a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-
groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html"http://
www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html/a

On Sep 19, 5:53*am, redweather wrote:
a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-
groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html"http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-groomed-net-sites/.../a

Has anyone read the link (2nd one), it's relevant. The paedo in
question is called Andrew Bond, you may be familiar with him.

On Sep 19, 4:31*pm, redweather wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:53*am, redweather wrote:

a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-
groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html"http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-groomed-net....../a

Has anyone read the link (2nd one), it's relevant. The paedo in
question is called Andrew Bond, you may be familiar with him.

Is that actually the Andrew Bond from metcheck? I'd like to clear that
up before anyone jumps to conclusions.

Paul

Dawlish wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:31*pm, redweather wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:53*am, redweather wrote:

a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-

groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html"http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-groomed-net....../a

Has anyone read the link (2nd one), it's relevant. The paedo in
question is called Andrew Bond, you may be familiar with him.

Is that actually the Andrew Bond from metcheck? I'd like to clear that
up before anyone jumps to conclusions.


Apart from the distressing nature of the offences, what also bothers but
does not surprise me is that that the newspaper doesn't know what a
paedophile is. As the victims were teenagers, the crime cannot be
paedophilia.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On 19 Sep, 17:42, Graham P Davis wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:31*pm, redweather wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:53*am, redweather wrote:

a href="http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-

groomed-net-sites/article-259464-detail/article.html"http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Paedophile-abused-boys-groomed-net....../a



Has anyone read the link (2nd one), it's relevant. The paedo in
question is called Andrew Bond, you may be familiar with him.

Is that actually the Andrew Bond from metcheck? I'd like to clear that
up before anyone jumps to conclusions.

Apart from the distressing nature of the offences, what also bothers but
does not surprise me is that that the newspaper doesn't know what a
paedophile is. As the victims were teenagers, the crime cannot be
paedophilia.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

I'm afraid that you are mistaken - anyone under the age of consent is
still a minor - whether they are teenagers or not...

In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe
those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including
both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the
local age of consent).[14]

Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

Roger

On Sep 19, 7:32*pm, "Roger Smith" wrote:

Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? *Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

Quit kicking my dog around.

"Roger Smith" wrote in message
...
Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

It concerns the possible involvement of someone from the weather
community in criminal activities, so yes, I think that counts as 'on-topic'.
And if you have killfiled Dawlish (for whatever reason) that's fine but
not everybody takes that view, I certainly don't and posters will continue
to respond to him as they see fit.
And if you see other peoples' replies to Dawlish in quoted text, well
that's just tough.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.

On Sep 19, 7:56*pm, "Col" wrote:
"Roger Smith" wrote in message

...

Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? *Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

It concerns the possible involvement of someone from the weather
community in criminal activities, so yes, I think that counts as 'on-topic'.
And if you have killfiled Dawlish (for whatever reason) that's fine but
not everybody takes that view, I certainly don't and posters will continue
to respond to him as they see fit.
And if you see other peoples' replies to Dawlish in quoted text, well
that's just tough.

I had a quick trawl through previous posts and he seems to have
received some hate in the past -or given it, I wasn't concerned with
looking deeply.

The site is still up, so someone still has access to computers:
http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/HOME/

It is a bit thick following a post of this nature by an OP of that
nature, bearing in mind that even a prospective US Vice Presidunce can
have her e-mails hacked.

Has anyone thought to ask him? Or is the situation one of MOOBUFN?

In article ,
Roger Smith writes:
Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

Whatever you may think of Dawlish in general, it's hard to see that he
has done anything very terrible on this occasion. Surely it's
"redweather", whoever he might be, against whom your ire should be
directed?
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)