Drummond's anti-gay slur

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

that ghastly Brit hack who revels in other's misfortune has posted on his blog a story about a new airline and praising them because there isn't a "gay flight attendant in sight!".

This slime ball who contributes to the criminal mafia style corporation News Corp rags hasn't yet comprehended that Britain's tabloid writers are considered to be even lower on the evolutionary scale than..real estate agents and used car dealers !!..and most passengers would prefer not to share the same inflight air as them. :party

Good to see O'Booze back - and I agree 100%.

I have been totally bemused over the years by what has almost become a campaign for the beatification of the Blessed Andrew Drummond - what the fuck is that all about?

To read the glowing tributes posted on various fora (there was yet another homily posted here very recently) you would think this guy was something more than a freelance gutter gossip-monger who happily and unashamedly flogged his tat to the highest bidder (including the odious and disgraced News of the World).


:occasion9:

[Brad the Impala]

Hearing what you all say about Drummond, but wasn't he also the one journalist that stuck his neck out for Kevin against the macmafia?

Hearing what you all say about Drummond, but wasn't he also the one journalist that stuck his neck out for Kevin against the macmafia?Dont confuse the people here who want to see everyone in black and white without any shades of gray.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Hearing what you all say about Drummond, but wasn't he also the one journalist that stuck his neck out for Kevin against the macmafia?

I think 'stuck his neck out' may be an exageration. Kevin was a "good story" for British tabloids. there are plenty of others in dire straights including Thai nationals that he ignores.

He certainly published tales of Kevin's woes but he also suffers from the Fleet Street malady that has just been exposed by the Rt Hon Justice Lord Leveson : that the writing and publishing of accurate events somehow absolves journalists when they commit crimes, hack phones, bribe police and so on.

On the said hack's website where he delves into ex-pat resident's backgrounds including 2 he has a personal beef with, and routinely 'exposes' illegal acts
( it was once thought when a person was convicted and served their time they were entitled to re-enter society ) he boasts of his efforts in hunting down a former famous Brit entertainer.

Since edited from that tale (but still available by Google cache) he mocks Vietnamese and Cambodian authorities as he laughingly tells how he and a photographer lied on immigration forms and bribed local officials for information. The rules are for others of course.

I do not think Thai politicians have read this man's work : what he presents on his blog is not what he writes for Britain's gutter publications : he routinely calls Thailand police, courts, politicians corrupt and defames the country and people who host him. He holds out as a beacon of rectitude whilst surrounded by filth and corruption and misunderstands Thailand's unique culture with his arrogant British colonial pomposity !!

Not very wise in a country where Karma is a bitch.

[Brad the Impala]

[quote="Brad the Impala":3mw7fmgt]Hearing what you all say about Drummond, but wasn't he also the one journalist that stuck his neck out for Kevin against the macmafia?

Just to maintain a little balance, I'm no particular fan of the guy, but......

I think 'stuck his neck out' may be an exageration. Kevin was a "good story" for British tabloids. there are plenty of others in dire straights including Thai nationals that he ignores.As do most other media

He certainly published tales of Kevin's woes but he also suffers from the Fleet Street malady that has just been exposed by the Rt Hon Justice Lord Leveson : that the writing and publishing of accurate events somehow absolves journalists when they commit crimes, hack phones, bribe police and so on.I think that the major point was also about the inaccuracy of some of the stories, whose victims had no redress at the time, whereas you don't seem to be disputing either the accuracy of Drummond's reports, merely complaining that they have exposed some of your friend's wrongdoing. Not quite what Lord Leveson was referring to!

On the said hack's website where he delves into ex-pat resident's backgrounds including 2 he has a personal beef with, and routinely 'exposes' illegal actsSurely to be applauded...!
( it was once thought when a person was convicted and served their time they were entitled to re-enter society ) he boasts of his efforts in hunting down a former famous Brit entertainer.I think that the hypocrisy of those who cannot acknowledge their own past, while maintaining a facade of respectability is not wrong to be exposed

Since edited from that tale (but still available by Google cache) he mocks Vietnamese and Cambodian authorities as he laughingly tells how he and a photographer lied on immigration forms and bribed local officials for information. The rules are for others of course.Are your comments, in this and the previous paragraph, written in defence of Gary Glitter, a self acknowledged paedophile, now facing further charges in the UK on that count. And Drummond is to be pilloried for exposing him? A most curious set of values!

I do not think Thai politicians have read this man's work : what he presents on his blog is not what he writes for Britain's gutter publications : he routinely calls Thailand police, courts, politicians corrupt and defames the country and people who host him. He holds out as a beacon of rectitude whilst surrounded by filth and corruption and misunderstands Thailand's unique culture with his arrogant British colonial pomposity !!I think that most clear headed individuals, foreign and Thai, acknowledge that Thailand's police, courts and politicians are corrupt!

Not very wise in a country where Karma is a bitch.And might it also be your middle name?[/quote:3mw7fmgt]


If you dislike him so much, why are you reading his blog? To keep informed?

[zinzone]

In my opinion Andrew Drummond seems to be one of the few media people in Thailand who is brave enough to try to speak the truth and he attempts at considerable personal risk to expose a lot of the criminals and con artists in Thailand. Long may he continue.
I do not for a moment consider his "anti-gay slur" -it that's what it is- as of any importance or relevance. Its a bit like if I went into a boy go go bar in Thailand and I looked at the other customers and said "not a woman in sight!" or I looked at the dancers on the stage and said "not a katoey in sight!"
Andrew Drummond may not be perfect but he is far better than many of the people he writes about.

If I (as a gay man) went into a boy gogo bar and later wrote that there "wasn't a woman in sight" then I'd be commenting on that positively - rather than bemoaning the lack of women.

I interpret Drummond's comment in the same vein - that it was a positive experience for him as a str8 guy (worthy of writing down) that there were no gay air stewards in sight. He certainly doesn't seem to have been commenting on the situation adversely, does he?

So, whilst "anti-gay" might be a tad strong, my view is that it can reasonably be interpreted that he was quite pleased to see that there were no gay air stewards.

However, let's go further: there is no way that Mr Drummond actually knew for a fact whether there were any gay air stewards on his flight or not.
What he really means is that none was exhibiting what he considered to be overtly "gay" mannerisms - which opens up some more questions about Mr Drummond's attitude to gay people. Clearly he believes he can "spot" gay people from the back of a plane - although whether it's because (in his opinion) they talk funny or mince up and down the aisle with their arse cheeks moving as if chewing a caramel, only he knows.

If you take that into consideration then maybe "anti-gay" isn't an exaggeration at all.

If any of the above is an incorrect interpretation of what he meant , then Mr Drummond is hardly a shrinking violet and is more than capable on coming on to SGF (where I believe he has an account), and setting the record straight.

Can I comment also on his "gay opus" which has been alluded to (ad nauseam) by some posters - there is a very thin line between bravery and the sheer arrogance of the British press which makes "journalists" feel that they can publish what they like because they are untouchable. This could be the same arrogance which led him to deliberately catch the same flight, sit close to, and harass Gary Glitter after his release from prison - actions he boasts of.

Getting back to the "Pattaya case" - I do not think for one moment that, the whole truth has come out (in either direction).

[Up2U]

In my opinion Andrew Drummond seems to be one of the few media people in Thailand who is brave enough to try to speak the truth and he attempts at considerable personal risk to expose a lot of the criminals and con artists in Thailand. Long may he continue.
I do not for a moment consider his "anti-gay slur" -it that's what it is- as of any importance or relevance. Its a bit like if I went into a boy go go bar in Thailand and I looked at the other customers and said "not a woman in sight!" or I looked at the dancers on the stage and said "not a katoey in sight!"
Andrew Drummond may not be perfect but he is far better than many of the people he writes about.

I generally agree with these comments. I think the alleged gay-slur was over blown. Drummond has been sued several times and has few cases still pending but so far he can back up everything he prints.

...I think that the hypocrisy of those who cannot acknowledge their own past, while maintaining a facade of respectability is not wrong to be exposed...

Sorry Brad but a "maintaining a facade of respectability" is completely inapplicable in the case of the entertainer I believe O'Booze was referring to (see my post immediately above). The guy had literally just come out of prison - where's the "facade of respectability" in that - it was harassment plain and simple.

[Brad the Impala]

You mean Drummond was rude to a paedophile just released from prison? That's dreadful! Where were his manners?!

He can be as rude as he likes to whomsoever he likes - but, as you well know, that was not the point you made.

The point you made was about hypocrisy - and there was none in that particular situation.

I happen to believe that if someone serves their sentence they do not deserve to be harassed forevermore - my bad.

[Brad the Impala]

He can be as rude as he likes to whomsoever he likes - but, as you well know, that was not the point you made.
I happen to believe that if someone serves their sentence they do not deserve to be harassed forevermore - my bad.

Hardly "forevermore", as you had already written that he had only just come out of prison!

To put into context, the guy that you are nobly defending had been imprisoned for abusing 10 and 11 year olds. He was lucky to be out of prison at all!

I do get a bit sick on this site when the paedo defenders bang their drum, being sooo sympathetic to these guys. I seem to remember you also defending the Kiwi Travel Agent, who was not only a paedophile but also running sex tours for others!


And as for this nonsense about how do you spot a gay flight attendant. Quite a lot of them make it pretty easy!! And there are certainly occasions when I would rather be served by a straight guy, or girl, than some of the simpering stewards. In Drummond's case he'd prefer it's a girl. That isn't a "gay slur!" It's just silly queens having a hissy fit in a teapot. Bring out the smelling salts Maude.

[Rene]

The comments made by CoffeeBreak and Brad the Impala are absurd. With members like this it's no wonder the board is in its death throes.
And I might add that I find the way in which scottish-guy was dismissed as a moderator was deplorable.

Number1 @ Brad - I believe in people being innocent until proved guilty - and whilst you are free to cite some travel agent I may have supported on that basis (incidentally, the only "sex tour" he ever organised was for an undercover cop), I can point to a case here where I supported a poster whom the SGF lynch mob (of which you are one) were out to get and called all sorts of names and who turned out to be declared innocent.

Furthermore - where people are found guilty and serve their sentence, I believe in rehabilitation and second chances. The exception is the criminally insane and it is not my call to who falls into that category.

Yes, I did say that I do not believe in people being hounded by the Press forevermore - and just for your information Brad it was only in October 2012 that "journalists" spent 2 and a half hours staking Gary Glitter out and photgraphing him as he.........guess what.....ate dinner in an Italian restaurant! That is 4 years after his release from prison - so I think my use of the word "forevermore" is well-founded.

Now, moving on to Coffee Break - I think it's time you took one dear. I was going to comment further but in the course of writing this post I see your comments have been removed. Suffice to say, the reason I am still posting here is because I feel like it, and that's all you need to know.

Rene, than you for your kind words - you're right.

[Neal]

The post that Coffee break made was just so false and over the top that it absolutely could not remain. It is in quarantine. I agree with you Rene on one point and that is that I too believe that immeadiately after serving your sentence, it is the past. If you are on probation or parole and violate it, well that's a different story but you should not have to keep answering to it and being punished after you have served your sentence but I do not agree with you that this forum is in death's throw. I also believe that while people may write articles about a person being arrested for pedophilia, that you are still innocent until proven guilty.

Now, back to Drummond.

[Neal]

I removed a sentence from the above post and sat and read it for awhile and wanted to re-word the sentence in a different way so to make my position more clear. And before anyone has a hissy, you all have 8 hours to edit or delete your posts and therefore I do believe I should have the same.

Scottish-guy was following my moderation policies and guidelines as I presented them to him to follow. Many situations were arising due to my moderation policies and maybe his interpretation of them. When serious issues started to arise I asked SG as well as Butterfly to step down as moderators so that I could enforce the rules alone and as I thought best and took on all responsibilities myself.

I was not happy with the timing as I knew that SG was unreachable and what would have happened anyway just did not come off looking very good and I regret it. I did try to contact him before I did what I did but I could not reach him and thought that the decision that I and I alone made needed to be done right away. I did not do it to snub or insult him in anyway and I can't approve and let sit a post which alleges otherwise as it is a misundertanding or fabrication of the truth.

[Brad the Impala]

The guy had literally just come out of prison.


it was only in October 2012 that "journalists" spent 2 and a half hours staking Gary Glitter out and photgraphing him......... That is 4 years after his release from prison

Your interpretation of "literally" is as broad as your interpretation of who the victims are in paedophile cases. He was fucking 10 and 11 year old girls in Vietnam. And most of the posters here seem to be so concerned for the perpetrator, poor chap he was "photographed" while eating a meal. Shocking!

Your argument is so bereft of substance that you have to resort to shock tactics (in bold) and changing the subject every time you respond.

Yes, he had" literally" just left prison after serving a sentence imposed for "committing obscene acts" with two girls - therefore there was clearly "no facade of respectability" (as I think you put it), to be exposed. Therefore I do not accept your suggestion that Drummond (remember him?) was performing some kind of public service when he frantically got himself on the same flight as Glitter and sat right behind him questioning and harassing him throughout the flight.
That was the point I made and it addressed precisely your point about people living behind a "facade of respectability".

I then posted that I did not subscribe to (what seems to be) your view that people who have served their sentence should be harassed "forevermore".
You seized on my use of the word "forevermore" and declared that it must be inappropriate because Gary Glitter had only been harassed when he had "literally just been released", quoting my words.
I then informed you that over four years later he is still being followed and photographed if he has the temerity to go out for a meal - therefore my use of the word "forevermore" is entirely appropriate.

It is not a matter of who is the "victim" and it is not necessary for you mis-describe the charges in bold print for added effect - most people know who the "victims" were, what was found proven in a Vietnamese court , and what sentence was passed. We mostly know all this and if we don't we can find it out accurately if we are interested enough. He was found to have committed the offences and he, quite rightly, paid the price

Now I'm terribly sorry if it offends your vigilante "eye for an eye" mentality, but I consider that if you serve the sentence then rehabilitation should be encouraged and the person ought not to be pursued forevermore (there's that word again).

As for you - feel free to rant and rave, foam at the mouth like a rabid dog, and take to the streets with your burning torch and pitchfork - who gives a fuck? Certainly not me.

[Brad the Impala]

I defer to your greater knowledge of, and interest in, paedophiles. The only knowledge I have of Glitter being harassed is what you and others have posted here. The harassment seems pretty small beer in comparison to his actions, for which I don't recall him having expressed any contrition at all, but you may know otherwise.

I have recently seen him in the news again, after he was questioned and released on bail in connection with further sex offences.

I wasn't so much resorting to "shock tactics" as you put it, as simply so staggered by the level of tolerance here for his actions that I needed to spell it out. Still not a single poster felt the need to show any criticism of Glitter's actions, preferring instead to criticise the journalist who played a part in exposing him, for harassing him!

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Brad you are mistaken :

GG is not facing charges for anything. :violent1:

the facts are :

1. Andrew Drummond is pleased to announce he will prefer to fly on an airline that has no gay flight workers
2. Andrew Drummond declares Jimmy Savile is guilty when UK police say no such thing.
3. Andrew Drummond reports on ex-pat Brits (and others) who breach local laws but sees no problem in he doing the same.

Don't shoot me - I'm just the messenger. :salute:

[Marsilius]

Re. Point 2, above...

"Sir Jimmy Savile was a 'predatory sex offender', police say"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... e-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9597158/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-police-say.html)

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Re. Point 2, above...

"Sir Jimmy Savile was a 'predatory sex offender', police say"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... e-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9597158/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-police-say.html)

not the ones investigating but even still : in the UK even when dead you are guilty of nothing unless convicted in a court. There has been much muttering amongst legal circles about police making such statements.

Concern for the feelings of convicted sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences? Why? Did they show any concern for the feelings of their youthful victims? Did the victims recover from their ordeals because/while the perpetrators were in prison? No. Maybe they will never recover.

Rehabilitation does not apply to convicted sex offenders. The psychological needs which drove them to commit the offenses with juveniles will not have been eliminated by a term of incarceration.

That's very interesting Bob - and it's quite clear from your assertions that you are a professional criminal psychologist.

Therefore, it would be illuminating to learn which other types of criminal other than "sex-offenders" you consider to be incapable of redemption, and how instead you would deal with them.
For example, could you enlighten us as to whether offenders who simply murdered a few people are capable of rehabilitation in your eyes, as compared to e.g. a"sex-offender" who (for example) may have paid a 16yo for a wank?

Meantime (if it's all right with you) - since rehabilitation is a feature of the criminal law I'll restrict myself to commenting on the law as it actually is, rather than how you would prefer it to be.

I defer to your greater knowledge of, and interest in, paedophiles

Actually a quick and current search of your posts reveals you would appear to "know" more than me, having mentioned the word 5 times in c.2000 posts as opposed to my 8 times in c.4000 posts. But feel free to carry on with the old smear tactics when you lose the argument, it clearly gives you comfort.


The only knowledge I have of Glitter being harassed is what you and others have posted here. The harassment seems pretty small beer in comparison to his actions, for which I don't recall him having expressed any contrition at all, but you may know otherwise.

Now come on, don't sit on the fence - either accept or disprove the harassment. The world is at your fingertips, either put up or shut up.

As for contrition - I believe you are correct in that he has not expressed any remorse.
Indeed he may be a child-molester who is completely unrepentant over his offences.
But equally, any lack of contrition could be due to the fact that he continues to deny the offences took place at all - which neither you nor I can ever know.
All we actually know in relation to the Vietnam convictions is that he was found guilty (pled not guilty) of "obscene acts" following a trial which lasted less than a day.
However - none of your babble about contrition has anything to do with my original post which was about post-release harassment by the British press.



I have recently seen him in the news again, after he was questioned and released on bail in connection with further sex offences.

Correct, as have several internationally-known TV Presenters, Entertainers, Production staff - together with newspaper speculation on former Cabinet Ministers and Prime Ministers, Civil Servants, Judges, Chiefs of Police, Charity Workers - all in the wake of the Sir Jimmy Savile abuse inquiries.
By mentioning in your post that Glitter has been questioned - are you alleging that even before any charges are laid or trials take place, that all of those questioned are guilty too - simply because they have been named by accusers which include some deeply disturbed people seeking compensation?


I wasn't so much resorting to "shock tactics" as you put it, as simply so staggered by the level of tolerance here for his actions that I needed to spell it out.

Again you (deliberately) misrepresent the situation - the Topic is about Andrew Drummond, so why shouldn't his conduct be at the heart of people's comments?
As for my view of Glitter's conduct, did I not post the following:

...He was found to have committed the offences and he, quite rightly, paid the price.

My sincere advice is to just stop foaming at the mouth like a demented rottweiler and take a balanced view of things instead of your customary knee-jerk reactions

[Koh Samui Luv]

It is quite obvious from the comments being made by Brad the Impala and bobsaigon that they have reconvened the Spanish Inquisition. And the main problem with all such psychopathic hysterics is that their ignorance knows no bounds.

This is the same national police force that asserted as often as they were asked that they handled the Hilsborough disaster correctly and competently is it the same police force whose many members accepted corrupt payments from News Corp and who couldnt manage to investigate the phone hacking scandal until it was rubbed in their face it beats me why any gay person believes anything any policeman says.

Fair enough BG, I guess you're responding to the introduction of the Jimmy Savile inquiry into the debate - and you're 100% correct about those scandals, but that's just the British Police force - the Police Force and Criminal Justice system which Brad is relying on in his comments is the Vietnamese one - a veritable model of international probity.

:sign5:

Put simply, when it comes to convicted child molesters, I see no reason to forgive and forget. If anyone else wishes to do so, go right ahead. I was expressing my feelings. That does not require a background in criminal psychology nor is it indicative of psychopathic hysteria.

[Brad the Impala]

[quote="Brad the Impala":24pndpfj]I defer to your greater knowledge of, and interest in, paedophiles

Actually a quick and current search of your posts reveals you would appear to "know" more than me, having mentioned the word 5 times in c.2000 posts as opposed to my 8 times in c.4000 posts. But feel free to carry on with the old smear tactics when you lose the argument, it clearly gives you comfort.[/quote:24pndpfj]

If you choose to use this as a criteria, you are surely desperate! The same basis reveals that of those "5 times"that I used this word, 4 occasions were in this thread, and I have used it on only one other occasion in the eight years that i have been posting here. Whereas your 8 times were used over six different threads in the five years that you have been posting here. Who's more interested now, big boy?!


The only knowledge I have of Glitter being harassed is what you and others have posted here. The harassment seems pretty small beer in comparison to his actions, for which I don't recall him having expressed any contrition at all, but you may know otherwise.



Now come on, don't sit on the fence - either accept or disprove the harassment. The world is at your fingertips, either put up or shut up.


As such an interested party you have only mentioned two incidents in four or five years, so I don't think that constitutes harassment in anybody's book.



As for contrition - I believe you are correct in that he has not expressed any remorse.
Indeed he may be a child-molester who is completely unrepentant over his offences.
But equally, any lack of contrition could be due to the fact that he continues to deny the offences took place at all - which neither you nor I can ever know.
All we actually know in relation to the Vietnam convictions is that he was found guilty (pled not guilty) of "obscene acts" following a trial which lasted less than a day.


Oh right, so you defend them when they have been charged, as "they haven't been found guilty yet", and you defend them after they have been found guilty as you can't accept the judicial process. Are they ever really guilty in your book? Do you really not believe that he is a child abuser?



I have recently seen him in the news again, after he was questioned and released on bail in connection with further sex offences.


Correct, as have several internationally-known TV Presenters, Entertainers, Production staff - together with newspaper speculation on former Cabinet Ministers and Prime Ministers, Civil Servants, Judges, Chiefs of Police, Charity Workers - all in the wake of the Sir Jimmy Savile abuse inquiries.

Speculation is always rife, but there are only a handful of people of whom suspicions are serious enough to question under oath, of whom GG is one.




By mentioning in your post that Glitter has been questioned - are you alleging that even before any charges are laid or trials take place, that all of those questioned are guilty too - simply because they have been named by accusers which include some deeply disturbed people seeking compensation?

As above, it was only a handful who were actually questioned under oath. However your comments, the abusers are being badly treated, and the abused are deeply disturbed with suspect motives, seems to fit into a pattern in your posts on this subject.

..I was expressing my feelings. That does not require a background in criminal psychology....

Assuming you wish to be taken seriously, a sweeping statement like does require it:


Rehabilitation does not apply to convicted sex offenders. The psychological needs which drove them to commit the offenses with juveniles will not have been eliminated by a term of incarceration

I really don't care how I am taken, seriously or otherwise. I expressed my feelings, you express yours. Fine. Thanks to SGT for providing the space for us to do so.

[a447]

Bobsaigon said:
Did the victims recover from their ordeals because/while the perpetrators were in prison? No. Maybe they will never recover.


Rehabilitation does not apply to convicted sex offenders. The psychological needs which drove them to commit the offenses with juveniles will not have been eliminated by a term of incarceration

Yep. Those comments say it all. If the victims of pedophiles suffer for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't the perpetrators?

Glitter was "harassed" by Drummond. So what? Isn't that the lot of celebrities?? Would Drummond have sought out a seat near him on the plane if he had been Mr Nobody? I don't think so. He was 'harassed" simply because he was a famous pedophile and so was considered to be of interest to the readers of the newspapers.

GG's sexcapades with kids are well documented. Wasn't he convicted of possessing child porn? And wasn't he denied entry into LOS and Hong Kong? Wasn't he deported from Cambodia? etc. etc.

So any criticism of Vietnam is a red herring. The Vietnamese justice system may well be suspect. But it is bit of a stretch to think that all the other 19 countries that have barred him have got it wrong.

Sorry. No time for bleeding hearts.

Dear Brad,

Your latest and extended outburst is amusing - the fact that you have mentioned the "P" word 50-60% more often than I have apparently doesn't count because you concentrate yours whereas my references are more spread out :sign5: that's a good one!

Yes, I did mention "only" 2 instances of harassment of Gary Glitter in 4 or 5 years - because the 1st one concerned Drummond specifically and took place almost immediately on Glitters release and the 2nd one (from a month ago) was the last I noticed in the newspapers. I quoted those 2 to indicate the longevity of the press harassment, not the extent of it. I have not carried out a forensic analysis spanning 4 or 5 years - I will leave that to you, except you won't bother because you know you have no argument.
But your statement that press harassment over 4 or 5 years doesn't consitute "very much" leads me to ask you what level of press harassment would you consider to unacceptable? I suspect your answer would be that no level is unacceptable.

Next up - yes I DO defend people being innocent until proved guilty - hello?
Is Glitter guilty of child-abuse you ask me - the truth is I don't know.
How YOU claim to know for sure, I cannot fathom - were you an eye witness?
What I do accept is that he was found guilty in Vietnam - was the trial fair, is that verdict "safe", I don't know, I wasn't there.
How you have lived to an advanced age without realising that things aren't black and white escapes me.
I pity your ignorance and whilst your naiveity and utter faith in the system might be cute in a teenager it is pathetic in a elderly man.

You then move on to who has or who hasn't been questioned in the UK "under oath" in the fall-out of the Savile inquiries.
Leaving aside that the police cannot question anybody "under oath", again I have to ask you where you get your information from that it is "only a handful"?
How do you know who has or who hasn't been questioned and whether or not is was under caution - just because it doesn't reach the Daily Mail doesn't mean it hasn't happened - for example an +80yo entertainer and household name has been questioned under caution by the Police but has not been named in the press, so according to you it never happened.

Please do go on making your baseless and snide insinuations about me - in fact why don't you amplify them and just spit out exactly what you are getting at - I'd love to see you get banned and have something else to bitch about. :evil4:

.... Wasn't he convicted of possessing child porn? And wasn't he denied entry into LOS and Hong Kong? Wasn't he deported from Cambodia? etc. etc.

So any criticism of Vietnam is a red herring. The Vietnamese justice system may well be suspect. But it is bit of a stretch to think that all the other 19 countries that have barred him have got it wrong....

Can I take the last point first - the 19 countries were acting based on the conviction of the Vietnamese court, so it is far from a red herring, it was instrumental in their decision to refuse him admission. The press pack following him from airport to airport didn't help either.

Now, I'm really glad you've brought up the child-porn issue - but since you have brought it up why have you not also mentioned that the same UK Court cleared Glitter of child-abuse? Does that not fit the agenda?

Anyway that's not why I'm delighted you've brought it up - I'm delighted that it gives me the opportunity to point out that for years a certain extravagant and flamboyant personality lorded it up in his Pattaya mansion with many of the self-righteous gay Pattayan ex-pat mob (who would no doubt all be tut-tutting at Gary Glitter) queuing up to attend his parties, enjoy his lavish hospitality and watch him slide down a chute from his bedroom window into his swimming pool. Such fun! And all the time they conveniently disregarded the fact that he had been convicted of "possession" in the UK and had fled before other, far more serious, matters came to light. Oh, and no mention of any of it by St. Andrew Drummond. I'm delighted that a447 has given me the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy.

PS - Neal - he's now dead - don't panic!

[Brad the Impala]

How do you know who has or who hasn't been questioned and whether or not is was under caution - just because it doesn't reach the Daily Mail doesn't mean it hasn't happened - for example an +80yo entertainer and household name has been questioned under caution by the Police but has not been named in the press, so according to you it never happened.


It hasn't reached the press. All those meddling harassing journalists couldn't find out about it, but you could. Inside knowledge yet again. Your pedophile contacts are excellent. Oops that's the sixth time I've used that word. I know you're counting!

[Brad the Impala]

[

Anyway that's not why I'm delighted you've brought it up - I'm delighted that it gives me the opportunity to point out that for years a certain extravagant and flamboyant personality lorded it up in his Pattaya mansion with many of the self-righteous gay Pattayan ex-pat mob (who would no doubt all be tut-tutting at Gary Glitter) queuing up to attend his parties, enjoy his lavish hospitality and watch him slide down a chute from his bedroom window into his swimming pool. Such fun! And all the time they conveniently disregarded the fact that he had been convicted of "possession" in the UK and had fled before other, far more serious, matters came to light. Oh, and no mention of any of it by St. Andrew Drummond. I'm delighted that a447 has given me the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy.

PS - Neal - he's now dead - don't panic!

Self righteous comments that include all the innuendo that you accuse Mr Drummond of! Perhaps he is your evil twin after all!

Surely this person was entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of these other matters?

I accused Drummond of harassment, not innuendo - do try to keep up.

Very short response from you - seems like I hit a nerve.

One would almost think "Mr Swimmy" was a personal friend of yours - oh, the very thought! :sign5:

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

Oh, and as for the identity of the +80yo entertainer - all I'll say is that he's a Knight of the realm no less, as you'll soon find out..
According to you he must be guilty anyway as 'the police only question people with form' don't they - so I don't feel the need to keep it under my hat.

I imagine the injunction will be lifted shortly - that's why the name hasn't been reported and I can't/won't post it here.
It's nothing to do with "paedophile contacts" but feel free to carry on crawling around in the gutter, it suits you.

[Brad the Impala]

One would almost think "Mr Swimmy" was a personal friend of yours - oh, the very thought! :sign5:

Never heard of him, but it sounds like you would have like to have been at his parties, a little envy there perhaps. Nevertheless you managed to pick up all the gossip, as ever. You like to visit all these sites so that you can then complain about them. Bitch Forum/Drummond's blog. Why go there in the first place, you know what you're going to find.



Oh, and as for the identity of the +80yo entertainer - all I'll say is that he's a Knight of the realm no less, as you'll soon find out..


A peer of the realm no less. How exciting for you that must be.



According to you he must be guilty anyway as 'the police only question people with form' don't they - so I don't feel the need to keep it under my hat.

I didn't say that, as you know. However you did say that:


yes I DO defend people being innocent until proved guilty

However this doesn't seem to be what you are doing here:


And all the time they conveniently disregarded the fact that he had been convicted of "possession" in the UK and had fled before other, far more serious, matters came to light.

Not suggesting that someone was guilty of these more serious matters, before he has even been charged surely?

[a447]

Scottish-Guy wrote:
the 19 countries were acting based on the conviction of the Vietnamese court......... it was instrumental in their decision to refuse him admission

How could you possibly know that? Who from those countries told you it was "instrumental in their decision?"


why have you not also mentioned that the same UK Court cleared Glitter of child-abuse? Does that not fit the agenda?

The "agenda" was about what he was convicted of, not what he was found not guilty of. I couldn't care less about what people are found not guilty of.

as for the
flamboyant personality (who) lorded it up in his Pattaya mansion , escaping criticism/harassment from Drummond, isn't that because of what I pointed out in my post - that GG is a celebrity and the guy is Pattaya was a nobody??

SG, there is a remote possibility that all of those countries, investigators and courts (including Vietnam) got it wrong with regards to GG and just made it all up. Who knows? But realistically, what are the chances of that?

The chances are, in fact, that GG is a pedophile and, as such, deserves to be harassed until such time as all his victims have recovered fully from his crimes against them. Apparently, judging from the pedophile furor which has recently erupted in Australia in regards to pedophile priests, the victims never do recover. So I have no problem with GG being harassed to the grave.

Whenever I find parents who let their kids run around unsupervised on a flight I say "I think you should know there may be a pedophile on this flight" it works a treat I recommend to all travellers.

@ brad - I acknowledge your denial, but I'm getting the distinct impression you were well acquainted with Mr Swimmy.
You see - had I known him I would of course have had no hesitation in saying so, because I'd have taken the position that he had "served his sentence" - a concept you have the utmost difficulty with!

As for the"other matters" - where did I say he was guilty of them? Please quote that statement.

I stated that Mr Swimmy was convicted of possession of CP, that he served that sentence and was released, then almost immediately fled the country. At the time of fleeing the country, there were outstanding allegations - all of which was in the public domain at the time. End of.

The real story here is how he was then enthusiastically accepted into the bosom of the gay Pattayan expat "community" - which again I have no difficulty with. However it does display an astonishing level of hypocrisy when it includes some of the same people who shout the loudest about such matters. I'm not surprised you don't get it - it's probably far too close to home for you.

@a447

1. From memory of the sequence of events at the time, Glitter had free access to all these countries prior to the Vietnam conviction - don't forget he had lived in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand. and visited many others.
After the Vietnam conviction, his release from prison, and deportation from Vietnam, he was banned from entering those other countries.
So, whilst I freely admit I have not had personal discussions with the Interior Ministers of each of the 19 countries (are you happy now?), the phrases "common sense" and "cause and effect" spring to mind. I don't see how you can argue with my statement that the Vietnam conviction was instrumental in their decision :dontknow:
Unless of course you think 19 countries banned him because they didn't like his Christmas Album?

2. At no point have I stated that Gary Glitter is not a paedophile - please quote any statement where I have said that.
What I have said is that I do not know whether he is or not - as a mere observer I am not willing to make a judgement where there is conflicting evidence.
I have already stated that he was found guilty of "obscene acts" in Vietnam and "quite rightly paid the price" - what more do you want me to say in relation to that?
I have also stated that he was found not guilty of child-abuse in the UK, but you dismiss that in preference to the Vietnamese conviction - that's up to you.

Where I fundementally disagree with you, and will never agree with you is in this idea that convicted persons who have served their sentence ought to be "harassed to the grave", as you specifically state.

I also have to suggest to you that a self-confessed homosexual sex tourist who travels the world fucking boys half his age (or less) might find little support from the other fruitcakes travelling along the same fundamentalist hard-line route.

[a447]

Unless of course you think 19 countries banned him because they didn't like his Christmas Album?

:sign5: Glad to see you still maintain a sense of humour in this thread.


At no point have I stated that Gary Glitter is not a paedophile - please quote any statement where I have said that.

At no point did I say you did state that. So "please quote any statement where I have said that".


I have also stated that he was found not guilty of child-abuse in the UK, but you dismiss that in preference to the Vietnamese conviction - that's up to you.

I dismiss that because they are two different cases in two different countries. They are not the same charge. So it is not a case of "in preference to" - it is a case of, ok. he was found not guilty of one charge in the U.K. but was found guilty of a totally separate charge in Vietnam.


Where I fundementally disagree with you, and will never agree with you is in this idea that convicted persons who have served their sentence ought to be "harassed to the grave".

I didn't actually say that. You are misquoting me. I was specifically referring to pedophiles, not criminals in general. Victims of pedophilia are often unable to get on with their lives (many commit suicide), so why should the perpetrator be allowed to do so?


I also have to suggest to you that a self-confessed homosexual sex tourist who travels the world fucking boys half his age (or less) might find little support from the other fruitcakes travelling along the same fundamentalist hard-line route.

SG, this is an interesting debate but there is no need to start getting personal.
I think that comment was made in anger and, to be honest, I'm not quite sure what it implies.
Are you saying that because I am sex tourist and have sex with guys much younger than myself, there is something wrong with that??
Why do you say "half his age (or less)?" If the guys are over the age of consent, what is the purpose of that comment? Why on earth would age be an issue here?
Am I a "fruitcake" because I believe convicted pedophiles should not be allowed to live in peace until their victims can also do the same?

( SG) Where I fundementally disagree with you, and will never agree with you is in this idea that convicted persons who have served their sentence ought to be "harassed to the grave".[/quote]

(a447) didn't actually say that. You are misquoting me. I was specifically referring to pedophiles, not criminals in general. Victims of pedophilia are often unable to get on with their lives (many commit suicide), so why should the perpetrator be allowed to do so?

I'm not going to get dragged into all the other stuff but just on one point....A447 whilst your idea is a nice idea "in theory" the trouble is where do you draw the line, i mean rapists, who's victims are haunted for years after they've been attacked, are vile creatures so do we hunt them down too for ever more even after they've served their time ( yes, perhaps you may say?) and what about murders, they leave a trail of destruction in their wake for the families of their victims, so do we hunt them down as well and what about Burglars, they leave people feeling unsafe in their own homes for years after they've been robbed, so how about them - and child killers what about them and and and ........you see where I'm going with this I'm sure.

So, whilst the knee jerk reaction is to "lock em up and when they get out keep on their case for evermore" we as a society have to accept that they ( whoever that may be) having done their time have received their punishment from the state both to take away their freedom as their punishment and also to serve to appease societies need for revenge / punishment being SEEN to be done, we can then TRY to do what we can to rehabilitate them when they are inside (not very likely I fear) and if we're lucky perhaps put in steps to monitor their behaviour when released - if we're lucky. But that's about it and we can't really start picking out one criminal over another to watch / harass / make their life hell for ever more based on what is ultimately our own personally feelings re their crime otherwise where does it all stop ?

And whilst I'm not disagreeing with you that the "idea" of making someone suffer as long as the victim isn't an unreasonable one on the face of it unfortunately as thinks stand right now it's just now that practical and short of bringing back the death sentence perhaps but THAT is a whole different conversation of course and I don't want to take the subject even further off topic than it already HAS gone, so apart from all that I'm not sure what else we can all do about that nor should we do ANYTHING more except let justice take it's course, the person to do their time and then move on thereafter.

a447 - I did not say it in anger, in fact I modified it a few times and is intended to be thought-provoking rather than personal !

What I am pointing out in those remarks is the same as I have pointed out on here for years - namely that many in the wider world would regard any middle aged or elderly "self confessed homosexual sex tourist who travels round the world to seek out a fuck boys half his age (or less)" as nothing more than a filthy pervert who ought (by some or any means) to be eliminated from society.

Personally I see nothing wrong in how you tell us you organise your sex life - and I certainly cannot claim to be any more virtuous than you in that respect - but I'm sure we are both very well aware that others would find it totally unacceptable.

And we are all aware of the types of people who would pass that judgement, and let me assure you they would not care if the boy was 16 or 17 or 25 - they would tell you that you are guilty of abuse because you are older and in a superior financial position. So, that is where age comes into it - even if the boy over the age of consent, these people would utterly and literally condemn you.

These people would like to have (and sometimes do have) anybody indulging in that kind of behaviour stoned, mutilated, incarcerated, harassed to the grave, - and that's only if they let them live.

So I believe that when people like SGF members start to espouse aspects of the same hardline agenda as these fundamentalist groups - and my objection is nothing to do with your loathing of child-abusers per se , but rather that there ought to be no prospect whatsoever of redemption or forgiveness, or rehabilitation - then it's very shaky ground to be on - and if you run with the fruitcakes then ultimately you'll be judged as one.

Now, I have to point out that you did make the comment about being "harassed to the grave" and whilst I accept that you made it in a certain context, I cannot accept (as I said a few posts ago to Bobsaigon) that somebody who "just" murders a few people or who "just" rapes a few adult women is more worthy of rehabilitation than somebody who gives a 16yo a wank where the AOC is 18 or 21. I'm sorry I just fundamentally disagree on that one.

EDIT: Ah, whilst typing this I see NIrish made a similar point to the one immediately above.

:hello2:

[Marsilius]

I rarely agree with our Scottish friend but, on this point, he is completely correct.

Punishment has to have an end to it and we employ trained and expert judges to assess when that should be. Once a sentence is completed, any form of "harassment" is not only plain wrong but is counterproductive if we want to see ex-offenders reintegrating themselves successfully into society.

[Thai Dyed]

Some witch hunters have brooms in their skeleton closets.

Thai Dyed, (or anybody) what is the relevance of this photo? :dontknow:

[Neal]

I was looking at that and trying to see if it violated posting pictures and it disappeared so I assume Thai Dyed edited his own post and removed the picture although the boys were handsome! Hey Thai Dyed? Please if you would PM me and let me know who the falang was?

If it helps, I saved the pic!!

All we have now is a cryptic comment and we don't know who the "witchunter" was - what a pity.

[Marsilius]

In removing the photo, I guess we can assume that Thai Dyed did not have the courage of his convictions (which were, of course, to be lifelong and followed by years of harassment).

[Neal]

Well I am not one to grovel :evil4: If they were over 18. I only glanced at the pic and was more interested in the falang and who he was

Well they certainly looked over 18 and even if 17, they had all their clothes on!

He has certainly stirred it up now - with his talk of "witchunters" and to have any relevance it must have been one of the hardline commentators on this thread, which narrows it down to 3 - and its not a447 - so we are down to 2 :dontknow:

[Thai Dyed]

[attachment=0:bk5xm3o7]y u no wake up.jpg[/attachment:bk5xm3o7]

Oh. he's such a fucking tease!

It's gone now so just tell us who it was so that I can quietly snigger to myself, and the person in the photo can shit himself.

[a447]

SG wrote:
I cannot accept (as I said a few posts ago to Bobsaigon) that somebody who "just" murders a few people or who "just" rapes a few adult women is more worthy of rehabilitation than somebody who gives a 16yo a wank where the AOC is 18 or 21.

Nor can I. But I didn't mention that as the context referred to pedophilia specifically, not to other crimes.

Of course I don't think a burglar or a shoplifter for example should be harassed by the media. I don't think that at all. I just find it hard to live with the fact that after the criminal has done his time, he is allowed to get on with his life while the victim must continue to suffer. Some crimes are so horrific that the victims just never get over it and live the rest of their lives in abject misery.

But, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Mai pen rai! :love4:

[Marsilius]

Oh. he's such a fucking tease!

It's gone now so just tell us who it was so that I can quietly snigger to myself, and the person in the photo can shit himself.

It was Brad the Impala in Lonely Boy bar in c.1973 (as detailed in another post - does-anyone-know-gay-history-t21499.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/does-anyone-know-gay-history-t21499.html)).

Well,well,well ..... whodathoughtit!

I wonder if the boys mothers knew they were out that night.

Thai Dyed - Any pics of him serving the drinks @ one of "Mr Swimmy's" parties?

:sign5:

[pennyboy]

In the Uk all those convicted of a sex offence may be required to sign the Sex Offenders Register regardless of where the crime was committed. GG signed it on his return from Vietnam. It places restrictions on travel abroad and may be subject to periodic visits from the appropriate authorities. Offenders remain on the Register for life but may appeal after 15 years.

Pennyboy - Gary Glitter's travel ban was lifted over a year ago with no police objections - although his name does remain on the sex offenders register.

[gaymandenmark]

I don't understand why anyone should be harassed by a journalist or the public.
Before there is a verdict in the court you are not guilty, if the court says you are guilty, we all have to accept the verdict.

In most developing countries you will work with the prisoner to change their way of thinking, and in my opinion so it should be, eventually if it is not possible to change the mind or brain of a child abuser, it is possible to sentence the offender to medical castration.

But, if you accept harassment, where is then the line to accept public lynching? guilty or not!!!

[Brad the Impala]

If it helps, I saved the pic!!

All we have now is a cryptic comment and we don't know who the "witchunter" was - what a pity.

Happy for you that you saved the photo, Thai Dyed trots it out on various occasions, like some heirloom from the attic, although it's still there in the original thread, where I posted it in response to requests about the history of gay life in Thailand. It was my birthday, and the guys had kindly bought me a cake.

You will find all kinds of photos of me here,freely posted as part of contributing to the forum.

Regarding Scottie's current obsession with Mr Swimmy, I have only been to Pattaya once in the last fifteen or so years, so you're never going to make that connection. He sounds ghastly anyway, and on that basis, I would have thought a much more suitable companion for you than me. Think of all the gossip that you would have had access to!

There is one thing that I am now seriously concerned about, which is the fact that Da Boss seems to have taken a liking to the farang in the photo! Don't worry it was a long time ago!

..He sounds ghastly anyway, and on that basis, I would have thought a much more suitable companion for you than me...

Oh I doubt that.

By the looks of you, a former European ballroom dancing champion would be right up your street dah-ling.
By the time he'd finished the Cha Cha, Jive, and Twist with you, your corsets would be on backwards.
And fifteen years ago is bang on the money!

:leb:

[Brad the Impala]

Fifteen years ago indeed, Your gossip is so up to date. Perhaps you could be a stringer for Drummond?

Is your boyfriend still languishing alone in some Bangkok hotel pining for you?

[joe552]

Is it time to take this discussion to PMs? :dontknow:

[Neal]

Oh Brad dear, should you use the word "liking?". Hmmmm, noooo. I liked the boys in the photo if they were over 18 but affter meeting them they probably would not be for me anyway. I was interested in the thread and who the falang in the picture was and what the entire connection was. The boys may have made it to bed but the falang would not have. Nope, you know what the thread was about when the picture was posted and I just figured that there had to be some connection I had missed. Please fear not. I am sure I am not for you and you are not for me, even if it were 40 years ago. Although I do have a picture of my lean self from 40 years ago and I dont feel I was bad looking. If anyone wants me to post it, I will get it downsized and in fact why don't some of you get your pictures out from your tenderer years and in a few weeks I will open a thread for them. Oh God don't worry, not many can be recognized from 40 years ago. Mot of us have not grown old gracefully! :laughing3:

[Brad the Impala]

Is it time to take this discussion to PMs? :dontknow:

I take your point, the relevance of this dialogue has largely evaporated along with common sense and Scottish mist. Certainly personally losing the enthusiasm to continue a dialogue with Gorbals Gertie, but don't sentence me to a fate worse than death, exchanging PMs!

Well before we slam the door on it, I'll take the opportunity to correct a mistake I made in relation to the as yet un-named +80 entertainer questioned by the police. I elevated him to a higher level than he deserved (a bit like responding to Brad) and it turns out he is not quite a Knight as I had assumed - he is one step below.

[Brad the Impala]

he is not quite a Knight as I had assumed - he is one step below.

A Queen?

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Any post about Andrew Drummond seems to liven up the day.

there are some indisputable facts : he did make a bizarre and quite nasty anti-gay slur (how you deal with it is your business) and perhaps it gives an insight into his thinking.

For someone who contributes to major newspapers - it is an admission of bias. (and one that would be illegal to make in the UK)

Without a doubt Drummond has been part of a culture that has whipped 'pedo hysteria' into an art form.

Another contributor to that hysteria has now been arrested in respect of the Jimmy Savile claims of 'historic' abuse: Max Clifford.

It was Max Clifford that arranged a deal between a claimant and the News of The World, that she would receive a bonus of 50,000 pounds if Gary Glitter was found guilty of assault. He was found innocent.
In respect of GG's Vietnam conviction : would should really keep an open mind. in the UK serious miscarriages of justice are uncovered daily.
In a dirt poor country where daily survival is a struggle : when big white man comes around saying compensation is available if only that man was guilty, do not be surprised if a claimant surfaces : and the facts are that serious charges were dropped against Glitter when compensation (cash) was paid by him.

Marsilius : you may see the problem with police making such a bold and totally incorrect (and possibly unlawful) statement : it can affect any future trial such as Max Clifford's should he be charged even though he has been the first place of call for decades for those claiming abuse and wishing to sell their story.

A447 :"Yep. Those comments say it all. If the victims of pedophiles suffer for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't the perpetrators? "

That is a widely assumed claim that surfaces in the media without proof. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't.
How would we know unless we speak to every single one ?
Perhaps some find that peculiar American thing 'closure'.

I think one thing is assured : if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

Yet oddly in a country like Vietnam which has been decimated by us from the West participating in the mass murder of so many, the Vietnamese seem to have recovered and even embrace their former persecutors.

[springco]

I think one thing is assured : if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !
All the more so when lawyers convince so-called "victims" they can get rich by filing legal cases for having had a wank 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago.



Yet oddly in a country like Vietnam which has been decimated by us from the West participating in the mass murder of so many, the Vietnamese seem to have recovered and even embrace their former persecutors.
Lunchtime, you are like a breath of fresh air in this forum. Spot on!

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

we all love this country where Karma is so often mentioned and sometimes used in differing ways.

But actions do have consequences.

How ironic that Max Clifford, who has been so instrumental in Gary Glitter's downfall, should be arrested by the very same police who arrested Glitter a few weeks ago in respect of the same matters.

Some think Glitter deserves all he got but : he put his hand up and pleaded guilty for the child porn matter, getting 3 months which indicates it was child porn of the mildest variety.

In the same case he was found Not Guilty of a sex assault with a jury agreeing to his innocence and a judge criticizing the News Of The World for their actions in basically bribing a witness.

The News of The World set out to vindictively pursue Glitter. They hounded him out of Cuba where he was living with a woman and the child they had together. He wanted to stay living there. The authorities bowed to the power of the Murdoch media.

They hounded him out of Cambodia. He ended up in Vietnam where he was eventually charged.
Without a doubt, he would not have been in Vietnam except for the News Of The World . There would have been no victims in Vietnam.

None have come forward from Cuba, the UK or Cambodia making claims.

Drummond was part and parcel of the pursuit of Glitter. Actions have consequences. :kap:

[Thai Dyed]

I cannot but help agree with you Lunchtime. Thank you for your lucid observations.

"Have you noticed that it is the most civilized gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary, and have become so familiar to us."
-Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes From the Underground, Part I;VII

[a447]

Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us this.


A447 :"Yep. Those comments say it all. If the victims of pedophiles suffer for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't the perpetrators? "

That is a widely assumed claim that surfaces in the media without proof. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't.
How would we know unless we speak to every single one ?

We wouldn't. So let's err on the side of the victims, not the perpetrators.


the Vietnamese seem to have recovered and even embrace their former persecutors.
I only found them willing to embrace my ATM card. And Vietnam is the only country I have ever visited - anywhere- where I felt profoundly disliked. Other friends who have visited VN said the same. I got so sick and tired of being scammed from the time I got up till the time I went to bed that, after 3 visits hoping things would change, I've decided never to go back.


which indicates it was child porn of the mildest variety.
Now, that comment I find really disturbing. "Mildest"?? WTF!!


Without a doubt, he would not have been in Vietnam except for the News Of The World . There would have been no victims in Vietnam.

There were only victims in VN because he chose to make them victims by his pedophile actions. The News of the Word didn't play around with kids!

[Koh Samui Luv]

Ommmmm.......

Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us yeah we'll every statement I ever read from any victim of any crime is "lock him up for life and throw away the key" victims will never ever ever be satisfied and maybe thats why they are victims.

[Brad the Impala]

Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us yeah we'll every statement I ever read from any victim of any crime is "lock him up for life and throw away the key" victims will never ever ever be satisfied and maybe thats why they are victims.

So now it's the kids' fault, the journalists' fault, everybody and anybody except the perpetrators. If only you guys were actually honest enough to come out and say that you are in favour of sex with kids. Instead there is all this disingenuous prevarication and blame game, the courts wren't fair, it's not that bad a crime, they were only in the country because they had been persecuted in another one, blah de bloody blah.

This forum seems to be becoming pedo central, with barely a nay sayer in sight.

[gaymandenmark]

This forum seems to be becoming pedo central, with barely a nay sayer in sight.

What you write is just crazy.
No one is defending pedos, what it is all about?

For me it is about, if a person should be guilty, because of the judge of a journalist or the public.
Hell no!!!
No one should be judged because of gossip, we have the legitimate system for that. Else we could just lynch anyone we don't like.

Brad. for your information, in some countries, if you just have family pictures of the naked child on the beach, in your computer, you could be suspected of being a pedo, it is indeed a crazy world.

[Koh Samui Luv]

There is no point in stating facts to the witch-hunters such as Brad and a447. They are the gay equivalent of Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.
Furthermore, making many sex laws even more absurd is that some countries set their age of consent at 18 while others set it at 16 or 14 and one at even 12 or 13. So you are a paedo in one and liable for imprisonment while a few meters across the border, everything is just fine and dandy! On top of all this, several countries make all homosexual acts totally illegal. If the truth be told, these witch-hunters have serious neurotic problems of their own which they won't admit, or are simply blind to. As Scottish Guy has stated, it is pointless to engage them in discussion. It is like trying to make sense of the babble in a lunatic asylum.

A man is convicted of forcing an underage child to have sex. (I don't care what the local law says the minimum age is. If it a child and it was not consensual, then it is indefensible.). He serves time in prison for that crime. After his release, he becomes the subject of media attention. While not encouraging тАЬhounding him forever", do we need also to be concerned about his feelings? He chose to commit the crime. Why feel sorry for him when the press makes his life miserable?

The courts that convict child molesters are described by some posters as unreliable and these posters do not accept such verdicts because they cannot personally investigate the process by which the courts' decisions are reached. Thus, they feel, all decisions and sentencing are suspect.

The victims of such sex crimes are said to be manufacturing their feelings and sufferings in order to gain benefits in the courts. Several of the posters have suggested that no victims suffer long term misery resulting from their experiences. But, as a447 pointed out, тАЬ тАж. (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling usтАЭ that they are still suffering, long after the events took place, and these persons are not the ones being coached by lawyers.

I think the reasonable, balanced observer reading this thread would likely agree with Brad that тАЬThis forum seems to be becoming pedo central, with barely a naysayer in sightтАЭ.

Now I shall retire from this thread. Oi! Six pages of discussion with no possibility of a consensus.

[gaymandenmark]

While not encouraging тАЬhounding him forever", do we need also to be concerned about his feelings? He chose to commit the crime. Why feel sorry for him when the press makes his life miserable?

I don't feel sorry for anyone, but I believe in rehabilitation, and when a man or woman has served their sentence, and maybe changed their way of thinking and behavior, it is not up to the press to makes anyones life miserable.
A penalty is a penalty or else you could judge all criminals to life- or death sentence.
For me It is a principle and I am totally against the mob ruling and witch hunting.

Who the hell are this so called journalists, judges in their own mind?

[a447]

To begin, I'd just like to say that, based on posters' comments over a long time on this SGT forum, I do not believe any of the contributors to this thread are pedophiles or supporters of pedophiles.


Bobsaigon wrote:
The victims of such sex crimes are said to be manufacturing their feelings and sufferings in order to gain benefits in the courts.

The victims that I saw appearing almost every night on T.V. a month or so here in Oz did not appear to be after any monetary compensation or other "benefit." At least, neither they nor their spokespersons mentioned anything of the sort. They all spoke about the guilt and shame they had carried for decades (not a few years), as they believed they themselves were in some way responsible for being sodomized. They didn't ask for money, they just wanted closure by seeing the perpetrators having their day in court and being held responsible for the damage they had caused so many young boys. Some on this thread are happy for the perpetrators to have closure, but deny that very same closure to the still-suffering victims.

Koh samui luv, it seems, is unable to participate in a civil discussion of an important topic without resorting to personal slurs. It merely signifies that he is otherwise unable to support his own argument convincingly.
How totally meaningless is a sweeping generalization that I am
the gay equivalent of Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists. based on a couple of posts in one thread? Can't you be a little more specific, based on previous posts of mine, or is that the best you can do?? And why mention "gay?" What has that got to do with anything?


Koh samui luv wrote:
Furthermore, making many sex laws even more absurd is that some countries set their age of consent at 18 while others set it at 16 or 14 and one at even 12 or 13.

The absurdity of sex laws is well known, but it a totally different issue. Why are you introducing it here?


So you are a paedo in one and liable for imprisonment while a few meters across the border, everything is just fine and dandy!

So, what are you suggesting? That the pedo goes a few metres over the border where it is "fine and dandy"?? And can you name the countries where it is "fine and dandy" for adults to have sex with children? I don't think you'll find one.
Yet another meaningless comment from you.


gaydenmark wrote:
A penalty is a penalty or else you could judge all criminals to life sentence.

It's a shame you do not feel the same about the victims who have been sentenced already to a life sentence. And don't forget, many young guys committed suicide on account of what happened. They, in fact, ended up with the death penalty of sorts. And they were the victims!!

[springco]

The "Witch Hunters" most likely are unaware that there is a movement to abolish prisons entirely, and it already has the support of many thoughtful people. In fact, several books have been written on the topic. This news is likely to drive the vengeful lunatics into fits of hysterical frenzy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/19/ ... bolishment (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/19/angela_davis_on_the_prison_abolishment)
http://www.metaphoria.org/issues/99vol7/ac4t0008.html
www.abolishprisons.com (http://www.abolishprisons.com)

[Neal]

Are you calling this a pedo site because some people do not agree with your view of what punishment is and what it should be? I have not weighed in because what I believe is up to me and I am going to keep it that way but to call this site a pedo site because spme posters disagree with you is immature to say the least. Disagree with people and that's fine. Don't support underage sex and that is fine but to say that this is a pedo site because someone feels that when a person has served their time ? Unbelievable.

I opened this site up to allow all people to discuss their feelings about pedophiles and repercussions. Not trying to keep it closed on the subject like it has been for many years. Most of you are adults and can have an adult discussion, or so I believe.

There has not been a single post on this thread which condones or encourages paedophilia - not a single one.

But, as usual, the pitchfork-wavers believe that the only opinion that should be heard is theirs.

Any reasonable person would say "I disagree with you but I respect your right to an opinion" - but not these people.

Anybody who doesn't see things 100% their way (which is "hound convicted people to the ends of the earth") is to be vilified, and called a paedo - simply for disagreeing.

Pretty pathetic really.

[gaymandenmark]

gaydenmark wrote:
A penalty is a penalty or else you could judge all criminals to life sentence.

It's a shame you do not feel the same about the victims who have been sentenced already to a life sentence. And don't forget, many young guys committed suicide on account of what happened. They, in fact, ended up with the death penalty of sorts. And they were the victims!!

Where do I state the argument that I have no feeling for the victims?
This is an example on why I sometimes do not want to discuss on boards like this, being told about what I feel and think, and turning my arguments into something else or nonsense.

In fact I have been working in a place, where some of the childs had been sexual victims, and do you know where it normally happended? In the family.
Some years ago there was a hysteria going on, so heavy, that no man wanted to work in a kindergarten, because they by default was looked at as a guy who had sexual preferences at children, they could not even help washing a child in the bathroom without a woman was there too, just to be safe.

Back to the topic, we can have all our views on how a pedo should be punished, and that is worth a discussion, but when the offender has taken his sentence, and maybe been through psychological treatment, it is done, and no self-appointed journalist or other people should harass anyone
For the record, I think it must be the same for whatever crime, murder, rape and so on.
I also think that a victim of a crime can have a decent life with professional help, been there myself.

PS to Koh Samui Luv: yes in some countries the age of consent is 12-14 or whatever, but that is fortunately not the same as if it is lawful, for a aging or just grown-up person, to have sex with that agegroup, even if you cross the border.

PPS. Now I hope I have made myself clear and not to be accused of being a "not feeling" human person.

[Brad the Impala]

However, let's go further: there is no way that Mr Drummond actually knew for a fact whether there were any gay air stewards on his flight or not.
What he really means is that none was exhibiting what he considered to be overtly "gay" mannerisms - which opens up some more questions about Mr Drummond's attitude to gay people. Clearly he believes he can "spot" gay people from the back of a plane - although whether it's because (in his opinion) they talk funny or mince up and down the aisle with their arse cheeks moving as if chewing a caramel, only he knows.



I have had pointed out to me this asinine comment! The reason that Drummond knew there were no gay stewards on his flight is because they were all female!

[Brad the Impala]

Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us yeah we'll every statement I ever read from any victim of any crime is "lock him up for life and throw away the key" victims will never ever ever be satisfied and maybe thats why they are victims.



Furthermore, making many sex laws even more absurd is that some countries set their age of consent at 18 while others set it at 16 or 14 and one at even 12 or 13. So you are a paedo in one and liable for imprisonment while a few meters across the border, everything is just fine and dandy!


Are you calling this a pedo site because some people do not agree with your view of what punishment is and what it should be?

I would say that there seems to be an unnaturally high tolerance of pedophiles, and an unnaturally sympathetic approach to them and an enthusiasm for for finding every possible reason for them to be not actually actually guilty of anything at all. Don't worry it isn't anything new, and was going on long before you bought the board, which may be why jinks restricted comments on the subject.

So now it's the kids' fault, the journalists' fault, everybody and anybody except the perpetrators.What people say about "the perpetrators" is they are sick ask anyone they say the same sick sick sick but we dont put them in hospital we put them in prison or are you saying Brad that "there but for the grace of god go I" and you too are capable of those vile acts I dont think so you cant have it both ways.

[Marsilius]

Brad... You said that here "there seems to be an unnaturally high tolerance of pedophiles, and an unnaturally sympathetic approach to them and an enthusiasm for for finding every possible reason for them to be not actually actually guilty of anything at all."

No, what we are exhibiting or expressing is an "unnaturally" high degree of tolerance for all criminals - of whatever persuasion - once they have served their due sentence.

I would suggest that many of us, especially older guys, exhibit that degree of tolerance because our own perfectly "normal" behaviour of wanting same-gender sex with adult partners was, not all that long ago, regarded as "criminal" by our own legal systems.

Having been perceived in that light ourselves makes us a little more prone to see criminality as a subjective concept and to appreciate the problems faced by other "criminals".

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

This forum seems to be becoming pedo central, with barely a nay sayer in sight.
Not one person on Sawatdee has ever condoned child sex abuse. The majority of gay business owners and ex-pats in Pattaya actively work to to defeat child abuse in all forms and regularly raise funds to aid Thai children.


Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us this.
Are you in touch with every child assault victim ?. I don't recall you canvassing my view on my historic abuse as a child. I survived and thrived (without compensation)

**one thing is certain : the next time a lonely 14 /15 year old gay or lesbian kid in a country town in the USA, Australia, UK commits suicide because they have been bullied and taunted because they are homosexual, remember the Andrew Drummonds of the world perpetuate that hate and concept that they are different and not worthy of respect.

I have had pointed out to me [scottish-guy's] asinine comment! The reason that Drummond knew there were no gay stewards on his flight is because they were all female!

Not only do you apparently need things "pointed out" to you a week after they appear - but when you do have things pointed out to you, you don't even have the intelligence to spot the obvious flaw in the argument - that the female stewards might equally have been gay.

What a fucking plonker!

Most kids are abused by fathers uncles and brothers but we never never never hear about them as victims its all about the wicked Catholic priests and brothers and naughty vicars and scoutmasters why is that so do you think Ill give you the same answer I gave DaBoss when he whinged about straight owners of gay bars its all about MONEY.

[a447]

Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us this.


Are you in touch with every child assault victim ?.

And are you in touch with every person who has been told, over and over, that they have been damaged........?"


I don't recall you canvassing my view on my historic abuse as a child. I survived and thrived (without compensation)

You don't recall it because I never canvassed you on it. But just because you "survived and thrived" doesn't mean that every other victim has done the same. Have you canvassed all the victims to see if they "survived and thrived?"

Your question to me was stupid.


gaydenmark wrote:
Where do I state the argument that I have no feeling for the victims?

You didn't state that you did have any feelings for them. That's why I simply asked you where those feelings were. You wrote all about the perpetrators and their need to be rehabilitated but not a word about the victims and their long-term suffering.


Some years ago there was a hysteria going on,....

Yes, I am well aware of that hysteria. Qantas was roundly criticised for its policy of not allowing a child to sit next to a single male adult. Apparently a female adult was ok. Teachers and nurses are often portrayed as potential child abusers. It is, indeed, nothing more than hysteria.


but when the offender has taken his sentence, and maybe been through psychological treatment, it is done....

And if it is not done? What then?

There is a renowned pedophile in my city. - a certain Mr Pen Dragon. He spent 12 years in a Thai jail for child sex offenses. Some on this thread would say:
a) the Thai justice system is corrupt and so the verdict against him is unreliable
b) he did his 12 years, and so should be allowed to live in peace.

However, since being returned to Oz and released, he has been constantly in court on child sex offenses. Although being found guilty time and time again, he has not been sent back to jail here. The do-gooders keep talking about the need for his rehabilitation. What has his punishment been? He has a court order forbidding him to approach kids and he is not allowed to use the internet.
Well last month he was arrested yet again. This time it was because of an incident in an internet cafe. One of the customers saw him looking at pedophile sites and went to tell the manager. Pen Dragon then attacked him with a knife.


I also think that a victim of a crime can have a decent life with professional help, been there myself.

Whether or not some victims can have a decent life is not up to us to decide. It is up to them. And judging from the scandals here in Oz (and in other countries around the world involving the catholic church) many victims can't. Their words, not mine - or yours.


Now I hope I have made myself clear and not to be accused of being a "not feeling" human person.

Gaydenmark, I never accused you of being a human being without any feelings. All my comments relate 100% to the context of this thread only and relate strictly to crimes and victims of pedophilia. No other crimes, no other victims.

None of your posts on this forum has ever suggested you were a person lacking in feelings for others.

I'm sorry if I have created a misunderstanding. It certainly was not my intention.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

"a447"][quote:1i494uwo] Lunchtime wrote:
if you tell people over and over again ,especially in the media, that they have been damaged for life and they will suffer and never recover perhaps they will begin to believe it !

But the problem is (at least here in Oz) that the victims themselves are telling us this.


Are you in touch with every child assault victim ?.

And are you in touch with every person who has been told, over and over, that they have been damaged........?"[/quote:1i494uwo]

so you are agreeing with me. I haven't spoken to every assault victim and neither have you. I don't know how others cope not do you but I do know some how have survived quite adequately.

I suggest you are speaking from a media influenced angle perpetuated by the Drummonds of the world who quote the profitable self appointed child protection industry who have a vested interest in promoting and exagerating the evils of the world.

You give an example of one man in QLD but that is a unique and rare case . You cannot punish or continue to punish people after they have 'done their time' just because some miscreant continues to break the law. It's collective punishment and is quite evil.

[gaymandenmark]

Thank you for your nice words a447, but something I dont understand:
"This time it was because of an incident in an internet cafe. One of the customers saw him looking at pedophile sites and went to tell the manager."

Well as you know I am living in Denmark, and I think DK and OZ is equal in many ways, and I have never seen any customer looking at pedophile sites in the internet cafe.

[a447]

I do know some how have survived quite adequately.

Yes. And I know that some haven't. So what's your point??


You give an example of one man in QLD but that is a unique and rare case .

Western Australia, actually. But again, please tell us how you know it is "a unique and rare case." Why did you ask me in an earlier post


Are you in touch with every child assault victim ?.

and yet do not ask a similar question to your good self with regards to whether or not such cases are "unique and rare"??? So I'll ask it of you now.

Are you in touch with every perpetrator of pedophilia, and have they told you they have not re-offended?


gaydenmark wrote:
I have never seen any customer looking at pedophile sites in the internet cafe.

As a matter of fact, nor have I.

[Thai Dyed]

"Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt." -Nietzsche

[Rush, Yet Again]

Earth to Scottish-guy:

I donтАЩt know about Brad being a plonker, but dementia may well be wearing a bit of tartan these days. Or are you just trying to out LMTU LMTU?

Though you had no problem with expressing your opinion on DrummondтАЩs statement - and passed judgement on him for making it - you never bothered to actually read it yourself. Instead you took off on a flight of fancy attended by gay air stewards who тАЬtalk funny or mince up and down the aisle with their arse cheeks moving as if chewing a caramel.тАЭ

Maybe you should try making a temporary landing in the world of reality some time. Seriously, weтАЩre nice people here, you might even enjoy it. But youтАЩll have to give up on your desire for Drummond to come on SGT to set you straight on your interpretation of what he meant. HeтАЩs probably been warned before not to talk to the patients.

There was no flight.

DrummondтАЩs comment was about an advertisement/press release for Vietjet, a new airline whose first flight will be on February 13. Uh, that's 2013, still two months away in this world. Of the picture he said, тАЬOk - I just like the picture. Not a gay male attendant in sight and all the female ones dressed in shorts similar to the ones I potter around the garden in.тАЭ

Though your head was still firmly in the sky, you could be correct тАЬthat the female stewards might equally have been gayтАЭ in the picture - itтАЩs hard to tell since they are all in uniforms and none are wearing flannel. And we wonтАЩt get into how suspiciously family the pilot looks. Since you never saw the picture. Which, if you are using intelligence to spot the flaw in anyoneтАЩs argument, IтАЩd think that would be a fairly large one.

Is this an example of how тАЬas a mere observer [you are] not willing to make a judgement where there is conflicting evidenceтАЭ?

I had to Google тАШplonkersтАЩ. Evidently, according to the Urban Dictionary, it is a game involving male genitalia
that requires two players. And I suspect you have been playing with yourself again.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

Western Australia, actually. But again, please tell us how you know it is "a unique and rare case." Why did you ask me in an earlier post

perhaps Perth is crawling with them. :dontknow:

They tell me it's a strange place. :tongue3:

Don't they have lots of serial killers, bodies in bank vaults etc :bis:

[Brad the Impala]

you don't even have the intelligence to spot the obvious flaw in the argument - that the female stewards might equally have been gay.
What a fucking plonker!

Pretty clear in Drummond's piece, had you read it and understood it, that he was clearly happier to have pretty girls serving him than gay stewards. The possibility that the female steward might have been gay was not a factor in his comments, and neither was it in your response.



However, let's go further: there is no way that Mr Drummond actually knew for a fact whether there were any gay air stewards on his flight or not.
What he really means is that none was exhibiting what he considered to be overtly "gay" mannerisms - which opens up some more questions about Mr Drummond's attitude to gay people. Clearly he believes he can "spot" gay people from the back of a plane - although whether it's because (in his opinion) they talk funny or mince up and down the aisle with their arse cheeks moving as if chewing a caramel, only he knows.



I think that Drummond and Gorbals Gertie would have referred to a female steward as a stewardess, as well don't you?

I'm sure I have said previously that I only very, very rarely visit Drummond's blog - my comment was (quite rightly) in response to the OP, which did not state that Drummond was responding to an advertisement, rather than actually being on a flight - although I am mystified by how that makes the "slur" any milder - UNLESS.........

Wait...OMFG.... don't tell me that your argument is that because Drummond was only looking at IMAGES in the Ad, then his "slur" is less serious than if he had actually been on the flight, actually doing the real thing as it were!! OMFG
Surely, as torch-bearing, pitchfork-waving hardliners - the official view must be that even looking at the Ad is the same thing as taking the flight ten times. :laughing3:

RYA, I have no desire to see Drummond here "explaining himself" - I merely said he was no shrinking violet and since I seem to remember that he has an account, he could do so if he wished.

BTI, the term "stewardess" is very un-PC old girl, do try to drag yourself into the 1980's at least.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

If Andrew Drummond was only interested in women he would have said "not a male flight attendant in sight"..he said gay flight attendant. Quite apart from the sweeping statement that all male flight attendants must be gay...he re-inforces every hackeyned old stereotype about gay people.
One must be allowed to question what other bias creeps into his articles.

It is specific and he is not a stupid man. He knows what he is saying.
But I'm sure he would be happy to know he has gay supporters even though he is prepared to make anti-gay statements for the world to read.

My last word..a quote from London's Lord Mayor Boris Johnson which sums up my thoughts on those who work on tabloids:


"They have shoved their slavering snouts into the parlours of weeping widows, and by their outrageous lies they have driven the relatives of their victims to suicide. When you read Leveson in full, you are left to ponder the mystery of how people can behave like this. Are these journalists that much nastier and more cynical than the rest of the human race? Why do they seem to have got out of control? The answer is simple. The press are no nastier than anyone else; quite the reverse. On the whole, journalists are highly intelligent, amusing and frequently idealistic.

But these days they are afraid. They are like the crew of a plane whose port engine has failed. They can see the ridge of the mountain ahead, and they have been driven to start chucking their principles overboard in the hope of avoiding a crash. That is why they have been so hungrily hacking phones, bribing officials, and claiming that asylum seekers have eaten the donkeys of Greenwich Park. They can see the altimeter of their circulation figures spiralling downwards, and they need stories ever more exotic and titillating to keep the readers buying.

Newspapers have always chased exclusives тАУ and quite right, too. But the pressure on circulation is now so great that some papers have abandoned their grip on ethics and on reality."

[Brad the Impala]

I'm sure I have said previously that I only very, very rarely visit Drummond's blog - my comment was (quite rightly) in response to the OP,

You mean that you were providing us with your opinion on an article that you hadn't actually read(quite rightly)?



I interpret Drummond's comment in the same vein


So interpreting his comments now without actually reading them(quite rightly)!



However, let's go further: there is no way that Mr Drummond actually knew for a fact whether there were any gay air stewards on his flight or not.
What he really means is that none was exhibiting what he considered to be overtly "gay" mannerisms - which opens up some more questions about Mr Drummond's attitude to gay people. Clearly he believes he can "spot" gay people from the back of a plane - although whether it's because (in his opinion) they talk funny or mince up and down the aisle with their arse cheeks moving as if chewing a caramel, only he knows.


And now pontificating about what Drummond really means by his comments, still without actually having read them(quite rightly)!



the term "stewardess" is very un-PC old girl, do try to drag yourself into the 1980's at least.

Exactly why I thought that it would be a term familiar to you.

O'Booze's claim of an "anti-gay slur" is not affected by whether Drummond was commenting on an advertisement or on a flight he had actually taken.

You can take or leave any of my comments, I really couldn't care less.

[Brad the Impala]

If Andrew Drummond was only interested in women he would have said "not a male flight attendant in sight"..he said gay flight attendant. Quite apart from the sweeping statement that all male flight attendants must be gay...he re-inforces every hackeyned old stereotype about gay people.

What hackneyed stereotype is Drummond reinforcing?

It would also be my perception that a much higher percentage of male stewards are clearly gay than is the case in the general population. Is that not your experience? Does that mean that I am reinforcing gay stereotype, or actually just stating the obvious. Drummond may be homophobic, I don't know and don't much care. However distorting his comments, as you have on this thread, to make some preconceived point is not proving any point, except that you don't like the guy.




My last word..a quote from London's Lord Mayor Boris Johnson which sums up my thoughts on those who work on tabloids:

Interesting that you choose to quote from the man who invited Rupert Murdoch as his personal guest to accompany him to the Olympics! The man who also said of the tabloid phone hacking scandal that is was just "codswallop initiated by the Labour Party"!

[Brad the Impala]

You can take or leave any of my comments, I really couldn't care less.

You're right, there is no point to take note of the comments of someone who forms an opinion about an article without even looking at it.

Interesting that you choose to quote from the man who invited Rupert Murdoch as his personal guest to accompany him to the Olympics! The man who also said of the tabloid phone hacking scandal that is was just "codswallop initiated by the Labour Party"!Very good point Brad wasnt it one of Murdochs editors that started a name and shame pedophiles campaign that went wrong and theres always that woman MP with gay sons who murdered a gay judge in Australia because she said he was a pedo[hile.

.. there is no point to take note of the comments of someone who forms an opinion about an article without even looking at it.

OK, my little stalker, I'll reel in your red herring -

Here is the exact quote:

"I won't say nyet to Vietjet - Ok - I just like the picture. Not a gay male attendant in sight and all the female ones dressed in shorts similar to the ones I potter around the garden in"

So... I've read it - are you happy now?

O'Booze was accurate in his summary (which is what I responded to) - it makes no difference that Drummond was referring to a picture, he still made the statement.

My opinion has not changed

[joe552]

What is it about Drummond that he potters about the garden in shorts that seem attractive on female flight attendants?

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

[quote="Lunchtime O'Booze":1da1l4lz]If Andrew Drummond was only interested in women he would have said "not a male flight attendant in sight"..he said gay flight attendant. Quite apart from the sweeping statement that all male flight attendants must be gay...he re-inforces every hackeyned old stereotype about gay people.

What hackneyed stereotype is Drummond reinforcing?

It would also be my perception that a much higher percentage of male stewards are clearly gay than is the case in the general population. Is that not your experience? Does that mean that I am reinforcing gay stereotype, or actually just stating the obvious. Drummond may be homophobic, I don't know and don't much care. However distorting his comments, as you have on this thread, to make some preconceived point is not proving any point, except that you don't like the guy.




My last word..a quote from London's Lord Mayor Boris Johnson which sums up my thoughts on those who work on tabloids:

Interesting that you choose to quote from the man who invited Rupert Murdoch as his personal guest to accompany him to the Olympics! The man who also said of the tabloid phone hacking scandal that is was just "codswallop initiated by the Labour Party"![/quote:1da1l4lz]

Yes I quoted Boris and he isn't always wrong or right, but he was on this.
Neither is Andrew Drummond who has written some good stuff but I believe journalists must be like Caesar's wife and above suspicion of bias.

Mr Drummond has the ability to answer back and has taken me to task in the past on his blog. My view is that he is part of the totally corrupted process that the British tabloids have become and he imports it to Thailand. And as he dishes it out, he must take it as well.

I'll leave it your imagination as to what stereotype gays there are but surely you haven't lived such a sheltered life..or perhaps you are very young and do not know how us old queens paved the way for today's freedom ! :party

... [Brad the Impala]....perhaps you are very young ...

You can dismiss that idea from your mind immediately.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

What is it about Drummond that he potters about the garden in shorts that seem attractive on female flight attendants?

perhaps the poor thing was so consumed with the thought of nubile young Asian girls in khaki shorts along with 1000s of his Fleet Street colleagues that he and they failed to notice that the late Jimmy Savile was allegedly raping approximately one girl a month for the last 40 years, even whilst they simultaneously promoted Mr Savile on a weekly basis.. :dontknow: