Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Dear Daily Mail
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Warren Jeffs |
Sounds like the paper should change their name now. I suggest the DAILY FAIL! |
|
JK2006 |
As posted in another thread...
And so it starts: The Sun has a huge headline saying Tony dated a 14 year old girl. But then in the text it reveals it's a non-story as far as the witchhunters are concerned, but the headline is all they need. Totally cynical.
Denise, now 64 and a gran of three, said: I met him at a place called Rockley Sands.
It used to put on bands. It was a caravan park that my parents used to manage. I was 14 at the time and we got chatting.
But he was the perfect gentleman and he never suggested anything. It was completely innocent.
Former B&B owner Denise did not tell her parents who she was out with for fear her dad would strangle him.
She added: I was at school at the time and he was about 20.
I knew he was older because he had a car but I didnt know exactly.
But he didnt know how old I was. Looking back I did look older than 14. I had long black hair and false eyelashes. I used to like older men too and it was a different culture in the 1960s. |
|
JK2006 |
The dictionary definition of a paedophile is "someone who is sexually interested in children". Firstly; that definition clearly includes all people - so a child who is sexually interested in children is - by definition - a paedophile. Secondly; what is a child? You're right MWTW - in law there are many uses of the word which are technically incorrect - for example; anyone (including myself) on the Sex Offender Register is "not allowed to work with children". Children, for that purpose, are generally regarded as under 18; so the absurd situation exists that someone convicted of having sex with someone under 16 is allowed to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old, but not work with them.
Quite simply, a paedophile is not "someone who is sexually interested in young persons".
Broken system; barking mad lunacy; yet politicians don't care (until a Cabinet Minister gets accused - hopefully sooner rather than later). |
|
MWTW |
I think the law in the UK has 4 ages of a child. Below 12 is classed as prepubescent so they define below that paedophile activity.
17 and 364 days consenting no images
16 consenting
14 to 16 can consent but illegal.
13 below can't consent at all.
A few of the attempt to meet set ups we caned by judges because of using 13 and below so most set ups use 14 or 15.
I am sure Mark can answer better than I as it was he that started that whole entrapment thing off to prove all these blokes want girls under 14.
When I read the call you a Paedophile along with many others it just shows they are using the word to shock, as I said earlier if someone is convicted based on 12 or below then yes in the eyes of the law the word paedophile could be used BUT it really means solely attracted to prepubescent so again if you had been in relations with over 12s to 100 years old technically your not a defined paedophile.
But it make great headlines |
|
hedda |
JK2006 wrote:
So many calls and messages today from friends who noticed the discrepancy between their report and my actual words. Several say they notice this a lot these days - even on radio and TV (remember Dennis Skinner actually correcting a woman live on air?). I think hacks today don't actually hear or read the correct words; they only read or hear what they want the story to be. So if a Labour person says "I love Jeremy Corbyn" the reporter turns to camera and says "as you just heard, she hates Jeremy Corbyn".
not only that..people often prefer the incorrect version to reality and there is no correcting them. |
|
|
|
