Author Topic: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors  (Read 95306 times)

Lecale2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #900 on: February 22, 2018, 03:05:24 PM »
BREAKING NEWS: “Paedophile Hunter” George Keenan, 34, Dunmurray REMANDED IN CUSTODY for breaching his bail conditions within 24hrs of them being set. He sent a WhatsApp message despite ban from smartphone and social media apps. His solicitor said he was “a man of a low intelligence”.

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #901 on: February 22, 2018, 03:53:09 PM »
BREAKING NEWS: “Paedophile Hunter” George Keenan, 34, Dunmurray REMANDED IN CUSTODY for breaching his bail conditions within 24hrs of them being set. He sent a WhatsApp message despite ban from smartphone and social media apps. His solicitor said he was “a man of a low intelligence”.

 ;D ;D

Supported by men of comparable intelligence.

RedHand88

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #902 on: February 22, 2018, 05:55:09 PM »
BREAKING NEWS: “Paedophile Hunter” George Keenan, 34, Dunmurray REMANDED IN CUSTODY for breaching his bail conditions within 24hrs of them being set. He sent a WhatsApp message despite ban from smartphone and social media apps. His solicitor said he was “a man of a low intelligence”.

This is hilarious. What a defence!

longballin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #903 on: February 22, 2018, 07:16:07 PM »
BREAKING NEWS: “Paedophile Hunter” George Keenan, 34, Dunmurray REMANDED IN CUSTODY for breaching his bail conditions within 24hrs of them being set. He sent a WhatsApp message despite ban from smartphone and social media apps. His solicitor said he was “a man of a low intelligence”.

 ;D ;D

Supported by men of comparable intelligence.

True and some not far from here  ::)

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27281
  • Catch yourself on!
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #904 on: February 22, 2018, 07:28:41 PM »
Did Tony put up his bail? With the income from those houses he rents out and money he’s saved from not going to Celtic games anymore that be well within his budget to support a fellow dunce!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

T Fearon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12582
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #905 on: February 22, 2018, 07:34:32 PM »
Why are they Leanin on Keenan?

longballin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #906 on: February 22, 2018, 07:38:32 PM »
Why are they Leanin on Keenan?

"Supported by men of similar intelligence"... so true Franko

Dash83

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #907 on: February 22, 2018, 08:18:29 PM »
Was Tony as vociferous in his support of the pursuit of priests? I’ve a vague memory of a thread suggesting not. Could be wrong

Tony Baloney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15501
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #908 on: February 22, 2018, 08:31:22 PM »
Was Tony as vociferous in his support of the pursuit of priests? I’ve a vague memory of a thread suggesting not. Could be wrong
The children and their parents the main culprits.

Dash83

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #909 on: February 22, 2018, 08:43:26 PM »
I meant T Fearon by that. What do you mean by the kids and parents are the main culprits? Before I jump to the conclusion you meant the victims are to blame

Milltown Row2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27281
  • Catch yourself on!
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #910 on: February 22, 2018, 08:54:29 PM »
Well they allowed the priests to rape them and ensured the parents were ok about it.... according to T
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Dash83

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #911 on: February 22, 2018, 09:03:04 PM »
Of course, I’m up to speed. Cheers MR  ;)

T Fearon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12582
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #912 on: February 22, 2018, 09:03:39 PM »
Complete bullshit.I merely queried one case where Sean Brady was hung drawn and quartered for not going to the Police while the parents of at least one of the victims also knew about the abuse but also did not go to the Police yet escaped censure.

Interesting to see here people condemning people who hunt down paedophiles yet condone the unwarranted the crucifixion of Sean Brady who never abused anyone

longballin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #913 on: February 22, 2018, 09:27:32 PM »
Complete bullshit.I merely queried one case where Sean Brady was hung drawn and quartered for not going to the Police while the parents of at least one of the victims also knew about the abuse but also did not go to the Police yet escaped censure.

Interesting to see here people condemning people who hunt down paedophiles yet condone the unwarranted the crucifixion of Sean Brady who never abused anyone

Interesting to see you supporting loyalists with low IQs ruin any chance of convictions while supporting clergy who covered up for child rape.

Snapchap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
    • View Profile
Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« Reply #914 on: February 22, 2018, 10:28:05 PM »
Why did a BBC reporter turn up uninvited and unannounced at a private law abiding citizen's home? No wonder the guy was upset and lost it

The BBC reporter may have tirned up uninvited amd unannounced but that is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was is against journalistic regulations. So given that he broke no rules or laws, then the abusive reaction by the group was utterly over the top and by and rational standards, broke several laws. Now given those facts, is it fair to assume you no longer support that particular group since you stated yourself that you would only support them 'so long as they acted within the law'?

In your own time there, Tony.

If a BBC reporter and camera crew turned up at your house out of the blue would you be happy,unless it's a stunt on Michael Mc Intyre's show
1. If a BBC reporter and camera crew turned up at your house out of the blue and acted entirely lawfully, would you feel you have the right to break the law in response?
2. You clearly stated that you supported these groups "so long as they act within the law". Given that this group quite clearly broke several laws in response to them being 'unhappy' at something, is it not fair to assume that either you no longer support the group in question or else you were lying in saying your support was conditional on their law abiding behaviour?

Once again... in your own time, Tony.

I know I said 'in your own time' but let's not take the mickey here. Any chance of an answer or two?

Grow a pair and answer,Tony ffs.