to generate an atmosphere in which criminal acts against those you despise are lauded. Just to take three samples from the last month:lets hope that the vile paedophile pervert who abucted shannon is jailed for life and spends the rest of his days rotting in wakefield maxium security prison with the added bonus of a good hiding or two from fellow cons and staff

[...] they still have to walk around watching their backs as retribution will hopefully catch them up one day .

[...] may this beast be locked up for many years to come and be spat at abused and generally kicked from one end of the prison to the other.Each of which is an example of what I was rightly criticizing.

"i no longer write extremist right wing as this rubs people up the wrong way" is a lie, you do write it but you refuse to stand up and defend it with anything other than pointless opinion.

As for whether or not you flit back in pretending to be someone with no history here, "hi im AA grumpy and ive just joined the FG" ought to be evidence enough.

Most people I speak to, say the same sort of thing...Its a knee jerk reaction to these sick pervs...Most say if that was my child id string the bastard up and ********** and *********....These vile creatures inflict untold pain and suffering to all and deserve no pity whatsoever...In the case of Shannon their was 1400 of the sickos within a 20 mile radius of her home on the sex offenders list which made my skin bloody crawl...

If AA wants to reinvent himself so what, hes not doing anything wrong in my eyes. If peeps dont like certain posts they dont have to respond on them and I think calling members names isnt cool Spot, regardless of what you think of them personally.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:47 pm

Chezzie;821062 wrote: Most people I speak to, say the same sort of thing...Its a knee jerk reaction to these sick pervs...Most say if that was my child id string the bastard up and ********** and *********....These vile creatures inflict untold pain and suffering to all and deserve no pity whatsoever...In the case of Shannon their was 1400 of the sickos within a 20 mile radius of her home on the sex offenders list which made my skin bloody crawl...

If AA wants to reinvent himself so what, hes not doing anything wrong in my eyes. If peeps dont like certain posts they dont have to respond on them and I think calling members names isnt cool Spot, regardless of what you think of them personally.

I think nothing of him personally at all, I've never met the man.

The simple answer is not to release convicts. Why do you support releasing convicts?

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:48 pm

spot;821054 wrote: No, let's be accurate. Even ignoring your previous manifestations from which you ran away - and I note your continuing tendency as AA grumpy to abandon threads after your first explosion of bile - you continually try to generate an atmosphere in which criminal acts against those you despise are lauded. Just to take three samples from the last month:lets hope that the vile paedophile pervert who abucted shannon is jailed for life and spends the rest of his days rotting in wakefield maxium security prison with the added bonus of a good hiding or two from fellow cons and staff

[...] they still have to walk around watching their backs as retribution will hopefully catch them up one day .

[...] may this beast be locked up for many years to come and be spat at abused and generally kicked from one end of the prison to the other.Each of which is an example of what I was rightly criticizing.

"i no longer write extremist right wing as this rubs people up the wrong way" is a lie, you do write it but you refuse to stand up and defend it with anything other than pointless opinion.

As for whether or not you flit back in pretending to be someone with no history here, "hi im AA grumpy and ive just joined the FG" ought to be evidence enough.

ok hands up i did go a little right there but i do not believe in moddycoddling

those who break the law or serious sex criminals.

i may be a fathead but admit it spot you are one of the handwringing bleating do gooders whos liberal attitudes are fine in the right places but not where murderers sex beasts paeophiles etc are concered.

as to your quote for whether or not you flit back in pretending to be someone with no history here, "hi im AA grumpy and ive just joined the FG" ought to be evidence enough. i have never pretended to be anyone else

and just joined meant as aa grumpy.

anyway enough of the slanging match lets just agree to disagree and get down to some serious debating.

AAG

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:52 pm

spot;821064 wrote: I think nothing of him personally at all, I've never met the man.

The simple answer is not to release convicts. Why do you support releasing convicts?

Ok Personally was the wrong word, however I cant think of a better word right now, I mean whatever you think of another member, you shouldnt name call and fathead sounds so bloody rude.

I wasnt aware I was supporting the release of them???

I wasnt aware the OP was either, he simply posted a piece from a paper for us to discuss as far as I can see. Funny enough, when I read about this I nearly did a post myself but I didnt have time as I was busy with my trip.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:03 pm

So do you support the release of convicts? If convicts weren't released then there would be no reason for "1400 of the sickos within a 20 mile radius of her home on the sex offenders list which made my skin bloody crawl..." and no reason to try to excuse people for making statements inciting the commission of an offence, which is what grumpy's statements have been.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:22 pm

spot;821076 wrote: So do you support the release of convicts? If convicts weren't released then there would be no reason for "1400 of the sickos within a 20 mile radius of her home on the sex offenders list which made my skin bloody crawl..." and no reason to try to excuse people for making statements inciting the commission of an offence, which is what grumpy's statements have been.

Now I feel insulted that you would even suggest that I support it Spot.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:32 pm

Chezzie, I think you're mis-reading my question. Maybe I ought to re-word it somehow. It's not "do you support releasing people who do that to children", it's "do you support the release of convicts" and if so, why. Any convicts. People found guilty of littering or driving while eating, whatever's illegal where you are.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:37 pm

spot;821055 wrote: You really can't call me out, you know. I'm right, I'm justified in this case, I'm open to valid criticism at any time.

You ignored my questions which challenged your accuracy.

I don't remember ever in my life advising anyone to use an ignore button, you'll have to show me where I did that.

When did I ever not stand for calling a fathead a fathead?

Spot, I just did call you out, although in a polite fashion. My purpose in this is not to carry on an argument but to let you know you are being very offensive and violating the TOS as well by calling *members* names. I believe in the last PM you wrote me before I split for a while, you told me and another member to ignore each other and the board would heal. Well, this behavior is not healing. I don't mind Grumpy's posts so I'm here to stay but if they bother you so much (and it's fine if they do, you're certainly entitled) why not just read elsewhere? At the very least please just cease the namecalling. It looks terrible to old and new.

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

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:51 pm

spot;821091 wrote: Chezzie, I think you're mis-reading my question. Maybe I ought to re-word it somehow. It's not "do you support releasing people who do that to children", it's "do you support the release of convicts" and if so, why. Any convicts. People found guilty of littering or driving while eating, whatever's illegal where you are.

Of course I support people being released out of prison if they have done motoring offences or infact if they have served their time. The difference with this bloke is I dont agree with letting them (sex offenders)out ever because its a sure bet he will offend again. I really dont get why you would stir this up to include people who litter, its not on the same scale of sexually raping and attacking young kids now is it.

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:51 pm

many thanks to those who support grumps.

it isnt easy to trawl through pages of news looking for some tasty morsel to throw to the FG members night after night and then write a comment on it which i do volunterally i may sometimes chase the same line or follow up on an old thread

but its nice to be appreciated:-4.

regards

AA GRUMPY

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:56 pm

fuzzy butt;821112 wrote: IT WAS ME!!! IT WAS ME!!!! I WAS THE OTHER MEMBER!!!!!!

good effort in trying to slide that in at the same time berating someone else .......ewwwhhhh evil evil evil.

And I had you on ignore for about a year and it still didn't stop you attacking myself and others.

So about that pedophile? He's 62 he'll always have the sex register so that will take away his usual modus of operendi.................I think you guys will be safe from him . He's into lewing kids and gaining their trust he's not going to begin kidnapping them off the streets. It's simply not his way.

I still would be pissed off to find out he was living on my street, watching my gorgeous innocent two girls go about their lifes whilst he perved over them. He wont change, he will still have the sick desire to molest kids and once out he will have ample opportunity.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:07 pm

fuzzy butt;821120 wrote: I prefer that I know that there is a sicko living across the road from me than not knowing about a sicko living across the road from me.

How many sickoes do you know living in your street that havent been arrested or convicted yet?

your entitled to your opinion and im entitled mine which iv'e already said. I dont want any sex offenders living near me or anyone else id prefer them locked up for life. You mentioned the poor lad that didnt rape but watched, thats a bit sick also. Anyone who sexually assaults another person or aids and abets it should suffer the consequenses in my eyes. Child sex offenders should never see the light of day.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:22 pm

Chezzie;821110 wrote: Of course I support people being released out of prison if they have done motoring offences or infact if they have served their time. The difference with this bloke is I dont agree with letting them (sex offenders)out ever because its a sure bet he will offend again. I really dont get why you would stir this up to include people who litter, its not on the same scale of sexually raping and attacking young kids now is it.
Why do you think other convicts whose release you support won't re-offend if they have served their time?

AA grumpy · Post by **AA grumpy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:25 pm

this is getting too complicated im off for a fag a drink of tea and cuddle up to the wife in bed.

night night all see you tommorow with another rant

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:32 pm

[QUOTE=spot;821137]Why do you think other convicts whose release you support won't re-offend if they have served their time?[/QUOTE

Not once have I questioned your opinion or anyone elses, I mearly stated you should not call people names. I have said my piece and I dont need to explain my reasons to anyone, same as I havent asked you for yours.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:46 pm

Chezzie;821147 wrote: Not once have I questioned your opinion or anyone elses, I mearly stated you should not call people names. I have said my piece and I dont need to explain my reasons to anyone, same as I havent asked you for yours.

If you can't explain your reasons then your opinion is unsupported. I'm trying to understand why you hold that opinion so I'm asking what else you think so I can probe it. Why so defensive? What I've asked is quite a reasonable question. Why do you think other convicts whose release you support won't re-offend if they have served their time?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:54 pm

spot;821152 wrote: If you can't explain your reasons then your opinion is unsupported. I'm trying to understand why you hold that opinion so I'm asking what else you think so I can probe it. Why so defensive? What I've asked is quite a reasonable question. Why do you think other convicts whose release you support won't re-offend if they have served their time?

I dont want probing thanks very much:D

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:57 pm

Why do you think an opinion has value if it has no foundation?