Labour councillor in FGM row

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Aug 17 3.17pm
Originally posted by elgrande No I should imagine there a a good few on both side,and no I don't really want to discuss the age of consent thank you,think it's fine as it is. And as a father 2 boys and 2 girls(all grown up now),I think it is just about right. And I would never defend paedophiles,I might break every bone in their bodies though. I think these days its pretty reasonable - sixteen makes sense, with some leyway where say its a 15 year old with say a 17 year old. But if you're a grown ass man f**king an under 16 year old knowingly, or obviously, I think you should consider yourself lucky if the only thing that happens is you go to prison. If it was my friends kids, my niece or nephew, they'd disappear. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Aug 17 3.17pm

Originally posted by elgrande

No I should imagine there a a good few on both side,and no I don't really want to discuss the age of consent thank you,think it's fine as it is.
And as a father 2 boys and 2 girls(all grown up now),I think it is just about right.
And I would never defend paedophiles,I might break every bone in their bodies though.

I think these days its pretty reasonable - sixteen makes sense, with some leyway where say its a 15 year old with say a 17 year old.

But if you're a grown ass man f**king an under 16 year old knowingly, or obviously, I think you should consider yourself lucky if the only thing that happens is you go to prison.

If it was my friends kids, my niece or nephew, they'd disappear.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Aug 17 3.25pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Like gay people before 1967? The argument put forward by people who want various forms of deviant sex made legal, now and in the past, is that "that is how they are", so society should respect that and let them get on with it and indeed 'celebrate' it - paedophiles make the same argument. Many on the left, notably Hariett Harman supported them in their guise as the Paedophile Exchange. Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 3.02pm) Difference is that the laws against gay people were wrong. We know that, and accept that now - and its very hard to argue that the offence of being gay was anything other than prejudice in society. Notably Thatcher voted for the repeal of homosexuality laws because they were wrong and served no purpose. It was a dark era of our past that we criminalised peoples sexuality without just cause. Whilst I would accept that some pedos might be born that way - they're a danger to young people that gay people never were. The law was wrong, and even back then a lot of people from all sides thought it was. It reflected a prejudice in society, not jurisprudence or protection of society. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 02 Aug 17 3.25pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Like gay people before 1967?
The argument put forward by people who want various forms of deviant sex made legal, now and in the past, is that "that is how they are", so society should respect that and let them get on with it and indeed 'celebrate' it - paedophiles make the same argument. Many on the left, notably Hariett Harman supported them in their guise as the Paedophile Exchange.

Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 3.02pm)

Difference is that the laws against gay people were wrong. We know that, and accept that now - and its very hard to argue that the offence of being gay was anything other than prejudice in society. Notably Thatcher voted for the repeal of homosexuality laws because they were wrong and served no purpose.

It was a dark era of our past that we criminalised peoples sexuality without just cause. Whilst I would accept that some pedos might be born that way - they're a danger to young people that gay people never were.

The law was wrong, and even back then a lot of people from all sides thought it was. It reflected a prejudice in society, not jurisprudence or protection of society.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 02 Aug 17 3.32pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Take abortion rights - plenty of people on the right consider abortion to be immoral or wrong, despite the fact its legal, and accepted by the majority. Or the rights of say a minority, like gay people, having the right to marriage. Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.37pm) But that isn't what you said. The majority of people don't have abortions. The majority of people aren't gay. You suggested that the right are happy to excuse stuff that the majority do.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

02 Aug 17 3.32pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Take abortion rights - plenty of people on the right consider abortion to be immoral or wrong, despite the fact its legal, and accepted by the majority.

Or the rights of say a minority, like gay people, having the right to marriage.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.37pm)

But that isn't what you said.

The majority of people don't have abortions. The majority of people aren't gay.
You suggested that the right are happy to excuse stuff that the majority do.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 3.32pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Like gay people before 1967? The argument put forward by people who want various forms of deviant sex made legal, now and in the past, is that "that is how they are", so society should respect that and let them get on with it and indeed 'celebrate' it - paedophiles make the same argument. Many on the left, notably Hariett Harman supported them in their guise as the Paedophile Exchange. Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 3.02pm) Fake news. [Link] She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 3.32pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Like gay people before 1967?
The argument put forward by people who want various forms of deviant sex made legal, now and in the past, is that "that is how they are", so society should respect that and let them get on with it and indeed 'celebrate' it - paedophiles make the same argument. Many on the left, notably Hariett Harman supported them in their guise as the Paedophile Exchange.

Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 3.02pm)

Fake news.

[Link]

She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 02 Aug 17 4.33pm
Why do all discussions on here come back to 'gay rights'? This has NOTHING to do with gay rights. It's about FMG. For the record, I think FMG is inhumane. It's terrible that women in this day and age have to go through that. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 02 Aug 17 4.33pm

Why do all discussions on here come back to 'gay rights'?

This has NOTHING to do with gay rights.

It's about FMG.

For the record, I think FMG is inhumane. It's terrible that women in this day and age have to go through that.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 4.49pm
Originally posted by matt_himself Why do all discussions on here come back to 'gay rights'? This has NOTHING to do with gay rights. It's about FMG. For the record, I think FMG is inhumane. It's terrible that women in this day and age have to go through that. Do you know if the councillor suggested fgm was OK or was it Guido being deliberately unclear?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 4.49pm

Originally posted by matt_himself

Why do all discussions on here come back to 'gay rights'?

This has NOTHING to do with gay rights.

It's about FMG.

For the record, I think FMG is inhumane. It's terrible that women in this day and age have to go through that.

Do you know if the councillor suggested fgm was OK or was it Guido being deliberately unclear?

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 02 Aug 17 5.20pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Fake news. [Link] She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth. So because the guardian says so,you immediately agree with them. As with the Tories and dolphin square(allegedly) and labour and the Camden and Islington councils associated with P.I.E.(allegedly). I thought we all didn't get swayed by the "media". always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 02 Aug 17 5.20pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Fake news.

[Link]

She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth.

So because the guardian says so,you immediately agree with them.
As with the Tories and dolphin square(allegedly) and labour and the Camden and Islington councils associated with P.I.E.(allegedly).
I thought we all didn't get swayed by the "media".

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Aug 17 5.28pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Fake news. [Link] She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth. Harman and her husband were leaders of the National Council for Civil Liberties and they allowed affiliation of the Paedophile Exchange. Did they not know what the Exchange was about? Didn't the word 'Paedophile' being it their title give them a clue? Mr. & Mrs. H. also campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 14 and to 10 "in some circumstances" (not sure what the 'circumstances' were - perhaps if they were going to be abused by people affiliated to the NCCL?) Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 5.29pm) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Aug 17 5.28pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Fake news.

[Link]

She did not support PIE, however because it was put on the front cover of the Mail that she did people see it as truth.

Harman and her husband were leaders of the National Council for Civil Liberties and they allowed affiliation of the Paedophile Exchange. Did they not know what the Exchange was about? Didn't the word 'Paedophile' being it their title give them a clue? Mr. & Mrs. H. also campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 14 and to 10 "in some circumstances" (not sure what the 'circumstances' were - perhaps if they were going to be abused by people affiliated to the NCCL?)

Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 5.29pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Aug 17 5.31pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Difference is that the laws against gay people were wrong. We know that, and accept that now - and its very hard to argue that the offence of being gay was anything other than prejudice in society. Notably Thatcher voted for the repeal of homosexuality laws because they were wrong and served no purpose. It was a dark era of our past that we criminalised peoples sexuality without just cause. Whilst I would accept that some pedos might be born that way - they're a danger to young people that gay people never were. The law was wrong, and even back then a lot of people from all sides thought it was. It reflected a prejudice in society, not jurisprudence or protection of society. Yet we now have laws that apparently force people to campaign for gay marriage - lets hope that they are repealed "because they were wrong and served no purpose." We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Aug 17 5.31pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Difference is that the laws against gay people were wrong. We know that, and accept that now - and its very hard to argue that the offence of being gay was anything other than prejudice in society. Notably Thatcher voted for the repeal of homosexuality laws because they were wrong and served no purpose.

The law was wrong, and even back then a lot of people from all sides thought it was. It reflected a prejudice in society, not jurisprudence or protection of society.

Yet we now have laws that apparently force people to campaign for gay marriage - lets hope that they are repealed "because they were wrong and served no purpose."

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 02 Aug 17 5.50pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Take abortion rights - plenty of people on the right consider abortion to be immoral or wrong, despite the fact its legal, and accepted by the majority. Or the rights of say a minority, like gay people, having the right to marriage. Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.37pm) Aren't most views based on religious beliefs rather than political? Edited by chris123 (02 Aug 2017 5.51pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 02 Aug 17 5.50pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Take abortion rights - plenty of people on the right consider abortion to be immoral or wrong, despite the fact its legal, and accepted by the majority.

Or the rights of say a minority, like gay people, having the right to marriage.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.37pm)

Aren't most views based on religious beliefs rather than political?

Edited by chris123 (02 Aug 2017 5.51pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 5.56pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 No, they criminals as they're violating laws regarding consent that society believes to be just. Gay people aren't abusing non-conenting adults. Homosexuality is only a deviance as its a statistical deviation from the norm: very few people consider it to be either immoral, criminal or abusive - as it occurs between consenting adults. Where as whilst pedophiles are sexually deviant, their actions are harmful and do not involve consent, or people considered capable of giving consent. Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.34pm) 'pedophiles are sexually deviant' I'm truly amazed you came out with that statement. Previously I know you have communicated sense over this troublesome issue. Deviant.....No Jamie, nothing that you are born with is 'deviant'. You really surprised me with this. Pedophiles are dangerous, that's for sure. We need to protect ourselves from them that's for sure. Just like we need to protect ourselves from the 'psychopath' and other dangerous personalities. People are born with tendencies from their genetics. Nature doesn't care about social norms or conditioning. Some of them have upbringings that help them combat what is natural to them, some don't, some don't want to. Regardless our concern is the protection of children. But this isn't achieved via demonisation. Knowledge is power, Society benefits from honesty on these issues. Not overly emotional people talking immature nonsense. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 5.56pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

No, they criminals as they're violating laws regarding consent that society believes to be just. Gay people aren't abusing non-conenting adults.

Homosexuality is only a deviance as its a statistical deviation from the norm: very few people consider it to be either immoral, criminal or abusive - as it occurs between consenting adults.

Where as whilst pedophiles are sexually deviant, their actions are harmful and do not involve consent, or people considered capable of giving consent.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Aug 2017 2.34pm)

'pedophiles are sexually deviant'

I'm truly amazed you came out with that statement. Previously I know you have communicated sense over this troublesome issue.

Deviant.....No Jamie, nothing that you are born with is 'deviant'. You really surprised me with this.

Pedophiles are dangerous, that's for sure. We need to protect ourselves from them that's for sure. Just like we need to protect ourselves from the 'psychopath' and other dangerous personalities.

People are born with tendencies from their genetics. Nature doesn't care about social norms or conditioning. Some of them have upbringings that help them combat what is natural to them, some don't, some don't want to. Regardless our concern is the protection of children. But this isn't achieved via demonisation. Knowledge is power,

Society benefits from honesty on these issues. Not overly emotional people talking immature nonsense.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 6.02pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Harman and her husband were leaders of the National Council for Civil Liberties and they allowed affiliation of the Paedophile Exchange. Did they not know what the Exchange was about? Didn't the word 'Paedophile' being it their title give them a clue? Mr. & Mrs. H. also campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 14 and to 10 "in some circumstances" (not sure what the 'circumstances' were - perhaps if they were going to be abused by people affiliated to the NCCL?) Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 5.29pm) The national campaign for civil liberties allowed pie in so to speak because of chemical castration and electric shock treatment carried out on 'suspected' peodophiles and for the lowering of the age of consent. A mistake for sure. However the nccl was an important supporter of many campaigns. Now before any of the usual suspects accuse me of siding with Pie, I'm not. Some documentary evidence of the PIE / NCCL links here. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 6.02pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Aug 2017 5.29pm)

The national campaign for civil liberties allowed pie in so to speak because of chemical castration and electric shock treatment carried out on 'suspected' peodophiles and for the lowering of the age of consent.
A mistake for sure.

However the nccl was an important supporter of many campaigns.

Now before any of the usual suspects accuse me of siding with Pie, I'm not.

Some documentary evidence of the PIE / NCCL links here.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Labour councillor in FGM row

Site Map

Sponsors