Author Topic: SAFE SEX  (Read 1237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
SAFE SEX
« on: February 19, 2014, 10:14:38 AM »
When the hypocrite meeting was held in the town the other Saturday, I asked several of the councillors there if they knew if Harriet was going to reintroduce the age of consent for sex with children, down to 14, they never replied but I was then prevented from asking her myself, I see in the mail today, on the front page, she and her hubby and Ms Hewitt, are highlighted in this campaign and yes I got it wrong, they were asking for the age to be lowered to 10....... wonder if Ms Snelgrove will have that on her election manifesto :2funny:



Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2014, 05:18:23 PM »
Aye? what? the daily Mail strikes again!

Read that article again Ko:  This is what was written (in 1976)


"'Where one partner is aged 10 or over, but under 14, the law should presume that consent was not present, unless it is demonstrated that it was genuinely given and the child understood the nature of the act'

- National Council for Civil Liberties' submission to Parliament on the 1976 Sexual Offences Act"

That's hardly an all out - up to date agreement for the age of consent to be reduced to 10.



Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2014, 08:36:09 PM »
Muggs, this is what I read in the article:
four year old children can communicate verbally their consent to sex, in 1976 hewitts organisation lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be lowered to ten (if the child consented and understood the nature of the act).
Ms harman in writing to the gov, wrote, a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.  She is now deputy leader of the party, and Ms Hewitt holds down a part time job with BT, on around £160,000 a year.
Ms Harman's husband was a member of the executive committee of the NCCL, from 1970 to 1979, He is now also a cabinet member...
the home office have announced an inquiry to establish whether payments that total tens of thousands of pounds, were paid to the group by a civil servant who worked under labours home secretary, Merlyn Rees..
Is that election manifesto material then..
enough said...

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2014, 11:49:12 PM »
Nuff said?

Am I alone in being none the wiser what-so-ever?!  ???
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2014, 09:35:06 AM »
I would think enough said, depends on what you think about their views, and also reflect on that they are now in cabinet or shadow cabinet positions, which could one day make changes to your life or that of your children.
from what I have read in todays papers, the trio have all said nothing in reply......

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2014, 09:53:20 AM »
I don't really get what you are on about or what relevance it has to anything that is happening today? Ko.  I looked it all up - not on the Daily Mail site and if they did say what you interpret them as saying, at a time when it would have made a difference they would have been extremely young and in no position of power at all.

Would you like to be judged now by what you said or did when you were much younger? Especially if there was no real proof you did say or do those things. 

I hope you are not seriously thinking of dragging your own 10/11 years old grandchildren into this anywhere, and not seriously thinking of trying to get them into the Question Time event.

I think the Daily Mail item was aimed at salacious old gits, and I'm sure that you would not want to be thought one of them.
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: SAFE SEX
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2014, 11:14:52 AM »
Muggs, what they said or did years ago, I would agree is not much use today, but they did say it, they did sit on that committee, and they did hold those views, they have been now asked to apologise for that and make a apology,
 but from what I am reading, they haven't, and are not likely to do so, as they feel they have done no wrong. as I have said, Ms Harman is deputy leader of the party, if she still holds those views, do you want her to make laws that affect your children.