WWW.TADPOLETOWN.CO.UK THE NEW SPERM DONOR FORUM FOR 2014
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #16 
I was not referring to L, but anyway it was wrong for a site to allow a member's address, photo, place of work and private information to be posted without the agreement of the member.

L's case against Frank certainly did not help him, but a verdict was not reached in that case, Frank really only has himself to blame, he over reached what was right and decent. But he never was honest - he was not a registered GP although he was claiming to be a doctor. 

There are no winners in Frank's case. It is a debate someone could have. Was more harm done by taking Frank to court (to his other recipients and their children) than harm (to recipients taking him to court and potential future recipients and their children). But the law is the law and he was found guilty in the main case.

L seems to have issues about everyone and companies and goes hot and cold, I remember when she use to support Frank and had words with me at that time because I was anti-Frank(FQ).        

Quote:
Originally Posted by gagnant
Who has a medical condition? - if you're referring to fat L and her allegations (lies) against Frank, she had it coming I'm glad it wasn't deleted. Leaving his career and marriage in tatters because SHE felt dirty and couldn't live with what SHE had done. You should have seen her in court, couldn't look anyone in the eye. Sign of weakness.
Scottishguy

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #17 
The above posts should be removed as they refer to someone by name who has not given consent to this information being posted publicly.

Even on the old Tadpoletown.com site this kind of thing would not have been allowed to remain up.

Naming recipients publicly that are not members of this site and not here to defend themselves and alluding to details of previous court cases that we don't have the full information about is very dodgy territory legally. 

The owner should take these down.

Anyway, apart from the court case and legal verdict against the member known as "Frank" (not his real name) which is a matter of public record. Other people's individual squabbles with him (including mine) over comparatively minor matters are ancient history. There is no need to go over them again.

I've never been a fan of holding grudges.
gagnant

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #18 
everything above has already been made public. Even If it wasn't we still wouldn't be breaking English law because we have not mentioned surnames and in Frank's case we aren't even using his real name.

You should perhaps familiarise yourself with the laws surrounding libel before making a complete fool of yourself.
gagnant

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #19 
Fat Ls court case aside, this site and donnordaddy should be closed. CC and Mot's site should remain.
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #20 
You are such a hypocrite SG, I remember you naming L and another recipient on my site before the court case. In fact the thread is still there. It is exactly the kind of thing that would have been posted and remain on the old Tadpole site -what a load of old rubbish you speak

Have you not shown you keep grudges by posting about me in the past on this site when I was not a member to defend myself - again hypocrite.

Did you not post endlessly on Tadpole about censorship on my site, where in fact you have deleted and asked for threads to be removed far more than I ever have. - Hypocrite 

Squabbles with Frank - what? you are one of the people that use to encourage Frank. I don't think the fact that he was not a registered doctor is a minor consideration, when it meant so much to recipients. 

But in the end SG if you don't want to go over things new and old then don't post. Or are debates only allowed if you say so.

It is public knowledge and does not stop L posting about Frank, so why can't anyone else?   

I have always had concerns more with the innocent children of Frank's than Frank, L or anyone else. I can't remember you ever expressing such concern, so black and white for you when you are in bed with one of the parties so as to speak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
The above posts should be removed as they refer to someone by name who has not given consent to this information being posted publicly.

Even on the old Tadpoletown.com site this kind of thing would not have been allowed to remain up.

Naming recipients publicly that are not members of this site and not here to defend themselves and alluding to details of previous court cases that we don't have the full information about is very dodgy territory legally. 

The owner should take these down.

Anyway, apart from the court case and legal verdict against the member known as "Frank" (not his real name) which is a matter of public record. Other people's individual squabbles with him (including mine) over comparatively minor matters are ancient history. There is no need to go over them again.

I've never been a fan of holding grudges.
Scottishguy

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #21 
I stand corrected.

Apparently it's AOK to publicaly name former complainants in criminal cases because they are also former recipients of someone you don't like.

Everyone has their own sense of ethics after all. 

We're all guided by our own conscience in the end...

You sound so bitter.

Bitter about Frank. Bitter about me. Bitter about the recipient / victim in question.

Long after any of these people have forgotten any bitterness towards you I bet. If they ever had any in the first place. Lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by mot3
You are such a hypocrite SG, I remember you naming L and another recipient on my site before the court case. In fact the thread is still there. It is exactly the kind of thing that would have been posted and remain on the old Tadpole site -what a load of old rubbish you speak

Have you not shown you keep grudges by posting about me in the past on this site when I was not a member to defend myself - again hypocrite.

Did you not post endlessly on Tadpole about censorship on my site, where in fact you have deleted and asked for threads to be removed far more than I ever have. - Hypocrite 

Squabbles with Frank - what? you are one of the people that use to encourage Frank. I don't think the fact that he was not a registered doctor is a minor consideration, when it meant so much to recipients. 

But in the end SG if you don't want to go over things new and old then don't post. Or are debates only allowed if you say so.

It is public knowledge and does not stop L posting about Frank, so why can't anyone else?   

I have always had concerns more with the innocent children of Frank's than Frank, L or anyone else. I can't remember you ever expressing such concern, so black and white for you when you are in bed with one of the parties so as to speak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
The above posts should be removed as they refer to someone by name who has not given consent to this information being posted publicly.

Even on the old Tadpoletown.com site this kind of thing would not have been allowed to remain up.

Naming recipients publicly that are not members of this site and not here to defend themselves and alluding to details of previous court cases that we don't have the full information about is very dodgy territory legally. 

The owner should take these down.

Anyway, apart from the court case and legal verdict against the member known as "Frank" (not his real name) which is a matter of public record. Other people's individual squabbles with him (including mine) over comparatively minor matters are ancient history. There is no need to go over them again.

I've never been a fan of holding grudges.
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #22 
If you replace bitter with the word disrespect you would be nearer the mark.

I am not bitter about Frank never was nor hate him as he thought - just did not believe he was good for the donation world or honest and did not like how he treated some people. He was judged not on these issues but was found guilty on sexual assault. He is out of the picture now, you would like to say lets not mention his name again. But the thing is things have not got away for his recipients and their children, nor is it worth forgetting, otherwise lessons will not be leant. In some ways I feel sorry for Frank, but he was found guilty and has been punished.   

As for you SG - no I'm not bitter about you, just don't respect you and for good reasons and sick of you constantly sending me private emails when I have ask you not to, normally on a Friday- so I am due one tomorrow lol. It has been going on for over a year now - enough is enough. But I don't like your sarcasm - maybe that is how you express your bitterness.   

Now with regards to a certain person - initial "L" as we do have to express who we are talking about to stop confusion. If we believe in a fair trial and the results and judgement - You are calling "L" a victim, I thought someone is innocent until found guilty - Frank was never found guilty with regards to allegations by "L" so calling "L" a victim when it was never proven in a court of law, is you SG being bias. & tbh what I have read since makes me wonder, recently read - "L" found out early on about predatory men on donation sites with her first donor, really is it me or was it more like after a year of Frank being the donor. I wish "L" well with the baby to be and all that - but find it hard to respect her or more to the point some of the issues she has constantly. Although I do respect her knowledge in some aspects of sperm donation and of course she writes interesting posts.

I just hope SG you could look past "L" and see the bigger picture. 

But do just call me bitter if it makes you feel happy.

Lets leave it there shall we.      

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
I stand corrected.

Apparently it's AOK to publicaly name former complainants in criminal cases because they are also former recipients of someone you don't like.

Everyone has their own sense of ethics after all. 

We're all guided by our own conscience in the end...

You sound so bitter.

Bitter about Frank. Bitter about me. Bitter about the recipient / victim in question.

Long after any of these people have forgotten any bitterness towards you I bet. If they ever had any in the first place. Lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by mot3
You are such a hypocrite SG, I remember you naming L and another recipient on my site before the court case. In fact the thread is still there. It is exactly the kind of thing that would have been posted and remain on the old Tadpole site -what a load of old rubbish you speak

Have you not shown you keep grudges by posting about me in the past on this site when I was not a member to defend myself - again hypocrite.

Did you not post endlessly on Tadpole about censorship on my site, where in fact you have deleted and asked for threads to be removed far more than I ever have. - Hypocrite 

Squabbles with Frank - what? you are one of the people that use to encourage Frank. I don't think the fact that he was not a registered doctor is a minor consideration, when it meant so much to recipients. 

But in the end SG if you don't want to go over things new and old then don't post. Or are debates only allowed if you say so.

It is public knowledge and does not stop L posting about Frank, so why can't anyone else?   

I have always had concerns more with the innocent children of Frank's than Frank, L or anyone else. I can't remember you ever expressing such concern, so black and white for you when you are in bed with one of the parties so as to speak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
The above posts should be removed as they refer to someone by name who has not given consent to this information being posted publicly.

Even on the old Tadpoletown.com site this kind of thing would not have been allowed to remain up.

Naming recipients publicly that are not members of this site and not here to defend themselves and alluding to details of previous court cases that we don't have the full information about is very dodgy territory legally. 

The owner should take these down.

Anyway, apart from the court case and legal verdict against the member known as "Frank" (not his real name) which is a matter of public record. Other people's individual squabbles with him (including mine) over comparatively minor matters are ancient history. There is no need to go over them again.

I've never been a fan of holding grudges.
Scottishguy

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #23 
I called her a "complainant", you can use "alleged victim" if you like. Neither of which imply any guilt either way. But with the conviction rates for alleged sexual assaults being notoriously low... 

If you are arguing for Frank's innocence then just say...

I have to say I'm a little surprised that a year after Tadpole closed you have decided to join the debate NOW. I was debating this with John Elves a year ago when it was still vaguely topical (he thought the female complainants were all making it up too).

Then again you always did harbour grudges long after others have moved on.

I'll let others be the judge of why that might be...
tad

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 98
Reply with quote  #24 
I could pull this down that is correct but as i also know that it was not L's evidence that brought Frank down then I'm going to let you keep the debate going. I knew that the L etc case was being brought against Frank way before it came public and i know Frank was on the old CO.UK site but he didn't own it.
the judge listened to the evidence and he made a decision on its Merritt and frank was found guilty
most of us thought frank was a DR and in the end he may have been but not the type of DR we thought.(missled all of us)

As for shutting the sites NO I'm here to help people and if the site helps 1 to have a child then its working as it should.I'm hoping its helping a few but that's down to the Recipients and the Donors.

Also reporters are allowed on my sites as long as they make it clear they are reporters
Scottishguy

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #25 
Hi john,

I think it's unacceptable to allow the first name of a recipient who was involved in a court case be named publicly on your site without her (to my knowledge) ever having been a member of this site and certainly is not party to this discussion or here to defend herself.

Site owners are meant to be here to protect recipients. 

That's the last I'll say about it though.

It's up to Mot3 and the other one whether they are happy with themselves having been the ones to name her.

As I said, everyone has their own conscience...
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #26 

SG If you can’t be honest on what you wrote 3 posts ago, then what is the point or replying to you except to correct your er “errors” But here is a little reminder for you, and I quote

Quote 1

Quote:
I called her a "complainant", you can use "alleged victim" if you like. Neither of which imply any guilt either way. But with the conviction rates for alleged sexual assaults being notoriously low...


Quote 2
Quote:
Bitter about the recipient / victim in question.
And we were talking about “L” so don’t try and make out you were talking about someone else.

What do you mean by “But with the conviction rates for alleged sexual assaults being notoriously low...” Do you mean we can ignore the results of the court case and suggest that an injustice has been done? I am fine with accepting the result in a court of law. You can’t have it both ways accept a guilty verdict in one case but ignore the result in the other case, especially so when the cases were heard at the same time.

Yet you have stated let others be the judge – well apparently not when it is different to your view.

Where did I say Frank was innocence? He was found guilty of sexual assault but not with regard to “L” case, reached fairly in a court of law, and I believe what the confirmed Victim “C” said she went through and feel sorry for what she had to endure, but respect her strength to get justice and to stop it happening to other recipients in the future.

But you know what? I can’t respect you SG when you use smear tactics to suggest I believe Frank to be innocence and suggest I think the complainants were all making it up- that has got to be pretty underhand even for you to suggest that.

However I don’t believe that Frank started out as a donor with sexual assault in mind, and as I said before I noticed a change in him. So for recipients prior to this, he was a donor that they respected, even if I didn’t and because they still support him does not mean I can’t see their point of view, as I said before, things are not black and white.  But what a mess for his 50 plus children, what will his recipients tell them, I can understand if there is hate there about what happened.     

I thought I had said a couple of things on the thread you have just referred to with John Elves– mainly it was getting out of hand being so fresh and about being sensitive. But at the time what made me laugh was your complete misunderstanding of John Elves (DWElves), you did not get it at all, did you. He has asperger’s syndrome, that is why he was so detailed and insensitive.   

Anyway I think it is time to give this Frank and “L”subject a rest, all you have managed to do SG is prolong it, strange when you wanted to curtail it.

Getting back to the OP - this thread has turned into a good example for people that don't know - how it was on the original tadpole which you supported SG. We have us arguing and another person already deleted and a would be troll (one of the old favourites) starting new accounts - 4 that I have seen so far - but not confirming their email. Of course this sort of thing kept the old site high on the rankings, which the owner of the old tadpole use to like.  




Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottishguy
I called her a "complainant", you can use "alleged victim" if you like. Neither of which imply any guilt either way. But with the conviction rates for alleged sexual assaults being notoriously low... 

If you are arguing for Frank's innocence then just say...

I have to say I'm a little surprised that a year after Tadpole closed you have decided to join the debate NOW. I was debating this with John Elves a year ago when it was still vaguely topical (he thought the female complainants were all making it up too).

Then again you always did harbour grudges long after others have moved on.

I'll let others be the judge of why that might be...
tad

Avatar / Picture

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 98
Reply with quote  #27 
I think i got all the names related to L above in the posts although it was made public in all the papers i agree she isnt here on the site.(that i know that is)
But then it wasnt L evidence that convicted him it was a girl from cambridge evidence that DID

I also see gagnant DELETED himself (windup merchant i guess)
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #28 
Very sensible post, I know it is not easy as a owner making a decision like this although it may appear to ordinary members that it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tad
I could pull this down that is correct but as i also know that it was not L's evidence that brought Frank down then I'm going to let you keep the debate going. I knew that the L etc case was being brought against Frank way before it came public and i know Frank was on the old CO.UK site but he didn't own it.
the judge listened to the evidence and he made a decision on its Merritt and frank was found guilty
most of us thought frank was a DR and in the end he may have been but not the type of DR we thought.(missled all of us)

As for shutting the sites NO I'm here to help people and if the site helps 1 to have a child then its working as it should.I'm hoping its helping a few but that's down to the Recipients and the Donors.

Also reporters are allowed on my sites as long as they make it clear they are reporters
Scottishguy

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #29 
"Recipient / victim " still implies no guilt which is what I said above. It leaves it open to the reader to take their pick depending on their point of view. I have my opinion, others theirs. 

I just don't feel the need to go on about mine on such a sensitive topic that should have been over with a long time ago.

On the subject of opinions. We can arrive at our own based on a number of different factors:- 

1. What the facts tell us
2. What our conscience tells us
3. The opposite to the opinion of a person we dislike

If what you allege about John Elves is true then this would appear to explain his predominantly using number 1.

I like to use a combination of 1. And 2.

Yourself? Well your opposition to Frank used to look like number 2 yet knowing the history (he upset you on another site then you followed him to Tadpole to attempt to discredit him) then it looks a bit like number 3.

Certainly before WE fell out I used to think that we shared opinions on a variety of topics. Since then, my opinions haven't changed yet you appear to take the opposite stance on almost every topic I post about lol.

Perhaps there is more than one troll on this thread, regrettably.
mot3

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #30 
[rolleyes] Facts, you would not know a fact SG if you fell over one. I thought you said you wanted to stop talking about Frank[confused] No you have got the history all wrong - but what do you know - jack all [rofl]

And are you now calling me a troll or yourself lol

I will leave you get to get on with the thread - Good night
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.