I’d like to just say that Ashton Hancock has been a decoy as part of a paedophile sting operation, the boy Ashton Hancock has assisted us in this and I’m now satisfied to give this forum a child suitable certificate.
This is a real boy who has been involved and he’s been working alongside us, we’d like to apologise for any stress caused by this operation, but we do perform them on various communities.
Thanks
Spam
-
Gavin Chipper
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13253
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Spam
But the topic title is bang on.
-
Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
-
Ronan M Higginson
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:11 pm
-
L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Spam
The question is:
Do we want to ban the entire Ashton Hancock collective*,
Or is it amusing / harmless enough that it doesn't warrant tough action?
(*Ashton, Martin, Callum, Maureen, Mark Nial... and probably others I've forgotten about)
Do we want to ban the entire Ashton Hancock collective*,
Or is it amusing / harmless enough that it doesn't warrant tough action?
(*Ashton, Martin, Callum, Maureen, Mark Nial... and probably others I've forgotten about)
S:778-ochamp-
Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3102
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Spam
Have you looked at the wiki lately? Not only have they had at least 100 wiki accounts, but they break and move pages willy-nilly.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:49 pm The question is:
Do we want to ban the entire Ashton Hancock collective*,
Or is it amusing / harmless enough that it doesn't warrant tough action?
(*Ashton, Martin, Callum, Maureen, Mark Nial... and probably others I've forgotten about)