Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Venerealoh no! Am i going to end up with some unnamed venerial disease drawing weirdly lifeless streetscapes too?
i think your picking sides comment is really daft.
Living off the land 100%
- Thread starter Stanley Edwards
- Start date
Stop punishing somebody else for being morally dubious.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Savile.
Nah fair enough. I agree part of the way with you. His propensity to get disproportunately aggressive is, interesting. Just get a bit concerned generally with remote patholigism and potential follow on is all.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Hard to tell what you mean from that - but it's hard to enunciate what I mean from my own reactions on this one too, so I empathise.
Generalised 'pile-on' abuse of SE isn't okay. I doubt anyone on here would disagree.
But once you remove those emotionally driven reactions and/or tendencies, in SE's case there remains an objective concern about the threat he poses to vulnerable people. IMO.
If, in years to come, I read Savile headlines about this man - I don't want to be thinking that I should have acted differently.
By posting that, hopefully I haven't. Not sure what else I can do, proportionately - so over to you U75.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Hold on. I'm one of his harshest critics. But even I think it's a bit much to liken him - somone whose real name we all know, is on his blog, and linked to this site - to a man who raped hundreds of kids. Yes, he has some unsavory views, and some unpleasant character traits, but this is a bit OTT; there's nothing to suggest he has done (or is likely to do) anything like that.
Sweet Meiga
From far off lands
Corax
Luke 5:16
Feel free - that's what the function's there for. Curious that you felt the need to follow it up with a public declaration of your community service though. I'll be interested to see what exactly about my objections to SE's posts - his professed sexual attraction to underage girls, for example - you find particularly against the FAQs.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Hold on.
Several posters on here have declared disgust or whatever about his behaviour IRL, described on here, BY HIM, - including sexual attraction to underage girls, and that incredibly nasty incident where he painted a nude portrait of a girl in a public square intentionally where her family would see it.
But now we have to hold back in case of upsetting him?
How many red flags do you want FFS?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I've acknowledged that. I don't necessarily think you ought not to upset him. But Savile? Really?
rekil
to menny cranks
I've had Stan on ignore for years, so nearly all of the stuff being brought up here passed me by but I do remember him calling a poster a "coke whore" for challenging his weirdo lech shit.
Colour Coordinated Bra Straps.
Colour Coordinated Bra Straps.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Treacle Toes
Time
Fucking hell...missed that gem. Classic cunty Stan though all the same.
I read on a few posts and it seems he didn't get an automatic ban for that. Kin hell.
Supine
Newt Member
To get up people's noses. And how easily he achieves it.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Corax
Luke 5:16
That's exactly the same.
Athos
Well-Known Member
You sound a bit hysterical.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
bimble
floofy
I just find this very strange, to get so extremely worked up about this man you don't know apart from through his posts on here.
There's two blokes much more disturbing and dodgy than him living in my street, that I know of. Maybe it depends on how much exposure you've had to dodgy geezers?
Edit : that came out wrong I just mean how much you've had to deal with having them in your real life proximity.
There's two blokes much more disturbing and dodgy than him living in my street, that I know of. Maybe it depends on how much exposure you've had to dodgy geezers?
Edit : that came out wrong I just mean how much you've had to deal with having them in your real life proximity.
Last edited:
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Yes, but he'll have sold one of his cityscapes and foraged himself something in a little taberna. He is after all a middle aged English man taking a leisurely walking holiday In Portugal.
Corax
Luke 5:16
Do you acknowledge the existence of 'red flags', and the use of such methodology by clinical professionals?
Do you understand why it exists?
Do you think alarms should be raised before, or after, the event?
Do you think this forum, and its contributors, are somehow exempt from such considerations?
That's as much as I can do. No interest in a barney, I simply believe that a poster on these boards is a genuine threat to others. I hope mods and/or others pursue it further - raise concerns with whatever bodies are appropriate etc.
Given there's no evidence that his views expressed here actually represent his real persona, and a testimony from someone that knows him saying it doesn't, it's barking and obsessive.
bimble
floofy
What? Why don't you google and contact the Portuguese police or 'whatever bodies are appropriate' and tell them your concerns, if you feel so strongly ? Why 'mods/others' ? This is nuts. Get a grip.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
If only we could count on that
Corax
Luke 5:16
I don't moderate this site. Sweet Meiga has reported my posts, so the moderators obviously have it in their hands.
Why you and others feel so compelled to spring to the defence of such an individual is frankly beyond me.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Of course I understand the concept of red flags, and when they should be acted upon, and by whom.
But, although deeply unpleasant at times, I've not seen anything that could sensibly be interpreted to suggest he's a risk to the extent you've implied.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Thing is, a lot of people said things like that about suggestions that quite a few of the historical sex abusers, including Savile, were up to something.
But it's a dangerous area to go into, given the febrile attitudes towards sexual abuse (particularly children) that prevail, and really only serves to ramp up an already fairly excitable discussion.
I'm inclined to give Stanley the benefit of the doubt to the extent that it is perfectly possible that they are just stories made up to serve some particular need he has for attention. If they are true, they they are indicative of truly abhorrent behaviour, and he should be called to account for that. Not by us, but properly. If they are false, then I do find myself wondering what has to be wrong with someone to feel that posting stories about harassing young women is an acceptable way to behave. He can't be ignorant of the backlash, not after this long and so many iterations of his post/flounce cycle, so if he's making them up, it's to garner attention in a particularly useless way.
My gut instinct is that the stories are almost certainly at best (?!) heavily embellished versions of things that have happened, or that he's seen, or just thought would grab plenty of attention; those ones are probably posted at times when he might have been better to be indisposed to posting *cough*. I think that the grand plans and travelogue stuff is probably genuine, but, again, are mostly grandiose extraganzas projected from his imagination.
And Stanley can't be wrong. So if the most elementary flaw in his florid imaginings is revealed, rather than step back from it and imagine a way around it, he gets cross, and defensive, and insistent. He walks (to give him the benefit of the doubt) into a shitstorm about something he's posted, and then, instead of putting his hands up and saying, "OK, guys, I was pissed and posted a load of bollocks last night", he fights his corner, driven ever further back until he flounces out of the room.
I don't think we can afford to take our responsibilities too seriously, here, though. I think it's inevitable that people will not be able to resist nipping over to his blog and offering a few choice comments (although you should remember that Stanley may well have decided he's only really interested in hits and post counts, so he's probably quite happy with that state of affairs), but we can't police his behaviour. But if anyone here is sufficiently concerned that his various threads over the years do constitute a genuine threat to people IRL, then I imagine that pointing the police in the direction of those threads would have to be the best option (and I do a little inward shudder at even the notion of doing that...!), and letting them take care of it.
And he keeps on coming back. That might be pathological, but he is, ultimately, the only person who can choose to return or not, and how he behaves when he's on here. And I don't think he should get a free ride when he does come back. I think he gets cut a lot of slack - the majority of people leave him free to burble on innocuously, until the stupid stuff starts coming out again. The fact that he reaps the whirlwind, largely thanks to the way he refuses to acknowledge an alternative point of view, is a matter entirely in his control. I am sure that the majority of Urbanites, if he did back down, would be honourable in victory. But I don't think the opportunity to put that to the test has ever really arisen. And that's entirely down to Stanley.
