Pure Fury
A friend's dad once stormed up to me and threatened to "punch your stupid face in" because I pointed a camera at him. I was 11. Have you ever done something innocent or made a harmless joke that ended in threats to your person? Tell us about it.
Thanks to Skullfunkerry for the suggestion
( , Thu 26 Sep 2013, 12:28)
A friend's dad once stormed up to me and threatened to "punch your stupid face in" because I pointed a camera at him. I was 11. Have you ever done something innocent or made a harmless joke that ended in threats to your person? Tell us about it.
Thanks to Skullfunkerry for the suggestion
( , Thu 26 Sep 2013, 12:28)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Oh whoopee-doo...
...so when I was 22 I nailed some girl less than a week before her 16th birthday - and we were in France at the time, so completely legal (unless your name's Jeremy Forrest, which mine isn't). Remember boys & girls, AOC in France is 15.
Next question?
(Starting to remember why I stopped coming on here now... but as I've got more time on my hands these days I'll just keep feeding the trolls, it's entertaining.)
( , Mon 30 Sep 2013, 23:35, 3 replies)
...so when I was 22 I nailed some girl less than a week before her 16th birthday - and we were in France at the time, so completely legal (unless your name's Jeremy Forrest, which mine isn't). Remember boys & girls, AOC in France is 15.
Next question?
(Starting to remember why I stopped coming on here now... but as I've got more time on my hands these days I'll just keep feeding the trolls, it's entertaining.)
( , Mon 30 Sep 2013, 23:35, 3 replies)
I think that is wrong
Actually under countries linked by the MLAT (or something like that); it is an offence to travel to another country and perform an action which would be an offence in your own country. It is designed, amongst other things, to stop massive paedos from being sex tourists.
I assume you will now list Far East Asian countries which aren't covered by MLAT seeing as you seem to be setting yourself up as paedo travel agent?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 0:20, closed)
Actually under countries linked by the MLAT (or something like that); it is an offence to travel to another country and perform an action which would be an offence in your own country. It is designed, amongst other things, to stop massive paedos from being sex tourists.
I assume you will now list Far East Asian countries which aren't covered by MLAT seeing as you seem to be setting yourself up as paedo travel agent?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 0:20, closed)
You think wrong then...
There is, I believe, a provision in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for this, however it's pretty much unenforceable throughout the EU due to a little thing called the Human Rights Act 1998, article 7, paragraph 1:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
So, go to France with a group of friends, end up shagging one friend's younger sister a week before her 16th birthday - an act which is legal in the country you're in - and there's nothing anyone can do.
If you remember the Jeremy Forrest / Megan Stammers case, they could only issue a European Arrest Warrant for the offence of abduction (because that was still an offence under French law). They couldn't do anything about him shagging her, because it wasn't an offence under the French jurisdiction. Although I believe they got her to admit that he'd porked her whilst in the UK, hence the s.9 charge he got convicted of.
Translated from legalese to b3tan - get your fucking facts straight and do your research before posting bullshit, you faggot!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 5:18, closed)
There is, I believe, a provision in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for this, however it's pretty much unenforceable throughout the EU due to a little thing called the Human Rights Act 1998, article 7, paragraph 1:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
So, go to France with a group of friends, end up shagging one friend's younger sister a week before her 16th birthday - an act which is legal in the country you're in - and there's nothing anyone can do.
If you remember the Jeremy Forrest / Megan Stammers case, they could only issue a European Arrest Warrant for the offence of abduction (because that was still an offence under French law). They couldn't do anything about him shagging her, because it wasn't an offence under the French jurisdiction. Although I believe they got her to admit that he'd porked her whilst in the UK, hence the s.9 charge he got convicted of.
Translated from legalese to b3tan - get your fucking facts straight and do your research before posting bullshit, you faggot!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 5:18, closed)
So what you're saying is you only act on your lustful feelings towards children if you know you can get away with it?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 8:19, closed)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 8:19, closed)
Impressive knowledge of the law surrounding having sex with children here.
It's almost like you're protesting too much here.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 8:38, closed)
It's almost like you're protesting too much here.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 8:38, closed)
Impressive knowledge of the law?
Perhaps that's because I'm employed within the legal system, dumbass?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:08, closed)
Perhaps that's because I'm employed within the legal system, dumbass?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:08, closed)
He's a cop-punching lawyer and he's protecting little girls, yeah!
He'll smash you in and you'll alway lose, 'cos he always wins, yeah!
He's a cop-punching lawyer in the Fight For Right,
He's gonna start speeding so hold on tight!
He knows about the law and he'll kick your ass
And it was only his cousin so he gets a free pass!
He's a cop-punching lawyer, YEAH!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:20, closed)
He'll smash you in and you'll alway lose, 'cos he always wins, yeah!
He's a cop-punching lawyer in the Fight For Right,
He's gonna start speeding so hold on tight!
He knows about the law and he'll kick your ass
And it was only his cousin so he gets a free pass!
He's a cop-punching lawyer, YEAH!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:20, closed)
I'm thinking Kanye remixes, I'm thinking covers, I'm thinking limited release for the Hallowe'en market ...
This is gonna be big!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:45, closed)
This is gonna be big!
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:45, closed)
IANAL
however I am on a retainer for a law firm's IT service contract.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:20, closed)
however I am on a retainer for a law firm's IT service contract.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:20, closed)
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better, you go and top it all.
Seriously, you should be very proud of the whole thread, but this comment is priceless.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:48, closed)
Seriously, you should be very proud of the whole thread, but this comment is priceless.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:48, closed)
Oh my.
"I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT I AM EMPLOYED WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM as a tech support monkey."
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:20, closed)
"I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT I AM EMPLOYED WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM as a tech support monkey."
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:20, closed)
Oh, good lord.
That's a bit like saying that the guy who cleans the windows is the next Master of the Rolls.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:30, closed)
That's a bit like saying that the guy who cleans the windows is the next Master of the Rolls.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:30, closed)
To be fair, I AM The Master Of The Rolls, and I did clean a window once.
Well - I've certainly looked out of one, anyway.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:38, closed)
Well - I've certainly looked out of one, anyway.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:38, closed)
Ah - I hadn't realised that that was a judge's wig.
I thought it was your natural hair.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:40, closed)
I thought it was your natural hair.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:40, closed)
If by 'it' you mean 'getting locked up and placed on a sex offenders register specifically for bullshitting internet hardmen'
Then yes, you definitely are.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 12:38, closed)
Then yes, you definitely are.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 12:38, closed)
You get paid to keep mouthy coppers in check?
Nice work if you can get it.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:28, closed)
Nice work if you can get it.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:28, closed)
News flash...
Inmates are not permitted Internet access in any way, shape or form, unless on day-release, and even then, only if not prohibited by their licence conditions.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:21, closed)
Inmates are not permitted Internet access in any way, shape or form, unless on day-release, and even then, only if not prohibited by their licence conditions.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 10:21, closed)
They aren't permitted drugs or mobile phones either
but that doesn't seem to stop prisons being awash with them
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:16, closed)
but that doesn't seem to stop prisons being awash with them
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:16, closed)
Don't argue with him, he's on the IT helpdesk at a lawyers office, he'll have you thrown in internet jail.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:23, closed)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:23, closed)
Not if you punch him first.
Apparently that's a 100% reliable way to have all accusations against you dropped.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:31, closed)
Apparently that's a 100% reliable way to have all accusations against you dropped.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 11:31, closed)
All in the public domain...
Sexual Offences Act 2003
You just have to understand a bit of Legalese.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 13:17, closed)
Sexual Offences Act 2003
You just have to understand a bit of Legalese.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 13:17, closed)
Ah, I did wonder when the Legalese Defence was going to rear its ugly head ...
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 14:45, closed)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 14:45, closed)
So what you are saying is that I was right?
That the sexual offences act 2003 does state that "(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales] of that sexual offence.
A funny bunch the french (they harboured Polanski for a long while too) and they obviously don't see the inherent issues with a sexual predator grooming a child and coming to their country to avoid paying the appropriate price in their own country. I find it disturbing that you seem to think its big and clever to circumvent laws in the UK which are designed to protect children from being abused and cite a case involving a teacher and a pupil in your defense.
It wouldn't surprise me if you were in the legal trade....paedophiles always seem to get ridiculously lenient sentences so I imagine you're a judge.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 14:51, closed)
That the sexual offences act 2003 does state that "(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales] of that sexual offence.
A funny bunch the french (they harboured Polanski for a long while too) and they obviously don't see the inherent issues with a sexual predator grooming a child and coming to their country to avoid paying the appropriate price in their own country. I find it disturbing that you seem to think its big and clever to circumvent laws in the UK which are designed to protect children from being abused and cite a case involving a teacher and a pupil in your defense.
It wouldn't surprise me if you were in the legal trade....paedophiles always seem to get ridiculously lenient sentences so I imagine you're a judge.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 14:51, closed)
Yes, that's the bit I was referring to...
HOWEVER:
Human Rights Act 1998, article 7, paragraph 1:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
Because the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998, and the Sexual Offences Act in 2003, under the ultra vires principle the existing law takes precedent over the newer law, unless the older law is explicitly repealed. Which, of course, it wasn't.
My point about the Forrest case was that they could only extradite him for child abduction (which is an offence under French law), not underage sex, because she was 15 (which is legal in France), and they couldn't use the "position of responsibility" argument as he'd ceased to be in a position of responsibility the moment he walked out of his teaching job and ran away to France with someone half his age.
Of course, it later transpired that he'd "sexually touched" her whilst in the UK, and thus was also charged under SoA 2003 s.9(1).
I cited that case as it was an excellent example of how that provision of the SoA 2003 is incompatible with the HRA 1998.
(Forrest still got 5 1/2 years, if you remember? So he didn't exactly "get away with it".)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 15:45, closed)
HOWEVER:
Human Rights Act 1998, article 7, paragraph 1:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
Because the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998, and the Sexual Offences Act in 2003, under the ultra vires principle the existing law takes precedent over the newer law, unless the older law is explicitly repealed. Which, of course, it wasn't.
My point about the Forrest case was that they could only extradite him for child abduction (which is an offence under French law), not underage sex, because she was 15 (which is legal in France), and they couldn't use the "position of responsibility" argument as he'd ceased to be in a position of responsibility the moment he walked out of his teaching job and ran away to France with someone half his age.
Of course, it later transpired that he'd "sexually touched" her whilst in the UK, and thus was also charged under SoA 2003 s.9(1).
I cited that case as it was an excellent example of how that provision of the SoA 2003 is incompatible with the HRA 1998.
(Forrest still got 5 1/2 years, if you remember? So he didn't exactly "get away with it".)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 15:45, closed)
So you got all this law knowledge from fixing a computer in a solicitor's office.
Wow.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 16:57, closed)
Wow.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 16:57, closed)
Not "fixing"...
Installing and maintaining a server suite, network, a number of workstations, offsite backups etc etc.
It's funny just how much you learn about your client's field of expertise, which in this case happens to be law.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 17:21, closed)
Installing and maintaining a server suite, network, a number of workstations, offsite backups etc etc.
It's funny just how much you learn about your client's field of expertise, which in this case happens to be law.
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 17:21, closed)
So what you're saying here is that you're a nosy cunt who can't be trusted around data that isn't yours?
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:19, closed)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:19, closed)
Again, not at all...
I wouldn't share it around, but some of the things clients say... for your own amusement... ;-)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:44, closed)
I wouldn't share it around, but some of the things clients say... for your own amusement... ;-)
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:44, closed)
DEAR ONLINE PERVERT
THESE ADMISIONS COULD AMOUNT TO REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PURPOSES OF A BAD CHARACTER APPLICATION DURING YOUR INTERNET TRIAL
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:59, closed)
THESE ADMISIONS COULD AMOUNT TO REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PURPOSES OF A BAD CHARACTER APPLICATION DURING YOUR INTERNET TRIAL
( , Tue 1 Oct 2013, 9:59, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread