Response to posts derailing sensitive topics (Content Warning)

This thread has been created to contain a number of posts from the Hookworms thread here:

These posts derailed the topic but at the same time I feel it’s important to recognise the forum responded to them in a positive way and I hope others considering putting their own oar in will reconsider on reading, hence this topic existing.

These posts are removed from the thread in blocks so they may be out of order.

A new block moved here will be marked by seeing this at the bottom of the post starting the block:

This is the first post of the chain that I removed when creating this thread:

Some people just don’t want to deal with drawn-out police investigations. It’s traumatic enough as it is without having to relive it again and again, and probably not get any kind of closure at the end of it.


“L has asked me that I make the public aware of his actions”

The police are able to investigate, charge and bring these sorts of cases to court, even if the victim is unwilling to give evidence in court. I’m all in favour of a police investigation.


If somebody has been the victim of a crime, it makes sense that the perpetrator is brought to justice. I appreciate that it must be a fucking horrible place to be in and she’s made the brave decision to speak out via a third party, but at the end of the day the facts are clear, and there’s a clear admittance of wrongdoing in messages from the perpetrator so it’s an open-and-shut case.

Good to know. But that’s just not your call to make.

Surely an admittance of guilt in a message is a bang-to-rights situation though? She wouldn’t even have to attend court or want to press charges?

I get why you feel this, but this thread isn’t really the place to die on that hill. Feel free to take it to one of the more generic threads if you want to continue the discussion.


I don’t know if you understand how the police operate, but an admittance of guilt in a message which can be traced back to a phone/IP address is something a friend of mine in the constabulary would jump on.

I appreciate the sensitivity of the subject and the hard time L must be going through, but if someone has openly admitted to wrongdoing with then it makes sense that the offender should be brought to justice.

It’s in the public interest to see a criminal brought to justice. It’s very much my business.

I’m not all that keen on telling survivors of abuse what to do. Doubly so when I don’t even know them at all. I’m not sure why you think you have the right to say what she needs to do. It has precisely fuck all to do with you.

This is exactly the kind of sensible discussion that he’s suggesting should continue in this forum. Yet your opponent is now no longer here to take part. Personally I did think he was putting forward his opinion appropriately, whether people agree with it or not. I’m not sure silencing him, when there are further points being made, is a great idea. If anything it could help convince others who haven’t quite come round the same way of thinking.


Not sure I go with this either. Forum status shouldn’t really factor into whether someone is allowed opinion. New users appears regularly and this place is better for it, we want them to stay. His opinion, whether I’ll intentioned or not, is one that is held by others, just not many on here.

I just think it is better to engage than silence. If he starts being offensive or insulting then fine. Otherwise let the debate have a positive effect on others.

1 Like

Nobody has been stopped from having an opinion.

I don’t want to speak for everyone, but i’m more than happy to see the back of anyone who signs up to be unpleasant in a thread about sexual assault.


Fair enough, Theo.

As said, moderation on here is pretty much spot on. Just not a fan of over-zealous censorship in general - not that I am implying that that was what you had done.



FWIW I don’t believe [Hoader was] a returning troll. Not sure it matters much though.

The outspoken nature of the band on this subject is almost certainly bringing unpleasant men out of the woodwork who want to do a “nerrrr I told you so” and I do not find it surprising that at least one of them found this thread.


We’ve stopped him expressing his opinion by banning him. I don’t think he was being unpleasant.

Other websites are available.

1 Like

I think if you read my posts to him you would be hard pressed to say I didn’t both warn him this was dangerous territory and avoid anything as long as possible.

FWIW I have banned him for 2 weeks not for good.


Just to clarify, @bennyhana22 - I don’t think Safebruv is calling you a cunt, but the idea of defeating unpleasant/malignant views in the #marketplaceofideas is pretty played out at this point, what with - [check notes] - all of politics in the past 3 years.

That said, it’s not exactly the best choice of words.

THAT said, you also said he’d insulted you, and I’m not sure when he’d insulted you up til that point.