www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,780352,00.html

Even the German femi-nazis haven't managed to make such relationships illegal yet, but he still has to resign.

I remember in the final months of the John Major Government a Tory MP resigning over a relationship with a 17 year old prostitute (it was legal then - and the tabloids were full of 16/17 year old topless page 3 girls at the time, so don't anyone accuse me of cognitive distortions). I think even he only resigned because of the 'back to basics' hypocricy involved. How quickly the human mind regresses back to a primitive state guided by feminist 'progress'.

"even though the relationship had been legal, he had underestimated the "moral objections of many people."

weird. so because others didn't like it he had to confirm to their morality.

We expect too much from politicians and in the end we wonder why we get the ones we do !

Bizarre - and further proof of the decline of common sense. But isn't it weird these scandals almost always involved older men of the right (or Christian evangelists)?

Locked Out wrote:
Tell me... do you have any other interests?

Again, I would like to ask Jonathan King or the relevant moderator why this individual - somebody who has boasted here many times of being a convicted abuser and whose offences were grave enough for him to share a cell with child murderers - is repeatedly allowed to make false accusations against myself, whilst at the same time my posts are often deleted on the basis that I am slandering him (for stating facts about him which he himself has admitted)?

Unlike you Locked Out, I'm a very law abiding individual and have no intention of breaking any feminist laws and putting a young person through the trauma of the abuse judicial system, but yes it does interest me not to share your fate via the ever pacening leglislative creep. Something that is driven by femi-nazis and their self-interested sexual interests to lock out younger females, the financial interests of the abuse industry and tabloids that hack into the phones of murdered schoolkids, and a witch hunt hysteria which accuses anybody who speaks up about it as a paedophile (though I suspect your offence had nothing to do with willing teenagers).

You may have noticed I did leave my opinion on the riot evictions post but was promptly told to go somewhere else for contradicting Cultural Marxist teachings.

""It was simply love," he said, wiping away tears."

But he ended the relationship (and married someone older) the minute he got the chance to became the head of northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein.

That is all one needs to know about this fool.

Ah Blackit - I apologise; to me, asking if you have any interests is a question easily answered ("Yes I do") and not a false accusation. But if you like I'll censor such future questions. I really cannot understand why people insist on personal insults or slurs - whether true or false - instead of debating and discussing but many posters seem incredibly amused to refer to people with fake genders or rude insults. Childish, in my mind, but what's a girl to do? Some take affront far quicker than I.

JK2006 wrote:
Ah Blackit - I apologise; to me, asking if you have any interests is a question easily answered ("Yes I do") and not a false accusation. But if you like I'll censor such future questions. I really cannot understand why people insist on personal insults or slurs - whether true or false - instead of debating and discussing but many posters seem incredibly amused to refer to people with fake genders or rude insults. Childish, in my mind, but what's a girl to do? Some take affront far quicker than I.

You know full well JK that he is implying that I am a sex offender - which I am not. Yes I would like you to censor such false accusations from him in future as it doesn't quite sit well with your position on false accusations now does it?


I'm sure an intelligent man like yourself realises what possible horrors of injustice are possible when simply disagreeing with laws justifies horrendoous accusations.

I shall certainly censor anyone who accuses anyone else of being a sex offender - except if they aim it at me.

I doubt, however, if I'll censor anyone asking a question like "do you have any other interests?" - I think most people are quite capable of answering "Yes I do" instead of assuming they are being accused of murdering babies.

JK2006 wrote:
I shall certainly censor anyone who accuses anyone else of being a sex offender - except if they aim it at me.

I doubt, however, if I'll censor anyone asking a question like "do you have any other interests?" - I think most people are quite capable of answering "Yes I do" instead of assuming they are being accused of murdering babies.

So, for example, both of the internet movies you have made deal with the topic of child abuse and paedophilia.

Do you have any other interests?

Indeed - many such as food, travel, TV, radio, music (quite a bit of which featured in Me Me Me as opposed to child abuse, which did not), politics, justice, media, films, literature, animals, trees... I could bore for Britain (and often do, on here) on a dozen topics I find fascinating.

Locked Out wrote:
Right, let's get this straight. I have ever accused Blackit of being a sex offender. And if anyone thinks I have all they need to do is copy and paste the allegation {or the alleged allegation} here - in its full and original form - and I will withdraw both that allegation and the outrageous question I posed in this thread. And - for the record;

1} I asked you if you had any other interests because {be honest now} you only really contribute material related to either underage sex or sex between people with pretty large age gaps where the female partner is 16 years old of under. I'm simply trying to understand where you are coming from. I should have learned before now that it's unwise to do so because you appear to be unable - or unwilling - to take an overview of your reactions to innocuous questions. Instead you resort to abusing me and constructing a full "character history" of me based upon one or two things you know and much you {falsely} construe.

2} I have never been investigated in relation to, or accused of, charged with or imprisoned for "child abuse". Therefore it would be sort of impossible - not to say hugely unwise - for me to ever have "admitted" to being "a convicted abuser". And as far as I'm aware I've never "boasted" about my offences. I have freely admitted them here and, in general, have found them no bar to the expression of opinion, Indeed, it has been stated by at least one other poster that my experiences as a rightly convicted {and hopefully reformed} sex offender provide valuable insights into both prison life and the thinking processes of fellow sex offenders. I spent six months in prison. Which is not the sort of tariff "convicted child abusers" are awarded.

3} I have never shared a cell with a child murderer, or said I had. Once again you are constructing "facts" that you "know" about me. I simply pointed out to you that being on the same prison wing as child murderers is no indicator of equivalence of the "seriousness" {and if it's a sex offence "serious" enough to get you into prison it is "seriously serious" anyway} of each individual crime. There is a cross section of violent and non-violent criminals on a sex offenders' wing, from poor old guys who've vocalised too publicly a desire to tamper with little boys to people who've raped and killed children. The two people I've just illustrated might well be sharing a cell. Neither of my cellmates fell into either category.. But, whatever, the choice of cellmates is never your own.

4} I have never "implied" anything about you. What set you off in the first place was my suggestion that you shared several of the attitudes toward taking personal responsibility for your views with some of my fellow inmates in prison. Views like "it's all the fault of feminists", for instance. Or "it's the law that's wrong". Or {just maybe...?} "these people won't mind if a middle aged man screws their 14 year old daughter". I maintain that I have never accused you of anything. Still less have I implied it. I feel that you are being less honest than I, that's all. I once before attempted to apologise to you because it was apparent that the harmony of this forum was being disrupted by your outrage at having your motivations probed. I do not propose to apologise again, so shriek away.

Finally, I do apologise to you, JK. I should have learned by now that this poster doesn't handle analysis well on any level. I will give him no further cause to become irrational.

Any reasonable person would interpret the repeated comparisons you have made between me and your fellow sex offenders as implying that I must be one myself. You've stated explicitly that you are being 'honest' and you suspect that I am not being honest.

Again, unlike you, I am not a sex offender. Unlike you, to my knowledge, I have never damaged another human being in order to fulfill my sexual needs. You haven't attempted to make any analysis beyond assuming that I must be a paedophile to question 'paedophile' laws. I do not have any shame in admitting that I'm attracted to teenage girls - just like 90% of the healthy male population - the same population that used to buy the sun in their millions to gawp at the breasts of 16 year old girls. Most of them no longer will admit it...because guess what? They'll be accused of being paedophiles.

As I said, you haven't attempted to make any kind of argument apart from drawing comparisons between statements that I make and that sex offenders you have met in prison have allegedly made - which is utterly meaningless and makes the schoolboy mistake of believing an argument is flawed simply on the basis of the alleged motivations of the person making it. Unlike you and the likes of Angel, I actually present arguments - I don't just resort to accusations, shaming language, or appeal to the authority of the mob.

What started this was a correct and simple observation I made that when Gary Glitter was sleeping with a 14 year old girl back in the early 80's he must have had the girl's parent's consent, and that was the reason he wasn't arrested. Many parents would allow their 14 year old daughters to have sex with older partners - I know this because it wasn't unheard of in the UK prior to paedohysteria, and more recently it was actually quite common in Europe. Not that it has much relevance to the morality of such relationships - you're the ones appealing to the wisdom of the mob, not me. I was simply trying to explain why Glitter wasn't arrested for sleeping with a 14 year old girl.

Unlike you I'm prepared to back up all my statements with reason and evidence. For example, I don't just say 'it's all the fault of feminists', I research the history of feminism and find that it's primary drive has always been in raising the age of consent, or I research the NSPCC and find that most of their senior research staff are hardcore radical feminsts who subscribe to the 'all sex is rape' philosophy. Why don't you ask why the NSPCC and other child protection groups are obsessed with making pictures of 20 year old women in school uniform illegal and yet have no interest in campaigning against websites which show videos of young teenage girls beating each other half to death to not only be fully legal but the webmasters to make money from such videos? (I know this because I e-mailed the NSPCC asking them to campaign against such sites - they didn't even respond).

BTW, why don't you tell us exactly what you've done? And can you answer one simple question? Are homosexuals in Iran who complain of persecution for having sex with other Iranian homosexuals necessarily guilty of congitive distortions?

JK2006 wrote:
Indeed - many such as food, travel, TV, radio, music (quite a bit of which featured in Me Me Me as opposed to child abuse, which did not), politics, justice, media, films, literature, animals, trees... I could bore for Britain (and often do, on here) on a dozen topics I find fascinating.

Forgive me, but if I recall, the climax of the film concerned the outrage at the depiction of a baby showing it's penis (and naturally condemned as child porn).

I also have many interests, but my political involvement is concerned with men's rights and the rape of the male by feminists. Many people in this forum have the same interest in combatting the child abuse industry as I do, but unfortunately, 90% are too fearful that criticising feminism contradicts the cultural marxist principles that they have absorbed, as well good old fashioned white knight chilvalry towards women. Therefore, I don't take part in much of the other political debates here, and when I do, I get harrangued.

Blackit wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I shall certainly censor anyone who accuses anyone else of being a sex offender - except if they aim it at me.

I doubt, however, if I'll censor anyone asking a question like "do you have any other interests?" - I think most people are quite capable of answering "Yes I do" instead of assuming they are being accused of murdering babies.

So, for example, both of the internet movies you have made deal with the topic of child abuse and paedophilia.

Do you have any other interests?

I disagree.

JK's films aren't about child abuse/pedo etc at all but rather timely comments upon a system whereby tabloids and media sensationalism can not only drive government policy (undemocratically) but influence public thought so much that in the end, innocent people can be swept up with the guilty by a broad broom.

Plus a comment on the fact that compensation has become a business and the status of 'victim hood' so exagerated that the genuine (or not) victims of one matter are bizarrely consulted and quoted about cases they could not possibly have any knowledge of or relate to in any manner.

And as we have seen - the times (hacking ?) appear to be catching up to him !

and we know he has other interests..empty swimming pools, grouse (yuk) and so on.

veritas wrote:
Blackit wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I shall certainly censor anyone who accuses anyone else of being a sex offender - except if they aim it at me.

I doubt, however, if I'll censor anyone asking a question like "do you have any other interests?" - I think most people are quite capable of answering "Yes I do" instead of assuming they are being accused of murdering babies.

So, for example, both of the internet movies you have made deal with the topic of child abuse and paedophilia.

Do you have any other interests?

I disagree.

JK's films aren't about child abuse/pedo etc at all but rather timely comments upon a system whereby tabloids and media sensationalism can not only drive government policy (undemocratically) but influence public thought so much that in the end, innocent people can be swept up with the guilty by a broad broom.

Plus a comment on the fact that compensation has become a business and the status of 'victim hood' so exagerated that the genuine (or not) victims of one matter are bizarrely consulted and quoted about cases they could not possibly have any knowledge of or relate to in any manner.

And as we have seen - the times (hacking ?) appear to be catching up to him !

and we know he has other interests..empty swimming pools, grouse (yuk) and so on.

Well, I hope Veritas you'd agree that most of my comments can be interepreted in the same way?

I have to say I'm quite dissapointed by the lack of support from other posters here given that there are at least 6 or 7 whose views clearly don't differ very much from mine on these issues. It seems the only thing that differentiates me and allows Locked Up to repeatedly single me out and imply that I must be a sex offender like him is that I 1/ blame feminists as well as the tabloids and self-seeking politicians (and thereby alienate the predominantely left wing members of this board) 2/ am honest and blunt and 3/ don't contribute much to other discussions (I gave my reasons earlier). Perhaps also the fact that I've stated I'm heterosexual prevents me from fitting in here too.