|
Post by mossy on Aug 29, 2018 17:06:45 GMT -5
Not wanting to step into someone else’s argument, but you guys seem to be debating the definition of the word “evidence”. From our good friend and robotic overlord Google: “Evidence: noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” rebus isn’t saying it’s a stone cold fact that Liam assaulted Debbie. Or that the CCTV proves it. He’s saying that the CCTV footage, even if ropey, is information from which you could propose Liam was violent towards Debbie. And it is. If she decided to take him to court it would definitely be used as evidence. Not “proof”. But definitely evidence. Appreciate English isn’t your first language. Hope that helps. Peace. X Only if the context of the incident was of an aggressive nature which is by no means certain. That's not to say it isn't but having gone back and looked at it again, to me it shows little to support either position. No, evidence just means information. Contextless data. Context is not required to call something, such as a CCTV video, evidence. Context is needed if you want to call something proof. For example, a discarded unused contraceptive is not proof that Let It 🩸 got a side chick pregnant. But it could be used in combination with other evidence and context, such as DNA tests, multiple witness testimonies and debauched videos from his phone, to prove so. X
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Aug 29, 2018 17:27:44 GMT -5
Only if the context of the incident was of an aggressive nature which is by no means certain. That's not to say it isn't but having gone back and looked at it again, to me it shows little to support either position. No, evidence just means information. Contextless data. Context is not required to call something, such as a CCTV video, evidence. Context is needed if you want to call something proof. For example, a discarded unused contraceptive is not proof that Let It 🩸 got a side chick pregnant. But it could be used in combination with other evidence and context, such as DNA tests, multiple witness testimonies and debauched videos from his phone, to prove so. X I was only referring to the bit bolded, not to your clarification. Your example is good but when compared to the video and dodgy statement from a bouncer this case lacks any of the things you mention. If were to test it as case I don't think it would make it to court due to a lack of evidence to really support anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 29, 2018 17:29:50 GMT -5
Not wanting to step into someone else’s argument, but you guys seem to be debating the definition of the word “evidence”. From our good friend and robotic overlord Google: “Evidence: noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” rebus isn’t saying it’s a stone cold fact that Liam assaulted Debbie. Or that the CCTV proves it. He’s saying that the CCTV footage, even if ropey, is information from which you could propose Liam was violent towards Debbie. And it is. If she decided to take him to court it would definitely be used as evidence. Not “proof”. But definitely evidence. Appreciate English isn’t your first language. Hope that helps. Peace. X Only if the context of the incident was of an aggressive nature which is by no means certain. That's not to say it isn't but having gone back and looked at it again, to me it shows little to support either position. I don't want to get in the way of Mossy's reply, but anyway, this is a forum, right? Let's imagine this involved some anonymous couple and not those in question, for neutrality's sake. In my contry, "Domestic Abuse" is a public crime, so anyone who witnesses something that could raise this suspicion may denounce ir to the police, so let's assume it took place here: Someone saw a video footage on a CCTV just like Liam's and Debbie's. We have no context whatsoever. Worse than that, context may be contradictory or untrustworthy- This video still constitutes evidence, you may argue it is weaker evidence, but it still constitutes evidence enough to raise suspicion. Obviously, legally it would be impossible to prove anything with this video, even if there was an argument before. It is quite rare that a judge has full evidence and full context (or even testiomonies that are not contradictory), but the judge still has to decide. In a courtroom the rule is "in dubio, pro reo" which means that if there is doubt it is better to absolve the person, keeping in mind that the judge is fully aware that some of the guilty ones will be absolved due to lack of enough evidence. Nevertheless, the judge could still decide that the social services should increase surveillance of the said person, and eventually visit the household from time to time until better evidence os gatheterd. Like I said before, I don't believe people actually assuming that this particular case constitutes abuse. It's more a case of allowing yourself to accept there is a possibility (that is not negligenciable) that it may point to some degree of mistreatment, and ropey or not, the video can point to that.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Aug 29, 2018 17:39:33 GMT -5
Only if the context of the incident was of an aggressive nature which is by no means certain. That's not to say it isn't but having gone back and looked at it again, to me it shows little to support either position. I don't want to get in the way of Mossy's reply, but anyway, this is a forum, right? Let's imagine this involved some anonymous couple and not those in question, for neutrality's sake. In my contry, "Domestic Abuse" is a public crime, so anyone who witnesses something that could raise this suspicion may denounce ir to the police, so let's assume it took place here: Someone saw a video footage on a CCTV just like Liam's and Debbie's. We have no context whatsoever. Worse than that, context may be contradictory or untrustworthy- This video still constitutes evidence, you may argue it is weaker evidence, but it still constitutes evidence enough to raise suspicion. Obviously, legally it would be impossible to prove anything with this video, even if there was an argument before. It is quite rare that a judge has full evidence and full context (or even testiomonies that are not contradictory), but the judge still has to decide. In a courtroom the rule is "in dubio, pro reo" which means that if there is doubt it is better to absolve the person, keeping in mind that the judge is fully aware that some of the guilty ones will be absolved due to lack of enough evidence. Raising suspicion of what? That's what I'm saying, it is evidence of something, of what is unclear and unknown, an attempted assult? A dimissive gesture? To drunk people messing around? It might well be exactly as The S*n say's it is but I just think there is nothing to take from what they have provided.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 29, 2018 17:57:18 GMT -5
I don't want to get in the way of Mossy's reply, but anyway, this is a forum, right? Let's imagine this involved some anonymous couple and not those in question, for neutrality's sake. In my contry, "Domestic Abuse" is a public crime, so anyone who witnesses something that could raise this suspicion may denounce ir to the police, so let's assume it took place here: Someone saw a video footage on a CCTV just like Liam's and Debbie's. We have no context whatsoever. Worse than that, context may be contradictory or untrustworthy- This video still constitutes evidence, you may argue it is weaker evidence, but it still constitutes evidence enough to raise suspicion. Obviously, legally it would be impossible to prove anything with this video, even if there was an argument before. It is quite rare that a judge has full evidence and full context (or even testiomonies that are not contradictory), but the judge still has to decide. In a courtroom the rule is "in dubio, pro reo" which means that if there is doubt it is better to absolve the person, keeping in mind that the judge is fully aware that some of the guilty ones will be absolved due to lack of enough evidence. Raising suspicion of what? That's what I'm saying, it is evidence of something, of what is unclear and unknown, an attempted assult? A dimissive gesture? To drunk people messing around? It might well be exactly as The S*n say's it is but I just think there is nothing to take from what they have provided. Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Aug 29, 2018 18:21:39 GMT -5
Raising suspicion of what? That's what I'm saying, it is evidence of something, of what is unclear and unknown, an attempted assult? A dimissive gesture? To drunk people messing around? It might well be exactly as The S*n say's it is but I just think there is nothing to take from what they have provided. Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree. I wasn't at all aggressive. I also accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong happened as I already pointed out in my final sentence. I just think what has been provided so far shows very little of anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by jeffrey on Aug 29, 2018 18:29:57 GMT -5
Raising suspicion of what? That's what I'm saying, it is evidence of something, of what is unclear and unknown, an attempted assult? A dimissive gesture? To drunk people messing around? It might well be exactly as The S*n say's it is but I just think there is nothing to take from what they have provided. Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree. You are correct in that there is nothing to take from the video regarding Liam “attacking” Debbie in terms of proof. And conversely, public accusations without merit are dangerous and could be punishable by law in the US (not sure about UK as I didn’t study law there). There is no evidence proving that he attacked her or even committed simple assault, therefore he has a textbook libel suit. I was a jerk to rebus earlier and I apologize for that, but I’ll stick to my original comment that I’m stunned by anyone with capable vision who would see that video and be convinced he attacked/assaulted Debbie in said instance.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 29, 2018 18:50:02 GMT -5
Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree. I wasn't at all aggressive. I also accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong happened as I already pointed out in my final sentence. I just think what has been provided so far shows very little of anything at all. I tend to slightly disagree with your last sentence, in the sense that I simply cannot see that video and give Liam 'charte blanche'as I suppose nor do many others, regardless of how much I hate the Scum. It's just that going by previous posts of yours regarding other matters, you tend to be far more blunt than regarding this matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot avoid to notice or point it out. you are, of course entitled to your opinion, but it is as biased as anyone else's, including mine. I hope you can also try to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 29, 2018 18:52:50 GMT -5
Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree. You are correct in that there is nothing to take from the video regarding Liam “attacking” Debbie in terms of proof. And conversely, public accusations without merit are dangerous and could be punishable by law in the US (not sure about UK as I didn’t study law there). There is no evidence proving that he attacked her or even committed simple assault, therefore he has a textbook libel suit. I was a jerk to rebus earlier and I apologize for that, but I’ll stick to my original comment that I’m stunned by anyone with capable vision who would see that video and be convinced he attacked/assaulted Debbie in said instance. Fair enough, let me just point out that, to the best of my knowledge, not many are claiming the video is proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by fartpanic on Aug 29, 2018 18:53:28 GMT -5
Please don't be aggressive thomaslivesforever, read the post again, there is further explanation. . I am using the word evidence in the exact meaning of the definition Mossy's provided, not as proof of anynthing. Just because you don't clearly see something, doesn't mean you can absolutely guarantee it isn't there. I am not stating my opinion regarding what I think happened or not. I hope you can have some sort of flexibility to accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong may have happened, even though I won't be surprised if you don't (unfortunately, because I agree with you on some issues).. So let's just agree to disagree. You are correct in that there is nothing to take from the video regarding Liam “attacking” Debbie in terms of proof. And conversely, public accusations without merit are dangerous and could be punishable by law in the US (not sure about UK as I didn’t study law there). There is no evidence proving that he attacked her or even committed simple assault, therefore he has a textbook libel suit. I was a jerk to rebus earlier and I apologize for that, but I’ll stick to my original comment that I’m stunned by anyone with capable vision who would see that video and be convinced he attacked/assaulted Debbie in said instance. Good post. Interesting too that you say there could still be a case here. It was my thinking that as soon as the video came out there was no chance simply because their defence could be how they interpreted it. I really do hope no matter what the eventual outcome, eventually Dan Wootton falls on his sword. By the responses to stories on his Twitter, the public have him worked out.
|
|
|
Post by popeyebonaparte on Aug 29, 2018 18:58:47 GMT -5
And this is the power of The Sun. They now have OASIS fans in conflict, more Noel Liam drama, etc. All over nothing. Liam has done nothing wrong. It's plain for all to see. If anyone has trouble with their eyesight they should go to SpecSavers. As you were...
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Aug 29, 2018 19:20:30 GMT -5
I wasn't at all aggressive. I also accept it could be within the realms of possibility that something wrong happened as I already pointed out in my final sentence. I just think what has been provided so far shows very little of anything at all. I tend to slightly disagree with your last sentence, in the sense that I simply cannot see that video and give Liam 'charte blanche'as I suppose nor do many others, regardless of how much I hate the Scum. It's just that going by previous posts of yours regarding other matters, you tend to be far more blunt than regarding this matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot avoid to notice or point it out. you are, of course entitled to your opinion, but it is as biased as anyone else's, including mine. I hope you can also try to accept it. I'm not giving Liam 'Carte blanche' for anything and it is wrong for you to suggest so. If something further comes to light that shows Liam was acting with violent intent or a has in the past to Debbie or any other female I will immeadiately revise my conclusion. It is also wrong for you to suggest I'm acting with bias, I am trying to evaluate the situation with the information we currently have. I have no interest in defending any one, no matter who they are, if they assault someone. But I suppose I would be right in suggesting that you are only implying Liam's guilt because of your obvious Noel bias? No I wouldn't, because that would be stupid given the seriousness of it.
|
|
rebus
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 418
|
Post by rebus on Aug 29, 2018 19:57:40 GMT -5
I tend to slightly disagree with your last sentence, in the sense that I simply cannot see that video and give Liam 'charte blanche'as I suppose nor do many others, regardless of how much I hate the Scum. It's just that going by previous posts of yours regarding other matters, you tend to be far more blunt than regarding this matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot avoid to notice or point it out. you are, of course entitled to your opinion, but it is as biased as anyone else's, including mine. I hope you can also try to accept it. I'm not giving Liam 'Carte blanche' for anything and it is wrong for you to suggest so. If something further comes to light that shows Liam was acting with violent intent or a has in the past to Debbie or any other female I will immeadiately revise my conclusion. It is also wrong for you to suggest I'm acting with bias, I am trying to evaluate the situation with the information we currently have. I have no interest in defending any one, no matter who they are, if they assault someone. But I suppose I would be right in suggesting that you are only implying Liam's guilt because of your obvious Noel bias? No I wouldn't, because that would be stupid given the seriousness of it. If it were two completely random people and you saw that footage, would your response to it be to give the man reaching for her throat the benefit of the doubt? If you are a rational, reasonable person, which I'm going to assume you are, you would question the guys actions. Because it's Liam, and you have however many years worth of knowledge of him and his character and have watched however many interviews etc, you are not questioning his behaviour in a way that you would if the people shown in the video were not known to you. That is bias. And I'm not judging you for being biased, just pointing out that you almost certainly are. As are many people on here, understandably, given how much we love Liam and his music.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 29, 2018 20:23:12 GMT -5
I tend to slightly disagree with your last sentence, in the sense that I simply cannot see that video and give Liam 'charte blanche'as I suppose nor do many others, regardless of how much I hate the Scum. It's just that going by previous posts of yours regarding other matters, you tend to be far more blunt than regarding this matter. I am very sorry, but I cannot avoid to notice or point it out. you are, of course entitled to your opinion, but it is as biased as anyone else's, including mine. I hope you can also try to accept it. I'm not giving Liam 'Carte blanche' for anything and it is wrong for you to suggest so. If something further comes to light that shows Liam was acting with violent intent or a has in the past to Debbie or any other female I will immeadiately revise my conclusion. It is also wrong for you to suggest I'm acting with bias, I am trying to evaluate the situation with the information we currently have. I have no interest in defending any one, no matter who they are, if they assault someone. But I suppose I would be right in suggesting that you are only implying Liam's guilt because of your obvious Noel bias? No I wouldn't, because that would be stupid given the seriousness of it. I am not implying Liam's guilt. I am simply stating that the content of it made me unconfortable, and I cannot be true to myself and pretend it didn't. I know it is serious. That is also why I am choosing words very carefully regarding this. I am sorry, but regarding the bias thing I stand my opinion, still. It is not aimed as some kind of offence towards you, mind. And I accept your point that this issue is serious this time, but still, you are assuming my bias as being 'obvious' while taking none of yours in.
|
|
blkc
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 105
|
Post by blkc on Aug 29, 2018 20:56:05 GMT -5
Not wanting to step into someone else’s argument, but you guys seem to be debating the definition of the word “evidence”. From our good friend and robotic overlord Google: “Evidence: noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” rebus isn’t saying it’s a stone cold fact that Liam assaulted Debbie. Or that the CCTV proves it. He’s saying that the CCTV footage, even if ropey, is information from which you could propose Liam was violent towards Debbie. And it is. If she decided to take him to court it would definitely be used as evidence. Not “proof”. But definitely evidence. Appreciate English isn’t your first language. Hope that helps. Peace. X Well, I guess you can step into the argument too since I was stepping into someone else's argument myself in the first place I see where I could have been confused, apparently translation seems to be the same for "evidence" and "proof" in french, I may miss a subtility, so thanks But still, based on the definition you gave me, "available body of facts or information", I still think that the video isn't an evidence ^^ (I'm afraid I may be a little bit stubborn, sorry ), at least not in the current situation. I may be wrong but that video doesn't bring facts neither informations in my opinion, it only opens the road to speculation. I'm not saying that it's not suspicious at all, but it could only be used as an evidence if Debbie was accusing him too and that's just not the situation right now and we can't ignore that. So in the end, I agree that it could be an evidence, but only supported by accusations from Debbie, without that it's just not conclusive enough to be used (unless by a shitty paper of course ^^). I may have misunderstood Rebux but he was saying : "ZERO evidence in response to a video of him reaching for her throat." That was an answer to Jeffrey who was saying that there was zero evidence in the video. Without context it's unclear but he was clearly chocked by what Jeffrey said and strongly denying. I still agree with Jeffrey, there's zero "facts of informations" in that video proving anything ^^. I don't see how he can say that he's reaching for her throat, or claim anything, we just don't know Don't get me wrong I don't want to annoy you by contradicting you and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize to him then, but I really think he's convinced of Liam's culpability, the throat thing is very specific ^^
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 29, 2018 21:20:03 GMT -5
This may be a bit off topic, but is Debbie his personal assistant or manager? I've seen her described as either one in different press.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Aug 30, 2018 0:57:07 GMT -5
This may be a bit off topic, but is Debbie his personal assistant or manager? I've seen her described as either one in different press. It suits the sexist narrative to portray her as a PA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 1:30:13 GMT -5
This may be a bit off topic, but is Debbie his personal assistant or manager? I've seen her described as either one in different press. It suits the sexist narrative to portray her as a PA. Debbie is his pa, emphasis on personal. For example arranging the Burberry colab for the Brits. Urok manage him and Warner do the pr.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Aug 30, 2018 1:41:28 GMT -5
Not wanting to step into someone else’s argument, but you guys seem to be debating the definition of the word “evidence”. From our good friend and robotic overlord Google: “Evidence: noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” rebus isn’t saying it’s a stone cold fact that Liam assaulted Debbie. Or that the CCTV proves it. He’s saying that the CCTV footage, even if ropey, is information from which you could propose Liam was violent towards Debbie. And it is. If she decided to take him to court it would definitely be used as evidence. Not “proof”. But definitely evidence. Appreciate English isn’t your first language. Hope that helps. Peace. X Well, I guess you can step into the argument too since I was stepping into someone else's argument myself in the first place I see where I could have been confused, apparently translation seems to be the same for "evidence" and "proof" in french, I may miss a subtility, so thanks But still, based on the definition you gave me, "available body of facts or information", I still think that the video isn't an evidence ^^ (I'm afraid I may be a little bit stubborn, sorry ), at least not in the current situation. I may be wrong but that video doesn't bring facts neither informations in my opinion, it only opens the road to speculation. I'm not saying that it's not suspicious at all, but it could only be used as an evidence if Debbie was accusing him too and that's just not the situation right now and we can't ignore that. So in the end, I agree that it could be an evidence, but only supported by accusations from Debbie, without that it's just not conclusive enough to be used (unless by a shitty paper of course ^^). I may have misunderstood Rebux but he was saying : "ZERO evidence in response to a video of him reaching for her throat." That was an answer to Jeffrey who was saying that there was zero evidence in the video. Without context it's unclear but he was clearly chocked by what Jeffrey said and strongly denying. I still agree with Jeffrey, there's zero "facts of informations" in that video proving anything ^^. I don't see how he can say that he's reaching for her throat, or claim anything, we just don't know Don't get me wrong I don't want to annoy you by contradicting you and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize to him then, but I really think he's convinced of Liam's culpability, the throat thing is very specific ^^ You’ve conveniently only taken half the definition there. It’s information -> indicating -> proposition. The CCTV footage is information that could be used in a proposition that Liam was violent. It’s not however conclusive proof. Just like Debbie’s statement is pretty damn good evidence that nothing happened. However, it’s not conclusive proof because victims of abuse or one-off heated arguments may defend their partner. Especially if they’re a multi-millionaire. And an employer. If you genuinely believe CCTV footage isn’t evidence I guess you think all those millions of shops that use it should bin their cameras? Anyway, here’s hoping something more conclusive does come out to prove his innocence beyond doubt. (Footage from another camera, quote from the waiter, quote from the third person who was with them, plausible explanation when Liam is next interviewed, etc) X
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 1:51:06 GMT -5
We can reasonably assume that Debbie was distressed at the end of the video. We don’t know if she was already distressed before the clip started, for a totally different reason/person than that alleged.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Aug 30, 2018 3:25:47 GMT -5
I'm not giving Liam 'Carte blanche' for anything and it is wrong for you to suggest so. If something further comes to light that shows Liam was acting with violent intent or a has in the past to Debbie or any other female I will immeadiately revise my conclusion. It is also wrong for you to suggest I'm acting with bias, I am trying to evaluate the situation with the information we currently have. I have no interest in defending any one, no matter who they are, if they assault someone. But I suppose I would be right in suggesting that you are only implying Liam's guilt because of your obvious Noel bias? No I wouldn't, because that would be stupid given the seriousness of it. I am not implying Liam's guilt. I am simply stating that the content of it made me unconfortable, and I cannot be true to myself and pretend it didn't. I know it is serious. That is also why I am choosing words very carefully regarding this. I am sorry, but regarding the bias thing I stand my opinion, still. It is not aimed as some kind of offence towards you, mind. And I accept your point that this issue is serious this time, but still, you are assuming my bias as being 'obvious' while taking none of yours in. You clearly didn't read my post.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Aug 30, 2018 3:27:57 GMT -5
We can reasonably assume that Debbie was distressed at the end of the video. What a ridiculous assumption. A more reasonable alternative explanation is that they have a “hide and seek” kinky sex game going on. As foreplay, Debbie has to stand in a corner and count to 30 before she’s allowed to go and find Liam for sexy time. X
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Aug 30, 2018 3:42:04 GMT -5
I am not implying Liam's guilt. I am simply stating that the content of it made me unconfortable, and I cannot be true to myself and pretend it didn't. I know it is serious. That is also why I am choosing words very carefully regarding this. I am sorry, but regarding the bias thing I stand my opinion, still. It is not aimed as some kind of offence towards you, mind. And I accept your point that this issue is serious this time, but still, you are assuming my bias as being 'obvious' while taking none of yours in. You clearly didn't read my post. I read it. Just because someone claims to be trying to be unbiased doesn't make that person unbiased, sometimes it's not even a conscious mechanism. Anyway, If you can't see what I mean, don't bother. I am sorry, it is still my opinion based on what seem to me to be previous patterns of response. I accept you see it differently, while not necessarily agreeing with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 4:40:04 GMT -5
What a ridiculous assumption. A more reasonable alternative explanation is that they have a “hide and seek” kinky sex game going on. As foreplay, Debbie has to stand in a corner and count to 30 before she’s allowed to go and find Liam for sexy time. X Kk. I was trying, in my own way, to suggest that the video doesn’t reasonably show that Liam was responsible for her being upset, that she may have already been upset before the clip started. Your alternative explanation sounds much better, hope it was that. x
|
|
|
Post by justaroundmidnight on Aug 30, 2018 6:01:34 GMT -5
We can reasonably assume that Debbie was distressed at the end of the video. What a ridiculous assumption. A more reasonable alternative explanation is that they have a “hide and seek” kinky sex game going on. As foreplay, Debbie has to stand in a corner and count to 30 before she’s allowed to go and find Liam for sexy time. X But what happened in the side-room? Was Bonehead involved?
|
|