Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
I'm going to phone the court on monday and find out the true bail bond. I expect he added on a 0 or two.
Charles Floate charged with hacking and possession of child sex images
- Thread starter boombaby7
- Start date
- Status
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
OK I have little knowledge of the UK bail system having never being arrested for extreme porn but a quick google shows that you don't pay bail in the UK unless you break bail terms.
Also bail can be taken against belongings such as a house or car if you don't have the cash available.
I suspect his mother put her house on the line for him.
Also bail can be taken against belongings such as a house or car if you don't have the cash available.
I suspect his mother put her house on the line for him.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
All these gossips on BHW, seriously. If this was a physical village I'd be surrounded by a bunch of old busy-bodies gossiping over their fences poking their noses in things they know almost nothing about.
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
Charles has scammed dozens of people on here.
Celebrating the world giving us a little bit of Karma is nothing to moan about.
If you're not interested then why did you read the thread?
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
And pontificating about your collective knowledge of the ins and outs of British sex laws and what could happen to him comes in where exactly in the BHW realm?
I am interested, just not about this man, but about how trigger happy people are being about this, I guess what's really prickling at me is that if he's locked up people here will probably believe the court's verdict wholesale...then gossip about it some more. Bottom line is you know nothing about it, and the court process isn't as credible as people might think it is. Although ironically if he's let go, some of the same people will probably look for something wrong with the case, many people tend to be more turned on by convictions.
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
He is 100% guilty of DDOS'ing the government - he is incredibly stupid to not plead guilty on this charge as there is a bloody YouTube video of him doing it recorded by him and put online by him.
Judging by similar cases that have gone to court he is looking at 18 months to 3 years just on that alone.
As for the child porn that's unfortunate. Charles story of this being a relationship from when he was 16 could well be true, but that was 2 years ago so why does he still have the nudes? (assuming thats what they are)
As for the extreme pornography charges I have learnt that it was manga cartoon porn. I feel a bit of sympathy here for him as I don't think cartoons should count as porn but the law is the law.
Since I started to troll charles on twitter I have been getting anonymous phone calls and texts threatening my life and my families life.
Charles stalked me on twitter and began to personally insult myself through skype and even offered to fight me (I tweeted the chat log) (well before the troll account, this was because I proved what he said in a god of seo post as a lie)
I fucking hate that little shit. I hate him more than you could imagine and I cannot express in words how over fucking joyed I am that his actions have caught up to him. I have been in party mode since the news broke and if I was not at a trade event on November 5th I would be riding down to birmingham and watching the whole court case with a grin from ear to mother fucking ear.
He is a slimy, self obsessed, lying, cheating, stealing cunt.
Even if he is not guilty his name is trash and I fucking love that.
Even now he is on bail he is still lying to us all.
Last edited:
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
And if you want an example of how he has been lying to us.
Check his twitter - he was claiming to be on holiday in mexico before he was arrested again.
Nothing he says can be trusted.
Check his twitter - he was claiming to be on holiday in mexico before he was arrested again.
Nothing he says can be trusted.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
lol what the heck is a DDOS? Lol don't even tell me, I don't want to know. In fact all I read is a wall of legalese gossip about his upcoming sex case, your personal experience with him and how much you consequently hate him, and how you would like him to be sent down by a corrupt franchise over a nude photos issue unrelated to your experience with him, simply because you already hate him. Fine, but that seems the theme of this thread, that people don't like him so they're gossiping over his sex case, validating a dubious institution in their eagerness to see him get some kind of poetic justice.
Look, I don't know this guy, don't know what he looks like and don't think I've spoken to him on the forum, I'll take your word for it on your experience and am not going to investigate if your grievance is true either way. I really only spoke up because the thread kept getting bumped on the lounge page just for more gossip about a legal sex case in a corrupt institution, for BHW members' personal vendettas about him. And as someone someone who's a victim of a bogus court verdict, all this sheep-talk was starting to grind.
It sounds like you have more than enough ammo to shit on him about without gossiping about something you know nothing about bar some spoonfed reports from media or court releases. Wanting him to go down for a case irrelevant to BHW members' personal experiences with him, largely because of your personal experiences with him as you said, via a dubious franchise is pretty short. If he gets sent down, it doesn't mean he's really guilty or innocent of course, it's just a court verdict. But sheeple will happily believe he is, then gossip about it some more, celebrating with "drop the soap" jokes. Sticking to what you know might be fairer.
Last edited:
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
All this talk about the courts being a bogus franchise etc is bollocks and you know it.
Who out there is conspiring to lock him up? what do you think is happening here.
A DDOS is a form of attack to take websites down. Look here, this is the video I referenced. He is clearly taking down websites, only someone who is mentally challenged would record the video and put it on youtube.
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpDsVt8NpkThe kid pretended to be the leader of a hacking group for fucks sake.
He has mentioned several times he can't even write HTML.
He is a moron, its about time this shit caught up with him.
Yes this is exactly what I though, however could not be arsed looking into it, as everything that comes from his mouth is shit. Therefore just by him saying it made it not true.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
Well, I can't compete with that level of discourse.
This is coming from a guy who said he wants to watch him with a grin, go down for sex crimes because he scammed him in IM?
OK fine, I'll try.
Verdicts can indeed be very bogus, from the testimonial or evidence manipulation the following small example highlights; court hearings are not investigative, they are competitive. Basically, a court case is 2 sides of lawyers spinning evidence (spinning is another word for lying), and whoever spins/lies the best is according to the law, "right". And the judge (who used to be one of those lawyers before they became a judge), lets this go on under his arbitration, and indeed chooses his verdict based on this game, or in the case of a jury, the same. Let's take a small example within the court system: Lawyers or barristers during a cross-examination....
1) They ask leading questions. By leading the testimony, they try to restrict a person to a series of 'yes' or 'no' responses in order to tick the legal checkboxes they need ticked, trying to close off any wider context in somebody's answer that might paint a clearer picture. The cross-examination "questions" are barely questions in fact, they are statements which lawyers try to trick the person into making; if they had any choice in making them in the first place (from said leading questions). Then the opposing lawyer does the same - If this arena a was valid means of investigation, scientists would engage in the same thing; they don't, and for obvious reasons - it leads to incorrect conclusions - You'd have papers publishing facts while discrediting other scientists, based on a competitive battle for who twisted each other's words the best. Of course those lawyers don't care so much about the wrong verdict; they are paid to win the case their client has paid them to win, by any means they can. If they don't manipulate evidence to try to win the case, their client would replace them with a lawyer who will - that's the lawyers' market.
2) Raising their voices and deliberately speaking quickly in order to not allow the witness to think; they are intentionally belligerent and adversarial (adversarial in the literal sense) so as to intimidate the witness, to get the person flustered so that they make errors/contradictions in their testimony in the heat of the moment (which they deliberately and tactically arouse, of course). The result is the witness is confused, flustered, bewildered, defensive, panicked, angry, emotional, has no time to think, says things they don't mean in the moment, and says things they haven't been able to properly think through. And whatever they say under this agitated state (which the cross-examiners purposely created) is taken down as written into Law as "evidence". This cross-examination style has never been an accurate means of extracting evidence from someone, one wonders why it is still allowed (but accuracy isn't their priority, as explained earlier).
3) Lawyers spin lingual definitions, engage in semantics, etc, I could go on, and this is just the cross-examination part of a hearing. They manipulate evidence (even my own solicitor attempted to do this, writing to me that if his own hired independent assessor comes to a conclusion not favourable to our case, he won't include the report in his presentation - I highly doubt this evidence manipulation is unique or unusual for lawyers either, and I told him off for that), in a literal sense, perverting the course of justice. All the above gamesmanship leads to measurably inaccurate verdicts.
But no you're right, all the above is simply bollocks and I know it...
- Oct 28, 2008
- 2,198
- 886
lmao, you think he makes 25k a week? His blog is full of bullshit, he doesn't make nearly anything close to that amount. I can't believe in 2014 people still believe things they read online.
It's so easy for people to lie about earnings. The guys who are actually making bank don't publicize it. Do you know why he does? Cause he relies on gullible people fund his "guru" scams.
Last edited:
He was taking the piss.
Money Over Morals
BANNED
- Aug 10, 2014
- 61
- 85
Your feelings aside, I looked at that youtube video and another by the same moniker, Charlie Wong." They very possibly do not show what you think they are showing. Not knowing the British legal system, I cannot speak of it. Using my knowledge of the American justice system however, those videos are useless as evidence.
And yes, as Whatrat had written, the system is corrupt. Much of it for the reasons he gave. The legal game is a game of liars that is overseen by the chief liar. The judge, or the magistrate if you will, oversees the trial and determines what evidence is acceptable. This is not necessarily evidence of the truth of the matter either. As an example, murder trials are some of the most closely vetted trials there are. It now seems that murder trials are being overturned on the basis of genetic evidence that contradicts the court version and the liars club.
Last edited:
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
"Little" tricks is what you gleaned from my post... Man you'll be in for a shock if you were the unprepared recipient of this, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy though. And that's just the cross-examonation part of the process.
It's weird how people are very willing to criticize politicians and the law makers as bent, but the law administrators are given such medieval reverence. The last bastion of authoritative genuflection.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
It's not simple as that mickyfu, if you think it is then perhaps it's you who's simple.
- Status