IFAM #7 He's A Perv And He Cheated.....Comment Deleted.

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
WhatwouldPrinnyDo said:
I just can’t believe they were intending to withhold the monies for their personal gain, not even they could be that naive surely? I’m more inclined to think they were 1j clueless and had no idea how to address the situation publicly and announce the refund of donations without losing face or 2) morally and intellectually Bankrupt and Lazy and hoped it would just fade away. But HELL NO.
You can’t mess with Children’s Charities.
Click to expand...
Maybe they knew something was coming, like for example didn’t the girls contact Sarah about creepy before it all came out? I know it’s only a grand but a grand people couldn’t touch? Could of had plans to do more? I dunno i don’t have a weird mind like them haha could be just laziness but I don’t trust them tbh a lot of skeletons came out of closets so anything is possible
 
WhatwouldPrinnyDo said:
I just can’t believe they were intending to withhold the monies for their personal gain, not even they could be that naive surely? I’m more inclined to think they were 1j clueless and had no idea how to address the situation publicly and announce the refund of donations without losing face or 2) morally and intellectually Bankrupt and Lazy and hoped it would just fade away. But HELL NO.
You can’t mess with Children’s Charities.
Click to expand...

With you 100% on likely reasons for not refunding. The only good thing to come out of this is yet another panicked farcical response with makes them look even more stupid and deluded. Hopefully the charity will make up the donations with some good publicity thrown their way, because they stuck to their principals and guidelines and refused to accept money tainted with the Ingham association (Powers that be at YouTube please take note)
 
MrMagoo said:
That's a problem I've had with that account for ages. Anyone that mentions about screen grabs in incorrect order, stuff out of context, sources etc just get told to read everything which won't get you anywhere.

With regard to the donations, with everything that's been going on, I'm a little surprised some think they would commit fraud for £1000 against a children's charity. That would surely have been the final nail in their 'TV Show' coffin
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that assumption was obviously made before the full email from Julia’s House came about because the donations were made months ago? However I do think in a lot of cases people have used such strong language (even calling him a pweirdo from the off when at the time all the allegations were of those aged 16+ which wouldn’t necessarily equate to that) that shouldn’t really be used. However I can understand why people could think that due to the fact that they obviously have been proven to be liars in so much else and why would this be any different. But yeah I don’t necessarily understand why people go around things in a certain way!
 
louisepbxo said:
I’m assuming that assumption was obviously made before the full email from Julia’s House came about because the donations were made months ago? However I do think in a lot of cases people have used such strong language (even calling him a pweirdo from the off when at the time all the allegations were of those aged 16+ which wouldn’t necessarily equate to that) that shouldn’t really be used. However I can understand why people could think that due to the fact that they obviously have been proven to be liars in so much else and why would this be any different. But yeah I don’t necessarily understand why people go around things in a certain way!
Click to expand...

I am sorry I don't agree. He's in his 30s, this girl (and possibly others) were 16 years old. I know in the UK age of consent is 16. But at 16 you are in no way an adult, your brain has not fully developed yet. You cannot go to war, you cannot even drink.

In the US, where the events took place, she is considered a minor.

And on the moral side of things, this isn't the case of a 18 year old man trying to court a 16 year old. He's again in his 30s, he has NOTHING (hi, sarah) in common with a 16 year old other than trying to get in her pants.

He IS a predator. And to me a 16 year old is still a child. So yes, I shall call him a pedalo and it applies to him perfectly.
 
I like the fact that he posted that garbage on his instastories so tomorrow it will be gone! Just like the family Instagram- thought they were working with Instagram to get it back god they spent enough time sitting around in airports in Australia with free WiFi to deal with all this stuff. They could have asked Isla to sort it with her phone!!

The email from gofund me on the 8th stated they didn’t have a working account to transfer it - they needed to sort it by the 11th or it was being refunded. So they just ingnored it thinking it would go back rather than actually log on to gofund me on the 8th and refund it. Lazy c@$ts!
 
Jimjam said:
We should set up another fund for Julia's House. Not mention the Inghams but by promoting their page positively we could get them their expected donation plus more!
Let's turn this negative Ingham situation into a positive.
Click to expand...

Have just donated directly. Given the experience Julia's House have just had it may be the better option for them for everyone to go direct. Can't be any grey areas then
 
Hiccups said:
I am sorry I don't agree. He's in his 30s, this girl (and possibly others) were 16 years old. I know in the UK age of consent is 16. But at 16 you are in no way an adult, your brain has not fully developed yet. You cannot go to war, you cannot even drink.

In the US, where the events took place, she is considered a minor.

And on the moral side of things, this isn't the case of a 18 year old man trying to court a 16 year old. He's again in his 30s, he has NOTHING (hi, sarah) in common with a 16 year old other than trying to get in her pants.

He IS a predator. And to me a 16 year old is still a child. So yes, I shall call him a pedalo and it applies to him perfectly.
Click to expand...

Many many people use pedophile to describe adults who are attracted to children under 16. It is currenlty factually incorrect to describe him as such, and using this word without evidence again, plays into Chris' victim narrarive. He certainly banged that drum in his 22 minute response that wasn't a response vlog.

A pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children aged 13 and under. If you use this term without evidence you can find yourself on very dodgy ground. Let's please stick to the evidence and facts, as I don't think I can take another vlog where Chris says he isn't a pedalo, a fraudster, a homosexual, a sheep worrier etc...
 
Not sure if anyone else here watches Louise Pentlands weekly vlogs but in her most recent one she said she was talking to her friend about getting legal advice before making a video, I’m just wondering if it’s going to be a video on Chris as I can’t imagine why else you’d need legal advice for a video.
 
rlxo said:
Not sure if anyone else here watches Louise Pentlands weekly vlogs but in her most recent one she said she was talking to her friend about getting legal advice before making a video, I’m just wondering if it’s going to be a video on Chris as I can’t imagine why else you’d need legal advice for a video.
Click to expand...
Could be creepy or zoella
 
rlxo said:
Not sure if anyone else here watches Louise Pentlands weekly vlogs but in her most recent one she said she was talking to her friend about getting legal advice before making a video, I’m just wondering if it’s going to be a video on Chris as I can’t imagine why else you’d need legal advice for a video.
Click to expand...
I thought the exact same thing when I heard her say that, it has got to be the chris situation! She was one of the first to mention it, it will be good if it is about him I hope she finds a way to make a video!
 
rlxo said:
Not sure if anyone else here watches Louise Pentlands weekly vlogs but in her most recent one she said she was talking to her friend about getting legal advice before making a video, I’m just wondering if it’s going to be a video on Chris as I can’t imagine why else you’d need legal advice for a video.
Click to expand...
Would it be Alfie or Marcus she was in Berlin with them??
 
I *think* this comment thread has now been deleted from Sarah's insta. So it's time to share the receipts. ☕Apologies if they do not load in order. But good read if you can make out the joins:

20180919_221522.jpg
20180919_221604.jpg
20180919_221647.jpg
20180919_221347.jpg
20180919_221432.jpg
 
MrMagoo said:
Many many people use pedophile to describe adults who are attracted to children under 16. It is currenlty factually incorrect to describe him as such, and using this word without evidence again, plays into Chris' victim narrarive. He certainly banged that drum in his 22 minute response that wasn't a response vlog.

A pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children aged 13 and under. If you use this term without evidence you can find yourself on very dodgy ground. Let's please stick to the evidence and facts, as I don't think I can take another vlog where Chris says he isn't a pedalo, a fraudster, a homosexual, a sheep worrier etc...
Click to expand...

I don't like people calling him a pedophile however I don't think it's strictly pre pubescent description the worse ones are but I have done harrowing child protection courses in the past, and we always looked at under 16 and the vulnerable for paedophile element. That's how the information was given to us.
Wasn't their under 16 years stating he head spoken to them and it was just banter! Obviously no proof but teenagers often think they are more mature than they are. Flattered by attention and that's what actually makes them easy to groom and manipulate
Then comments from ex friend who said he would shout things at school kids...I mean he's a grown man for heaven sake am surprised no one phoned the police on him.
Chris in his hell no he also denied grooming which he clearly does... From how he uses language to his victims, what he says to make them feel at ease talking to someone older, joining bloody musical. Ly and what other else he did... the whole pity party talking was also talking to his victims because it certainly wasn't for an educated, worldly wise audience of adults.

Still I would want to see the real proof to come out about that. If it does he will be removed from the house no doubt and God knows how Sarah will cope and explain his absence...

So there you go Sarah food for thought. Chris really better not be hiding any messages from under 16s... especially asking to meet up with sexual hints or anything because you are completely fucked aren't you!
 
Hiccups said:
I am sorry I don't agree. He's in his 30s, this girl (and possibly others) were 16 years old. I know in the UK age of consent is 16. But at 16 you are in no way an adult, your brain has not fully developed yet. You cannot go to war, you cannot even drink.

In the US, where the events took place, she is considered a minor.

And on the moral side of things, this isn't the case of a 18 year old man trying to court a 16 year old. He's again in his 30s, he has NOTHING (hi, sarah) in common with a 16 year old other than trying to get in her pants.

He IS a predator. And to me a 16 year old is still a child. So yes, I shall call him a pedalo and it applies to him perfectly.
Click to expand...
Look I am in no way saying what he said was even morally correct, because it’s not. At all, I am not even defending him in the slightest because I find the whole thing completely sickening. However by calling him a weirdo, he can instantly deny that. Which I was responding to the other poster, in regards to certain things said that could potentially help the Ingham’s. In the eyes of the UK law, he is not classed as a paedophile and from that point people had started to make assumptions about what he was like with the girls, which again helps them by complaining about the rumours being spread.. because that is all speculation.
(Again this was in reply to another commenter but yes regardless of context there is no reason a 30+ year old man should be messaging teens)
 
I don’t think Louise’s video will have anything to do with Marcus or Alfie as they were in her videos recently too so I imagine they’re still friends.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top