Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

Sorry not true as I called the lawyer at once when I was serve and where do you come up with this nonsense claimed of what I did or did not do 30 years ago?



Of course she was a drug addict however she hid it and kept it under control until after we was married and she did not need to work two jobs to support herself or one job for that matter.



Sorry but the matter was a very secondary issue as losing my credit rating and my home and all my savings and likely needing to declare bankruptcy was of more concern at the time then having an order that I was not to assault her voided as I had no plans before or afterward to assault her.

Protections orders I never even hear of at the time as the public awareness of such orders and their meaning was not all that great in 1982. The whole thing did not make any sense to me as assaulting someone is a crime so why issue me an order to not committed a crime was my thinking.

The lawyer stated you are divorcing her so forget it and I did shaking my head at one more bit of nonsense my soon to be ex-wife had come up with.



She obtained a legally valid order but not a legitimate order as the only one that was assaulted in that married was me so in order to get that order she must had lied under oath to the courts.



Now we back to the subject of you can not blame a husband for his misdeeds and assaults and his lying under oath and on and on because the woman marry him and she should had known better.

She was stupid and so we should not blame her husband.

Is that your position that it is the victim fault for marrying an abuser or this thinking only apply to men victims and not women victims?

Footnote I even did not have a car to get to work as her sister had borrow my new car a few weeks before and gotten high an hit a tree.

She was a cop groupie and was out partying with some cops.

In any case I got a knock on my door at three AM and three cops was standing there two holding her up and the other one holding one of my firearm with the clip out. Footnote I had no idea she took the gun until that moment.

Sir is this you gun and I said yes and he handed it to me and then he said she gotten into an accident and she refused medical care so we brought her home!!!!!!

Ok I said now where is my car will sir they will be taking it to this junk yard as soon as they removed the tree from it!!!!!!!

He might not have telepathy, but he nailed that one.

"Facts not in evidence"........did they teach you the meaning of this phrase on law school?

Perhaps because you said you forgot "the detail" that said you had to request a court hearing to challenge the protective order within a certain time period....
This is what you said:

Meaning you never scheduled that hearing because you "forgot" that you had to do it before a deadline.

You think it's a woman's fault if she gets drunk and a man rapes her. So, you're the one who thinks it's the victim's fault for putting herself in harms way--for putting herself in a position where a man could rape her.

But now, because you married someone who apparently had all sorts of very serious problems, that you somehow managed not to be aware of until you said, "I do", you suddenly see yourself as the poor victim of an abuser.

Well, by your own reasoning, you're at least as much at fault as a college girl who gets drunk and gets raped by a man in a frathouse bedroom. You went into a marriage apparently blind to what was doing with the person you married, completely blind--sort of like when a woman is blind drunk--except you weren't drunk the entire time you were going out with this woman (or were you? ), you weren't physically impaired and vulnerable, the way that drunk college woman would be before she got raped, you weren't forced into marriage, the way that drunk college woman might be forced into sex because she lacks the capacity to resist. You foolishly married a woman you apparently didn't know at all, but she knew you were dumb, and she took advantage of your dumbness and used you.
Being that dumb and blind in a relationship, and being that dumb and blind about the person you are marrying, is a much bigger lapse in judgment than a coed who gets drunk at a party and winds up getting raped that night. But, you've repeatedly made it clear you don't see that woman as a rape victim, or the man who rapes her as an abuser. Well, buddy, then you're not a victim either, by your own logic.
You got used by your ex-wife, just the way that drunk college girl gets used for sex by the guy who rapes her, except you have a double standard when it comes to looking at these situations, you see that drunk coed as responsible for what happened to her, but, when it comes to you, you see yourself as some poor innocent victim because you don't see yourself as responsible for your own lousy errors in judgment, or your own failures in properly appraising the personality and character of the person you were marrying.

You persist in denying that other people, particularly women, are harmed and victimized by sexual assaults, insisting that most of them should not even be believed when they lodge criminal complaints of rape. You deny children are being harmed and victimized when pedophiles possess and view their sexualized images, violate their privacy, and keep the child pornography industry thriving--you don't even think these people should go to jail. But, because you married someone, apparently while completely blind to her serious personality, character, and drug abuse problems, and almost immediately got used and taken advantage of by her, you whip out the victim card and wimper about how badly you were abused. Well, you married her...and you were over 30 at the time you married her, so you were old enough to know what you were getting into, you weren't exactly a babe in the woods.

When you can evidence some genuine awareness of how others, particularly the children depicted in child pornography, are victimized and exploited, including by those who possess, and collect, and view, their images, you might have some true understanding of what real victimization is all about.

Good try Firefly but that will not wash as victim of domestic abused is a victim of domestic abused no matter what the sex organs happen to be on the victim or the abuser

In this case, I was the victim not my wife and if you wish to stated that is fine for me to be a victim as it is my fault for marrying a woman with problems then by your logic any women victim of abused who marry a man with problems then it is her fault for marrying the abuser not the abuser fault for being an abuser.

That the problem we been having your double standards all through out you postings on the subject of sex laws.

If a man get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day that just too damn bad however if a woman get drunk and regret having sex the next day then the man got the poor lady drunk and raped her.

Sorry but unlike you I view men and women as equals and therefore should be treated as equals by the society and under the laws of the society.

If you wish to call a drunken woman a rape victim when she had sex that she later regret under the voluntary influence of alcohol then also if a man had drunken sex with a woman who he later regret having then to the same degree he is a rape victim and his sexual partner is a rapist.

Thank you Arnie, I'm still taken back by how much just shoots over their heads. It's like I'm conducting two conversations, one with grown ups and another one with a couple of backward children. Every time I think I've nailed their stupidity, they say something even more cretinous.

It's not ESP or any such voodoo, although I understand why you would see it as such. I have the ability to recognise the flaming obvious when I see it.

Oh izzy speaking of the flaming obvious it seems flaming obvious that your nation is not going to be jumping in bed any further with the EU.

Shame on your government for not pouring billions more into the IMF to bail out the EU.

After all you wish to be in bed with France and Germany and they need you oh so bad.

Is that your idea of a taunt? You're as predictable as ever. I'm quite pleased actually, because it puts a huge strain on the Condem coalition. Although I wouldn't expect you to understand the nuances of UK (or any) politics for that matter.


Game sit and mitch.

One clue here is that many people point out to Bill that he is a cretin in so many words, as well as explicitly and frequently pointing out that he can't even properly express himself in what is ostensibly his native language. It's as though he had some neurological disorder--he consistently uses past participles where he needs an infinitive, and infinitives where he needs a past participle; he also consistently uses nouns where he needs an adjective, and adjectives where he needs a noun. These are simple things which small children master before they even learn to read. I really do sometimes wonder if he has a neurological disorder, or if this the product of long-term drug and/or alcohol abuse.

You do hear tales of people being kicked in the head by horses. It's quite frustrating arguing with someone when your points continually blast over their head.

We all are not prefect human beings except for some on the members on this website in fact Churchill had some minor speech impediment and he should therefore had not been allow in power with his neurological disorder to say nothing of the King of England George VI’s .

Oh it such a shame that only izzy and you are perfect in both mind and body and therefore free to state an opinion on this website.

How nice for you..................

I have reached the conclusion that his neurons are not all firing sequentially, and have lately resisted the very compelling urge to pile on.

Sorry being a non perfect human being I forgotten to add you to the list of perfect beings that hang around this website and given that the godhead is a three in one being it seems ideal that we had three perfect people on this system.

Are you the holy ghost as it is my understanding that he is the one of the three that gotten Mary pregnancy with Jesus.

I question if anyone would wish to be Jesus living into his 30s and never getting lucky.

I haven't been a prefect for a long time, although the duties of such are probably tooo much for you. Churchill did have a minor speech defect, but what you have isn't minor. People do make spelling mistakes, have typos, use sloppy grammar, and don't punctuate properly, but your English is so monumentally abysmal it makes you a case apart.

An the good king George my friend.........?????????

Was his problems minor also...........?

It must be nice to be so perfect you have a free ticket to look down on others be those others a former king of your nation or one of the greatest leaders in your nation history or others posters on this system.

Lord thanks for the laughs izzy...........................

What's really funny is that you're trying to compare youself to Churchill. I think you're a lot like him, not Winston, but this guy.

Unlike you, he's housetrained. Although, like you, he also tries to shag stranger's legs.

Now you're comparing yourself to kings and major world leaders?

Your problems are not minor. Your logic is faulty, your thinking is overly concrete, you perseverate interminably, your comprehension is limited, and you cannot express yourself in coherent written English.

Why izzy?

Hell you yourself had charge me with being like Churchill with his known heavy drinking for example.

Oh you think a lot of an half American with a drinking problem yet, how strange for a perfect and anti American Brit to be claiming.

Welcome back Firefly however I thought you would be gone longer from this thread after you painted yourself into the position that spousal abuse only matter if the victim is female and the abuser is male.

If a male is abuse it is his fault for picking the wrong female partner however by your rock hard logic if a female is a victim it is never her fault for picking the wrong man.

Off hand you seems to need to work harder on your logic before you can question anyone else logic.