Full Version: New Book by Stephen Spence/2005 Conviction
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#75]
1 Sep 2006
To: Shaddy [#74] 1 Sep 2006
Never been in jail.......but I understand the point you were trying to make.
Very good post by the way........
From: BrianC (INKSQUIRTER) [#76]
5 Sep 2006
To: ALL
Just got back from vacation and read all the posts in this thread.
I know there is a great debate whether SS has served his time and if someone would, or would not, support him through his book or whatever he is trying to do.
I won't be supporting him by purchasing his works or by attending any seminars he may be involved in. Of course, I haven't done this in the past (with the exception of a sublimation seminar long ago).
As far as whether or not he has served his time, I guess that has to be left up to the judicial system, as flawed as it sometimes seems to be.
I have a nephew (at 21 years old) that spent a few years in prison for child molestation. What drives people to do this sort of thing I can't understand but I will say I have not given up on him. After all, I believe we are ALL given a second chance by One greater than us.
My nephew is working hard to right his life and I can't ask for anything more than that from him. Would I want him to be left with young children.....NO, but he is my late brother's son and I will not cast him aside without any hope that he can lead a productive life from this moment in time. Perhaps the circumstance is different because he is a blood relative and not just someone I really don't know.
The God that I know wants me to hate the sin, not the sinner. And, yes, I even believe that if someone takes another life that they should suffer the consequences on earth as the law dictates. But, the final judgment does NOT belong to me.
From: Boz (CHEDDARHEAD) [#77]
6 Sep 2006
To: ALL
From: Mick [#78]
9 Sep 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#5] 9 Sep 2006
I thought I read in the "other" forum that this was removed ???
http://www.wvstatepolice.com/sexoff/WebDetails.cfm?OffenderID=2723
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#79]
9 Sep 2006
To: Mick [#78] 9 Sep 2006
The link itself was not the reason for removal. David's explanation was that the post was redundant to redundant.
Gees, so is this one.
EDITED: 9 Sep 2006 by HARVEY-ONLY
Show messages: 1-14 15-34 35-54 55-74 75-79