b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1549679 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

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)
Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

what's not to love?
for an interesting debate, I'm not sure I think she's really guilty of sexual assault though
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:18, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)
Seems like it was entirely consensual to me, albeit under false pretences.
Also, these girls were her friends yet they didn't suspect anything?
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:21, Reply)
that does seem a tad "special" ... yes

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:22, Reply)
Better still,
part of her disguise was apparently "speaking in a deeper voice."

I can't help but imagine that scene in Blackadder II, with Rowan Atkinson wearing a bag over his head and speaking in a ridiculous basso profondo.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:27, Reply)
Or "bob"

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:28, Reply)
Ha! Of course.
How did I miss that one?
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:28, Reply)
"Thowy about the bag"

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:31, Reply)

'my little pumpkiny wumpkiny'
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:34, Reply)
If the girls
She was finger banging were 15 though it would still be statutory, wouldnt it?

The "victims" just dont want to admit they are fish lovers
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:24, Reply)
nope. not unless they were 13
Might be unlawful but I think they are only claiming assault because they were lied to. Which would make 78% of adults entering a sexual relationship guilty of assault, by my maths
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:27, Reply)

maths defence team
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:28, Reply)
they were fucking useless
I told them to use the chewbacca defence.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:33, Reply)
Is it 13 for clam munchers
that seems somewhat unfair to regular nonces.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:29, Reply)
no, it's only rape in cases where consent is given if one party is under 13
for both sexes. 13-16 is unlawful activity with a minor but not rape or assault.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:32, Reply)
you sound suspiciously clued-up on this, old bean

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:49, Reply)
recent background reading after those norfolk/suffolk fuckers
who were filmed spitroasting an 11 year old got reduced sentences because she "looked 14"
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:51, Reply)
Justice for ya, right there.
She wasn't a virgin either.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:53, Reply)
I can actually see why it happened, legally.
It's just ..... ffs, she was 11.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:54, Reply)
How do you get that wrong unless you don't care?

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:57, Reply)
there's no answer to that.

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:58, Reply)
sorry, that was a worryingly serious answer
"because I like to be sure I'm not going back to the Scrubs soon"

is that better?
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:54, Reply)
how about "because i'm a horndog pervert"?
simple, accurate, easy.
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:59, Reply)
and far too close to the truth.
except "horndog"? ffs, swipe, have you accidentally been contaminated with college yank?
(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 16:01, Reply)
i was just trying to get down with the (11 year old) kids

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 16:06, Reply)
as opposed to "going down" on them like some horndogs around here

(, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 16:06, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1