Apology to Tikay.

[mouth]

erm - where you said on the same page "sheildsy the little angel  " etc. Why do you need enlightening on something you wrote, or have you forgotten? Why are you attempting to paint yoruself as wronged and whiter than white on here when on FB you are taking the piss?


Sunday at 12:02pm · LikeUnlike.Paul Turnstill i didnt laugh at this comment, i just told kev not to risk it. people do stupid things when drunk, things very much out of character.some people act like complete sluts others get aggressive and others play silly pranks they regret.
but kev... doesnt need do gooders hijacking threads telling him right from wrong especially those in glass houses, so with that il leave the thread lol.See More
Sunday at 12:58pm · LikeUnlike.Kevin Shepherd Lol, mountain out of molehill. if anyone fancies a sunday ride on the moral high horse,knock yaselfs out, i thought it was funny.
Sunday at 1:06pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Paul Turnstill u was kev ;-) x read deeper lol

Hardly a silly prank IMO. Doesn't look like the police think it's a silly prank either.

You need to get your priorities right mate. If you think sexually abusing a drunk woman without her consent or knowledge is acceptable you need to see a shrink yourself.  

[booder]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

Good post Snoops

[outragous76]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

snoops please dont point out the obvious, it might dawn on them that this isnt just about kev....................................... oh wait!

very nh sir

[Woodsey]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

Good post Snoops

+1

[thetank]

On the forum ripple

You can argue very effectively against the first clause of my sentence if you ignore the second one.

I have never had sex with barnyard animals.

You could argue that yes I have had sex but... I hope you see my point.




We all make mistakes, I certainly do, Kev certainly does and in terms of the way this was handled Tikay does too. I don't want to bleat about that though, what's done is done. I'm concerned at what is happening now, or rather not happening now.

OP is a more or less textbook case of why leaving Kev banning is in effect hanging him out to dry in the court of public opinion. It says that the completely fucked up treatment he got when this came out (or didn't come out rather) was completely justified.

Shouldn't have a go at 'the mods' as a collective though. We know the Kev decision initially had nothing to do with them and was just Tightend and Tikay acting alone. Are we to assume that they are still powerless to act on this issue?

[Longy]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

This is pretty much my view on why Ginger should be demodded. I know very little about the other stuff going on but that alone should be enough for her to be taken out of a position of responsibility.

[henrik777]

On the forum ripple

You can argue very effectively against the first clause of my sentence if you ignore the second one.

I have never had sex with barnyard animals.

You could argue that yes I have had sex but... I hope you see my point.




We all make mistakes, I certainly do, Kev certainly does and in terms of the way this was handled Tikay does too. I don't want to bleat about that though, what's done is done. I'm concerned at what is happening now, or rather not happening now.

OP is a more or less textbook case of why leaving Kev banning is in effect hanging him out to dry in the court of public opinion. It says that the completely fucked up treatment he got when this came out (or didn't come out rather) was completely justified.

Shouldn't have a go at 'the mods' as a collective though. We know the Kev decision initially had nothing to do with them and was just Tightend and Tikay acting alone. Are we to assume that they are still powerless to act on this issue?

And Flushy iirc.

Sandy

[mouth]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

snoops please dont point out the obvious, it might dawn on them that this isnt just about kev....................................... oh wait!

very nh sir

Seems to be the point that everyone is missing - this isn't about Kev. But the FREE COLCHESTER KEV posse have jumped up to defend something that isn't the issue.

My OP is about apologising to Tikay for wronging him. It clearly says it isn't about Kev. It wasn't about Ginger either come to that! However I can appreciate people's worries regarding invasion of privacy. The irony is can anyone moaning about the invasion of their privacy see the point of this whole thing was that someone else on here had their privacy invaded in the worst possible way?

[Longines]

I'm not sure how Ginger can be defended. She invaded the privacy of Kev, and everyone else who has ever sent an email, pm or had a conversation with him. The fact that she found something incriminating is irrelevant to that fact. Personally, I have likely sent pms to Kev that I wouldn't want read, but there's a good chance they were, and for that person to continue as a mod is pretty disgraceful and a poor reflection on a community that I used to hold in such high regard.

Good post Snoops

+1

+2

[Bongo]

Guaran-damn-teed if it was Boshi or Bongo etc they would have been stripped of their modship by now.

Slight technicality - I'm not actually a mod.

??

Sandy

more

unfortunately

[The Camel]

I just feel people may have got their priorities somewhat confused here.

If Jane found evidence that might help a criminal case be closed I think that proves her actions were justified.

[turny]

erm - where you said on the same page "sheildsy the little angel  " etc. Why do you need enlightening on something you wrote, or have you forgotten? Why are you attempting to paint yoruself as wronged and whiter than white on here when on FB you are taking the piss?


Sunday at 12:02pm · LikeUnlike.Paul Turnstill i didnt laugh at this comment, i just told kev not to risk it. people do stupid things when drunk, things very much out of character.some people act like complete sluts others get aggressive and others play silly pranks they regret.
but kev... doesnt need do gooders hijacking threads telling him right from wrong especially those in glass houses, so with that il leave the thread lol.See More
Sunday at 12:58pm · LikeUnlike.Kevin Shepherd Lol, mountain out of molehill. if anyone fancies a sunday ride on the moral high horse,knock yaselfs out, i thought it was funny.
Sunday at 1:06pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Paul Turnstill u was kev ;-) x read deeper lol

Hardly a silly prank IMO. Doesn't look like the police think it's a silly prank either.

You need to get your priorities right mate. If you think sexually abusing a drunk woman without her consent or knowledge is acceptable you need to see a shrink yourself.  Obviously your lack of moral fibre and dubious standards has been passed on through the family genes. And before you get stressed on that one, it was your son who put it up on Youtube wasn't it? If it wasn't - I'm so so sorry from the heart of my bottom. Sicko.

glad to see you have nothing better to do than follow me on facebook, im flattered ;-)

my opinions on what happened on that night will be told to the police when they are requested, not here on a forum, not until the matter is resolved anyway.

for your information though, i never saw any video so i dont think it would be possible for me to laugh at it.

[henrik777]

I just feel people may have got their priorities somewhat confused here.

If Jane found evidence that might help a criminal case be closed I think that proves her actions were justified.

Not convinced of that but if you left a mobile at your ex's house after you split and didn't expect them to browse your text and files you'd be in a minority.

There might be a chance they wouldn't  if they spot it quick but in that case you'd better duck.

Sandy

[Boba Fett]

I just feel people may have got their priorities somewhat confused here.

If Jane found evidence that might help a criminal case be closed I think that proves her actions were justified.

2 wrongs dont make a right.  Invading someones privacy by reading emails/text messages/PM's/mail through the door etc etc should be illegal imo

[Longines]

I just feel people may have got their priorities somewhat confused here.

If Jane found evidence that might help a criminal case be closed I think that proves her actions were justified.

Is 'helping a criminal case to be closed' always justification for carrying out an criminal act? The recent Imerman judgement means Jane's actions are highly likely to have been criminal.