Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

I am the administrator, and founder of the forum, and as you know it’s me who’s explained what I’ve edited and why, directly to you by private message.

Do feel free to setup and run your own forum if you wish? It’s a thankless task, made so much easier by the vast majority who abide by the rules, and avoid unnecessary controversy/trolling.
I have removed your repeated breaches of the terms, editing as carefully as I can, rather than just deleting (which would be much quicker and easier), to try to retain the points you’re making.
I have not received complaints - I have though received a number of requests to review specificaly your post, and only yours.

Please abide by the rules, or I will block your account.
I’ve only done that once in approx. 10(?) years.

I founded and run the forum for the benefit of CH and Old Blues, and I’m sure the majority of members have been happy with the extremely light touch John and I use administrating and moderating on the forum, and we’ve let a lot of debate stay in place.
But posting accusations with enough information to potentially identify an individual (and particularly then multiple people) does not adhere to those rules, nor the purpose or ethos of this forum.

As mentioned above, feel free to start your own forum or Facebook group etc if you wish, and encourage others to join you? But please stick to the rules here.

aliburns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:53 pm
One last question, why do so many on here seem to hide behind pseudonyms? Yours fraternally, AliBurns

Pot kettle black?
At least most of us have our names on the screen. In my case my nom de plume has been in use for several dcades, on a number of sites and has a technical reason and historical significance if you are into pop music

aliburns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:53 pm

J.R. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:25 pm I cannot find any reason for deletion or editing of the above . BUT...... please think twice before typing.

There could still be the chance of an appeal after sentencing is handed down.

One good thing about 'Operation Yew Tree' and the BBC scandels is that it has persuaded people to speak out at last

aliburns wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:52 am

Presumably someone was complaining about what I wrote in my post.

Maybe one of his 'friends' made the complaint!!

Let me assure our members that I don't make allegations without foundations. I have reported the whole matter recently to the Police, who sadly cannot take any further action because "Corporal Punishment" wasn't illegal then. They did, however tell me that this person should not be allowed to work with children again.

I have however spoken to a couple of journalists of national newspapers who will keep the information for possible future reference. This person ruined my childhood and those of many others and it is only right that he should be punished for it.

One last question, why do so many on here seem to hide behind pseudonyms? Yours fraternally, AliBurns

What the Police sometimes consider to be 'corporal punishment' is occasionally an incorrect conclusion. It had to be administered by the standards of the day. We often see the scenario whereby the punishment has exceeded that of reasonable or has a sexual element thus taking it outside the realms of punishment and towards that of a sexual assault.

I feel insulted that in all my time on the site I haven't been censored. I'm obviously not trying hard enough. "Could do better" as my reports used to say.

rockfreak wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:33 pm I feel insulted that in all my time on the site I haven't been censored. I'm obviously not trying hard enough. "Could do better" as my reports used to say.

Housie obviously FAILED you that it seems that you cannot raise Julian's ire; why not go and do the nasty on a few gravestones. We respect the right of peeps to express their opinions and equally the right of peeps to ignore what they think is bovine effluent.
As for me, I once offered a prize to anyone on the internet who could nominate a politician of any country and of any time period who was undoubtedly ans incontroversially honest. The prize has not been earned.
Interesting article in the paper today about tony blair who has damned his successors by his actions

sejintenej wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:24 pm I once offered a prize to anyone on the internet who could nominate a politician of any country and of any time period who was undoubtedly ans incontroversially honest. The prize has not been earned.

Martin Bell.

When can I collect my prize please?

As for me, I once offered a prize to anyone on the internet who could nominate a politician of any country and of any time period who was undoubtedly ans incontroversially honest. The prize has not been earned.

A. Hitler comes pretty close. But nobody realized.

marty wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:13 pm

sejintenej wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:24 pm I once offered a prize to anyone on the internet who could nominate a politician of any country and of any time period who was undoubtedly ans incontroversially honest. The prize has not been earned.

Martin Bell.

When can I collect my prize please?

If you are referring to the Martin Bell who is being exploited on Facebook I consider him to be a businessman and not a politician. i could be wrong so please come and make your case in Washington DC.

sejintenej wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:58 pm
If you are referring to the Martin Bell who is being exploited on Facebook I consider him to be a businessman and not a politician. i could be wrong so please come and make your case in Washington DC.

Wasn't it Martin Lewis (from MoneySavingExpert) who was being misrepresented on Facebook? I suspect our Marty is probably referring to the former BBC journalist Martin Bell ('The Man In the White Suit') who famously stood as an anti-sleaze Independent candidate in the 1997 UK General Election and took the Tatton constituency from the Tories by a convincing majority.

Meanwhile, back with the thread: am I right in supposing that Indecent Assault is a lesser offence than Sexual Assault? If so, doesn't that mean that Ajaz Karim will therefore receive a lesser sentence than Burr? After all, they both had no previous convictions and Burr's were the more intimately unpleasant offences, though obviously Karim and Burr's offences were equally skin-crawlingly creepy in nature.

In effect sexual assault replaced indecent assault when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force.

The Sentencing guidelines say that historic offences should effectively be sentenced on a modern day basis so Karim will be up with Burr and Webb.

Burr and Webb of course had their sentences reduced because they pleaded guilty, which Karim didn't.

So I am expecting 10 years plus for Karim.

Right, yes, of course. Karim pleaded not guilty. That's torn it.

I wonder if they'll all end up in HMP Whatton, sitting around talking about the old times and each claiming to be the least pervy of the three.

Thanks for your input, Richard.

Burr and Webb will have got between a quarter and a third reduction for pleading guilty. So factor that in.

Without checking the precise facts, Karim seems to have interfered with more complainants than the other two which has to be factored in as well.

The very minimum is 9 years but i think upwards of 10.

Of more interest to me is whether the judge achieves a hat trick of Attorney General references by getting the sentence woefully wrong again.

As for me, I once offered a prize to anyone on the internet who could nominate a politician of any country and of any time period who was undoubtedly ans incontroversially honest. The prize has not been earned.

Maybe at least an honorable mention to President of Ecuador José Alberto "Pepe" Mujica Cordano https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Mujica

Uruguayo

jhopgood wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:00 pmUruguayo

Meh! Close enough.