Man or dog

[The Great DeFector]

Or simply able to recognise a hypothetical
question without grabbing the opportunity
to question the question.

Nothing new on BCB.

[atomic loonybin]

We like REAL animals round our way....

Horse indecency man in court

Nov 12 2009 by John Sutton, Evening Gazette
Comments (6)
Recommend (9)

A RETIRED farm worker led a horse to some bushes in a field where he engaged in sexual activity with the animal.

Teesside Magistrates’ Court heard how David Walter Chamberlin, 71, performed the act on October 16 this year.

Dressed in a tatty red jacket and grey trousers, grey-haired Chamberlin, who has previous convictions for sex offences, spoke to confirm his name before prosecutor Noelle Brockbank opened the case.

Ms Brockbank told the court how George Thompson, the owner of the cart horse, “saw the defendant leading a horse towards some bushes” in a Billingham field.

Mr Thompson, who owns a scrapyard, recognised Chamberlin, of Brendon Crescent, Billingham, as a regular walker in the fields, and saw him holding the horse by his head.

Ms Brockbank added Mr Thompson “picked up a stick and struck the defendant”.

The pensioner turned round and exposed his open flies. Chamberlin admitted to outraging public decency at an earlier hearing.

Ms Brockbank told the court how during the 1980s Chamberlin had been convicted of a number of sex crimes, including exposure, gross indecency and an indecent assault on a male under-16.

Alex Bousfield, defending Chamberlin, said: “This is an unusual case - it’s quite unique really. It is disturbing and concerns behaviour that people don’t know how to deal with. Some will laugh, others will say it is disgusting.”

He said Chamberlin, who lives with his 74-year-old sister, was ashamed of his behaviour and would have to live with a crime that “people in the local community would remember”.

Mr Bousfield added the offence was a “one-off” and Chamberlin did not set out to commit it. Magistrates adjourned sentencing until December.

And a few months later....

Indecency pensioner must wait to learn fate

Oct 30 2010 by Andy Passant, Evening Gazette

A PENSIONER accused of breaching a sexual offences order by repeatedly approaching and stroking a pony must wait until the New Year to learn his fate.
David Walter Chamberlin

David Walter Chamberlin, 72, was convicted last year of committing a sex act with a horse in a Billingham field.

He was made the subject of a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) which banned him from having unsupervised contact with horses.

A condition of his bail was that he should not go within five metres of any horse.

But Chamberlin has admitted breaching the order six times by approaching and stroking a tethered pony “without reasonable excuse”.

Yesterday the convicted sex offender, of Hartington Road, Stockton, made another appearance before Teesside Magistrates’ Court.

His case had been adjourned for the preparation of a psychiatric report.

But the court heard the report had not been prepared due to an administrative error.

The prosecution applied yesterday for Chamberlin to be remanded in custody. But District Judge Martin Walker granted him conditional bail.

The conditions include keeping away from horses and co-operating with the preparation of the psychiatric report.

Chamberlin’s case was adjourned until January 5 next year.

What gets me is that in a later article, they actually printed his full address!!! A few weeks later he was up in court again, and -unsurprisingly - was of 'no fixed abode'.

[The Modernist]

Or simply able to recognise a hypothetical
question without grabbing the opportunity
to question the question.

Nothing new on BCB.

You make this kind of comment all the time M. Seriously you should take a break from thinking so defensively all the time. We do debate and challenge, it's what we do.
And please don't take offense - I don't mean to attack you or anything like that, I just think perhaps you could reflect a bit more before always making that criticism.

[The Great DeFector]

Or simply able to recognise a hypothetical
question without grabbing the opportunity
to question the question.

Nothing new on BCB.

You make this kind of comment all the time M. Seriously you should take a break from thinking so defensively all the time. We do debate and challenge, it's what we do.
And please don't take offense - I don't mean to attack you or anything like that, I just think perhaps you could reflect a bit more before always making that criticism.

Considering some of the responses on this thread to the original question and the some of the responses to my thread about eastern european women, i think my statement is very valid.

[The Modernist]

ok.

[Rated B]

Well, not again, you mean?

Whaddya think the goat-trauma site is about?

[The Great DeFector]

I genuinely am not taking it personally and me pointing out something that happens in practically every "debate" does not make me so. I was taking your side Jimmy. I think it's too easy to say someone is being defensive when they are pointing something out. Just because i mentioned a thread i started is not me playing the victim. Just give it a week or two and you will see them same things again.

[Rated B]

And on every other BB on the 'net, you'll see the same thing. Today. Hundreds and hundreds of times over.

[The Great DeFector]

I genuinely am not taking it personally and me pointing out something that happens in practically every "debate" does not make me so. I was taking your side Jimmy. I think it's too easy to say someone is being defensive when they are pointing something out. Just because i mentioned a thread i started is not me playing the victim. Just give it a week or two and you will see them same things again.

I know, I was trying to point out that G
contradicts himself by blaming you for what he
could have DD for much earlier in the thread.

Ah right, yeah i knew that.

[The Modernist]

I genuinely am not taking it personally and me pointing out something that happens in practically every "debate" does not make me so. I was taking your side Jimmy. I think it's too easy to say someone is being defensive when they are pointing something out. Just because i mentioned a thread i started is not me playing the victim. Just give it a week or two and you will see them same things again.

I know, I was trying to point out that G
contradicts himself by blaming you for what he
could have DD for much earlier in the thread.

Don't think DD was making the same point..not that it matters.
And I wasn't blaming Markus for anything, just making an observation!

[The Great DeFector]

And I wasn't blaming Markus for anything, just making an observation!

Yeah right, it's clearly plain obvious to see that obviously plainly clear that you were looking for a ruck. Seriously man you need to wise up to yourself. Where are the moderators when you need them, i blame them!

[Diamond Dog]

I genuinely am not taking it personally and me pointing out something that happens in practically every "debate" does not make me so. I was taking your side Jimmy. I think it's too easy to say someone is being defensive when they are pointing something out. Just because i mentioned a thread i started is not me playing the victim. Just give it a week or two and you will see them same things again.

I know, I was trying to point out that G
contradicts himself by blaming you for what he
could have DD for much earlier in the thread.

Oh I see. You shoould be free to post any crap you want to, but I am not allowed the right to give my opinion on it?

Just so we're all aware of what you said.

[Diamond Dog]

What is your opinion on it then ?

My opinion is the original question was so fucking ridiculous I am not going to validate it with a direct response.

[Diamond Dog]

Oh I see. You should be free to post any crap you want to, but I am not allowed the right to give my opinion on it?

What is your response to this?

[The Prof]

Being both man and dog you should be narked.

[Diamond Dog]

Because if I recounted every fucking druunken story I have with my mates, on here - no matter how depraved- I'm pretty sure you'd get the point.

[Muskrat]

In an extremely mellow mood the question came up what to chose to have sex with if
being forced to.

Define "sex."
Also the breed of dog.

[Diamond Dog]

Because if I recounted every fucking druunken story I have with my mates, on here - no matter how depraved- I'm pretty sure you'd get the point.

Yes probably. The difference is I'd just shudder
my shoulders and that's it. Are you the keeper
of standards on a board where I've read threads
about Bukake parties ? Gimme a break.

No I'm not. But if you keep posting this kind of shit, I'll keep replying. Okay with you?

[Rated B]

The mail must be getting you down Pete.
What exactly is the problem with a bunch
of half drunk 30 something males posing
this kind of what would you do questions?
And what's wrong with asking the same question
on here ? Lighten up a bit please.

Is your enter key broken?

[Rated B]

And on every other BB on the 'net, you'll see the same thing. Today. Hundreds and hundreds of times over.

Links please.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Forums