Stuart Hall's barrister in a league of her own.

[Acker79]

Not bol exactly, or a claim. It's often the case when a homosexual is asked when they first knew they were gay, the response is "I was 13 or 14. We were in love and he was much older, so he taught me to be comfortable about it" and stuff like that. Actually the same goes for some pre-legal girls, though perhaps it doesn't determine their prefrence so distinctly(?) Either way it is 'grooming' and it is done by a nonce who gains the trust of a child - a child at the finding-out period of their own sexual curiosity.
I know one gay lad and he told me his discovery was this way. George Michael may be a confirmed gay man but his account is similar.

Nonces have victims, and those children have to face a future and have their experiences make sense to them.
It's a fact of their lives that they somehow reconcile, with sexuality (often cause for guilt and confusion). Nonces can use that, which makes their behavior all the more reprehensible and their knowing grooming deserving of harsh punishments. Priests and celebs are not to be sympathized with or understood - no margins given by society or governing body! (so as to speak)

Just so we're clear, what it sounds like you're saying here in this thread is

"All/most gay people are only gay because they were abused and made to think they are"
"Young girls who are abused don't have their sexuality changed"
"A 17 year old having sex with a 15 has the same effect as a fully grown adult having sex with a prepubescent child because the law defines both as illegal, technically"

Because those are ridiculous claims, and you've had one or two people seemingly take what you've said that way, and it could turn into a binfest, so I wanted to give you the chance to clarify if this isn't what you mean.

If that is what you mean, well... *gets the Pringles in*

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Loads of gays are confused victims of paedos, and accept it as their lifestyle.
At what point a molester's victim is just another homosexual partner is determined by the arrival of their 16th birthday, which legitimizes the activity for the perpetrator.

Young girls can accept relations too, with Stockholm syndrome or believing they instigated the relations by having feminine clothes and bodies. Culturally it's accepted for preteens to serve old letching stinking *******s in other countries.

I'm guessing youre not a proper expert on this subject. At least I hope to Christ that you're not. I think you are suggesting that "loads " of gays are victims of homosexual paedophiles and consequently go on to molest children themselves and that the 16 year old demarcation line is all that separates a perpetrator from a considerate lover?

Sounds like a load of shit to me.

Edit : Sorry [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] you'd already made my point.

 

[User removed 4]

Harriet Harman, served as the NCCL’s legal officer for four years from 1978. Harman has called the Savile revelations ‘a stain’ on the BBC. Yet while she was at the NCCL she seemed untroubled by its PIE affiliate. Moreover, she campaigned for a liberalisation of child porn laws. In the NCCL’s response to a Bill that aimed to ban indecent images of under-16s, she stated absurdly that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown the subject had suffered, claiming that the new law could lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’ and ‘increase censorship’. Embarrassed by this reminder, Harman now insists she never condoned pornography and had merely wanted to ensure the new law delivered child protection rather than censorship. *(PIE - Paedophile Information Exchange).

 

[Twizzle]

Just so we're clear, what it sounds like you're saying here in this thread is

"All/most gay people are only gay because they were abused and made to think they are"
"Young girls who are abused don't have their sexuality changed"
"A 17 year old having sex with a 15 has the same effect as a fully grown adult having sex with a prepubescent child because the law defines both as illegal, technicall


Because those are ridiculous claims, and you've had one or two people seemingly take what you've said that way, and it could turn into a binfest, so I wanted to give you the chance to clarify if this isn't what you mean.

If that is what you mean, well... *gets the Pringles in*

None of those things. I stated what i stated, are you saying everyone on here is a dramaqueen who cannot read without blowing things beyond all proportion?


maybe some are, you as an example it appears.
One thing you say there may be true though - molesters often are people who were once molested. I have heard that a lot before.....a certain Thriller of a pop icon claimed his own father did so, which was probably his reach for sympathy and may have been true. No evidence from my knowledge of the person, but his surrounding himself & bedding down with little boys did seem a bit dodgy to say the least!

 

[Acker79]

Harriet Harman, served as the NCCL’s legal officer for four years from 1978. Harman has called the Savile revelations ‘a stain’ on the BBC. Yet while she was at the NCCL she seemed untroubled by its PIE affiliate. Moreover, she campaigned for a liberalisation of child porn laws. In the NCCL’s response to a Bill that aimed to ban indecent images of under-16s, she stated absurdly that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown the subject had suffered, claiming that the new law could lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’ and ‘increase censorship’. Embarrassed by this reminder, Harman now insists she never condoned pornography and had merely wanted to ensure the new law delivered child protection rather than censorship. *(PIE - Paedophile Information Exchange).

With mobile phones and sexting occurring between teen children of similar ages, you would think that law would need updating, or else a lot of people could be seen as making/owning/distributing child porn. Unless you want to stifle what some people think is simply the modern day version of 'you show me yours, I'll show you mine' (though, of course it needs to protect people from having what they thought was a private pic for a partner being spread around school/the Internet, which isn't easy) that children have played for decades, even centuries.

 

[Acker79]

None of those things. I stated what i stated, are you saying everyone on here is a dramaqueen who cannot read without blowing things beyond all proportion?


maybe some are, you as an example it appears.

I showed you how it was being taken, asking if that was right or wrong, and your answer is neither? So how it is being taken is not how it was meant, but is also not not how it was meant?

I'm saying written word doesn't carry tone, inflection, and sometimes things intended one way are read another. It happens on here a lot, where something is said, misunderstood, and before long a binfest is well underway with the person whose original comment inflamed a response is so dug into his position, the people incensed are too upset to read any clarification and it just goes back and forth.

I was merely showing you how your comments were being taken, and allowing you the opportunity to clarify them before the binfest started. If that makes me an overblown drama queen, so be it.

Now, I'm going to enjoy some Pringles.

 

[User removed 4]

With mobile phones and sexting occurring between teen children of similar ages, you would think that law would need updating, or else a lot of people could be seen as making/owning/distributing child porn. Unless you want to stifle what some people think is simply the modern day version of 'you show me yours, I'll show you mine' (though, of course it needs to protect people from having what they thought was a private pic for a partner being spread around school/the Internet, which isn't easy) that children have played for decades, even centuries.

This was 30 years ago, way before the advent of the mass communications of today.

 

[Twizzle]

I showed you how it was being taken, asking if that was right or wrong, and your answer is neither? So how it is being taken is not how it was meant, but is also not not how it was meant?

I'm saying written word doesn't carry tone, inflection, and sometimes things intended one way are read another. It happens on here a lot, where something is said, misunderstood, and before long a binfest is well underway with the person whose original comment inflamed a response is so dug into his position, the people incensed are too upset to read any clarification and it just goes back and forth.

I was merely showing you how your comments were being taken, and allowing you the opportunity to clarify them before the binfest started. If that makes me an overblown drama queen, so be it.

Now, I'm going to enjoy some Pringles.

Well why did you read beyond what was written and put it into text, suggest it shall be fascinating stuff for you, and that some kind of majority will think like you and not like me? Do nsc all think with this same mindset, really? Isn't that what you are implying?

I wait with my own pringles .

 

[KingstonSeagull]

do 13 year olds have sex with other? yes they do. Should they be criminalised for this? no they shouldnt.

Should a middle aged man legally be allowed to have sex with a 13 year old? no, no they f*cking shouldnt!

They have something similar to this rule in America although still flawed 16 year olds can consent to 16/17 year olds however over if over 18 it is illegal...

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Well why did you read beyond what was written and put it into text, suggest it shall be fascinating stuff for you, and that some kind of majority will think like you and not like me? Do nsc all think with this same mindset, really? Isn't that what you are implying?

I wait with my own pringles .

FWIW I thought there were huge generalisations in your original post, and, to an extent, the subsequent replies, without there being must hard evidence being offered, apart from your mate and George Michael.

That's probably why people are questioning what you've written or, at least, the way you've written it

I think [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] was well within his rights to point this out to you, without you getting all abrasive. As he says, the word 'binfest' comes to mind, which can, very quickly, spiral out of control.

 

[Twizzle]

FWIW I thought there were huge generalisations in your original post, and, to an extent, the subsequent replies, without there being must hard evidence being offered, apart from your mate and George Michael.

That's probably why people are questioning what you've written or, at least, the way you've written it
c
I think [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] was well within his rights to point this out to you, without you getting all abrasive. As he says, the word 'binfest' comes to mind, which can, very quickly, spiral out of control.

What STARTS a binfest? I gave two simple offtopofhead examples rather than 'generalise' and i need hard evidence of many others? riii-iight.

Well ok, you have to admit that for every paedo there ARE victims, at least one, right?
Does every victim need to be a rape, or is it non-aggressive coercing ...more often than not?
Do victims always perceive themselves as coerced victim of a bad person? probably not.
We may assume that nonces do mean their victim to receive sexual gratification and sexual sensations, right? I would imagine so wouldn't you?
Do then all victims pronounce their experiences as a crime, or do many perhaps carry out a relationship, or secret liaisons to repeat anything? That nonces manage to continue their crime suggests they HAVE coerced their victim into an agreement - awful as that is.

I'm talking about older than 17 on 15 here, Stuart Hall, Tarbuck, Savile territory. Clearly they cleverly seduce their easy prey, blind them with celebrity charisma that is subversive in these cases. To similar ends so do priests use their respectability and position to do very dirty work on innocent children.

Having heard so many times about molesters once being molested, and youths with confused sexuality due to such introductions - plus scout leaders and teachers getting done for fiddling - you have to imagine the victims are multiple and some you pass on the street every day.

That we do hear about kids acceding to their experience as a righteos moment - don't you think that many are motivated to put it down as 'a meaningful relationship' when they lost innocence? That they can really only go on comfortably if they see the otherwise horrific atrocity as a pleasurable thing to have happened? (e.g. 'George Michael' as just 1 example )

Psychologically there has to be some kind of allowance for some people or else they will throw themselves off a bridge.
To my mind the coercing of a child is indeed deserving of great punishment - certainly not for the criminal to attempt a claim that it should be allowed! For me, this defence ought to earn Hall a greater disdain in the court.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

What STARTS a binfest? I gave two simple offtopofhead examples rather than 'generalise' and i need hard evidence of many others? riii-iight.

Well ok, you have to admit that for every paedo there ARE victims, at least one, right?
Does every victim need to be a rape, or is it non-aggressive coercing ...more often than not?
Do victims always perceive themselves as coerced victim of a bad person? probably not.
We may assume that nonces do mean their victim to receive sexual gratification and sexual sensations, right? I would imagine so wouldn't you?
Do then all victims pronounce their experiences as a crime, or do many perhaps carry out a relationship, or secret liaisons to repeat anything? That nonces manage to continue their crime suggests they HAVE coerced their victim into an agreement - awful as that is.

I'm talking about older than 17 on 15 here, Stuart Hall, Tarbuck, Savile territory. Clearly they cleverly seduce their easy prey, blind them with celebrity charisma that is subversive in these cases. To similar ends so do priests use their respectability and position to do very dirty work on innocent children.

Having heard so many times about molesters once being molested, and youths with confused sexuality due to such introductions - plus scout leaders and teachers getting done for fiddling - you have to imagine the victims are multiple and some you pass on the street every day.

That we do hear about kids acceding to their experience as a righteos moment - don't you think that many are motivated to put it down as 'a meaningful relationship' when they lost innocence? That they can really only go on comfortably if they see the otherwise horrific atrocity as a pleasurable thing to have happened? (e.g. 'George Michael' as just 1 example )

Psychologically there has to be some kind of allowance for some people or else they will throw themselves off a bridge.
To my mind the coercing of a child is indeed deserving of great punishment - certainly not for the criminal to attempt a claim that it should be allowed! For me, this defence ought to earn Hall a greater disdain in the court.

Loads of gays are confused victims of paedos, and accept it as their lifestyle.
At what point a molester's victim is just another homosexual partner is determined by the arrival of their 16th birthday, which legitimizes the activity for the perpetrator.

Young girls can accept relations too, with Stockholm syndrome or believing they instigated the relations by having feminine clothes and bodies. Culturally it's accepted for preteens to serve old letching stinking *******s in other countries.

In our culture we have lines drawn at 16, in the US the age line is at 18, in parts of Europe 15. A considerable difference imo.

Anyway Stuart Hall is a paedo and his lawyer must be talking to other molesters in court to try making it seem ok.

I'm not passing comment on WHAT you've said, just the WAY you've said it.

 

[Acker79]

Well why did you read beyond what was written and put it into text, suggest it shall be fascinating stuff for you, and that some kind of majority will think like you and not like me? Do nsc all think with this same mindset, really? Isn't that what you are implying?

I wait with my own pringles .

I did not read beyond what was written, I read what was writte and offered the clarification for you of how it could be taken.
I did not suggest it would be fascinating stuff for me, the whole getting Pringles thing is short hand for 'this discussion could become a binfest'
NSC has a variety of mind sets. Having been here a while I have gotten to know what sorts of things spark binfests. Suggesting homosexuality isn't natural, that it is the result of abuse is one of those things

What I was saying, not implying, was what you posted could be read in such a way it could lead to one of the often repeated binfests on here.