Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
99.9% of teens would not agree.
They wouldn't give a flying...
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:32, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)
Unless Rory is a member of the Garda I doubt he has the power to stop teenagers having sex.
Its been going on for thousands of years. Shakespeare's Juliet was 14 .
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:36, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:38, Reply)
but, even if he is, I'm pretty sure even if he was a member of the GardaĆ he'd have little power to stop teenagers noncing in the black country.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:42, Reply)
fucking 13 year olds makes you a nonce, but i suspect you are lying so it doesn't really matter anyway
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:40, Reply)
I'm defo not lying.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:40, Reply)
I'm not looking at that sick filth.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:43, Reply)
You've said so, I wonder what's on your harddrive freefair eh
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:35, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:43, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:45, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:48, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:49, Reply)
Esspesh if you include his uncle that bought him a car for his birthday.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:57, Reply)
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:49, Reply)
I assure you 40% of people have not been raped.
I assure you there 40% of the population do not have criminal records for sex offences.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:53, Reply)
even if that spurious stat was true, it's not usually to someone over 16.
I've not one shred of an idea as to what you think your statistics are supposed to prove, here. You made a massively sweeping statement which you don't have an iota of a hope of backing up (no 16 year old has be prosecuted for consenting sex with a minor in the 20th century), and I called you on it. Your solution is to spout more meaningless and completely disconnected statistics to distract attention?
Really, you must try harder.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:58, Reply)
But I've never heard of it, and neither has anyone else I know.
My (academically outstanding, before you claim "sink estate!") school ranges from 13 to 18 years old and large sections of every year are making sexytime, sometimes across years, but there isn't a police force in the land that would take us to court.
Laws are ethereal constructs that happen to have been written down on paper and that only have significance if applied.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 18:09, Reply)
And laws, generally, are put in place to protect the vulnerable. They aren't "ethereal constructs". In this case, it is because generally, but not always, those under the age of 16 do not have the mental maturity to make a decision to engage in sexual activity. Some of you, I'm sure, are mature enough to make the decision but some aren't and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. You set the bar to protect the most vulnerable, not to pander to the least vulnerable. Can you honestly not see that? because if you can't, frankly, you're certainly not mature enough to play kisschase, let alone have sex.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 18:26, Reply)
Fortunately you're too clumsy to abduct any child to rape them, however the underage noncery that fills your hard drive makes me somewhat sad that you encourage these crimes to be perpetrated. Still that's not illegal according to freefair as all law is but an Ethereal construct, you fucking noncing prick
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 18:28, Reply)
The crimes are merely different. If you are 16, you fuck someone under 16, that's still unlawful sex with a minor. There are variations from 13-16 to do with which country in the UK you live in and whether it becomes statuatory rape, but it's all illegal. You nonce.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:48, Reply)
Its a law that deserves to be broken and though I've ruled out breaking it myself just to be safe.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:56, Reply)
it's not a legal definition or an accepatable defence in court
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:44, Reply)
Did you like my use of the phrase 'negative paradoxes' ? I have no idea what to call it, but that seems alright. Basicly, if they're, say, 4, the youngest they could go to is 9, which is nearly double their age. Reverseing that, the oldest they can go to is 1, which is 1/4 of their age. Eiather way, I like calling it that.
(, Mon 11 Jul 2011, 17:55, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread