Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2018, 06:38:54 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Someone give you negative trust for participating in a PONZI?  (Read 5714 times)
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2016, 08:59:01 PM
 #141

< >THe btc is shady with such problem about trust, we have a forum that need to support such activities?

The forum should not. Nor should it support illegal gambling (yeah, it's illegal in US, where theymos' at). And yet, here we are...

You have a chance to step out of the norms of society and establish a new way of thinking <snip>
You mean step out of society's norms & into the traffic to gamble online & invest in Ponzis? Err... How about no?
Quote
and you want to let the governement creep back in to the discussion of what is legal and what is not?
I'm not letting the government "creep back in" anywhere. Mainly because it never asks for my permission, oddly enough. But it *will* step in, without knocking. And ban the shit out of Bitcoin for everybody.
Because you just *had to* gamble away all your money to make a political statement.


1537814334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537814334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537814334
Reply with quote  #2

1537814334
Report to moderator
Make a difference with your Ether.
Donate Ether for the greater good.
SPRING.WETRUST.IO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537814334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537814334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537814334
Reply with quote  #2

1537814334
Report to moderator
Indianacoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 252


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 09:11:57 PM
 #142

Again I see that messing up between gambling and ponzi.
Ponzi is not at all similar to gambling.

In ponzi there is no fairness or trust that could get back your invested money.
When you participate in a ponzi your success or failure is entirely dependent on the whims of known scumbags.

In gambling everything can be verified and the website stays for very long time. Have you ever heard of the term probably fair?
Zeke2345
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
 #143

< >THe btc is shady with such problem about trust, we have a forum that need to support such activities?

The forum should not. Nor should it support illegal gambling (yeah, it's illegal in US, where theymos' at). And yet, here we are...

You have a chance to step out of the norms of society and establish a new way of thinking <snip>
You mean step out of society's norms & into the traffic to gamble online & invest in Ponzis? Err... How about no?
Quote
and you want to let the governement creep back in to the discussion of what is legal and what is not?
I'm not letting the government "creep back in" anywhere. Mainly because it never asks for my permission, oddly enough. But it *will* step in, without knocking. And ban the shit out of Bitcoin for everybody.
Because you just *had to* gamble away all your money to make a political statement.




If you judge what some one does with there bitcoin you are allowed to in a free world. What you should not be allowed to do is restrict what some one does with their funds because you see it do be stupid or ill advised. Any form of expression that is connected to a account is a restriction because it allows people to judge those that partake. If I have to walk around with a label on my head that says I am into granny porn,it would be a rough go. Negative rep works in same way.

██████████    YoBit.net - Cryptocurrency Exchange - Over 350 coins
█████████    <<  ● $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$   >>
██████████    <<  ● Play DICE! Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!  >>
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2016, 09:25:43 PM
 #144

Again I see that messing up between gambling and ponzi.
Ponzi is not at all similar to gambling.

In ponzi there is no fairness or trust that could get back your invested money.
When you participate in a ponzi your success or failure is entirely dependent on the whims of known scumbags.

In gambling everything can be verified and the website stays for very long time. Have you ever heard of the term probably fair?

Again: Dice, Ponzis, and poker are all forms of gambling, but the rules are different. Though you could insist that poker ain't gambling due to its inherent dishonesty: the guy across the table from you is allowed, within the game ruleset, to lie (bluff).
Zeke2345
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 09:30:00 PM
 #145

Again I see that messing up between gambling and ponzi.
Ponzi is not at all similar to gambling.

In ponzi there is no fairness or trust that could get back your invested money.
When you participate in a ponzi your success or failure is entirely dependent on the whims of known scumbags.

In gambling everything can be verified and the website stays for very long time. Have you ever heard of the term probably fair?

Risk/Reward in that aspect you are offered the same outcome. There is a added factor in ponzi that makes it more of a problem but you are working with the same dynamics by definition. I gamble,so its not like I am bashing it. Was a member at a few sportsbooks back in the day that went under and kept funds,so I got the same outcome as if it was a pyramid scheme and dude ran off in the end.

██████████    YoBit.net - Cryptocurrency Exchange - Over 350 coins
█████████    <<  ● $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$   >>
██████████    <<  ● Play DICE! Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!  >>
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2016, 09:34:27 PM
 #146

< >THe btc is shady with such problem about trust, we have a forum that need to support such activities?

The forum should not. Nor should it support illegal gambling (yeah, it's illegal in US, where theymos' at). And yet, here we are...

You have a chance to step out of the norms of society and establish a new way of thinking <snip>
You mean step out of society's norms & into the traffic to gamble online & invest in Ponzis? Err... How about no?
Quote
and you want to let the governement creep back in to the discussion of what is legal and what is not?
I'm not letting the government "creep back in" anywhere. Mainly because it never asks for my permission, oddly enough. But it *will* step in, without knocking. And ban the shit out of Bitcoin for everybody.
Because you just *had to* gamble away all your money to make a political statement.

If you judge what some one does with there bitcoin you are allowed to in a free world. What you should not be allowed to do is restrict what some one does with their funds because you see it do be stupid or ill advised. Any form of expression that is connected to a account is a restriction because it allows people to judge those that partake. If I have to walk around with a label on my head that says I am into granny porn,it would be a rough go. Negative rep works in same way.

Dear Confused:
Outside of society's norms, you're free to jerk it to grannies, just like other freedom lovers are free to label you & tell everyone about it.
No rules for you = no rules for them. Everything not expressly forbidden is permitted Smiley
Your Point Is Invalid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 508


Dear me, I think im becoming a god


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2016, 10:14:30 PM
 #147

Sorry for being late.

I will ask you this for the third or  fourth time, is investing in a ponzi illegal in your country? Not promoting, investing

please just give me a straight yes or no answer
1. Probably not, no, but I expect it would depend on the circumstances. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Do you honestly think that tagging those that invest in ponzi schemes will stop people from making them?
2. That isn't the point in tagging them. The tag is to show other users that the person running the ponzi shouldn't be trusted with their money.

Also, how does investing in a ponzi make someone a scammer?
3. This isn't the point. OP didn't just invest in a ponzi, he promoted it to over 100 people. Please don't try and tell me that all of these 100 people know exactly what a ponzi is and how it works.

1. So if investing in ponzi schemes arent illegal, why are we giving negative trust for investing?

2. But the person who got the neg isnt running a ponzi, you shouold look into the matter more

3. Maybe some of them dont know, im pretty sure he didnt get those refs from bitcointalk hence why i dont see the need for the negative rep on his profile


Decoded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1013


lllllllllllll


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 11:12:00 PM
 #148

Sorry for being late.

I will ask you this for the third or  fourth time, is investing in a ponzi illegal in your country? Not promoting, investing

please just give me a straight yes or no answer
1. Probably not, no, but I expect it would depend on the circumstances. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Do you honestly think that tagging those that invest in ponzi schemes will stop people from making them?
2. That isn't the point in tagging them. The tag is to show other users that the person running the ponzi shouldn't be trusted with their money.

Also, how does investing in a ponzi make someone a scammer?
3. This isn't the point. OP didn't just invest in a ponzi, he promoted it to over 100 people. Please don't try and tell me that all of these 100 people know exactly what a ponzi is and how it works.

1. So if investing in ponzi schemes arent illegal, why are we giving negative trust for investing?

2. But the person who got the neg isnt running a ponzi, you shouold look into the matter more

3. Maybe some of them dont know, im pretty sure he didnt get those refs from bitcointalk hence why i dont see the need for the negative rep on his profile



1. Because you're supporting a ponzi, and it's operator. May I say, operating a ponzi is illegal, and by investing, you're assisting the operator, and you're basically assisting in a crime.

2. Same as above.

3. Some people deserve it. If they cant see the red italics at the top of the scamzi section, it's their fault. Oh, and the countless threads about butthurt investors telling people how bad ponzis are.
Wapinter
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1019


t.me/wapinter


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 11:19:19 PM
 #149

IMHO anyone participating in ponzi signature campaign should be given a benefit of doubt.A member can not be held responsible for wearing a signature of a service or website which later turned out to be ponzi.How is one supposed to know a potential ponzi? and if a member wearing a signature is expected to know,the forum staff should delete the signature campaign thread itself

INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)
Stroto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 449
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 11:25:42 PM
 #150

Well first of all, You give a completely different response then some here in this thread and I can respect that.

Sorry for being late.

I know this is bitcointalk  Roll Eyes So they read the title and not the glaringly obvious warning of the subforum wherein the schemes are placed?
Noobs miss the bright red "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" under a user's name several times, why would they read a note in a subforum?
Though assuming that everyone read everything they should, there's still a few problems. The first being language barriers; not everyone speaks English and not everyone may understand what that message means.
The second being human nature. People tend to believe things differently should it affect them positively. For some people a scheme they invest in could promise to kill a child per investment, though their own greed will have them invest for personal gain anyway.
Lastly, if people like OP were to post on threads saying how legitimate the promoted service is, do you not think this would lower/nullify the warning given by the forum?


How do you know that if they found a link on google, opened the lalala.ponzi page, clicked on "forum" and get redirected here (what we have seen a lot). Did they even saw it is bitcointalk and not being blindsided by the BTCBTCBTC in their eyes that made them miss the said warning?
Then there is nothing we can do against that apart from put it in obnoxious bold red lettering, which isn't going to happen. I'm sure that they would read the posts in the thread though, so once again people like OP making the service seem legitimate doesn't help.

Exactly the same with bitcoin though maybe they can't deny they know it is bitcoin but they sure can deny knowing the law on it pretending being young and uneducated ("someone naive and inexperienced")  
They can, yes. However, afaik claiming that you didn't know a law existed doesn't then make that law not be applied to you. Regardless, as said above, the legality of Ponzis is not what the problem here is (and is likely an issue for another topic/board).


First of all I am not against warnings at all, quite the opposite actually and I never lured anyone in promising great profits or anything. I made them aware of the system and the pits they can fall in but only when asked. I even think that the subforum should be renamed Ponzi's Pyramides and HYIPs just to make it even more clear. In another thread I explained why it is better to have a controlled space for that kind of things where in you can keep them small and tight and the losses of the noobs of the bitcoin community (not the bitcointalk community) can be low as the coins they put in seldom go over the 0.01BTC I mainly referred to the law because someone mentioned Ponzi's are illegal.

And yeah it is a lame thing giving someone negative trust because he is using bitcoin on a bitcoinforum, I agree
The problem should this happen is not how 'uncool' it would be to leave everyone a negative, more that if that were to become the norm any users with a legitimate negative trust would be overlooked and could scam further.

it is just as lame as giving noobs negative trust for burning their fingers.
The topic here isn't about a noob getting a negative trust for investing in something he shouldn't. This topic is about a member who has been here for a long time trying to legitimize a service that he knows will become anything but.


Well for some in here it is not about the long time member presenting it as legit service. It is about everyone that is joining a Ponzi in the subforum and according to their account everyone who is joining is proving they are a scammer hence the cute red warning:

Quote
Public Service Announcement -
This is just another Ponzi Scam
Do Not Invest!

Those who choose to post of their participation
support or encouragement for this scam will
be tagged with negative trust for proving
they wish to help the scammers operate this
Ponzi in return for a share of the funds stolen
from other users. Thereby proving they are not
trustworthy forum members.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!



But in my opinion that is tagging the noobs too, like you say they are not the point in this discussion. As said warning explains they will tag everyone that is joining noob or not. and by that I come to this point:

The problem should this happen is not how 'uncool' it would be to leave everyone a negative, more that if that were to become the norm any users with a legitimate negative trust would be overlooked and could scam further.

The problem they cause by this I explained here:


It is really not that hard to explain. A red trust is a warning. Warnings make you aware something is up. They work because they aren't always around us. But when every participant has the same warning on their profile it loses it's message.

When a noob googles bitcoindoubler and comes to the subforum and sees everyone with with negative trust it is nothing special anymore and I doubt they will check it.

A negative trust, a warning should not be giving lightly in my opinion for that exact reason. It should stand out when visiting a page. And it will lose its message in that subforum when everyone wears that tag.

So by them tagging everyone, you have to agree that it will even become more obscure for a newcomer to see the legitimate negative trust on the ones organizing as everyone is wearing the same tag.

So I have no problem what so ever with a warning in every new thread, it could even be an automated message that gives an ever clearer warning than the standard warning above the sub. I have no problem with tagging every operator deep in the red and explain it in the topic itself. But I do think it will miss it's goal if you will tag everyone.
Zeke2345
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
March 02, 2016, 11:28:34 PM
 #151

We need to get over this illegal aspect, bitcoin is illegal in some areas. Are we to believe suddenly you will dump bitcoin if it gets banned in your Country? Maybe we should ban all talk of anything that is banned in any Country to be safe.
No matter where you are morally, you either need to live and let live or find another hobby. This righteous b.s just is a divide and conquer tactic.

██████████    YoBit.net - Cryptocurrency Exchange - Over 350 coins
█████████    <<  ● $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$   >>
██████████    <<  ● Play DICE! Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!  >>
minifrij
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1066



View Profile WWW
March 02, 2016, 11:52:46 PM
 #152

1. So if investing in ponzi schemes arent illegal, why are we giving negative trust for investing?
Because he didn't just invest in a ponzi, he promoted it and condoned it's use. He is trying to trick users that could not know how schemes such as this work into investing and possibly being scammed. As dooglus said:
I suspect that you received negative trust for promoting the ponzi, not for participating in it. Posting on the forum about how you played the game and made a profit isn't just playing the game, it's promoting the game to others, even though you know it's a scam. You're free to do that if you like, and others are free to leave you feedback drawing attention to how you are promoting a scam.

2. But the person who got the neg isnt running a ponzi, you shouold look into the matter more
My apologies, I misread your original message. Regardless, my answer is very similar to the above. He isn't just investing, he is promoting a known scam. I would say this justifies a negative trust.

3. Maybe some of them dont know, im pretty sure he didnt get those refs from bitcointalk hence why i dont see the need for the negative rep on his profile
That's irrelevant imo. If I were found to steal from people IRL, I shouldn't be shown as trustworthy on a forum simply because my conduct there was acceptable. Whether he is promoting it here, on another site or on a giant billboard in his city center, he is still promoting a scam openly and deserves the repercussions for doing so.

First of all I am not against warnings at all, quite the opposite actually and I never lured anyone in promising great profits or anything. I made them aware of the system and the pits they can fall in but only when asked.
Personally, I think this is the problem. I am glad that you are open about the way that such services work, but I believe that this should be given to them along with the initial announcement of the thread. I think that it is fair that people understand what they are investing in without having to ask.

I even think that the subforum should be renamed Ponzi's Pyramides and HYIPs just to make it even more clear.
I can agree with this, though it is debatable that people should do their own research before investing in anything and understand what they are getting into therefore not needing such an obvious name.

Well for some in here it is not about the long time member presenting it as legit service. It is about everyone that is joining a Ponzi in the subforum and according to their account everyone who is joining is proving they are a scammer hence the cute red warning:
Quote
snip
But in my opinion that is tagging the noobs too, like you say they are not the point in this discussion. As said warning explains they will tag everyone that is joining noob or not.
Personally I can't say that I would persecute users for investing in a Ponzi, though it is definitely immoral if you understand how they work. However, promoting an investment similar to the way that OP did - whilst knowing exactly how the scheme works - is definitely worthy of a negative trust.

The problem they cause by this I explained here:
It is really not that hard to explain. A red trust is a warning. Warnings make you aware something is up. They work because they aren't always around us. But when every participant has the same warning on their profile it loses it's message.
When a noob googles bitcoindoubler and comes to the subforum and sees everyone with with negative trust it is nothing special anymore and I doubt they will check it.
A negative trust, a warning should not be giving lightly in my opinion for that exact reason. It should stand out when visiting a page. And it will lose its message in that subforum when everyone wears that tag.
So by them tagging everyone, you have to agree that it will even become more obscure for a newcomer to see the legitimate negative trust on the ones organizing as everyone is wearing the same tag.
I do agree, yes. The problem comes in that without negative trust tags, a newbie has no possible way to see that such services are immoral and will eventually scam (even though trust can only be seen by logged in members, which I believe should definitely be changed). I believe that what you have described here:
So I have no problem what so ever with a warning in every new thread, it could even be an automated message that gives an ever clearer warning than the standard warning above the sub. I have no problem with tagging every operator deep in the red and explain it in the topic itself. But I do think it will miss it's goal if you will tag everyone.
Is a good way to deal with the problem of ponzi operators and negative trust, however this is again not the subject that this topic describes.
I think that the negative trust on OP is justified even if he may not be running a ponzi simply because he is giving his word as a "Hero Member" that such a service is safe to invest in and will continue to pay, which we all know it won't. Whilst his rank may not mean much to those acquainted with this forum, to a noob this rank may be misinterpreted as something trusted and take his word; possibly causing them to be scammed.

IMHO anyone participating in ponzi signature campaign should be given a benefit of doubt.A member can not be held responsible for wearing a signature of a service or website which later turned out to be ponzi.How is one supposed to know a potential ponzi? and if a member wearing a signature is expected to know,the forum staff should delete the signature campaign thread itself
This isn't relevant to the topic. Please at least read the thread before spamming for your bit-cents.
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2016, 11:54:04 PM
 #153

...
1. Because you're supporting a ponzi, and it's operator. May I say, operating a ponzi is illegal, and by investing, you're assisting the operator, and you're basically assisting in a crime.

Sounds like the "if you buy drugs, you're sponsoring terrorism" argument. If operating a ponzi is illegal (it is, in US, where theymos' at), so is facilitating such operations (running a subforum where 90% of the users are participating in/promoting ponzis). If OP is breaking the law, so is theymos. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Neg rate theymos too.

We need to get over this illegal aspect, bitcoin is illegal in some areas. <snip>

Bitcoin isn't illegal in US, theymos is a US national & is running this forum from US soil. That's what counts, legally.
Zeke2345
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
March 03, 2016, 12:00:57 AM
 #154

...
1. Because you're supporting a ponzi, and it's operator. May I say, operating a ponzi is illegal, and by investing, you're assisting the operator, and you're basically assisting in a crime.

Sounds like the "if you buy drugs, you're sponsoring terrorism" argument. If operating a ponzi is illegal (it is, in US, where theymos' at), so is facilitating such operations (running a subforum where 90% of the users are participating in/promoting ponzis). If OP is breaking the law, so is theymos. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Neg rate theymos too.

We need to get over this illegal aspect, bitcoin is illegal in some areas. <snip>

Bitcoin isn't illegal in US, theymos is a US national & is running this forum from US soil. That's what counts, legally.

Then why is poker advertised here? Same goes for the sportsbooks? That does not hold up if we are using American laws.

██████████    YoBit.net - Cryptocurrency Exchange - Over 350 coins
█████████    <<  ● $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$ - $$$   >>
██████████    <<  ● Play DICE! Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!  >>
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 03, 2016, 12:06:59 AM
 #155

...
Then why is poker advertised here? Same goes for the sportsbooks? That does not hold up if we are using American laws.

Theymos is a scofflaw, and laws are not always enforced. If you speed and don't get a ticket, don't assume that speeding became legal.
AFAIK, he has always cooperated when called upon to do so, so it might be smarter for "them" to look the other way on petty stuff.
tspacepilot
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1013


I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.


View Profile
March 03, 2016, 12:08:31 AM
 #156

Bitcoin isn't illegal in US, theymos is a US national & is running this forum from US soil. That's what counts, legally.

If that's the case, that US law is the criterion for what can and can't be discussed, then:

1) I'm going to shit a brick
2) Someone should add that to the official rules

I'm not supporting ponzi's or supporting the people who support them.  But I do think it's a fair point that the laws of any country are sorta arbitrary and as far as I can tell, it's the rules of the forum as established by the forum dictators which govern what's discussed here and what's not.  I think the point that bitcoin itself is illegal in some places puts a fine point on that.
bargainbin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 03, 2016, 12:17:17 AM
 #157

Bitcoin isn't illegal in US, theymos is a US national & is running this forum from US soil. That's what counts, legally.

If that's the case, that US law is the criterion for what can and can't be discussed, then:

1) I'm going to shit a brick
2) Someone should add that to the official rules

I'm not supporting ponzi's or supporting the people who support them.  But I do think it's a fair point that the laws of any country are sorta arbitrary and as far as I can tell, it's the rules of the forum as established by the forum dictators which govern what's discussed here and what's not.  I think the point that bitcoin itself is illegal in some places puts a fine point on that.

1. You're not going to shit a brick, because impossible.
2. Why would he add it to official rules, when
  2a. there *are no official rules* on this forum
  2b. Theymos is braking the rule himself, and getting paid for it

And yeah, you have to obey the laws of the country you reside in. That's just the way things are Undecided
james.lent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 501



View Profile
March 03, 2016, 02:00:18 AM
 #158


Could not have been written in a better way!!

Just patiently waiting for the site to go back up so I can spread more sh** on some of these people who claim to be able to see into the future.

How's this going on for you atm OP ?
TheInfidel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


Better die on your feet, than live on your knees


View Profile
March 03, 2016, 02:19:54 PM
 #159

This will be the last post in this thread as it is getting nowhere.
The self appointed Police reply only with the same argument in bigger redder letters.

As it so happens today I came across a real world analogy of what I compare this with.

My only hope is that this thread will get some people to wake up.

03/03/2016 – VIENNA, Austria – ‘Sharia police’ on patrol
Vienna’s Millennium City shopping centre has been visited by self proclaimed Islamic guardians of public morality,
who have harassed women and hospitalised two men, reports Kronen Zeitung.

Patrolling on Friday night, the Chechen men of the patrol harassed a woman, her daughter, and their female friends as they walked from a nightclub near to midnight, shouting at them loudly. When the woman called her husband to come to her aid, the gang pounced, beating him to the ground. A bystander who witnessed the assault was also hospitalised.

Police are investigating.

Original http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Tschetschenen-Quartett_pruegelt_Wiener_spitalsreif-Sittenwaechter-Story-498170

And if any of you are in any doubt, NO! Nowhere is Sharia Law in effect in the E.U.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!