• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

Sorry but I disagree about them being rehabilitated. At one time, I would agree with that, but learning the hard way and through personal experience, I'm sorry but I cannot agree with them ever being rehabilitated. They're evil animals; hurt anyone who walks in their paths, put on the "woa-is-me" card to "get rehabilited," and then claim their next victim. Please don't anyone fall for their evil manipulative games.

Homosexual don't deliberately go around hurting people and claiming victims. They're just homosexual and have nothing to be ashamed of in the way that heterosexuals have nothing to be ashamed of. But paedophile are inhumane, evil, vindictive and should be kept away from society in the same way a tiger is kept in a tiger so not to bite or attack innocent victims.

Sorry not trying to have a go at anyone. This is just my opinion.

Evey

Evey
 
All I mean with the comparison between homosexuals and paedos is to me it's an inborn thing and some people get unlucky enough to develop an attraction to children instead of men or women as they age. I couldn't be turned straight, I know that for a fact, but I also know behaviours can be altered and/or stopped entirely.

I'm not like waving an 'I FUCKING LOVE THEM NONCES' flag but in that case I genuinely don't believe they're evil, just fucked up mentally, like we all can be in many ways. If they go out of their way to get help to not act on their urges realising they are wrong, then ok cool. If they're like 'lol i fuck kids' then fuck that.

And having different opinions is fine, we've all been through different shit and formed different opinions so no offence taken

edit: i wonder when we're gonna get that rap on the door for the thread title ha
 
Last edited:
I dunno if its an inborn thing, i think it could be a developmental thing. When the boy or girl is 14 or 15 they probably want to have sex with other 14 or 15 year old boys or girls, which is obviously "normal", but as they get older they "should" outgrow these feelings, but it seems that some dont. Lolita and all that.
 
Equally valid.

I think you have a point and would respond more coherently were I not utterly fucked <3
 
Eveleivibe said:
Sorry but I disagree about them being rehabilitated. At one time, I would agree with that, but learning the hard way and through personal experience, I'm sorry but I cannot agree with them ever being rehabilitated. They're evil animals; hurt anyone who walks in their paths, put on the "woa-is-me" card to "get rehabilited," and then claim their next victim. Please don't anyone fall for their evil manipulative games.
Click to expand...

You can't just tar a huge number of people with the same brush. Did you even read Snolly's post? The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.
 
Why bother, you've been here for long enough to realise it's like trying to talk sense into a joint of roast beef.
 
I'm not sure whether I buy the Rolf conviction - they say "because there was 4 of them that means it's a stronger case" but there was half a dozen of the fuckers saying Ken Barlow had been clawing at their arse and he was found innocent. Doesn't that prove that people are willing to make up sex abuse stories?

I was never that keen on Rolf when I was a kid but on animal hospital he used to comfort people who'se dogs had died and I loved the geezer.
 
However bad what rolf got up to was (obviously bad), and the others in Yew Tree, it seems like a different league to the establishment protected jimmy saville stuff (friend of thatchers and royals); plus all the different childrens homes cover ups over the decades, jersey coverups (ted heath?), some mcalpine (if not the MP), etc. Yew Tree still seems like a bit of a smokescreen to hide much more shocking stuff.

Savile had known close friendships with various police officers, and in his autobiography said he was protected because what he knew about the police (in so many words). Then there's that photo where he introduces Frank Bruno to Peter Sutcliffe (and the masonic handshake - in the thread somewhere). God knows what the cunts at the top of the establishment get up to.
 
Last edited:
^ Aye man. Saville quite clearly wasn't doing all that shit on his own, which seemed to be what Operation Yewtree was about - but then all it's done is bust some creeps for touching up their fans in the 60s, nothing on the level of what Saville was meant to be doing. Where are the Saville accomplices? Still protected, just like he was.

Ismene said:
I'm not sure whether I buy the Rolf conviction - they say "because there was 4 of them that means it's a stronger case" but there was half a dozen of the fuckers saying Ken Barlow had been clawing at their arse and he was found innocent. Doesn't that prove that people are willing to make up sex abuse stories?

I was never that keen on Rolf when I was a kid but on animal hospital he used to comfort people who'se dogs had died and I loved the geezer.
Click to expand...

The letter to one girl's father was pretty damning tbh. Although he proclaimed innocence (or perceived innocence), he seemed to accept that he had forced himself on her even though she hadn't actually said no. I think in light of that all the other claims suddenly seem much more believable.
 
I'm not entirely convinced by the masonic handshake vurtual - Sutcliffe was a wagon driver with a conviction for going equipped for theft, not prime mason material seeing as they're all ex-coppers. And Bruno was well, black, which most policemen wern't too keen on and still arn't. So perhaps it was just a case of Sutcliffe misjudging where Brunos hand was because he's half-blind from that screwdriver attack in prison.
 
Ismene said:
I'm not entirely convinced by the masonic handshake vurtual - Sutcliffe was a wagon driver with a conviction for going equipped for theft, not prime mason material seeing as they're all ex-coppers. And Bruno was well, black, which most policemen wern't too keen on and still arn't. So perhaps it was just a case of Sutcliffe misjudging where Brunos hand was because he's half-blind from that screwdriver attack in prison.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure either - bruno claims he didn't know who it was, and i could see it as a sick joke of savile's. But black people (and non-coppers) can deffo be masons (though maybe not get as high up). And that handshake is classic mason (i forget which degree it is - first i think?).

And what do i know, maybe sutcliffe was an honorary member of some secret masonic sect that jack the ripper was also in ('the jeues should not be blamed' the ripper (may have) wrote - supposed to refer to jubelo and two other 'jues' i forget that were a big part of masonic lore. Plus the organs of one victim were laid out in the way described in the masonic oath - OT (and probably discredited - read that years ago). It's all a bit ickean, but who knows? (i wouldn'tput it past some of the elite - judging by the psychopathy they exhibit in their overt government policies.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top