Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry, but this thread is total bullsh1t. I expect Emma to talk crap but the staggering thing is when people start agreeing to her idiotic attempts at trolling. I mean let’s look at what she’s saying. Emma, who is 110% against the UK having anything at all to do with the EU, is now saying that white, british people should be part of a charity project that receives funding from the EU. What’s stopping your beloved BNP from funding training courses Emma? Is it because they spend all their money on court appearances and bail money?
As for Cas’ stories, maybe you left something out, but how exactly were you going to do a postgraduate course with only an A level and a gcse? Also, didn’t you think that by attending an ESOL class you would be taking the place of someone who actually needed to do the course? It’s ridiculous that you should even think about doing an ESOL class. It doesn’t sound like you’re the victim of racism it sounds like you’re the victim of your own muddled-mind. It sounds like you were given sound advice but chose to ignore it. How exactly were you going to do a degree and a pgce in just 2 years? I’ve never heard of anything like that before. You need to do a degree first (or an access course to enable you to do your degree) then do your PGCE then you can get a job in teaching.
As for the permit story, clearly it’s your own fault for not reading the form properly. The guy was just doing his job and he actually did you a favour by not insisting that you bring the right identification. Sometimes people are asked to bring proof of address and proof of identity when filling out paperwork. There’s nothing racist about that, it happens all the time.
As for council incompetence regarding housing, everybody has problems with their local council at times so how is that racial discrimination? I’m sure most people here could tell you a story about incompetence by their local council. Do you seriously think black people and asian people don’t have any problems with town halls?
So, I reiterate, this thread is complete and utter nonsense.
He didn’t say he wanted to change the age of consent, he was just questioning whether sex between teenagers should be a police matter. Maybe it should be decriminalized. Parents need to teach their kids to behave responsibly because you can’t have a policeman in every bedroom.
I’ve listened to Americans say exactly the same thing as you were saying but about sex with anyone under 18. They say anyone who isn’t 18 isn’t mature enough to have a sexual relationship and is still a child. In contrast, the age of consent in Germany is 14 and they would probably wonder what all the fuss is about with this story.
Poisoning fits the modus operandi of the Russian secret service. True it’s simpler just to shoot someone but it’s also easier to get caught, especially on foreign soil. With poison you can carry out an assassination without being noticed and flee the country before anyone realizes that your victim has been poisoned, including your victim.
Personally I doubt it was a set-up by anti Putin elements because of the limited availibility of the poison polonium (so I hear) and because of the level of suffering it causes. The Russian government have been denying claims that they were involved but that’s what they always do. I remember watching a documentary where Oleg Gordievsky (another ex-KGB defector) explained that they were instructed to act with outrage and incredulity at any allegation that they were involved in any kind of cloak and dagger activity. So you can expect Putin and the FSB to say that the claims are absurd and complete nonsense.
I’m just wondering what Britain could do even if it was proved that Putin was behind this. Russia supplies fuel to parts of Europe so would the EU take any action? It’s hard to think of what the UK could do by itself that would have any significant impact.
Phobos (fear) and phileein (to love) are the roots of those words and they don’t necessarily mean “unnatural” fear or love, otherwise the name “Philip” could be translated as “horse f*cker”.
@slayer wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
You misunderstood what he said. He didn’t say that men 20+ shouldn’t be prosecuted for having sex with girls who are under 16. What he was saying was that teenagers often have relationships with boys or girls who are under 16 and that maybe this shouldn’t be classed as paedophilia e.g. a 17 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. He said this kind of relationship happens all across the country all the time and questioned whether it was reasonable to prosecute every teen who has sex with someone who isn’t 16 yet.
But just because something happens (that is illegal) doesn’t mean we should change the law or the way the law is implemented to make allowances for this prevalence. Drug taking, drink driving and assault are all prevalent across the country but no one would suggest anything less than the full force of the law- a drink driver is a drink driver and a paedophile is a paedophile- end of story
This CHIEF CONSTABLE said someone who is 20 or 30 who has sex with a 13 year old girl should not be considered a peadophile. Well excuse me but I don’t care if a 13 year old lies buck naked in front of me n says “f/uck me”- I am an adult and have a responsiblity to that child n that does not include having sex with them.
@mr Bigstuff wrote:
. I don’t think he should be sacked for pointing out the reality of the society we live in.
No, he should be made to sit in counselling sessions where vulnerable 13 and 14 year olds sob whilst describing being abused by men who have identified their vulnerability and abused their trust to rape them
I think you’re missing the point, he’s just reflecting the reality of the situation that a lot of teenagers are having physical relationships of some kind and, in most European countries, it wouldn’t even be a crime. So is it reasonable to call it paedophilia in the UK and to try to prosecute all those teens engaging in it?
Consider this hypothetical situation, if a 20 yr old man had slept with Billie Piper or Jessica Simpson when they first came into the public eye around the age of 15, should he be put in the same category as that guy who kidnapped and raped a 6 yr. old? Or if any other man found either of them the least bit attractive (considering they looked no different than they do now) would that mean that they were paedophiles too?
All he was saying is that we should show some common sense when it comes to teenage relationships. Also, girls between the ages of 13-15 fall into a grey area and that there should be a different classification for anyone 20+ who gets involved with a girl of that age. He made it absolutely clear that it should still be illegal but classified differently. He’s not condoning or defending adults having sex with girls of that age but I think he’s implying that girls in that grey area can sometimes be indistinguishable from girls who are already 16 which is why it should be classed differently to sex with girls who haven’t even hit puberty.
You misunderstood what he said. He didn’t say that men 20+ shouldn’t be prosecuted for having sex with girls who are under 16. What he was saying was that teenagers often have relationships with boys or girls who are under 16 and that maybe this shouldn’t be classed as paedophilia e.g. a 17 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. He said this kind of relationship happens all across the country all the time and questioned whether it was reasonable to prosecute every teen who has sex with someone who isn’t 16 yet.
He did say that girls between 13-15 fell into a grey area but he did say that any MAN having sex with a girl that age should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, he said it shouldn’t necessarily be classed as paedophilia. He talked about the varying ages of consent in other countries and I think he has a point if you stop and reflect on what he’s saying. All he was doing was questioning whether someone who is attracted to someone in that grey area should be classed as a paedophile and he pointed out that the teenage boyfriends of his teenage daughters would fit into that category. I don’t think he should be sacked for pointing out the reality of the society we live in.
Emma, if somebody can buy the same product or similar for less than you can offer it for, then you won’t be in business for long (unless you receive subsidies). Even the USA is trying to establish free-trade areas, so your idea that we can be isolated and have a booming economy is naive.
Emma, the Budgets for the EU are worked out on a multi-annual basis. So the most recent budget was calculated for the period 2007-2013. Obviously you divide the contribution for that period by the number of years to work out the annual contribution. For the year mentioned in the article, the UK paid 9.97 bn into the EU coffers and received 6.22bn in return as part of the rebate that the UK has been entitled to since the 1980s. That’s not the totality of the amount of money the UK receives from the EU. The UK also receives money from various EU project funds.
Emma, I’ve already explained the benefits that we gain from being part of Europe, most of all via trade. If most of our exports go to Europe then it makes sense for us to be part of Europe otherwise we wouldn’t benefit from the common trade agreements and this would make our exports less competitive. Countries within the EU would just import products from our EU competitors instead. That would mean British business would suffer and could lead to job losses.
Some of the remarks clearly referred to Asians, so I don’t think the jury did their job properly. For example:
“When these Asians go out looking for a victim, they don’t go looking for Asian victims.
They don’t go mugging Asian grandmas, they don’t go stabbing each other, they don’t go trying to solicit sex off little Pritesh or little Sanjita, they go straight to the whites because they are trying to destroy us…”Pritesh and Samjita are not muslim names either. Clearly this was incitement against Asians.
You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that if someone is caught on tape carrying out a crime and he admits on tape to carrying out a crime then there’s a good chance that he’s guilty.
All those people who campaigned against a law to ban incitement to religious hatred should now realize what they’ve done. Even today, a Sikh in Glasgow was attacked by a gang of white youths who beat him up and cut his hair. So I think we do need a law to protect religious minorities.
A BNP area free of crime? You’re having a laugh. Your party’s full of convicts including your party leader. An awful lot of BNP members have convictions and a lot of them are for violent crime. Whatever you think of the main political parties, none of them have the same amount of violent thugs in their leadership as the BNP do.
