Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit
Customer Discussions > philosophy discussion forum

Much younger/older partners - Friendship/Romance: Beyond cut off yrs.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2015, 18:09:11 BST
You must be the only one who's surprised, 'Deviant Dave' has always been an obvious groomer/paedo for all to see.

Posted on 29 Jul 2015, 17:36:52 BST
.W says:
A public discussion, in which a sixty year old man says he thinks fifteen year olds should be classed as adults, in regard to the age of consent. He goes on to say to lower it beyond fifteen may have a "negative consequence". He also says that with regard to the age of consent, "Bodily penetration should possibly define sexual activity in this regard(??)".

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3036

A public discussion, in which young teenagers as young as fifteen are talking about their problems with their fathers, and in which a sixty year old man gives them the following advice: "Have any of you ever considered doing a diy job - simply look for a man of about the right age, your fathers age, but this time make sure he`s everything that you want, and will always be there for you. Plenty of men are capable of filling the father role, you don`t need to be related to them, simply cautious - Obviously, there must be trust (as with guys of any age)and that would be a key part of the relationship. Meanwhile your real father might want to mend his ways!?"

http://ehealthforum.com/health/i-hate-my-father-so-much-that-i-have-no-care-for-him-t171927.html

I've now stopped searching the internet for this man's posts. It's having a detrimental effect on my own mental well being. I'm completely confident that the authorities will discover if there is any truth in this man's claims regarding the children he has mentioned.

I'm untracking the thread, and won't be posting on it again.

Posted on 27 Jul 2015, 20:00:03 BST
.W says:
Amendment: I have included the public post that showed a map and photos in my reports, because after reading the page I found it to be disturbing.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2015, 17:48:49 BST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2015, 11:40:55 BST
.W says:
1) I have no wish or need to speak to this young woman.

2) What I believe about the decision made by the courts is completely irrelevant, I do not have the qualifications or the information necessary to make an opinion.

3) You have stated that I wish these children harm. I'm not even going to address this comment, for reasons that will be completely clear to anyone but yourself.

4) All the details that you yourself have posted publically online have now been passed to the appropriate authorities, including your name, address, telephone number and email. I haven't sent the posts in which you have mentioned this woman's name, or in which you have posted a location map and photos of the outside and inside of your house.

5) This is the last post I shall direct towards you, and I shall enter into no further communication with you.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2015, 10:26:03 BST
Well that is certainly what I am hoping is the truth in all this? - otherwise dave really is even more stupid than he likes to keep on claiming that other people are.

Any woman in this terrible situation would surely be insane to ever believe that someone like dave could ever keep her confidences to himself, or to be able to singlehandedly protect her from being found and from any further harm, never mind able to help her to successfully negotiate her way through the Legal System to either get her children back or into much better and safer care?

There seems to be a whole lot of stupidness going on here now and it is very obvious exactly who it is all coming from as well! :o<

Posted on 27 Jul 2015, 09:51:57 BST
Fencible says:
What an utterly unconvincing old faker!

Posted on 27 Jul 2015, 07:54:18 BST
Last edited by the author on 27 Jul 2015, 07:55:10 BST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Jul 2015, 23:00:24 BST
.W says:
Dave, it is now 11pm sunday 26th july and I'm logging off as you have not appeared.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2015, 22:12:17 BST
.W says:
Dave, I have returned to this thread at the pre arranged time previously given to you. This is to give you and/or the mother the opportunity to talk to me in real time. I will stay on here for 40 minutes, logging off again at 10.40pm if neither of you appear.

When we use internet forums, we can have no idea if people are telling the truth or not. But where the safety of children is concerned, and when someone claims that children may be at risk, then these claims should always be taken very seriously. You have made very serious allegations, but also have contradicted yourself, and made some confusing posts. I have no alternative but to report your claims to the proper authorities, which I shall do tomorrow.

I have every sympathy for any woman who is a survivor of violence, but when a case involves children then their welfare must always come first. There is absolutely no reason for you to state that giving your information to the authorities will put this woman at risk. If she is living with you and is in contact wih courts then they already know her location. But my main concern must be for the children, rather than for an adult who is able to access help from organisations.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2015, 18:17:50 BST
Sheesh.

Codswallop content 98%.

Posted on 26 Jul 2015, 17:05:28 BST
What an absolutely dreadful story? - if it really is true and not just being created as yet more controversial Forum fodder? :o<

If it is true, then reading between the lines, this poor young woman has gone from being virtually tortured on a daily basis by a monster, and losing her own children and almost even her life as well, to now living with an extremely indiscreet and publicity-hungry fool of a man who is now not only posting up such terribly personal and private details of her life on a public Forum for all to see but also under an attention-seeking profile that apparently can easily be traced as well?

If you really do care about her at all then I think you had better tell her exactly what you have just done, outing her on a public Forum like this, so that she can start making immediate plans with the proper authorities and organisations this time around to get herself to a place of real and reliable safety. She clearly deserves far better in terms of private confidences and loyalty than she has just received on here from a 'friend' such as yourself, dave?

If this monster manages to catch up with her again now then it will surely be through you judging by the content of your posts. It really was a VERY STUPID thing to do indeed and no-one else can be held in anyway responsible for your own actions on these Forums but yourself.

Posted on 26 Jul 2015, 16:52:13 BST
.W says:
Amendment to the above post, there was no number 6, I made an error, and number seven should have been number six, but I will not be editing any of my posts, for good reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jul 2015, 16:16:54 BST
.W says:
1) You have stated three times now that children may be in danger. In the same post that you state they may be in danger, you also state there is no evidence whatsoever that he may harm children, thus completely contradicting yourself.

2) If the court has given him custody, the welfare of the children will have been the first priority, and the custodian's background will have been looked at very carefully indeed.

3) A highly intelligent woman would not place herself under your roof, but would instead make use of the many organisations that exist to help women who experience violence.

4) Giving your name and address to the authorities will not in any way be stupid, neither will it put this woman in any danger.

5) You have posted on this public forum, where your profile gives a link to your website, which gives your real name. A simple internet search of you brings up your address and a lot of other personal information. YOUR INFORMATION IS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS. Therefore, if you believe that giving the police your PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE information will put this woman at risk, it is yourself who is solely to blame.

7) If the man that you have made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about has been given custody, I am confident that no children are at risk.

8) However, because you have completely contradicted yourself, first saying they may be at risk, then saying they are not, I am unsatisfied with your answer.

9) I shall therefore be forwarding your IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN information, that YOU YOURSELF HAVE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE, to the proper authorites. And if you suggest that the police and/or social services will put this woman's safety at risk, then I am not the one who is stupid.

10) She very obviously isn't done with stupid people. Unfortunately.

Posted on 26 Jul 2015, 15:02:36 BST
Last edited by the author on 26 Jul 2015, 15:11:43 BST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 25 Jul 2015, 22:55:02 BST
Young women in Discos Daves house, 'under his protection'.

ROFLMAO!

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 18:27:53 BST
.W says:
Thank you Tony, I am overlapping screenshots to avoid any inference of editing on my part. I'm also now going to track the thread, so Dave's posts will come to me by email before they are edited.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 18:23:35 BST
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Oct 2015, 11:45:00 BST]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 18:22:45 BST
.W says:
Hi Anita, thank you, I will. I asked Tony because he is posting using his real name. I won't ask permission of anyone who posts using a pseudonym, like myself.

I too am not sure if it is true, but if there is the remotest chance then action needs to be taken.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 18:18:43 BST
Anita says:
Hi, Wayfarer. If you want, you may include mine too. If there are children in danger, it's not for someone to make "philosophies" of that on some forum. It's the *lives* of a young woman and her children, for heaven's sake, not a topic to express one's views, some action just has to be taken.

Unless Dave just made it up, we can't exclude that possibility

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 18:13:17 BST
.W says:
Hi Tony, your permission please to include your posts in my screenshots. I can edit your post out, but would prefer not to for continuity.

Posted on 25 Jul 2015, 18:09:28 BST
.W says:
Dave, I will return to this thread tomorrow sunday 26th at ten pm. If you cannot assure me that you have reported your concerns, then on Monday 27th I will do so myself.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 17:34:05 BST
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Oct 2015, 11:44:59 BST]

Posted on 25 Jul 2015, 17:26:24 BST
.W says:
This post is directed toward the young mother mentioned in Dave's two posts. I do not know if you exist or not, or whether your children exist. But it is now my responsibility to report these above statements to the authorities, out of concern for the safety of the children Dave has mentioned.

If you are in fear for your own safety, I urge you to please, please get in touch with one of the organisations below. I would futher urge you to leave the man above, if it is true you live with him, because he cannot protect you. Please contact a proper organisation now.

http://www.refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/emergency_accommodation_if_homeless/womens_refuges

http://www.nationaldomesticviolencehelpline.org.uk/

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2015, 17:08:11 BST
.W says:
Dave, you have made a public statement saying you know of children who are in the care of a "potential killer", a "psychopath", someone who has "attempted killings".

I ask you, have you reported your feelings to the police/social services? It is your responsibility to do so immediately. The only thing I care about is the fact that you are saying children may be at risk of harm.

If you cannot assure me that you have reported your concerns, then I'm afraid I'm going to the authorities myself. If there is a one in ten million chance that you are telling the truth, then it is my responsibility to do this. I will forward your real name and adress, together with screenshots of your posts above, together with links to your facebook, youtube, google, and your own website. The authorities will have no trouble at all finding you to investigate these claims that you have just made regarding the welfare of children. I'm sorry Dave, but I have to call your bluff on this one, in case what you are saying is true.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the philosophy discussion forum (106 discussions)

 

This discussion

Participants:  60
Total posts:  1559
Initial post:  27 Jan 2010
Latest post:  22 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers