|
Post by on Jul 12, 2023 19:05:53 GMT
I thought truckers were the originators if hedge porn. Some people don't know how brilliant it is to live alone !! These days the hedges are saved unless Andyberg is around with his Stella performance.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jul 12, 2023 19:12:38 GMT
So what point was he actually making? That the Sun has outed Huw for an online image sharing thing with someone over the age of consent At least two of the teenagers involved were under the age of consent. "The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it illegal to take, make, show, distribute or possess in order to distribute “indecent photographs” of anyone under eighteen. It is also illegal for anyone to permit indecent photos of children to be taken, either by the child or someone else". So now you know more details than the police....
Even the Sun has rolled back from the 17yr old pictures to first contact made at 17.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 12, 2023 19:13:27 GMT
At least two of the teenagers involved were under the age of consent. "The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it illegal to take, make, show, distribute or possess in order to distribute “indecent photographs” of anyone under eighteen. It is also illegal for anyone to permit indecent photos of children to be taken, either by the child or someone else". Forgive my ignorance, I don't know if those "children" were male or female. Has that been made public yet? No it hasn't, and it makes no difference what gender they are. The rumour mill is suggesting that they are male, and since this is the same rumour mill which named Huw Edwards as the BBC presenter under investigation over a week ago in the first place, I'm inclined to think it may be right. But then it makes no difference whether they were male or female. The generally accepted code of morality for age differences between persons engaging in sexual activity, including exchanging pornographic selfies is "Half your age plus seven years" and this generally would seem correct to most right-thinking people.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2023 19:18:16 GMT
So what point was he actually making? That the Sun has outed Huw for an online image sharing thing with someone over the age of consent At least two of the teenagers involved were under the age of consent. "The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it illegal to take, make, show, distribute or possess in order to distribute “indecent photographs” of anyone under eighteen. It is also illegal for anyone to permit indecent photos of children to be taken, either by the child or someone else". …and yet the police have now on 2 separate occasions (separated by months) having examined all the evidence, said that nothing illegal occurred. But please, don’t let the facts get in the way of your homophobic rants. Get it all out of your system.
|
|
|
Post by on Jul 12, 2023 19:19:16 GMT
"Half your age plus seven years" . I'm sure there is a * there somewhere and smallprint.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 12, 2023 19:20:05 GMT
Apologies, Mr Stabby- I deleted that post as I was told that apparently two have been identified as little boys. However, my point was much the same as yours - it makes no difference. If he'd been showing his bits to and paying for photos of a 17 year old girl whilst lying to his wife and 5 children a bit older than that it would still all seem a bit "not very nice", especially for the man who narrated the Queen's funeral for the mourning nation.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2023 19:20:54 GMT
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know if those "children" were male or female. Has that been made public yet? No it hasn't, and it makes no difference what gender they are. The rumour mill is suggesting that they are male, and since this is the same rumour mill which named Huw Edwards as the BBC presenter under investigation over a week ago in the first place, I'm inclined to think it may be right. But then it makes no difference whether they were male or female. The generally accepted code of morality for age differences between persons engaging in sexual activity, including exchanging pornographic selfies is "Half your age plus seven years" and this generally would seem correct to most right-thinking people. That is your made up morality. Which of course is your prerogative. It will fit well with other aspects of your morality such as endorsing Hilter’s gassing of thousands of homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 12, 2023 19:22:44 GMT
Apologies, I removed that post as I was told that apparently two have been identified as little boys. However, my point was much the same as yours - it makes no difference. If he'd been showing his bits to and paying for photos of a 17 year old girl whilst lying to his wife and 5 children a bit older than that it would still all seem a bit "not very nice", especially for the man who narrated the Queen's funeral. You really are a cold-hearted cow. And “little boys” - were they 5 or something? Sad homophobic bitch.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 12, 2023 19:27:54 GMT
No it hasn't, and it makes no difference what gender they are. The rumour mill is suggesting that they are male, and since this is the same rumour mill which named Huw Edwards as the BBC presenter under investigation over a week ago in the first place, I'm inclined to think it may be right. But then it makes no difference whether they were male or female. The generally accepted code of morality for age differences between persons engaging in sexual activity, including exchanging pornographic selfies is "Half your age plus seven years" and this generally would seem correct to most right-thinking people. That is your made up morality. Which of course is your prerogative. It will fit well with other aspects of your morality such as endorsing Hilter’s gassing of thousands of homosexuals. see I knew hitler would come into it.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 12, 2023 19:29:36 GMT
Apologies, I removed that post as I was told that apparently two have been identified as little boys. However, my point was much the same as yours - it makes no difference. If he'd been showing his bits to and paying for photos of a 17 year old girl whilst lying to his wife and 5 children a bit older than that it would still all seem a bit "not very nice", especially for the man who narrated the Queen's funeral. You really are a cold-hearted cow. And “little boys” - were they 5 or something? Sad homophobic bitch. What a depraved, deprived nasty person you truly are. Hope you and Huw are having a good laugh over your G&Ts tonight, mocking sad teenagers and the mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 12, 2023 19:29:39 GMT
Apologies, I removed that post as I was told that apparently two have been identified as little boys. However, my point was much the same as yours - it makes no difference. If he'd been showing his bits to and paying for photos of a 17 year old girl whilst lying to his wife and 5 children a bit older than that it would still all seem a bit "not very nice", especially for the man who narrated the Queen's funeral. Sad homophobic bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 12, 2023 19:31:45 GMT
That is your made up morality. Which of course is your prerogative. It will fit well with other aspects of your morality such as endorsing Hilter’s gassing of thousands of homosexuals. see I knew hitler would come into it. Godwin's Law, innit?
|
|
|
Post by on Jul 12, 2023 19:32:14 GMT
He seems a bit young but the bloke in question might be a poof but was buried under family disapproval and did the 'normal' thing by getting married to a woman and having children.
You bury yourself.
Homosexuality has been frowned upon for a long time.
My mother used to talk about this sometimes. I'm convinced she was a lesbian but this was unacceptable in the age when she grew up in an upper class family with 'standards'.
My old man got a younger woman and divorced. Mum never got near another. bloke after that but had female friends.
When she was younger her girlfriend was my father's sister. She only met my dad because of his sister.
There will be plenty of people out there who are gays but can't get past basic prejudices and thus keep it hidden.
I would have thought 61 was a bit young for this but this Huw character could just be a gay man who has never been allowed, for one reason or another, to be himself.
My mum had major depression and killed herself but I don't know if this was because she wanted another's fanny or other issues.
|
|
|
Post by metanoia on Jul 12, 2023 19:32:17 GMT
No it hasn't, and it makes no difference what gender they are. The rumour mill is suggesting that they are male, and since this is the same rumour mill which named Huw Edwards as the BBC presenter under investigation over a week ago in the first place, I'm inclined to think it may be right. But then it makes no difference whether they were male or female. The generally accepted code of morality for age differences between persons engaging in sexual activity, including exchanging pornographic selfies is "Half your age plus seven years" and this generally would seem correct to most right-thinking people. That is your made up morality. Which of course is your prerogative. "That is your made up morality. Which of course is your prerogative." What a depraved, deprived nasty person you truly are. Hope you and Huw are having a good laugh over your G&Ts tonight, mocking sad teenagers and the mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Jul 12, 2023 19:34:42 GMT
He was the mouthpiece of the Authorities, appearing nightly to command us to stay inside our homes on pain of severe punishment while he himself was travelling the length and breadth of London for nothing more than a bit of Backdoor Boogaloo with a crackhead. This whole "unveiling" has been so finely timed, tuned and orchestrated (even the wife and 5 kids' bios have been withdrawn from the internet) it stinks but, worse, it is truly an insult to those with real mental health issues.Please tell me why you beleive he doesn't have real mental issues.
|
|